RealClimate vs Me. Part 1

The folks at RealClimate, a site that has ‘climate science from climate scientists’ is a great resource for those who buy into catastrophic climate change. It allows them to say, “See, these guys say things are this way, so it has to be true. Ha!”

Don’t get me wrong, those guys are a lot smarter than I am. They also know about a kajillion times more about the climate system than me. So why am I attempting to ‘debunk’ something that they say? Because, my friends, I am something of a Maverick. The original, one could say. I travel on the less beaten path, hoping to forge my own grand way through this melting world.

My main gripe here today is their post entitled “Convenient Untruths.” It’s quite an old post, and it attempts to defend the science in Al Gore’s super terrific movie. As in any case where the ‘science’ in this ‘movie’ is backed up by climate scientists, the results are easily debunked.

So here we go, debunking the debunked. Let’s just hope my debunkment is debunkier than the original debunk.

Gore correctly asserted that melting of Greenland or the West Antarctic ice sheet would raise sea levels 20ft (6 meters).

Correct, sir. But what’s important is…

In the movie, no timescale for that was specified,

Ahh. Ok. I see. There was no timescale specified, but the obvious implication was that unless we do something about global warming, this 20 foot sea level rise will happen. That’s why he showed those animations of Florida and such being drowned in water.

The rate at which this is likely to happen is however highly uncertain as we have discussed previously.

So, what’s it called when something is highly dramatized, presented as fact, and important information is excluded? Propaganda and alarmism.

Up next: sea level.

Much of Tuvalu is only a few feet above sea level, and any sea level rise is going to impact them strongly.

True. But what about the IPCC’s best estimate being 1 foot of sea level rise this century?

The government of Tuvalu has asked New Zealand to be ready to evacuate islanders if needed, and while currently only 75 people per year can potentially be resettled, this could change if the situation worsened.

Ok, so is the situation worsening?

Bwuhh? It’s actually going down. So it’s not worsening. And what about that whole IPCC 1 foot of sea level rise thing?

In the movie there is only one line that referred to this: “That’s why the citizens of these pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand”, which is out of context in the passage it’s in, but could be said to only be a little ahead of it’s time.

So……the movie lied. That’s what it’s called when someone says something that’s not true. But that’s cool, becuase according to them, it will happen, which of course makes it alright to lie.. And what about 1 foot of sea level rise this century predicted by the IPCC?

No? Realclimate? Have anything to say about that?

Ah, I should of known. That would kinda sorta invalidate your entire point, and reveal it as bologna. Now, we have some polar bear nonsense.

As we presaged in August, summer Arctic sea ice shattered all records this year for the minimum extent.

And this year it’s up 9%. Still low, but I wouldn’t poop my pants over it.

Polar bears do indeed depend on the sea ice to hunt for seals in the spring and summer, and so a disappearance of this ice is likely to impact them severely.

So has it been effecting them? Well, in the 1970’s, there were around 5,000 polar bears. Today, there are around 25,000. This is because hunting poses the largest threat to the bears, and it has been regulated more.

The specific anecdote referred to in the movie came from observations of anomalous drownings of bears in 2004 and so was accurate

The study mentioned the drowning of only 4 bears that had died during a large storm in the Beaufort Sea, which has gained ice in the past 30 years. Al Gore somehow forgot to mention this.

However, studying the regional populations of polar bears is not easy and assessing their prospects is tough

Allow me to translate this.

However, studying the regional populations of polar bears has shown that the species numbers have increased dramtically in the past 30 years. In Canada, 11 of 13 sub-populations of polar bears are steady or increasing. Saying this would undermine my point, so I’ll ignore it. 

Whoo. I’m pooped. That’s all I have the energy for right now, but they’ll most likely be more in the future.

An important question to ask is the most obvious one. Why is a site that, in case you didn’t know, has ‘climate science from climate scientists,’ go along with this stuff? Why do they feel the need to turn a blind eye to lies and propaganda? If a random shmuck like me on the internet can easily go through this and show it’s wrong, something is seriously messed up.


One Response to RealClimate vs Me. Part 1

  1. agwdoubter says:

    My favourite bit was where the had a fairly informative article on the planet Venus, but then brought out the old CO2 responsible for most of Venus’s warming bit.

    Someone commenting on the site asked, ‘so what about Mars’. Mars has the same proportion of CO2 in it’s atmosphere as Venus, but is a lot cooler (due of course, to other factors, which would mean that Venus must be warm due to other factors too).

    Anyway, the RC moderator said they’ve discussed that already and linked to a post of theirs about how they claim mars is not warming. Nice dodge there.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: