Since the BEST results came out, warmists have hailed them as the answer to the concerns of skeptics. This is despite the fact that the study never took the cause of warming into account. Tim Stephens is the latest in a long line to go with this tactic.
… global land temperatures have increased by a remarkable 1 degree Celsius in just 60 years.
How does he consider 1 degree in over half a century to be out of the ordinary? Surely to come to this conclusion, he would need to compare this trend to past events. Had he done this, he would have found that 0.17°C/decade was not all that remarkable. Stephens also repeats the lie that Muller is a skeptic. Describing him as a “self-confessed” skeptic, Stephens ignores the fact that Muller has in fact been puzzled at being labelled as such.
Stephens then goes on to attack Cardinal George Pell.
Pell criticised those who lazily defer to the consensus of scientists…
The significance of this may be lost on Stephens, who later commits the same fallacy.
In a 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Professor William Anderegg et al., it was found that around 97 per cent of climate scientists actively publishing in the peer-reviewed literature supported the thesis that human activities are causing climate change.
This kind of leaves you asking the question: why does a respected journal resort to such propaganda tactics?
Once again, Stephens shows his lack of understanding of the points which skeptics are raising.
Dr Karl Braganza, Manager of Climate Monitoring at the Bureau of Meteorology, told Crikey the Cardinal’s argument ‘that climate science lacks empirical evidence is specious. There is lots of observational evidence for the greenhouse effect, and the enhanced greenhouse effect.’
Just as warming doesn’t necessitate an anthropogenic component, the presence of a greenhouse effect doesn’t imply that it is significant. The empirical evidence Pell is claiming doesn’t exists lies around the net positive feedback mechanisms that are meant to turn 1.2°C of warming into dangerous warming.
There is also a blind defence of climategate.
Lest you think this assessment of Pell harsh, bear in mind he has accused climate scientists of having ‘fiddled with the evidence’ in a reference to United Kingdom researchers whose conduct was confirmed to be entirely proper and scientific.
In my mind, no reasonable person can read the climategate emails and think those implicated come out smelling like roses. There are some abhorrent scientific practises depicted and it is only by reading through them that one can obtain a full picture of this. I very much doubt Stephens has done this, instead putting his mind at ease by referring to the Muir Russell inquiry. Ross McKitrick regards these as superficial, failing to cross-examine the scientists, and given the gory details of the emails, I am inclined to agree with him.
Not even the BEST conclusions merited a mention in his lecture, allowing him to repeat the untruth that global warming has stopped.
In fact, BEST results actually confirm the lack of warming for the past decade.
His lecture is a collage of climate denial talking points that one finds on the weirder conspiracy sites on the internet.
This is a smear. Most skeptical blogs, including my own, do not advocate the conspiracy theories surrounding world government ect.