{"id":5461,"date":"2012-12-21T03:47:44","date_gmt":"2012-12-21T08:47:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.warrensenders.com\/journal\/?p=5461"},"modified":"2012-12-18T17:35:53","modified_gmt":"2012-12-18T22:35:53","slug":"year-3-month-12-day-21-hush-now-dont-explain","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.warrensenders.com\/journal\/year-3-month-12-day-21-hush-now-dont-explain\/","title":{"rendered":"Year 3, Month 12, Day 21: Hush Now, Don’t Explain"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Independent (UK) confirms that denialists just never stop.<\/a><\/p>\n

An attempt by climate sceptics to hijack the latest UN report on global warming by selectively leaking claims that it is caused by sunspots rather than man-made emissions of carbon dioxide has backfired.<\/p>\n

Sceptics described the forthcoming report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as a \u201cgame changer\u201d because of its apparent support for the controversial theory that solar activity, interacting with cosmic rays from deep space, can explain global warming.<\/p>\n

Alec Rawls, a Republican blogger in the United States who signed himself up as an expert IPCC reviewer, decided to leak the panel\u2019s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) on the grounds that it is a taxpayer-funded document.<\/p>\n

Mr Rawls claimed the report suggests that the IPCC has finally come round to the idea that solar activity \u2013 sunspots \u2013 is partly responsible for the observed global temperatures rise seen over the past half century.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcings changes everything. The climate alarmists can\u2019t continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum,\u201d Mr Rawls said.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe final draft of [the IPCC report] is not scheduled to be released for another year, but the public needs to know now how the main premise and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

However, climate scientists pointed out that Mr Rawls has selectively quoted from the draft report and has ignored other parts of the document stating that solar activity and cosmic rays cannot explain the increase in global temperatures seen over the past half century, as sceptics have repeatedly claimed.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

There are lies, damn lies, and climate denialist lies. Fuckers. Sent December 15:<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s not dignify climate-change denialists like Alec Rawls with the monicker, \u201cskeptics.\u201d Leaking cherry-picked sections of the forthcoming IPCC report is not representative of skepticism, a term which properly describes a profound level of intellectual honesty. Mr. Rawls and others of similar stripe are selectively misinterpreting data and analysis in order to support their ideology. We\u2019re going to see a lot of this sort of behavior in the coming decades, as the evidence for planetary climate change grows from being incontrovertible to being overwhelming.<\/p>\n

A good test of self-described \u201cclimate skeptics\u201d is to ask them what sort of evidence could change their minds. A genuine skeptic like Dr. Richard Muller put his hypotheses to the test \u2014 and promptly changed his tune on the greenhouse effect\u2019s causes and dangers. By contrast, it seems likely that (absent instructions from his petroleum paymasters) Alec Rawls\u2019 mind will stay permanently shut.<\/p>\n

Warren Senders<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Published.<\/a><\/p>\n