DeSmog

Stupifying Science Alert: Waiting for the Other Shoe

authordefault
on

My new favorite correspondent, Alex Avery, advises that the online Denier Brigade is proudly boasting about this Science journal commentary , which Avery says offers a careful reanalysis of proxy records and “finds the late 20th century is not warmer than AD 1,000.”

Avery neglected to include this riposte from the authors of the original (peer-reviewed) Science article.

While the deniers’ favorite retired mining promoter and statistician Steve McIntyre actually looks at both the comment and the rebuttal – and, surprise!, declares the criticism valid – Michael Mann of RealClimate.org read both and concluded, “The rebuttal, in my view, settles the matter. The (original) Osborn and Briffa ’06 conclusions stand without modification.”

These scientific tempests are the only storms that get less vigorous with climate change. The “scientific” attacks get weaker even as the evidence itself grows ever more undeniable. 

But this instance shows once again that whenever someone pops up with a definitive new study that purports to disprove the science of anthropogenic global warming, it pays to look past the claim and ask for the rest of the story.

Related Posts

on

The Conservative candidate has changed his tune on climate action, recently attacking Labour’s net zero policies and arguing for new fossil fuel extraction.

The Conservative candidate has changed his tune on climate action, recently attacking Labour’s net zero policies and arguing for new fossil fuel extraction.

Clintel’s fifth anniversary conference in town outside Amsterdam offers a glimpse of the group’s transatlantic ties.

Clintel’s fifth anniversary conference in town outside Amsterdam offers a glimpse of the group’s transatlantic ties.
on

The government is being taken to court for failing to publish the evidence provided to ministers before they backed the controversial scheme.

The government is being taken to court for failing to publish the evidence provided to ministers before they backed the controversial scheme.

Les responsables de campagne critiquent des programmes volontaires « fortement défectueux », tandis que l’analyse de DeSmog révèle l'absence de représentation de la société civile ou des communautés locales affectées par les dommages causés par l’industrie des farines et huiles de poisson.

Les responsables de campagne critiquent des programmes volontaires « fortement défectueux », tandis que l’analyse de DeSmog révèle l'absence de représentation de la société civile ou des communautés locales affectées par les dommages causés par l’industrie des farines et huiles de poisson.