Yeah, yeah. I know what you're thinking...
"With all the screwball denier trolls on YouTube, why should I care that one channel misleads its followers?"
Well, maybe you shouldn't. But before you make up your mind, at least read my last Suspicious 0bservers post where I explain why I believe the site's misinformation should not go unanswered.
Anyway, here's Mr. Davidson's latest suspicious climatology observation, and "suspicious" is putting it lightly (click on the still image below to be taken to the relevant point in the video...you can stop it at about 1:31 when this specific climate change part ends, unless you can't help but watch the train wreck run its full course).
Where to begin with this blatant bullshit-fest... First of all, I have no idea where Ben Davidson got the screen capture with that headline, because when I go to the UW-Madison report on the study, I see...
Ben Davidson's misleading headline:
A global temperature conundrum: Cooling or warming climate?
Versus the actual headline:
Climate conundrum: Conflicting indicators on what preceded human-driven warming
Big difference.
And that brings me to my second point, which is exactly what Ben Davidson of Suspicious 0bservers wants to purposefully misconstrue: when the cooling/warming indicators conflict. They do NOT conflict now, or over the modern observed warming, as Davidson shamelessly and deceitfully tries to dupe his audience into believing. The article and the researchers who conducted the study could not be any clearer on this point.
The scientists call this problem the Holocene temperature conundrum. It has important implications for understanding climate change and evaluating climate models, as well as for the benchmarks used to create climate models for the future. It does not, the authors emphasize, change the evidence of human impact on global climate beginning in the 20th century.
The conundrum is over what happened before our emissions started warming the planet, and it is a debate over what a pre-Industrial Revolution 20 ppm increase in CO2 caused (cooling or warming), not the 120 ppm increase and undeniable warming that we humans initiated afterward.
Here's how the article states it:
Over the last 10,000 years, Liu says, we know atmospheric carbon dioxide rose by 20 parts per million before the 20th century, and the massive ice sheet of the Last Glacial Maximum has been retreating. These physical changes suggest that, globally, the annual mean global temperature should have continued to warm, even as regions of the world experienced cooling, such as during the Little Ice Age in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries.
The three models Liu and colleagues generated took two years to complete. They ran simulations of climate influences that spanned from the intensity of sunlight on Earth to global greenhouse gases, ice sheet cover and meltwater changes. Each shows global warming over the last 10,000 years.
Yet, the bio- and geo-thermometers used last year in a study in the journal Science suggest a period of global cooling beginning about 7,000 years ago and continuing until humans began to leave a mark, the so-called “hockey stick” on the current climate model graph, which reflects a profound global warming trend.
You have got to be a snake oil-selling slimeball of epic proportions to suggest the cooling/warming debate is occurring over what we see happening now.
And that brings me to my final dope slap for Ben Davidson who claims...
"And most who get through the climate change series with an open mind agree our star calls the shots."
Sorry, Little Confused Benny. When it comes to the modern observed warming, the relatively stable nuclear fusion furnace at the center of our solar system has little or nothing to do with it.
More recently, satellite observations of solar activity from space suggest a slight increase in solar activity, but the change can't account for more than 10 percent of the warming trend seen during the past century.
Give the pseudoscience madness a rest, Ben, huh?
6 comments:
Yep that is Ben for you.
Cant believe so many follows this conman.
Yeah, his videos get way too many views and supportive commentary to leave unaddressed.
Thank you for helping me debunk this guys video. Local climate warming deniers post it against my science based arguments on a regular basis. Good evidence against this charlatan. If he had a real job, he would be fired in disgrace.
He was just on KPFA, Guns and Butter and I could not believe my ears.
How EMBARRASING that a Pacific show fell for that BS. He had me for a moment until he started in on the "climategate" trope.
Now the trick is to track the funding and or exposure back to the folks making those pollution dollars. If I was an oil company I'd keep my distance but make sure he had money and air time.
The INTENTIONAL dishonesty Ben practices shows he is not a fool or a nut, he is a criminal
the discredited view of our sun as internally fusion powered, which you cling to, is clearly falsified by the fact that sunspots are cooler than the sun's surface. an internally fusion-powered sun would hardly have a cool interior.
once you put aside the fusion-powered error, and realize how variable solar output is,
it becomes clear that ben davidson is right: the sun, not man, is the most significant cause of weather.
MICHAEL CHRISIAN, sunspots say little or nothing about the Sun's interior temperature. They are, rather, photosphere (outer shell) phenomena caused by our star's magnetic field inhibiting convection and reducing temperature on its surface in confined regions.
Also, the Sun being "the most significant cause of weather" is not being debated in this post or anywhere on this blog. Our wonderful star is not, however, the most significant cause of the observed modern warming.
Post a Comment