Judy Doucette happily pimping discredited climate lie

February 2, 2010 in Political Animals | 11 comments

Judy Doucette (aka “Hoosier Army Mom”) is without doubt a prolific liar. It seems that she cannot help but prevaricate; now she’s back, flogging one of the most pernicious and widespread lies about global climate change:

They keep claiming that the earth’s temperature is rising. It has in fact dropped in the last decade.

Doucette’s claim is absolutely and unequivocally false. In fact, the planet’s warming trend has continued unabated over the past decade. The canonical form of this lie is “Global warming stopped in 1998”, and it is easily disproved. See, for instance, this entry by John Cook at Skeptical Science:

To claim global warming stopped in 1998 overlooks one simple physical reality – the land and atmosphere are just a small fraction of the Earth’s climate (albeit the part we inhabit). The entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance. The atmosphere is warming. Oceans are accumulating energy. Land absorbs energy and ice absorbs heat to melt. To get the full picture on global warming, you need to view the Earth’s entire heat content.

This analysis is performed in An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950 (Murphy 2009) which adds up heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice. To calculate the Earth’s total heat content, the authors used data of ocean heat content from the upper 700 metres. They included heat content from deeper waters down to 3000 metres depth. They computed atmospheric heat content using the surface temperature record and the heat capacity of the troposphere. Land and ice heat content (eg – the energy required to melt ice) were also included.

Graph: Total Heat Content anomaly

In 1998, an abnormally strong El Nino caused heat transfer from the Pacific Ocean to the atmosphere. Consequently, we experienced above average surface temperatures. Conversely, the last few years have seen moderate La Nina conditions which had a cooling effect on global temperatures. And the last few months have swung back to warmer El Nino conditions. This has coincided with the warmest June-August sea surface temperatures on record. This internal variation where heat is shuffled around our climate is the reason why surface temperature is such a noisy signal.

Cook goes on to explain the use of long-term moving averages to smooth out the variability in surface temperature data, as well as the fact that only one of the three major datasets of surface temperature show 1998 as the warmest year on record. These facts are, of course, of no interest to Judy Doucette, who is interested only in spreading denialist lies.

Judy Doucette has no interest whatsoever in the science behind climate change, of course. A quick look at the blog of any climate change denialist quickly reveals that their views are driven by political ideology, not scientific fact. Of course, in the case of Judy Doucette, we would expect no more. She has, after all, stated her belief that basing any discussion on the facts is “insane”.

You cannot and do not attempt to reason with lying morons like Judy Doucette. You simply expose their blatant lies for what they are.

  1. Wayne Delbeke on February 3, 2010 at 12:09 am

    You better go look at the revised NASA ocean heat content graph.
     
    The ocean heat content is indeed DECLINING and has been for several years.
    Check the Argo data as well – same result – declining.
     

  3. Wayne Delbeke on February 3, 2010 at 12:17 am

    So, now … who lied??

  4. meatbrain on February 3, 2010 at 11:55 am

    So, now … who lied??

    The short answer: You are the liar, Wayne.

    There is nothing in data referred to in the post you linked that supports that claim that ocean heat content is “DECLINING”. Had you bothered to actually read the post, you would have seen that the author of the post states that “The current linear trend is ~0.015*10^22 Joules/year”. Note that 0.015 is generally considered by most experts in the field of mathematics to be a positive number.

    I refer anyone interested in the facts regarding ocean heat content (which clearly excludes one Wayne Delbeke) to the following for more information:

  5. Wayne Delbeke on February 10, 2010 at 12:15 am

    Your references show what I said so far as I can see, so what was your point??
    I can only assume you want to look at the 39 year trend and not the recent 10.
    And the graphical references are out of date and have not been corrected.   I also note that you like many of your AGW cohorts tend to use sarcasm in place of facts – as an environmental engineer with 30 plus years of experience, I think I can differentiate the difference between a positive trend and a negative trend.
    I detect a trend in the use of words such as “You cannot and do not attempt to reason with lying morons like Judy Doucette. You simply expose their blatant lies for what they are”

    It seems more and more AGW’s are following this trend rather than let the science speak for itself.  I was taught in first grade that name calling is the first tool of the ignorant and it should simply be ignored.

  6. meatbrain on February 11, 2010 at 7:33 am

    Your references show what I said so far as I can see, so what was your point??

    Um. no. The articles I linked to point out that though the rate of warming in the upper ocean has slowed, the trend is still upward — and that upper ocean heat content is more variable that that of the deep ocean, which still shows a warming trend. Wayne Delbeke claims the exact opposite.

    I can only assume you want to look at the 39 year trend and not the recent 10.

    And I can only assume that Wayne Delbeke wants to ignore the long-term trend because it so inconveniently refuses to conform itself to his denilaist agenda.

    ...as an environmental engineer with 30 plus years of experience, I think I can differentiate the difference between a positive trend and a negative trend.

    Perhaps, perhaps not. But it is certain that Wayne Delbeke will misrepresent a positive trend as a negative trend when it serves his purposes.

    I detect a trend in the use of words such as “You cannot and do not attempt to reason with lying morons like Judy Doucette. You simply expose their blatant lies for what they are”

    Yes. The trend is: If someone is lying, call them a lair — for that is what they are.

    It seems more and more AGW’s are following this trend rather than let the science speak for itself. I was taught in first grade that name calling is the first tool of the ignorant and it should simply be ignored.

    I was taught before first grade that lying is wrong.

    So what have we learned? We’ve learned that like all other climate denialists, Wayne Delbeke will happily lie about what the science says. I do extend my heartiest congratulations to Wayne for being so willing to provide clear evidence of the blatant intellectual dishonesty that is the core of the denialist campaign.

  7. GM Roper on February 25, 2010 at 1:55 pm

    Meaty, can’t you come up with something to say besides “You Lied?”  That gets so trite and not worthy of discussion unless what you are trying to do is to anything but discussion.  Lets look at what Phil Jones had to say (the former head of the CRU):

    The embattled ex-head of the research center at the heart of the Climate-gate scandal dropped a bombshell over the weekend, admitting in an interview with the BBC that there has been no global warming over the past 15 years.
    Phil Jones, former head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, made a number of eye-popping statements to the BBC’s climate reporter on Sunday. Data from CRU, where Jones was the chief scientist, is key evidence behind the claim that the growth of cities (which are warmer than countryside) isn’t a factor in global warming and was cited by the U.N.’s climate science body to bolster statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.
    Jones’s latest statements seemed to contradict the CRU’s data.
    In response to the question, “do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically significant global warming?”, Jones said yes, adding that the average increase of 0.12C per year over that time period “is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.”
    Jones is nevertheless 100% confident that the climate has warmed, he stated, admitting that the Climate-gate scandal has undermined public confidence in science. The scandal has worn down Jones as well: Since the e-mails emerged—and were subsequently posted online at http://www.EastAngliaEmails.com—Jones has stepped down from his position, been forced to admit that he “misjudged” the handling of requests for information, and even acknowledged contemplating suicide.
    Jones also allowed for the possibility that the world as a whole was warmer in medieval times than it is today—a concession that may also undermine theories that global warming is caused by man.

    And before you lambaste me (or worse yet, call me a liar) for linking to fox news, remember that quotes are quotes and news is news regardless of the source.
    So, the evidence is that the Medieval Warming Period had temps higher than now, that they weren’t included and that they are absolutely evidence that the so called warming trend is not man made.    As to your “evidence” of so many “joules” and “positive numbers”  when those are factored into the whole dad-gum record,  miniscule positive results may be “close to significance” but they are NOT the same as being significance. While there may indeed be SOME warming, the question is whether it is man made, a natural phenomena cause by sun activity or lack thereof or, is it some sort of combination.  I do think we can safely say that the earth doesn’t, as Al Gore so famously (or perhaps infamously) stated, “The Earth has a fever and just like when your child has a fever, maybe that’s a warning of something seriously wrong,” as it could also be a warning that something is right… an elevation of temps often is the body’s response to infection and the added heat can be an indicator that the body is resisting the infection.
    So, try to use something a little less challenging than “You Lie” because it really doesn’t make you look like your meat is thinking so much as reacting to a preconceived notion.
     

  8. GM Roper on February 25, 2010 at 1:59 pm

    by the way, I like your new comment program… I wonder if I can install it on my wordpress blog.

  9. meatbrain on February 26, 2010 at 7:56 am

    Meaty, can’t you come up with something to say besides “You Lied?”

    When it is glaringly obvious that people are lying, what else would Roper like me to say? Those who lie should be confronted with that fact. That is an axiom, and is not negotiable.

    That gets so trite and not worthy of discussion unless what you are trying to do is to anything but discussion.

    As I have pointed out before: Honest discussion is not possible with those who believe that it is permissible — indeed, mandatory — that they should lie about the subject under discussion.

    Of course, someone who has allied himself with the side that is employing lies would say that any discussion of said lies is “trite and not worthy of discussion”. Best to sweep such observations under the rug, yes?

    And before you lambaste me (or worse yet, call me a liar) for linking to fox news, remember that quotes are quotes and news is news regardless of the source.

    News is news? Really? Not when Fox News is involved. Look at the first sentence in the article that Roper excerpted:

    The embattled ex-head of the research center at the heart of the Climate-gate scandal dropped a bombshell over the weekend, admitting in an interview with the BBC that there has been no global warming over the past 15 years.

    That’s a lie. What did Jones actually say?

    What Jones actually said is that, while the globe has nominally warmed since 1995, it is difficult to establish the statistical significance of that warming given the short nature of the time interval (1995-present) involved. The warming trend consequently doesn’t quite achieve statistical significance. But it is extremely difficult to establish a statistically significant trend over a time interval as short as 15 years–a point we have made countless times at RealClimate. It is also worth noting that the CRU record indicates slightly less warming than other global temperature estimates such as the GISS record.

    We see now why the question is posed specifically about the warming record for the last fifteen years: because the natural variability of the data means that for that specific period, the positive trend of the temperature (and yes, it is still positive —that is the exact opposite of “no global warming”) cannot be shown to be statistically significant. The accepted term for this is “cherry-picking”.

    What happens if you look at the record over a longer time period?

    HadCRUT3_bar

    Wanna discuss the statistical significance of that trend, Roper?

    So, the evidence is that the Medieval Warming Period had temps higher than now…

    Really? That’s not what Jones said.

    There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?

    There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

    Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

    We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.

    Roper is making claims about Jones’ statements that do not match reality. What term shall we apply to Roper?

    ...that they weren’t included…

    Based on what evidence, exactly?

    ...and that they are absolutely evidence that the so called warming trend is not man made.

    How are they “absolutely evidence” for the current warming trend? Let’s assume that we did have solid data that indicated that the so-called “Medieval Warm Period” was in fact global in scope. How would data about something that happened several centuries ago provide “absolute evidence” regarding the causes of current temperature changes? Does Roper really believe that for every observed change in temperature, there is always only one cause?

    As to your “evidence” of so many “joules” and “positive numbers” when those are factored into the whole dad-gum record, miniscule positive results may be “close to significance” but they are NOT the same as being significance.

    Why the quote marks around “joules” and “evidence”? Is Roper claiming that the data presented is bogus? If so, perhaps he can supply evidence that this data has been falsified.

    Or perhaps the answer is simpler: Roper just plain doesn’t know what the words “joules” and “evidence” mean.

    Has Roper actually “factored [modern data] into the whole dad-gum record”? I invite him to show us the results of his rigorous statistical analysis.

    an elevation of temps often is the body’s response to infection and the added heat can be an indicator that the body is resisting the infection.

    Let’s see some specifics: To what exact problem does Roper believe the Earth is responding? What is the mechanism driving this alleged “resistance”?

    So, try to use something a little less challenging than “You Lie” because it really doesn’t make you look like your meat is thinking so much as reacting to a preconceived notion.

    That’s rich: a denialist telling someone else that they are pimping a “preconceived notion”. That’s the best laugh I’ve had all day.

    Again I will ask: If I see someone pushing a lie, what exactly should I call them?

  10. GM Roper on February 26, 2010 at 11:52 am

    Meaty, you are too much.  Your use of fiction as though it were fact, the twisting of what facts you do use is amazing, and amusing.  Thanks for the chuckle.

  11. meatbrain on February 26, 2010 at 12:04 pm

    Note carefully: Roper is incapable of citing a single “fiction” I have employed, nor is he able to cite any specific fact that I have “twisted”.

    Like any well-indoctrinated wingnut, he hurls his poo at the wall hoping something will stick, and then scurries away, utterly terrified of conducting a fact-based discussion.

    I thank Roper for the highly educational demonstration of the fundamental intellectual cowardice of the common American wingnut.