Mr. G falls for it...

I, along with a number of other bloggers, and even Rush Limbaugh, apparently, fell for what has turned out to be a complete hoax.  A made up abstract published at the website of a fake science journal purports to explain global warming by monitoring bacteria emissions.  As I stated in the post, I can't claim to understand the research which formed the basis of the argument in the paper, which is now obvious as it was totally made up. It struck me as interesting and I brought it to you.

Did I quickly post a link to a site that seemed to agree with my own suspicions regarding global warming.  Yep.  Honestly, I can't guarantee it will be the last time.  With with literally thousands of outgoing links on this site, I can't promise that all of the information I link to will be correct.  So as always, I encourage you look at the research and make up your own mind.  We'll both come across bad info now and again, but together, hopefully we can make out what is true and what is not.  Thank you to those who informed me of that I had been mislead. 

I'll conclude with this, however.  The heart of my previous post dealt with the hostile environment surrounding the global warming debate.  Despite the the fact that the paper I used as the lead-in was false, it remains true that global warming advocates have a religious zeal about defending their beliefs on the subject and those who dare disagree are scorned (though, certainly, I or anyone else publishing made up research on purpose or accident should be scorned!).  As I've stated in the past, I claim no expertise on the science behind the debate, but when the UN's Food and Agricultural Organisation announces, just a few months back, that livestock flatulence accounts for close to one-fifth of all greenhouse gas emissions, I suggest there is room for doubt that we've got it all figured out.

I've left the original post below, feel free to read it for a laugh at my expense!

A recent paper published in the Journal of Geoclimatic Studies set out to explore some discrepancies the authors noticed in the theory of man-made global warming.  In the end, the researchers concluded that man-made CO2 emissions are far to minor to have caused global climate changes.  So who is the culprit?  Bacteria.  The title of the paper is "Carbon dioxide production by benthic bacteria: the death of manmade global warming theory?"

The paper argues that CO2 emissions from certain types of bacteria "precisely match the fluctuations in global temperature over the past 140 years."

I can't claim to understand the research behind and number crunching behind this conclusion, but it strikes me that more and more scientists are coming forward acknowledging that current global warming theory just doesn't hold true.

Even more striking is the conclusion of the paper which recognizes the hostile environment towards those who would seek to expound upon the discrepancies in modern theory.

"We have no choice but to conclude that the recent increase in global temperatures, which has caused so much disquiet among policy makers, bears no relation to industrial emissions, but is in fact a natural phenomenom.  

These findings place us in a difficult position. We feel an obligation to publish, both in the cause of scientific objectivity and to prevent a terrible mistake - with extremely costly implications - from being made by the world's governments. But we recognise that in doing so, we lay our careers on the line. As we have found in seeking to broach this issue gently with colleagues, and in attempting to publish these findings in other peer-reviewed journals, the "consensus" on climate change is enforced not by fact but by fear. We have been warned, collectively and individually, that in bringing our findings to public attention we are not only likely to be deprived of all future sources of funding, but that we also jeopardise the funding of the departments for which we work. 

We believe that academic intimidation of this kind contradicts the spirit of open enquiry in which scientific investigations should be conducted. We deplore the aggressive responses we encountered before our findings were published, and fear the reaction this paper might provoke. But dangerous as these findings are, we feel we have no choice but to publish."

I applaud the courage of these researchers to put forth their study which will almost certainly be viciously attacked by the global warming cultists.  Perhaps the "consensus" isn't as whole as the media and the left would like us to believe?

Comments

[KGrandia]

Might want to check your sources again: http://www.desmogblog.com/spoof-website-touts-global-warming-death-were-you-duped

[Anonymous]

"Global warming cultists"? You posted your whole-hearted support for a hoax, not because of sound science, but because it said what you wanted to hear. If the scientists that follow the evidence are "cultists", then what do you call people who cherry pick any data that supports their point of view, no matter how easily shown it is a hoax, and disregard the rest?

Yeah, the scientific consensus is pretty strong, and that's because the evidence is so strong.

But please, delete this post and attempt to forget reality. It's what you appear to be good at.

[no one]

No one knows everything about science. Anyone can be cheated for a while. Many people copy-paste in blogs. You just cannot make your own research on everything you read. This was made to fool many people. Not so many have been fooled.

[geezy]

So let me get this straight. You admit you don't have the knowledge or skills to review the validity of any scientific claims regarding the issue of global climate change. You don't even have a basic familiarity with the practice of academic research or you would have very easily found out that the journal does not exist.

But you feel comfortable rejecting the overwhelming and mainstream consensus on global climate change because...because...well, I'm not exactly sure. I know people like Limbaugh and Hannity rant about what "global warming cultists" are trying to do to the American Way of Life, freedom, whatever, and you may be influenced by those kinds of arguments. Your rejection of the consensus is not based on any understanding of the science because, as you admitted, you don't have the background to judge those claims. If you were able to step back outside yourself for just a second you would realize how ridiculous this is.

[Diane]

If you can't "claim to understand the research" then whom has "religious zeal about defending their beliefs on the subject and those who dare disagree are scorned"?
You claim to have no expertise, yet you are able to "educate"(my quotes)others on global warming without any scientific background or education in this area?

Who is the zealot here who will not listen to reason?

[odograph]

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[JR]

The irony in a site with "Peer Review" in the title trying to further denials of global warming is rich.

[Mr. G]

You make my point for me. I'm not arguing that Global warming isn't happening or isn't true. Instead I have the audacity to merely question to what extent man is the cause or whether the "consensus" is as whole as some would like us to believe and I am automatically scorned for it. When did even questioning become such an unforgivable offense?

[Fanoof]

Disclaimer: I am married to a well-published research scientist whose research is directly related to climate change issues. Who also gives many public talks on the subjects of current research and climate change.

it remains true that global warming advocates have a religious zeal about defending their beliefs

Sorry, no. It simply appears so to you because what they say disagrees with your world view.

I know many many research scientists (not all in the climate change field) and while, when asked, they certainly give opinions, however, when it comes to their research, ALL of them speak as scientists. Period.

The observable facts they have observed and how those facts factor into models which determine future results within stated degrees of probability. These models are constantly being evaluated and tweaked and are, for the most part are quite accurate.

The big problem with the debate is that the deniers tend to view expressed statements of observed and predicted behaviors as "opinion" and Thus a "religious zealotry" when actually it is simply science.

Some scientists take this personally and IMO stupidly fight back. In my circles we just laugh at you. Serious debate and questions always entertained, but the seemingly clueless-ness that surrounds your manufactured debate is more entertaining than anything.

Cherry picking and exploiting known margins of error does is nothing more than a false rhetorical arguing technique. And just so you know, there are just as many people doing the same thing in the other camp (those that scream "the sky is falling!" at every triviality in the climate change debate).

The "debate" as you call it is really happening between the 2 extreme ends. Both backed up by cherry picking data points. Both are causing huge problems by creating so much noise that the real message of mitigation issues doesn't make it through. Your debate is over folks, has been for a while.

There are legitimate areas to debate concerning climate change, but continuing to insist that AGW does not exist makes you people look really, really silly.

Stop being silly and do some serious discussions on mitigation issues.

Keep in mind that a majority of research scientists are also educators. Any number of them that you call "religous zealots" would be MORE than happy to answer your questions directly. My spouse does it daily. All it takes is a desire to really understand what is going on. Stop salivating on stuff that supports your view. Get out of the echo chamber and push yourself to understand the stuff that doesn't. Once you understand it, THEN you try to poke holes in it.

p.s. Sorry, but yes, I will pile on. The irony is rich that a site with "peer review" in the title pulls most of its supporting argument from non-peer-reviewed reports/publications.

[Bob Wallace]

All that cattle-produced methane?

I do believe that science has determined it to be mainly from burps.

Not farts.

[Whimsical Monkey]

You could have just deleted the post, but you didn't. I salute you! I didn't laugh at you, and I now understand you better. Maybe you can understand Fanoof's position (above), too?

[acrostic]

Con servative all right-just typical. Carry on brother -nonsense needs you.

[Russell Seitz]

Those who cant fall prey to rants.

Why must Limbaugh compete with Gore in inflicting hyperbole on those too dim to read the scientific literature for themselves ?

[jre]

What Fanoof said.


Mr. G, you got our hopes up when you admitted you'd been suckered, then dashed them when you said

... it remains true that global warming advocates have a religious zeal about defending their beliefs on the subject and those who dare disagree are scorned ...

No. No and no.
Nonononononononono!
Wrong.
This is hogwash, and you need to understand why.
How, I wonder, after having just received such a mighty clout from the clue stick, can you persist in such a deeply wrongheaded, political view of a scientific question?
Well, hell -- hope springs eternal, so let's try one more time. The consensus on mankind's role in climate change ain't religious. It's based on observation, analysis, prediction and confirmation. Scientists were tentative when we knew less, and they are positive now that we know more. Dissenting views, when they are carefully considered and well-supported, are not scorned by the scientific community. On the contrary -- they are assessed eagerly, and when they are right, they often get Nobels for their originators. The fact that you still believe, after a spectacular embarrassment like this, that scientists are essentially political, says a lot more about your politics than their science.

[cervantes]

The reason people who deny the reality of anthropogenic global warming are scorned is not because there is a climate change "mafia": it is because they are absurdly, preposterously wrong. You claim no expertise in the subject and yet you have an opinion, which is contrary to the opinion of nearly all the scientists who actually study the matter. That make you subject to scorn because it means you are a fool.

People who claim the earth is flat and that the moon is made of green cheese are also scorned, for the same reason.

[Will]

It seems very clear that the man made global warming advocates seem like the really angry ones here, not allowing dissent.

Keep in mind that CO2 in the ENTIRE PLANET makes up a whopping 1.5% of all gases in the atmosphere.

Add the 20% of CO2 emissions come from animals, and if man made CO2 is truly causing the global warming, then they would only be contributing 80% of the 1.5%, or 1.2% of all gases in the planet.

Its possible to change temps from that small a percentage, but not by much.

[Mac]

Perhaps, Will, you don't realize it, but allow me to kindly inform you that you have just provided another example of mis-informed AGW pseudoskepticism. Your math may make sense to you, but to borrow a phrase, it is so far from the mark that it isn't even "wrong."

First of all, CO2 makes up about 0.038% by volume of the gas in the atmosphere... not 1.5%. (According to Wikipedia, anyway)

Second of all, the portion of CO2 in the atmosphere reflects a dynamic equilibrium that includes animal respiration products, anthropogenic sources, and many, many other complex processes. Your ratio of 80%/20% does not explain what you think it explains.

And yes, a big change in temperatures can occur from a small change in CO2 concentration. (A few hundreds of parts per million of CO2 might not sound like much.. to the average person on the street)

This is why scientists get frustrated. Folks like you, Will, who are probably highly intelligent folks, don't take the time to educate themselves on issues which they then go and fight tooth and nail for various reasons (such as political priorities). This is why it's called "pseudoskepticism"- you need to have a firmer foundation of scientific literacy before you can really be a skeptic. If the consequences weren't so dire, the scientific community wouldn't be getting its panties in a bunch.

(Unfortunately, the best way to gain scientific literacy is highly inconvenient for most people--Unless you are an extroardinary & self-motivated learner, it usually involves actually going back to college and taking science classes!)

If one doesn't have the luxury of going back to school to learn science, at least try a site like realclimate.org.

[Fletcher]

Plasticine Much??

[nitpicker]

HAHAHAHAhaha!

And your blog name is peer review!

BWAAAAAHAHAHAahahhaaa...

[Anonymous]

"When did even questioning become such an unforgivable offense?"

When it is done for personal reasons instead of due to good scientific evidence. If you had a scientific basis for such questioning, the scientific community would be all ears. However, when you're saying the equivalent of, "I question the extent to which gravity is making things stick to the Earth" using bogus evidence, then you open yourself to ridicule and scorn.

In other words, it's not the fact that you're questioning that is the problem, it's your reasoning (or lack thereof) for that questioning that earns you these kinds of responses.