Radio Freethinker

Vancouver's Number 1 Skeptical Podcast and Radio Show

Posts Tagged ‘denialism’

RFT Rant – Ep 240 – Why did it so cold?

Posted by Don McLenaghen on January 17, 2014


Now as many of our readers have noticed, climate change is a hoax…if you stepped outside at all last week you experienced temperatures that rival those found on frozen Mars.

No…but wait you say, it was not bad here in Vancouver…what are you talking about?

Well, that’s true, HERE it was okay but if you lived anywhere east of Alberta you experienced the same temperatures found on Mars…what..

<Again, wait you may ask, am I saying that Mars in winter is only -40?

No, no. But it’s cool if you think about it, that Mars during its summers are roughly the same temperature as our winters. In fact it can get up to 70 degree Fahrenheit or 20 Celsius, not bad for a summer day in Vancouver really. Actually, the average temperature on Mars is -50 Celsius…which is very cold for my birth city Brandon, but factoring wind-chill, not unheard of…that although it is millions of miles farther from the sun and a completely different planet, there is still overlap.

So, getting back on track, this cold weather must prove climate change is wrong.


Yet again, you might interrupt and say something like “but climate is…well, climate and is described in long term trends. This cold snap was just that a snap…it’s what the technically minded call weather.”

So it seems that events such as these may actually support climate change…but not a single event. Weather is random but the frequency and average severity of climate events are predicted to increase as more energy is pumped into the atmosphere…i.e. global warming.

So, what caused this cold snap?


Well, to understand that we must first understand the jet stream…well, the polar jet stream. This is a band of fast moving air…or maybe river of air is a better analogy, which races around the planet between the northern temperate zone and the polar zone.

The zones are relatively stable air masses compared to the stream. As fall becomes winter and winter get cold, the air at in the polar zones get colder and colder…nothing new there.

However, the polar jet stream, like a river, will meander up and down. Think of a winding river viewed from a plane…now with a river the windiness is determined by the power of the river, this does have an analogy in the jet stream but a greater influence in what climatologist call the temperature gradient.

Cold polar air is denser and heavier that warmer air. This means that the amount of waviness of the jet stream is limited to the resistance it experiences to this difference in temperature between the zones.

However, as global warming raises relative temperatures in the artic and increased energy into the stream itself, the loops formed become more pronounced. That is the cold loops would, usually, only sweep south a little and warm loops north a little. As climate change becomes more pronounced, the loops exaggerate to the point where a loop will cut itself off in the Deep South.


By cut itself off, think of an eddy in a river. It’s now a circular rotating ball of super cold. Because, as earlier mentioned, cold air is heavier than warm, it smashes its way deeper and deeper south into the northern zone.

Thus you get New Orleans issuing wind-chill warnings, people in Atlanta freezing to death and well, fecking cold weather. It should be noted that although the east coast was blasted with cold, Alaska experienced a heat wave…well, for the middle of winter.

Some of the more interesting things that has rode the internet…there have been a lot of people who have been admitted to emergency departments because they saw a YouTube type video about boiling water turning into snow at these temperatures …it seems temperature is not the only factor in making snow… unfortunately when some of the viewers decided to test the theory they ended up with scalding burns to their skin, I can only imagine how they managed to boil their skin and not make snow.

Adding hype to the temperature claims, much ado has been made by the fact that the Chicago Zoo has kept its Polar Bear indoors…because its sooo cold, even polar creatures would freeze. Well, not really. It seems that as a polar bear living quote WAY south, well that this polar bear…seems there is only one, has very little insulative fat. Something not needed for a southern polar bear but something a polar bear in the wild would have…so it’s not that it is too cold even for polar bears…wild polar bears are fat and warm.

That said, I am not being a hypocrite. This was a weather event…they happen randomly. So, this no more proves climate change than the denialist say it disproves it. That said, after the fourth one this year…then I may get on my high horse.

Find out more:


Posted in Blogs, Don's Blogs | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The double standard of climate scandal

Posted by Don McLenaghen on March 10, 2012

As a number of our fans probably know there is yet again been another climate change scandal in the press. This one started out as a smoking gun about the dishonesty of climate change denialist but quickly turned into a condemnation of climate scientists (well one in particular Dr. Glieck) and a new weapon denialist will use to say proponents of climate change are alarmist.

One thing that i find offensive, is the double standard used by the corporate media. If we remember climate gate, there was little talk about the illegal way these documents were obtained…by hacking into the mail servers or UK universities, something I think is illegal… but that was treated as tertiary to the ‘scandal’. What was foremost was how misleading and one sided the climate scientist SEEMED to be. As time has shown, there was no malfecience…at least by the climate scientist; although the hackers have never been condemned let alone charged. Yes, as a proponent of wikileaks and open knowledge, my issue is not with the hackers but the double standard that the two ‘leaks’ have been portrayed in mass media.

What is infuriating is then when false allegations were directed at real climate scientist not only did the media and popular press attempt to hang them out to dry, but the science community itself bent over backwards to apologize of the ‘way’ some personal emails were written…it was completely defensive. You don’t prevail in public discourse by being defensive.

This time we have ‘proof’ that the Heartland Institute was actively trying to not only subvert the reporting of the science but was developing school science curriculum that would “not teach science”. They were willing to subvert how science is taught…how students think about and understand science…to forward their economic and ideological agenda. When this happened the most I heard, beyond the climate change community itself[1] was how weird that a ‘socially responsible’ corporation like Microsoft was funding the institute[2]. That was not the real issue.

What should have been happening…if there was not this double standard…was there should have been a perp-walk of Heartland Institute people apologizing for the content of their documents attempts to explain away their actions as bad ‘wording’ of their lesson plans. There should have been talk about a promise to be more ‘honest’ in the future and try not to dis-inform young students? Someone should have lost their job. BUT no…they don’t go on the defensive but attack the source of the documents.

As it turns out the source of the documents was one Dr. Glieck, notable climate scientist, contributor to Forbes, and a sitting member on a number of scientific boards. He claims that he received a copy of an internal memo. That to verify the information in the memo, Dr. Glieck requested information from the Heartland Institute by pretending to be on the board of governors (or something like this). The point being he gained a number of documents under false pretense.

Real Docs

Many, including myself, don’t think that what Glieck did was unethical but journalistic. No one thought it was unethical when a journalist pretended to be a Koch brother to expose their ties to the Governor of Wisconsin. On these grounds I don’t think what Glieck did was unethical and yet another example of how the media has a double standard for regrading Climate Scientist and Denialist.

It is also true that the campaign of “Big Carbon” has been quite successful. As the science of anthropomorphic climate change…i.e. human induced climate change has become more certain, the public’s opinion has reach depressing lows. The reason for this is not the ‘controversy’ in the scientific community. The debate now is, not if but how and when. That is, it is accepted science that human contributions to greenhouse gases as tipped the natural balance and the planet is steadily getting warmer. There is debate as to how quickly the temperature rise is, what the peak temperature could be and when the effects of that heating will be noticeable.

Media vetting of climate change 'experts'

However, this is not the controversy the corporate media is presenting and yet again another double standard. The reason the general population are uncertain about climate change is because the main stream media has emphasised that some people (rarely climate scientist) doubt the evidence…there is a constant and growing distrust of ‘real science’…and of course and increasingly popular meme that there is some kind of conspiracy of climate scientists to ‘con’ the public about climate change to fatten their own wallets…HA!

I could just blame the ignorance of our 24/7 mass media culture but there is also growing evidence that there is concerted effort by “Big Carbon” to muddy the waters…to disparage real science…and to convince the public that what is accepted science is not.

Now, we and most if not all our fans know, climate change is real, and its effects on the planet will be catastrophic…although scientist do debate on the when and to what degree. But I think a number of us are not convinced the ‘denialist’ are themselves conspirators. We tend to excuse many denialist as simply ignorant because they exist in the bubble of political or economic dogma. However, it seems apparent that “Big Carbon” is trying to do to climate change what the tobacco industry did to lung cancer. That is why the documents are important…why Dr. Glieck tactics may be worthy in spite of the possible ethical questions.

The information Glieck obtained was not strictly speaking unknown. The bias of the Heartland Institute is common knowledge. What made this disclosure important…if true…was the memo that showed the institute was not just biased but conspirator.

Dr. Glieck has admitted to obtaining the documents via deception, but denies he faked any of the documents. Almost all the documents are acknowledged as authentic by the Heartland institute except a memo. This memo is the ‘smoking gun’ so to speak about how this institute’s purpose is not to promote or inform about climate science but retard and restrict in teaching and promotion…one quote about the institute’s project to create school curriculum that are actually intended to “dissuade teachers from teaching science”

It is this one line that transforms the discussion from ‘promoting an ideological point’ to a conspiracy against science. This is why the authenticity of the memo is important.

What struck me as most discouraging is the total absence from the media debate any attempt to use scientific tools to determine if the memo was faked or not. Most mainstream media has labeled the memo an “obvious fake”, largely because of the source…assuming the source…the author of the memo was Glieck himself. It seems that there were three schools of thought in the mass media: if it was obtained by fake credentials, it must be fake; no one would be stupid enough to send THAT memo, so it must be fake; or Heartland says it fake, so it must be fake.

What can science say about this?

There was a call to crowdsource this question by used some of the best analytical tools available to science…in particular computer text analysis. Java Graphical Authorship Attribution Program is one such method advocated for. What this software does is essentially establish stylometric authorship attribution via numeric analysis of the Camberra Distance of 2gram events…i.e. it analyzes a document’s writing style with an eye to determining who wrote it

Well, as it turns out at least one person, Shawn Otto, attempted to use word analyst software to compare the written works of Heartland to Glieck to see who was likely to be the author. After several variations of the analysis, it seem extremely more likely to be authored by Heartland than Glieck. Now of course, one result does not make a science fact and we eagerly await more results.

We can also do our own analysis right now. In the documents Heartland claims ARE authentic, here are some of the course curriculum module titles for students grades 6 to 12.

  • “Whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy”
  • “Models are used to explore various hypotheses about how climate works. Their reliability is controversial”
  • “Environmental impact is often difficult to determine. For example there is a major controversy over whether or not humans are changing the weather”
  • “Whether CO2 is a pollutant is controversial. It is the global food supply and natural emissions are 20 times higher than human emissions”

Well funded disinformation

Does this seem at least consistent with the memo? As far as misleading science, the last one “natural emissions 20 times higher than human emissions”. Strictly speaking it true and irrelevant.

What is important is the natural equilibrium and longterm accumulation. Natural emissions are about 440 gigatons of CO2, natural absorption is about the same…humans addition to that is 25 gigatons, the majority of which is NOT absorbed and thus accumulates in the atmosphere.

So what the Heartland ‘science’ leaves out is that over twenty years we have pumped the same amount of CO2 nature produces but that most of that CO2 remains in the atmosphere and causes climate change. The author is either ignorant of science, his credentials leave that highly unlikely, or there is a deliberate attempt to deceive the students.

Is the Heartland Institute promoting an eco-political ideology that will potentially damage children’s perception of science in the future – Yes. Is that surprising – should not have been. Is it likely we can change the opinion of the institute and its supporters – sadly not likely.

Returning and concluding on my main theme, what we can do is demand from our media outlets an honest standard of reporting. An acknowledgment that to be fair to a subject matter does not mean you must give all sides equal times. Holocaust deniers are wrong and should not be seen as promoting an equal but different view to the historical community.

Why do we allow main stream media to portray human-induced climate change denialist as having as valid an argument as the climate science consensus? Let your voice be heard. Contact your local news outlet, go on line and confront the denialist in the forums and comments sections of new websites. Do not go gentle into that good night…RAGE RAGE against the lying in the night.

[1] This was not a secret to the climate science, skeptic nor progressive communities. What was different was the forthright openness the ‘memo’ stated its purpose.

[2] As it turns out, Microsoft gives free licences to its products to non-profit ‘community’ groups. This ‘freebee’ amounted to several thousand dollars (MS software is not cheap). It appears they thought this was a community group. So they did not give it any ‘real’ money.

Posted in Blogs, Don's Blogs | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The problem with climate fatigue

Posted by Don McLenaghen on September 29, 2011

Belief in climate change exaggeration on the increase

Those of you who listened to our “Amazing Randi Redux” edition (#134), will have noticed that during the segment about ‘climate change fatigue’, me and Jenna were kinda talking past each other. The article she used as source bugged me, not so much the general theme being presented (which I took as ‘people are resistant to change, and the more you talk about change the less open they tend to be towards it’….although I am still not sure I have that right). What I was ranting about is a constant meme in our current society. In the context of the climate debate, the term “there are extremist on both sides”…that there are those who disagree with the claim of man-made climate change, and those who agree and both have equal standing…at least in the public eye.

A consistent downward trend

I think I would take issue at the term “extremist” in this context. Are people who believe in and promote evolution extremist? If I was to argue against gravity and you defended it…are you an extremist? No! I think the term…the idea that there are ‘two’ sides to every argument (and yes, I mean rational sides) is often false…as in this case. Jenna presented that the scientific evidence is incontrovertible. Not that some of the details or even the response to climate change are worthy of much debate, extreme or otherwise.

Retrograde Canadian opinion

This premise (there are extremist on both sides), and I apologise for picking on what I am sure is minor rhetorical point of her discussion, this point is symptomatic of a broader epidemic that has infected our popular discourse. We are no longer a nation…a society of people with a differing of opinion, we have become a, I shall put this in quotes, “a polarized nation of extremist on all sides”. By acceding to this you abandon both the possibility of compromise as well as conceding the ‘irrational’ arguments are equivalent to rational ones. It is a contextualization that those who wish to impede change hope to promote…in doing so, the masses become ‘fatigued’ and disillusioned…change become impossible; irrespective of whether the reality of the arguments (and those presenting them) are ACTUALLY extreme.

Is there solid evidence of climate change?

The article arbitrarily classified responses to a blog post asking why ‘climate change fatigue’. I am not condemning it as scientifically inaccurate, it was intended to be an ad-hoc subjective anecdotal ‘analysis’ of received posts and makes no great claim into sociology…and yet it does reinforce a ‘false framing’ of the discussion. It’s very framing of the ‘problem’ is part of the method of attack that the deniers use to ensure inaction on climate change…to ensure a retrogression of rational opinion on the issue.  Remember, we know the the science is sound and (scientific) consensus secure.  The article points to claims that ‘people don’t want to change”, “confirmation bias for previous views”, and views of ‘scientific conspiracy’.

Differences within political groups

See, I think these excuses were valid in the 70’s…maybe 80’s. The sad truth is that people DID accept the man-made climate change as a problem…wanted in large numbers to fix the problem…believed in the long-term solution. Remember the Kyoto Protocols were adopted in 1997…the Canadian government first believed in Climate Change before it didn’t. By the logic presented, the strong incentive was to remain committed to a belief in man-made climate change, not to deny it. That an effort (expensive and extreme) had to be made to change peoples opinion AWAY from belief in climate change…the path of least resistance (lest fatiguing) would be to maintain ones belief in climate change.

Buying a scientific opinion

Let’s not forget Climate change denialism only really started in the very late 90’s when the Kyoto protocols signaled to ‘industry’ that the political battle was not going their way. That political and popular opinion posed a viable threat to the trillion dollar business. After spending millions (billions?) of dollars over many years, both on media and ‘biostitutes’ (scientist willing to sell their credentials for money), it was only about 3-5 years ago that public opinion began to shift to a more climate skeptic position, at least in the US (thankfully less so in civilized countries).

Buying a scientific opinion

For example, according to a Pew Poll, in 2006, almost 80% of Americans believed climate change was real and 60% that it was man-made. By 2010, less than 60% thought it real and barely 34% thought it man-made. The article attempts (albeit in an coffee-shop chat way) to imply that the problem is ‘sciences’ inability to connect, with people’s ‘psychological’ make up…and seems to ignore the fact that in this one case there is a conspiracy (no, not the meeting in dark rooms kind smoking and plotting human subjugation…I think…it’s the we set up a system where it’s in their best interests to obfuscate, confuse and downright lie about the facts for their own self-interest.

The potential next President of the USA - F**K me!

So, the reason I have taken such issue with THIS example is not that I disagree with the general tone that people are resistant to change (my simplification of their simplification)…If the topic had been same-sex marriage, fracking, or a whole host of other issues I would likely have agreed. However in this case, we find that there are a cabal working to keep the masses ignorant, confused and impotent. Just because one claims ‘it’s a conspiracy’ does not mean it’s not a conspiracy. Let us not forget the lung cancer and the tobacco industry; by comparison the ‘fossil fuel industry’ is several orders of magnitude larger (i.e. millions compared to trillions) and we live in times where money’s influence of both politics and public opinion has no precedent.




The logic of denial


Posted in Blogs, Don's Blogs | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »