Debunking Contrarians, Denialists and Other Fools

November 30, 2009

Why should anyone care about the wackiness of a few deniers of Global Warming? What’s the big deal about a few morons dragging a big issue into a morass of non-truths, voodoo and plain boredom? These fools succeeded in turning the potential life-and-death issue of Global Warming into pettiness about Al Gore and, more importantly, about scientists in general. They hail the lunacy of Senator James Inhofe and bless the ignorance of George W. Bush. They echo the saintliness of an oil industry deriving massive, record profits from raping Earth. They applaud the smokestack plants burning cheap coal, as long as such plants are not in their backyard. They are the deniers.

Vague, irresponsible and stereotype statements by the skeptics challenge the existence of Global Warming. Never mind their statements lack any objective support. They still make possible the foot dragging of the US Senate and Congress. Most deniers camp out in the Republican Right wing. They should be out in the cold, but aren’t. The Democratic dominance in the Senate and Congress produced nothing substantial. Even the Supreme Court rulings are ignored. Nothing, nada, nichts, ingenting, rien.

The Siberian tundra is no longer frozen but spews untold, catastrophic tons of green house gasses into the air. The Northwest Passage is suddenly navigateable. Antarctica will calve ice sufficient to raise ocean levels by a meter or so. Florida may not like that. Alp ski resorts stand without snow. Glaciers disappear. Coral reefs die. Intuit villages sink in mud as perm freeze melts. Greenland becomes an agricultural Mecca rather than an ice chest. Untold masses of species disappear, under the water and above. Hoax? Not so.

The Bush administration deep-sixed Global Warming by lying to the World about the findings of its own scientists. China, India, Brazil, Indonesia and scores of others joined the US in putting the perceived threats to limitless economic growth before the safety of the world. Let nothing stand in the way of more SUVs for the lucky. Support your local gas station. Surely we must thirst for mineral water from far-away Italy or France.

The Copenhagen Climate Talks are fast approaching. Expectations have moved up a few degrees from absolute zero as Obama promises to show up in person, as will, maybe, the Chinese Premier. Obama carries a lunch box of toothless promises to reduce to US green gas emissions. China generously may promise to release some data on its world leading pollution. Observers announce such data is likely to contain more lies on top of current lies. The EU dispatches a Global Warming denier as its representative.

No one expects progress any time soon towards progressive action. An agreement to replace the flawed Kyoto agreement is not in the stars. After all, Kyoto is wildly profitable to some of the worst polluters. Obama’s hoax proposals aim at reducing criticism of US foot dragging. They mean nothing as the Senate and Congress remains locked up in its deepfreeze of Global Warming.

A fair share of the pessimism expressed above comes from the might of the deniers. They managed to put sufficient scare into the American people and government. Every argument put forward by these crackpot rednecks has been disproved over and over but keep popping up like a California brush fire. Lunatic misfits keep throwing lighted matches at the brushes. California burns at the will of a few token arsonists. The World might burn at the will of token deniers. Never mind logic, science or sanity. Let it all burn.

On this day of November 30th, 2009, Scientific American published “Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense“. You owe it to yourself and your kids to read this article. Do it now. Then read the comments associated with the article. Almost all comments appear to be written by core deniers. Let it burn, no matter why, where, when, who or how. For example (SA is Scientific American):

  • “Global warming has been demonstrated to be a hoax with fabricated and fraudulent data. SA knows this, but instead of dealing with the MAJOR issue of widespread scientific fraud and corruption, instead decides continue to pretend the hoax is real. It is obvious that SA is nothing more than a political propaganda publication.”

Like the above, unsubstantiated non-truths and self serving distortions have swept the world many times before. Africans are born to be slaves. Women are unfit to vote. There is but one God. The rich are better than the poor. I am better than you. I am not an ape or fish. Kill thy neighbor. Inferior groups – be it Jews, gays, gypsies, bloggers or scientists – should be whacked once and for all. Burn the books. Let it all burn. Help us all.



5 Responses to “Debunking Contrarians, Denialists and Other Fools”

  1. Karl,
    Even in today’s debate you sound a bit unhinged.

    Denial would be a valid description of people who deny the existence of something like gravity or similarly accepted scientific statement.

    To say that carbon dioxide is the major driver of our climate and humans are the main source is simply unproven or flys in the face of other scientific evidence.

    This is why stewardship of the earth and respect for our surroundings/environment will continue forward and global warming alarmism will end up on the ash heap of history.

    This isn’t an emotional question, it’s a scientific one that needs to be understood better than a 50-50 chance of even predicting short term local weather let alone decades or century outlooks of our climate.

    Just some points from an environmental science major.

    • Karl said

      Philosopher – You have a good point about unhinged, especially after witnessing the unhinged Copenhagen crowd of lunatics where delegates appeared unable to decide on the color of ballpoint ink. Perhaps frustration is a better descriptor but what the heck.

      Global warming should be a scientific issue, foremost. It’s not. On the political level, it’s a cat and mouse game of passing the buck. On the “people’s level”, it’s a unhinged battle of deniers versus believers that lack any degree of science or reason. And on the scientific level, the major question seems to be emails and grants. So be it.

  2. waterfriend said


    With much difficulty, I have collected temperature data, as clinching evidence to prove my point.


    Station Max Rd

    Min Rd



    Max Min
    Bhuj 44 44 3.8 4 43 9
    Veraval 40.5 41 9.1 9 43 11
    Bhavnagar 43.5 44 7.7 8 43 12
    Surat 43.3 43 9.7 10 43 12
    Mumbai 30.9 31 15.4 15 36 18
    Panjim 36.4 36 16.4 16 36 18
    Karwar 36.2 36 14.7 15 37 17
    Honavar 36.1 36 16.9 17 35 15
    Mangalore 35.7 36 18.9 19 37 18
    Kohzikode 34.6 35 18.7 19 36 21
    Kochi 34.4 34 18.9 19 35 20
    Alapuzha 35.2 35 19.7 20 35 19
    Thiruvananthapuram 35 35 19.8 20 38 20
    Kakinada 43.8 44 15.8 16 44 16
    Chennai 41.3 41 17.3 17 43 18
    Port Blair 34.3 34 17.6 18 34 16
    Mini coi 33 33 19.3 19 35 20
    Vizagapatnam 41.8 42 13.8 14 41 15
    Kolkata 41.4 41 9.6 10 38 11
    Inland stations
    Srinagar 35.7 36 -7.2 -7 35 -7
    Bhubaneswar 43.7 44 10.9 11 41 13
    Gaya 45.5 46 4.3 4 45 5
    Ajmer 43.2 43 2.1 2 43 6
    Pune 41.6 42 6.3 6 42 10
    Hyderabad 41.8 42 9.3 9 43 12
    Bangalore 36.2 36 11.5 12 36 11
    Agartala 38.4 38 5.6 6 36 7
    Allahabad 46.1 46 3.8 4 45 3
    Kota 45.2 45 5.9 6 45 8
    Madurai 40.6 41 17.3 17 41 16
    Coimbatore 38 38 15.4 15 38 15
    Kolhapur 40.8 41 10.8 11 41 11
    Udaipur 42.5 43 1.9 2 43 5
    Nagpur 45.6 46 7.1 7 45 10

    The mean temperature has been shown correct to one decimal point in the record whereas figures for 2007 are shown in round figures. So I have rounded off the mean temp. figures too, for proper comparison.

    Except in a few cases, there is remarkable similarity in temperature recorded 200 years ago and now ! This exposes the fallacy of global warm-mongers. In big cities like bombay the increase in temp may be due to huge concrete forests constructed and this can in no way be called global.

    Statement 2 (Mean temp. in degree Fahreheit)

    Station 200 years ago Temp 2007
    Cairo 72.3 71.4
    Algiers 69.8 66
    Rome 60.4 61.2
    Milan 55.8 56.3
    Cincinnati 53.6 52.55
    Philadelphia 53.45 54.5
    NewYork 53.8 53.9
    Beijing 54.7 51.3
    London 51.8 54.2
    Paris 51.1 51
    Geneva 49.3 53.1
    Dublin 48.6 49
    Edinburgh 47.8 48.9
    Copenhagen 54.7 48.2 ( ? 42)
    Stockholm 42.3 47.3(?)
    Quebec 41.9 38.65
    Petersburg 38.8 37.1
    +Bordeau(winter) 42.1 39.2
    +Bordeau(summer) 70.9 69.8
    Paris (winter) 38.7 (?)57.6
    Paris(summer) 65.3 69.6
    Vienna (winter) 38.7 34.5
    Vienna (summer) 71.6 71.1

    Statement 3: Latitude and mean temperature

    Latitude Mean temp. – 200 Yrs ago Name of station Max Min Mean Temp now

    0 29 Nairobi 25.6 11.5 18.5
    6 28.78 Accra 32.7 23.4 28.5
    6 28.78 Galle 30.6 22.8 26.7
    6 28.78 Porto 25 5.1 15.05
    10 28.13 Kochi 35 20 27.5
    11 27.94 Kozhikode 36 21 28.5
    12 27.75 Port Blair 34 16 25
    12 27.75 Lima 26.5 14.6 20.5
    13 27.53 Chennai 43 18 30.5
    15 27.06 Karwar 37 17 27
    16 27.06 Panaji 36 18 27
    17 26.52 Kakinada 44 16 30
    18 26.23 Vishakhapatnam 41 15 28
    19 25.93 Bombay 36 18 27
    19 25 Pune 42 10 26
    21 25.98 Veraval 43 11 27
    23 24.57 Kolkatha 38 11 24.5
    28 22.61 Brisbane Bayside 29 9 19
    35 19.46 Buenos Aires 30.4 7.4 18.9
    36 18.98 Chongqug 32.8 5.6 19.2
    57 8.6 Daurgarpils (Latvia) 22.5 -9.7 6.4
    60 7.25 Oslo 21.5 -6.8 7.35
    47 13.49 Quebec 25 -17.6 3.7
    56 9.07 Grand praire Alberta 22.1 -20.5 0.8


    Figures speak the truth. The temperature data, comparing previous periods with the current period in respect of Indian and foreign cities are available in the statements above. Statement-1 shows temperature of Indian cities (both coastal and inland).

    These have been collected from the meteorological department library at Mausam Bhawan, Delhi.

    You will see that in the cities mentioned below, the temperature has remained stable during the last 50 years.

    Bhuj, Bhawnagar, Surat, Punjim, Honavar, Alapuzha, Kakinada, Port Blair, Vishakhapatnam, Kolkata (temperature has actually decreased by 3 degrees), Bhubneswar (decreased by 3 degrees), Ajmer, Pune, Bangalore, Agartala, Alhabad, Kota, Madurai, Koimbature, Kolhapur, Udaipur, Nagpur.

    The increase in temperature by 5 degrees in Mumbai is glaring, especially when we see the temperature in Surat remaining stable. In other words, for Mumbai the reasons my be local and not global. This requires investigation. My guess is that the huge increase in concrete buildings in Mumbai has contributed to the increase in temperature.

    So far, I have been speaking about the maximum temperature. A scrutiny of the minimum temperatures reveals a certain trend of distinct increase.

    Bhuj, Bhavnagar, Mumbai, Ajmer, Pune, Hyderabad, Udaipur and Kanpur show increase in minimum temperature by 3 degree. If you total the minimum temperatures of all the cities, then and now, there is an increase of 20degrees in respect of 15 inland stations whereas the maximum temperature in respect of the same stations show a decrease of 8 degrees. It should be remembered that the minimum temperature are recorded during winter months (December, January) when the sun is far away in the Southern hemisphere and this cannot be assigned to the heat radiated from the sun. Mr. Milner has also written about the winter becoming milder over a period of time. In my younger days, I use to find it difficult to take bath in cold water in winter in Delhi. Now, excepting some days of severe cold mostly caused by heavy snowfall in the Himalayas, the water is not so cold. The obvious inference is that this is actually global defreezing caused by geothermal energy.

    Statement 2 shows temperature variation over a wider period of 200 years. The figures for the previous period have been taken from Milner’s book which was published in 1853. As these figures are in Fahrenheit scale, current figures too are shown in the same scale. The figures in respect of the following stations indicate stability.

    Cairo, Algiers, Cincinnati, New York, Beijing (decrease of 3 degree), Paris Dublin, Copenhagen (decrease of 6 degree), Quebec, Petersburg, Bordeaux, Vienna (decrease of 4 degrees) – 12 out of 20 cities. London, Geneva and Paris show exceptional increase. However, it should be remembered that the increase is over a period of 200 years.

    A word of caution: the current data have been extracted from the website “World Weather Information Service” and so the authenticity has to be verified independently.

    A very reliable and scientific method for evaluation of the temperature of the globe, is latitude wise mean temperatures. Milner’s book shows 29 degree centigrade at equator, gradually and linearly decreasing to zero degree centigrade at the poles. I am unable to get corresponding figures for the current period. However, I could see from the website that figures remain almost constant, even though the figures for the polar region, now shows as approaching minus 20 degree centigrade. This may be due to better technology being employed by scientific team exploring the polar regions. I have calculated the value of current mean temperatures in respect of a few stations, comparing this value with that shown in Milner’s book. These are given in statement 3.


    The density of water at zero degrees centigrade is 0.9999 grams per cm. The density of ice at zero degree centigrade is 0.9150. In other words, 1 cc of ice weights only 0.91 gm and hence will displace only 0.915cc of water, when the ice is floating in water. When the ice float, almost the whole of body sinks below the surface of water, expect a small portion projecting above the surface. In the North Pole area, there is no land. The crust of the earth forms a huge bowl filled with seawater and a huge mass of ice floating in it just like an ice cube placed in a bowl of water. The volume of ice submerged below the ice may be almost 9 times more than the icecap which we observe above the surface of water. The molecules covering the underwater portion of the icecap absorb heat from the sea water in which it floats and melt into water. This is a continuous process happening round the clock, allover the year, irrespective of summer or winter. As I have explained in my booklet, the necessary energy is supplied by the earth itself. The role of the Sun which shines only for a limited period is too insignificant to have any impact on this process. As the density of water is more than that of ice, the volume of water generated by the melting of ice is less than that of water originally occupied by the ice block in the ratio 9999:9150. Therefore the sea level will actually come down because of the melting process. In practice, this may not happen because of the continuous deposition of snow in the polar region which will continuously push down the ice cap.

    A lot has been talked about the rising of sea level because of Global warming. This is a misconception. In some places, the sea level goes up and in other places, it recedes. This phenomenon has been extensively discussed in Milner’s geography.

    My contention can be tested by a simple experiment. Place ice cubes in a tumbler and fill it with water until the water overflows. Leave it until all the ice melts. Watch for any overflow of water during this process.

    I quote from Milner-page-513

    Excessive summers

    In 763 the summer was so hot that the springs dried up.

    In 870 the heat was so intense ,that near Worms the reapers dropped dead in the fields.

    In 993 and again in 994,it was so hot that the corn and fruits were burnt up.

    The year 1000 was so hot and dry ,that, in Germany ,the pools of water disappeared ,and the fish ,being left in the mud ,bred pestilence.

    In 1022 the heat was so excessive ,that both men and cattle were struck dead.

    In 1130 the earth yawned with drought. Springs and rivers disappeared ,and even the Rhine was dried up in Alsace.

    In 1159 not a drop of rain fell in Italy after the month of May.

    The year 1171 was extremely hot in Germany.

    In 1232 the heat was so great ,especially in Germany, that it is said that eggs were roasted in the sands.

    In 1260 ,many of the Hungarian soldiers died of excessive heat at the famous battle fought near Buda.

    The consecutive years of 1276 and 1277 were so hot and dry as to occasion a great scarcity of fodder.

    The years 1293 and 1294 were extremely hot ;and so were likewise 1303 and 1304,both the Rhine and the Danube having dried up.

    In 1333 the corn fields and vineyards were burnt up.

    The years 1393 and 1394 were excessively hot and dry.

    In 1447 the summer was extremely hot.

    In the successive years 1473 and 1474 the whole earth seemed on fire. In Hungary , a person might wade across the Danube

    The four consecutive years 1538, 1539 ,1540 ,and 1541 were excessively hot ;and the rivers dried up.

    In1556 the drought was so great that the springs failed. In England wheat rose from 8 shillings to 53 shillings a quarter.

    The years 1615 and 1616 were very dry all over Europe.

    In 1646 it was excessively hot.

    In1652 the warmth was very great, the summer being the driest ever known in Scotland. A total eclipse had happened that year, on Monday the 24th of March,which hence received the appellation of ‘Mirk Monday.’

    The summer of 1679 was extremely hot.It is related ,that one of the minions tyranny ,who in that calamitous period, harassed the poor Presbyterians in Scotland with captious questions, having asked a shepherd in Fife ,whether the killing of a notorious Sharp, Archbishop of St.Andrews, which had happened in May,was murder; he replied , that he could not tell, but there had been fine weather ever since.

    The year 1700 was excessively warm, and the two following years were of the same description.

    In 1718 the weather was extremely hot and dry all over Europe. The air felt so oppressive that all the theatres were shut in Paris. Scarcely any rain fell for the space of nine months and the springs and rivers were dried up. The following year was equally hot. The thermometer at Paris rose to 98 degree Fahrenheit. The grass and corn were quite parched.

    In some places the fruit trees blossomed two and three times.

    Both the years 1723 and 1724 were dry and hot.

    The year 1745 was remarkably warm and dry; but the following year was still hotter insomuch that the grass withered, and the leaves dropped from the trees .Neither rain nor dew fell for several months ; and ,on the continent, prayers were offered up in all the churches to implore the bounty of refreshing showers.

    In 1748 the summer was again very warm.

    In 1754 it was likewise extremely warm.

    The years 1760 and 1761 were both of them remarkably hot, and so was the year 1763.

    In 1774 it was excessively hot and dry.

    Both the years 1778 and 1779 were warm and very dry.

    The year 1788 was also very hot and dry ;and of the same character was 1811 ,famous for its excellent vintage

  3. hoboduke said

    Thanks for the post. Don’t let the buggers get you down! The comment by WATERFRIEND is amazing! My kind of scientist pays attention to the best vintage years! Might see some of them climate scientists heading out with us hobo wandering to find some work.

  4. Karl said

    Dear Waterfriend, you certainly impress me. Of all skeptics I have experienced, you are the one and only actually showing data supporting your view. Congratulations.

    Here are some ideas, not meant to belittle any of your work. First, to gain in credibility, data such as this benefits from a proper peer review. That is especially true in the case of global warming where the mass of often contradictory information makes interpretation difficult.

    Second, temperature data for cities are generally unreliable since the measurements come from locations close to distorting elements such as factory heat sources, pollution, humans and much else. Modern temperature data come from stations far from cities. Moving stations away from cities would result in an apparent but unreal cooling trend.

    Third, melting floating ice has indeed a relatively minor impact on water levels. However, the major concern is the melting of landlocked ice – glaciers, for instance. If Antarctica’s Western glaciers and ice shelves melt at the currently feared rate, then sea levels may increase 5 feet or more, more than enough to make Floridians very unhappy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: