More about the skeptics who are bursting the heads of denialists

Urban Heat Island – Favorite Skeptic Myth Debunked Again, This Time By Koch-Funded Science
[Via DeSmogBlog - Clearing the PR Pollution that Clouds Climate Science]

Climate skeptics are once again proven wrong, and this time even Koch money can’t skew the facts.

Have you heard the one from climate deniers that the “Urban Heat Island” effect has ruined all the weather stations and made the data they collect completely useless? The deniers claim any warming trend seen from these temperature recordings is from concrete buildings and asphalt roads – and that climate change is therefore a myth?

That would be false. Says whom, you ask?  How about a new Koch-funded scientific study?

An investigation by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project released yesterday once again thoroughly dispatches the skeptic myth about the “Urban Heat Island” (UHI) effect.

Many global warming skeptics have long claimed that the urban heat island effect is so strong that it has skewed temperature measurements indicating that global warming is happening. The skeptics argue that efforts to curb global warming pollution are therefore unnecessary, citing their pet theory that surface temperature stations were swallowed by, or moved closer to, cities, thus skewing surface temperature records on the whole.

The BEST papers – which still must go through rigorous peer review – confirm what climate scientists have correctly stated previously, demonstrating without doubt that “very rural” temperature stations miles from any new “UHI” towns or cities have also recorded warming at 0.9 degrees Celsius over the last century. 



To put it plainly, even the Kochtopus denial machine will have a tough time trying to twist this Koch-funded project’s findings. It looks like the Kochs backed the wrong horse here – one wonders whether they thought Hadley CRU would be proven wrong?

Notable skeptics like Anthony Watts have long pushed this bogus UHI theory. In fact, Watts admits that he basically became a climate skeptic when he heard that urban heat islands (UHI) had distorted the global temperature record. In November, Watts wrote on Watts Up With That: “UHI is easily observable. I’ve been telling readers about UHI since this blog started…”

[More]

The authors of this work had expressed skepticism about the data. When they re-examined the data with their own approach they found that the data sure does indicate a warming world.

Now we can see the skeptics separated from the denialists. Skeptics will accept the data for what it shows. Denialists will deny the data actually shows much at all, move the goal posts and continue to deny.

SKeptics can be convinced when their objections are answered. Denialists continue to deny, no matter what.

You can hear the denialists moving the goal posts right now

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature algorithm
[Via Deltoid]

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature algorithm seems to work quite well, with coverage by the Economist, the BBC, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the London Telegraph, the Daily Mail, the Los Angeles Times, US News and World Report, the Guardian, the Washington Post, the Independent and CNN.

Here is the BEST algorithm:

1. State that “reported global warming may be biased by poor station quality“.
2. Collect funding from Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.
3. Make the utterly predictable finding that warming is not a product of poor measurement.
4. Brief reporters.

If only I had used the BEST algorithm, then my own analysis would be in all the papers.

[More]

A group of skeptical scientists re-examine the data and find that there is nothing wrong with the data – the world is warming.

And the large amount of the data out there is fully able to prove this, even if all the data is not pristine.

So what do the denialists do? Claim they never doubted that the world was warming. Unfortunately, the web never forgets and it is easy to find older posts where they is exactly what they denied.

They display their lack of integrity by failing to recognize that their previous arguments were examined and answered. They need new arguments rather than simply denying that progress has been made.

They accuse others of biased work. Sounds like they have an awfully big mote in their own eye.