Yesterday I reported that the newest bogus climate denial meme rocketing around the Foxis of Evil had been disavowed by Geochemist Zunli Lu. At first all I had was a short message indicating that the Daily Mail Newspaper, and reporter Ted Thornhill had deliberately decided to publish a piece that Dr. Lu told them contained the wrong ‘angle”.
Now we have Dr. Lu’s more complete statement.
Recently published climate research by Zunli Lu, a geochemist in the Department of Earth Sciences in Syracuse University’s College of Arts and Sciences, has gone viral across the Internet by bloggers. A number of media outlets, including theDaily Mail and The Register, which are published in the United Kingdom, claim this research supports arguments that human-induced global warming is a myth. The claims, Lu says, misrepresent his work and the conclusions in the study. The statement below is an effort to set the record straight. The original news story about the research is posted on Arts and Sciences News.
Zunli Lu:
“It is unfortunate that my research, “An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula,” recently published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, has been misrepresented by a number of media outlets.Several of these media articles assert that our study claims the entire Earth heated up during medieval times without human CO2
emissions. We clearly state in our paper that we studied one site at the Antarctic Peninsula. The results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditions across the entire globe. Other statements, such as the study “throws doubt on orthodoxies around global warming,” completely misrepresent our conclusions. Our study does not question the well-established anthropogenic warming trend.”
Fake Science, Deliberate Distortions for Tea Party Yokels
In one of the clearest demonstrations in memory of the gullible and credulous nature of the the pathetic yokels that frequent such sites as Wattsupwiththat and Climatedepot, this obviously distorted meme was picked up and broadcast uncritically (remarkable, considering the source) around the world.
For more contextual information, see my post of yesterday.
If you are going to write about fiendishly difficult and involved matters of science and technology, it is not necessary to be an actual scientist, although that helps. What IS necessary is to scrupulously refer back to real science, real scientists, and primary sources. I’ve built the reputation of this blog and this video series on that premise, and that is my commitment to my readers.
Climate Crocks eviscerated a similarly bogus meme some time ago in a video entitled “Birth of a Climate Crock”. Watch that and compare to see how the technique works, and who the players are.
Danolner – you ask what my point is, then pontificate about the “denier swarm”. At least try not being hypocritical will you?
If you want to go ahead and the term “warmist”, allow me “denier”. Or is it swarm you object to? There’s a warmist swarm too…! Let’s argue about that rather than any of the substantive comments I made, shall we?
I mean, I’ve just asked you to explain the rationale behind calling “warmists” hypocritical for not picking up on some earlier Daily Mail story, and you’ve responded by… calling me hypocritical. Is that likely to get us anywhere? What are you doing here commenting if you don’t want to engage with any questions asked?
I agree, your sprinkling of derogatory words such as “denier” won’t bring us anywhere. Especially as any substantive reply by me will be easily answered to with “you denier” and all that.
I didn’t intend “denier swarm” to be directed at you. I don’t know if you’re a denier. Deniers exist: people who will question anything that appears to suggest climate change is real and human-caused and dangerous regardless of the facts. Maybe you’re a plain old fashioned skeptic, but so far you just appear to be unable to respond to simple points directed at you, so I have no idea.
If we’re not going to discuss anything interesting, shall we stop wearing our keyboards unnecessarily? If you want to talk about the issue at hand, I’ll try again: do you think if I criticise a Daily Mail article today, but failed to yesterday, that invalidates my criticism? Or is the point the factual accuracy of the article?
Danolner, maybe have a look at his blog. http://omnologos.com/nasa-full-of-global-warming-sk/
ok Danolner now your statement is clearer.
do you think if I criticise a Daily Mail article today, but failed to yesterday, that invalidates my criticism? Or is the point the factual accuracy of the article?
Rather than invalidating anybody’s criticism, that occurrence should wake up everybody to the fact that science isn’t well translated in mass media and especially British mass-circulation newspapers, and especially especially in the Daily Mail.
They had a great space reporter, not sure if he still there. That’s it. The rest is rubbish thrown left, right or center according to where the newspaper is heading against.
This is all to say, there is no point to cry against deniers, when the Daily Mail is involved. Just wait a few months, maybe they’ll go back into alarmist world-is-burning mode again…so either they should be pummelled every time, or left to uneducate their own.