Ukip climate science the Foxgoose way

Foxgoose is a Ukip specialist in ignoring all evidence for climate change and asking A level physics questions of those who disagree with him. He once told me that I could not have done a postgrad in climate science without a physics qualification. I am not sure he was too impressed when I pointed him in the direction of The University of Birmingham – that does not require Physics, prefers a Geography degree!

He loves to tweet graphs, accompanied by some patronising comment, about the ignorance of the person who dared to question his “knowledge”

Let’s take this recent offering ..

IMG_5831.JPG

This graph was used by an Australian Climate denier. He’s a scientist for hire paid a stipend of $1667 a month by the well know oil funded Heartland Institute as part of a programme to pay “high profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist (AGW) message”. Carter continued to claim that he received no finding from front organisations, even when confronted with evidence. When asked about why he lied he claimed that being truthful about one’s funding is “a very quaint and old fashioned practice”

The paper that contains this travesty of graph usage was heavily criticised for it’s appalling errors. He uses this graph produced in 1993 and other graphs to show that the Medieval Warming Period was warmer than the late 20th century. Pity then that it ignores data for temperature after 1935!

Bob Ward said about the paper, as a whole, that it was “possibly the most inaccurate and misleading article about climate change that has ever been published by a journal”. A full rebuttal of the paper can be found here

Foxgoose, whose real name we do not know. Likes to cast aspirations on my ability to teach young people without being biased. I might point out that I am unlikely to use a graph that tells a lie to teach young people anything. Other than perhaps to teach them that old adage “always check your sources”. What does the graph actually show you? Is it relevant to the argument?

So Foxy why do you use a graph that missed out the whole of the late 20th century to show temperature change in the late 20th century? Is it because you can not prove your point any other way.

After all the MWP was regional warming and was certainly no warmer than the early part of the 20the century.

IMG_5834.GIF

IMG_5835.JPG

Anyone who is interested in how temperatures have been reconstructed and the evidence and scientists involved can take a look at the PAGES 2k network research For those who are not afraid of the skeptical science web site ( kippers run a mile too much actual evidence ) this is a useful summary.

Foxy bless him has threatened to send anyone here who wants to see bad science at work. His problem is that the climate change argument has already been lost. He can of course go on claiming that he has the moral high ground the higher intelligence that 97% of scientists are sheep – but actually since he does not want to do so under his own name I rather think we can afford to completely ignore him.

Now foxy every time you use a graph that uses data to show the medieval warm period was warmer than the late 20th century. Perhaps consider that
it is now 2014 and the 13 of the warmest years on record have occurred in this century.

As for the cyclical nature of climate of course but that is to ignore the simple fact that just because there have been warm periods in the past does not mean we are not causing this one and that it won’t be damaging. It is the climate change deniers ability to Ignore or cherry pick data that is so ridiculous , their self presumed superiority is based on an ability to blank out vast swathes of evidence. For Ukip to base their energy policy on this ability is as ridiculous as the rest of their policy assertions.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Ukip climate science the Foxgoose way

  1. FWIW, I’ve yet to meet anyone who thinks that the climate doesn’t change, but presumably by ‘denier’ you mean someone who’s not convinced by the link with CO2, for which there isn’t really a lot of evidence…

    1. Like all deniers you seem to be able to ignore a pleather of evidence from a wide range of sources because all these scientists 1000’s of them are in collusion in some great plot to make us produce power in a non polluting way.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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