Is this another denier misrepresentation of a climate science study?

Denier Esra Dral answered my last question, saying "Last years Cardiff University paper puts the planet cooling for a 200,000 year period, 33.6 million years ago. Over this period of time, atmospheric CO2 levels were between 900 and 1100 ppm....in the absence of any information on other influences that may have been in play during this cooling, this must lead to a reasonable deduction that the atmosphere is less sensitive and the CO2 induced amplification factor is just about one."


http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?…





5 months ago Ottawa Mike gave him 'best answer' for a very similar answer which had a few more details - enough for me to track down the paper he references.


http://courses.eas.ualberta.ca/eas570/na…





The paper states "Overall, our results confirm the central role of declining [atmospheric CO2] in the development of the Antarctic ice sheet (in broad agreement with carbon cycle modelling)....The decline in [atmospheric CO2] detected in our study may have contributed to global cooling"





The denier in question implies this study suggests the cooling during the Eocene–Oligocene climate transition occurred independent of atmospheric CO2, or even despite rising CO2 (his answer is very vague). Yet the study itself seems to specifically state that the cooling period was preceeded and likely contributed to by a decline in CO2.





Is this yet another denier misrepresentation of a climate science study?





Bonus question - can you find an example of an AGW denier referencing a peer-reviewed climate science study and representing it accurately in the process?|||Yes





The paper concludes: "This study reaffirms the links between cryosphere development and [falling] atmospheric carbon dioxide levels at the largest and most important climatic tipping point of the last 65 million years."





Here you have a clear example of a change in CO2 driving a change in climate, contrary to the denialist claim that it is always the other way around.





As to whether the amplification factor is 1 or less, as AGW minimisers like Lindzen claim, or around 2 which is the most preferred value, as I understand it, in current modelling, or more, I think that if Esra can extract that information from the data in the paper, he should be publishing his own paper in Nature.





An interesting paper. Thanks for the lead.|||I have no doubt it is another denier misrepresentation.





Deniers regularly complain about being called "deniers," and in the past I have suggested the alternate term "liars," which I thought may more accurately describe them--although I doubt that would be less offensive to them.





Unfortunately over the past week I have seen intellectual dishonesty in almost all of their questions and choices for best answers. I can understand skepticism over AGW perfectly well, but I don't understand why someone would feel the need to be unscrupulous and unprincipled in order to support their belief.|||I think the problem is two-fold. Firstly we have the very distinct lack of scientific comprehension amongst the skeptics, in many cases this means they’re unable to comprehend things of a scientific nature. Secondly, we have the psychological tendency to distort something in order to comply with a preconceived notion.





In respect of the latter, a report may say “we have a 99% confidence that temperatures will rise by 2°C to 4°C in the next 100 years”. To the skeptic, the fact that there’s a 1% uncertainty leads to the conclusion that… we can’t predict what might happen in the future therefore global warming isn’t real.





All too often it’s a case of the skeptics reading and interpreting what they WANT to read and not what is actually printed; we’ve seen this on countless occasions.





There are many parallels that can be drawn with astrology. It doesn’t matter what the astrologer predicts, the believer will convince themselves that the predictions are correct and that the astrologer really does have mystical powers. Of course, upon examination of astrology, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever to it.|||I knew the "450 papers" thing would be brought up eventually. Though I believe the most recent figure is 700? It doesn't really matter -- if you take out all the non-journals (e.g. E%26amp;E), all the obscure and completely unrelated journals (Proceedings of the Estonian Academies, Bulletin of AAPG, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons), all the papers by Chilingar, all the papers that aren't related to whether or not CO2 is the primary driver of the recent warming (all the subsections), all the papers that don't actually support what deniers claim, all the non peer-reviewed opinion and commentary pieces, and all the papers that have been shown to be gravely in error, what are you left with?





Rather than 700 terrible papers, can a denier post just one credible, peer-reviewed paper that supports their position?|||Just how pathetic can you get in your quest for righteousness. The study clearly puts the atmospheric CO2 levels at 900 to 1100 ppm for extended periods whilst the world still cooled. The reference to the "central role of declining CO2 levels" still points to levels which were much higher than they are now. In the authors own opinion, this decline MAY have contributed to global cooling. This decline was measured just after the start of the cooling period, WHICH STARTED WHEN CO2 LEVELS WERE AT 900 ppm. CO2 levels then dropped which may have aided cooling, but then rose to 1,100 ppm and the EARTH CONTINUED TO COOL. You have cherry picked certain sections to misrepresent climate study, particularly where your so called peer - reviewed papers are reviewed by people whos jobs depend on toeing the party line.





“The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few experts” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography.”|||Bonus Question


450 peer riviewed papers


http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/…|||Deliberate alteration of temperature data to suit the global warming "alarmists"





http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images…