Pure Fabrication, Lies and Global Warming Denial Propaganda from Non-other Than Andrew Breitbart's Big Government

I just got done writing this in an online discussion forum debate last night about the CERN Cloud paper:

The lead author of the paper Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation Jasper Kirby was on Nature in a podcast (listen to it at 21:44) and said unequivocally the effects he observed in his research would only occur in the uppermost atmosphere where clouds actually don’t even form and “you cannot use my research to make any definitive statement on the effect of cosmic rays on climate.

I will repeat what he said you cannot use my research to make any definitive statement on the effect of cosmic rays on climate.

Again one more time,… the lead author of the paper said you cannot use my research to make any definitive statement on the effect of cosmic rays on climate.

(thanks to Scott Mandia’s CERN Cloud Paper: Cirrus-ly Being Spun « Global Warming: Man or Myth?,  ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change | The Way Things Break  & ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change for enlightening me on the subject)

And then I spot this evening this unbelievable piece of propaganda and distortion on Breitbart’s Big Government website:

Nature Journal of Science Discredits Man-made Global Warming

by Chriss W. Street

Nature Journal of Science, ranked as the world’s most cited scientific periodical, has just published the definitive study on Global Warming that proves the dominant controller of temperatures in the Earth’s atmosphere is due to galactic cosmic rays and the sun, rather than by man. One of the report’s authors, Professor Jyrki Kauppinen, summed up his conclusions regarding the potential for man-made Global Warming: “I think it is such a blatant falsification.”

[...]

What is interesting is I’m looking at the list of co-authors on the paper on the Nature website and I can’t seem to even find this ‘Professor Jyrki Kauppinen’ that Chriss W. Street is quoting. Here’s the list:

Jasper Kirkby, Joachim Curtius, João Almeida, Eimear Dunne, Jonathan Duplissy, Sebastian Ehrhart, Alessandro Franchin, Stéphanie Gagné, Luisa Ickes, Andreas Kürten, Agnieszka Kupc, Axel Metzger, Francesco Riccobono, Linda Rondo, Siegfried Schobesberger, Georgios Tsagkogeorgas, Daniela Wimmer, Antonio Amorim, Federico Bianchi, Martin Breitenlechner, André David, Josef Dommen, Andrew Downard, Mikael Ehn, Richard C. Flagan, Stefan Haider, Armin Hansel, Daniel Hauser, Werner Jud, Heikki Junninen, Fabian Kreissl, Alexander Kvashin, Ari Laaksonen, Katrianne Lehtipalo, Jorge Lima, Edward R. Lovejoy, Vladimir Makhmutov, Serge Mathot, Jyri Mikkilä, Pierre Minginette, Sandra Mogo, Tuomo Nieminen, Antti Onnela, Paulo Pereira, Tuukka Petäjä, Ralf Schnitzhofer, John H. Seinfeld, Mikko Sipilä, Yuri Stozhkov, Frank Stratmann, Antonio Tomé, Joonas Vanhanen, Yrjo Viisanen, Aron Vrtala, Paul E. Wagner, Hansueli Walther, Ernest Weingartner, Heike Wex, Paul M. Winkler, Kenneth S. Carslaw, Douglas R. Worsnop, Urs Baltensperger & Markku Kulmala

In fact searching the Journal Nature for ‘Jyrki Kauppinen’ I get “Sorry, no results were found. Please search again.”

So searching some more via Google this time to see if I can find where the quote from ‘Professor Jyrki Kauppinen’ saying “I think it is such a blatant falsification” comes from I find an an article on the denial aggregator web site Climate Realists dated Wed April 14th 2010 which has a Finish newspaper article about a study led by Kauppinen in which he claims to have found (according to the translation) “increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide to explain only 5-10 percent of observed global warming” and that “Kauppinen intends to publish the research findings to Nature , the June issue of Science magazine“.

So unless I just fell off a turnip truck it looks to me like the Breitbart employed author Chriss W. Street has written a deceitful little piece that says:

  • Nature Journal of Science, ranked as the world’s most cited scientific periodical, has just published the definitive study on Global Warming that proves the dominant controller of temperatures in the Earth’s atmosphere is due to galactic cosmic rays and the sun, rather than by man.” —That’s a lie, Lie #1, it doesn’t say that at all. Again the lead author on the paper has said unequivocally the effects he observed in his research would only occur in the uppermost atmosphere where clouds actually don’t even form and “you cannot use my research to make any definitive statement on the effect of cosmic rays on climate.
  • “…One of the report’s authors, Professor Jyrki Kauppinen,…” — That a lie too, Lie #2, Kauppinen wasn’t one of the paper authors at all. He didn’t work on it.
  •  “…summed up his conclusions regarding the potential for man-made Global Warming: “I think it is such a blatant falsification.”Lie #3, Wanting Brietbart’s readers to believe Kauppinen was talking about the paper that he claims Kauppinen worked on Street pulled a newspaper quote Kauppinen made commenting about a paper he wrote 15 months before the Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation paper was ever even published.

It amazing to me that someone can write a whopping lie like that. But then again I realize it a Breitbart publication. Maybe Chriss W. Street is a relative of James O’Keefe another infamous Breitbart liar.

The lies, deceit, and manipulation of the truth in the article don’t stop there though. It leaves the topic it supposed to be about (the CERN Cloud paper) and then just goes on to recite all the latest global warming denial propaganda talking points.

Really the whole piece is quite a spectacular lie. Right out of the Joseph Goebbels playbook.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

,

You are not authorized to see this part
Please, insert a valid App IDotherwise your plugin won't work.

13 Responses to Pure Fabrication, Lies and Global Warming Denial Propaganda from Non-other Than Andrew Breitbart's Big Government

  1. klem September 7, 2011 at 5:34 am #

    Um, when the paper was published the folks at CERN decided to include a summary of what the experiment meant, they wrote “we have found that natural rates of atmospheric ionisation caused by cosmic rays can substantially enhance nucleation under the conditions we studied – by up to a factor of 10. Ion‐enhancement is particularly pronounced in the cool temperatures of the mid‐troposphere and above, where CLOUD has found that sulphuric acid and water vapour can nucleate without the need for additional vapours. This result leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could also influence climate.”

    Before this experiment, cosmic rays were the laughing stock of climate science, it was a subject which did not merit discussion, it was voodoo science. Now cosmic rays are back on the table and CERN said so.

    CERN also wrote “Based on the first results from CLOUD, it is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours and water alone.”

    In toher words, CERN said that climate models are now in need of revision. Good luck claiming that CERN is being paid by Big Oil.

    I’m not sure where the “Pure Fabrication, Lies and Global Warming Denial Propaganda” is in all of this.

    Cheers

    • Jerrald Hayes September 10, 2011 at 2:46 pm #

      I’ve been swamped these past few days so its taken me a while to reply but you have just got to be kidding me Klem. You’re offering apologetics and support for Breitbart and Chriss W. Street? As a climate change denier it would the better part of valor on your part to standup and say that these guys screwed up and don’t represent folks like you. Defending them makes you a partisan. Do you really think that Street or one of the researchers at his supposed research group who might have penned the article actually ever actually read the press release you quoted from? I sincerely doubt it.

      In fact your version of the quote is mined and edited from the CERN press release read:

      “we have found that natural rates of atmospheric ionisation caused by cosmic rays can substantially enhance nucleation under the conditions we studied – by up to a factor of 10. Ion‐enhancement is particularly pronounced in the cool temperatures of the mid‐troposphere and above, where CLOUD has found that sulphuric acid and water vapour can nucleate without the need for additional vapours. This result leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could also influence climate…”

      and the full paragraph ends like this:

      However, it is premature to conclude that cosmic rays have a significant influence on climate until the additional nucleating vapours have been identified, their ion enhancement measured, and the ultimate effects on clouds have been confirmed.

      Your comment that:

      "Before this experiment, cosmic rays were the laughing stock of climate science, it was a subject which did not merit discussion, it was voodoo science. Now cosmic rays are back on the table and CERN said so."

      ,…is misleading too. Cosmic rays have never been dismissed as "voodoo science" and their effects or lack there of have been well known for a while. For instance Kristjansson, Staple, Kristiansen, & Kaas, 2002 explored solar irradiance and cosmic rays but made the point it was hard to tell which influence was doing what because solar irradiance and cosmic rays seemed to anti-correlated with each other (see this chart from that paper). Sloan & Wolfendale, 2008 Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover concluded that no more than 23% of the change in cloud cover explainable by the solar cycle is caused by cosmic rays, with at least 77% caused by other solar causes. And there’s certainly more than those two papers I just cited there.

      The problem is climate change deniers always pitched cosmic rays as (a pet theory of Henrik Svensmark) as one of the ‘Great White Hopes’ for their cause and cosmic rays have just never lived lived up to that billing (Skeptical Science-Could cosmic rays be causing global warming?)

      And in regard to your comment:

      I’m not sure where the “Pure Fabrication, Lies and Global Warming Denial Propaganda” is in all of this.

      Even if, even if I give you an ‘honest mistake‘ call on Lie#1, and I don’t, you seem to be oblivious to the the pure fabrication aspects of Lies #2 and #3.

  2. Robert Murphy September 7, 2011 at 11:04 am #

    “CERN said that climate models are now in need of revision.”

    All models are. The revisions needed because of this study won’t affect many models, however, since most don’t deal with nucleation rates anyway.

    “I’m not sure where the “Pure Fabrication, Lies and Global Warming Denial Propaganda” is in all of this”

    The lies and fabrication are in the spin that claims the CERN experiment shows a link between GCR’s and climate. It doesn’t. The nuclei that were formed were 1 nanometer in size; cloud condensation nuclei (CCN’s) need to be about 100 nanometers big. Going from one nanometer to a hundred is problematic; showing that GCR’s actually produce meaningful changes in cloud formation has yet to occur. A new study suggests the effect of GCR’s on CCN is minimal;
    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/11/4001/2011/acp-11-4001-2011.pdf
    :

    “For all test cases, the change in the concentration of particles larger than 80 nm between solar minimum (high cosmic ray flux) and solar maximum (low cosmic ray flux) simulations is less than 0.2 %. The change in the total number of particles larger than 10 nm was larger, but always less than 1 %.”
    They concluded:
    “This is likely far to small to account for the 2% change in cloud cover observed by Marsh and Svensmark (2000a, b). Furthermore, the predicted changes in AE are two orders of magnitude smaller than observed by Svensmark et al. (2009). This shows that although there are changes in the nucleation rate due to changes in cosmic rays, the changes in CCN and the AE are much smaller due to large amounts of dampening within the microphysical system. This is consistent with the conclusions of Pierce and Adams (2009a), and shows that the insignificance of the ion-aerosol clear-sky mechanism of cosmic rays on clouds does not greatly depend on the uncertain model inputs tested here.”

    There’s a reason that the lead author of the CERN paper has said that the paper says nothing about a link between GCR’s and climate. Even if they could show a better link between GCR’s and actual cloud formation, they would then have to show a secular trend in GCR’s over the last half century that could explain the warming we’ve had. There hasn’t been a trend in GCR’s, so their work is cut out for them.

    And of course the author of this thread has clearly shown how the BigGovernment website got the story completely wrong- they used a quote from someone who had no more connection with the CERN study than you or I in order to wrongly claim that the study falsified AGW. The story about the Finnish Physicist is over a year old; in the Finnish newspaper account it is a University of Turku Department of Physics study, not a study from CERN. Jyrki Kauppinen has published over 100 papers and no doubt knows his field, spectroscopy. His last paper was in 2009, however, and none of his work dealt with climate science. At this point I have no idea *what* his beliefs are concerning climate change, as I can find no corroborating evidence for the newspaper claims. But there is no excuse for the crapulence of the Breitbart website’s article. It certainly has the “Pure Fabrication, Lies and Global Warming Denial Propaganda” covered on all counts. The best that can be said is it suffers from complete incompetence.

  3. Poppy101 September 7, 2011 at 1:17 pm #

    Thankfully, I found this page before my head exploded, in the effort to overcome outrage. I found the cited writing of Chriss W. Street first, by chance actually, definitely not his fan and now, never will be. It is so outrageous writing, that I could not let it go and my outrage grew as I went ahead to track the real data down, starting the same way as it’s done here. I found the same thing as far as I went and thank you for posting this article – without it, I would be still furiously doing it. It is unexplainable why, but it still brings me relief, that it doesn’t go unnoticed on the Web, when someone is so obviously not using the facts, just try to manipulate the readers by whatever mean they find fit – even using extreme lack of facts. I’m proud to say, I have never been that web site before.

    Unfortunately, the web can be a very distorting and hostile place, when we might as well use it for real debate and education.
    Certainly, the the WWW not invented for spreading lies.

    BTW – inventing http://www... who did it invent it anyway?
    “The research was conducted by CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, which invented the World Wide Web…” says Mr. Street.

    Well, let’s give credit for it to Tim Berners-Lee directly, who actually invented WWW, even if the HTTP protocol was first put it in use at CERNs. It is just a slip really, compared to the rest, but I would hope, that someone who tries to make use of this tool so eagerly to spread misinformation about scientific facts, would verify at least this one fact.

    I certainly stop wasting time looking at this example of low sense of moral and responsibility when information is communicated.
    Because it is not just about global warming , or what science proved or not – it is about how to communicate these facts meaningfully and with respect, faithfully to the facts as any journalist should do, or anyone who plans on writing to the public, in print or online. That would show a respectable professional , something that Mr. Steet failed to demonstrate in this cited writing.
    And this is where the title of this post comes from, that I agree with: the Pure fabrication rather refers to Mr. Streets distorted writing, not about CERN data or any other proposal for the climate model. Those who read Mr. Street’s creation however, never have a chance to get it right either way, and I wish they would recognize it.

    I respect the efforts of the author of this site to point out the facts. I guess, we share the frustration of unethical conduct when communicating information, and sometimes even a drop in the ocean matters.

  4. JasonM September 7, 2011 at 2:13 pm #

    Thank you for writing about this, I had an account at Big Government but they’ve banned me for calling out their distortions.

    The sad thing is, this propaganda has already been picked up by Free Republic and will likely be picked up by Fox News. Ergo, folks who only get their “news” from these sources will believe climate change is myth created by Al Gore.

  5. Jerrald Hayes September 10, 2011 at 2:47 pm #

    I think its poignant and speaks to the journalistic integrity of Brietbart’s Big Government and the author Chriss W. Street who has the very same article published on his website that there has been no apology, retraction, or correction to such a big huge mistake lie.

  6. klem September 16, 2011 at 8:34 am #

    “You’re offering apologetics and support for Breitbart and Chriss W. Street?”

    I wouldn’t know who Breitbart and Street were if they fell on me. I’ve never read their article and I’ve never been to their web site. The quotes I posted above were written by CERN, not by these two nobodies with whom you seem obsessed. Nice strawman.

    My post above stands.

    cheers

    Cheers.

    • Jerrald Hayes September 16, 2011 at 10:27 am #

      Klem you’re starting to talk like a fool. Go back and read your whole comment. The post I wrote that you chose to comment on was about Breitbart and Chriss W. Street lying three times in one paragraph about the significance of the CERN paper, their opinion that it "Discredits Man-made Global Warming". That was the “Pure Fabrication, Lies and Global Warming Denial Propaganda” you decided to comment about. Your posted comment about the CERN Cloud paper was nothing more than apologetics seemingly offering reasoning that Breitbart and Street may have just made an honest mistake in what they published. If you take away the last paragraph of your comment,

      I’m not sure where the “Pure Fabrication, Lies and Global Warming Denial Propaganda” is in all of this.

      …then your text has really nothing at all to do with the post I wrote so just who is guilty of deploying a strawman?

      Let me reiterate this again for you the post was about Breitbart and Chriss W. Street lying. If you don’t know who they are and didn’t really intend to comment on the post then shut the f#!k up.

      My post and comments above still stand and so do yours too. I want people to see exactly what you said.

      • klem November 8, 2011 at 7:14 am #

        “If you don’t know who they are and didn’t really intend to comment on the post then shut the f#!k up.”

        Kind of a bit touchy and defensive aren’t you there Jerrald? Learn to suck it up princess. Lol!

        cheers

        • JimmyB January 8, 2012 at 3:40 pm #

          klem,

          Were you ever in the military? You know how Drill Instructors utilise mass punishment during training when a platoon member screws up? That’s partly because soldiers depend on each other to survive. In battle situations, when a soldier screws up (like lighting up a smoke at night and giving away their position to the enemy) everyone pays the price, sometimes with their life.

          The reason your ignorance and belligerence invokes hostility is that kind of attitude puts everyone at risk. Unfortunately, your climate stupidity does not stop at your property line. That is precisely why it cannot be tolerated.

          Don’t even bother trying to argue by regurgitating the propaganda that you’ve absorbed, or spew some “we don’t know” B.S. It only makes you look even dumber.

          Global Warming deniers like you really need to be treated to a Marine Corps blanket party. Maybe then you will figure it out…princess.

  7. Jason Thibeault September 16, 2011 at 12:11 pm #

    Klem didn’t get it when I pointed this stuff out to him. His takeaways are, essentially, filtered through denialist glasses. Never mind that this shows *exactly* what he wanted us to show before he’d be willing to accept that maybe he was wrong.

    • Jerrald Hayes September 16, 2011 at 12:44 pm #

      Aside from being 98% wrong on his take regarding the CERN paper and cosmic rays he’s also confused about what constitutes a straw man. I mean did he even read what this post was about and understand what “Pure Fabrication, Lies and Global Warming Denial Propaganda” was referring to?

      • klem November 8, 2011 at 7:18 am #

        Ooooh that Klem! I shake my fist at him….

        cheers

Leave a Reply

FireStats icon Powered by FireStats
Plugin from the creators ofBrindes Personalizados :: More at PlulzWordpress Plugins