The climate blogosphere is wrapped in a discussion over faked PDFs. I believe there is enough evidence to sufficiently cast great doubt on the PDF. What this clearly shows, is that places like DeSmear, unthinking progress, and crappy so-called journalists, don’t vet their information. While this debacle was intended to cast skeptics in a poor light, this simply exposes these loons for what they are; Ideological advocates. There’s nothing wrong with that, per se. But, they shouldn’t pretend to be anything other than that. Obviously, they’re not journalists, unless you think reports on par with the National Inquirer rises to the level of journalism. Certainly, they are not scientists nor advocates of science. Science is about taking an objective view before making declarative statements. These pinheads didn’t even bother to rt. click and check the properties? Either these people are just simply stupid or they already knew what the properties would show.
But, this isn’t anything new. This is just a continuation of the war on real science and an open dialogue of the issues. We’ve seen this time and again, active attempts at deceiving the public and employing bizarre circular logic. For instance, I got this in my e-mail yesterday…….
The first paragraph states,
A new study shows that land-cover changes, in particular deforestation, in the vicinity of glaciers do not have an impact on glacier loss. However, the study, in which Innsbruck climate researcher were directly involved, also shows that deforestation decreases precipitation in mid elevation zones, which affects the quality of life of the population living in the surrounding areas. (emphasis mine)
Hmm, this is a bit contrary to what was widely accepted. We need to look further…..
“We used Kilimanjaro in East Africa as a test case, where a significant decrease of forests at elevations between 1,800 and 3,000 meters, caused by illegal deforestation and an increased number of forest fires, has been documented since the 1970s,” explains climate researcher Thomas Mölg
Then the next to the last paragraph states…..
The results show that LCC mainly alter precipitation over glaciers but with different effects on the Northern and Southern ice fields of the mountain (increase or decrease respectively), which results in local increase or decrease of glacier mass. “Depending on the season, LCC contributes not more than seven to 17 % to glacier mass loss in the southern sector. We, therefore, cannot confirm the hypothesis that deforestation at Kilimanjaro contributes significantly to glacier loss,” explains Thomas Mölg.
LCC mean Land-Cover Changes. Notice what the author states, and then compare it to what ERL states.
Land-cover changes do not impact glacier loss/We, therefore, cannot confirm the hypothesis
The whole article is available at the link provided. So, once again we are confronted with this question. Are alarmists intentionally deceptive or are they really this stupid?