Anonymous asked: Hey, I love you're blog! I just have a question for you. I've been in a debate with a facebook "friend" who is a serious climate change denier. Now he is point me towards this recently release study: nature(.)com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1589. html which basically says that the earth was hotter back during the roman empire as opposed to now. So this gives him another reason to thing that climate change is just nonsense. What do you think about this article?

Hey Anon,

Thanks for your kind words. You’re referring to this article. There’s a near-English interpretation, here.

Your friend didn’t read nor understand the article. Nor is he aware that the article was written by climate scientists. Nor does it occur to your friend that climate scientists have known for decades the general temperature record from years 0 to 1900. Indeed, the climate scientists that conducted the study state, cite, and imply this…

Regardless, I’d begin by asking him why he trusts these computer models over IPCC climate models. Write down his explanations. Importantly, don’t tell him that these computer models and data sets are the same ones used to confirm anthropogenic climate change (ACC). That should be a fun conversation!

Second, and most importantly, ask him who he thinks conducted this study. Listen carefully to his answer. Paraphrase to create empathy and cordiality. Then explain to him that the authors of the paper are the very scientists that have confirmed and proven ACC.

Anyway, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. My guess is that he’s repeating a right-wing blog post, which I’m sure can be traced to Anthony Watts.

If that’s the case, ask him to explain why his source supports tree ring computer modelling in this instance, but not in any other instance - such as the models used by the IPCC.

If you can, kindly and nicely ask which blog he read posted about the Nature article. Then, later on, search that site’s posts for “tree ring” or “tree rings.” I guarantee you will find post after post attacking tree ring computer modelling and climate modelling generally.

So, again, why would his source blogger support tree ring computer modelling in one instance, but not others? It’ll be fun!

Allow me to drag this out with a quick and dirty example - famous climate denier Anthony Watts claims that this paper is proof that climate change is a hoax because the tree ring data is correct. Yet, for years Watts has attacked modelling of tree rings see, for example, here. What’s the deal?

Finally, as with most deniers, your friend says nothing about the foundational facts that climate change science is based on - that CO2 captures more heat in the atmosphere, that there’s more water vapor, feedbacks are exponential, etc etc. (Again, all this is implicitly stated in that article, btw…).

Alternatively, you could just give up the fact finding mission and tell your friend that he is a genius. Tell him he’s “The One.” It’s up to him to persuade the following of his remarkable discovery:

• Department of Defense, (relieving all branches of military, which have committed to accepting climate change as a national security threat).
• National Intelligence Council
• Every National Academy of Science in the world
• The American Meteorological Society
• Presidents Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, and Johnson. (Note, it was Johnson’s Scientific Advisory Committee that first mentioned climate change was a threat to the US environment in 1965. But, carbon and other GHGs have been known to affect climate since the late 1800s…).
• The Pope

Cheers!

Michael