Global warming deny-ers and Limbaugh punked by hoax

A hilarious fake report caused the deny-er/Exxon-fed crazies (including the redoubtable Dr. Roy Spencer) to post madness all over the internet, call Rush Limbaugh, and finally eat their words. Here is some of the gibberish from the “report”, supposedly from the (non-existent) Journal of Geoclimatic Studies by (non-existent) researchers from the University of Arizona and the University of Goteborg in Sweden :

It is now well-established that rising global temperatures are largely the result of increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The “consensus” position attributes the increase in atmospheric CO2 to the combustion of fossil fuels by industrial processes. This is the mechanism which underpins the theory of manmade global warming.

Our data demonstrate that those who subscribe to the consensus theory have overlooked the primary source of carbon dioxide emissions. While a small part of the rise in emissions is attributable to industrial activity, it is greatly outweighed (by >300 times) by rising volumes of CO2 produced by saprotrophic eubacteria living in the sediments of the continental shelves fringing the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Moreover, the bacterial emissions, unlike industrial CO2, precisely match the fluctuations in global temperature over the past 140 years.

Here’s the “methods” section of the paper; I think it must spell out some hilarious secret message, but I haven’t discovered the code yet:

Using the data on benthic bacterial populations produced by Parker (2003) and Parker and Birch (2005), we calculated the mean mass of bacteria per square metre of continental shelf between 61°S and 67°N (the primary zones of bacterial activity). Using the Bonner Index of oceanographic dimension (Katsu, 1986) we were then able to employ the LOYDENT4M three-dimensional modelling equation to produce a global estimate of benthic eubacterial mass. This is defined as:

Q³uct + 3Ψ = XFº x Δjy {(∑y,ct79 + θtq-1)- λjc +2}

Δ³-¾Φ²,Ω13b

Where Q is raw mass, u is area, c is osmotic conductivity, Ψ is the vertical (neo-Falkian) benthic discontinuity, X is concretised diachronic invariance (P-series), F is trans-dimensional flow structure and jy is the non-rectilineal harmonic regressivity of the constant Δ.

The control run was defined as:

Q³uct, jyΦ = ∑cy³11

using the relative standard error:

∑Ψ λΔ23=θ2c

This gives an outing variable of less than the value of θ14Ω, which is corrected by the antedenoidal deterministic yield factor j.

The CGM values are located between 0 and 2.25% to account for inter-annual variability of the asynchronistic (counterbifurcated) non-tardigrade log run.

Palaeodata were drawn from Tibbold (1996) and Tibbold and Rawsthorne (1998), using the living bacterial mass : fossil ratio developed by Hering et al (1977) and refined by Xang (2000), then fed into the same LOYDENT4M three-dimensional modelling equation, using control run:

Q²uct, yΦ³= ∑cy³42

Quantified preparations of Polybacter spp were then cultivated in laboratory conditions at a constant temperature of 6°C and a constant pressure of 41 atmospheres and an oxygen content of 2.3% to simulate averaged conditions in the benthic environment (Ragnsdottir 2003). The carbon dioxide released was collected in a Willetts inverter and passed through a zinc-loaded demi-osmotic membrane before being subject to the standard Smithian analysis using the C33 marker.

Carbon dioxide production from the Polybacter sample was calculated as:

161 x Λ³Жญ5,6,1,8Φ-4 = {(ΣΨ²Њyt3 – 14๖P9) x 49}

2β x ⅜kxgt -§

Where δ is bacterial mass, Λ is substrate volume,is the square root of the constant Ψ and Њyt is the polychromatic “coffeeground” Schumann factor for semi-particulate distribution.

The relative standard error was:

δ²Φ – 3hrtЊ

That’s the substance of the new “report;” in addition, the hoaxer added this, to really hook the “conspiracy-against-us” deny-ers:

These findings place us in a difficult position. We feel an obligation to publish, both in the cause of scientific objectivity and to prevent a terrible mistake – with extremely costly implications – from being made by the world’s governments. But we recognise that in doing so, we lay our careers on the line. As we have found in seeking to broach this issue gently with colleagues, and in attempting to publish these findings in other peer-reviewed journals, the “consensus” on climate change is enforced not by fact but by fear. We have been warned, collectively and individually, that in bringing our findings to public attention we are not only likely to be deprived of all future sources of funding, but that we also jeopardise the funding of the departments for which we work.

We believe that academic intimidation of this kind contradicts the spirit of open enquiry in which scientific investigations should be conducted. We deplore the aggressive responses we encountered before our findings were published, and fear the reaction this paper might provoke. But dangerous as these findings are, we feel we have no choice but to publish.

Okay, Roy Spencer, ‘scientist” actually this bought this shit, and ran screaming to his keyboard, firing off missives to Rush Limbaugh and the entire deny-er community.Apparently Limbaugh made some comments on the air about this “new scientific study”, before it was generally realized that this was a hoax, but I don’t have a transcript.

I guess Rush and his pal Dr. Spencer ought to brush up on their scientific notation.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under blogging, George W. Bush: is he really THAT bad?, global warming/environment, Republican politicians: are any of them normal

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