Environmental Liars

Well, aside from the Village Idiot, Clayton Cramer has been sucked in as well as a ton of other right wing environment-hating bloggers by this graph:

Notice anything interesting? They only show the graph from 2002. Even if their numbers are the same as the GSS numbers, the linear trend will not be indicative of the trend over the last 20 years, or even better, the last 50 or 100 years.

Not only that, but if you actually go find the article from the SPPI, it is indicated that the author is John McLean. McLean has been caught often enough now that he should never be taken seriously, even if he says something that you want desperately to be true. This is taken from a McLean and Harris article:

"In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears. And of these 62 reviewers, 55 had serious vested interests, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial. In addition, almost 60 per cent of all the comments from official IPCC scientist reviewers concerning this crucial chapter were rejected by IPCC editors."

Oh really? Interesting. Of course, it is horribly wrong, but it looks good on the surface. In actuality they are correct about the final draft of the single chapter that they are challenging. The total number of peer reviewers (including a couple unscrupulous frauds) is much higher, more around 300 to 350, with most of that review happening on the important first draft.

Lying about the environment is pathetic and only shows a bias that doesn't care if the facts are behind them or not.

Here is the real graph. Suck it, Clayton.