Bishop Hill went missing three months ago, leaving faithful aide Josh to translate the unpublishable fringe science of the What Warming? conference circuit into the lingua franca of innumeracy, the Op-ed cartoon, witness his storyboard of the recent GWPF event:
It oddly recalls Postmodernism's latest contribution to the jargon wars:
If you can't follow the argument of either, And Then There's Physics features a more meticulous deconstruction of the London conclave:
For those who don’t know, Murry Salby has been suggesting that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is natural, and not anthropogenic. This is so obviously wrong, that I can’t really be bothered going through all the details again. Tom Curtis has a very nice post explaining the different lines of evidence as to why it is anthropogenic. I’ve written some posts aboutMurry Salby. Eli has a couple of posts too. Stoat has a lengthy post, and a much shorter one. Tom Curtis has another post about the Salby Ratio. There’s a lengthy Bishop Hill Discussion Thread (Gavin Cawley’s comments are worth reading).
The bottom line is that Murry Salby’s suggestion that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is natural, not anthropogenic, is clearly wrong. You would like to think that he’s simply confused, but some of what he presents is so obviously wrong and – in the case of the Salby Ratio – rather deceptive, that it’s hard to conclude that someone with his background, doesn’t realise his error. I think anyone with a basic understanding of data analysis and a basic understanding of the carbon cycle should recognise that his suggestions are wrong. I think it’s unfortunate that Judith Curry seems comfortable promoting his presentation without commenting on the scientific credibility of what he suggests.
Update: Richard Telford’s posts are also good (H/T Dikran).
