Hoax bacteria study tricks climate skeptics (and Rush falls for it)

OSLO (Reuters) - A hoax scientific study pointing to ocean bacteria as the overwhelming cause of global warming fooled some skeptics on Thursday who doubt growing evidence that human activities are to blame.

Laden with scientific jargon and published online in the previously unknown "Journal of Geoclimatic Studies" based in Japan, the report suggested the findings could be "the death of manmade global warming theory."

Skeptics jumped on the report. A British scientist e-mailed the report to 2,000 colleagues before spotting it was a spoof. Another from the U.S. called it a "blockbuster."

Blogger skeptic Neil Craig wrote: "This could not be more damaging to manmade global warming theory ... I somehow doubt if this is going to be on the BBC news."

Rush To Judgment

Only the shoddiest of targets fall before the cheapest of shots. This week, Welsh blogger David Thorpe offered a pseudo-study of a non existent CO2 source formatted as an article in a non-existent science journal. The package invited being construed as disproving global warming and sure enough, within 48 hours Rush Limbaugh was repeating it to his 20 million followers as scientific gospel, just as he has regurgitated the assertions of climatological boiler room operators before.

What makes this episode richly comic is less CEI's Iain Murray finding it " a very convincing "study" that claims not only to find a link between "benthic bacteria" and temperature increases,..." or Rush Limbaugh falling for it lock, stock and barrel, but that the talk radio star refused to disbelieve it even when cautioned by a sober scientist on his own side of the political fence.

While Limbaugh staffers, like Marc Morano led the escalation from 'hype ' to 'hoax' in Senator Inhofe's vocabulary , Limbaugh himself failed to fathom the warning about this transparent joke sent him by bona fide climatologist Roy Spencer...

(more)

http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2007/11/rush-to-judgeme.html

Bacteria hoax briefly fools climate sceptics
Filed by Alister Doyle

It must have seemed almost too good to be true to climate sceptics who doubt mounting evidence that global warming is man-made — finally, a report showing that nature is to blame.

Only one problem — it’s a hoax.

Why someone went to the trouble of creating a previously unknown “Journal of Geoclimatic Studies” based in Japan, is anyone’s guess.

The study says bacteria naturally living in sediments of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans emit 300 times more carbon dioxide than industrial activity — one of very few reports to challenge findings by the U.N. climate panel that human activities, led by burning fossil fuels, are “very likely” to be the main cause of warming.

(more)

http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2007/11/08/bacteria-hoax-briefly-fools-climate-sceptics

INTERVIEW: author of spoof paper speaks - Nov 09, 2007

It’s the interview they all wanted. Earlier this week climate change sceptics were receiving an email from one Dr Mark Cox. In this email Dr Cox implored them to write about a tale of “treatment of some academic colleagues by what seems like a kind of ‘climate change mafia’”. Cox’s colleagues had discovered evidence that overthrew the idea of man-made global warming, the email said.

Those who took this email at face value are now looking rather foolish (see our earlier post for details). But why did “Dr Mark Cox” create a fictional journal, write a bogus paper, invent authors, reviewers and implore sceptics to write about the paper? Read on...

After attempting to get hold of the person behind the 'Journal of Geoclimatic Studies' we were contacted by “Dr Mark Cox”. Well, it’s someone who said they were Dr Cox, it could be someone spoofing the spoofer but you have to trust people at some point, even if they are claiming to be people who construct elaborate hoaxs.

Can you tell me your real name?

No

What do you do for a living? Do you work in the climate field and/or have you studied climate change?

I work in a related field

Can you say where?

No

Why did you decide to construct the fake website? Was it purely a joke or did you set out to make people taking your paper at face value look foolish?

Its purpose was to expose the credulity and scientific illiteracy of many of the people who call themselves climate sceptics. While dismissive of the work of the great majority of climate scientists, they will believe almost anything if it lends support to their position. Their approach to climate science is the opposite of scepticism.

Are you surprised at the pick up your coverage has generated?

Not really. Equally ridiculous claims - like those in the paper attached to the "Oregon Petition" or David Bellamy's dodgy glacier figures - have been widely circulated and taken up by the ‘sceptic’ community. But you can explain this until you are blue in the face. To get people to sit up and listen, you have to demonstrate it. This is what I set out to do.

(more)

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2007/11/interview_author_of_spoof_pape.html