Ozone's joined-up climate
Remember the unseemly rush to biofuels? The sudden impetus from all kinds of bodies including UN institutions, the EU, and governments such as the UK that began about four years ago to ramp up the growing of fuel crops and to adopt liquids made from them as the low-carbon transport panacea?
While the enthusiasm was understandable given the absence at the time of other low-carbon transport "solutions", the thinking was also full of holes.
Some biofuel systems would actually increase emissions, peoples' rights (particularly in rural areas of developing countries) were potentially compromised, and the impacts on biodiversity of coating the surface of the planet in monocrop plantations were also potentially horrible.
You can argue that this state of affairs would never have come about if "the environment" had not been chopped up and partitioned into segments called "climate change", "forests", "biodiversity" and so on.
More holistic thinking - more integrated thinking structures at national and international level - would perhaps have ensured that the downsides were seen earlier in the day, and there would have been no over-eager policy-making and subsequent retrenchment.
Something potentially analogous has been happening with the international agreements that are supposed to deal with climate change and ozone depletion - the UN climate convention (UNFCCC) and the Montreal Protocol.
The latter has met with some success at progressively phasing out ozone-destroying chemicals such as cholorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and methyl bromide.
The job isn't done yet - not least because developing countries have needed more time to make changes than industrialised nations - but it's been going in the right direction, with CFCs themselves due to be eliminated this year apart from a few uses where there's no alternative.
However, there's been a problem. The replacement chemicals, HCFCs, are - like CFCs themselves - potent greenhouse gases; molecule for molecule they are thousands of times more potent than carbon dioxide. They also cause some ozone depletion, though far less than CFCs.
Three years ago, governments decided to accelerate the phase-out of HCFCs too, with target dates of 2020 for industrialised countries and 2030 for the developing world.
But the most likely replacements for HCFCs - HFCs - would still contribute substantially to the man-made greenhouse.
One study published last year concluded that if there were to be a meaningful global agreement to tackle greenhouse gases such as CO2, then by 2050, HFCs could be contributing anywhere between 9% and 45% to the man-made greenhouse effect.
A companion study concluded that by reducing CFC emissions to the atmosphere, the Montreal Protocol had done more by accident to curb global warming than the Kyoto Protocol had achieved intentionally.
Putting all this together led some to conclude that the Montreal Protocol should explicitly be used as another tool to combat climate change - that curbing the "super-greenhouse" HCFCs and HFCs as soon as possible would be a relatively cheap and effective "quick hit".
Well, following a meeting last weekend of the body that funds projects in developing countries to replace ozone-destroying systems - the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol - the notion appears to be all set to come into reality.
Essentially the organisation decided that when it funds a project that replaces HCFCs with something else, it'll pay up to 25% extra if that something else is not an HFC-based system.
Low-warming replacements likely to qualify for the additional funding include, ironically, systems based on CO2, as well as ammonia and hydrocarbons - all methods that were around before the widespread adoption of CFCs, and which look set to outlive them.
The Multilateral Fund has a good track record of raising and disbursing money - without that, there would be far more ozone depletion going on than there is - so as things stand, there's no reason to believe the switch to low-warming systems won't now begin.
According to the Environmental Investigation Agency, the NGO that currently follows the ozone trail in most detail, the decision "provides an incentive for countries to choose low global warming potential (GWP) and energy efficient replacements instead of high-GWP HFCs when phasing out HCFCs".
I can almost hear the exclamations of incredulity - "what, joined-up thinking across the UN?" - but there it is, it appears to be happening.
What lessons for other initiatives? The big mover at the moment is the push to agree a regime for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) under the climate convention.
The lesson of biofuels, surely, is that you narrow the picture at your peril - and the lesson of the Multilateral Fund is that where there are easy inclusive wins, you should grab them.
I'm Richard Black, environment correspondent for the BBC News website. This is my take on what's happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature's resources increases.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~15~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
"The lesson of biofuels, surely, is that you narrow the picture at your peril"
does that apply to CO2 as well???
Complain about this comment
Incrementalism is the nature of all governments. Protect the vested interests. There is no solution that cannot be delayed. We will see if the 100 years of creating the problem will take 100 years to solve. Of course we may not have 100 years. The world of business sees indigenous peoples in the same manner as they saw Asian peoples at the turn of the 20th century, misguided use of their lands and potential cheap labor. Short-term profits with long-term consequences to be paid by someone else. When the primary objective is profit the other concerns are not concerns at all.
Complain about this comment
Joined-up thinking, what the planet needs,
Everything harmonious from us to seeds,
Ecology tells us holism's the way,
The enemy? Specialisation - into which we stray
Complain about this comment
To repeat what I said on a previous blog because to is appropriate to this article.
The west is terrified that compliant regimes in the middle-east could, at any time, be replaced by fundamentalist ones who would use oil as a weapon against countries who resist Islamic law & customs, weapon of mass conversion. This is the real reason for the push for bio-fuels, CO2 is just a pretext. We can grow fuel at home and we can buy vegetable oils from anywhere in the world, it is therefore inevitable that food and energy will soon become two forms of the same product. Prices will equalise causing even bigger food inflation than we have already seen, this will be inconvenient for us in the west but a disaster for the third world. In the years ahead the world will have to face up to population control, possibly population control will be have to be a condition of aid.
Complain about this comment
manysummits:
link you may like: http://www.wri.org/stories/2010/04/angst-action-moving-forward-after-copenhagen
Complain about this comment
// integrated thinking structures at national and international level
Richard, what on earth are you on about ?
Complain about this comment
There's always, this sort of thing:
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/01/S2P
Not a bio-fuel, but you could eventually just make fuel out of thin air - solar furnaces and reaction vessels permitting of course ;-)
It’s not new stuff either and I think that there are a few teams around the world that are working on something similar. I'm not sure how long you're talking before it would be truly commercially viable, especially with the currently increasing oil prices, but it shouldn't be that long in the grand scheme of things.
Plus, no more hacked-down/re-planted forests... Yippee!!
Just you wait.... the price of desert waste land will be going through the roof and that’s without any other advances in commercial solar furnace based power stations, algal reactors or solar cells ;-)
The future's really not all that Black (Sorry Richard, didn't mean to take your name in vain), even if you are of a warmist persuasion.
Given that I'm talking about getting energy from the sun, I might even be tempted into quoting:
"The future's so bright you've gotta wear shades"
Complain about this comment
I've never been a proponent of biofuels.
Why?
In a world full of hungry people, too much "bio" going to make fuel. You can't eat fuel, can you - except in "gas" guzzling?
I think that historically humankind has made a "grave" mistake in not treating nature with respect.
The human attitude appears to have reflected a domineering and abusive character.
If you need water, build a dam; if nature wanted the water blocked where you put the dam, she would have provided a natural blocking mechanism. Need wood, cut down a forest. If nature puts a forest in a precise location, you are gambling with mud slides and floods by chopping it down - to say nothing of the conversion of carbon dioxide into oxygen.
So, as much as possible, if we want to save the ozone layer as well as out little blue planet humans must get creative: Leave Mother Nature alone, build around her gifts, and always leave her the same as, or better off than, you found her.
Complain about this comment
Wow! Joined up thinking! Whatever next?
So Climate Change isn't just about temperature change due to CO2 from Motor Vehicles and its effect on the Oceans and the Amazon!
Gosh, so does this mean that real scientists will be allowed to join the "Climate Debate" without being crucified?
Roll on the day when someone has the temerity to link everything up to form a "real model" of the Earth's Climate (not just UK PLC) to geothermal events, through Solar events (where our daily warmth comes from), to interplanetary events.
After all if King Canute couldn't control the tides (Solar and Lunar effect on the Oceans) what chance, without real knowledge, do we mortals have in influencing the Earth's troposphere, stratosphere and whole oceans?
Common Sense maybe on the horizon? Or is it another ash cloud?
Complain about this comment
#7 should look more carefully at the date of posting of his link... 1st April 2008.
Complain about this comment
Richard,
"The lesson of biofuels, surely, is that you narrow the picture at your peril - and the lesson of the Multilateral Fund is that where there are easy inclusive wins, you should grab them"
Glad to see you, and the World, are moving in the direction of amelioration of the fixing known problems, (as I have been advocating for ages.) Now if we can stop the World wasting money on scheme that will not work that are based on very uncertain science then we will get somewhere!
Complain about this comment
If the rain forests are cleared to make way for bio-fuel plantations that is bad news for orang-utans, but what would you do with an orang-utan if you had one? most people would rather have fuel for their cars. Environmentalism is a western middle class hobby, my hobby is vintage motorcycles, why should one group be able to impose their hobby on everyone else?
Complain about this comment
Smiffie,
what is one has the hobby of trashing vintage motorcycles?
Complain about this comment
ghostofsichuan #13: ...
:-)
Complain about this comment
The really big problem about any alternative fuel/energy source is that it has to be made available, to a mass market, and cheaper than, or at the same price as, fossil fuels or it won't be adapted on a mass scale.
It would also help if it could become as versatile, portable and at the same weight and volume as, say, petrol and diesel.
That's where many seemingly promising emerging alternatives fall down.
I am agnostic on 'peak oil'. But it stands to reason that finite (non-renewable) resources won't last forever, particularly when major developing countries such as India and China place such importance on providing economic growth, so more families have electrical appliances, cars etc.
That the world's population is growing, and increasingly likely to live in cities, creates further stresses on energy production and generation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4561183.stm
According to BP's Statistical Review of World Energy 2009, the world has enough oil reserves to continue production, at current rates, for 42 years.
That is considered optimistic by some; but even so, 42 years time will be within the lifetimes of many readers of this blog, certainly of their children.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601207&sid=a6.7NWiQ5wGw
You can download BP's report from this page on their website.
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9024043&contentId=7045243
After that expect prices to rise very sharply (and be passed onto forecourt and industrial and household energy bills).
It's a fact that we in the UK have already depleted our North Sea gas (according to the energy companies):
http://www.utilityweek.co.uk/features/utility-engineering/gas-storage-will-help-uk-cope.php
North Sea oil reserves will probably run out this century (according to the drilling companies):
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-5263297.html
There are '2nd stage' reserves such as oil shale:
http://www.moneyweek.com/investments/commodities/the-scramble-for-shale-gas-47820.aspx
and possibly methane clathrates.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/09/news/economy/nat_gas_crystals/index.htm
But they are more expensive to extract.
Ironically perhaps, the four greatest coalfields in the world are in China, India, the USA and Russia. (Coal reserves are estimated to last for a couple more centuries yet.)
Otherwise we will import. Every other country will also want to maintain energy supplies; population (and number of our gadgets) grows; yet oil and gas will almost certainly become harder to extract and therefore more expensive.
As I see it we're going to be between a rock and a hard place.
It's one reason why we should be looking hard for alternative energy sources now; irrespective of the climate issue; though that clearly doesn't help.
I support more nuclear power stations BTW. (Though there are obvious problems, particularly with less developed countries; and with the disposal of waste.)
I don't think there is an easy, cheap (or necessarily green) solution to future energy needs.
As I see it, we (or our children) are going to have to face a number of hard decisions this century.
Where our energy comes from (and what the 'cost' is) is one of them.
Complain about this comment
To Ghostofsichuan #5:
Thank you for the link Ghost. A positve note on Copenhagen is welcome.
I have been following Bolivia as best as I can, but I think a few days will have to pass to get a good read on it.
However, I have found a true gem which is almost too good to believe!
"State of the World - 2010 - Transforming Cultures - from Consumerism to Sustainability," by the Wordwatch Institute.
I am half way through it, and I am very impressed.
The crisis we are now in is taken as a given, and individual writers are telling us what is being done in various parts of the world.
It appears that the seeds of change have already been sown - the Grameen Bank as an example. They are only seeds, but it is much more of a start than I was aware of. Everything is being tackled at once, innovatively, but for the most part they are off the mainstream radar, just like the Bolivian Climate Conference.
It would appear, in fact, as though your tenacity in believing that the people will lead us out of this is justified, and that the governments will reluctantly follow.
That's fine with me, as long as progress is being made.
I am particularly intrigued by two phrases from this book:
1) Cultural Pioneers - leading the way through their individual actions and changes in lifestyle.
2) Cultural Entrepreneurs, such as the founder of the Grameen Bank, who are building businesses and employing people with sustainable ideas.
I am off tonight to see and hear in person Ben Gadd, author of "Handbook of the Canadian Rockies," who is a famous and much admired interpretive guide here in Alberta.
He will be speaking on the impending loss of the glaciers just south of Calgary, in Glacier National Park, USA.
Ben is a geologist, or was, and I have his book, and am looking forward to seeing him for the first time in person. Dr. Chaos put me on to the talk, and will be in attendance as well.
The last two or three years I appear, according to the Worldwatch Institute, to have moved through the stages from awareness, to denial and cocooning, on to acceptance and mastery, and finally advocacy and action.
The Icelandic volcano showed us one of those unexpected breakdowns in a complex system, and Bolivians are pushing for an International Court of the Environment.
As I see things, geophysical and geopolitical matters are rapidly coming to a head, and I expect that the next two or three years will see a sea change in thinking, and the denial campaign a thing of the infamous past.
The Actic Sea Ice may be a prime mover, and I expect John Holdren and Barrack Obama and perhaps the Interacademy Panel to turn the corner on climate change politically.
Mark Maslin's book "Global Warming," an Oxford 'very short introduction,' spoke for many of us I suspect when he pointed out that he welcomed global warming, for it would finally force the world to confront the diparities in wealth and power which have so long plagued us all. Further, that if we did not confront these issues and make the world a much fairer place, there was every chance that we would produce runaway environmental crisis.
The pace of change in our collective thinking appears to me breathtaking just now, and not a minute too soon. This morning, as I walked up Signal Hill and surveyed the city, I was imagining a fiture scene, almost devoid of personal transportation, of skies clear of all but a few jet flights, and a clearing atmosphere. People might be working less, and spending time with family and friends and community more - at first out of necessity - and then because it is a higher quality way to live.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Good to have a more positive blog entry. Joined up thinking is always good to see. Hopefully members of the next government, whatever their politics, will read this sort of thing and learn!
Complain about this comment
@uk_is_toast
You might prefer this non-april related link to the same lab's work:
http://www.sandia.gov/LabNews/071207.html
or this report in the independent from the 30th of Jan 2008
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/new-power-generation-alternative-energy-sources-775540.html
or
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071208150135.htm
or maybe you trust James May from Top Gear - just search youtube for
"Converting CO2 to fuel: global warming solved?"
Worth watching, if only for the poor sausage ;-)
I could continue, but what would be the point - You on the otherhand, might want learn to google stuff first..... just a suggestion.
Still, nice try though
Complain about this comment
Biofuels make perfect sense.
The only problem is they can't cope when we suffer from such massive overpopulation.
Reduce the human vermin by at least 50% and the world would be a much better place.
Complain about this comment
I have noticed that actions that countiries would have taken to promote renewable energy are similar in effect to what countries are proposing to combate climate change. Here in the US, the 2 competing bills are the Waxman Markey bill(climate change bill), which relies on cap and trade and the Bingaman bill(clean energy bill), which relies on a renewable energy standard. The Waxman Markey reduces emissions by 17% from 2005 levels. The Bingaman bill sets a renewable energy target of 15% by 2020. That amounts to an emissions reduction of 9% from 2005 levels. Senator Bingaman supports raising the target for renewables to 20% though. Under that scenario, emissions would be reduced by 14-15% from 2005 levels, not that far from the Waxman Markey. I also say this because greenhouse gases mainly come from buring fossil fuels. When we burn fossil fuels, we also release carbon monoxide, chemicals, and particulate emissions that can kill people if inhaled. The climate change bills reduce fossil fuel usage. I say world leaders would have done similar bills and ideas to limit the dangerous pollutants I just mentioned, regardless of whther or not global warming exists.
Complain about this comment
Good that some non "major government" sources are making individual efforts to increase the supply of renewable energy available. Hope would be that some of these could succeed to the point of spurring imitators, and reduce the use of fossil fuels (which, in the end, are finite as far as this planet is concerned.)
Thanks, Mr. Black, for the positive report.
TeaPot562
Complain about this comment
I think people should try some straightforward logic before they attempt "holistic thinking" (whatever that is supposed to mean)!
The "thinking was full of holes" in the "rush to biofuels"? -- Agreed. But the biggest hole of them all is not even mentioned in Richard Black's latest sermon. That mighty "thinking hole" is the assumption that the "same" carbon released into the atmosphere when biofuels are burnt is re-absorbed by the next generation of biofuel plants. A slightly saner (but still mistaken) version of this idea is that the same amount of carbon is re-absorbed by biofuel plants, again in a happy "cycle of non-change".
That could only happen if (1) there were zero economic growth, and (2) plants only grew where humans planted them. But obviously, (1) we live in a world of constant economic and political flux, and if biofuels were economically viable, more and more of them would be used, which would release an ever-increasing amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, just like fossil fuels. And (2) plants of any kind grow wherever they can with or without human intervention. They grow wherever there is water, heat and light, and they all absorb carbon dioxide, whether they are destined to be shredded for the next generation of biofuel cars, eaten by humans, or just sit around as weeds.
The word 'holism' does have a clear use, but in this context it's just a 1960s hippy term for religious conservatism.
Complain about this comment
#19 Graves2002 wrote:
"The only problem is they can't cope when we suffer from such massive overpopulation."
Was there ever a time when the population was at the "correct" level? If so, what was it that made that particular level "correct"?
Thanks to "consumerism", a smaller proportion of humans are dying of hunger than ever before. (Because human parents have fewer children, knowing they will require more maintenance than mere food.)
Complain about this comment
Biofuels are not the answer. They were a greenie sop for politicians to whine about and lay claim to 'saving' the planet.
We need CO2 it is the staff of life/food. Without it we die.
Move on - there is nothing to see here. Suspend all CO2 rantings. Support all oil production. Encourage Nuclear Power generation and above all remove all 'Renewable power' devices and let the world go about its business.
Problem solved.
Complain about this comment
The ozone/CFC issue has interesting lessons.
Do you see millions of ordinary people rising up against the ozone theory? Do you see ordinary people angry about the elimination of CFCs?
No.
Whats so different about global warming? Simple. With the CFC thing no one said 'no more aerosols, no more fridges' they just said keep your cans and fridges but fill them with something else. Simple isn't it? Carry on with same lifestyle, run it on something else. We still have fridges, the ozone hole is diminishing.
Perhaps if 'environmentalists' took the same approach - keep the lifestyle, run it on something else - with global warming they might not be facing mass resistance.
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #22
"religious" again?
Complain about this comment
@Blunderbunny #7 and #18
Thanks for posting the links, I remember reading about this research a few years ago and thinking it's just what the world needs... The CR5 is the sort of technology that could really help when it is mature enough to be scaled up to industrial capacity.
Since you bring up the idea of solar power, I thought I would add a link you may be interested in to a non-profit organisation called "Desertec" (www.desertec.org) who have the long-term goal of setting up solar power plants across the sahara to provide solar power for North Africa, the middle east and Europe (they calculate that this power scheme could potentially supply sufficient energy for 10 billion people). North African political problems aside, I think this is an admirable goal.
This is the sort of action I agree with. Whether you think the problem is GHGs, peak oil, pollution or anything else (most people would agree that at least one of these is an issue) the approach that I think has the best chance of succeeding is providing an economically competetive alternative. The current practice of introducing measures that are supposed to encourage us to cut-down on fossil fuel use isn't working as the evidence is that these measures have resulted in an increase in their use globally during a time when all the politicians have promised cuts. We need some radical new thinking and this is the sort of thinking that may well provide real solutions.
Complain about this comment
Jon112uk at #25
It's true that the public ozone debate didn't get as polarised as the climate debate has become. However, in the context of the negotiations, there was a huge degree of polarisation of attitudes about 'the science', the extent of the probalem, feasibility of alternatives (both practicality from a technical perspective, but also the costs), etc. These did significantly delay progress on reaching international agreements and thus slowed the phase-outs of ozone-depleting substances.
As a side note, we see some of the same players (e.g. Fred Singer) also playing a similar role in the climate debate as they did earlier when it came to discussions on ozone depletion.
Complain about this comment
#26 simon-swede wrote:
'"religious" again?'
Well, the object of the "sustainability" game seems to be a world in which there is no change. There's a place for everything and everything in its place. Humans are healthy and happy as they go out to work in the fields, nurture their children with brown bread, and do all the other fantasy stuff that features in the work of Rousseau, "Children of God" pamphlets from the 1970s, "socialist realism" posters, etc.
This world never existed -- manual labour was always boring and dangerous. So where did these ideas come from? I suggest the Book of Genesis, but of course those unreflective people would deny that because they are not reflective enough to penetrate the superficial appearances of their own limited self-understanding.
Complain about this comment
@Dave_Oxon
We are, at least in relation to this and other similar technologies, as of one mind - Thanks for the link by the way(An HVDC powergrid is also a great idea)
I've posted before on other innovative power technologies and personally I think that they provide a way forwards for all(regardless of any individual's stances on the question of global warming).
If you have the time, it's worth watching the youtube video.
Science should be fun, afterall ;-)
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #29
I would never characterise sustainability in the way you describe. Indeed I don't know anyone who does.
The only person I am aware of who harps on about this theme is you. Perhaps once again it is a case of too much projecting and not enough reflecting on your part?
Complain about this comment
Glad to see that there's concern about the "rights of indigenous peoples". I wonder if any such concern will ever be applied in relation to indigenous people of the UK ? Caledonian Comment
Complain about this comment
#32 Caledonian Comment
Quite right! Out with the Neolithic invaders with their fancy pottery, agriculture and stuff. Give me a good old fashioned british handaxe any day.
Quite right! chuck out all these Romans with their fancy roads and olive oil and stuf. Give me a good old fashioned British pint of beer any day.
Quite right! Chuck out all these ... (Go on - give us the rest!).
Exactly which indigenous foreigner groups do you belong to? I can probably claim membership of ten or more - and I'm as British as they come.
Now can we get back on topic?
Complain about this comment
#31 simon-swede wrote:
"I would never characterise sustainability in the way you describe."
How would you characterize it?
I think that when we scratch the surface of the movement for "sustainability", it looks more and more like a movement to prevent change.
"The only person I am aware of who harps on about this theme is you."
The world is wall-to-wall with people who think "natural = good". That's why it's used in advertisements all over the place, from brown bread to yogurt. But what does "natural" mean, and why should anyone think it's good?
David Hume was another "harpist" like me. He noticed that the word 'natural' can mean a range of different things. For example, it can mean the opposite of "artificial" or the opposite of "supernatural". In the present context, it means something like "traditional", as if there's a "tradition in living things". There is no such tradition.
Complain about this comment
Population control and even population reduction is a theme that often comes up in these pages, could we have some sensible suggestions as to how this might be achieved.
Complain about this comment
manysumitts:
world conference link,: http://envivo.cmpcc.org.bo/?lang=en
Complain about this comment
'Sustainability' can mean almost anything therefore means nothing.
For example it could mean chopping down a rain-forest to grow bio-fuels - or it could mean leaving the rain-forest standing.
It could mean flying to Copenhagen - or it could mean banning all flights.
It's really just a code-word so that eco-lefties can quickly identify each other.
Complain about this comment
ozone/CFC is there actually any evidence to support this theory.
Doom and gloom all the time but not an actual reliable piece of science in any of these greenie, nanny state, total control ideas. Does anybody remember the guy with the board "The end is nigh"?
Precautionary principal gone mad.
The list of "lets save the world" failures is long and expensive, there is not one enviro- measure that has done any good, the vast majority have done more damage. Why? "group think" ideas by concensus and nobody to take responsibility or blame.
Time to give up I think and try and salvage what is left, Evo NGOs are starring into the abyss.
By the way eating chicken makes you gay, guys, according to the latest from the joke of Bolivia, and Westerns go bald due to our diets. You couldn't make it up if you tried.
Complain about this comment
#35 Wolfie, I think it should become a requirement that anybody posting suggestions with regards to population control and reduction should lead by example. Let them go first and slit their throats and then we can consider the event and decide later.
That is Eugenics all over again.
Complain about this comment
When people talk about the indigenous British we all know what is meant, there is no need to point out that the indigenous British have many European ancestors.
Complain about this comment
One for Labmonkey I think, I thought us sceptics were flatearthers (well Gordon Brown said so) Whoops group think at it again?
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/behind-the-science/6826-ipccs-computer-models-based-on-a-flat-earth
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #34: "But what does "natural" mean, and why should anyone think it's good?"
I've told you before; and you've ignored it.
That which is "good" about the current "state" of nature, is that it happens to be the one "state" we know of which supports out existence.
/davblo
Complain about this comment
Jack Hughes #37: "It[Sustainability]'s really just a code-word so that eco-lefties can quickly identify each other."
That deserves a really, really, special place on my list...
I'll just go find it...
/davblo
Complain about this comment
Wolfiewoods #35: "...could we have some sensible suggestions as to how this [population reduction] might be achieved."
How about... we don't have so many babies?
But maybe that's too tough for some people to understand...then maybe we could try to explain to them... how about some incentives? ..oh that would cost money... oh dear...
One things for sure; 'free market forces' aren't going to do it.
People need to reach a level of awareness, which some have, but doesn't seem to be appreciated much by those who don't...
(cue for bowmanthebard to say it's all religion)
/davblo
Complain about this comment
Kamboshigh #39: "Let them go first and slit their throats..."
Wow; another for my list...
I think bowmanthebard should explain to you the (percieved) difference between denying an existing life "existence" and denying a potential life existence. (He's already made the point many times. Where have you been?)
/davblo
Complain about this comment
38.Kamboshigh: "ozone/CFC is there actually any evidence to support this theory. Doom and gloom all the time but not an actual reliable piece of science..."
Shorter Kamboshigh: I don't know therefore I know
Complain about this comment
#42 davblo wrote:
'That which is "good" about the current "state" of nature, is that it happens to be the one "state" we know of which supports out existence.'
Translation: the "current dispensation" is by definition good.
simon-swede please note: we don't just live and die, according to davblo -- something "supports our existence"!
Let me remind you that everything that is born dies, sooner or later. So the current dispensation metes out death with the same diligence as it "supports our existence". Past "dispensations" meant death came sooner rather than later. So the current dispensation is better than the past dispensation in respect of life expectancy (and the large current population of the Earth reflects that).
Please note that people of the past praised the "current dispensation" for "supporting their existence" -- even though it did so a little less supportively than the current dispensation "supports our existence"!
Complain about this comment
I did say sensible suggestions re population control, how about contraception aid, giving women the choice of how many times they want to give birth in a mud hut without medical backup. by the way, I have had the snip.
Complain about this comment
Go on Davblo, give us your definition of "sustainability".
So we can decide if some action is "sustainable" or not.
Complain about this comment
@ Kamboshigh
There is no reason why a an AGW sceptic should not be concerned about over population, I think that it is the real threat to humanity, not CO2.
Complain about this comment
The world population growth rate is estimated to be 1.13%. Most of the industrialized countries are at less than 1% and many are in a negative. This is not the problem one may think as the adjustments are being made without some call from the industrialized world that the poor may be infringing on their lifestyle by wanting some share of the resources. The defenders of enviornmental degradation through the continued use of fossil fuels want no part of pricing related to costs and competiton for these resources will certainly make that happen. Many have a colonialism mentality of the West having entitlement to whatever it is they want and that the world should be subservient to those desires. The masters are always asking for more restraints when the poor start showing ambition beyond subsistence.
Complain about this comment
It's not the only one around, but I'll throw in here the Brundtland Commission definition of sustainability - which is still widely used and quoted:
"forms of progress that meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs"
No-one advocating this kind of sustainability, therefore, is advocating an absence of progress.
Complain about this comment
"forms of progress that meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs"
What a completely empty exercise in euphemism. Everything every generation does affects future generations, for better or worse, and every generation is nearly clueless as to whether what it does is for better or worse.
That definition is a disguised way of saying: "make sure everything stays the same -- the way it was in Rousseau's naturist fantasy".
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard @53 you say:
"make sure everything stays the same -- the way it was in Rousseau's naturist fantasy".
The best, most in depth and succinct reply I have seen on this blog for a very long time. Keep them coming........
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #34
For me, when talking about environmental issues, sustainability is usually used in the context of development, i.e. sustainable development.
That coupling of sustainable with development speaks against your notion of sustainability being about things remaining the same or preventing change.
My thanks to Richard for posting the Bruntland text: "forms of progress that meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs".
There you have it - it encapsulates the notion of progress.
In order to do so requires innovation not stagnation, and certainly will not be achieved by looking backwards.
Complain about this comment
Good News..
What no headlines at the bbc, if the opposite there would be?
Predictions of catasrophic ice loss, seems to be not true!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/22/earth-gives-us-an-earth-day-present-arctic-sea-ice-is-highest-for-this-date-in-9-years/
"As of today, JAXA shows that we have more ice than any time on this date for the past 8 years of Aqua satellite measurement for this AMSRE dataset. Yes, it isn’t much, but if this were September, and the sea ice minimum was down by this much compared to all other years, you can bet your sweet bippy we’d see it screamed in news headlines worldwide.
Of course some will argue that it “doesn’t matter” in the context of trend, or that it’s just a “weather” blip. Let us remind our friends of such blips the next time a heat wave or a storm is cited as proof of global warming.
What can be said about the short term trend in Arctic sea ice is that for the past two years, it has recovered from the historic low of 2007. It recovered in 2008, and more in 2009. If today’s Earth Day gift is any indication, it appears that it is on track now for a third year of recovery in 2010 as we’ve been saying at WUWT since fall of 2009"
Complain about this comment
Arctic temperature record false?
When considering the climate, we must make sure the temperature record is accurate. Anthony Watts has this reports, which appears to show the Arctic actually isn't warming, there appears to be serious problems with the instruments / data.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/22/dial-m-for-mangled-wikipedia-and-environment-canada-caught-with-temperature-data-errors/#more-18812
How about investigating this for us, Richard?
Warmist regards
/Mango
Complain about this comment
#55 simon-swede wrote:
"For me, when talking about environmental issues, sustainability is usually used in the context of development, i.e. sustainable development."
That's quite unusual -- the standard rhetoric of "sustainability" assumes that what should be "sustained" is the energy supply, not an increase in demand for energy. It suggests steady state, not steady progress. In fact the standard rhetoric is generally hostile to progress, and tends to refer to it in sneering quotation marks as "progress" as a gesture of contempt.
"Sustained development" is the same as sustained growth, isn't it? -- I'd guess that the quest for sustained growth sounds too like a capitalistic thirst for progress and profit to most people who use the rhetoric of sustainability. In contrast with your version, the usual rhetoric suggests that we'd all be better off living a more "natural" existence, in "harmony with nature", with no growth at all in the population, or in industry, with less air travel rather than more as sustained development requires, fewer cars and fewer roads rather than more as sustained development requires, with less globalization not more, and so on.
Complain about this comment
simon-swede @55 you quote:
“without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs".
Crystal balls, taro cards, prophecies? Not taking into account natural global disasters. Or is it just best guesses work. What do you claim as your basis for future predictions?
Did you believe that we could support 7 billion population a few years ago? Or would you have complained that we would be buried under a pile of horse manure?
I would also recommend looking as far backwards as possible when making decisions on moving forward. We have always been there before in some way or other. Our present is only a point in time. It does not tell us anything about the future.
I’d say you are succumbing to “Rousseau's naturist fantasy”. I really like that quote.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #58: "...with less air travel rather than more as sustained development requires, fewer cars and fewer roads rather than more as sustained development requires..."
More, more, more?
Development doesn't have to mean more of everything. How many "horse and carts" have you seen recently? Developments in communication could (should) lead to less need for travelling.
Recognising the need for sustainability can steer the directions of development. If we recognise that filling the country with more and more cars is "unsustainable" then we need to develop better solutions.
/davblo
Complain about this comment
@MangoChutneyUKOK
Yep, I'm with you. The artic stations and that way that the data is being collected is a very serious problem and worthy of a bit of investigative journalism. What say you Richard, are you up for the task? Could be a BAFTA in it for you........... Not to mention worldwide Kudos.
The case of the missing M’s so to speak (Any minute now Agatha Christie will pop up). GISS have already had to correct the recent Finland error and it seems that this problem is apparently endemic. The Recent Arctic Temperature records may all be in need of a severe revision downwards. I just can't believe that their METAR data quality is so poor..... or that it takes other parties to have to point this out to them.
On the plus side, if as a result of any revisions the Artic anomalies disappear then I'm afraid it's mostly all over for the warmists, bar all the agonised squealing of course ;-)
It’s definitely going to be fun watching this one play out.
Complain about this comment
#60 davblo wrote:
"Development doesn't have to mean more of everything."
But it has to mean more of something.
"Developments in communication could (should) lead to less need for travelling."
But that's made possible by the creation of more channels of communication (such as optic fibre cables). More, not less!
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #62: "But it has to mean more of something"
Sorry. You stated (#58) "...with less air travel rather than more as sustained development requires, fewer cars and fewer roads rather than more as sustained development requires.."
ie. that you think "sustained development" requires, specifically, more "air travel", more "cars" and more "roads".
Are you withdrawing that claim?
/davblo
Complain about this comment
@57 @61
So all that ice that melted last summer and over the last ten years that did not really happen it was just the temp. data was incorrect.
When it all melts again this summer they can just correct the data and it will all freeze again. This is comforting.
Complain about this comment
#63 davblo wrote:
"you think "sustained development" requires, specifically, more "air travel", more "cars" and more "roads".
"Are you withdrawing that claim?"
No, I think progress/development definitely involves more commerce, more travel and most important of all, more individual freedom to travel. Throughout history, progress has involved increasing freedom of movement, with travel and movement of goods becoming faster, cheaper, safer, and more voluminous. Progress in this area might conceivably involve fewer personal cars, as long as individuals get some other sort of vehicle to replace them such as helicopters or hovering Jetson-mobiles! (This would be similar to the way cars replaced horses and carts.)
Complain about this comment
The ice melts as it always does each summer. the last few years the WIND, and SEA currents pushed it south.. ie to warmer parts of the ocean..
It is still VERY cold in the artic even in the summer months..
Who is to say whether the 1979-200 average was not higher extent than the longer term average, as we have no satellite recors before this..
Historic maritime records of 60, 100, 150 years ago, do say the artic had fluctuations like this before.. The sailors have discussed many times the opening up of a northwest passage before.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #65: "Progress in this area might conceivably involve fewer personal cars,..."
So I'll take that as a "Yes" despite you reluctance to admit it.
/davblo
Complain about this comment
#67 davblo wrote:
bowmanthebard #65: "Progress in this area might conceivably involve fewer personal cars,..."
You conveniently snipped something important here: more air travel. If some technological advance leads to fewer cars, it can only lead there by promoting more of other forms of travel, presumably by air.
Most of us like the abstract idea of living in a rural idyll, but the real world can never become such a place, and it never did resemble such a place, despite what Rousseau and Engels liked to think. Ordinary people value the ability to visit family members, to travel abroad, to choose specialized kinds of work in other countries and cities, to buy specialized or exotic types of food and goods. All of these require ease of travel.
Complain about this comment
@ezeezee #64
So all that ice that melted last summer and over the last ten years that did not really happen it was just the temp. data was incorrect.
No, the ice did melt. Don’t make the assumption that ice melt is caused by AGW and you will see there are other causes such as wind, ocean currents etc., all of which are perfectly natural.
Warmist regards
/Mango
Complain about this comment
@ezeezee #64
First things first, ice always melts in an interglacial period. It even sublimates below zero. So ice never is, was or will be a constant.
You've only got to go and find yourself a nice U-shaped valley or a Fjord or a even a Pyramidal peak to see how dynamic ice truly on this little rock that we call home. Still, perhaps you weren't paying that much attention during your Geography Lessons.
Then, as was pointed out by esteemed colleague above in post #66 you've only got a very limited set of reliable data on what is or is not "normal" ice coverage - wind and currents etc will all play a part.
Plus, whatever any of our opinions on the matter are, the Arctic ice cap's doing very well at the moment. It even seems to bouncing back towards the median for the second time in a number of weeks - It's certainly well within 2 std devs of the 1979 - 2000 median and what might be considered "normal" at the moment.
But finally, and most importantly really. There are some definite errors in the Arctic stations data, there's the missing M's and there appear to be some other anomalous readings too and it's these readings that, at least in part, lend that lovely/cheery red glow to the northern portion of the GISS temp anomaly maps.
All in all, it's really not looking to good for our friendly little Arctic anomaly ;-)
So, this really is quite important and it's certainly worth those on both sides of the argument/discussion checking it out.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #68: "...presumably by air."
Not like you to presume things.
pre·sume (pr-zm)
v. pre·sumed, pre·sum·ing, pre·sumes
v.tr.
1. To take for granted as being true in the absence of proof to the contrary
Isn't that a religious trait?
/davblo
Complain about this comment
@Richar_Black #52 wrote:
It's not the only one around, but I'll throw in here the Brundtland Commission definition of sustainability - which is still widely used and quoted:
"forms of progress that meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs"
---------------------------------------------------------
I would prefer the following modification:
"forms of progress and development which meet the needs of the present and support the ability of future generations to meet their needs"
your thoughts?
I would apply this particularly to the two biggests issues we face today (in my view) - land use and water use.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
blunderbunny @ 70
I think these anomalies in the temp records as regards Finland certainly have been shown to not amount to a can of beans in the great scheme of things so your just clutching at straws.
As regards the ice melting well maybe it is just a blip but the way i see it the blips are coming fast and furious and starting to sound like a continous scream that things are warming up.
The big problem trying to pretend that AGW is of no concern is that as each day goes by the evidence mounts up more and more and as there is nothing anybody can do to stop it even sceptics like yourself will very soon find it difficult to deny it anymore.
Anyway for now i am sure nothing i could say will make you change your mind and vis versa. I have been reading the replies to Richards blogs for a few months and have been highly informed and entertained and hope it continues thus.
Complain about this comment
To Ghostofsichuan #36:
Thank you for that link! (http://envivo.cmpcc.org.bo/?lang=en)
I followed it as soon as I read your post this morning and was treated to a one hour personal interview by Democracy Now of President Evo Morales.
What a fine face this man has. My wife Underacanoe pointed that out to me.
To say I was impressed would be to understate on a massive scale.
I have not seen a political leader of this quality since John Kennedy.
"Implement the Kyoto Protocol," and fulfill its obligations, says this man.
And he is right, of course.
Today your typical westerner thinks no more of breaking his word than breathing, all in the name of dispassionate reason. In fact, breaking your word is just that - a profane act.
I am glad to see the United Nations sent a personal representative of the Secretary General, and that she endorsed this people's conference, pointing out that the only counter to big government and big business is the will of the people, which must be demonstrated to be effective.
Ghost, I had been trying to follow the conference from blogs and youtube. This Democracy Now seems a new way of reporting information?
I am reminded of how you always give up one thing for another. In pursuing the science of global warming and environmantal degradation, I missed entirely how to link to this conference.
Thank you again for providing this link - the only one who has. I am dissapointed that Richard Black and the BBC could not find the time or the courage to report fully on this conference. Dissapointed is also an understatement.
=================
I have just printed off the 'Opinion' piece in Nature, 22 April 2010 v. 464, by Joeri Rogeli and Malte Meinhausen et al:
"Copenhagen Accord pledges are paltry."
Good title - succinct and to the point.
==============
Thoughts:
It looks like we can restructure capitalism so that it works in the public interest - or dismantle it.
The Deep Horizon platform rig which just sank in the Gulf of Mexico is our latest black eye - more to come.
The Solar Dynamics Observatory is working exceedingly well - the pursuit of knowledge is an honorable way of life.
I am hoping for a communique from James Hansen, to get his first hand impressions on Bolivia, where the pan flutes still work their magic.
- Manysummits, in Calgary -
Complain about this comment
Re 57. MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:
"How about investigating this for us, Richard?"
Investigate what? There's a whole load of bad assumptions you are making. To mention just two, you assume that the effect of these errors on the long term temperature record is:
a) significant
b) contributes a warming trend rather than a cooling trend
Show the feasibility of a) then there is something to demonstrate. Until then it's just more whisling in the wind.
61. blunderbunny wrote:
"It’s definitely going to be fun watching this one play out."
Remember the whole "warming is caused by 1990s station dropoff" claims? That one played out. Turned out it was rubbish. Skeptics should actually "play out" their claims before they make them. Before they demand others to do an investigation they should do the investigation themselves.
Notice the asymetry at work here. When skeptics make premature accusations and spread them all over the internet they create doubt in the science. But when those accusations are scrutinized and found to be false the doubt in the science remains, noone reports that science is sound on the matter. Skeptics have moved on to some other argument. Skeptics also never suffer from their own errors and poor workmanship. What should happen is doubt is created in their own work in future if they keep making mistakes.
Complain about this comment
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/04/23/an-inconvenient-provocateur/
a really good interview with an actual climate scientist. suggest all read.
Complain about this comment
Combating climate change: lessons from the world’s indigenous peoples
by Evo Morales, President of Bolivia
Excerpt:
"We first expected about 10,000 people to attend, but in the end more than 31,000 people were present from more than 140 countries. Forty eight governments were represented by heads of state, ministers or other officials. Everyone came to work, in particular to produce concrete documents and proposals on 17 different themes related to the single most important issue of our lifetime."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-0423-morales-20100423,0,6422441.story
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
@infinity #75
no point in arguing with you, infinity, either you didn't read the link or didn't understand it or you are in denial
warmist regards
/Mango
Complain about this comment
I read the link, perhaps you didn't because it doesn't imply what you think it does.
There's no point in arguing with me Mango because you don't have a valid argument. The evidence is overwhelming that the arctic has warmed in recent decades and that elevated temperature has contributed to sea ice decline.
Complain about this comment
#71 davblo wrote:
"pre·sume (pr-zm)
v. pre·sumed, pre·sum·ing, pre·sumes
v.tr.
1. To take for granted as being true in the absence of proof to the contrary
Isn't that a religious trait?"
Proof is strictly for mathematics -- in the real world there are all sorts of things we have to take for granted, depending on the context.
Complain about this comment
#73 ezeezee wrote:
"The big problem trying to pretend that AGW is of no concern is that as each day goes by the evidence mounts up more and more and as there is nothing anybody can do to stop it even sceptics like yourself will very soon find it difficult to deny it anymore."
You know, I really, genuinely, sincerely hope you're right. I take pride in my ability to change my mind about things, so I look forward to a bit of correction. And I'm really, really, really getting sick of the endless cold here in the British Isles. I haven't experienced decent summer weather since the last time I was in Kuwait about three years ago.
Complain about this comment
@Infinity
First thing is I don't think you read the link that Mango provided and secondly it's already been shown to be significant, You need only check the Finland changes, where the GISS anomaly Map went from a Bright Cherry Red to a lovely Cool Blue.
If you now have the same problem in the Arctic Data, then you now have a very neat and tidy explanation for the Anomalous Northern Hemisphere winter warming ;-)
Anyways, I'm getting ahead of myself, please just read the link Mango provided.
Complain about this comment
#75 infinity wrote:
"When skeptics make premature accusations and spread them all over the internet they create doubt in the science. But when those accusations are scrutinized and found to be false the doubt in the science remains, noone reports that science is sound on the matter."
"Science is sound on the matter"? -- How on Earth does anyone find out that this is the case, as presumably someone must before reporting it?
Complain about this comment
I remember around 8 months ago the 'wattsupwiththat' campaign to expose the urban heat effect and its contribution to the US. surface record was a big thing. The statisticians and those who know what they're talking about maintined all along that the avergaging process used was more than robust enough to deal with anomolies in poorly sited stations.
Well there was an investigation and it revealed that the poorly sited stations had a negligible effect, if anything, there was a slight cooling bias from the 'poorly sited stations'. A cooling bias!!
The issue here is that the average sceptic (and the odd washed up weatherman) can afford to only reach one dimension of sophistication, yet scientists whose life's work it is to maintain the robustness of these measurements must see the problem in full 4D.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#72 LarryKealey wrote:
"I would prefer the following modification:
"forms of progress and development which meet the needs of the present and support the ability of future generations to meet their needs"
"your thoughts?"
I know you're asking Richard Black for his thoughts, but for what it's worth, here is my thought:
Needs are always under-met. In other words, there are vast numbers of people whose health needs are not met, whose food needs are not met, whose educational needs are not met. These unfortunate many are either dying of diseases, living on the borderline of malnutrition, and/or living hopeless lives because they cannot read or regard themselves as peers of the rest of humanity.
Unfortunately, this dreadful situation is almost a biological inevitability, although we can and should take steps to alleviate it as much as we can.
So your understanding of sustainability strikes me as being a bit short on biology.
Complain about this comment
#85 DrBrian wrote:
"The suggestion that AGW skepticism is a form of madness should have provoked a lively clash with the word Stalinist thrown around."
Yeah. I was sort of rooting for Nick Clegg until last night's debate, when he called me a "nutter", a "homophobe" and an "antiSemite". I'm real sensitive guy and take that sot of thing personal.
Goodbye Nick Clegg.
Complain about this comment
@SR and Infinity
It seems that we've upset you, I can't imagine how.
And I personally I work better in either 10 or even 11 dimensions, 4 seems a tad too restrictive to me. Still, each to their own.
If the METAR measurements in question were truly robust we wouldn't be having this conversation, now would we?
So, I guess the question really is:
How unrobust can they be and yet still be valid?
As I said before it's going to be a fun watching this one play out.
Complain about this comment
82. blunderbunny wrote:
So much wrong.
"First thing is I don't think you read the link that Mango provided"
I did.
"secondly it's already been shown to be significant"
No it hasn't.
"You need only check the Finland changes"
Which are not the same thing.
"where the GISS anomaly Map went from a Bright Cherry Red to a lovely Cool Blue."
"If you now have the same problem in the Arctic Data"
We don't.
"then you now have a very neat and tidy explanation for the Anomalous Northern Hemisphere winter warming"
How do you explain the fact that the satellites show pronounced warming in the arctic lower troposphere?
"I'm getting ahead of myself, please just read the link Mango provided."
I thinking "getting ahead of myself" is a general problem of the entire skeptic blogosphere...
Complain about this comment
Hopefully Richard Black and the BBC will see the story here:
Judith Cury is a very respected seniot climate scientists, NOT A SCEPTIC
The commentator: Judith Curry
"Given their selection of CRU research publications to investigate (see Bishop Hill), the Oxbourgh investigation has little credibility in my opinion."
That would be from none other than Judith Curry, the respected Georgia Institute of Technology climate scientist, whose outspoken commentary on Climategate has put her at odds with many of her colleagues
Comment 48 Stands Out, just a small part:
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/04/17/some-spicy-curry/
"I absolutely disagree that the proprietors of the technical skeptical blogs are not open minded. I can only speak for the ones that I have gotten to know somewhat, such as Steve McIntyre, Lucia Liljegren, Andrew Montford and a few others.
I frankly find them to be more polite and less nasty than many of the “warmist” bloggers. Maybe you didn’t catch my (negative) review of Lindzen and Choi over on climateaudit? Re Douglass et al., they have a new paper in the mill, i expect it will be widely discussed.
I don’t care very much about credibility with my peers, if my peers are objecting to my attempts at open and honest dialogue on this topic.
I am too senior and sufficiently well established in my position that I don’t need any credibility from my peers.
So, my peers won’t elect me to the National Academy of Science or whatever?
Big deal, seems like that is about the worst they can do to me. Clobber me in peer review? So what, I can get funding from the private sector and publish on the blogs. So I won’t easily be intimidated by my peers, or anyone else for that matter. See, the reactions of the “warmists” to my activities have created a monster "
And Judith Curry again:
"The corruptions of the IPCC process, and the question of corruption (or at least inappropriate torquing) of the actual science by the IPCC process, is the key issue. The assessment process should filter out erroneous papers and provide a broader assessment of uncertainty; instead, we have seen evidence of IPCC lead authors pushing their own research results and writing papers to support an established narrative. I don’t see much hope for improving the IPCC process under its current leadership."
Complain about this comment
Manysummits:
Governments don't understand the damage they have done with their own citizens. Everyone saw from what happened with the banks and how after all they did no one was punished and the people had no recourse. People will go back to communties solving problems, they always do when the governments fail. Things are changing and not because of the science but because people understand what is in their own best interest. They see the oceans with less fish and fishing villages disappearing, they see the farmers not able to survive, they see the polluted rivers, they smell the air. The will to survive is the strongest and both business and governments are working against that, so things will change. Things will get difficult because everything being done is to shore up the status quo, the status quo that failed. The catholic church handling of the pedophile issue is no different than the governments handling of what the bankers did...lies and cover-up....the truth will arise about those resposnible to uphold the ideals are the ones who betray them and once that confidence is lost it can not be regained unless things are in a different form. China grows because of opporunties for the middle class and the West suffers because the middle class has been abused by the banks and the governments. Arrogance and ignorance. Betraying people for money is the worst thing people do, it is why the story of Judas has remained so long. It was the Treaty of Nanjin when the Chinese people felt betrayed by their leaders and all confidence was lost and things were put in motion that have lead to today. Step by Step.
Complain about this comment
For the attention of the BBC:
Judith Curry Again:
"I have stated my motives time and again for getting involved in this discussion. One element of scientific integrity is when to speak up vs when to stay silent. The Georgia Tech students and alumni expected me to speak out on this issue, which is why i wrote my initial essay over at climateaudit. At the beginning, i tried to limit my personal exposure on this and was very leery of getting misquoted by the media. When others failed to speak up, I felt that I needed to step up to the plate.
As to the “execrable” timing and unhelpfulness, i don’t know what this means. In terms of naivete, its a charge I don’t particularly object to, but I’ve talked to a broad range of people, read widely, and taken a lot of lumps in the process. So my “naivete” would be cured how? I guess the problem is that i am a “moderate warmist” without a policy agenda. My lack of a policy agenda regarding CO2 mitigation means my focus is on worrying about the quality, integrity and uncertainty of the science than about saving the planet based on this highly uncertain scientific research. I seem to lack the hubris of some of my peers in this regard.
My so called maverick position is square in the middle, how is being in the middle a maverick position?
Re the funding behind the enviro groups vs the industry funded denial machine, yes to my knowledge the enviro groups are MUCH better funded. It would be a worthwhile effort to tally all this up.
So how has the “denial machine” stymied the AGW movement? The AGW movement made the BIG mistake in thinking that they were fighting another “big tobacco” war, and pointed their guns in the wrong direction. While they were trying to shoot down the libertarian think tanks and their oil company funding sources, there was a very large group of bottom up grass roots skeptics in academia (including geologists, physicists, statisticians) and in the blogosphere. By wasting time on a witch hunt trying to find oil company links to Lindzen, McIntyre, etc, they inadvertenly empowered the grass roots skeptical group in the blogosphere.
Just because i’ve attended a few conferences and had some trips arranged by enviro advocacy groups doesn’t mean I’m in their pay and under their influence (i have been scrupulous in not taking any funds). By the some token, if any of the skeptics attend the heartland conference or give a presentation at the Marshall Institute, this doesn’t mean they are in the pay of big oil. By wasting so much energy on this kind of witch hunt, the climate change movement failed to effectively counter what was going on in the grass roots skeptical movement.
So how do we proceed from here? We need some open, rational discourse on a range of topics from openness and transparency in the science, improvements to the assessment process, a dialogue on an expanded range of policy options, the politics of climate science, improved communications, etc."
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/04/17/some-spicy-curry/
Yet on Newswatch just now, I just heard that Richard Black and Roger Harrabindo a good job at the bbc, advising people that not every program needs to balance up debate with a climate chnage sceptic..
why do they ALWAYS leave out the 'man made' climate change bit..
NO one is sceptical of climate change (natural)
And Judith Curry is NOT a sceptic, she has just been trying to have a debate with them
Complain about this comment
If the IPCC declared today that they had it all wrong and CO2 was not a problem what would change? We are already burning oil, coal and gas as fast as we can.
Many of the comments here seem to imply that our style is being seriously cramped by lots of environmental mumbo jumbo but i dont see that is happening at all. The market for plastic whatnots,kenyan green beans, gas guzzling 4+4s seems very busy round my way.
If your a skeptic whats the gripe? Things are just how you'd want them to be aren't they?
Complain about this comment
The last couple of weeks has taught the world population a few new things. A volcano popping its cork in Iceland has implications for nearby habitations. The same volcano has implications for inhabitants of countries far away. Our interconnectivity means that a crisis at point A can also be critical for those living at point B. In Europe we have found out that our neatly packaged chopped fruit etc. is flown directly from its point of origin and has a massive carbon footprint. We have also found out that if we chose to take exotic holidays then we have to take the consequences of that choice when things go wrong.
I personally have learned a lot. Naturally, if the news tells us that airports are not operating, we look up at the sky if there are aircraft or aircraft like objects moving around. My own curiosity was aroused when I saw a bright orange-coloured light in the dark sky when all aircraft were grounded. I know now that it wasn't a planet (or a UFO; or a chinese lantern) but a trick of vision. The single orange light was a light from an air craft flying at low altitude and heading directly towards us. This action gave the light the appearance of stillness and it was only when it banked off to the side that the tell tale back light became visible. I can only say this because I watched the same phenomenon very closely this week. The appearance of the orange colour was probably due to volcanic dust.
After watching the latest film Agora this week, it set me thinking about how easily even the greatest philosophers and specialists can be fooled by observations. Once an idea is approved it can so easily become indisputable fact even if the idea is wrong. We all have to constantly challenge our own observations and our own belief systems.
The beauty of this blog agora is that all data can be challenged by anyone. Sometimes there is a strong sense of animus here but I suppose that is natural. Is one allowed to be agnostic about global warming? I believe the global environmental changes are innate but potentiated by anthropogenic interactions and solar system interactions.
To manysummits,
I took your advice that day, a while ago; and copied and read the document you suggested. I still have the copy and I still read it to remind myself of how things really are.
Complain about this comment
On the subject of biofuel.
How do biofuel manufacturers get rid of the natural sticky resins in the fuel? Once-upon-a-hundred years ago I used to use vegetable oil to cook chips and I clearly remember the sticky residue glued to the side of the chip pan. Do the manufacturers process the biofuel to get rid of the sticky resins or are people driving around with chip-pan motors?
Complain about this comment
93. ezeezee wrote
"If the IPCC declared today that they had it all wrong and CO2 was not a problem what would change? We are already burning oil, coal and gas as fast as we can."
ezeezee. You're mixing up the AGW hysteria with sustainability.
What would change is that we would save the estimated £18 billion per year for the next 30-40 years voted by our naive Parliament to combat the non-existent threat of man-made global warming.
Some of that vast sum could be spent on worthwhile sustainability projects, dams for water conservation, nuclear power, re-forestation, GM projects etc.
Instead we are hell-bent on de-industrialising the West and our grandchildren will have lives of relative poverty. All for nothing!
Complain about this comment
BBC Newswatch yesterday
(Fiona Fox) and she is doing a review for the Science Minister!!!!
"to have a sceptic in every interview is misleading the public about 'climate science'" - Fiona Fox
"People like Richard Black and Roger Harrabin, fighting internally to say we DON'T have to have a sceptic every time we have a climate story."
Fiona Fox: Chaired a report, for Lord Drayson, the science minister, looking into the quality of science reporting 6 months
Quality of science reporting
"Fight the good fight for accuracy, in fact
On Climate change there has been a real change..
People like Richard Black and Roger Harrabin, fighting internally to say we DON'T have to have a sceptic every time we have a climate story."
Fiona Fox is about 6 minutes in..
Definetly worth watching the whole program, my wife spotted this program last night.
BBC Trusts, been asked to lead a review of the BBC's coverage of science, especially 'climate change' review
Worth watching, the whole program 15 minutes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/newswatch Newswatch 23/04/2010
Are the environment team bbc man made 'climate change' news media gatekeepers
Complain about this comment
#92 Barry Woods wrote:
"why do they ALWAYS leave out the 'man made' climate change bit.."
There is a widespread but largely unexamined assumption that were it not for man, the climate would stay the same. It is ironic that most of the people who call us "climate change sceptics" (and omit the "man-made" bit) have the vague idea that there's something "eerie and unnatural" about climate change, and it wouldn't happen but for man foolishly "tinkering with nature"...
In other words, they don't believe in natural (i.e. non-man-made) climate change. In other words they are "climate change sceptics"!
Complain about this comment
Just a last word for a while,
I have just watched an entire U-tube lecture by Prof. Steve Jones about genetics, evolution and natural selection and am now wondering which genetic traits will be the most desirable and successful in a world of climate change. Any ideas?
Complain about this comment
drbrian @ 96
Isn't the premise that man producing huge amounts of CO2 is placing us in a non-sustainable position so the 18 billion tax is presumably to move us to a sustainable position thereby ensuring our grandchildren will have a future?
Complain about this comment
To Ghostofsichuan & Sensiblegrannie:
Here in southern Alberta we have had back to back droughts in 2008 and 2009.
The summer forecast for 2010 is for more drought.
When I went to the Livingstone Firelookout last week, where the Oldman River comes out of the front range of the Rockies onto the eastern slope, I thought things looked particularly dry, but I am no expert here. The cattle had their young ones with them - a scene far removed from life in the city. I wondered how it would feel to have lived as a rancher.
Communities:
Step by step, awareness is growing about global warming. In Bolivia the near disappearance of some of their glaciers makes it easier to see, while here in Calgary, a drought is often viewed as just nicer weather, i.e., warmer and sunnier.
We may need to expand our feelings of self-interest to a wider community, now that we have become so co-dependent.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
#99 sensibleoldgrannie wrote:
"which genetic traits will be the most desirable and successful in a world of climate change. Any ideas?"
Plasticity of mind.
Complain about this comment
98. bowmanthebard wrote:
"There is a widespread but largely unexamined assumption that were it not for man, the climate would stay the same."
There is recognition that if it were not for man there would be no reason to expect global mean temperature to change many degrees Celsius within the period 1900AD-2200AD.
Complain about this comment
100.ezeezee wrote.
"Isn't the premise that man producing huge amounts of CO2 is placing us in a non-sustainable position so the 18 billion tax is presumably to move us to a sustainable position thereby ensuring our grandchildren will have a future?"
That is indeed the premise. It is based on immature science, poor and cherry-picked data, result-directed computer programs, Rousseau noble-savage fixated proponents, tunnel-vision Greens and naive Green-vote chasing politicians (without a GCSE Science exam between them).
Not a premise to bet our future well being on.
Complain about this comment
#99 sensibleoldgrannie wrote:
"which genetic traits will be the most desirable and successful in a world of climate change. Any ideas?"
Fur. It's going to get colder.
Complain about this comment
104. DrBrian wrote:
"It is based on immature science"
"the non-existent threat of man-made global warming"
Care to explain how you know something is a non-existent threat when you admit the science is immature?
Complain about this comment
106.infinity wrote:
"Care to explain how you know something is a non-existent threat when you admit the science is immature?"
Interesting philosophical point.
It is true that threats may well exist even when the study of them is immature or even non-existent. For example nobody knew the poisonous bottoms of African lakes could suddenly throw up clouds of gas to suffocate neighboring villages till it happened.
Nevertheless when cataclysm is predicted and the costs of mitigating it will beggar the country, it is up to its proposers to prove their case , not the other way round.
The proponents of man-made climate change have come up with several theories which, combined, have led them to predict future disaster. In arguing their case they have had to deny the existence of events previously held as facts, the 'little Ice Age' (fairs on the Thames) and the Medieval Warm Period (Greenland cultivated), in order to display the warming between 1975 and 2000 as unprecedented and thus mankind driven rather than part of Earth's natural rhythm.
My belief that AGW is a non-existent threat is based on my disbelief in the so-called science behind it.
More to come but I've got to go to a Masonic dinner.
In one of my Jaguars thus increasing my Carbon footprint and producing lots of plant food (CO2).
Complain about this comment
\\\ Back to Science ///
Ecuador, BBC article by James Painter
"There's been a definite acceleration since the 1980s, which is consistent with what's happening to tropical glaciers in other parts of South America and the world," says Mr Caceres [Ecuadorean glaciologist]...
Mr Vuille and others working in the Andes have tracked temperature changes in the last 70 years to show that there has been an average warming of near-surface air temperatures of around 0.10C per decade and an overall increase of 0.68C since 1939."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8629527.stm
=======================
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L17701, 4 PP., 2009
doi:10.1029/2009GL037712
"The height of the freezing level in the tropical atmosphere (the free air 0°C isotherm) has increased across most of the region, particularly in the outer Tropics. In the tropical Andes, south of the Equator, high elevation surface temperatures and upper air data show a similar trend in temperature, of ∼0.1°C/decade over the last 50 years..." [abstract excerpt]
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL037712.shtml
======================
Discussion:
The last three decades, i.e., the eighties, nineties and the first decade of the twenty-first century, have seen the signal rise above the noise - the world's cryosphere (ice-regions) is warming and melting, along with the global average land-sea temperature.
The empirical evidence of warming is observed at any number of locales, only two of which are highlighted in this post.
The experts who study these changes have what we may call an institutional memory to go along with their science, and they tell us that the change to the Earth's atmosphere as regards CO2 levels and in the ocean's pH level haven't been seen in some fifteen to twenty million years.
Since the People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth have just concluded in Bolivia, I thought to highlight the Andes mountains and the tropical glaciers in this post.
Let me be blunt:
The world is warming up, and the evidence is incontrovertible.
It is time to enshrine legal rights for natural objects, as per Christopher Stone, but Rights for Mother Earth has a better sound to it.
Since Ecuador is featured in the BBC article, I thought it particularly appropriate to mention that Ecuador has actually enshrined rights for the Earth in their laws. The process is already underway, and the world leaders appear to be high mountain countries in the New World of South America.
Time to catch up.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Let me be blunt:
Natural climate change.
World warm up
World cools down
World warms up
World cools down.
Repeat:
Since the end of the little ice age, world has warmed up..
Maybe now cooling down again now...
Ask an astro physicist
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #108
The world is warming up, and the evidence is incontrovertible.
but still no real evidence to tell us what caused the warming, merely conjecture
Warmist regards
/Mango
Complain about this comment
Re 107. DrBrian:
"Nevertheless when cataclysm is predicted and the costs of mitigating it will beggar the country"
"it is up to its proposers to prove their case , not the other way round."
So how would you prove your case that there is a threat to the economy if carbon emissions are reduced? I take it that economic models and forecasts of the effects are immature and therefore cannot be used in your proof.
If you can't prove that reducing carbon emissions will "beggar the country", does that mean your proposed threat is non-existent?
Complain about this comment
Re 109. Barry Woods
God Did It
Complain about this comment
nature, 4 billion years of natural climate change.
ice age, warm, ice age warm.. littel ice age warm, cool for a bit, etc..
no human involvement in the past... (or whatever 'sky fairy' you choose to believe in!)
Has all natural 'climate change stopped? for ever! that can drive sea level chnages on 10, 100' of metres, or glaciate the entire UK, or raise the sea level 50 metres so that you can't walk over from France like our ancestors did anymore!
Why are you trying to cast a creationists slur at me...
If anything did it, check out the big ball of fusion in the sky!!!!
As I said before, ask an astro physicist....
infinity, that was a truly ridculous attempt at distraction.
Complain about this comment
On the BBC itself, Fiona Fox: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/newswatch (23/04/10)
"People like Richard Black and Roger Harrabin, fighting internally to say we DON’T have to have a sceptic every time we have a climate story.”
This is the same Richard Black at the BBC, that Michael Mann’s frist thought was to call, when Paul Hudson – wahtever Happened to Global Warming, story appeared on the BBC website.. (month before ‘climategate)
1255352444.txt
From: Michael Mann
To: Stephen H Schneider
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:00:44 -0400
extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job).
from what Ican tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?
mike
————————–
So straight from the BBC itself, evidence that the environment team (and the bbc)are acting as gatekeepers for AGW advocates. (the discredited 'hockey stick' team)
I doubt if Steve Mcintyre, Lindzen, Spencer, Curry, or any other 'lukewarmer' can just give the BBC’s Richard Black a call
Complain about this comment
Re 113. Barry Woods
"ice age, warm, ice age warm.. littel ice age warm, cool for a bit, etc.."
If you want to know what causes climate changes, including how much the sun could have contributed to recent warming, science has advanced on the matter. Pick up the IPCC report. Modern science even has an explaination for recent warming and weighs in on the contribution of the sun too.
The mystical majiks of 'natural cycles' is the god-did-it "theory" of climate, along with 'Sun big. me little'. It's simply not scientific. Perhaps it was back in the time of pigs bladders predicting earthquakes, but not anymore. Modern science demands and provides explainations for climate changes that allows us to attribute them, rather than just noting them.
Complain about this comment
111. infinity wrote
"So how would you prove your case that there is a threat to the economy if carbon emissions are reduced? I take it that economic models and forecasts of the effects are immature and therefore cannot be used in your proof."
Now there's a confusing upside down way of looking at things. The enormous costs of attempted UK mitigation are well known at today's prices.
I covered the costs in my 96 unless, of course, you don't think that the money voted. virtually without discussion, couldn't be better used on sustainability and repairing our rustbucket industrial system.
A good masonic ladies festival for the Essex women. Plenty of CO2 plant food from my Jag.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #80: [Re: 'presume'] "Proof is strictly for mathematics -- in the real world there are all sorts of things we have to take for granted, depending on the context."
OK. So we put your definition of Presume into what you said in your #68; and we get...
bowmanthebard #68: "If some technological advance leads to fewer cars, it can only lead there by promoting more of other forms of travel, [which I take for granted will be] by air."
That's not very convincing, is it...
/davblo
Complain about this comment
@manusummits who quoted...
"The height of the freezing level in the tropical atmosphere (the free air 0°C isotherm) has increased across most of the region, particularly in the outer Tropics. In the tropical Andes, south of the Equator, high elevation surface temperatures and upper air data show a similar trend in temperature, of ∼0.1°C/decade over the last 50 years..." [abstract excerpt]
Yeah, that's consistent with the negative feedback from water vapor to any warming. Water vapor content goes up exponentially with temperature, removing ever-increasing amounts of energy from the surface and sending it up through the atmosphere as latent heat. The higher the temperature, the more energy bypasses radiative transfer through the troposphere (instead moving physically through convection/latent heat).
The supposed radiative forcing by water vapor...doesn't work because of this latent heat. Absorbed energy simply stops condensation until a later time...energy from radiative transfer and latent heat is entirely interchangeable. When they parametrize water vapor's absorption in models and factor it into "radiative forcing" they are essentially counting it twice. Most of CO2's spectrum, BTW is also interchangeable with water vapor's latent heat...again reducing its impacts.
The maximum forcing from greenhouse gases is physically limited by convection and latent heat. Water vapor and latent heat currently carry the majority of the energy across the troposphere. Their share goes up exponentially at the loss of GHG forcing.
=================
"Let me be blunt:
The world is warming up, and the evidence is incontrovertible."
Warming yes, but we do not yet understand the impacts of many of the climate's subsystems. It is likely that most of this warming has been natural...partly caused by the ocean currents' moderation of the water cycle.
Complain about this comment
The rain is falling today and hopefully, will clear the air a bit. There is a nice story on the BBC about women in Africa making their own stoves and making their own version of biofuel using sawdust and waste. I notice that it is the women who are running the enterprise and not the men. A simple measure like this changes and uplifts lives.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #80: [Re: 'presume'] "Proof is strictly for mathematics -- in the real world there are all sorts of things we have to take for granted, depending on the context."
OK. So we put your definition of Presume into what you said in your #68; and we get...
bowmanthebard #68 [with translation of original word 'presume will be' into 'take for granted will be' courtesy davblo]: "If some technological advance leads to fewer cars, it can only lead there by promoting more of other forms of travel, [which I take for granted will be] by air."
davblo #117: "That's not very convincing, is it..."
It sounds fine to me, apart from being a bit verbose. What do you find wrong with it?
Complain about this comment
DrBrian,
I don't know how high up the Masonic food chain you are but I would have thought you would be 'in the loop.' What mitigation strategies are proposed for the UK in the light of scientific evidence indicating anthropological environmental change? Will our untenable lifestyle behaviours be phased out at a rate that we can cope with or our we supposed to adapt to change overnight? Are integrated transport systems proposed to eliminate the necessity for personal transport to get to work? Considering that we live in the year 2010, the dreamed of future, we still have a transport system that is a relic of the last century. It should not cost MORE to use public transport than it does to use personal transportation. Can governments put pressure on communities with the 'not in my back yard' attitude to allow for more public transport systems to go through their territory? I do not mean air transport.
Complain about this comment
#121 sensibleoldgrannie wrote:
"Considering that we live in the year 2010, the dreamed of future, we still have a transport system that is a relic of the last century. It should not cost MORE to use public transport than it does to use personal transportation."
Why not? If public transport employs more people than do-it-yourself transport, all of these people have to be paid a fair wage. If public transport involves less work and more relaxation on your part, shouldn't you have to pay for the privilege? And anyway, most Western countries now provide a free bus pass (or similar) for people above a certain age or who suffer from other infirmities , so public transport has come a long way since the last century.
Why don't you look on the bright side instead of wringing your hands and worrying and complaining all the time?
Complain about this comment
If I were the only one saying this I could say you have a fair point.
This is a reflection of MANY people who I have talked to and heard saying that they would use public transport a lot more if it were more reliable and more economical. I am not of the 'certain age' or 'infirm' that you are suggesting just yet. ;-). I am not wringing my hands, worrying and complaining all of the time and I am not easily intimidated. I do look on the bright side and evidence for this is in post 119;-). Using public transport requires more effort=more work and less relaxation.
Do you really believe that personal transport is a better option? Do you really believe that ordinary people should pay over the odds for a system of transport that is not interconnected; is poorly regulated; and for the most part, inefficient? Perhaps we should all take to the roads, as I might do if things don't improve. When we all clog up the system to the point that no traffic can move, perhaps people like you will have a change of attitude as it will start to inconvenience you too.
Complain about this comment
121. sensibleoldgrannie wrote
"DrBrian,
I don't know how high up the Masonic food chain you are but I would have thought you would be 'in the loop.'"
Gran what on earth do you mean?
Freemasonry is a social and charitable organisation for men (there are also many women masons in their own Lodges) aimed at making good men better. We believe in god (each man his own), honour the Queen and respect our laws, although there is no requirement to respect the political pygmies that make it; we just don't talk politics.
We have no special knowledge of climate change politics although I have to say that I have never met an AGW believer at a masonic meeting.
Perhaps we're all too sensible.
Complain about this comment
DrBrian,
It is good to know that your society aims 'at making good men better.' It is good to know that you believe in a higher authority than man. I am glad you honour the Queen as she has made extreme effort to be a good role model. I am glad your organisation respects the law of the land.
Forgive me if I didn't understand about the role of the Masonic institution and politics. Do most Masons share your view about 'political pigmies'? Your post at 116 appeared to be quite political and money orientated, and you mentioned the Jag, a symbol of power and prosperity (if you believe the adverts). I only wondered why you mentioned money;declining industry; Masons; Jag if you were not attempting some sort of echelon-political stance of someone in the know.
Complain about this comment
125. sensibleoldgrannie wrote:
"I only wondered why you mentioned money; declining industry; Masons; Jag if you were not attempting some sort of echelon-political stance of someone in the know."
Money. It wouldn't matter if the AGW debate was harmless, just a scientific ding-dong about say the death of the dinosaurs or meteors from Mars containing bacteria, interesting but cost-free.
The trouble with this sort of scare is that when politicians get involved, usually under media pressure, the "cures" and the costs of the "cures" skyrocket. There are many examples.
With AGW in particular the potential cost of mitigation (cure is impossible if the apocalyptic visions are true) are capable of bankrupting the country. Be afraid of the political reaction to scares, not the scares themselves.
Declining Industry. Use the money to re-invigorate our manufacturing base. Kindly confirm your approval.
Jag. Gets up warmist blogger's noses. In particular my e-type is great and good for pulling. Oh Lord I'm 63!
Masons. Last night there was a need to explain why I couldn't keep responding to 'infinity'. It was a pleasant Ladies Night with an intelligent lady who I might condescend to see again. Also the mention of the M word usually gets someone hot under the collar. Mischief is fun.
Where's the summer's day we were promised in London?
Complain about this comment
DrBrian,
You have my approval providing it is not on the model of, 'Child Workers in England 1780-1820' (by Katrina Honeyman 1970). I have just started studying this book as my own ancestor was sold as an apprentice silk weaver at the age of 14 years old because she was poor and her 'mother' could no longer keep her. With the decline of industry in this country, we have forgotten what 'industry' really meant for the poor.
This generation of children will be very hard to convert into becoming manufacturers of goods unless a way is found of making the job interesting, instead of boring; repetitive; restricting; labour intensive with low pay and hazardous working conditions. There is also the issue of the great big fat carbon footprint and there are issues connected with sustainability. Not much you can successfully and profitably produce really unless you can induce countrywide amnesia.
At least you are honest as well as amusing, and I especially like the dig about the weather. Watch with the pulling, you don't want to strain your back now do you. Jags don't do many miles to the gallon and the perfect excuse when you run out of petrol.
Complain about this comment
127. sensibleoldgrannie wrote
"You have my approval providing it is not on the model of, 'Child Workers in England 1780-1820' (by Katrina Honeyman 1970)."
Fear not, I'm not advocating child slave labour (although the re-introduction of corporal punishment might do a lot to heal the broken society). There's no reason why manufacturing shouldn't be interesting and rewarding. As a country we can't live on North Sea Oil and services for ever.
I can speak authoritatively on the subject of attempting the other in an e-type Jag. If you are ever propositioned it's something to be avoided like the plague. As for running out of petrol the modern woman needs no such weak excuse.
I was hoping to provoke the last remaining feminist blogger with the word 'condescend'. There must be one out there in the blogosphere.
Complain about this comment
@MangoChutneyUKOK #57
(@blunderbunny)
(@ezeezee)
(@infinity)
(@Richard Black)
Mango, any chance that you could actually link to the top of Wattsupwiththat articles rather than the "more" section half way down articles.
In this case there has been an important update by Anthony Watts endorsing the evidence that the record high temperature was genuine and down to a rare weather event associated with the geography. (Search for post by "Rai LeCotey (Eureka Station Manager)" for details.) Watts still has outstanding issues with METAR.
(Note, there is an eight hour time difference,
23 April 4PM Pacific Daylight Time is
23 April 12PM midnight British Summer Time
Watt's update is therefore later than all the discussions about this article of his on this thread.)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/22/dial-m-for-mangled-wikipedia-and-environment-canada-caught-with-temperature-data-errors/
Complain about this comment
@poitsplace #118
(@manysummits)
"consistent with the negative feedback from water vapor to any warming"
No. It's consistent with the following:
1. Negative feedback for lapse rate at tropical latitudes.
2. Positive feedback for lapse rate at temperate and polar latitudes.
And I remind you that neither of these lapse rate feedbacks seriously affects the global average lapse rate.
Also the overall feedback from water vapour (as opposed to water vapour + clouds) is strongly positive, because water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas. This massively outweighs water vapour's contribution to the negative feedback for lapse rate at tropical latitudes.
Meanwhile your reference to "energy bypasses radiative transfer through the troposphere" looks like double counting of the effect of convection on the average lapse rate, as the average lapse rate is already part of more sophisticated greenhouse explanations.
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #108
"Back to Science"
Please no, not again. You've woken poitsplace up.
Scientists on both sides of the debate agree with the very basic greenhouse effect. Then they debate climate sensitivity.
Poitsplace claims to agree with the very basic greenhouse effect. But I am having problems reconciling poitsplace's version with that of the scientists.
In the meantime poitsplace's posts do highlight that someone needs to explain the very basic greenhouse effect properly, in plain language, and then get the scientists on both sides to endorse it.
Complain about this comment
#131 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
"Scientists on both sides of the debate agree with the very basic greenhouse effect."
Double thanks for saying this. Not only do you remind us that there are sceptical scientists, you also remind us that they're not completely mad (or homophobic and Holocaust-denial-type nutters, as Nick Clegg would say).
"Then they debate climate sensitivity."
That's true. I would add that scientifically-minded philosophers -- and philosophically-minded scientists -- tend to have more fundamental objections to (what I think is) the mistaken-ness of it all.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #132: "I would add that scientifically-minded philosophers -- and philosophically-minded scientists -- tend to have more fundamental objections to (what I think is) the mistaken-ness of it all."
Sorry; that reads like a washing powder advertisement.
More than what?
More than yesterday, maybe?
More than non-scientists?
More than their mums?
/davblo
Complain about this comment
This is a good news story a success for the UN, we have stopped producing ODP's and the quantity of man made CFC's has decreased markedly in the atmosphere.
However the expected decrease in the size of the ozone hole above Antartica has not happened it just gets bigger.
But the Model Theory is correct?
Complain about this comment
Simon Swede @31: My sentiments exactly.
Jack Hughes @37 & Kambo &38: Comments like this really don’t help dispel the notion that a lot of climate change ‘sceptics’ are led by political ideology...
Davblo: Respect for trying to educate dear old Bowman about what sustainability is. While I’m all for a bit of environmental philosophy, I fear that Bowman ably demonstrates the axiom that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
Barry Woods: Keep fighting the good fight. You’ll have Richard Black’s job in no time...
Larry @72: Interesting definition. I like the positive connotations of that way of looking at things and it’s certainly a legitimate phrase. I fear though that you could twist that definition to support some fairly dubious projects (e.g. a questionable road building program).
“Drbrian” – love it! The subtle hint there of a possible phd makes my simple mind more inclined to trust what you are saying...
Seriously though, a sleazy sounding, geriatric freemason – that’s what every blog needs. Word to the wise though, going onto an environmental blog to antagonise hippies by banging on about the size of your car engine may not be the best use of your time. Surely you should be too busy running things and (to quote the Simpsons) holding back the development of electric cars...
Complain about this comment
135. Yorkurbantree wrote
"a sleazy sounding, geriatric freemason – that’s what every blog needs."
Yorkurbantree. Great. Love it. I've finally provoked the last feminist in the blogosphere.
Seriously though (to quote you) the two basic problems with electric cars are 1. The production of emissions at the power station which negates all attempts to reduce CO2 production (if you're really still bothered about producing too much plant food) and 2. Their impracticality except for limited urban use. This is due to the inefficiency of batteries in general.
I'd have no problem with some of the money being wasted on AGW mitigation being directed to the development of high-tech, high power, low weight electrical storage devices.
I expect you'd prefer to spend it on worshiping Gaia.
Complain about this comment
110. At 6:34pm on 24 Apr 2010, MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:
@manysummits #108
The world is warming up, and the evidence is incontrovertible.
but still no real evidence to tell us what caused the warming, merely conjecture
Warmist regards
/Mango
------------------------------------
Not so fast.
In my perception and according to what I read, the world seems to have warmed a bit since my youth, but it also seems that it is now cooling - at least in some places - mine (South Texas) in particular.
I would like to see two things:
First, a clear and concise definition of the 'temperature of earth' - exactly how we define the that quantity - and then exactly how we measure it - and how those two things have changed just over the last 50 years.
Secondly, the 'error band' related to our measurement of the 'temperature of the earth'.
Can someone please define for me, in scientific terms, the defination for the 'earth's temperature'???
So many seem so sure of their arguments regarding something we don't even really have a good definition for, nor do we have a precise measurement methodology.
Well, its beautiful climate here in the Piney Woods of East Texas right now, and we have elected to stay another night at the lake (Livingston). I think the climate is just about perfect right now - of course, it won't last, its always changing (contrary to 'popular' belief).
Gotta go round up some catfish...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #87 #132
You are taking Nick Clegg out of context. He was talking about formal Tory allies within the European Parliament.
From the BBC transcript:
"How on earth does it help anyone in Bristol or anyone else in the country for that matter, David Cameron, to join together in the European Union with a bunch of nutters, anti-Semites, people who deny climate change exists, homophobes. That doesn't help Britain. Of course we need to change the European Union, but you change clubs of which you're a member by getting stuck in, not standing on the side-lines and complaining about things."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/the_debates/default.stm
Clegg is referring to some of Cameron's allies in the "European Conservatives and Reformists" Group within the European Parliament.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4665818.stm
The Latvian "For Fatherland and Freedom / Latvian National Independence Movement" (TB/LNNK) are involved in controversial annual parades involving former Latvian members of the Waffen SS.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8571000/8571843.stm
The Czech "Civic Democratic Party" (ODS) have extreme climate sceptic Václav Klaus as their leader.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/may/01/vacla-klaus-emissions-economy
The Polish "Law and Justice" party (PiS) have attracted criticism for homophobia.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4665818.stm
Complain about this comment
...continued (she's taking a shower and we are going to 'town' for dinner - hardly a town, really...Onalaska Texas...;)
How do we know what the climate is doing or is going to do? We don't - simple as that. We know (to a limited degree) what it has done in recent geologic history - but only to a very limited degree. What all the interrelated cycles will bring next, no one can say with certainty.
It makes me think of a very intersting computer model which was created in the last ten years. It was a model of waves - ocean waves - a tool to study waves on the ocean, in a quest to better understand the 'rogue wave'. Interestingly enough, the model predicted that giant 'rogue waves' were much more common than suspected. The harmonics of several waves would come together and resonate to form a 'giant wave' - which so many thought was physically impossible. The model was confirmed by a new satellite which was able to accurately measure wave heights on the open ocean and showed that the giant 'rogue waves' formed very frequently, but did not last long.
They built a good model of a system much simpler than the Earth's Climate and used it the right way - as a tool to learn more. The model showed something 'unprecidented' and they doubted it greatly - but with physical observation, were able to show it was correct. They also realize that while the model predicted the 'rogue wave' phenominon, there is no way to really 'predict' a rogue wave.
Why can we not see such rigor and doubt with 'climate science'? Why do so many cast aside all doubts and 'believe' in the remotests of possibilities? Because it 'could happen'? But so many things 'could happen'...
Why can this not be 'real science'? Unfortunately, I think I know the answer - money and power - far too much of both involved. As this has such a huge impact on world energy - both power and money are heavily involved. Energy is the single most important commodity on the planet, bar none. Consider the definition of a commodity and then think about energy - the more it costs - the more 'we' all pay and the richer 'they' all get.
Makes a skeptic wonder...I bet Exxon-Mobil spends more on promoting climate change than they do on bashing it - by ten to one...
[all this hysteria about something we don't really have a good definition for nor can we really measure...hmmm]
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #132: "I would add that scientifically-minded philosophers -- and philosophically-minded scientists -- tend to have more fundamental objections to (what I think is) the mistaken-ness of it all."
davblo #133: "More than what?"
More fundamental objections than the sort of conformist, shallow, and basically unscientific appeals to authority we see again and again from people who use the word 'science' without really thinking about what it means.
None of them seem interested in truth or knowledge, let alone dare to ask questions about them. I have to say that from my own experiences with AGW believers, I'd say most of them are a bit conformist, a bit shallow, and a bit thick.
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #140
Pots, kettles and similar colours.
Complain about this comment
140. bowmanthebard wrote:
"More fundamental objections than the sort of conformist, shallow, and basically unscientific appeals to authority we see again and again from people who use the word 'science' without really thinking about what it means.
None of them seem interested in truth or knowledge, let alone dare to ask questions about them. I have to say that from my own experiences with AGW believers, I'd say most of them are a bit conformist, a bit shallow, and a bit thick."
Well, ought not to overgeneralize but... I would add the words "defensive" and sometimes "shrill."
Many earlier versions were featured in Monty Python's 'Life of Brian.'
Every time I hear or read the word 'denier' or 'the debate is over' I'm reminded of those women wearing beards stoning the guy who said 'Jehova'.
In the AGW context he just asked a simple question of two.
Oh well. Don't hear that 'the debate is over' so much anymore, now that it is so obviously not. Except in UK Whitewashes of course, where they apparently just bend over of think of England.
By the way, did anyone notice that the US 'climate' bill is now dead? If you were holding your breath waiting for the announcement tomorrow morning (US time), you can at least take pride on reducing your CO2 output.
Complain about this comment
Error: should have read "bend over and think of England."
Hip, hip. Cheerio.
Complain about this comment
#142 CanadianRockies wrote:
"Every time I hear or read the word 'denier' or 'the debate is over' I'm reminded of those women wearing beards stoning the guy who said 'Jehova'."
So am I, and it's no coincidence that that scene was a satirical exposure of attitudes to blasphemy, and of the silly and dangerous laws that are likely to be out in place when a mob decides that merely uttering something or merely having an opinion is "blasphemous".
AGW sceptics are people who have a factual opinion that may or may not be true, like agnostics and atheists. The spectacle of Nick Clegg lumping AGW sceptics together with people of genuine malice such as homophobes and antiSemites is very telling. It shows the anti-blasphemy mob mentality has set in.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
ok, my comment has been referred, so i suggest those interested should go over the WUWT blog to read something interesting
Warmist regards
/Mango
Complain about this comment
@142 CanadianRockies
You've been spending to much time alone with those Sarah Palin pictures I think. Fantasising she might save you from your American-lite status.
For a Monty Python analogy how about Lord Monckton for The upperclass twit of the year contest?
Don't know how you get to AGW adherents being thick. Do you not follow the links on the various posts? Have you ever found one that seriously supports your sceptical viewpoint that is anything more than some lame tittle tattle from some vapid rag like the Telegraph or the Mail?
Complain about this comment
@ezeezee #147
For a Monty Python analogy how about Lord Monckton for The upperclass twit of the year contest?
LOL!
(surprised it got past the mods, but it was funny)
Warmist regards
/Mango
Complain about this comment
It would be interesting to know which camp the Monty Python team are in
deniers or fryers?
It seems to be generally excepted that the world is warming but that the sceptics claim this is just a natural phenomenon. Now if they could just prove this, like the case for CO2 is already, then everybody could see that the situation is more dire than we thought and that we must cut emmissions further and faster.
Complain about this comment
@148 mangochutney
Tempting to put a link but that might of be step to far.
Complain about this comment
Daily Mail and Telegraph heavily targeted again for media maniuplation by organised, man made climate change alarmists:
Campaign Against Climate Change
Sceptics Alerts... (todays list just received it)
http://www.campaigncc.org/node/384
Daily Mail: General Election 2010: Are TV viewers really too stupid to spot the difference ... -
Daily Mail: The ash cloud that never was: How volcanic plume over UK was only a twentieth ... -
Daily Mail: MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: The elementary fault in Labour's quangocracy
Daily Mail: General Election 2010: Are TV viewers really too stupid to spot the difference ...
Daily Mail: Every night the BBC lectures us on climate change. So why did their bosses ...
Christopher Booker: Volcano crisis: Sense vanishes in a puff of ash
Christopher Booker: It's a pity we can't vote out our real rulers
Christopher Booker: Unforgivable persecution of the Bushmen
http://www.campaigncc.org/whoweare
George Monbiot (Guardian), Michael Meacher (Lab MP), Norman Baker (Lib dem MP), Caroline Lucas (Green Leader, MEP) and Jean Lambert (Green MEP).
Don't Daily Mail journalists, editors get annoyed about this sort of thing, from fellow journalists, MP's and MEP's especially...
They don't seem bothered by the BBC, maybe because it allready has some resident AGW alarmist guardians in place? (the bbc environment team obviously included)
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #144
"The spectacle of Nick Clegg lumping AGW sceptics together with people of genuine malice such as homophobes and antiSemites is very telling."
Clegg was listing significant attributes of parties in Cameron's "European Conservatives and Reformists" Group within the European Parliament.
Debates, Clegg' comment is in the 2nd debate.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/the_debates/default.stm
Tory allies in Europe
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4665818.stm
The Latvian "For Fatherland and Freedom / Latvian National Independence Movement" (TB/LNNK) are involved in controversial annual parades involving former Latvian members of the Waffen SS.
While many members of the Latvian Waffen SS were not involved in the Nazi death squads, some were.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8571000/8571843.stm
The Polish "Law and Justice" party (PiS) have attracted criticism for homophobia. This includes the allegation that while they banned gay pride marches they gave permission for counter gay demonstrations.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4665818.stm
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3&art_id=qw1132674842587B214&singlepage=1
http://www.ukgaynews.org.uk/Archive/09/Oct/0602print.htm
The Czech "Civic Democratic Party" (ODS) have extreme climate sceptic Václav Klaus as their leader. He of the "global warming is a false myth" comment.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/may/01/vacla-klaus-emissions-economy
The inclusion of the Dutch Christian Union Party (ChristenUnie) has also been criticised for their conservative religious ideas.
Perhaps you should complain to Cameron about the homophobes and apparent antiSemites that he has chosen to invite into his new grouping. Because it looks to me that the "lumping together" has been done by the membership parties of the "European Conservatives and Reformists" Group itself.
Complain about this comment
@Barry Woods #151
Meacher is hardly a friend of Gordon's.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6385545.stm
More establishment figures in the AGW debate, all with seats in the Lords:
Lord Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer
Lord Barnett
Lord Donoughue
Lord Fellowes
Rt Rev Peter Forster (why are bishops in the Lords)
Baroness Nicholson
Lord Turnbull
http://www.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/mps_and_lords/alphabetical_list_of_members.cfm
http://www.thegwpf.org/who-we-are/board-of-trustees.html
Complain about this comment
#152 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
"Clegg was listing significant attributes of parties in Cameron's "European Conservatives and Reformists" Group within the European Parliament."
It may have been obvious to someone following the debate very closely, but to those of us who were fighting to stay awake, his "anti-blasphemy" rhetoric suddenly made us sit up and pay attention.
Even if we charitably interpret him as merely listing attributes of his political opponents as you say, it is very jarring to hear someone listing merely factual opinions (which might be false) with malicious attitudes (which might not issue in action). He seems not to grasp the difference between "is" and "ought" that informs Hume's philosophy as well as all genuinely liberal political thought.
If scepticism and apathy towards AGW is as widespread as you fear (and as I hope) then Clegg may have made a real political gaffe here. I certainly hope so, as he is not entitled to call himself as a genuine "liberal" at all.
Complain about this comment
@41 kamboshigh
sorry for late reply. That's pure gold. almost too good to be true!
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #154
"Even if we charitably interpret him as merely listing attributes of his political opponents..."
Aren't they actually attributes that the allies of his political opponents cheerfully assign to themselves (so as distinguish themselves from other political actors)?
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #154
If the comment had been in the middle of a discussion about climate change, or even on its own, I might have agreed with you.
But it was in the middle of a discussion about Europe, and Clegg explicitly refers to the European Union.
From the BBC transcript:
"How on earth does it help anyone in Bristol or anyone else in the country for that matter, David Cameron, to join together in the European Union with a bunch of nutters, anti-Semites, people who deny climate change exists, homophobes. That doesn't help Britain. Of course we need to change the European Union, but you change clubs of which you're a member by getting stuck in, not standing on the side-lines and complaining about things."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/the_debates/default.stm
Perhaps the reason why there has not been a big stink over Clegg's comments is because most of the people watching were familiar with the controversy over Cameron's new "European Conservatives and Reformists" Group.
Tory policy on Europe has never been far from UK headlines. Most people following UK politics find Tory policies on Europe of more interest than climate change.
Complain about this comment
"a bunch of nutters, anti-Semites, people who deny climate change exists, homophobes"
I don't want to ban offensive speech or slurs, but this is an offensive slur, and I'll do everything I can -- although it is very little -- to make sure that that spoiled, nasty-minded little toff's party doesn't get into government!
Complain about this comment
@158.
to be fair, denying MAN MADE climate change is hardly the same as the other points, especially if it's based on a scientifical basis (whether your understanding is correct or not, it is still a rational decision, not an irrational 'hatred').
That sentence stopped me voting lib dem too.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
manysummits:
The change comes because as you wander in the mountains you see the changes and negative impacts. The "good" thing is that it is not in some isolated lab or scientific study, it is almost everywhere. People respond and the deniers can say what they may but communities will deal with the issues. Incremental change is the process whereby those in power make adaptations to stay in power. We reach points where the corruption becomes obvious and the politics are in conflict with the people...this is when change occurs. Communities will succeed in spite of governments not because of them. Governments talk about Green Jobs. I am not sure what they are but this reflects the primary concern of governments, taxes. They allow pollution, approve coal power plants, encourage usage of autos and trucks and designate themselves as Green Cities. Words have no meaning in government.
Complain about this comment
Can you spot the pattern in the following phrases?
Caution: please note that they are all highly offensive, vaguely threatening, and mentioned here strictly in oratio obliqua:
"Misogynists, child molesters, and Catholics"
"Ku-klux-klansmen, Fascists, and agnostics"
"Extortionists, wife-beaters , and Jews "
"Blackmailers, supporters of terrorism, and Protestants"
"Speeding drivers, thugs, and people who believe the Earth is flat"
Each phrase consists of two terms that refer to attitudes of malice or neglect of a sort that society is entitled to use force against to protect itself against, and a third term that simply refers to a person's creed -- i.e. what he believes or doesn't believe.
Putting these terms together has the effect of muddying the distinction between a person's malicious or culpably neglectful intent, and a person's creed.
Anyone who claims to be a liberal is committed to freedom of thought, so that someone's creed is something that society is not entitled to use force to change. We may argue with someone whose creed we disagree with, try to persuade him with reasons, even offend him for holding what we regard as ridiculous beliefs. But it is forbidden to threaten him, or otherwise try to change his creed by coercion. Conversely, anyone who muddies the distinction drawn above cannot call himself a liberal.
Complain about this comment
@Barry Woods #151
"Don't Daily Mail journalists, editors get annoyed about this sort of thing, from fellow journalists, MP's and MEP's especially..."
Never been a big fan of the Mail.
I'm not signed up to CACC's email alerts, and have no plans to. The whole thing looks like the Guardian's disastrous own goal of a letter writing campaign to American voters during the 2004 presidential elections.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/20/uselections2004.usa
When I checked the Mail articles in your link they all had zero comments apart from the volcanic ash one where views that looked vaguely CACCish were getting a good kicking from Mail regulars.
Perhaps pro-AGW volunteers aren't signing up for CACC's email alerts. Or perhaps the Mail has taken steps. Either way, there seems rather less reason to get paranoid about the CACC email alerts.
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #158
He isn't calling AGW sceptics "nutters, anti-Semites, homophobes".
Personally I avoid the d-word because it can be misunderstood.
But someone describing an individual who said "Global warming is a myth and I think that every serious person and scientist says so." as someone who denies climate change does not seem excessive. Václav Klaus's statement goes far beyond the comments of the more reasonable sceptics.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1899
Complain about this comment
OK, to clarify my comments in #160
I was not calling David Irving a Nazi.
I was calling him tedious. This is a point of view.
I was calling him a holocaust denier. This is an established fact.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4733820.stm
I was calling attention to the fact that before David Irving, most of the general public were not aware that people could be holocaust deniers without being Nazis. Hence the term "holocaust denier" was rarely used.
Complain about this comment
@Barry Woods #151
PS, not impressed by the way Joanne Nova took a CACC comment out of context. Going "onto the offensive" is not the same as "being offensive":
" One last suggestion from us - you can also consider going onto the offensive and explain that the real uncertainty about man-made climate change is not whether its happening but how fast its happening and that in fact there is increasing evidence that the mainstream science of the IPCC is actually underestimating the scale and imminence of the threat. See our Climate Emergency page and the links at the bottom." CACC
"While they recommend being offensive, I recommend good manners." Joanne Nova
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/04/newsflash-the-fightback-campaign-against-sceptics/
When it comes to good manners, CACC actually say
" We need you to politely explain in the comments section why global warming is actually happening and why it's not a big conspiracy."
http://www.campaigncc.org/node/384
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #162
"Putting these terms together has the effect of muddying the distinction between a person's malicious or culpably neglectful intent, and a person's creed."
Yes, but who is responsible for putting the terms together? The person that described the club. Or the person that founded the club despite criticism by other Tories.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #162: "Can you spot the pattern in the following phrases?"
You forgot (from bowmanthebard #140)
"a bit conformist, a bit shallow, and a bit thick, and believe in AGW"
bowmanthebard #162: "Conversely, anyone who muddies the distinction drawn above cannot call himself a liberal."
Conclusion? bowmanthebard is not a liberal.
/davblo
Complain about this comment
#167 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
"Yes, but who is responsible for putting the terms together? The person that described the club. Or the person that founded the club despite criticism by other Tories."
The speaker is responsible for putting linguistic terms together. There are many other terms, I'm sure, that apply to this particular "club", such as words that describe low tax/spend fiscal policies, hostility to the single currency, and so on.
I'm not saying Clegg should be arrested or anything, just that he doesn't have the liberal instincts required for a leader of a party whose name contains the word 'liberal', nor the liberal instincts required for a leader of Britain.
Complain about this comment
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/25/predictions-of-global-mean-temperatures-ipcc-projections/#more-18900
bit of background reading
http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/25/yamal-and-the-decline/#more-10830
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #140: "from my own experiences with AGW believers, I'd say most of them are a bit conformist, a bit shallow, and a bit thick"
bowmanthebard #162: "We may argue with someone whose creed we disagree with, try to persuade him with reasons, even offend him for holding what we regard as ridiculous beliefs. But it is forbidden to threaten him, or otherwise try to change his creed by coercion."
bowmanthebard #162: "anyone who muddies the distinction [between a person's malicious or culpably neglectful intent, and a person's creed] cannot call himself a liberal."
davblo #168: "Conclusion? bowmanthebard is not a liberal."
Sorry, I don't follow you. How have I muddied the distinction between "malicious or culpably neglectful intent, and creed".
I hope it's clearer to you that I have been offensive rather than threatening -- another very important distinction for issues of free speech. I agree with JS Mill that the only grounds for limiting freedom of expression is to prevent harm to others, where "harm" essentially means coercion.
Complain about this comment
#166 JaneBasingstoke (quoting Joanne Nova):
"While they recommend being offensive, I recommend good manners."
There is much to be said for being offensive (as opposed to being threatening or otherwise causing actual harm). Usually, we find whatever we morally disagree with "offensive". Since it is a good thing for opposed views to meet, we must welcome offensiveness as a sign the we are meeting views opposed to our own.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #171: "I have been offensive rather than threatening"
bowmanthebard #172: "There is much to be said for being offensive (as opposed to being threatening or otherwise causing actual harm)."
Where do you get the idea that you can be offensive without being threatening?
------------------
Offensive
• adjective 1 causing offence. 2 involved or used in active attack. 3 ....
• noun a military campaign of attack.
— PHRASES be on the offensive be ready to act aggressively.
------------------
Just as one example, you know full well that there are religious factions which respond violently to verbal or graphic blasphemy.
Many lack the distinction between verbal and physical offense; some mistakenly and some perhaps rightly.
"Wife-beating" which you mentioned in #162 is not the only form of abuse; mental abuse is well understood and can have serious consequences for the victim; in some such cases physical defence can sometimes be justified.
I think you would be wise to revise your attitude.
/davblo
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #172
Not sure you understood my #166.
CACC recommended "going onto the offensive" and using polite explanations.
http://www.campaigncc.org/node/384
Joanne Nova somehow managed to interpret "going onto the offensive" as "being offensive". She failed to quote or comment on their recommendation for polite explanations.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/04/newsflash-the-fightback-campaign-against-sceptics/
This isn't just unfair on CACC. It is also unfair on sceptics reading her article who trust her to mix facts and opinions without misleading them. She leaves her audience open to embarrassment when they debate with pro-AGW debaters on the subject.
Meanwhile I point out that polite explanations are an essential medium for most of the debate, certainly more effective than being threatening or being excessively rude.
Complain about this comment
davblo #173:
"Where do you get the idea that you can be offensive without being threatening?"
Where do you get the idea that they're the same? They seem obviously different to me.
Complain about this comment
Davblo @173:
You left out ... 3) relating to the team in possession of the ball or puck in a game
Nothing wrong with a game of footie now, is there?
Complain about this comment
Peter317 #176: "Nothing wrong with a game of footie now, is there?"
...only when people take it too seriously.
/davblo
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #172
(@davblo)
As a minor language issue. You are using "being offensive" in a subtly different way from Joanne Nova.
Joanne Nova is explicitly using it in the sense of not having good manners
Your #172 uses it in the sense of the clash of sensibilities that can occur even when people are not being threatening or deliberately rude. If someone has a strong opinion, they may take offence regardless of how inappropriate it might seem to an outsider. That is a valid use of the word, not always clear from some dictionaries. Joanne Nova's comment about "good manners" shows that she does not mean that.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #175: Re: "offensive" & "threatening"; "Where do you get the idea that they're the same? They seem obviously different to me."
I thought I explained that in the rest of my #173.
You want more examples?
Being offensive to someone can make them feel threatened. If in public, in some societies it can threaten their "standing" before their peers.
Being offensive towards a sensitive person can cause mental anguish. It's easily demonstrated in the case of mental abuse where it's not just a threat, but the victim suffers real harm.
/davblo
Complain about this comment
davblo @177:
"...only when people take it too seriously."
And that goes for a whole lot of other things as well.
Like, why do some people seem to worry so much over what a few sceptics think?
I mean, it's really inconsequential, isn't it? So why do we get all these websites like RC and CACC telling people how best to fight off the sceptics, like they represent some kind of dire threat?
Are they afraid people might vote the 'wrong' way? Let's face it - all three of the major parties are singing from the same hymn-sheet when it comes to AGW, so it's not going to make much difference who gets in to No. 10.
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #169
"The speaker is responsible for putting linguistic terms together."
Never had you down as a fan of political correctness.
The European Conservatives and Reformists Group is a very small club. There are only nine parties in it. Clegg referred to controversial characteristics of three, (possibly four) of them. Linguistically he was boxed in by other people's choices.
I would also remind you that there is no way that every answer to debate questions could have been scripted.
Complain about this comment
#179 davblo wrote:
"in the case of mental abuse where it's not just a threat, but the victim suffers real harm."
In that sort of case, the victim is vulnerable, like a child, and needs special sorts of protection...
But to gag adult conversation because there are child-like (i.e. disturbed and backward) adults around won't work, quite apart from the fact that it is inimical to truth and to thought itself: these people will be victims to other children, and probably to everyone.
Some people -- many of whom have the gall to call themselves "feminists" -- think all women are really children like that, and need "special protection" from the rough-and-tumble of male conversation. I refer you to Mill's The Subjection of Women for a good reply to the glorification of infantilization.
Complain about this comment
#180 Peter317 wrote:
"all three of the major parties are singing from the same hymn-sheet when it comes to AGW"
Succinctly put.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #182: "In that sort of case,[mental abuse] the victim is vulnerable, like a child, and needs special sorts of protection..."
Calling victims of mental abuse "childlike" is just lacking in understanding. How would you stand up to a bit of serious "brain-washing"?
And that was just one of my examples. You failed to address the others.
/davblo
Complain about this comment
147. ezeezee wrote:
"@142 CanadianRockies
You've been spending to much time alone with those Sarah Palin pictures I think. Fantasising she might save you from your American-lite status.
For a Monty Python analogy how about Lord Monckton for The upperclass twit of the year contest?
Don't know how you get to AGW adherents being thick. Do you not follow the links on the various posts? Have you ever found one that seriously supports your sceptical viewpoint that is anything more than some lame tittle tattle from some vapid rag like the Telegraph or the Mail?"
---------
Well, ezeezee, your Pavlovian comment about Palin just demonstrated shallowness and thickness.
For more Monty Python, recall the Black Knight insisting he was still up for the fight when all his limbs were chopped off. That's the scientific case for AGW.
Or, if you prefer, the parrot.
My current preferred choices for information on this topic are the sites wattsupwiththat.com and climateaudit.org, and for the political aspects I check climatedepot.com.
In any case, this is dead in the US despite Obama's links to the Chicago Carbon Exchange, and all that.
You might want to go to wattsupwiththat now as they have a detailed article on all Lord Oxborough's investments in the AGW scheme that SHOULD have disqualified him from any participation in that whitewash.
Sad what the UK has become.
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #185
"You might want to go to wattsupwiththat now as they have a detailed article on all Lord Oxborough's investments in the AGW scheme that SHOULD have disqualified him from any participation in that whitewash."
Did it ever occur to you that those qualifications perfectly qualify him - for exposing CRU flaws to pro-AGW debaters? Nobody on my side of the debate can say "oh he would say that, he's a sceptic".
And in the absence of more rigorous examination you sceptics are the winners. Because the public is not giving CRU the benefit of the doubt.
Complain about this comment
186. JaneBasingstoke - Good spin. But no. You might want to read that article and discover why your theory doesn't wash.
You can only maintain your take on this by ignoring the basic and fundamental flaws with the data and the 'science' behind the AGW project.
Its Madoff material.
That's why we got that joke of an inquiry and its 5 page report based on cherry picked papers to examine.
So sad what the UK has become.
Complain about this comment
#184 davblo wrote:
"Calling victims of mental abuse "childlike" is just lacking in understanding."
There are degrees of mental abuse. Hostage-victims who are blindfolded and subjected to repeated mock executions are literally and seriously threatened and therefore genuinely harmed.
However, much of current culture -- mostly "feminism" gone wrong -- has encouraged the treating of mere insults and even disagreements as "mental abuse", as if being miffed is the same thing as being harmed.
It seems to me to be vital that our culture learn to distinguish between someone's being genuinely harmed and someone's being merely miffed. Part of that learning will involve accepting that there are a few people who are genuinely damaged by merely being disagreed with or insulted. I would argue that they are damaged already -- they have been harmed already by someone else or by unfortunate circumstances -- and that the person who "sent them over the edge" was not responsible for harming them.
"How would you stand up to a bit of serious "brain-washing"?"
I'm glad you distinguish between 'serious' brain washing and mere bad manners. The mark of the fanatic is a failure to see degrees of wrongness in action.
Complain about this comment
@186
"And in the absence of more rigorous examination you sceptics are the winners. Because the public is not giving CRU the benefit of the doubt"
Jane, the benefit of the doubt is irrelevant. you're generally quite balanced (though on the other side of the fence to myself), but you cannot serisouly be suggesting that the review was:
a)impartial or by implication
b) it was a thorough and fair investigation.
To put the 5 page review into context, i recently had to review a section of work for an audit. One batch, of one product, made over 2 weeks was called into question.
The resulting report was over 40 pages long.
The CRU has been going for waht now? 10-20 years? (correct if wrong), has released and generated (through its data) 100's of papers.
So the review looks at 11 papers (pre-selected and not covering the ones in question) and the final report is 5 pages long....
Hell, i'd have failed my degree for putting out a report like that. But it's ok, because it's for the 'good fight'.
sigh.
Complain about this comment
more reading.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/23/new-book-from-dr-roy-spencer/
and a 'counter example' for anyone who toes the skeptics=big oil line
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100036561/pope-catholic-obama-energy-official-profits-from-agw/
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #187
@LabMunkey #189
"spin"
Not spin. Public trust of the CRU scientists is very low.
Personally I don't believe it is possible to whitewash or spin the situation. The scientists are guilty until openly and transparently proved innocent. This is the opposite situation to normal law.
Oxburgh had a pretty minimal remit, and minimal resources. He still managed to establish that there were serious problems with CRU's approach to statistics and that the scientists were disorganised.
Oxburgh also flagged up the issue of Intellectual Property Rights. Charging for access to data clashes with the openness of science.
And like the parliamentary inquiry before it, which exposed the lack of scrutiny of Jones's work, these are flaws that people on my side of the debate will want to see fixed properly.
You may think Oxburgh let CRU off the hook over the FOI requests for raw data.
But I remind you that there are two levels of raw data, the original data from other institutions and the slightly tidied up CRU version. Letting CRU off the hook over the original raw data from other institutions does not let CRU off the hook over the slightly tidied CRU version of that data.
Personally I am disappointed that the first two inquiries have been so shallow.
I repeat, they help your side more than mine. The inquiries expose genuine faults. They are too shallow to let the scientists off the hook even for the wildest tin foil hat conspiracy stuff. And your side interpret their inadequacies as a whitewash. There is double counting of every possible flaw of which the scientists haven't been transparently cleared; people assume both guilt and whitewash.
Meanwhile I feel sorry for Oxburgh.
His credibility has been damaged by an inquiry that was behind closed doors, had a very limited remit, and was clearly under-resourced. If it had been open, had a bigger remit, and been better resourced people would not be calling foul on his connections or methods. If he had been more aware of the stink of the politics he might have turned the job down.
"fair"
Neither side will get the fairness both sides deserve until there is an open rigorous inquiry.
The first was insufficiently rigorous. The second was both closed and insufficiently rigorous. In both instances there was a very limited remit and a lack of resources.
In the meantime I remind you that Oxburgh found serious flaws - a statistics heavy science with minimal input from professional statisticians. And nobody on my side of the debate can say "oh he would say that, he's a sceptic".
Complain about this comment
Four party debate on climate change in an election campaign meeting...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/for-one-night-only-climate-change-back-on-election-agenda-1955115.html
Complain about this comment
@191,
jane my post was by no means an attack- if it came across as that i apologise.
Yes, i agree, a full, thorough investigation is needed. With input from both sides of the debate.
Yes he found significant errors, but, and here's the crucial point, he only checked a cherry-picked, tiny, number of papers that had nothing (or next to nothing) to do with the issues raised.
If it was a geniune attempt to review the science/issue then it was a collosal cluster####.
But, the way it looks is frankly either
1) a whitewash,
2) a token 'review' to shut people up because minds are already made up (in which case Lord Oxburgh has my sympathy's).
As for the 'guilty until proven innocent' comment. It is highly unfortunate that these people are being harranged- anyone who is being malicious or threatening is, frankly, scum and only demeans themselves. I can thoroughly understand the stress and pressure of the CRU scientists positions.
However, the very nature of the issue makes the 'law' comparison of yours, if nothing else, less simple than you'd like.
Science is based on proof. Theories that can be tested and work that can be repeated.
At the VERY least, the CRU scientists are guilty of poor scientific conduct (FOI,publishing without releaseing/having rights for the DATA etc).
Some very extensive, very thorough and totally ignored analysese of the CRU data have been carried out and have shown more that just little errors. 'little' mistakes that can be written off as poor judgement etc.
The data i've seen, and i DO try to look at it from both sides (whether you believe that or not is another thing) is incomplete and the logic is flawed. You do not need to be a climate scientist to see that there are errors in the logic.- now this doesn't automatically mean everything they have done is wrong- not at all, but, there are REAL issues with the conclusions, the main theory and more worryingly, the integrity of the raw data itself.
Regardless of how this has all come about, the CRU scientists are in a position of having to explain there issues or be seen as 'guilty'.
In the normal scientific process this would have happened already, but, as we all know, climate science doesn't quite work that way. This, is perhaps the fallout from that distinction, and as such, i'm afraid they'll just have to live with it.
They either show the information/data/methods to prove their stance, or they withdraw their claims. simple as that. It's what'd happen in any other science.
As for the governments? A thorough, independant audit is needed. But of course, that'll never happen.
Complain about this comment
@Peter317 #180
RealClimate
Having tackled some of the IPCC literature I find that RealClimate helps put pro-AGW ideas into plain English. So they're a pro-AGW site? So what.
CACC
You may disagree with their methods. You may mistrust their motives.
But their stated aim, of reducing misinformation, should help both sides of the debate. They even provide specific examples of misinformation.
(Note, some of these complaints about misinformation are about stuff that CACC believes is plain wrong.
However others of these complaints about misinformation are about stuff that CACC believes is exaggerated, taken out of context, or has lost important caveats.)
(Note, I do not endorse CACC's exact wording of these issues.)
http://www.campaigncc.org/sceptics
Misinformation is bad for the debate, bad for climate science, bad for the credibility of people on both sides of the debate. The fallout is hurting science outside of climate science - science that is politically controversial but scientifically robust is likely to have to defer more to the authority of Council of Nicea and Genesis Chapter 1.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527514.100-battle-over-climate-science-spreads-to-us-schoolrooms.html
Meanwhile scientists on both sides of the divide are on the receiving end of deeply unpleasant criminal behaviour.
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/12/daily-mail-special-investigation/#comment-208792
http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/08/9844/#comment-214977
Even on these threads there are unnecessary insults and people on both sides not giving the other a fair hearing.
CACC's aims of tackling misinformation are not a problem. Their methods may be.
Complain about this comment
#194 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
"The fallout is hurting science outside of climate science"
The more questioning attitude is doing real science a lot of good, like the expenses scandal is doing politics a lot of good. It's the individuals involved who are having a hard time -- and deservedly so.
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #197
I'm not convinced that misinformation is the best way to get healthy questioning.
Misinformation makes people take up more hard-line positions. They are less ready to give the other side a fair hearing and more ready to accept their side's official line without questioning.
All the good stuff that has come out of Climategate looks like stuff that has been delayed by misinformation. Climategate itself looks like it was caused by over-defensiveness against misinformation. (The only long term defence against misinformation is openness and transparency.)
And I disagree that the individuals having a hard time are the ones that deserve it. All the climate scientists on both sides are having a hard time thanks to misinformation.
Complain about this comment
191. JaneBasingstoke wrote: "But I remind you that there are two levels of raw data, the original data from other institutions and the slightly tidied up CRU version. Letting CRU off the hook over the original raw data from other institutions does not let CRU off the hook over the slightly tidied CRU version of that data."
Jane, Jane, Jane. "slightly tidied up" That's a convenient phrase. But it is clear that you have not looked into this very deeply.
The whole data set is garbage to begin with because of the way it has been collected. Are you unaware of the extensive analysis of the problems with the sites (UHI) or their reduction in them, which skewed the global results? This has all been detailed on sites like wattsupwiththat and climateaudit. If you delete weather stations from colder areas, and keep the ones impacted by the UHI effect, voila!, you automatically have The Warming. So simple. Madoff material.
Then they "tidied up" the data even further!
This is widely known, and becoming more widely known by the day. That is the basic reason why this whole issue is dead. All the silly scare stories in the world will not overcome this basic flaw. Its just junk science, and it always has been. Lysenkoism, in support of the multi-trillion dollar carbon trading scam that was supposed to be the Wall Streeters next big jackpot - not to mention its many useful purposes for the One World Watermelon agenda.
I hope somedsay that whoever leaked the Climategate emails, which started this serious questioning into all the IPCC tricks, is recognized as the heroes they are.
In the meantime, poor Lord Oxborough and his cronies will just have to find another way the shear the sheep.
Complain about this comment
#194 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
"The fallout is hurting science outside of climate science"
This has always been my concern. Not just from this bogus climate 'science' but also from its twin sister, the pseudoscience of Conservation Biology.
This has done more harm to the credibility of genuine environmental science, and the genuine issues that need to be addressed, than anything else ever has or could.
I have been involved in this since the early 1970s (the biology-ecology side, not the 'climatology')... watching this vital issue being hijacked by Watermelons and others who have created a eco-crisis research-industrial complex to serve their own agendas. Like the military-industrial complex, they sell fear for a living, and invent threats that do not exist. You know about them. The BBC pumps them almost daily.
To use the AGW poster child as a classic example, the polar bear population is at all time historic highs while, in order to support the AGW hype, all we see (or should I say saw) in the media are screaming stories about extinction! What are they based on? Why models of course, based on more models based on junk data projected in straight lines into the future. Its absurd. And its positively Orwellian.
Complain about this comment
#196 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
"I'm not convinced that misinformation is the best way to get healthy questioning."
There is no legitimate authority we can appeal to to decide what is and what isn't misinformation. No opinion can be silenced on the grounds that it is misinformation, because the highest appeal there can be on the truth or falsity of opinions is how well they fare against other opinions in the "open court" of free debate.
Thus we can justifiably silence expressions of opinion on the grounds that they present a "clear and present" danger of harm to others, but not on the grounds that they are true or false.
JS MIll remains far and away the best thinker on these matters. His three arguments for freedom of expression are each worthy of a book unto itself:
1. To silence an opinion on the grounds that it is false is to assume infallibility, which is impossible.
2. Even if an opinion is true, is cannot be known or understood unless it is made to confront opposing (and in the present context false) opinions.
3. The truth is often in between two extremes, especially in political matters.
I think (2) is the most interesting and at first counter-intuitive of these arguments, and it's extremely relevant to the present discussion. I'll illustrate why with reference to David Irving, whom you mentioned a few days ago.
Mill would have said that it is vitally important for everyone to know that the Holocaust happened, rather than just to parrot the words of the truth that it did happen. But we cannot know the Holocaust happened or understand it properly unless Holocaust deniers are encouraged -- yes, encouraged -- to argue against the standard opinion (and I would insist that this particular standard opinion is true).
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #199
What part of my post or CACC's website looks like advocating censoring opinion? If there's one thing I approve of in their strategy it is the "show (not tell)" approach to exposing problems with misinformation.
If you had looked at CACC's website you would have seen that most of their complaints about misinformation are about wrong facts. Misquotes. Missing caveats.
Some of their complaints are about obvious exaggerations. The IPCC's "melt by 2035" glacier mistake was serious but it was only in WG2, and then only in the long version. It did not make either version of the summary report. Hardly a central claim.
Then there are the missing caveats. Compare the transcript of the BBC's interview with Jones
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stm
to the Mail's reporting of the same interview
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
don't you have an issue with the way the Mail reported it?
Showing evidence that someone has reported something wrong or in a potentially misleading manner is not the same as silencing them.
Complain about this comment
#200 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
"Showing evidence that someone has reported something wrong or in a potentially misleading manner is not the same as silencing them."
Yes, I agree with that. I guess I'm vaguely addressing the idea that "people will no longer trust science in general" if people spread "misinformation" about it, so it should be made more difficult for them to do so.
Complain about this comment
A few days ago I said that Nick Clegg cannot call himself a liberal. From p.50 of the Liberal Democrats' manifesto (signed by Nick Clegg):
"Liberal Democrats will:
[...]
"Help protect children and young people from developing negative
body images by regulating airbrushing in adverts."
Complain about this comment
@Graves2002 wrote:
"Biofuels make perfect sense.
The only problem is they can't cope when we suffer from such massive overpopulation.
Reduce the human vermin by at least 50% and the world would be a much better place."
Interesting comment Graves... You should read the books... 'Cull the population' and 'Introduce mass-sterilisation' and 'enforce draconian birth-control methods'... written by Hugo First...
I suspect though you would rather other people suffered for the sake of your unrealistic Utopia ?
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke @200:
"Some of their complaints are about obvious exaggerations. The IPCC's "melt by 2035" glacier mistake was serious but it was only in WG2, and then only in the long version. It did not make either version of the summary report. Hardly a central claim."
Jane, I never took you for an apologist.
It wasn't so much about it's appearance in WG2 - although it's been reported that the IPCC was informed of the error by more than one party before WG2 was published, also that something so wildly implausible should have raised at least a few eyebrows in the scientific community - I couldn't possibly comment.
The real damage was done by their reactions when the 'error' came into the open. The Indian researchers who questioned it were publicly accused by Pachauri of being 'arrogant' and of practising 'voodoo science' Even when the IPCC finally acknowledged the error, there was no apology forthcoming from Pachauri - rather he further demonstrated his level of ignorance by saying in a TV interview, "So what if it's 2035 or 2050!"
With people like that at the top, what can you expect from the rest of the organisation? I don't doubt that there are genuine, honest scientists and researchers within the IPCC, but they're mostly low down on the food-chain - it's those at the top who call the shots.
And then you have people like Gore, who also stated on TV, with a straight face, that, "The Earth's interior, a few kilometres down, is several million degrees".
The entire AGW juggernaut is rife with misinformation, so you'll have to excuse me if I take the CACC etc with a liberal sprinkling of salt.
Complain about this comment
@Peter317 #204
I have defended people on your side from unfair criticism. Now I defend some on mine.
I am not endorsing everything that CACC say. And I repeat, I'm not signed up for their own goal of an email campaign, although I am considering doing so to check my suspicion that their emails mainly rally AGW sceptics. But I can't see anything wrong with their aims.
Both sides need to give each other a fair hearing. This is not happening with AGW sceptic comments about CACC.
I repeat, Glaciergate was serious.
However there are some sceptics that have blown it up out of proportion, as if Glaciergate proved their tin foil hat conspiracy theories about AGW and the IPCC. I remind you that WG1 (science) gets rather more scrutiny than WG2 (impacts), and that the summary gets rather more scrutiny than the full report.
I turn the question round. Plenty of you sceptics out there picking holes in the IPCC, why did it take until late 2009 before anyone spotted the error?
Personally I am not happy with the "grey literature" situation with the IPCC. Glaciergate was a mistake waiting to happen. Nor am I happy at the slow response to apparent efforts to fix Glaciergate earlier. I hope that whatever happens to the IPCC that we see issues like this tackled.
You are also being hard on Pachauri.
Pachauri made serious mistakes. But there are important mitigating circumstances.
He was chosen by the Bush administration as someone likely to be sympathetic to the Bush administration, this meant he could not be a climate scientist. The "voodoo science" comment was not in a vacuum. Both sides traded insults, and this appears to be the first time that someone reported a serious flaw to Pachauri that turned out to be real. I remind you that to add to the stress this was in the run up to Copenhagen.
The Bush administration's involvement in Pachauri's appointment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1940117.stm
IPCC accused of being "alarmist" in same row that produced "voodoo science" insult
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8387737.stm
IPCC accused of "doomsday scenarios" in same row that produced "voodoo science" insult
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/india-pachauri-climate-glaciers
Complain about this comment
@Peter317 #204
I am less ready to defend Gore.
I think that Gore is a clever politician that knows some science, but doesn't know his limitations when it comes to science. That has resulted in the flaws in An Inconvenient Truth (which have played into sceptic hands, Gore is now a de facto recruiter for AGW sceptics in many UK schools because teachers are legally required to pick serious holes in his film). It has also resulted in the embarrassing gaffe about Earth's geology.
Judge orders teachers to pick serious holes in Gore's film
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html
However you are being unfair to CACC over Gore.
With regard to CACC and Gore, I don't see them going out of their way to defend him or use his material.
Some of CACC's external links include partial qualified defences, but even these are more about clarifying the science than defending Gore outright.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
CACC's forums show enthusiasm for Gore's film before its flaws were exposed in the UK press, but not after.
I point out that CACC are UK based and their email alert campaign seems recent (March 2010 date stamp on their web page according to Google).
Given the 2007 publicity over the court case, the lack of appeals to Gore by most pro-AGW debaters and the ongoing current criticism of Gore by UK school teachers why would CACC need to tackle his misinformation?
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke @205:
We'll just have to agree to disagree on the CACC. You say they're against misinformation, but, from what I've seen from looking at their website, the only 'misinformation' they seem to be against is that which isn't their particular brand of misinformation.
You ask why it took until late 2009 before anyone spotted the error. I would say that there was plenty of more important stuff to tackle before taking issue on some 'footnote buried away in the document'.
What your BBC link doesn't tell you is that Watson was voted out of the chair of the IPCC (when he'd finished his 5-year term, incidentally) in favour of Pachauri, not only because the Bush administration didn't like him, or that sceptics thought that he was overbearing, guilty of politicising the science and practising advocacy. Many IPCC scientists, as well as most government representatives (by no means only the US) also thought so, and were glad to see the back of him. Admittedly though, they didn't think much of Pachauri either. Perhaps Bush liked him because he regarded him as an intellectual equal ;-)
Regarding your last two links - when I read them I see them as being an indictment of Pachauri, yet you appear to regard them as being mitigating. Perhaps we just look at things differently.
Complain about this comment
@Peter317#207
Most of CACC's examples are clearly genuine misinformation. So they're ignoring misinformation you want fixed. They're only a little campaign group. They aren't the IPCC. They're more than balanced by the campaigners on your side of the debate. Or are you really arguing that the pro-AGW side has to be perfect before anyone on the pro-AGW side is worthy to debate climate change?
Glad to see you agree that the original 2035 glacier claim wasn't central to the IPCC's message.
As for those Pachauri links have you never been caught up in an argument where both sides say things they regret?
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS