Europe debates climate 'ambition'
Connie Hedegaard, the EU's Climate Commissioner, is seeking to open a debate on whether the bloc should adopt a tougher target than it already has for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Back in the early months of last year, EU leaders signed off a target of 20% cuts from 1990 levels by 2020, rising to 30% if a global deal emerged at the Copenhagen summit that would see other countries and other blocs taking a commensurate share.
So the deal didn't emerge, as we know. But emissions aren't rising at the moment either - in fact, the latest evidence from the European Commission showed that carbon emissions from industries within the Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) fell by 11.6% during 2009.
The recession, in a nutshell, has turned the calculations that led to the twin targets of 20% and 30% on their head.
According to Ms Hedegaard's latest notice, the cost of meeting the 20% target is now 48bn euros per year, down from 70bn when the numbers were crunched in 2008.
The new cost of a 30% target, meanwhile, comes out at 81bn euros per year.
The commission notes that the difference between going for 20% and 30% is just 0.2% of GDP.
Last month, meanwhile, researchers published a paper showing that aiming for 20% amounted to less ambition than "business as usual".
The commission isn't overtly advocating a jump in ambition to 30%, just saying that it wants "an informed debate" on the issue. Its announcement today categorically does not amount to a new European Union policy, as has been claimed in some quarters.
And while the new UK government supports moving to 30%, other countries - notably France and Germany - have issued cautionary words.
We can assume that some Eastern European countries are in their camp, given their previous opposition to strong carbon curbs; and industry groups such as Business Europe are lobbying against 30%, arguing that:
"[I]t would send the wrong signal to European industry in times of economic crisis."
How the 30% target might be achieved is very much up for debate. With the ETS still many euros short of a carbon price to challenge companies, mandatory energy efficiency improvements, "green" taxes and increased international trading of carbon credits are among the possible options.
As Ms Hedgaard indicates, there are two other calculations that EU governments will be making as they decide whether they should take the plunge into deeper waters.
One is purely political. Many EU governments have liked to see the bloc as leading the global community on climate change - a position that was stripped bare with breathtaking ease in December as the New World Order swept through Copenhagen's halls.
Moving to 30% now, it is argued in some quarters, would allow the emperor to don the robes of leadership anew.
The other calculation primarily concerns longer-term economic factors, and is centred on the notion that investment now in "green" technologies will pay dividends economically in the future.
As Joss Garman of Greenpeace UK (which supports a move to 30%) puts it:
"For a long time China has been getting ahead of us in green technologies, but this move would help us to catch up in the global clean tech race, as well as reducing our dependence on fossil fuels from dangerous sources like offshore oil drilling. Only polluters would lose out.The numbers you put into this longer-term analysis depend to a certain extent on what guesses you make about future climate politics.
"So if European leaders agree to raise the climate target, it will be a win all round, providing a much needed boost to our economic recovery, raising our competitiveness and slashing our pollution."
A strong UN deal at some point, with stringent targets supporting a high carbon price, would increase the economic case not only for wind energy, but also for others such as wave and tidal power that are so nascent that it's hard to envisage a mass blooming before 2020.
Invest in them now, reap the economic benefits later, is the argument - with another strand coming from concerns over peak oil and gas.
Enthusiasm for this vision is not limited to environment groups, with finance house Ernst and Young commenting:
"With energy markets around the world competing for the attention of new investors, economic growth can be the direct result of our ability to harness sustainable energy sources such as wind, solar, biomass and tidal.
"Europe can therefore be at the heart of this economic activity, rather than on the periphery."
Will the lure of global leadership on global climate politics and the shiny new green-tech economy be enough to persuade the bloc to make a move?
We shall see - and perhaps as soon as next month, when EU leaders gather for their next big summit.
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~34~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
It is refreshing to see these decisions demonstrated as being all about politics and economics and nothing to do with science.
Complain about this comment
i may be well off the bat here, but.... haven't studies shown that for every green job you 'create' you loose 2 in the 'real' market??
If true, is that factored into the cost-analysis??
Complain about this comment
ETS is simply another wall street scam. I am still not sure what they are selling or buying but a lot of money will be made. We are in a world of non-real digital monies traded as monies against monies and emissions, the right to pollute, to others who own forests as off-sets. The air and the forests tend to be in the public domain but are traded as if owned by corporations. The world has become one of make-believe and illusion in a pure sense. Governments want taxes as that is their business and politics has become an irrelevent gathering of private interest with a cynical view toward human and social development, a devolution to economic fiefdoms with the courtiers plying the halls of governments seeking favors and appointments. The industrial age may have moved to technology but the political sturcture it created is still very much in place.
Next the banks will want tax credits for destroying national economies and thus reducing carbon emissions. Only governments could spin that criminal behavior as a positive.
As I understand the proposals, we will continue to treat the infection, but not remove the splinter. Also, the promotion of technologies that will not meet the needs.
In Asia, history shows that Koreans invent, Japanese refine and Chinese copy and mass produce.
Complain about this comment
So, it took a recession such as we have just seen to produce a fall of 11.6%. That means a 30% fall will require a recession nearly 3 times as deep. And you could find only one voice to quote in your piece suggesting this might not be an entirely good idea?
Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it.
Complain about this comment
Great....
The EU comissioners doing what they know best. Standing in front of a wind-turbines telling the world how 'greener' we are all going to be and that the EU is in control.
It is a shame that she hasn't recently been in contact with her other colleagues down the hall or read the latest news report.
This is all irrelevant!
If the problems with the EU are not sorted out quickly, she won't have a job or desk to go back to and she may talk about wind-farms, but it is likely she will be doing it from an un-employment queue at her local job center.
Will someone please tell this woman - get a grip - the Eurozone is in financial meltdown!
Complain about this comment
Hopefully Nick Clegg & Cast Iron Cameron are up to speed on the CO2 issue. The establishment have dug themselves such a deep hole over warming that they cannot now say that they have got it all wrong. However we still need energy security, clean air and replacements for when the fossil fuels run out and CO2 is a useful way of measuring how much fossil fuel we are using. So the politicians will just have to go through the motions, warming as usual.
Complain about this comment
Outgoing UN Climate Change Chief Yvo de Boer confirmed the extent to which parts of the Copenhagen Accord should be included in a formal UN negotiating process. Don't hold your breath on this one! There will never be anything coming out of the UN that is "official" as long as the United States has a veto. After all, the United States is highlky dependent upon fossil fuels: coal, offshore drillling. Yvo de Boer's cry in the wilderness only serves to demonstrate how badly the world needs United Nations reform, especially on the Security Council so that good decicions cannot be voided by the United States of America.
The next full summit (Monday 31 May to Wednesday 9 June), represents the first major UN climate meeting since the end Copenhagen, but as I explained above, due to the American veto, expect little, gain little, waste much time - though some sort of watered-down draft may be delivered to the Cancun Summit in November.
Yvo de Boer reiterated his view that Cancun could & must deliver meaningful progress towards a BINDING international treaty, but this will happen only IF rich nations provide evidence that they
- are taking the situation seriously,
- are making good on their "commitment" to provide $30bn (£21bn) of fast-track climate funding to poorer nations, and
- are delivering on emission targets and establishing mechanisms to measure same.
De Boer's comments came as one of China's top climate change officials, Xie Zhenhua, confirmed for the first time that China is targeting the UN climate meeting in South Africa in late 2011 for the completion of any international treaty. UN and EU officials have already signaled that they don't even expect a deal to be finalized in Cancun, and Xie endorsed that view yesterday, confirming that the best that could be hoped for in Cancun was progress.
Nevertheless, as a sign that progress could be delivered, India yesterday published its first full greenhouse gas emissions report in more than a decade. The report, which was based on 2007 data, showed that greenhouse emissions from the electricity, cement and waste sectors have more than doubled, while other sectors have also seen significant increases. The move is positive because it is transparent, reporting of greenhouse gas emissions emerged as one of the most contentious issues at last year's Copenhagen summit, with the US insisting that countries submit to independent verification, except of course for the United States itself.
Economic growth can be the direct result of the world’s ability to harness sustainable energy sources like wind, solar, and tidal.
Europe can therefore be at the heart of this economic activity, rather than on the periphery. Next month, in Bonn EU leaders will gather for their next big climate summit, we’ll see how bright, how creative, how progressive the EU countries are prepared to be.
Here’s my wish list:
1. Investigate HAARP and SURA to ensure that neither the United States nor Russia are playing God with these potential WMD – weather weapons that bombard the ionosphere and result in draught, floods, hurricaines, earthquakes etc.
2. Reform of the United Nations so that the Americans no longer carry so much power to put-down good ideas, climate or otherwise.
3. Real pressure on the United States to pass any climate control bill, seeing that all their bills seem to get stuck somewhere in their democratic process.
4. The United States to set an example of independent verification of emission perforamnce by submitting itself as test case #1.
Complain about this comment
Environmental reporters benefit by these measures - they fuel the fire, green groups do the same and will benefit too, whilst the emissions 'problem' persists they will always be in employment.
Ordinary workers and people/families will be those that suffer.
Complain about this comment
I was sitting at the coffee shop this morning pondering the Hartwell Paper, Lester Brown's Plan B 4.0, and thinking I should try and get through another chapter of Al Gore's book "Our Choice."
It occurred to me that the chapters I really liked best in "Our Choice" were the ones on 'Forestry Best Practice' and 'Soils & Agriculture Best Practice.'
I had to leave the coffee shop to come here to the University and put it all together.
I found this new thread by Richard Black - and coincidentally - or not - I will be 'on topic.'
===================================
From the Hartwell piece [1] by Mike Hulme, one of the Hartwell Paper authors:
"Climate change has been represented as a conventional environmental "problem" that is capable of being "solved."
It is neither of these... (my emphasis)
It is not possible to have a "climate policy" that has emissions reduction as the all-encompassing and driving goal...
We advocate inverting and fragmenting the conventional approach: [my emphasis] accepting that taming climate change will only be achieved successfully as a benefit contingent upon other goals that are "
===============================
So I tried this inverting with Lester Brown's Plan B 4.0, which is I suppose guilty at least partially of this 'head on approach.':
Here is Lester Brown's Plan B 4.0 in original format:
================================
"An initiative that has no precedent in either scale or urgency."
"It has four components:"
1) "Cutting net carbon dioxide emissions 80 percent by 2020."
2) "Stabilizing population at 8 billion or lower."
3) "Eradicating poverty."
4) "Restoring the Earth's natural systems, including its soils, aquifers, forests, grasslands, and fisheries."
"The ambitiousness of this plan is not driven by perceived political feasability but by scientific reality."
[adapted from Lester Brown's book, "Plan B 4.0," p.23 & 24, chapter 1, 'Selling our future' (pdf)]
===============================
And here are the four goals in 'inverted' Hartwell-style,
"politically attractive and relentlessly pragmatic."
===============================
1) "Restoring the Earth's natural systems, including its soils, aquifers, forests, grasslands, and fisheries."
2) "Eradicating poverty."
3) "Stabilizing population at 8 billion or lower."
4) "Cutting net carbon dioxide emissions 80 percent by 2020."
==============================
Let's add the Hartwell Paper's three primary goals:
1) "ensure that the basic needs, especially the energy demands, of the world's growing population are adequately met.
2) ensure that we develop in a manner that balances social, economic and ecological goals.
3) ensure that our societies are adequately equipped to withstand the risks and dangers that come from all the vagaries of climate, whatever their cause."
====================
Let's combine these seven points - I'll list them in order of personal preference - maybe we could call it Plan B 4.1?
\\\ Plan B 4.1 ///
1) Ensure that the basic needs, especially the energy demands, of the world's growing population are adequately met.
2) Ensure that we develop in a manner that balances social, economic and ecological goals.
3) Ensure that our societies are adequately equipped to withstand the risks and dangers that come from all the vagaries of climate, whatever their cause." (1,2 & 3 from Hartwell)
4) Restore the Earth's natural systems, including its soils, aquifers, forests, grasslands, and fisheries.
5) Eradicate poverty.
6) Stabilize population at 8 billion or lower.
7) Cut net carbon dioxide emissions 80 percent by 2020. (4,5,6 & 7 from Lester Brown's Plan B 4.0)
===============================
What do you think?
- Manysummits -
[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8673828.stm
Complain about this comment
@ LarryKealey:
The BBC are reporting that BP are about to try using "mud and cement". In my opinion, that's good news, because it's low-tech. I trust low-tech more than high-tech, because it's modest. I'm keeping my finger crossed.
Complain about this comment
The EU should reform the CAP to prevent wastage in farming and redirected some of that wasted money into renewable energy support. This could also generate income for farmers as there are many waste biowaste opportunities to generate power.
Complain about this comment
Just another example of how politicians are completely out of touch with reality.
Has she heard about Greece ?
Complain about this comment
Consumer response is key:
no nookie w/o BC - free BC
yearly tax credit to lower ergs
no immigration from mouthbreeding cultures
war is good fix
Europa is already in the game -- thanx
Complain about this comment
Manysummits:
The political realities of vest fossil fuel interests and their ability to "protect" themselves through governments is a major barrier to change. The fossil fuel industry is not opposed to alternative energies as long as they control them and reap the majority of the profits. In that mode they exercise political influence to create barriers to development from other potential competitors.
Doing nothing about climate change is a bad idea.
you may want to read the report on "Inside the Greenhouse:
http://www.dieselnet.com/links/health_.html
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard
#10 - I have my fingers crossed as well - but I am not holding my breath. There is a lot of pressure in the well, the mud may just be carried out with the crude...or a pressure buildup could cause a rupture - a lot could go wrong with this.
But lets all hope...
Kealey
Complain about this comment
Am I the only one why shouted at the screen when I read the outrageous sum of money that's going straight down the drain to solve a non-existent problem?
48bn A ******* YEAR!!
I say with certainty that many of you who campaigned against Iraq (I did too) were quick to mention what a waste of money that was for no return.
This makes Iraq look like small potatoes.
Complain about this comment
7 excellent goals to save the world - Bravo! If only we had taken notice when these famous words were said: "the world will provide enough for everyones needs but not for everyones greed" (guess who..?)-then all this last minute knee jerk policy stuff on the edge of a precipice might not have been necessary....too little, too late?
Complain about this comment
Speaking of AGW lunacy, Euro-style:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/24/climate-craziness-of-the-week-denmark-evicting-citizens-to-clear-cut-forests-for-wind-turbines/
Isn't Hedegaard from Denmark?
Could she be part of the Big Wind Lobby?
If anyone actually believed any of this was actually about the environment, this is rather enlightening, to put it mildly.
Complain about this comment
As for this fabulous 'green' economic opportunity, just look at Spain
Complain about this comment
1 - The science is taken as a given...
2 - Got a source for that?
4 - Read a book on sustainable development. It's gonna 'blow your mind'. While your at it, try reading a book on how journalists write articles...
5 - The Euro is up the creek, but the idea that the EU is in meltdown is up there in the fantasy stakes with the idea that climate change science is on its last legs.
6 - If by the 'establishment' you mean the vast majority of scientists, academics, politicians, professional groups etc etc, then I think they do need informing that 'they have got it all wrong' because they seem remarkably ignorant of your perception of reality...
8 - Environmental groups making up environmental problems so they can get rich. It's like those homelessness charities pretending people are living on the streets and those cancer charities pretending people are ill. Lot of 'bad' people out there...
12 - Given that the 'climate change sceptic' parties just did very badly at the UK General Election and only a tiny minority of the population, when polled, say they definitely don't think climate change exists - it begs the question how 'out of touch' Connie Hedegaard actually is...
16 - 0.4% of GDP to deliver a low carbon economy sounds like a bargin to me but then again they could spend the money on something really worthwile like...trident
lixxie @ 11 - Wise words.
Complain about this comment
Is it just me or does the Klimate Kommissar look a bit mad ?
Complain about this comment
Larry Kealey - I just got an email from someone who forwarded a fantastic graphic of what they are doing out at that well, complete with all the ships there and all there operations. You and others would probably find it very interesting.
Can't post that email address of course but it is apparently on this site:
oceaneering.com
(Oceaneering International, Inc.
Pipeline Repair Systems Division)
Complain about this comment
While I am sure that the socialist euromentality will cave to the thoughts and absolute idiocy of the UN (Useless Nitwits). First off yes the climate is changing we live on a planet in a universe that is constantly changing. The part that I have the problem with is the "man made" well now it is climate change, where it was "AlGorebull Warming". Its a bunch of crap and it will destroy economies. The sooner you tree huggers realize that it is crap the better off we will all be
Complain about this comment
Mannysummits wrote this long diatribe on how climate change 1) Ensure that the basic needs, especially the energy demands, of the world's growing population are adequately met.
How you going to do that how are you going to do any of it??? You intellectual midgets sit in a coffee shop reading that dipstick algore book and then coming up with all this intellectual cattle excrement about sustainability but not once has any of you "feel gooders" come up with a viable solution or alternative to oil or fossil fuels. when you get an electric car that takes 1 10th of the energy to produce and will haul a ton of stuff Yup a 2000km mountain I will consider it. until then keep ranting. You just come off as an elitist pinhead if you ask me
Complain about this comment
HEY!!!! Who stole my ozone whole? Where is it? Oh I know some dippy politician from so socialist europinhead country took it.
Complain about this comment
onthemoneys #23, #24, #25.
don't know what medication you're on, pray tell, it seems to be very effective.
Complain about this comment
Maybe europe can get 48BN a year from the money they will save from Greece.
Complain about this comment
To Ghost; mark o; onthemoneys; et al
Well, since I am obviously at a severe disadvantage, being a pinhead and all, I better speak s l o w l y ..
Numero Uno:
Ghost - that's quite the report you linked to! Haven't read it yet, but I am familiar to some extent with indoor air pollution and its largely unrecognized negative effects (by the public).
Please note that point #7 asks for a reduction of 80% in CO2 by 2020, even more ambitious than the new National Research Council (of the USA) reports.
My growing belief is that the Hartwell people also recognize the need for drastic cuts in CO2 emissions - their report is meant to be a 'log-jam' buster.
If one begins with point 1 in the seven point plan I posted, the stated intention, as outlined in the full report, is to spur alternate energy and innovation. They think that politicians and the UN can seize on point one, and thus make a start (Millenium Development Goals?)
I think they have something here!
I think of Geldoff and Bono, dedicated to Africa - and I see that while we all have our problems - Africa - where we are all from - is in need of attention.
In giving them attention, we will inadvertently, as it were (oblique approach), become once again human first - techno-freaks second.
That order is non-trivial, and is in fact the 'impass-buster.'
Mark o:
Thanks - I would like to reiterate something that is increasingly weighing on my mind - small as it is!
========================
From the Hartwell piece by Mike Hulme, one of the Hartwell Paper authors:
"Climate change has been represented as a conventional environmental "problem" that is capable of being "solved."
It is neither of these..." (my emphasis)
========================
Mark! Then what is it, if not a "conventional environmental problem"?
Ghost gives us a partial answer in his #14:
"The political realities of vest fossil fuel interests and their ability to "protect" themselves through governments is a major barrier to change."
=====================
I think we could all benefit from further discussion as to what is the climate crisis? If not a conventional environmental problem, perhaps the other conventional environmental problems are also not conventional, and this is why there is very little to show for all of our whale treaties, and law of the sea enactments, and fisheries protection acts, etc...
========================
onthemoneys:
At least you do not pretend to be polite!
I have no problem with that.
"intellectual midget"
Nice term - do you consider yourself in a separate category?
Perhaps a few words from Emily Dickinson? (there are poets, and then there is Emily):
"I'm nobody! Who are you?
Are you nobody, too?
Then there's a pair of us — don't tell!
They'd banish us, you know.
How dreary to be somebody!
How public, like a frog
To tell your name the livelong day
To an admiring bog!"
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Mark Mardell's America is right on topic, and timely too, as regards the seven point plan outlined in my post #9:
"How President Barack Obama sees America's role in the world will be outlined on Thursday in his first National Security Strategy. Much time and effort will be spent deciding on how it differs from President George W Bush's 2006 document, but I have a feeling he will duck the biggest question - America's role in the world." (my emphasis)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/05/should_america_lead_the_world.html
============================
Reading the three summaries of the National Research Council (USA) reports on Manmade Global Warming (confirmed), one is glad to see science reaffirming science - but that is no surprise.
But I was appalled at the complete and utter lack of attention paid to the rest of the world - not because I think the United States should magically have been transformed into a caring and compassionate country, bleeding as it were for the rest of the world, but because practically speaking the environmental crisis on Earth cannot be addressed without a tribal council - in modern days this would mean the United Nations and the Peoples of the World.
Lead or get thee lost -
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
We're talking about huge sums of money being wasted, the resident hippy is quoting poetry.
Ever wonder why greens have trouble being taken seriously?
Complain about this comment
if you combine co2 emissions and global warming do you get a bunch of envrionmentalosers hot air?
Complain about this comment
Brunnen_G #30.
"We're talking about huge sums of money being wasted.."
48bn EUR == ~66bn USD == approx. French or British military expenditure for 2008.
81bn EUR == ~111bn USD == 18.3% of USA military expenditure for 2008.
talking about waste.
Complain about this comment
\\\ Resident Hippie Reports on Al Gore's "Our Choice" - Again! ///
Just finished all but the last chapter.
So far, Forestry and Soil Best Practice sections most illuminating, but a close contender is chapter 14 - on why we think the way we do, i.e., why we are not quickly or effectively taking action.
I made four pages of notes on this chapter, mostly direct quotes - which the moderators would probably find break some copyright law - so I'll summarize, while advocating a thorough read by any with the interest:
1) Brain research and psychological studies highlighted.
2) These studies, especially on the dorsolateral frontal cortex, suggest to Mr. Gore, who styles himself a "recovering politician," that information overload, and a too stressful lifestle, alongside a calculated advertising and marketing strategy, produce a rampant consumer, decoupled from the normal ability of the human being to think long term as well as short term.
3) But long term thinking requires a long gestation period, accompanied by deep thinking, before it can be incorporated into society's value system.
4) Facts are not enough. People must feel there is a problem that they can relate to in a human way, based perhaps on their own experiences.
In short - without obviously having read the Hartwell Paper, which postdates publication of this book by a year, Mr. Gore I think would endorse the Hartwell Approach, at least in its touchy-feely, hippie like approach.
This is counter-intuitive, as the Hartwell Paper specifically tries to sound hard-nosed, i.e., relentlessly pragmatic.
However, actions speak louder than words, and as their first goal is to reach out and touch the peoples of the world without any electrical power at all - I'll stick with the humanity first approach which I think this group is advocating.
\\\ Chapters 15 - The True Cost of Carbon ///
Mr. Gore personally likes best a straight carbon tax - similar to James Hansen.
Second choice is 'Cap and Trade.'
Third is direct regulation of CO2 under the Clean Air Act.
He thinks the straight carbon tax has the proverbial chance of a snowball in you know wherre, and so advocates Cap & Trade as a possible, along with some direct regulation.
He specifically mentions Sweden, whom he says uses both a dirsect carbon tax and cap and trade to great effect.
In a nutshell - all three are variously useful, the key being some mechanism which prices carbon, spurring innovation and a reduced use of fossil fuels, better forest and soil management, etc...
Again, the Hartwell Paper is on side here, advocating at first an very low, i.e., a politically acceptable tax, which should be used to directly fund innovation, i.e., green alternative energy to the billion who have no access at all to electricity.
- Manysummits | Hippie in Residence -
PS:
The last chapter I am saving for tomorrow morning - it begins with George Bush Junior in a nose to nose embrace with a Saudi Sheik.
Complain about this comment
\\\ Personal Note from a Hippie ///
There is some truth in the hippie allegation.
In 1970, after a summer's work for a big oil company in Calgary, this Montrealer's first trip West, I headed down to San Francisco. And while I may not have ended up on Haight Ashbury, I did see Juan Marichal pitch live at Candlestick Park. And in Calgary that summer, a highlight was the live Janis Joplin concert I attended - she was awesome! Then I hitch-hiked all the way back across Canada to Montreal.
I have to feel for my wife Underacanoe. When we met I was bust climbing myself into poverty after six years devoted to climbing mountains, and this last year and a half, Underacanoe has watched in amazement as I blog on this site after spending too many hours doing research - and all for free.
Of course, when we two look at the 'business as usual' crowd, being a hippie seems a good thing by comparison.
Why don't we all sit back and the Lobby can each tell us their stories.
I for one would be fascinated.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
LarryKealey wrote: that DDT was no problem and then claimed its use was denied in Africa causing many to die of Malaria. This is not true! DDT can be used and is being used for controlling Malaria in Africa. What was banned was its use in agriculture. If you search the WEB. you can find info such as the following from the Worldwatch Institute
"DDT is no longer used or manufactured in most of the world, but because it does not break down readily, it is still one of the most commonly detected pesticides in the milk of nursing mothers. DDT is also one of the "dirty dozen" chemicals included in the 2001 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. The signatories to the "POPs Treaty" essentially agreed to ban all uses of DDT except as a last resort against disease-bearing mosquitoes. Unfortunately, however, DDT is still a routine option in 19 countries, most of them in Africa. (Only 11 of these countries have thus far signed the treaty.) Among the signatory countries, 31-slightly fewer than one-third-have given notice that they are reserving the right to use DDT against malaria. On the face of it, such use may seem unavoidable, but there are good reasons for thinking that progress against the disease is compatible with reductions in DDT use. "
You can also find information on the resistance to DDT that mosquitoes have developed -- evolution in action.
DDT had a major impact by lowering bird reproduction success by causing thin egg shells, which lead to eggs cracking before the chicks are ready to hatch. Bird nesting success has increased significantly since DDT was stopped (except for the use in 3rd World Malaria campaigns were it is primarily used by spraying it on interior walls). It also bio accumulates as pointed out previously which is why it had much more impact on raptors and other organisms higher in the food chain -- Inuit in Canada for example.
Such lack of care on your part does make one wonder how seriously to take your assertions denying for AGW. What is your view on acid rain?
Complain about this comment
@Manysummits #9
What do you think?
I think it's all a waste of time, effort, money and resources.
(but i think name calling is a waste of time too)
/Mango
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
"confirmation bias" - the tendency to look for and find confirmatory evidence for pre-existing beliefs and ignore or dismiss the rest.
/Mango
Complain about this comment
@37
that basically sums up AGW.
But there's always the chesnut (and staple AGW argumental technique)- using symptoms of a changing climate to prove WHY it's changing- which of course is idiotic.
Complain about this comment
Although off-topic, there may be those intrested...
CNN have produced a 13 minute animation which describes the "Top-Kill" procedure being attempted by BP. It explains how mud will slow the oil flow and concrete will stop it completely "if" the procedure works.
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/05/follow-the-top-kill-procedure-no.html?etoc
Complain about this comment
LabMunkey at #2
It is 'true' in the sense that there are studies which claim to show that. There are also many studies which show the opposite. Both types of studies that claim unabiguous results seem to have been tailored to meet the requirements or beliefs of those that commissioned them. The reality seems to be that the results are mixed and depend on a wide range of factors. However, that said, there is definitely scope to learn from what worked and what didn't.
Complain about this comment
Are these people in a world of their own?
As millions of people loose their jobs, banks and even whole countries collapse - the EU wants to waste 81bn euros per year on 'targets' ?
The Chinese must be laughing all the way to the bank.
Hopefully this will further fuel the popular rebelion against the global eco-scam.
Complain about this comment
Bowman at#10
I wouldn't classify the approach as 'low tech'. Even the 'mud' ain't what your kids mix up in the garden with dirt and water, but a special blend of materials including a whole host of chemical additives (I think this is a bentonite-based clay mud). Getting the stuff down to the sea-bed and then working with it to be able to insert it into the system in a way that may make a difference isn't exactly low tech either - think of all the pumping, monitoring and control systems that need to be integrated.
Complain about this comment
@ 40- thanks. i wasn't sure if it were simply a 'selective' report- i.e. a confirmational bias one, or one genuinley showing good reuslts/analyses of the issue.
Though from a personal viewpoint- i am concearned that building lots of jobs around a scientifically dubious concept, could well turn around and bite us all in the .. rear.
If all these jobs are 'created' and AGW doesn't pan out, then all of a sudden you have a lot of unemployed people. worrying.
Complain about this comment
#42 simon-swede wrote:
I wouldn't classify the approach as 'low tech'...
a special blend of materials...
a whole host of chemical additives...
isn't exactly low tech either
Oh dear -- then it's unlikely to work. I wonder how long we'll have to wait before they finally admit this sort of job calls for quantity, not quality!
Complain about this comment
40 simon-swede wrote:
It is 'true' in the sense that there are studies which claim to show that.
Whoa, whoa, whoa -- or maybe I mean WHAAAAT?
Are you an out-and-out postmodern relativist lunatic?
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #44
Quantity and quality (density, flow characteristics, etc) are needed here. Plus location, location, location!
Sometimes the simple is not a solution!
Complain about this comment
LabMuney at #43
Leaving aside where we know we differ (...!), I agree with you that to be meaningful 'green jobs' need to meet certain criteria and not "make-work" that briefly 'look good' but at the ultimate expense of the wider economy or creating/maintaining employment opportunities.
Last year the Economist had a useful overview of studies on the theme of green job creation ("The grass is always greener", 2nd April 2009). One of the examples is the one you mention of 1 job costing 2 (it's from Spain, but it is a pretty dodgy calculation in my view).
I do think there are ways to build more employment in ways that will also have positive environmental outcomes (surprise!). And I do think that seeking to create the right conditions for this is a very good idea (read 'necessary'). However, I am deeply sceptical about claims that there are easy win-win scenarios out there (genuine examples of such are few and far between as far as I can see). It is more useful to think of what trade-offs are involved and be up front about both the potential costs and potential benefits. There are a multitude of policy options and mixes available, and some are clearly better than others.
Complain about this comment
@Manysummits #9 RE:\\\ Plan B 4.1 ///
Here's your problem...you're fixated on this carbon garbage.
First off...#1 of your plan is functionally the same thing as #5.
Second, #1 (which is functionally the same as #5) would effectively solve #6...since it has done so in essentially all industrial socieites.
And then we get to #7. #7 is in direct opposition to #2/#1 and therefore #5 and #6.
Without #5 and #6... #3 and #4 cannot be met either.
Basically...your insistence on #7 is incompatible with everything else you want. You seem to have a very real problem (and at your age???) dealing with the FACT that people are NEVER going to strive for your sort of life.
I realized way back in the 80's that you're never going to get anyone to give up a whole lot. The best way to get them to change is to give them an alternative equal to or greater than their current one. This does in fact tie your hands quite a bit...but the alternative is them calling you an idiotic nutter. In retrospect, before that point I was in fact an idiot for thinking I could convince MOST people to live a more minimal lifestyle if that wasn't something they were naturally drawn to.
Look at yourself. You're an old hippie. You OBVIOUSLY have some actual desire to live the way you do. All the other hippies fell victim to their other drives. They got jobs, vehicles, eat meat raised on farms, purchase crappy electronics, surf the net, watch TV...etc, etc. There is absolutely nothing wrong with YOU being you. I however...while living a more minimal existence than most...am not you. Neither is anyone else.
Your wife tolerates you (you mentioned her elsewhere) because she can...she is obviously in some way like you. Most other women couldn't tolerate your ways and would move on to someone else. By the way...the desires of those other women will in fact act as their own driving force to make men want more stuff (in an attempt to get sex, basically). This is just humanity. This is us acting like the animals we are.
The funny thing here is that as much as I've pushed to stop these crazy energy schemes...I never ACTUALLY worried that the world would go completely off the deep end with them. My only concern was to limit damage caused by overzealous and unrealistic people (like yourself). There is no question that your demands WILL NOT BE MET with currently used "alternative" technology. Its a full blown conclusion. All of the time you've spent reading (and re reading) your AGW propaganda has been a complete waste.
Had you given REAL thought to this you'd have stopped wasting your time on sounding like a marginally insane alarmist and instead worked on some kinds of solutions that FIX the problem you're complaining about...and in a way people would tolerate. If you lack that creative ability...your only option is to push for measures that might actually be achievable...not 80% reductions in 10 years.
I'm not trying to be mean here. I'm just trying to get across the reality. Idealism is nice as a purely internal state but the real world doesn't run on rainbows and unicorn flatulence.
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #45
As far as I know, no, I am not a lunatic, post-modern or otherwise (but I would claim that, wouldn't I?).
Context is relevant. I was responding to LabMunkey who had written: "i may be well off the bat here, but.... haven't studies shown that... If true,...".
Complain about this comment
It's the word 'true' in inverted commas I'm wondering about. On the face of it, it looked like you were saying that what makes a claim true is a "study" that makes the claim.
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #50. No Bowman, your interpretation is wrong.
Complain about this comment
The price of a low-carbon economy under this scheme.
1. Your job
2. Your savings
3. Your house
4. Your family
5. Your health
6. Your freedom to protest.
Complain about this comment
In case you think I'm being picky, relativism isn't just a postmodern bit of nuttiness. It's ancient nuttiness. One of Plato's most important dialogues (Theaetetus) is a protracted argument against the claim (made by Protagoras) that "Man is the measure of all things".
Man is the measure of all things is still a popular slogan, even if it isn't always understood exactly as it was originally intended (it originally meant something like "truth is created by agreement"). The Art Institute of Chicago went to the trouble of having it carved into the stone of its walls as its own motto.
I've often wondered why so many AGW believers seem to regard consensus as vitally important. One explanation would be that many of them are relativists who think truth is created through agreement. So they naturally think agreement is a very definite "mark of truth".
Complain about this comment
Hey onthemoneys, leave our court jester alone, we in the lobby have become quite fond of him. Besides peoples won’t listen to you if you are rude.
manysummits gives vast amounts of his time to what he hopes will change the world. In so doing he gives us a valuable insight into the thinking of many in the warming camp, even if others warmists cringe with embarrassment.
Complain about this comment
\\ from the hippy supporters club //
Keep it up manysummits, don't let the b*******s grind you down!
Complain about this comment
#18 CanadianRockies
"Speaking of AGW lunacy, Euro-style:" - do you just shuttle from here to wottsupwiththat and back? why not try to broaden your horizons?
Complain about this comment
Minuend at #52
That sounds like a critique that could be applied more generally, for example to the Blair/Brown and Bush Jr administrations!
Complain about this comment
Can we please forget Anthropogenic Climate Change / Global Warming as THE reason why we all should maximise the efficiency of energy use and simply get on with using the minimum energy possible for everything we need.
We need to live as frugally as we possibly can and minimise our consumption of energy and destruction of our only planet for the far more rational and scientifically important reason that the planet's resources are finite.
Forget Climate Change, it is a busted flush, we need to work towards Minimising the Use of Energy for the excellent reason that the resources available are finite and the efficient use of these finite resources is an ethical priority. (NOTE no mention of Anthropogenic Global Warming - at all.)
Start by making it illegal to sell energy inefficient devices.
For example, and this will annoy boy racers everywhere, cars that exceed the speed limit or accelerate too fast e.g. no cars can be sold using more than 120 g/km from say 2015 as a start with similar limits for motor cycles all vehicles to be fitted with intelligent speed limiters that prevent vehicles exceeding the speed limits in farce of the road that the vehicle is travelling on.
Large distribution companies should have to minimise the amount of liquid fuel they use in the businesses to say, two thirds of present levels by 2017.
A maximum heat transmission level for all housing and buildings should also be set and governments should be responsible for ensuring that they have programmes designed to bring old housing stock into line with the requirements.
No unnecessary floodlighting / security lighting of buildings and no building should be allowed to keep its lights on when there was nobody inside.
Heating / Cooling systems should be designed to provide a suitable temperatures and lighting only when they are occupied.
etc.
Forget Climate Change simply Live Efficiently.
Complain about this comment
re capping the well, this is one subject i can agree with bowman and larry on. fingers crossed.
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #53
No I don't think you are being picky. I think you you are being a bit silly.
Complain about this comment
#38 labmunkey
"But there's always the chesnut (and staple AGW argumental technique)- using symptoms of a changing climate to prove WHY it's changing- which of course is idiotic."
i'd absolutely agree........if that;s what the 'AGW argumental technique' (whatever that means...any views bowman?) was. but i imagine your analysis is as flawed as usual, so i don't.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
@ 47.
i guess it boils down to what a green job ENDS UP being.
if it's something along the lines of-
-helping people insulate their homes better
-helping people recycle more
-encouraging more cycling (though perhaps not on the A1)
-encouraging people to grow some food of their own
-forestry work (maintenence, planting)
-research into VIABLE (i.e. not wind) renewables
-research into alternative energy
then yup, i can live with it, provided it's not state funded at the expense of other sectors.
if its more along the lines of (and this is what i fear it will turn out to be):
-advice groups on co2 foot prints
-advertising and canvessing on co2 (i had a poor sap come around the other day about that. i almost felt sorry for him- he didnt' have any facts at all bless).
-beurocratice middle management to 'oversee' green projects
-think tanks
-legislative groups
-anti-sceptical confrenses
etc etc.
going green is all well and good- but i worry it's being forced into an economy that cannot support it and worse, that the jobs created aren't ACTUALLY going to do anything.
i wonder- is there more information on just what these green jobs will entail??
Complain about this comment
@61
ross, i am of course reffering to the politicians and media here.
But you cannot argue that this is a prime argumental tehnique used. In fact, i'd serisouly love you to try and argue against that point.
luckily though the majority of scientists don't do this. save for the compulsary paragraph - 'may be due to the changes brought around by climate change' that's sneaking into every paper.
Complain about this comment
#manysummits
"Why don't we all sit back and the Lobby can each tell us their stories.
I for one would be fascinated."
afraid there's no profit in telling stories......
all this reminds me a bit of the monty python 'merchant banker/charity sketch', there's such a huge disconnect between the largely neo-liberal lobby and anyone trying to make the world a better place.
and all the talk of 'we can;t afford this xxx billions' reminds me of that wonderful al gore film 'an inconvenient truth' and the scales, on one side lots of yummy money, on the other the entire planet. too accurate to be funny :o(
Complain about this comment
#30. Brunnen_G wrote:
"We're talking about huge sums of money being wasted, the resident hippy is quoting poetry.
Ever wonder why greens have trouble being taken seriously"
Meanwhile Investment Bankers and Sub-Prime Marketeers (without a literary bone in their bodies) who want to continue awarding outrageous bonuses for total failure are having trouble trying to get people to realise they're making a perverse joke at the rest of the world's expense. Perhaps if they'd spent a bit more time learning history and studying literature, they wouldn't have repeated the events of the 1930's and they'd be able to understand why people are so angry.
Complain about this comment
@ 65.
i think the real difference is a group of people selling pipe-dreams on the back of a faulty theory vs a group of people who are actually thinking about the consequences of BOTH actions (or inaction).
the fantasy world you lot live in must be nice.
Complain about this comment
#60 simon-swede wrote:
"No I don't think you are being picky. I think you you are being a bit silly."
I accept that I misinterpreted what you wrote. I guess I'm just thinking aloud, on the question of why so many people seem to regard consensus so highly -- in science, of all areas.
Complain about this comment
58.John_from_Hendon wrote:
'Forget Climate Change, it is a busted flush, we need to work towards Minimising the Use of Energy for the excellent reason that the resources available are finite and the efficient use of these finite resources is an ethical priority.'
Forget the ethics which leads to a cultural argument in which you would take a Puritan stance and others will differ.
It is,however, a financial priority for individuals although not for society. Prices are high because taxes on fuel are very high. However if we use less fuel taxes will have to rise on other things. So take your pick, taxes on fuel or food?
Your other points.
Regulate car speeds and acceleration. Apart from doing wonders for the prices of second-hand cars, there are dangerous technical problems. Many experiments have been done on computer controlled speed limiting cars according to satellite mapping of speed limit boundaries. The technology isn't up to it yet. GPS boundaries are too vague and cause test cars to decelerate far before edges of the changing speed limits causing near accidents with following cars.
Distribution companies already are very efficient in minimising fuel costs by maximising load per trip. Bureaucratic limits could easily cause the collapse of a very efficient system by making regional distribution uneconomic. Food shortages in the regions?
Insulation in old buildings. Having just modernised 6 run-down flats I have to say that meeting the current regulations is impossibly expensive. They change every few weeks rendering builders estimates useless. I would have done better to let the property rot.
Floodlight reduction. A thieves paradise. One council turned off its lights and found the costs of doing so to be 3 times the cost of leaving them on. Wasted taxes.
Heating systems are already very efficient. Just educate people on turning them off more often.
Without going over the top I think your ideas would need a raft of new laws and an increase in the nanny state.
Complain about this comment
LabMunkey at #47
I'm not particularly keen on sponsoring or promoting particular selected jobs or technologies. I reckon that approach will be inefficient (in a broad sense of the term), and always involves someone somewhere coming up with an approved list. There might be some good things on such a list, but inevitably there is dross. I accept that there are circumstances where such an approach can and perhaps should play a role, but I reckon that it often entails a lot of effort for small rewards, and has a tendancy to go awry.
I rather favor an approach that tackles the things that get in the way of developing 'greener' (less 'dirty') economies - such as perverse incentives/penalties, inappropriate regulation, entry barriers and the like. Sort some of that mess out, and you'll see a lot of positive things happening without a lot of people with clip-boards deciding what can and cannot be done!
And yes, I know it's more complex than that - and that the 'devil is in the detail' (not a real devil, mind you Bowman).
Complain about this comment
@ 70
"Sort some of that mess out, and you'll see a lot of positive things happening without a lot of people with clip-boards deciding what can and cannot be done! "
can't argue with that!
Complain about this comment
The 13 minute description of the 'Top Kill' operation available on CNN (see post #39) is actually from BP. It is quite detailed and I found it rather helpful.
It can be found directly at:
http://bp.concerts.com/gom/kentwells_update24052010.htm
The actual technical briefing begins at about 55 sec into the video.
Complain about this comment
#53 Bowmanthebard:
'I've often wondered why so many AGW believers seem to regard consensus as vitally important. One explanation would be that many of them are relativists who think truth is created through agreement. So they naturally think agreement is a very definite "mark of truth".'
Funny that. I've often wondered why so many 'sceptics', while not being themselves experts in the science, refuse to listen to the opinion of those experts. Instead of, for example, taking seriously the views of every (yes, every) national science academy in the world, or the opinion (in a recent survey) of 97% of practising climate researchers, they instead cling to the comfort of Wattsup and similar.
We are all, always, in danger of confirmation bias. But to be accused of this by 'sceptics' who can only quote Wattsup or Climateaudit has its own special flavour of irony.
Lorax
Complain about this comment
#69. wrote:
"58.John_from_Hendon wrote:..."
Cars - I do not agree that speed limiters cause accidents. I use one with care and consideration and I know that there are vehicles behind me from time time who think it is right and proper to exceed the speed-limit whilst overtaking on level crossings and at school crossings - but they are idiots - do you wish to associate yourself with the law breaking maniacs?
If I can read speed limit signs so can a car speed limiter. The possession and use of a speed limiter should be a defence against a speeding or parking fine. Furthermore the variable speed limits on roads such as the M25 have shown that they both increase traffic flow and reduce accidents.
There is absolutely no reason that any can should ever exceed the maximum allowed speed limit - ever - so it should be illegal to make, sell or supply such 'faulty' equipment. We consider it right that there are maximum strength limits on the sale of intoxicating spirits - it is an anomaly that these faulty cars can still be sold!
Cars are a form of comfortable, safe, personal transport they are not body part extenuations for the terminally brain dead and under-endowed!
Buildings: There are severe problems with the Building Regulations: firstly, because of their unnecessary complexity, and secondly, because the effect of insulation products on the energy efficiency of old structures is only about half as good as the details suggested by the manufacturers.
Building inefficiency is hugely exacerbated by the absurd cost of land and old building in the UK. For this we have to blame the Bank of England in not bearing down on house and land price inflation. Old houses should cost less than new ones - they are second-hand, part worn and energy inefficient (as you have found). What in effect you are saying that the flats that you purchased were overpriced - that is you had to pay too much - blame the financial system! (and surveyors and building societies and estate agents etc.)
Complain about this comment
@ 73.
just to temper your post- i would suggest that external reviews from scientists of different fields have 'busted' many theories held by 'experts'. Sometimes you can be too close to a theory, or unwilling to re-visit something you've already dismissed for you to see the obvious.
this is why it is (usually) common practice to publish data/methods/assumptions on all your work. precisely so it can be checked by those out of your field (and those inside, obviously).
But, i have to side with bowman. The more people harp on about consensus the more worried i get about the qualitiy of the science. science simplyisn't done on consensus.
Two australian scientists won the noble prize for proving EVERY other expert in the world wrong (stomach ulcers). There were consensus' against them. people tried to stop them publishing. The were refused data- but they were right.
rely on the consensus to back your point, and you're asking for a major dose of humble pie.
(but- it is worth saying that having the consensus on your side doesn't automatically mean you are wrong either. it's not a gaurantee either way).
Complain about this comment
We are all, always, in danger of confirmation bias. But to be accused of this by 'sceptics' who can only quote Wattsup or Climateaudit has its own special flavour of irony.
Lorax
------------
If the 'alarmists' can quote:
RealClimate (Michael Mann, et al, Fenton communications - look them up)) Science technology blog of the year 2005
I don't see why anybody can snear at:
Climate Audit - Science blog of the year 2007, finalist 2008
Watts up - Science blog of the year 2008
Complain about this comment
The relation between science & politics is a recurring theme on these pages. A copy landed on my desk recently of a study looking at politics and science in Sweden conducted in 2006. The results are intriguing and the following may rise a few eyebrows...
- Swedish politicians are very positively inclined towards research. They think that scientific and technological developments have made life better – and they are generally more positive than the general public in Sweden.
- Swedish politicians have a very positive view of researchers.
Very few consider that researchers carry out research without considering the risks, or that they have power that makes them dangerous. This high trust that politicians have for researchers applies mainly to researchers at universities – the level of trust is lower for researchers at companies. But politicians have a considerably higher level of trust than the general public in both types of researchers.
- Swedish politicians regard medicine as being the most scientific subject area. This is followed by chemistry and material science, precisely like the general public. Macro-economics and philosophy came out somewhat lower.
- Which policy areas are most influenced by research results?
Health and health care policies as well as energy and the environment, say the politicians. Social and industrial policy areas are influenced by research to a notably lesser extent. Swedish politicians also consider that medical research has the greatest influence on societal development. Social sciences and the humanities are thought to be much less influential in this respect.
- What type of research most affects Swedish political policy?
It is not, as might be expected from the above, research in natural science, technology or medicine. Instead, it is reseach in the social sciences and humanities that politicians say form the basis of most policy proposals.
Complain about this comment
#73 Lorax wrote:
"I've often wondered why so many 'sceptics', while not being themselves experts in the science, refuse to listen to the opinion of those experts."
Most of the philosophers of science I know have primary degrees in scientific subjects such as physics, and nearly all of them regard climate science as a serious lapse in scientific methodology. Why do you not listen to those "experts"?
The fact is that decent philosophers of science have a broader overview and a better understanding of science in general than scientists working in their own narrow specialized field, much as jack-of-all-trades car mechanics tend to have a better understanding of car engines than people who operate machinery for making a single engine part. They have a better understanding of car engines than formula one racing drivers, however much you may feel like hero-worshipping the latter. In addition, most philosophers of science have given considerable thought to problems of knowledge, reason and belief, which is what we're really talking about in this debate. A scientist is unlikely to have any better grasp of those "fuzzy philosophical" topics than, say, a lawyer, accountant, airline pilot or historian.
The word 'science' has become an "honorific" -- an almost empty term of praise. Many people think that any activity that has the word 'science' attached to it has greater legitimacy, and that its practitioners are experts on topics that lie far beyond the scope of their own specialized subject. That is a dangerous situation. In effect, the role that priests used to have in pre-secular societies has now been handed to scientists. All but the very best scientists themselves tend not to resist this "gift" of their new role in society. But just as priests knew very little about aspects of life such as sex, marriage, parenthood etc. and were altogether the wrong "experts" to consult about those matters, scientists are the wrong people to consult about how much something ought to be believed. They are nearly all active partisans for their own theory.
"the opinion (in a recent survey) of 97% of practising climate researchers"
The opinion of 97% of astrologers is that astrology is a legitimate science. Do you take their word for it that astrology is a legitimate science? If not why not?
Really, you need to make the effort to think for yourself instead of consulting authorities all the time. At the very least, you need to have some way of judging who is a genuine authority on the things you know little about.
Complain about this comment
I have no problem whatsoever agreeing that something is neither right nor wrong simply because there is a consensus. It's obvious.
However, it is useful to ask what is meant when someone says that there is(isn't) a consensus about something, why that person thinks there is (isn't) one, and why that person thinks it matters.
And in my experience the answers say very little about the subject itself. Rather they tend to say more about each individual's personal preferences and values, and who they tend to trust (distrust).
Complain about this comment
#77 simon-swede wrote:
"Swedish politicians regard medicine as being the most scientific subject area."
That's appalling. Sweden must indeed be in the dark ages as far as scientific education is concerned.
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #77
Funny that your post is also an appeal to authority, i.e. trust me on this, I'm a philosopher of science....
Philosphers of science are no less prone to being seduced by their own field of specialisation into thinking that they have special knowledge and insight giving them legitimacy, than are specialists in other fields. As the saying goes, when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail...
It's also intriguing that elsewhere you decry the claimed benefits of multidisciplinary studies, amd extol the virtues of specialising in the 'real' sciences in narrow fields of specialisation. Yet here you are claiming the value of a broader overview and a better understanding of science in general than scientists working in their own narrow specialized field. Perhaps the philosopher also values self-contradiction and inconsistency?
Complain about this comment
55. At 10:26am on 27 May 2010, ChangEngland wrote:
\\ from the hippy supporters club //
Keep it up manysummits, don't let the b*******s grind you down!
============================
Thank you!
I'd like to excerpt a quote from the last chapter of Al Gore's "Our Choice," which I am regarding as something akin to the warmist's bible on Earth System's Science and the Geopolitics of Global Warming.
Al Gore is in a unique position, being a "recovering politician" who was once Vice-President of the United States, and a lifelong environmentalist, and now a green businessman. He is also phenomenally well-connected, and has spent I don't know how many years orbiting the globe like some new satellite, trying to raise awareness. His Nobel Peace Prize was well deserved.
Here is the quote:
"In the case of the climate crisis, our choice has been clouded by confusion, generated in large part by a massive political campaign of intentional deception on the part of many of the polluters."
=======================
I keep hoping for a breakthrough on this weblog.
Not perhaps the one which might immediately jump to mind - for example, that, of a sudden, the lobby would give up and go away in the face of mounting and overwhelming evidence, which is in fact just the situation today. The Tobacco Lobby used the same tactics, and very near the same people.
Rather I keep hoping for a change from my fellow warmists, who are intellectually on side, and always have been.
No need to preach to the converted.
But there is an isolated mindset amongst the warmists, and indeed amongst pretty much everyone in our society - the Western Way.
This mindset has been long in the making, probably ever since the rise of the city state and the turning to agriculture, both of which are in many ways inimical to the human spirit.
Both are civilizing influences, and they were probably adopted out of necessity rather than willingly. We became too good at hunting - Ronald Wright's "progress trap." ("A Short History of Progress")
We are all drug addicts. Hunting and the semi-nomadic existence are in our blood, and living on the land is a natural high, which I have long been interested in and have followed in detail through new information on brain chemistry, on experiments such as Aldous Huxley performed in "The Doors of Perception," etc...
It turns out that these natrual highs, which are of course induced by the flow of brain and endocrine system chemicals, are good for us, perhaps even necessary for the well-balanced and natural human being.
What happens then when we give up these daily natural highs for a much lower quality existence in a city or on a farm?
2010 happens! 2010 is the culmination of a long unintended experiment.
We are on the verge of extinction as a species - we have already desolated the planet and our fellow humans through civilized behaviors, which include colonialism most recently, and the Mongol Hordes further back in time.
Like Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett of American Legend - we seek 'elbow room.'
It is too crowded.
I climb mountains and explore the desert fastness, and used to canoe remote rivers.
There are few people in these places.
Mystics from all ages have done the same.
We are now in the last of our 'progress traps.'
The outcome is unclear.
The Hartwell people are correct - it's our thinking and the way we relate to each other which needs to change.
I don't know how we do this on a crowded planet?
We will need to be inventive - perhaps start talking to each other - not endlessly respond to the machinations of a paid disinfromation campaign.
Make no mistake, they are here on this weblog - every day.
- Manysummits | Dark Mountain Writer -
Complain about this comment
\\\ Met Office Update ///
http://info.ma002.com/anony/newsletters/C4/C4_0600.asp?str=*3235303934363433352C31393936
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #80
Dark winters yes, dark ages no. Or hadn't you noticed that the UK is setting out to borrow ideas from Sweden's education system ...
Complain about this comment
#81 simon-swede wrote:
"Funny that your post is also an appeal to authority, i.e. trust me on this, I'm a philosopher of science...."
Did you not read as far as the following questions?
Why do you not listen to those "experts"?
Do you take their word for it that astrology is a legitimate science?
I am no more presenting myself as an authority than I am presenting astrologers as scientists. I am merely asking questions that are intended to present a problem to someone who does claim to accept the word of "authorities".
I have consistently said that people should think for themselves.
Complain about this comment
#78
Bowman says: 'Most of the philosophers of science I know have primary degrees in scientific subjects such as physics, and nearly all of them regard climate science as a serious lapse in scientific methodology. Why do you not listen to those "experts"?'
I can't say anything on your 'experts' because I don't know to whom you refer. Do they have names? Have they individually or collectively published the opinions you describe? Is there a thoughtful review by some accountable society of philosophers of science that has concluded the view you describe? Are there significant dissenting voices? What do you mean by 'Most' and 'Nearly all'?
Your argument is an appeal to authority - and currently an untestable one because you provide no details. Sure, referring to the formal positions of scientific organisations is also an appeal to authority, but a rather more transparent one. A good example of a testable, accountable authority is the recently published report 'Advancing the Science of Climate Change' by the US National Academy of Science, which reaches its conclusions by providing a methodology, referring to the evidence and by naming those who worked on the report. That is the standard required.
We are all here engaged to some degree in an appeal to authority - because none of us here - nobody, actually - does the full spectrum of climate research. We're all using information from elsewhere, and making judgements about it's value. You too - you just select from the mix differently to me.
My original point remains - there is unanimity amongst national scientific organisations in supporting the broad thrust of current climate science. This is a not an ultimate argument - of course the consensus can be wrong. But these organisations have been unanimous for a long time in the face of significant pressure to consider alternative theories - and have not budged. It seems to me that this represents a challenge to the 'sceptic' position which few have the courage to address. Instead of waving your own personal appeals to authority back at me, how about you demonstrate why I should not heed the unanimity of these national academies?
Lorax
Complain about this comment
jon112uk #41.
"Hopefully this will further fuel the popular rebelion against the global eco-scam."
rebelling against corrupt bankers and politicians instead wouldn't cross your mind though.
Complain about this comment
#83 Manysummits your link doesn't work do you mean this
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2010/pr20100526.html
You should also be aware that the met office hasn't got anything right for many years and anything they state should be taken with a large pinch of salt.
Any way well done you have taken a bit of stick over the past few days and just brushed it off even with poetry. The fact your talking rubbish is neither here nor there
Complain about this comment
"It's also intriguing that elsewhere you decry the claimed benefits of multidisciplinary studies"
Where have I ever done anything like that?
Many times I've argued that a jury of ordinary people with varied backgrounds and common sense make for a more reliable epistemic "judge" than an expert with a narrow and highly specialized background.
How does that fit with this unwarranted claim of yours? You had better back it up with a quotation!
Complain about this comment
Interesting that the EU's Climate Commissioner is standing in front of a wind turbine with a look which suggests she'd like to be somewhere else..
Maybe she's now read the research from the Netherlands that shows that, far from reducing CO2, wind farms actually INCREASE it, due to the inefficient way that the backup generating capacity has to manage the erratic and occasional output from wind farms. This of course takes no account of the CO2 expended in manufacturing and installing the things..
Also interesting is the decision to shift the proposed reduction in CO2 from 20% to 30% - because the 20% figure was in danger of being met, simply due to the recession..! So its a case of: 'The peasants are not working hard enough. Make them work harder..'
Anybody worked out yet who actually benefits from the EU, apart from the EU itself..??
Complain about this comment
#73 Lorax wrote: "We are all, always, in danger of confirmation bias. But to be accused of this by 'sceptics' who can only quote Wattsup or Climateaudit has its own special flavour of irony."
For the record, I have never quoted either. I prefer to quote first hand material.
You warmists might want to try it. I'm sick of hearing the latest drivel to spew from Al Gore or the thoroughly discredited IPCC.
Get some new material.
Complain about this comment
#82 manysummits wrote: "No need to preach to the converted."
Would you mind not preaching to the rest of us?
Especially about your hero Al Gore who you seem medically incapable of shutting up about.
We don't care about Gore or what he has to say. He's not a scientist, he's a salesman for his carbon credit business. Nothing more.
This fanatical preaching of The Gospel According to Al does nothing for your case whatsoever. Neither do your rambling posts promoting a return to the middle ages in order to solve a problem that simply does not exist.
Try to understand this very simple position.
We of "The Lobby" (decoder rings and all) do not believe that human activity is contributing to climate change. We have seen NO compelling evidence that suggests otherwise.
As such, we are NOT willing to sacrifice our lifestyles, comforts or pay excessive taxes in order to solve an imaginary problem.
Is this clear?
Complain about this comment
#86 Lorax wrote:
"Your argument is an appeal to authority"
It's not an argument -- it's meant to show up your own appeal to authority!
My point being: How can you tell who is a trustworthy authority and who isn't?
(If there's an argument there, it's really one that appears first in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro.)
If you really are interested (interested -- not worshipful!) in what philosophers of science think, there was a "cover story" in the Chronicle of Higher Education a few months ago about the unscientific nature of climate science. The views expressed there are typical. But I'm certainly not presenting that writer or me as an authority. Think for yourself! We shouldn't appeal to any authority.
Complain about this comment
It seems Richard is being a little bit economical with the truth here regarding this post. The figures he is quoting some 80 billion seem to be provided by an organisation which will directly benefit from this nonsense. Therefore, we can simple put that up 10 fold to 800 billion.
This of all places is the New York Times take on the rubbish from unelected officials
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/climate-watchdog-denies-hippie-agenda/
Once reality actually sinks in there is no way these pie in the sky ideas are going to be accepted by the people. The Euro is going down the drain, the supposed bail out package is massively short of what is required and nobody has even contemplated the simple logical fact that the Germans not being stupid are likely to bail out of the Euro.
It is a hippie agenda
This idea of 80 billion here or there is rubbish, the EU simple cannot print the money to cover it without committing eurozone suicide. If you want to creat jobs and get the advantage back from Asia reverse the situation stop building rubbish wind farms, invest in modern production/research and nuclear
Complain about this comment
To Kamboshigh #88:
No, that's not the one. It's an update that I subscribed to and received this morning. Not sure how to get it to here.
Thanks for the kind words.
I have to disagree on the Met Office.
It reminds me very much of my time in the mountains - seven full years climbing, living by the weather forecasts from Environment anada every day - think about it - for SEVEN YEARS,
Naturally they were not always right - just most of the time. Yet I would always hear from city and office bound wage-slaves the mantra:
"Oh the weathermen - they never get it right!"
Yet my own experience - which we might liken to empirical evidence - or fact - was that they were almost always in the ballpark, and say 70 percent right-on with their forecasts.
Now what do you make of that Kambo?
Who do you think knows more about the accuracy of weather forecasts - me or the knee-jerk city-folk?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
pandatank #66.
"..Investment Bankers and Sub-Prime Marketeers .. continue awarding outrageous bonuses for total failure.."
disagree, I think big bonuses are bribes of a sort, paid for complicity.
Complain about this comment
#91 Brunnen_G:'...I prefer to quote first hand material.'
In support of your views, can you quote any meta-analyses, any comprehensive studies or overviews of the whole picture emerging from climate science? Do you quote any work that stands back from the undergrowth and surveys the whole landscape of climate science?
If not, how do you know that you are avoiding confirmation bias and not just cherry-picking the 'first hand material' that you already agree with?
Lorax
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
\\\ A Slap in the Face ///
When a person becomes so self-absorbed that self-pity takes over and depression deepens, it is not prescription medication that is required.
It is a physical slap to the side of the head - and a more adventurous lifestyle - I recommend physical adventure - outdoors - in a dangerous place.
We in the Fourth World (Self-Absorbed First World), we are worried about our precious jobs - our precious economy - our precious selves.
\\\ SLAP! ///
Get over it!
Here is the way Al Gore ends his book "Our Choice," envisioning a time, say mid-century, when warmist warriors are looking back and reminiscing:
"With God as our witness, we made mistakes.
But then, when hope seemed to fade, we lifted our eyes to the Heavens and saw what we had to do."
- Al Gore, last page of "Our Choice" | Honorary Dark Mountain Writer -
=====================
In the last few chapters of his book, The Lobby is exposed in agonizing detail, from their beginnings as the Global Climate Coalition in 1989, funded by Big Oil, just after James Hansen warned Congress about global warming, and obviously in preparation for the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, to the present, where anti-AGW lobbyists in Washington outnumber pro-AGW lobbyists eight to one, and outnumber both the Senate and the House by four to one.
For those who would know, read these chapters.
=======================
For me there is now only PLAN A, which I will post later, and is under constant revision.
- Manysummits | Dark Mountain -
Complain about this comment
To Brunnen_G #92:
Crystal - I'm good - aren't I?
Picture that proverbial snowball in HADES - that's the liklihood of success for you and your friends.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
US predicts busy hurricane season
"The NOAA says the seasonal forecasts have a 70% probability." (Hurricanes)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10134964.stm
==========================
That's very close to my empirical observations of the weather forecasting abilities of Environment Canada - in my seven years as a full-time mountaineer.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Official UNFCCC Negotiating Text Ignores World People’s Conference Solutions
http://pwccc.wordpress.com/2010/05/27/world-pronouncement-of-the-peoples/#more-2012
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
More from Al Gore's "Our Choice":
Deep Space Climate Observatory - Triana - Killed by Bush Administration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Climate_Observatory
==========================
To make a long story short, this would substantially aid in the calculation of Earth's Energy Imbalance - a key piece of observational data.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
\\\ Personal Note ///
I'll be moving on to "Anthill" by E.O. Wilson next, as I need a break.
- Manysummits | Dark Mountain -
Complain about this comment
#93 Bowmanthebard: 'We shouldn't appeal to any authority.'
Today's mentions by Bowman: Plato (twice), Art Institute of Chicago, "Most of the philosophers of science I know" (twice), the Chronicle of Higher Education and the BBC.
You, and everyone here with anything interesting to say, is constantly making appeals to authority. Utterly myopic to deny this. The question is, as you say 'How can you tell who is a trustworthy authority and who isn't?'
And my, as yet unanswered question is: Instead of waving your own personal appeals to authority back at me, how about you demonstrate why I should not heed the unanimity of these national academies?
Lorax
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
even the BBC disagree with you - they've dropped the met office
/Mango
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
you've lost it, my friend, your sermons are becoming even more evangelical
suggest you take a break
/mango
Complain about this comment
It's been nine days since I sent emails to my Member of Parliament as regards the United Nations payments owed by Canada and currently in arrears.
I posted the text of the message on a previous blog here, and the email was sent to two addresses, one local and one to Ottawa.
I have received no response.
Head in the sand?
Or perhaps it is more insidious?
Al Gore quotes a 2008 study in "Our Choice" which asked the question of college educated Americans:
"Who believes humans are causing global warming?"
Republicans: 19 percent
Democrats: 75 percent
============================
Tobacco Lobby (recently uncovered memo in a lawsuit):
"Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy."
Anti-AGW Lobby (memo uncovered)
"Reposition globa warming a a theory rather than a fact."
=======================
And on ad nauseum - read the book.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #101
so the bets are on then
NOAA V a Trained Chimp:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/18/think-tank-says-trained-chimp-can-predict-hurricanes-better-than-noaa%e2%80%a6-and-puts-it-to-the-test/
My money is on the chimp ;)
/Mango
Complain about this comment
manysummits #102.
"The Chair and the Vice Chair of the AWG-LCA (from Zimbabwe and the United States respectively).."
hand in glove, eh?
Complain about this comment
#106 Lorax wrote:
"Today's mentions by Bowman: Plato (twice), Art Institute of Chicago, "Most of the philosophers of science I know" (twice), the Chronicle of Higher Education and the BBC."
Excuse me, but you seem not to grasp the difference between a "mention" and an "appeal to authority".
I attribute ideas that are not my own to the original source -- most academics have a habit of doing that out of politeness and to avoid any accusation of plagiarism. My mention of the Art Institute of Chicago was not an "approving" one, but used as an example of how a rubbish idea is still bandied about by intellectuals as if it were something deep.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#112 Bowmanthebard: 'Excuse me, but you seem not to grasp the difference between a "mention" and an "appeal to authority".'
I think you are making an absolute distinction out of what is in reality a transition or sliding scale, but anyway, you're excused.
Now, you claim that your following statement is not an appeal to authority:
'Most of the philosophers of science I know have primary degrees in scientific subjects such as physics, and nearly all of them regard climate science as a serious lapse in scientific methodology. Why do you not listen to those "experts"?
OK, so if I parse my sentence in exactly the same way, you will no doubt be unable to claim that it is an appeal to authority:
'All of the international science organisations and national science academies have members with primary,and advanced degrees in scientific subjects such as physics, and all of them (i.e. the institutions) regard climate science as providing a strong, credible body of scientific evidence showing that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems. Why do you not listen to those "experts"?'
Now that I have used your own, superior, non-appealing sentence construction - do you feel brave enough to answer the final question?
Lorax
Complain about this comment
Lorax #114.
"..do you feel brave enough to answer.."
you've more chance of winning the lottery four weeks in a row then getting a straight answer from bowman. ;-)
Complain about this comment
#56. rossglory wrote:
"#18 CanadianRockies
"Speaking of AGW lunacy, Euro-style:" - do you just shuttle from here to wottsupwiththat and back? why not try to broaden your horizons?"
I think if you look at all my posts you will see that my horizons are broad enough. But I do check WUWT daily because it is such an excellent site, and both the articles and the commenters there have very broad horizons. I enjoy learning. And I know that one doesn't learn by not looking at the widest spectrum of available information, digesting it, thinking them through, and reaching one's own well-informed conclusions.
I notice that you didn't actually comment on that posted link about an idiotic plan for windmills with net negative economic and environmental costs (except for Vestas shareholders presumably). If you went to that site you wind find in the comments an extensive discussion on the actual costs and efficiency of wind power and other related topics, complete with links to a variety of sources. Those commenters include engineers and scientists very familiar with this topic... something I do not see here.
But, apparently, some people don't want to actually broaden their horizons in case they see something that upsets their predetermined views.
So for thise who might have missed it, here it is again:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/24/climate-craziness-of-the-week-denmark-evicting-citizens-to-clear-cut-forests-for-wind-turbines/
It would be interesting to hear any comment from anyone who actually is interested in broadening their horizons who can explain why this is a rational green idea.
Complain about this comment
108. At 6:26pm on 27 May 2010, MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:
@manysummits
you've lost it, my friend, your sermons are becoming even more evangelical
suggest you take a break
/mango
==============================
Thanks Mango, I will and I won't.
Actually, what has really happened is that after a year and a half on this site, pretty much every day, and a self-financed research effort, resulting in literally an entire bookshelf of both peer-reviewed science articles, books and other, non-peer reviewed material, I have come to the end of my scientific inquiries, or should I say, I have satisfied myself on all points of physical science, and can now see at a glance the science developing along tried and true lines, which will only serve to nail down the case for AGW further than it already is.
I have come to the conclusion that the Hartwell Paper is fundamentally correct in their assessment - some of the authors are actually from McGill University, which I attended for three years way back when.
And I have discovered that The Dark Mountain Project has much to offer in support of the Hartwell approach.
If I sound evangelical - so be it - but I would really appreciate hearing from the warmists how I sound to them.
You see Mango, we in this civilized world are in effect domesticated, and we, including the warmists, are so afraid of nearly everything, we can barely talk to each other, preferring instead to provide arguments as to why the Lobby is wrong - which is of course what you want - the appearance of controversy.
Most of us live in what Henry David Thoreau described as follows:
"The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation."
Noam Chompsky would second that I am sure.
I am a moving target Mango - and you and the Lobby will chase my tail for as long as you stay in the air - which I estimate at two years max.
- Manysummits | Dark Mountain -
Complain about this comment
#114 Lorax wrote:
"you claim that your following statement is not an appeal to authority:"
Of course it isn't. I was trying to undermine your own worship of authority by presenting a case for some other source of authority than the one you presently worship.
Then later in the same message, to make that last point a bit clearer, I asked you why you don't have the same worshipful attitude to astrologers as you evidently have towards climate scientists.
I thought all that was obvious, but if it wasn't obvious to you -- sorry!
Complain about this comment
#117 manysummits wrote:
"I have satisfied myself on all points of physical science"
Right then. Next time we have a physics question, we'll know who to ask!
Complain about this comment
#106. Lorax wrote:
"Instead of waving your own personal appeals to authority back at me, how about you demonstrate why I should not heed the unanimity of these national academies?"
I don't think I use that technique but I may have inadvertently in some post somewhere. It is most blatently used by those citing the nonexistent "consensus."
And you just did it by citing the nonexistent "unanimity of these national academies."
It seems that you have chosen not to look beyond the surface of this or keep up to date on the emerging revolt of the members of some of these associations against the political advocacy of their leaders.
In any case, you have defeated your own point by doing precisely what you accuse others of doing. The sceptics in this issue did not appeal to "authority" they questioned it. And if we had simply accepted this alleged "authority" we would not know what we know now.
Complain about this comment
93.bowmanthebard wrote:
"Think for yourself! We shouldn't appeal to any authority."
Indeed! And think critically, with as much information as possible from diverse sources.
And lest we forget, all humans are political animals including the ones who happen to work in science.
Complain about this comment
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23838369-tony-blair-to-earn-millions-as-climate-change-adviser.do
Complain about this comment
119. At 9:14pm on 27 May 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:
#117 manysummits wrote:
"I have satisfied myself on all points of physical science"
Right then. Next time we have a physics question, we'll know who to ask!
==========================
Hello Bowman - this is fun.
I forgot to tell you that along with the physical science of global warming, and Gaia Theory, or Earth System's Science, I have also come to know The Lobby - you and your methods.
Implicit in your post is an appeal to authority - there is no way to escape from that Bowman.
Yet you decry appeals to authority!
Which is it Bowman????????????????????????????????
Here is a hint - the next time a physis problem presents itself, we'll ask a physicist.
There - now that wasn't so hard - now was it?
- Warmist regards - Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
I wonder what word hippies use about 'bankers'
I just bought my first carbon offset! from a banker
(annual mileage on a 5000cc v8 sports car)
http://www.jpmorganclimatecare.com/
I used this website, because Mike Mason of – Climate Care (JPMorgan),
http://www.jpmorganclimatecare.com/about/our-organisation/
called Lord Moncton peculiar in the Oxford Union – Climate Change debate.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/24/lord-monckton-wins-global-warming-debate-at-oxford-union/
Seriously, carbon offsets, carbon trading, even if you believe man made co2 is a problem, the polticians/bankers huge vested interests, cap and trade, ETS, carbon trading, etc,etc are not the solution..
Just an opportunity for massive finacial corruption/fraud
I will frame my ClimateCare Certificate - carbon offset for posterity
(ie Tulip bubble, south sea bubble, dot com bubble, credit crunch bubble, carbon bubble?!)
My cars lifetime mileage (well over 360 g CO2/km) equals less than a single person – one way ticket to Australia..)
So, anybody starts preaching to me, WE CAN COMPARE LIFESTYLES, NO PLANE TRAVEL FOR ME FOR 9 YEARS, ANYWHERE.
I filled in a online form, paid ~£8.00, 2 minutes later get a email with PDF file attcahed..
I have my guilt free, get out of green hell ‘indulgence’ (sorry – offset)
Anybody ever audit these guys, ie money paid, vs CO2 really offset?
It is JPMORGAN after all. – nasty banker types, can you trust them!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/lehman-rothers/7424257/JP-Morgan-and-Citigroup-contributed-to-Lehmans-collapse-says-US-examiner.html
The rich, will just pay (anybody in the West), the world's poor will suffer. Let Jeremy Irons, Chris Huhne, Bono, Al Gore, etc preach at me..
I now have the moral highground, pity it is all an expensive delusion
(I do believe in man made global warming according to the physics, 0.5-1.0C ( not 2.0C-12.0C -’alarmists’) If were to CO2 double, not assuming positive feedbacks like all the computer models do against experimental observed data.
-----------------------
Nearly forgot this bit:
Now we know what the nasty bankers were investing in next after the credit crunch blew up the world’s economy:
http://www.jpmorgan.com/news/jpmorgan/news/climatecare
“JPMorgan to Acquire ClimateCare Mar 26, 2008
Combination will create a leading market-maker in carbon emission reductions
London, March 26, 2008 – JPMorgan through its investment bank, and ClimateCare, a pioneer in carbon emission reductions, announced today that they will join forces in an acquisition to invest in quality, large-scale carbon emission reduction projects and to advance the development of a liquid financial market that trades in carbon emission reduction credits.”
Follow the money/vested interest. Huge finacial interest in the futue of man made global warming.
the carbon bubble crunch, will make the credit crunch recession look like loose change.
“About JPMorgan
JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) is a leading global financial services firm with assets of $1.6 trillion and operations in more than 50 countries. The firm is a leader in investment banking, financial services for consumers, small business and commercial banking, financial transaction processing, asset management, and private equity. A component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, JPMorgan Chase has its corporate headquarters in New York and its U.S. retail financial services and commercial banking headquarters in Chicago. Under its JPMorgan and Chase brands, the firm serves millions of consumers in the United States and many of the world’s most prominent corporate, institutional and government clients.
About ClimateCare
ClimateCare is a world leading carbon offset provider, founded in 1997, making reductions of greenhouse gases such as co2 on behalf of individuals and companies.
These reductions are made through originating and investing in a global portfolio of renewable energy and energy efficiency projects, many of which are developed by ClimateCare’s experts based around the world. The emissions reductions from all projects are independently verified and accredited under leading international standards such as GS VER, VCS and CDM and many bring huge benefits to people’s health and welfare as well as helping to protect the climate. For more information please visit http://www.climatecare.org
Complain about this comment
#118/120/121
Sigh. One last try, with paragraph numbers.
1. I hope we are all trying to understand the science of our climate and how it is changing. To do that we can rely solely on our own intuition, gut instinct or whatever. I once argued with a pastor from Indiana who told me that climate change wasn't happening - he had been outside a lot last year and it was really cold.
2. The general standard of debate here is above that. In order to develop a perspective that is closer to the truth, we need to rely on others for data and interpretation. Unless Bowman or Canadian_Rockies has a climatic research institute in their basement - they too rely on the work of others.
3. It is simply a colossal vanity to pretend to oneself that the ever-growing forest of climate science ideas and evidence can be teased out solely by reading samples of primary sources from the literature and analysing raw data. I'd be amazed if any within this conversation claimed that.
4. But - if you're not doing this fundamental analysis continuously - then you are relying on others for their interpretation - you are picking those who you believe/respect and listening to them. Since to re-analyse everything they say takes you back to 3. you inevitably take at least some elements on their authority.
5. Thus, wriggle as you like, all of us depend on implicitly or explicitly on others' authority. 'Standing on the shoulders of giants' as the phrase goes. The trick of course is to clearly understand where and to what degree you are depending of the authority of others, rather than pretending solely that you 'think for yourself' Such a conceit is to pretend to be some kind of intellectual frontiersman, an ersatz self-sufficiency.
6. My efforts today have been to try and draw out what authority we do depend upon - and then examine the qualities of those authorities. Mostly the responses have been of the 'Nope, I'm Daniel Boone, I molest bears and can analyse and understand every scrap of climate science without outside help.' variety. In a scientific discussion I'm afraid your responses have rather diminished you.
Lorax
Complain about this comment
#125. Lorax wrote:
"...evidence can be teased out solely by reading samples of primary sources from the literature and analysing raw data. I'd be amazed if any within this conversation claimed that."
You say nobody on this blog thinks originally, and you may be right but;
Why I think there is no causal relationship between CO2 and climate change.
The clincher for me was the realisation that the historic levels of CO2 have been in the geological past so high that, if the models are right, there should have been no liquid water on the planet as the temperature would have been to high for it to exist, at some times in our planet's history. Now, life requires liquid water. So life should have been extinguished. Plainly it wasn't so the models must be wrong and the link with CO2 that is proposed must be erroneous.
Add this to the historic data that shows that CO2 changed after the temperature had changed. And I am firmly of the view that CO2 link is wrong.
My scientific view is that it is far more likely that global temperatures relate to a combination of solar activity, lunar orbit and changes in earth's obliquity as well as the movement of currents in the oceans and the movement of the earth's plates. This generates temperature change - which sometimes drives CO2 up - afterwards. This is presently the most scientifically convincing argument that I have seen and have worked through in detail.
But I am NOT, I repeat NOT, going to discuss the matter yet again on this blog having done so extensively after I attended a day long seminar last autumn at Imperial, which Richard Black also attended. (Look up the previous postings.)
Complain about this comment
#125 Lorax wrote:
"Unless Bowman or Canadian_Rockies has a climatic research institute in their basement - they too rely on the work of others."
I can't speak for Canadian_Rockies, but I have an entire "science judgement unit" in my head. It looks at the claims people make for their supposedly "scientific" theories, and a little bell rings if the claims are unwarranted.
That unit developed slowly over the years, and yes I learned much from other people. But I didn't just accept what they said because they were authorities -- I accepted what seemed right when I thought about it for myself, and I rejected what seemed wrong when I thought about it for myself.
That little bell has been ringing for years on climate science, because it's so low on explanation, low on predictive power, and its methodology is backa**wards. It's essentially extrapolation from "data" rather than testing of hypotheses. -- Bing bong! (That's the unit going off, by the way.)
Complain about this comment
Watching poor Bowman dig ever deeper into his hole is a truly fascinating site to behold:
Bowman @89:
"Many times I've argued that a jury of ordinary people with varied backgrounds and common sense make for a more reliable epistemic "judge" than an expert with a narrow and highly specialized background."
Like the jury who cleared those environmental protestors on the 10th September 2008 in England of all charges because 'The threat of global warming is so great that campaigners were justified in causing more than £35,000 worth of damage to a coal-fired power station'.
Oh dear...
The CanadianRockies highlight of the day has to be @ 116 where he counters the assertion that he just posts stuff from WUWT by...providing a link to another blog posting from WUWT. He must be playing the long game...
Complain about this comment
#127. bowmanthebard wrote:
"I can't speak for Canadian_Rockies..."
But you pretty much summed up my thoughts. I couldn't have said it better myself.
I would only add that I had bells going off based directly on actual experience and knowledge of some of the AGW poster children and knew immediately that what the gang and their media outlets were saying was patently false or at best highly misleading.
So, it was only logical to wonder why, if the case was so 'slam dunk,' did they have to make stuff up. And beyond those poster children I knew and know enough about climate history and what the ice cores actually show to recognize that there was something very bogus with the scary 'unprecedented' story in the first place.
Then you add the name calling - deniers!!! - and the absolutely unscientific screams that "the debate is over" from so-called scientists and it was very obvious that this was not what it appeared to be.
All I can say is thank goodness for the honest people who leaked the Climategate emails or this whole thing might have sailed through the same way the Iraqi WMD story did.
That popped the bubble and prompted more people to start taking a second look at the so-called science behind this and the rest is history. The AGW emporer has no clothes.
Oh well. Time to go over to wattsupwiththat and see what interesting topics are being discussed today.
Complain about this comment
Let me make this simple for all you warmists, especially the evangalists from the Church of Al Gore amongst you.
You want me to believe AGW is real? It's really easy.
Show me the seas, rising by the 7 metres you used to promise on a daily basis.
Show me the dramatic decrease in polar bear numbers. I want to see the bodies. If they're nearing the 'tipping point', there should be thousands.
Show me the Arctic, free of sea ice.
Show me Greenland, sans ice.
Don't show me projections, don't show me guesses, don't show me estimates. Show me what IS, not prophesies of doom you hope will exonorate your precious models.
The simple fact is of all the predictions made since 1988, NOTHING has come to pass. Winter is still cold, summer is still warm, the polar bears have in fact increased in number, Greenland still has a massive ice cube on it, the seas steadfastly refuse to swamp us all and the every year is punctuated by a complete lack of the doom forecast to us.
You want me to believe you're right? After over 20 years of predictions, it's time to put up or shut up.
Complain about this comment
Well... that was quick. The headline at WUWT is:
"Royal Society to review climate consensus position"
And it features a story by... drumroll...
Roger Harrabin Environment analyst, BBC News!!!
"There is debate over “feedback” effects on the climate
The UK’s Royal Society is reviewing its public statements on climate change after 43 Fellows complained that it had oversimplified its messages.
They said the communications did not properly distinguish between what was widely agreed on climate science and what is not fully understood..."
Well, what can one say? Reality sinks in. CONsensus conshmensus.
Complain about this comment
128. Yorkurbantree wrote:
"The CanadianRockies highlight of the day has to be @ 116 where he counters the assertion that he just posts stuff from WUWT by...providing a link to another blog posting from WUWT. He must be playing the long game..."
Actually I was simply reposting the same link and challenging anyone to read it and comment on its contents - rather than just make snide comments about its source.
And you are welcome to read all my comments and calculate the percentage of my posts in which I "just posts stuff from WUWT" so you can prove or disprove that point to yourself.
After that comment I did go to WUWT and found a most shocking article about the Royal Society written by a BBC correspondent. Its seems to be hung up in moderation for some reason.
But you could always go there yourself.
Complain about this comment
78. At 1:43pm on 27 May 2010, bowmanthebard
Perhaps you could give references to these experts publications?
Complain about this comment
126. At 10:55pm on 27 May 2010, John_from_Hendon
Actually these have been and are being studied. See
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
for example.
Or for a more basic understanding of the whole issue:
http://climate.gsfc.nasa.gov/static/cahalan/Radiation/
If you want to do your own analysis you can get data from the climate DAAC in Boulder Colorado, or for Solar Radiation and Climate you can get data at the web site below. There is a lot of free software on the net for analyzing the data. Just making the same old skeptic assertions over and over again does not make them true.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/index.htm
Lets see some credible data and analysis not just casting insults at the Climate Science community.
Tax paranoia does not invalidate the work of the Climate Science community.
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #127
"... I learned much from other people. But I didn't just accept what they said because they were authorities -- I accepted what seemed right when I thought about it for myself, and I rejected what seemed wrong when I thought about it for myself."
Bravo Bowman. Funnily enough, I reckon that's what most people do. I know that's what I do!
Complain about this comment
A new place where you can debate Climate Change
In this week's edition of science there is a 'Essay Review' entitied "The Climate Change Debates" by Philip Kitcher. Associated with this (and with a link to the essay itself) is an on-line discussion forum at http://tiny.cc/clichng.
By way of introduction, Science gives the following: "Having expanded far beyond atmospheric science, the contentious debate over the prospects of disruptive changes in Earth's climate now also encompasses important political, economic, and social issues. The eight books considered in Kitcher's essay review discuss some of the causes and consequences of the present controversy and how we might best move forward from it. The still-raging clashes on the reality of anthropogenic climate change and the actions we should take to mitigate its effects also raise fundamental questions about how science should work in democratic societies."
Have fun...
Complain about this comment
@lorax
You're not having much luck on this forum are you. Just as you've decided to climb on board the Academy and Society band wagon, it looks like they are starting to jump off.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10178124.stm
It's almost funny...... timing, is apparently the secret of good comedy, so maybe a career change might be in order, just a thought?
Regards,
One of the Lobby ;-)
Complain about this comment
#127 Bowmanthebard: 'I accepted what seemed right when I thought about it for myself, and I rejected what seemed wrong when I thought about it for myself.'
So your analytical powers are up to the job of understanding all of climate change eh? And you know this how?
Actually, I think you've just demonstrated the ultimate form of confirmation bias. 'My conclusions are right, because I think they are right.'
Lorax
Complain about this comment
#127/129 Bowman/Rockies
Since we're now talking about the analytical and judgemental process of sifting through the many streams of data and evidence, I'll pop back to a earlier question Brunnen_G felt ill-equipped to answer:
'In support of your views, can you quote any meta-analyses, any comprehensive studies or overviews of the whole picture emerging from climate science? Can you quote any work that stands back from the undergrowth and surveys the whole landscape of climate science? If not, how do you know that you are avoiding confirmation bias and not just cherry-picking the 'first hand material' that you already agree with?'
I'm afraid any answer involving your head going bing-bong or ding-a-ling may fall outside an answer acceptable to scientists...
Lorax
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Come on BBC reconvene that meeting you held 4 years ago, even the Royal Society are reviewing their position.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10178124.stm
Society to review climate message
By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst, BBC News
"... There is debate over "feedback" effects on the climate The UK's Royal Society is reviewing its public statements on climate change after 43 Fellows complained that it had oversimplified its messages.
One Fellow who said he was not absolutely convinced of the dangers of CO2 told me: "This appears to suggest that anyone who questions climate science is malicious. But in science everything is there to be questioned - that should be the very essence of the Royal Society. Some of us were very upset about that.
"I can understand why this has happened - there is so much politically and economically riding on climate science that the society would find it very hard to say 'well, we are still fairly sure that greenhouse gases are changing the climate' but the politicians simply wouldn't accept that level of honest doubt."
Another society protester said he wanted to be called a climate agnostic rather than a sceptic. He said he wanted the society's website to "do more to question the accuracy of the science on climate feedbacks" (in which a warming world is believed to make itself warmer still through natural processes). ..."
Complain about this comment
#137 Blunderbunny
It is interesting to be discussing a such a topical issue - so I feel rather positive about the timing. I'm quite happy to have the science formally reviewed - as I'm sure we all are - and I look forward to the outcome. What do you think - will they come to a view different to that just published by the US National Academy of Science:
"A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems"
Lorax
Complain about this comment
I'm noticing something sneaky on this site.
Comments that are contentious (which is to say they deviate from orthodoxy), yet don't break house rules, can be disposed of by simply not being moderated.
What's going on here? Why aren't the comments being moderated in order?
Complain about this comment
The penny finally drops at BP headquarters...
According to CNN 'breaking news' just recently: -- BP's top official upgrades impact of Gulf oil spill from "very modest" to "environmental catastrophe."
Complain about this comment
BarryWood at #141
You may want to wait and find out what the Royal Society concludes once the process is completed, rather than assume you know what they will say!
According to teh story you linked to:
- The society's ruling council has set up a panel to produce a consensus document.
- The remit of the society panel is to produce a new public-facing document on what scientists know, what they think they know and which aspects they do not fully understand. The task is to make the document strong and robust.
- The panel should report in July and the report is to be published in September.
Complain about this comment
Brunnen_G #143.
"Why aren't the comments being moderated in order?"
irritating? yes.
"I'm noticing something sneaky on this site."
reason to be paranoid? who knows, maybe THEY are behind it all.
LOL
Complain about this comment
Dateline Gulf of Mexico Day 39
Well, the hits just keep on coming...
A plume of oil 22 miles long, 5 miles wide and over 3000 ft thick is reported northeast of the well site - it is headed for Mobile Bay & Emerald Coast Alabama - which have thus far been pretty much spared.
Official estimates of the volume of oil doubled overnight, now they (Coast Guard & BP) are saying it has already leaked over twice as much oil as the Exxon Valdez. If the actual flow is 100,000 bbl per day, it would actually be about 4,000,000 bbl so far - or about 168,000,000 gal of oil so far, eclipsing the worst spill ever, Ixtoc I in the Bay of Campeche in 1979 - which leaked 140 M gal over a 9 month period before it was capped. If Columbia University's estimate of 100,000 bbl per day is proved accurate, it would make this 16 times as much oil as Exxon Valdez already. [Note, 540 M gal of oil were spilled into the Persian Gulf by the Iraqi's during the first Gulf War - but that was intentional]
Yesterday, it was reported that the Coast Guard ordered the 150 shrimp and fishing boats that were assisting in skimming oil to cease operations after 9 crewmen became ill from exposure to the oil on the water. It was reported this morning that BP is investigating what caused the fisherman to become ill - hello? am I missing something here? All I can say about this is 'duh'.
The NOAA release their hurricane forecast for this season - they are expecting 8-14 hurricanes this year - the average is 6 - so we are expecting a very busy season. Added to that, it was reported on the local news this morning that the Gulf of Mexico water temperatures are already above normal - and as we all know, warmer waters lead to more intense hurricanes. If a storm were to hit Southern Louisiana, it would not only push the oil many miles into the inland marshes and swamps there with the storm surge, but the counter-clockwise circulation would also push oil across Alabama and the Florida Panhandle.
Obama is finally coming down the tour the Louisiana coast this morning - finally. He started saying yesterday that 'His administration has been in charge of the spill since day 1". This contradicts what his spokesman has been saying for weeks - that BP is in charge and the White House is constantly monitoring. At this point, it appears that most people (including myself) are giving the Obama administration a failing grade in dealing with their first major crisis. The perception of most people I have talked to here is that everyone involved appears incompetent in impotent in dealing with this disaster thus far - the Obama Administration, the Coast Guard and of course BP.
The moratorium on drilling in the Gulf has been extended by 6 months - this just two months after the Obama Administration expanded offshore drilling along the eastern seaboard. I heard no mention of the moratorium being extended to include the Eastern Seaboard.
BP halted the 'top-kill' operation yesterday for 16 hours - and didn't tell anybody until this morning. Their spokesman said this morning it could be two more days or longer before BP knows if it is working. In my view, this is a very risky procedure. While it may be our best hope at this point for a 'quick fix', the pressure on the wellhead casing is tremendous - the whole idea is to overwhelm the pressure of the oil with heavy drilling mud, forcing the oil down below the seabed and then begin pumping cement into the casing and wellhead to seal it. I am concerned that the pressure could cause the wellhead to rupture - which would put an end to that attempt or anything similar. I think if this fails, the only remaining viable option is a very large concrete cap placed over the wellhead - and this may not even seal it - so we would have leaking oil until the relief well is completed in August and the leaking well sealed deep below the seafloor.
James Carvelle, a prominent democrat and self proclaimed 'Cajun' from Louisiana has blasted the Obama Administration for the lack of response. This is very interesting as Mr. Carvelle has been on of the Obama Administrations most ardent supporters. It is my opinion that Obama's trip to the Gulf this morning is in response to Mr. Carvelle's criticisms.
It looks like a plan to create sand berms along a large stretch of coast will move forward with the Army Corps of Engineers and National Guard - unfortunately, this should have been done 38 days ago - no word on how long this will take, but the Perish President in Louisiana of the Perish which includes Venice (can't recall his name at the moment) has stated that the State of Louisiana will be paying for all but one small section of this - I hope they hand BP the bill. But again, unfortunately I fear this plan is a day late and a dollar short.
Even after the berm is in place, it will take just one small hurricane to overcome it.
I went to a local pub yesterday and hung out with some friends, several of whom work in the oil business. We were all in agreement that there was not one factor which caused this accident to happen - while we may really never know, the consensus opinion was that it was a whole chain of events which lead to the disaster - two key events in that chain were probably a 'botched' cement job at the wellhead by Halliburton and the decision by BP to pump seawater into the casing rather than drilling 'mud'. We all also agreed it was noteworthy that Cameron has been able to maintain such a low profile thus far. It has been reported that there were issues with the wellhead sitting on the sea-floor and that Cameron was aware of the design issues.
It has also been reported that thousands of people have arrived in Louisiana to work on the clean-up - and they are all sitting around idle. BP has also received offers of assistance from at least 17 countries and hundreds of companies. Granted some of the offers from companies are products which they sell - and may or may not be useful in this situation - but as far as what I have seen reported, BP has not accepted any offers to date.
We are starting to hear many outcries from people over the lack of transparency regarding this disaster from BP. This is an issue which I have brought up before - I can't understand why the Obama Administration has not ordered complete transparency from BP and followed this up with placing their own people inside of BP's operation to ensure all the information and data is released immediately.
Well, I wish there was at least some good news to report today - but I just don't see any at this point. Even if BP manages to temporarily cap the wellhead with the top-kill procedure, the Gulf coast will be affected for a very long time to come.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
143. At 12:30pm on 28 May 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:
I'm noticing something sneaky on this site.
Comments that are contentious (which is to say they deviate from orthodoxy), yet don't break house rules, can be disposed of by simply not being moderated.
What's going on here? Why aren't the comments being moderated in order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
While I can understand that some comments may need to be 'reviewed' by a higher up and can take long, I have also noticed that it is ok to 'bash' the US, but it is not ok to bash the UN.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
3. At 3:04pm on 26 May 2010, ghostofsichuan wrote:
ETS is simply another wall street scam. I am still not sure what they are selling or buying but a lot of money will be made. We are in a world of non-real digital monies traded as monies against monies and emissions, the right to pollute, to others who own forests as off-sets. The air and the forests tend to be in the public domain but are traded as if owned by corporations. The world has become one of make-believe and illusion in a pure sense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
We certainly agree on this - except I would suggest that it is much bigger than 'Wall Street'. Schemes such as the ETS or the UN's CDM will only make a lot of people (who don't deserve it) much richer - at the expense of all of the 'regular folk' - who can't afford it...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
#139 Lorax wrote:
"Since we're now talking about the analytical and judgemental process of sifting through the many streams of data and evidence"
I think you have missed the point. "sifting through streams of data and evidence" presupposes an "inductive" model of science which assumes that theory is "based on data".
My complaint is much more radical than that. I'm saying climate science is a non-starter because it is wrong to think that theory and "data" are related in that way. It's just a silly misunderstanding to think we have "data streams" to "sift through". I'm saying that that's not the way science works at all.
If you have a couple of rival theories of the climate, and you can think up some way of testing them, so that one theory passes and the other theory fails -- then we're talking.
Complain about this comment
As an additional note, I wish to express disappointment with BBC News' coverage of the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf. Rather than a whole feature section with constant updates, we see only sporadic coverage of the spill.
We have also heard very little of substance from Richard Black - who, according to the little window in the upper right of this page is:
"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."
Well, right now I think that the Gulf Disaster is the number one environmental issue right now - why is the coverage so lacking?
Kealey
Complain about this comment
149. At 2:41pm on 28 May 2010, LarryKealey wrote:
We certainly agree on this - except I would suggest that it is much bigger than 'Wall Street'. Schemes such as the ETS or the UN's CDM will only make a lot of people (who don't deserve it) much richer - at the expense of all of the 'regular folk' - who can't afford it...
Cheers.
Kealey
=======================
Yes - we can agree on this.
=======================
"There is something fundamentally wrong in treating the Earth as if it were a business in liquidation"
- Herman Daly, economist (Full world economics); from "Our Choice," by Al Gore.
=======================
Yves St. Pierre, writing the editorial for the Spring issue of "The Humanist":
“Einstein’s work revolutionized the world of physics. In what area of human endeavour do you think the next revolution will occur?” He gave a one word answer [Issac Asimov] and the interview was over. He said: “Economics”. (my emphasis)
http://www.humanistperspectives.org/issue172/editorial.html
========================
As we maintain the charade of a battle to and fro about AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming), it is all coming down to jobs and the economy, for all of us, no matter our nation.
This is an extremely interesting editorial that Mr. St. Pierre has written.
- Manysummits -
PS: Best of luck to those working on the Gulf's toxic waters.
Complain about this comment
#150 Bowmanthebard:
'I'm saying climate science is a non-starter because it is wrong to think that theory and "data" are related in that way. It's just a silly misunderstanding to think we have "data streams" to "sift through". I'm saying that that's not the way science works at all.'
Hmm. 'Climate Science is a non-starter'. Apart from the self-evident fact that climate science does actually seem to have started, do you have any support for your view that comes from anywhere else, apart from the unit in your head that goes bing-bong? As far as I can see, when challenged, you simply retreat further and further into some lofty eyrie from where your stock answer is 'I'm not responding to that because my rough-guide-to-philosophy-of-science tells me I don't have to', and 'My conclusions are right, because I think they are right.' So go on, here's your chance to show that there really is some solid scientific basis to your views.
As a starter, how about you provide names for these guys you mentioned earlier in post 78 (and also requested by Hungery Walleye in #133):
"Most of the philosophers of science I know have primary degrees in scientific subjects such as physics, and nearly all of them regard climate science as a serious lapse in scientific methodology."
Could you additionally tell us whether they individually or collectively published the opinions you describe? Is there a thoughtful review by some accountable society of philosophers of science that has concluded the view you describe? Are there significant dissenting voices? What do you define what you mean by 'Most' and 'Nearly all'?
Or did you invent this assertion?
Lorax
Complain about this comment
#150 Bowmanthebard:
'I'm saying climate science is a non-starter because it is wrong to think that theory and "data" are related in that way. It's just a silly misunderstanding to think we have "data streams" to "sift through". I'm saying that that's not the way science works at all'
Setting aside the self-evident problem that climate science does appear to have started, is this cod-Popper approach supported by anything other than the unit in your head that goes bing-bong?
As a start, how about re-assuring us that this isn't just your own thinking, but has widespread and heavyweight scientific support - such as you claimed in post 78:
'Most of the philosophers of science I know have primary degrees in scientific subjects such as physics, and nearly all of them regard climate science as a serious lapse in scientific methodology.'
I and Hungery_Walleye (#133)have both asked for some details of your claim. Just to remind you, I asked: Do they have names? Have they individually or collectively published the opinions you describe? Is there a thoughtful review by some accountable society of philosophers of science that has concluded the view you describe? Are there significant dissenting voices? What do you mean by 'Most' and 'Nearly all'?
If you can't substantiate this, then I'll have to fall back on my earlier understanding of your position - 'My conclusions are right, because I think they are right.'
Lorax
Complain about this comment
simon-swede
what is importatnt is that it is even happening at all!!!
There has been a change, debate seems to be allowed again
Complain about this comment
Seriously, what's going on re: #130 and #131?
I'm not going to drop this until I get a straight answer.
Complain about this comment
@#126 john_from_hendon
'The clincher for me was the realisation that the historic levels of CO2 have been in the geological past so high that, if the models are right, there should have been no liquid water on the planet as the temperature would have been to high for it to exist, at some times in our planet's history. '
The sun was less active in those times. Closer to the present day, about 14 million years ago, atmospheric CO2 levels was similar to today (and the sun's output closer to the present day). At this time, sea levels were about 100m higher, there was very litle permanent ice anywhere. This was for a CO2 concentration of 400ppm. It is estimated that in 1 billion years time, the sun will be so bright that liquid water on earth will evaporate.
Complain about this comment
I am a moderator on another site, I know what it takes to moderate a busy site.
Not approving contentious comments and keeping them in moderation for weeks is no way to do it.
Complain about this comment
Brunnen_G #156, #158.
"I'm not going to drop this until I get a straight answer."
"Not approving contentious comments and keeping them in moderation for weeks is no way to do it."
BBC News website feedback
Complain about this comment
Hey, great! Now I only have to twiddle my thumbs for the next fortnight to get a straight answer...
Complain about this comment
Brunnen_G
Given what regularly appears on these pages, I think your censorship theory is very unlikely.
Why not simply repost the message - or a slightly different version of it?
Complain about this comment
Barry at #155
Debate was never forbidden!
Complain about this comment
#161 simon-swede wrote: "Why not simply repost the message - or a slightly different version of it?"
Simply put, I shouldn't have to.
I'm not the one who is in the wrong here. Why should I have to correct someone else's mistake? Especially when it's a mistake they can easily correct themselves.
Complain about this comment
What about a world government?
Why not - it is the next logical step.
Australia is taking Japan to court over whaling - at the United Nations International Court of Justice at The Hague, Netherlands.
The United Nations General Assembly could serve as a sort of American-style Senate, and some mechanism for proportional representation could be set up.
Say there was a flat carbon-tax worldwide - and all the revenues went to the UN - or say half - or whatever.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Brunnen_G - But you are the one going on about your message not being posted. It may just be a glitch, rather than the evil empire at work. If it was me, I'd simply try it again.
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
What on earth are you basing your faith in the UN on?
Complain about this comment
\\\ Asimov's "Economic Revolution" ?? ///
"...what seems absolutely obvious to me is that until global economics are made to rest first and foremost on one standard, on the sustainable health of earth’s soil, water and air, we have got it mostly wrong."
- Yves Saint-Pierre editorial in "Humanist Perspectives" (Spring 2010)
http://www.humanistperspectives.org/issue172/editorial.htmlhttp://www.humanistperspectives.org/issue172/editorial.html
=========================
Why not have a world environmental crisis addressed by our only world institution dedicated to the world's people and the environment?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Dang, double-ish posts #153 & 154. The first one seemed to have been eaten by the system, so I re-did it. Apologies.
Lorax
Complain about this comment
Larry at #151
You wrote: "I wish to express disappointment with BBC News' coverage of the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf. Rather than a whole feature section with constant updates, we see only sporadic coverage of the spill."
Huh? Which BBC news site are you reading?
For example, look at the right hand side of the page where the story "US President Barack Obama visits oil-hit Louisiana" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10179369.stm).
There's a box headed with the words "US Oil Spill", with key stories, features, background info, video links, and links to external sites. Updated quite often too.
Complain about this comment
Lorax at #168
Don't worry, Brunnen_G "knows" its not your fault.
Complain about this comment
166. At 8:21pm on 28 May 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:
@manysummits
What on earth are you basing your faith in the UN on?
=====================================================
"Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction."
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
========================
"With only five years left until the 2015 deadline to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called on world leaders to attend a summit in New York on 20-22 September 2010 to boost progress towards the MDGs."
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To Brunnen_G:
What in the world causes you to believe in the future of the nation-state - of Plutocracy, the Divine Right of MONEY?
Do you understand what the human population curve looks like - do you understand its implications?
Do you not see the state of the environment on which we all depend, and the trajectory it is now on?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
I have been blogging on this site since December 24, 2008.
I blog exclusively on this weblog.
There is purpose in this devotion - in this addiction.
It is instinctive.
Something is happening on the Internet that is not happening in the staid corridors of power in the world - whether those corridors be in BP's head offices or in Whitehall.
The Internet is our place.
It is The Global Commons.
And nothing is ever going to be the same again.
- Manysummits | Dark Mountain | United Nations Supporter -
Complain about this comment
@manysummits.
Why would you assume I think the future belongs to nation states? Just because I think the UN is a hopeless, ineffectual talking shop that does not automatically mean I think our future should be run by a fractured group of nations.
I understand EXACTLY what the human population explosion means. It means either the third world will have to get serious about birth control or famine will ensue and decrease the population for them.
In Europe, North America and Australia, the populations are at sustainable levels, for the simple reason that thanks to effective birth control, women are no longer doomed to have a dozen kids.
I also know how the environment is. It's largely just fine. There are problems but armageddon is not just over the horizon, despite whatever nonsense Al Gore is spouting this week.
Complain about this comment
#87. jr4412 wrote:
"jon112uk #41.
"Hopefully this will further fuel the popular rebelion against the global eco-scam."
rebelling against corrupt bankers and politicians instead wouldn't cross your mind though."
Same people. Or who did you think is behind this?
Complain about this comment
139. Lorax wrote:
'In support of your views, can you quote any meta-analyses, any comprehensive studies or overviews of the whole picture emerging from climate science? Can you quote any work that stands back from the undergrowth and surveys the whole landscape of climate science? If not, how do you know that you are avoiding confirmation bias and not just cherry-picking the 'first hand material' that you already agree with?'
Well, Lorax, here's one basic reason why I don't accept the AGW hype, and I'll just use this summary from Nature back when it was a real scientific journal... I keep it handy for this very purpose:
"The Greenland (Arctic) and Vostok (Antarctic) ice cores are particularly informative, offering fine temporal resolution and continuity. This has revealed surprising oscillations of climate on a millennial scale within the main 100-kyr cycle. The Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) identifies some 24 interstadials through the last ice age with average temperature rising rapidly by ~7 C over just decades. Further ice and sediment cores from around the world are demonstrating the global scale of these major climatic events."
From: Hewitt, G. 2000. The genetic legacy of the Quarternary ice ages. NATURE, Vol. 405, 22 June 2000 (www.nature.com)
If I could post the graphs I would. Its a roller coaster over the long term. Any long term projections from short term trends are ridiculous. That's how some fools ended up predicting ice ages 40 years ago. And absolutely nothing unprecedented about anything we have seen in the climate now or recently. Nothing.
And nothing has changed in that ice core data since 1993. They can't revise that history. What is now "emerging from climate science" is mostly advocacy junk science Lysenko-style. But none of it changes this in any case.
So hope that the actual record of climate history addresses your question. Works for me. I don't need to prove that what we are seeing is anything but natural variation. The AGW gang needs to prove the opposite, and of course they can't because it isn't.
And when people starting making up wild scary stories about polar bears, etc. in an effort to sell this project, I smell WMDs.
Complain about this comment
174. At 00:49am on 29 May 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:
@manysummits.
"I also know how the environment is. It's largely just fine."
==================
Really now! Just fine? \\\ You don't say ///
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
176. At 01:56am on 29 May 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:
"Well, Lorax, here's one basic reason why I don't accept the AGW hype, and I'll just use this summary from Nature back when it was a real scientific journal... I keep it handy for this very purpose:"
"The Greenland (Arctic) and Vostok (Antarctic) ice cores are particularly informative, offering fine temporal resolution and continuity. This has revealed surprising oscillations of climate on a millennial scale within the main 100-kyr cycle. The Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) identifies some 24 interstadials through the last ice age with average temperature rising rapidly by ~7 C over just decades. Further ice and sediment cores from around the world are demonstrating the global scale of these major climatic events."
From: Hewitt, G. 2000. The genetic legacy of the Quarternary ice ages. NATURE, Vol. 405, 22 June 2000 (www.nature.com)
==============================
CR - here is a question or a few for you - enlighten us if you will?
Who is Richard Alley, and was he a principal researcher on the Greenland Ice Cores, and what is the Louis Agassiz Medal, and who was its first recipient?
Oh - and what is the American Geophysical Union, and who gave the keynote talk in December 2009 - and on what subject?
And who wrote the popular "The Two Mile Time Machine," and in what year?
Finally - in what year did the world's premier scientific journal, "Nature," cease being a "real" journal?
Hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Alley
- Manysummits - de-bunking the doctors of spin -
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Returning to the actual theme of Richard's piece - Europe and climate change - this week's Economist has a feature on exactly the same theme, covering some of the same issues raised by Richard.
See: "Two into three won't go - The European Commission suggests even deeper cuts in emissions", 27 May 2010.
And I'll try give the link, but not sure if it will be permitted: http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=16218370
Complain about this comment
180. At 08:00am on 29 May 2010, simon-swede wrote:
Returning to the actual theme of Richard's piece - Europe and climate change - this week's Economist has a feature on exactly the same theme, covering some of the same issues raised by Richard.
See: "Two into three won't go - The European Commission suggests even deeper cuts in emissions", 27 May 2010.
And I'll try give the link, but not sure if it will be permitted: http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=16218370
==================================
Last lines of the Economist's article:
"There may be other ways to raise carbon costs that have more appeal: a rising EU-wide carbon tax, for example, that would be imposed in some form on imports too. But would this be any easier to deliver?"
==================================
My take: Business as Usual
I can't help thinking that again The Hartwell Paper has got it mostly right.
They urge doing what is politically possible, rather than more "spin" by our governments, which is what this article appears to be saying is actually taking place.
James Hansen urges a carbon tax; The Hartwell Paper urges one, though low enough to be politically digestible;
and I think everyone knows that this is what is needed, but no one knows how to do it;
- hence 'carbon-schemes,' schemes being what politicians seem best at doing in this time of crisis.
Question for the hypothetically-minded?
Ban Ki-Moon of the UN has urged that nations live up to their commitments and see the Millennium Development Goals all met by 2015.
Wouldn't this be the start the Hartwell Group is urging, and is this not politically doable?
- Manysummits - rain & snow in Calgary, and the strangest looking jet-stream I have ever seen -
Complain about this comment
A neglected climate strategy: Empower women, slow population growth
By Laurie Mazur | 12 October 2009
- Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/op-eds/neglected-climate-strategy-empower-women-slow-population-growth
=====================================
I went to this site to find out how the negotiations were really going on nuclear non-proliferation, and found the article above instead!
This is what the Hartwell Paper means, unless I am very much mistaken.
This is the humanists approach.
This is one of the Millennium Development Goals.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
\\\ More Thoughts on World Governance ///
Bringing climate change into global governance
By Paul R. Epstein | 9 November 2009
http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/bringing-climate-change-global-governance
"Ultimately, this will require constructing a new economic order with a resilient regulatory, institutional, and financial framework--including a "Bretton Woods II" process. But unlike in 1944, governments, corporations, scientists, nongovernmental organizations, and civil society must participate."
=================================
Another 'discovery' at 'The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists."
These articles are so different in tone and in quality from our usual run of the mill as reported in the mainstream media - with notable exceptions of course.
I was visiting Mark Mardell's America on the BBC's 'Americas' section, and I do believe I detected the acrid smell of 'The Lobby' there too.
Lowest quality - strident - unhelpful - confusing - and if one uses Ghostosichan's latest tip:
Cui Bono will answer much that is hidden.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cui_bono
========================
Somehow - someway - we have to use the Internet to promote constructive dialogue - to inform rather than dis-inform - to create a working GLOBAL COMMONS of CONCERNED WORLD CITIZENS.
Right now the Internet is wild and wooly - and messy!
Maybe that's OK - maybe as sites such as "The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists" are found and brought to mainstream weblogs such as this one:
ALL WILL BE WELL.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
What strikes me as odd is the lack of response to ideas such as those in 182 & 183?
Is it really so difficult to discuss an idea proposed not by me, but by someone writing for the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists; or from The Hartwell Group; or from Herman Daly's Full World Economics; or from Isaac Asimov?
Are we really so caught up in it's all about me that no one will come forward?
Puzzling!
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
154. At 5:09pm on 28 May 2010, Lorax wrote:
"this cod-Popper approach"
I'm not a "Popperian", but along with practically every philosopher of science I have ever heard of, I believe that testing is an impoirtant part of science.
If you have a disagreement with Popper's or with anyone else's reflective understanding of science, I suggest you state you objection as clearly as you can.
Using words like 'cod-Popper' just reveals that you haven't given these matters any thought, but like most semi-educated people you have heard of Popper somewhere.
Complain about this comment
#165 simon-swede wrote: "Brunnen_G - But you are the one going on about your message not being posted. It may just be a glitch, rather than the evil empire at work. If it was me, I'd simply try it again."
Glitch my backside. The comment was moderated only after I started complaining.
Complain about this comment
#177 manysummits wrote:
"I also know how the environment is. It's largely just fine."
Really now! Just fine? \\\ You don't say ///"
I do say. If large swathes of the Earth suddenly become incapable of sustaining life, if the forests die or if deserts suddenly cover the land then things won't be fine, but as of now, they're just dandy.
The Earth provides us with enough food for over 6 billion people. It provides us with air to breath and water to drink.
And yet you complain because the temperature has risen very slightly over the last century, like an ungrateful child throwing a tantrum because things are not just so.
As long as the Earth can sustain us, we have nothing to complain about.
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
Maybe if the ideas you put forward weren't the sort of nonsense that would lead to economic ruin and worldwide suffering they would be taken seriously.
Complain about this comment
manysummits at post 182 and 183
Hi, been rather too busy to blog, I can see you are taking a bit of a pasting, and though I might respond, (moral support and all that);-)
The idea of empowering women is an ideal principle but to enforce the concept might be less than ideal. Talk is cheap but action requires sacrifice of some sort. With a global financial meltdown there is not much spare cash for setting up organisations to empower the powerless. And the trouble with any organisation is that it needs money to exist, precious money that could be better used by the target group.
The idea of a global governance is interesting and how could it be established? As you suggest, the new media is a vehicle for change and is changing perceptions. These blog sites are probably read by those in power and occasionally, an idea might be developed to boost a rating or two. For the really complex ideas, one would have to set out a full plan of action constructed in interesting plain speak. Committee meetings are something to be got through as quickly as possible-hunger, fatigue and other duty requirements also need attention and take attention away from anything new. Someone would have to be paid to develop complex plans. Where would the money come from to pay such a person or persons?
Yep! I know I sound negative but this is how it is. Perhaps you could develop the proposal? Provide the framework of your idea here. Let blog-world peruse and unpick your ideas.
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #184
What strikes me as odd is the lack of response to ideas such as those in 182 & 183?
I've responded on several occassions to your nonsense, manysummits, but you don't bother to address the points i raise, you just move on to more copy paste from the book you're currently reading
So why should we respond to 182 & 183?
/Mango
Complain about this comment
Dateline Gulf of Mexico Day 40
Well, Mr. Obama visited Southern Louisiana yesterday - he was on the ground for about two and a half hours, made a lot of promises, did some photo ops on the beach at Grand Isle - which is closed for the big Memorial Day weekend - and for a long time to come. Reactions of people to Obama's visit were not positive - at least from what I saw on local news - 40 days and he has spent only a couple of hours here - not a big PR win for him.
Additionally, it was reported that a 'whole battalion' of BP workers showed up on the beach just before Obama arrived - and they left right after Obama left. The impression of the locals was that BP was 'putting on a show' for President Obama. BP stated simply that the workers had finished their shift - sounds like a pretty short shift to me.
We still won't know if the "Top-Kill" is working for at least two more days - they were supposed to start last weekend, delayed until Wednesday - and we were told that we would know in 2 days - well, its been 4 and they still say we won't know for 2 more days. I wonder what they will say in two more days...
The people of Louisiana are just getting more and more depressed. We saw an old salty shrimper crying on tv, we saw the wife of a crabber who runs a dinner trying to work while bawling her eyes out.
Lets hope the top-kill does work...but as I said before, even if it does, the damage is done.
Thats all for today - got a busy day ahead.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
I asked 'In support of your views, can you quote any meta-analyses, any comprehensive studies or overviews of the whole picture emerging from climate science? Can you quote any work that stands back from the undergrowth and surveys the whole landscape of climate science? If not, how do you know that you are avoiding confirmation bias and not just cherry-picking the 'first hand material' that you already agree with?'
Thanks at least Canadian_Rockies for answering (#176) - I don't really see how you could imagine that a 10 year old paper from Nature about ice-cores is remotely a comprehensive overview of climate science. You're just cherry-picking, and on that basis I can't see how you can possibly avoid the danger of confirmation bias.
Lorax
Complain about this comment
#185 Bowmanthebard: 'along with practically every philosopher of science I have ever heard of'...
This is presumably the same appeal to anonymous authority as your previous:
"Most of the philosophers of science I know have primary degrees in scientific subjects such as physics, and nearly all of them regard climate science as a serious lapse in scientific methodology."
Come on, this is becoming dull. I've asked you several times in vain to back up your statements with some details - who these philosophers of science are, and whether they individually or collectively published the opinions you describe? Is there a thoughtful review by some accountable society of philosophers of science that has concluded the view you describe? Are there significant dissenting voices? What do you define what you mean by 'Most' and 'Nearly all'?
I think you're making this up.
For those who don't rely on what Bowman claims about unidentifiable philosophers, there's rather a good discussion now on how climate science and scientific methods, modelling, and how to conclude reality from data over at RealClimate -'On Attribution'. I'm still digesting it.
Lorax
Complain about this comment
185. At 10:53am on 29 May 2010, bowmanthebard wrote: (To Lorax)
"Using words like 'cod-Popper' just reveals that you haven't given these matters any thought, but like most semi-educated people you have heard of Popper somewhere."
[ PERSONAL INSULT - DEVOID OF CONTENT ]
=========================
187. At 12:30pm on 29 May 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:
#177 manysummits wrote:
"I also know how the environment is. It's largely just fine."
Really now! Just fine? \\\ You don't say ///"
To me:
"And yet you complain because the temperature has risen very slightly over the last century, like an ungrateful child throwing a tantrum because things are not just so."
[ PERSONAL INSULT - and a DOWNPLAY of the extremely significant global land/sea temperature rise. ]
======================
The Tactics of The Lobby,
brought to you by Manysummits - debunker of SPIN.
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #187
please define "extremely significant global land/sea temperature rise"
/Mango
Complain about this comment
189. At 1:43pm on 29 May 2010, sensibleoldgrannie wrote:
manysummits at post 182 and 183
Hi, been rather too busy to blog, I can see you are taking a bit of a pasting, and though I might respond, (moral support and all that);-)
=============================
Good Morning!
Thanks for the support - much appreciated.
In detail, the Stern Report (i.e., top-flight economics - very hard-nosed business), found that it is much much more economical to use the common-sense philosophy of 'an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.'
There is nothing idealistic in my posts #182 & 183. They are the result of a lifetime of living, and an intense research effort this past year and a half.
Canada is set to spend an unaccountable One Billion on the upcoming G-20.
There is not a lack of money Grannie - there is a lack of political will.
If you have been following the blogs, you will see many references to extremely thoughtful insights by concerned scientists, economists, atomic scientists, etc...
It is I am sure very hard to find the time for the average working citizen to follow up on these links - and even harder to find the time to think deeply on them
But this is exactly what is required now of a responsible global citizenry.
An article on the BBC just recently talks of the similatiries between insanity and creative personalities.
There is much truth there, I think.
It would therefore be unwise to expect that the normal citizen is either insane or overly creative - i.e., capable of routinely thinking outside the box.
Which is why Al Gore in his book "Our Choice" indicates that the perception of reality which I and others possess, of impending societal and environmental breakdown, will take awhile to overcome the natural conservatism of the global citizen.
That's where this weblog comes in - and the Internet in all of its manifestations.
It is a mistake to constantly refute with yet more numbing facts the confusion and misinformation of bloggers such as Brunnen_G or Canadian Rockies etc...
I choose to take the high road, and depend on the innate survival instincts and moral sensibilities, in short, the HUMANITY, of the global citizen to see these spin doctors for what they are - malcontents or actual disturbed personalities.
The good ones work hard at masking the intrinsic 'nothing need change' message of their provocative and calculated intrusions on this and all other high profile weblogs.
Grannie!
I think capitalism as practiced is dead.
Globalism as practiced is dead.
I am reading E.O. Wilson's masterpiece novel, his first, "ANTHILL."
In fractal metaphor, he describes the death of the Queen Bee of Trailhead Colony.
The worker ants do not know at first that the Queen is dead - that they need to switch paradigms from "Support the Queen" at all costs to:
"Initiate the Mechanism for producing a new batch of Male Inseminators and Female Receptors - or the Colony will Die."
This is a brilliant novel, written by a brilliant man.
I am listening - perhaps I and a few others are the analogues of the first worker ants who begin to dismantle the Queen's Body?
None of this is fiction Grannie, that is how an Ant Colony works, to the best of our knowledge.
I am here to tell you and whoever will stop and listen that the Queen is Dead, and we need to switch gears.
- Manysummits |Dark Mountain | United Nations Supporter -
Complain about this comment
195. At 5:43pm on 29 May 2010, MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:
@manysummits #187
please define "extremely significant global land/sea temperature rise"
/Mango
===========================
Mango to me #190:
"I've responded on several occassions to your nonsense, manysummits, ..."
Mango, should I answer you before or after your [ PERSONAL INSULT? ]
I would then be assuming that the global citizen is incapable of going to the relevant highest quality website which provides detailed information on the history of climatology, on the science and history of modern climate science, etc...
Rather than follow in the tortuous path you have set for me, how if I ask you Mango:
"please define "extremely significant global land/sea temperature rise"
and sources please
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #197
Not a personal insult at all, a disagreement with your views, which are nonsense
I would then be assuming that the global citizen is incapable of going to the relevant highest quality website which provides detailed information on the history of climatology, on the science and history of modern climate science, etc...
I was asking for your definition, manysummits, not the definition of others, but as usual, you are unable to give an answer. I will, however, answer your question and then, perhaps, you can do the courtesy of answering mine:
I don't think there is a global land/sea temperature and therefore, I cannot see how you can call the rise in recorded temperatures "significant"
/Mango
Complain about this comment
198. At 6:36pm on 29 May 2010, MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:
@manysummits #197
Not a personal insult at all, a disagreement with your views, which are nonsense
I was asking for your definition, manysummits, not the definition of others, but as usual, you are unable to give an answer. I will, however, answer your question and then, perhaps, you can do the courtesy of answering mine:
I don't think there is a global land/sea temperature and therefore, I cannot see how you can call the rise in recorded temperatures "significant"
/Mango
============================
1) I consider it an insult.
2) I will appeal to authority on the global land/sea temperature record, not having one in my basement.
But since you wrote:
"I don't think there is a global land/sea temperature record"
there would be no point in continuuing - would there Mango?
- Manysummits - exposing fraudulent argument -
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK #198: "I don't think there is a global land/sea temperature..."
I wonder what this is then..?
GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index in 0.01 degrees Celsius base period: 1951-1980
/davblo
Complain about this comment
198. At 6:36pm on 29 May 2010, MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:
@manysummits #197
"... I don't think there is a global land/sea temperature and therefore, I cannot see how you can call the rise in recorded temperatures "significant"
/Mango
===========================
This is a tactic used by The Lobby when dealing with factual information which cannot be logically refuted:
BOLD FACED DENIAL OF THE EXISTENCE OF SAID FACTUAL INFORMATION
===============================
- Manysummits - Spin de-bunker -
PS: Wikipedia comes from the Hawaiian expression 'wiki' (quickly)
I just leaned that!
Complain about this comment
@mansummits #199
I will appeal to authority on the global land/sea temperature record, not having one in my basement.
ok, so what is your appeal to authority - Al gore or Hansen?
But since you wrote:
"I don't think there is a global land/sea temperature record"
That's not what i said - i said "I don't think there is a global land/sea temperature" - there is a difference
There is a record of temperatures as recorded by weather stations. This record may be open to interpretation, and may not be reliable. It is however, the best we have. I have said often I do think recorded temperatures have risen in the latter part of the 20th century, but flatlinied since - the trend is still upwards though.
This is not the same as a "global land/sea temperature"
there would be no point in continuuing - would there Mango?
There never is, because you either can't face the truth ot don't want to
- Manysummits - exposing fraudulent argument -
perhaps in your own little world, but not in the real worls
/Mango - correcting manysummits misconceptions ;)
Complain about this comment
@davblo #200
is that really a global sea / land temperature? Think about it, davblo
/mango
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #201
then give me your best appeal to authority
/mango
Complain about this comment
Mango!
Ahh!
My mistake!
You did say:
"I don't think there is a global land/sea temperature"
You did not say:
"I don't think there is a global land/sea temperature [record]"
It's all very clear now then.
As to your request for an appeal to authority - well -
Nope! I can't help you Mango.
When I Google it exactly as you phrased it, Google gives me essentially the same references.
I guess we're out of luck Mango - Google is confused.
What do you suggest Mango - how do we proceed from here, amidst all this confusion?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #205
Nope! I can't help you Mango.
you're not helping me, manysummits, you're the one that said there was an "extremely significant global land/sea temperature rise"
When I Google it exactly as you phrased it, Google gives me essentially the same references.
I guess we're out of luck Mango - Google is confused.
but you said you would appeal to authority. Does this mean there is no authority to support an "extremely significant global land/sea temperature rise"?
/Mango correcting manysummits manymisconceptions ;)
Complain about this comment
192. Lorax wrote:
"Thanks at least Canadian_Rockies for answering (#176) - I don't really see how you could imagine that a 10 year old paper from Nature about ice-cores is remotely a comprehensive overview of climate science. You're just cherry-picking, and on that basis I can't see how you can possibly avoid the danger of confirmation bias."
Lorax, it is you who is cherry-picking, from what I wrote. I explained that I used that particular description of what the ice cores show from that paper because it was handy. Nothing about what it describes has changed, and it is described in hundreds of other places, so the specific source is irrelevant.
A graph would be simpler but I don't have a link handy and I can't be bothered finding one because grown-ups can do their own research.
My point is that long term climate history puts any and all recent short term blips into perspective, and that making long term straight line projections from any short term trends is absurd given that record. And that nothing we may have seen recently is unprecendented.
So, looking at the big picture is not cherry-picking - just the opposite. On the other hand, ignoring that long term picture and focuing only on short term changes seems to be a classic example of "confirmation bias."
All the minutia coming out of climate science now doesn't change anything about that long term picture and the range of natural variability. And that includes the legitimate science.
Complain about this comment
#207 I still fail to see how you can argue that a single paper on ice cores can be describes as a comprehensive overview of climate science. You know perfectly well that ice cores are a part, not the whole. By arguing that ice cores are all that is necessary - everything else is 'minutiae' -you are cherrypicking that strand of evidence and ignoring all others.
Still, since we're still waiting for Bowmanthebard to man-up and reveal his possibly imaginary philosophers of science, perhaps we should have a look at what you've said.
"The Greenland (Arctic) and Vostok (Antarctic) ice cores...revealed surprising oscillations of climate on a millennial scale...Its a roller coaster over the long term. Any long term projections from short term trends are ridiculous. And absolutely nothing unprecedented about anything we have seen in the climate now or recently.
So, according to you, humans can't be changing the climate because it has already changed itself. Can you not see how weak that logic is? Species went extinct long before humans - do you dispute that the dodo was driven to extinction by man? Of course we can alter the planet - it's a bizarre starting point you seem to have that we could NOT be having an effect. And whether or not the CO2/temperature/ice/sea level/ocean pH/glacier changes we're measuring are unprecedented or not is irrelevant - unless you can demonstrate that the same variables and factors that caused such changes in the past are currently operating today. Which they aren't.
The current climate science indicates strongly that the changes we're seeing can only be linked to rises in greenhouse gases. The scientific challenge for sceptics is to demonstrate that those changes are actually caused by something else. So far, any attempt to do so has failed.
Lorax
Complain about this comment
Roger Harrabin - BBC
WOW
"...And some of the top performers in the blogosphere are critics of the establishment.
Steve McIntyre, for instance, is a mining engineer who started examining climate statistics as a hobby. He has taken on the scientific establishment on some key issues and won.
He arguably knows more about CRU science than anyone outside the unit - but none of the CRU inquiries has contacted him for input. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10178454.stm
Double WOW:
Roger Harrabin:
"...I remember Lord May leaning over and assuring me: "I am the President of the Royal Society, and I am telling you the debate on climate change is over."
Lord May's formidable intellect and the power of his personality may have made it hard for others to find a corner from which to dissent. "The debate is over" was a phrase used in order to persuade Tony Blair that policies were needed to tackle the rise in CO2.
It was widely acknowledged that climate sceptics wanted to continue the debate in order to delay action to curb emissions.
But what did the phrase mean? Did it mean the IPCC is unquestionably right? Or that cutting emissions 80% is the only way to save the planet? Or simply that it is basic physics that CO2 is a warming gas?
Even at the Heartland Institute climate sceptics' conference in Chicago last week most scientists seemed to agree that CO2 had probably warmed the planet at the end of the 20th century, over and above natural fluctuations.
But they did not agree that the warming will be dangerous - and they object to being branded fools or hirelings for saying so.......... "
Complain about this comment
206. At 9:05pm on 29 May 2010, MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:
@manysummits #205
"but you said you would appeal to authority. Does this mean there is no authority to support an "extremely significant global land/sea temperature rise"?
==========================
No Mango - there are a number of first rate appeals to authority possible.
In your #197 you wrote:
"... I don't think there is a global land/sea temperature and therefore, I cannot see how you can call the rise in recorded temperatures "significant"
/Mango
===========================
If you "don't think there is a global land/sea temperature", then it follows that a record of this would be meaningless.
Therefore - no point in citing expert testimony.
You are entitled to your opinion Mango, but not your own facts. (Moynihan)
And you have now managed to waste a good amount of cyberspace on nothing at all - thus accomplishing one of the Lobbiy's missions - to drive away or prevent thoughtful discussion.
I will therfore terminate this waste of everyone's time decisively.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Canadian Rockies #207:
I am trying to decide who is better at wasting all of our time - you or Mango?
Of course there are many other contenders.
But I think over 200 comments is enough for any thread, and I hope Richard will change topics - it takes time to load all these comments.
And people may prefer thoughtful discussion, rather than listening to endless meaningless blather?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
Awww, poor you. So insulted by 'The Lobby' (insert sinsiter music, I suggest The Imperial March)
If you spout nonsense, you get called on it. If you preach The Gospel According to Al, you get called an Al Gore fanboi. If you use the tactic (over and over) of asking questions then refusing to answer those put to you, you get called on it.
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Complain about this comment
#208. Lorax wrote:
"So, according to you, humans can't be changing the climate because it has already changed itself. Can you not see how weak that logic is?"
Well, Lorax, I didn't say that - you did. Its called craeting a starwman argument.
I said that nothing we have seen in outside of the range of natural variability.
"The current climate science indicates strongly that the changes we're seeing can only be linked to rises in greenhouse gases."
Some people use that hypothesis but other people do not. You are suggesting that there is something called "the" science when we all know that is not true.
"The scientific challenge for sceptics is to demonstrate that those changes are actually caused by something else."
No. the challenge is for the AGW industry scientists to prove, or at least provide sufficient compelling evidence, to support their CO2 hypothesis and explain why what we are now seeing cannot be explained by other factors and is not within the range of natural variation.
The climate always changes. Always has and always will.
"So far, any attempt to do so has failed."
Indeed. Despite untold billions of dollars funneled into the AGW research industry, they still can't come up with anything that anyone but the gullible, the uninformed, and those with vested religious, political, and economic interests takes seriously.
So, you may as well give up your preaching to me Lorax. And you might want to get past your own entrenched "confirmation bias" and look outside the CO2-hysteria box.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@manysummits #210
No Mango - there are a number of first rate appeals to authority possible.
Really, so why is it so hard to find? The answer is because there isn't a global land/sea temperature. Of course, there are the temperature records, which have been adjusted to take into account various factors such as urbanisation etc, and which produces the anomalies graphs, but what are we actually comparing the record with? With previous records spanning a minute fraction of earths time, nothing more.
If you "don't think there is a global land/sea temperature", then it follows that a record of this would be meaningless.
As there is no global land/sea temperature, so your comment in #194 accusing Brunnen_G of downplaying the extremely significant global land/sea temperature rise is utter rubbish and rubbish that you are unable to substantiate. As you said, the record is meaningless
And you have now managed to waste a good amount of cyberspace on nothing at all - thus accomplishing one of the Lobbiy's missions - to drive away or prevent thoughtful discussion.
Kind of a pot / kettle / black situation there
I will therfore terminate this waste of everyone's time decisively.
You should stop signing your posts " Manysummits - exposing fraudulent argument" to " Manysummits - throwing my toys out of the pram"
/Mango correcting manysummits manymisconceptions
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
PS - read up on climate sensitivity not just the AGWer side
/Mango
Complain about this comment
Oh good grief, here we go again.
Another comment referred to the moderators.
How many weeks will I have to wait THIS time before someone makes a decision as to its suitability?
Complain about this comment
@brunnen
it's happened to us all mate, don't worry - often it's a link that the mods have to check before allowing the comment
/mango
Complain about this comment
You dont stand a change Manysummits, reason and logic and science stand no chance in the face of adamant certainty. MangoChutny doesn't even believe in a global world temperature!, temperature on any scale is a statistical mean of thermal energy ultimately on an atomic scale. It scales up and down, in fact the mean can be extended indefinitely to the whole universe though such estimates become increasingly imprecise because we can only observe the surrounding universe through the ultra narrow window of the historical lightcone. The Earth on the other hand definitely does have an average surface temperature and measuring that average is a great way to measure overall climate.
In reality we're all back to arguing about the angels on the head of a pin. Like I said xx times before there is no way to prove GW or CC conclusively either way (and whether man made or not is completely irrelevant) - we have to go by prediction and the predictions are well over the limit where we should act. Economically and socially the costs of acting increase geometrically, acting now might cost only 10% of GDP per year but wait 50 years and they could be well over 100% per year (ie impossible). I look from a more general perspective than climate scientists and see population on one side and climate change on the other closing in on us like a pair of jaws.
Complain about this comment
Robert Lucien #219.
(MangoChutneyUKOK)
(manysummits)
"You dont stand a change Manysummits, reason and logic and science stand no chance in the face of adamant certainty. MangoChutny doesn't even.."
the most frustrating part about MangoChutneyUKOK 'playing the man and not the ball' is that it is simply expedience, because he's shown in many of his previous posts that he does know better.
Complain about this comment
#220 correction.
meant to say "expediency".
Complain about this comment
@Robert Lucien #219
so enlighten me - what is the global land/sea temperature? 10C?, 11C, 15C, 4C? What?
/Mango
Complain about this comment
@jr4412
Hang on a minute
It was manysummits who made the bold claim that Brunnen was downplaying the "extremely significant global land/sea temperature rise", all I've done is ask him to substantiate his claim, which he cannot do
/Mango
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
@davblo
@Robert Lucien
@jr4412
(@MangoChutneyUKOK)
OK, I think this "average" temperature stuff from Mango may be about the black body emissions being proportional to the fourth power of temperature. So there is an argument that temperatures should be averaged using fourth powers. (E.g. a fourth power average of 273K (O C) and 293K (20 C) is about 283.53K (10.53 C).) Personally given the spread of global temperatures I wouldn't expect it to make a lot of difference.
Another argument about average temperatures is that total heat content of the oceans might be more relevant than globally averaged temperatures in some situations. Unfortunately heat content is not measured at depth, although changes to total heat content might be inferred by changes in sea level, both by thermal expansion and by melting of land based ice.
(Note, there are problems with measuring (globally averaged) sea level including a discrepancy between surface based measurements and satellite measurements.)
Complain about this comment
To Robert Lucien #219: (jr4412, Jane)
I think The Lobby is very good at what they do.
Which is why I try and promote discussion amongst ourselves rather than address a logically impermeable membrane - The Lobby.
But even when I link to articles such as those in previous posts on this thread from 'The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists,' one of them on the issue of population and women's empowerment, I get no response from my fellow warmists.
And so The Lobby wins again - as we waste everyone's time, posters and readers of this blog.
They are not worth talking to.
It is easy to tell a true skeptic from a member of The Lobby, once you get the hang of it.
Their strident attacks on me these last few posts are deliberately provocative - and phrased deliberately with misquotes of what I said - to provoke response - again diverting true intelligent discussion from the many issues which surround the environmental crisis - which of course is OUR CRISIS.
On this blog, and blogs like it, we represent the anonymous public, and until we learn to deal with The Lobby effectively - Earth loses.
Thus my diatribes on The Lobby are in reality the real thing - the real problem is actually being addressed - which is how to reengage The Public, very few of whom are happy with either politics as usual, business as usual, The Lobby s usual, and, I would suggest:
'Warmists as Usual.'
Either we come up with meaningful discussion on this weblog - or we play directly into the hands of The Lobby - which is a mindset.
The Public knows there is a problem.
The Public wants solutions - not academic arguments about black body radiation - do you see what I am saying?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Dateline Gulf of Mexico Day 41
I really hate writing today - BP has reported that their 'top-kill' strategy has failed, they were unable to overcome the pressure coming from the wellhead with the heavy mud. It appears that it will be at least a week before attempt number 7 can be made - and unfortunately, from what little has been reported, this attempt would be yet another attempt, not at sealing the well, but putting a new pipestring on top of the wellhead and capturing the oil and gas spewing from the well. No one is giving this scheme much of a chance of success at this point.
Good Morning America reported this morning that it looks like oil will continue to spew at a rate (conservative estimate) of 19,000 bbl per day. Other estimates range up to 100,000 bbl per day (Columbia University) as I had reported earlier.
In Louisiana, Perish President Billy Nungesser is anxiously awaiting the decision to move forward in building sand berms to try and protect as much of the salt marshes and inland swamps as possible - it looks like that decision won't be made until Tuesday or Wednesday, even though the news reported yesterday that it was going to move forward - but again, unfortunately, a day late and a dollar short.
The failed wellhead, sitting on the ocean floor is about 100 ft high. In my view, it needs to be blown up - destroyed, so that a large and heavy concrete and steel cap can be placed over the actual well. A heavy structure like the cap I have in mind would actually sink into the muck on the seafloor at least 2-3 meters, if not completely sealing it, reducing the flow to very minor seepage. But thats just my opinion.
Speaking of 'my opinion' - BP's next attempt next week, will involve cutting the pipestring at the top of the blowout preventer and attaching a new pipestring - so 6 out of 7 attempts thus far have involved schemes to recover the oil and gas. Personally I am disgusted.
While many on this site believe I must surely be in the employ of the oil and coal industry - it could not be farther from the truth. While I don't want to see an end to deep sea drilling at this point, I think it is only a matter of 50 years or so before fossil fuels go the way of whale blubber.
In the meantime, we need to find a way to stop the flow of oil from this disaster and determine why the fail-safes did not work. We also need to ensure that all the other companies working American waters have more the 'boiler-plate' [garbage] emergency plans.
It is Memorial Day weekend here - a big holiday in the US where we honor all those who have given their lives for freedom. It marks the unofficial start of summer and the beaches are the most popular destination for many. While the beaches of Emeral Coast AL and Northwest Florida remain open and oil free, bookings are down and cancellations are up. I am constantly seeing and hearing commericals for the Northern Florida beaches. A report I saw yesterday said bookings were down 30-50% with cancellations pouring in. Keep in mind that these beaches and their resorts, hotels and motels are usually booked solid for this weekend.
The economic effects will continue to ripple through the entire economy of the Gulf Coast.
Let us hope that something real can be done soon - the 'sure fix' - the relief well won't be finished for three more months.
I just can't write anymore about this today.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
#218: MangoChutneyUKOK wrote: "@brunnen
it's happened to us all mate, don't worry - often it's a link that the mods have to check before allowing the comment"
Yeah, except there were no links in it. To recap the post, I was pointing out the irony of manysummits saying there are people here who waste everyone's time.
Coming from the person who writes the longest, most rambling posts here (with occasional outburts of poetry!), I thought the irony was too delicious not to comment on.
But the comment got referred to the mods. It seems someone really should get out of the kitchen...
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #225
Either we come up with meaningful discussion on this weblog
If you want a meaningful discussion, read up on climate sensitivity and then come back and tell us what you have discovered
BTW - there is no such thing as the Lobby, except in your own mind
/Mango
Complain about this comment
oh, and listen to Jane
Complain about this comment
#228 MangoChutneyUKOK wrote: "BTW - there is no such thing as the Lobby, except in your own mind"
Don't spoil their fun.
It suits certain people to believe they are clothed in righteousness, fighting an enemy that seeks to destroy the world for profit, or some such gibberish.
They just can't accept that we have honest doubts about the veracity of their pet theory so, like all good zealots, lump us all together as some sort of sinister enemy to be fought and defeated so that THE TRUTH can stand unopposed.
They also like to depict themselves as the underdogs in this, despite the fact that their view is the dominant world in the governments of the world.
It would be laughable if they weren't going to bankrupt nations and ruin millions of lives with their twaddle.
Complain about this comment
#226 LarryKealey It shouldnt surprise anyone that they havent been able to stop it. I'm guessing the real problem here is the pressure which from the video's looks to be pretty high. I think the next attempt actually will cut off the well head and attempt to seal it - pretty much what you said.
Again though the real difficulty is that the oil will try to force its way out because of the pressure and even thousands of tons of rock might not be enough. Its very difficult to form a perfect hermetic seal and any weak points and it will find a new way out. One last ditch method that's occurred to me and I'm sure them is burying and detonating a small underground nuclear bomb next to the pipeline - that should guarantee its sealed at least.
Maybe this should all be a real lesson in deeper sea drilling - there are quite a few similar platforms out there. A better heavier and more careful approach to the safety and the engineering might be a first step.
I feel very sorry for everyone out there. I - we can all can imagine how bad it must be, especially when you know its coming and its impossible to stop it. I know people here in the UK don't understand the scale - its as big as the whole North sea - the whole East coast of Britain.
Complain about this comment
People are afraid for their families - for their jobs.
They know that climate scientists at the Hadley Centre will continue to be paid well - their futures secure, their advanced degrees safely in their pockets.
That Robert Lucien and his research into artificial intelligence will continue.
That our politicians will continue to work in their own best interests, and that of their de-facto employers, the banks and financial sectors, the military establishment in some cases, the resource sectors, etc...
People know that they are are on the short end of the stick - always.
As time passes, and the environmental insults continue unchecked - as they accelerate beyond understanding, in the Gulf of Mexico, in the Tar Sands of Alberta, in the oil-shales of the north-eastern USA, and as plans are laid to open the veins of the soon to be ice free Arctic Archipelago, we the public will increasingly know that we have to change.
And we will still have to feed our families - and as in Greece just now, the trans-national corporations of all sectors will abandon us if profit is to be had anywhere else - no matter the cost in human suffering - and all to enrich the already rich.
This is obscene - and I admire in many ways the half of the population who won't even vote - they see more clearly than myself on some issues.
Nevertheless - we must try - and some - many - are trying.
It is important - crucial - not to give up hope - and a part of that hope is the tribal council - where the future courses open to us may be discussed.
Mango and The Lobby would have climate sensitivity discussed!
Why do you think that is?
Do you think these disturbed personalities give one whit for us - the public?
Here are two thoughtful treatises on the new economics which will have to emerge in some form in the very near future.
One article is from Herman Daly, an ecological economist.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=economics-in-a-full-world
Note: A full 'pdf' is available on the Internet - just Google this article.
Another is from Paul R. Epstein, an associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School.
http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/bringing-climate-change-global-governance
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #232
Mango and The Lobby would have climate sensitivity discussed!
Why do you think that is?
Because climate sensitivity is the key to how CO2 affects the temperature. If you understood as much as you pretend to understand, you would have known that! And yet you advocate making Al Gore richer on your understanding of AGW
Too funny for words
/Mango correcting manysummits many many many misconceptions
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK #233: "/Mango correcting manysummit[']s many many many misconceptions"
/davblo; correcting MangoChutneyUKOK's punctuation
Complain about this comment
LarryKealey #226: "In my view, it needs to be blown up - destroyed,..."
My thoughts from the start.
Thanks for the update; davblo
Complain about this comment
#232 manysummits wrote: "People are afraid for their families - for their jobs."
And if you and your ilk get their way, they can kiss their jobs goodbye, watch their families suffer a life of poverty and bid a fond adeui to their freedom.
Let's be blunt here. The core of the agenda you push is wealth redistribution. This wealth must be taken from somewhere in order to be redistributed and that means only one thing. It must be taken from wealthy nations and given to poor nations.
You may think there's nothing wrong with that, but this money is NOT going to come from the pockets of the rich in these countries. It will be taken from the taxpayer, at the expense of their prosperity.
If you want proof, read this article. They already want to jack 48bn of our money a year for their cause. I haven't heard anything about a tax on the rich to raise this money, have you?
Complain about this comment
@davblo #234
it's a shame you have nothing of substance to contribute
manysummits made errors in his posts, but i wasn't childish enough to correct them or point them out for "a laugh"
shame on you davblo
/mango
Complain about this comment
234. At 7:25pm on 30 May 2010, davblo wrote:
MangoChutneyUKOK #233: "/Mango correcting manysummit[']s many many many misconceptions"
/davblo; correcting MangoChutneyUKOK's punctuation
Actually, it's manysummits' as the user name is manysummits, not manysummit.
/ Brunnen G; correcting davblo's attempt to show off.
Complain about this comment
manysummits #232: "One article is from Herman Daly, an ecological economist."
Thanks for the link; it looks interesting; and well worth a read.
To save searching; link to the pdf can be accessed here.
/davblo
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK #237: "...but i wasn't childish enough to correct them or point them out for 'a laugh'"
But you wrote (#233) "Too funny for words".
I just took a lead from the tone of your comment.
/davblo
Complain about this comment
my too funny for words was about manysummits post, not about his typing errors, as you well know, davblo
Complain about this comment
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100041427/latest-climate-climbdown-the-royal-society-reviews-its-statements-on-global-warming/
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7139407.ece
Complain about this comment
#232 Manysummits, I'm afraid my AI research basically came to an end in 2002 for a whole heap of reasons. At the end of the day AI wrongly implemented could be about the most dangerous technology ever invented and without millions of dollars there was no way to do it properly or safely. Besides I did get other things out of it that have led in other areas maybe to something even bigger. :) That's why I am now focused more on physics and ecology and other things.
The world might sometimes look bleak but I am personally sure we can pull through however bad climate change gets. My worry is more about the constant short sightedness and narrow mindedness of the current politicians and the establishment. For me its/the best way is the engineering rule - look on the black side so you can end up on the best.
Complain about this comment
Brunnen_G # 236:
"And if you and your ilk get their way, ..."
========================
Yes, my preference entirely - "Let's be blunt..."
Your comment is boorish - sit down and remain quiet until you learm some manners.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
boorish?
pot / kettle / black
again
/mango
Complain about this comment
To Robert Lucien #243:
I find that extremely interesting about your AI research, and especially your change of focus.
Thank you!
My wife Underacanoe and I were just discussing things. Underacanoe is on Facebook - I am not.
But both of us are on the Internet - aren't we? And we compare results.
I never blogged until a year and a half ago - and then - addiction?
Maybe - and maybe I have lost all sense of reality.
A logical person (at times) like myself must admit this possibility.
But I have to operate believing this is not so.
And I need only look at the lead on this thread - climate ambition in Europe - to see that if I have lost it - so have many others.
Imprinted on my minds eye are Angela Merkel's face, as she struggles with the herculean task before her - of Tony Blair - of Evo Morales of Bolivia - of Ban Ki-Moon of the United Nations - of James Hansen of NASA - and on and on.
And imprinted is this blogsite, and although there are no faces, your posts, and davblo's, and jr4412's, and Richard Black's (with face) - are there too.
I am almost finished reading ANTHILL by E.O. Wilson - and his face, along with Freeman Dyson's, take up honored space in the attic of my mind.
This weblog has affected me tremendously.
It is a work in progress, and I along with it. It may be so for others.
\\\ Trainwreck ///
That is the operative word just now, as I write.
You mention that you are confident we can get through this but:
"My worry is more about the constant short sightedness and narrow mindedness of the current politicians and the establishment." (Robert Lucien #243)
This is a non-trivial concern.
We appear to be grasping at straws these last months, following the debacle that was Copenhagen.
Evo Morales called the People's Climate summit in Bolivia.
The UK economist Stern calls for a revival of the spirit of Rio's first Earth Summit in 1992, and hopes for the future.
The Hartwell authors convene and suggest an alternative course.
And on and on...
My perspective is that of the mountaineer.
We are in big trouble, and we need another way off this mountain. The path we took to get here is closed, retreat that way impossible. We must, out of necessity, accomplish that most sought after grail - an entirely new route, conceived as we break new ground, with no assurance that there is a viable 'soft landing.'
We may have to be very inventive indeed!
Without a doubt, the 'team' is not ready for this.
But there is no alternative that I can see.
Even at Italian standards, the planet can support perhaps five billion, and that is half of the demands of the American standard.
For awhile, we might manage at the standard of India, half that of the Italian.
If we can prevent a global collapse of confidence.
If not, the dogs of real war, not the police actions of today, may once more be unleashed.
And as you will know, even a relatively small nuclear exchange would be catastrophic.
It is unfortunately not only the climate system which is non-linear.
I suggest that we get down and dirty - that physicists like yourself ENGAGE - no matter how difficult - with the fifty percent who do not vote, with anyone who will also engage.
I may be wrong to cite authority all the time - it is after all, these same authorities who have, advertently or inadvertently, i.e., with the best of intentions, led us down the road to Hades - and we are leveraged way too highly to disruptible and complex technology.
This is a daunting task - even the most iron-willed and steady of nerve must admit this!
Instinct must be one of our guides, I feel - logic alone is not enough.
I can only say, from personal experience, that instincts in the whole man are very reliable.
As we chart a new course into the future, let compassion guide us.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
more religious undertones - might i suggest you take a break from posting - perhaps think about something else, before you step into the abyss?
Complain about this comment
@ Lorax
What do you mean by "cod Popper"?
Complain about this comment
#208 Lorax wrote:
"we're still waiting for Bowmanthebard to man-up and reveal his possibly imaginary philosophers of science"
I wish you'd learn what "appeal to authority" means. It's an example of a "fallacy". That's a mistake in reasoning, by the way.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #249: "I wish you'd learn what 'appeal to authority' means."
Ok. Ignorant as I am, I looked it up.
Appeal to authority
(Let me know if the Wikipedia account is ok. If not please provide a more authoritative link.)
"Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism."
So...
(a) "There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true"
I argue that the assertions made by the IPCC are true.
No fallacy.
(b) "The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism"
I admit that the IPCC is not infallible and so should not be exempted from criticism.
No fallacy.
So where are we going wrong?
/davblo
Complain about this comment
#250 davblo wrote:
"So where are we going wrong?"
You are going wrong in assuming that the authority of the person making the assertion constitutes a decent reason for believing the assertion.
Appeal to authority is an example of an "informal fallacy of relevance". I'll explain that term. It's called a "fallacy" because it's a mistake in reasoning. It's called "informal" because it's not "formal", in other words it does not depend on the logical "form" of the argument (many fallacies are "formal"). It's a fallacy of "relevance" because the rank or esteem or personal standing of the person making a claim is not relevant to the question of whether what he says is true of false (there are many other fallacies of relevance).
There are some contexts in which a person's character is relevant to whether or not we should believe what he is saying. The classic example is giving testimony -- in which a witness describes what he saw, and we have to consider the question of whether he is lying.
It is easy to see how a person's authority is irrelevant in most contexts by simply imagining the reverse. Imagine a person with little authority says something. Suppose he is working-class, or belongs to a particular race. Suppose it is a woman who makes the claim. Do you think those factors are relevant to the question of whether what is said is true or false?
I understand how some people habitually take a person's character or standing into account in contexts of giving testimony. But science is emphatically not one of those contexts, because any scientific theory is expected to stand on its own rather than depend on testimony to be believed. That is one reason why withholding evidence is so un-scientific.
Complain about this comment
#249 Bowmanthebard
Oh are we still going with this? I thought you had fled this discussion.
You like to lecture us as some kind of expert on the fundamentals of science.
One of the fundamentals of science is that you don't just declare stuff - you show where you got it from.
You like to lean on the support of unidentified 'philosophers of science' who 'mostly agree' that 'climate science is a non-starter'.
I've asked you repeatedly to tell us who these philosophers are, and where their work is published which allegedly supports your argument - so we can see if the things you declare are correct.
You haven't. After all this time I believe you can't. I think you are making things up. And yet you still produce these patronising lectures (e.g. #251) as if you have some expertise in this area. Any shred of scientific integrity requires that you tell us the sources for your claims, or retract and apologise.
Lorax
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #78: "Most of the philosophers of science I know..."
#252 Lorax wrote: "I've asked you repeatedly to tell us who these philosophers are"
Well, "Mr Lorax", we maintain anonymity on this blog.
You expect to maintain your own anonymity, yet demand that other people reveal the names of their friends and colleagues? Not only are you maintaining your own anonymity, you seem to be maintaining your own levels of consistency!
There is also something vaguely threatening about asking for names in a discussion that is obviously politically charged. If you can't get real, at least make an effort to get decent.
In any case, you have completely failed to grasp my argument. You appeal to authority habitually; to show you the error of those appeals, I pointed out you that anyone who appeals to authority has the problem of determining who the "authorities" are. Your "authorities" probably differ from those of other people. So even people who are prepared to admit that they are airhead bimbo types who take other people's word for everything -- in other words, treat everything as testimony -- still have the further problem of which people's word to take.
Your inability to grasp that appeal to authority is fallacious has misled you into thinking that everyone appeals to authority with the same worshipful gusto as yourself!
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK #223.
"Hang on a minute"
seeing the tit for tat thing going on between you, I believe I will.
Complain about this comment
#253
OK, We're maybe getting a little further forward. These 'philosophers of science' to whom you refer require anonymity - thus they do not publish their work in open or peer-reviewed journals. So all this time, when you've airily referred to 'Most of the philosophers of science I know...' these were your chums? Pity it has taken 170 posts for you to clarify that.
However, fair enough - I certainly wouldn't want you to give out the names of your buddies if they aren't actually expressing their opinions publicly, or exposing their ideas to scrutiny or challenge.
Even with your odd ideas about 'authority, it seems to me hypocritical to try to support your case using the opinions of unpublished and unrecognised 'philosophers of science', and at the same time condemn the rest of us for basing our arguments on published, peer-reviewed sources open to reanalysis and critique.
What however seems to me most weakening to really anything you would like to say is your insistence that you alone are capable of discerning the truth - in the 'science judgement unit in my head.' I'm sure you know the quotation from Newton: "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants." By placing yourself as the ultimate arbiter of truth, you can only be standing on the shoulders of your own confirmation bias. No wonder you are not seeing very far.
Lorax
Complain about this comment
#255 Lorax wrote:
"These 'philosophers of science' to whom you refer require anonymity - thus they do not publish their work in open or peer-reviewed journals"
There is so much Stalinism in the AGW debate -- people demanding names and so on to decide promotion or demotion -- it is hardly surprising that fewer anti-AGW voices are heard in academia. Similar situations have existed throughout the history of science, very often with orthodoxy embracing the older, worse theory, using its political powers to stifle the newer, better theory. It is absolutely vital for the same of truth and science (and decency) that we recognize that consensus counts for absolutely nothing in science.
Complain about this comment
LarryKealey #226.
"Dateline Gulf of Mexico Day 41
...
The economic effects will continue to ripple through the entire economy of the Gulf Coast.
Let us hope that something real can be done soon - the 'sure fix' - the relief well won't be finished for three more months.
I just can't write anymore about this today."
from 'The Observer' 30/05/2010:
Nigeria's agony dwarfs the Gulf oil spill. The US and Europe ignore it
"The Deepwater Horizon disaster caused headlines around the world, yet the people who live in the Niger delta have had to live with environmental catastrophes for decades"
Complain about this comment
#255 Lorax wrote:
"it seems to me hypocritical to try to support your case using the opinions of unpublished and unrecognised 'philosophers of science'"
If I had been trying to "support my case" my appealing to people rather than ideas, it would be hypocritical, because it would be a bog standard appeal to authority of the sort I've been complaining about all along. In fact, as I have already explained several times now, I was trying to undermine your assumption that "authorities" can be easily identified. Anyone who appeals to authority has the problem of how to recognize a genuine authority. Since different sections of society regard different people as "authoritative", we cannot really regard anyone as "authoritative".
I suggest you get off the topic of "who said what" and raise the tone of the discussion by talking about ideas instead of people. For example, I asked you to explain what you meant by "cod Popper", and I'm still waiting.
Complain about this comment
#256
so you're abandoning the 'it's not proper science' meme for another familiar nonsense - what you describe as 'anti-AGW voices' can't be heard in academia because of dark forces of orthodoxy etc?
Yeah, right. Unfortunately that line is without merit - for example, Lindzen and Choi 2009 in Geophysical Letters published a paper arguing for a low climate sensitivity, which, if true, would have put a big dent in our current understanding of climate change. However, the scientific process got to work, and that paper is now largely discredited, not least because it only used data from tropical oceans.
My point is, just because you feel (perhaps advised by your buddies) that 'fewer anti-AGW voices are heard in academia' doesn't mean it is true. Regardless of any bing-bong noises in your head. Just because there is now little or no serious proper science being published that contradicts our current view of climate change doesn't mean it is being suppressed - it means that nobody is producing any.
Lorax
Complain about this comment
May I add a small word into this 'authority' ding dong that is heating up the blogosphere.
Previous to the last 20 or so years there was no way for the general public, or for that matter the vast reservoir of intelligent people (scientists or not), to examine in detail the research, the data that resulted from that research and the thinking that explained that data without having access to vast libraries and large amounts of time.
It was necessary to trust the experts.
It was necessary to trust their research guidelines, the accuracy of their methods for gathering the data and the clarity of thought in its analysis and conclusions.
Hence the appeal to authority in discussing problems and solutions.
One lesson of this entire AGW disaster is that, because of the net, thousands of minds considering a problem come up with new ideas to explain data or challenge conclusions. I suspect that one of the motivations behind the disgraceful Climategate e-mails was the scientist's jealousy at the loss of their unique authority as all-knowing experts and resulted in their unprincipled attempt to defend their status.
Authorities have always shown bias in the support of their pet projects and theories but the world has changed and their power has been eroded by greater access to data and communication between commentators.
Authorities will never have the same unchallengeable status again.
Complain about this comment
#259 Lorax wrote:
"Unfortunately that line is without merit"
Presumably, you are judging this in the same way as you seem to judge everything else -- by seeing whether your "authorities" give it the OK.
If you have an IDEA -- such as what "cod Popper" may be -- let's hear it. If you have nothing better than Stalinist social chitchat about what party people are saying, I'm not interested.
I repeat: I'm interested in IDEAS, not in worthless "who said what to whom" gossip.
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #253 #256 #261
(@Lorax)
"we maintain anonymity on this blog" #253
No, we just withhold personal details as part of House Rules. Many of the bloggers here appear to use their own name, or part of their own name, in their blog ID.
Meanwhile if you can't answer Lorax's question with the names of personal contacts perhaps you might name those that have published on the subject, which I suspect was the thrust of Lorax's question anyway. Lorax is far more likely to interpret "the philosophers I know" as "the philosophers whose work I know" than "philosophers who happen to be acquaintances of mine".
(@Lorax, in the past Bowman has shown particular interest in the work of Popper, Wittgenstein and Feynman. Yes I know, Feynman didn't have a high opinion of philosophers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo )
"people demanding names and so on to decide promotion or demotion" #256
"worthless "who said what to whom" gossip" #261
I've said before Bowman. These threads are a very limited medium for ideas.
You may prefer posters to demonstrate that they understand an idea before you take either them or the idea seriously. But some of us may want to examine that idea as expressed articulately by someone who knows it well in a medium better designed to express that idea.
Or perhaps you would like to show the power of Leonardo's "The Last Supper" in one of these posts. Or the "Ode to Joy" section from Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. Without any links. Not tell. Show.
Complain about this comment
#260
Brian - I certainly wouldn't defend a uncritical trust in scientists or science - as davblo quoted, "the appeal to authority...fallacy...arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism."
That seems to be where Bowman goes wrong - thinking that every reference to another source implies an assumption of infallibility.
But - this still doesn't get us out of the problem. The MetOffice has made terabytes of climate data available on the net. In our last discussion Blunderbunny was traducing the NZ climate record and pleading for the raw data - all the raw data is available simply on the net. Just because data is available, and those on the web have opinions doesn't mean that every analysis and every opinion is valid, and the danger of cherry-picking and confirmation bias is as great as ever.
So what to do? Some, like Bowman argue that they are capable of doing all the analysis themselves, and can independently avoid confirmation bias. I think that's hubris, and a better, more transparent way is to look at meta-analyses, comprehensive studies or overviews of the whole picture emerging from climate science. The kind of thing recently published by the US National Academy of Science and which the Royal Society has just started to review.
Have you got a better way? How do you know what you know?
Lorax
Complain about this comment
#262 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
"Meanwhile if you can't answer Lorax's question with the names of personal contacts perhaps you might name those that have published on the subject"
Hardly any philosopher of science ever publishes papers criticizing any particular discipline that is still a part of current academia. Perhaps it is politeness -- although I personally regard it more as cowardice, which is one of many reasons why I dropped out of an academic career.
It would be politically difficult for philosophers of science to openly express the contempt most of them feel towards, say, the claims of sociology or psychology to be scientific disciplines.
If you want a few examples of philosophers of science I broadly agree with, none of whom I have ever met in person, none of whom to the best of my knowledge have ever expressed a public opinion on climate "science", none of whom I speak for in any way, you might try Paul Churchland, WH Newton-Smith, Kathleen Wilkes, or Nancy Cartwright. By the way, philosophers are considered "fanatically" argumentative, and it is highly unlikely that I agree with the above on all that many points -- just a significant number of them.
I give you my personal assurance, for what it's worth, that it is professionally dangerous to express anti-AGW opinions on most campuses, not least because it causes the not-too-bright multitudes to identify you as a George-Bush-loving-neo-liberal-racist-sexist-homophobe! Who believes in killing third-world children.
I very rarely walk out when a philosopher is speaking, but I did so a few months ago when the head of the local philosophy department was giving his inaugural lecture about the horrors of global warming and the moral turpitude of "deniers". The crowd were mostly middle-aged academics, so they were hardly a "mob", but they were nodding and harrumphing with such unanimity that it was very clear where their allegiances lay. I was afraid I would say something if I stayed that would result in my getting "blacklisted" as a freelance pre-publication specialist. I have to earn a crust by maintaining the goodwill of these folks, and unfortunately they withhold business from people they regard as political enemies.
Complain about this comment
#263 Lorax wrote:
as davblo quoted, "the appeal to authority...fallacy...arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism."
That is an example of a completely wonky definition from Wikipedia that should be ignored. Fallibility/infallibility has nothing to do with it. (No fault of davblo's however, he was just quoting.)
To get a proper definition, try looking up "informal fallacies" in an introductory logic book, or "fallacies of relevance". Wikipedia might be better on those, but I haven't time to check.
Complain about this comment
#258
What I mean by cod-popper is this. There is a 'sceptic' meme, articulated if I remember correctly by Lab_Munkey and yourself, that the whole of climate science is non-scientific - a 'non-starter' because it cannot be fully represented and demonstrated under lab conditions - that it contains an irreducible level of noise and uncertainty and thus can't be 'falsified'. This is then presented as a QED - therefore it isn't science. While this does represent some elements of Popper's work, it misses both some of the subtleties and avoids the considerable body of scientific philosophers who think Popper was significantly wrong. What is unacceptable is the kind of comment that says 'this is all rubbish because it can't be falsified' - that is an absurdly over-simplified conclusion and quite wrongly is an implicit appeal to Popper's authority.
I earlier referred to a good current discussion in RealClimate 'On Attribution'. That explains the basis of climate science better than I can here - but essentially it argues that a hypothesis can be progressively strengthened where numerous independent lines of evidence support an increasingly precise, comprehensive and predictive model of a complex, real world system. Elements can be falsified in an absolute sense - for example the IR properties of greenhouse gases, or the solubility of CO2 in seawater. Also required are estimates of the magnitude and patterns of internal variability.
Go and read the RealClimate article before you respond - it will be worth your while.
Lorax
Complain about this comment
#263 Lorax wrote:
"Some, like Bowman argue that they are capable of doing all the analysis themselves"
Maybe you have problems reading. I never claimed to be able to do "all the analysis" myself. I claimed that you have misconceived what needs analysis, and I was able to see that you had misconceived it all on my own. By analogy, suppose I say that astrology is bunk, but then you claim, as an astrologer, that I claim to be able to do all the "astrological charts" myself. Wrong -- I'm saying astrology is bunk, and that astrological charts are bunk, not that I'm good at doing them.
You are wrongly supposing that theory is "based on" prior "data". That is a very common error.
Complain about this comment
#266 Lorax wrote:
What I mean by cod-popper is this. There is a 'sceptic' meme, articulated if I remember correctly by Lab_Munkey and yourself, that the whole of climate science is non-scientific - a 'non-starter' because it cannot be fully represented and demonstrated under lab conditions
No. For me, the problem is that it avoids testing. By testing, I mean checking to see whether or not one of its observational predictions turns out to be true. (I am not talking about "postdiction", or "retrodiction", or whatever it is called.) Like most philosophers of science, I accept that the hypothetico-deductive method is roughly right as a description of how real science works. Popper was in many ways unusual among philosophers of science in thinking that H-D method does not give us reason to believe a theory.
Popper is considered quite bizarre in thinking that induction never gives a reason to believe anything. I totally reject so-called "inductivism" in science, but I accept that induction often gives a better reason to believe some things. It all depends on the context, as I have explained in more detail on many occasions on this blog if you consult the archives.
Complain about this comment
#267/268
Let's take the white swan analogy. You know the one - this swan is white, therefore all swans are white. You presumably would agree that the presence of black swans means that this statement is false.
Lines of evidence for/against the current view of climate change - let's compare them to the swans. The lab experiment showing the IR response of greenhouse gases - is a swan that is is white - i.e. supports the current view. From that, it would be entirely wrong to assume that all lines of evidence support that view - i.e. that all swans are white.
So we need to go and look at some other swans. So far, after a great deal of scientific investigation and data analysis, it appears that all the swans are white. Some uncertainty - greyness about a few, maybe. Will we find a black swan? Can't rule it out, but not so far. Also, we can combine all these white swans into a robust theoretical framework.
Two things arise from this flock of white swans:
1. This is not some kind of dry philosophical exercise. Getting this wrong means very bad things will happen. Eventually, the continual demand for further searching for a black swan - some counter-evidence - becomes in fact just a stalling tactic, given the risks of inaction. To argue that we cannot conclude we are mostly right just because the possibility remains that we might be wrong smells like moral cowardice when so much is at stake.The IPCC AR4 explicitly acknowledged the possible existence of a black swan by saying they were 90% certain.
2. We can see a bloody big flock of white swans. This flock of evidence can't be ignored because of the remote possibility of a black swan somewhere. Even if there is a black swan somewhere, the chances are that, given the number of white swans, we would be talking about an adjustment to the current view of climate change, not a wholesale overturning.
OK, I'm happy to acknowledge you've got an opinion on the philosophy of science and its application to climate science. In reply to this I rather expect to get another lecture with some fuzzy philosophical-sounding terminology. But please, let's just have it as your own opinion, not dressed up in the guise of some kind of authority on the philosophy of science, a subject of many different perspectives. If the best you can say is:
'If you want...examples of philosophers of science I broadly agree with, none of whom I have ever met in person, none of whom to the best of my knowledge have ever expressed a public opinion on climate "science"'
Then I really don't think your authoritative air becomes you.
Lorax
Complain about this comment
#269 Lorax wrote:
"Let's take the white swan analogy."
Let's not bother, because it assumes that the principal form of reasoning in science is induction -- the very assumption I've been arguing against all along.
There are problems with induction, although none as bad as Hume or Popper suppose. I'm not arguing that there are insurmountable problems with induction, just that science doesn't use it much. The characteristic type of reasoning used in science is the method of hypothesis ( = the hypothetico-deductive method, whatever we choose to call it).
Complain about this comment
#269 Lorax wrote:
If the best you can say is:
'If you want...examples of philosophers of science I broadly agree with[...]
It isn't the best I can say, which is why I didn't bother saying it before. But JaneBasingstoke explicitly asked me for some names (#262):
if you can't answer Lorax's question with the names of personal contacts perhaps you might name those that have published on the subject
By the way, I'd like to explicitly add the name WVO Quine,who spent much of his life exposing and opposing pseudo-science. A great introduction to reasoning in general (and to resisting the evils of pseudo-science) is The Web of Belief, which he co-wrote with JS Ullian. Quine was a little less polite than the usual "wet" academic who wouldn't say boo to a goose.
Then I really don't think your authoritative air becomes you.
How many times do I have to remind everyone that I was not presenting myself as an authority, just illustrating how different people in different walks of life consider different people "authoritative". Therefore, appealing to authority is problematic, even if you choose to treat everything as testimony, because: Who do we count as an authority?
By analogy, suppose you keep appealing to the Pope as the authority on moral matters. Then I say, "but lots of people think Rabbis are much better than the Pope on moral matters!" This should not be taken as an assertion that Rabbis are moral authorities, just that different religions regard different people as authoritative, so we'd better leave appeals to authority behind.
Complain about this comment
#270
so rather than address my argument, you would prefer to wander off in the long grass of your opinion of scientific philosophy...
Lorax
Complain about this comment
#272
Bowman says: 'How many times do I have to remind everyone that I was not presenting myself as an authority'
Well I'm afraid when you refer to others in the discussion as 'semi-educated', you are presenting yourself as exactly that. Petard, hoist etc.
OK, on to your own question: Who do we count as an authority?
You seem to want to say that when you refer to someone (perhaps WVO Quine) you're not referring to them as an authority, you merely think what they say is correct, via the bing-bong unit in your head.
However for those of us who look at climate science differently, you accuse us of making appeals to authority, when we have simply reached a judgement that certain reports/analyses/papers/institutional positions are correct.
Implicitly, you're saying that you are right, because your judgement is better than ours. And that to me seems to come down to one rather large hubristic appeal to authority - your own.
Lorax
Complain about this comment
#272 Lorax wrote:
"so rather than address my argument"
It's hardly an argument if all you are doing is assuming the very methodology I'm calling into question. You are assuming that science proceeds by extrapolating from "data", so that the former is "based on" the latter. Wrong!
Complain about this comment
#273 Lorax wrote:
"Implicitly, you're saying that you are right, because your judgement is better than ours."
I'm afraid that's just life -- what you've said of me is true of everyone, including you.
Think about it: trivially, everyone thinks that each of his own beliefs taken individually is true, and he adopted each of these beliefs by exercising his own judgement. Equally trivially, he thinks any belief that contradicts his own beliefs is false. So he thinks the beliefs of others are false inasmuch as they contradict his beliefs. But these beliefs of others were adopted by the others using their judgement. So inasmuch as there are conflicts between his beliefs and the beliefs of others, he thinks he has more true beliefs than others, and hence has better judgement than others.
Complain about this comment
#275
'he thinks any belief that contradicts his own beliefs is false...'
Really. Under many circumstances, I believe someone else's judgement may well be better than mine. When I go to my surgeon, and he tells me that on balance he recommends a certain operation, I choose not to come to my own conclusions, but to take his advice. Not because he has a white coat, but because he comes with a good reputation and makes sense as he lays out the options. I imagine you would be telling the surgeon how to do his job.
I could argue that in fact specialization - not only of skill but of intellect and judgement - is the basis of civilization. But we've wandered so far that I can't be bothered.
Lorax
Complain about this comment
#276 Lorax wrote:
"Under many circumstances, I believe someone else's judgement may well be better than mine."
Yeah, but not when your belief and their belief contradict.
Complain about this comment
#276 Lorax wrote:
"I imagine you would be telling the surgeon how to do his job."
I wouldn't tell him how to do his job, but I do definitely think longer and harder about medical intervention -- and all other kinds of intervention -- than other people. Historically, the benefits of medical intervention have been over-rated, and the harms under-rated.
It seems to me that people who are given the responsibility of making decisions for other people tend to feel burdened by pressure to "do something to make it better". So doctors tend to over-prescribe drugs, tests, and other sorts of intervention, on the whole downplaying the uncertainty and the unpleasantness of intervention. Political leaders likewise tend to over-invade countries. This sort of thing happens right across the board where there are specialists to whom non-specialists defer.
I think the practice of medicine would be better if patients learned to accept advice from doctors along the lines of "It doesn't look good, but if we leave it for a while it is quite likely to get better on its own. Of course that involves some risk, but intervention involves some seriously unpleasant consequences." Political leaders and other specialists would be improved if ordinary people treated them similarly.
Of course intervention is necessary on some occasions, I accept that. But we live in an uncertain world in which specialists tend to know less that we are ready to accept or they are willing to admit.
Complain about this comment
#226 LarryKealey wrote (but I missed it earlier because I was away for the weekend):
"In my view, it needs to be blown up - destroyed, so that a large and heavy concrete and steel cap can be placed over the actual well."
I wouldn't even bother with the heavy cap. Ever hear of Barnes Wallis's "earthquake bombs" (of WWII, called "tall boy" and "grand slam")? They went quite some distance underground before exploding, and the explosion caused an earthquake-type side-to-side shearing motion of the ground. (They were used to bring down bridges etc. that were too hard to hit directly.)
If the heavy stuff above the oil/gas cavity could be subject to chaotic shearing, the pipeline would be gone, and the whole mess would be sealed up again, after a bit of extra leakage.
Complain about this comment
jr4412 #257: "Nigeria's agony dwarfs the Gulf oil spill. The US and Europe ignore it. 'The Deepwater Horizon disaster caused headlines around the world, yet the people who live in the Niger delta have had to live with environmental catastrophes for decades'."
Thanks for pointing that out.
I hope everyone here reads it.
/davblo
Complain about this comment
davblo #280.
"I hope everyone here reads it."
fat chance, 'everyone here' seems busy tying themselves in philosophical knots. ;(
Complain about this comment
#273. At 5:18pm on 31 May 2010, Lorax wrote:
"when you refer to others in the discussion as 'semi-educated', you are presenting yourself as exactly that. Petard, hoist etc."
When you use the term 'cod Popper' to refer to "any idea in philosophy of science that differs from inductivism", I'm afraid the word 'semi-educated' springs to mind. You've obviously heard of Popper and know that he's not an inductivist like yourself. But you are clearly unacquainted with the deep differences that exist between non-inductivists, or with the fact that this includes nearly everyone in the field, because nearly everyone regards inductivism as a non-starter.
Complain about this comment
@ 266 lorax.
interesting post. i fear you've misunderstood my position SLIGHTLY, but that was probably my fault.
I am not dismissing climate science- far from it. The study of our everchanging (important distinction) climate is very important and i hope to see it continue.
I Do (obviously) dismiss the AGW theory.
You mentioned myself in relation to dismissing the theory (i'll assume you meant the theory and not all climate science as they're seperate issues) due to it's potential for falsification (please correct me if i'm wrong).
Now, i am not and did not intend to imply that i dismiss the AGW theory purely because it is possible to falsify the data/results etc. it is 'possible' to falsify results in any field- so that line of reasoning is obviously false and anyone who supports it is a fool (hence trying to distance myself from it...).
But, there IS evidence of falsification wrt the AGW theory.
-incorrect (being kind) submissions of 'edited' temperature data to the IPCC
-Suppression of opposing viewpoints/peer review highjack.
There are other examples- but none as easy to prove as those.
Those are major causes for concern. But for me, the biggest issues are the assumptions:
-the 'estimated' temperatures for VAST swathes of the globe with no temp monitors (bolivia, most of the antartic as two specific exampels)
-the assumptions on HIE linearity (a major and throughly debunked (vienna study) phallacy)
-the link- i.e. it cannot be explained by any other factors- so it must be C02.
-Climate sensitivity.
Now, as a scientist, i am worried about all these factors. My primary concern is the integrity of the data. The temperature data is suspect. it is by no-means irretrievable, but it has had too many adjustments/corrections.
we need the full, unedited, un adjusted data. not the anomolous data, not the summaries, the full, date-stamped, location-stamped raw data. for ALL the stations. including the ones they 'leave out'.
that'll go a long way to sorting the mess out.
There are just too many issues to simply 'accept' the theory as-is. This is why i do not accept it (and the observations don't match the predictions....) not because of some percieved fallability.
But, to re-iterate a post i made earlier.
If anyone can prove climate sensiticity to C02 is high, high enough to account for the 'assumed' changes, in a reproducable and independantly testable manner- i will change my stance.
But to pick up on another comment you made (and i'm not being an #### here, i'm genuinley interested, as it also ties to another point i've made).
-what do you consider to be the biggest improvements to the AGW theory since it's initial 'release'?
Complain about this comment
@jr4412 #257
Nigeria's agony dwarfs the Gulf oil spill. The US and Europe ignore it
"The Deepwater Horizon disaster caused headlines around the world, yet the people who live in the Niger delta have had to live with environmental catastrophes for decades"
Thanks for bringing that to our attention
/Mango
Complain about this comment
@jr4412
@davblo
@MangoChutneyUKOK
@LarryKealey
Not completely off the radar. Here it is under "Economic concerns - corporate accountability" on the front page of the Africa section of Amnesty's 2010 Annual Report.
[from front page of Africa section]
"In the Niger Delta in Nigeria, the situation deteriorated as security forces committed human rights violations during their military operations against armed groups. Armed groups kidnapped numerous oil workers and their relatives and attacked oil installations. The oil industry damaged the environment and had a negative impact on the standard of living and livelihood of local people. Laws and regulations to protect the environment were poorly enforced, and impunity for past human rights abuses continued, further contributing to poverty and conflict."
[from detailed report - Nigeria section]
"Pollution and environmental damage caused by the oil industry continued to have a serious impact on people living in the Niger Delta. More than 60 per cent of residents depend on the natural environment for their livelihood. Communities in the Niger Delta frequently had no access to basic information about the impact of the oil industry on their lives.
The laws and regulations to protect the environment continued to be poorly enforced. Government agencies responsible for enforcement were ineffective and, in some cases, compromised by conflicts of interest.
The Petroleum Industry Bill, which would reform Nigeria’s oil industry legislation, remained pending. However, it fails to address the social and human rights impacts of the oil industry."
http://thereport.amnesty.org/regions/africa
Not that it hurts to raise the issue of other c***-ups and p***-takes by the oil industry at a time when they might be actually addressed.
Meanwhile here's some more links related to oil industry problems in Nigeria.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AFR44/020/2004/en/00e42990-d5c1-11dd-bb24-1fb85fe8fa05/afr440202004en.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/report-blames-shell-over-coverup-of-nigerias-oil-spills-1726207.html
Complain about this comment
219. At 10:44am on 30 May 2010, Robert Lucien wrote:
You dont stand a change Manysummits, reason and logic and science stand no chance in the face of adamant certainty. MangoChutny doesn't even believe in a global world temperature!, temperature on any scale is a statistical mean of thermal energy ultimately on an atomic scale. It scales up and down, in fact the mean can be extended indefinitely to the whole universe though such estimates become increasingly imprecise because we can only observe the surrounding universe through the ultra narrow window of the historical lightcone. The Earth on the other hand definitely does have an average surface temperature and measuring that average is a great way to measure overall climate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please define the 'temperature of the earth' - and what meaning does it have? Most of our limited temperature records are from selective 'points' on the surface of the earth. What about the thermocline up through the atmosphere? Same for down into the depths of the ocean.
It would seem to me that Mango is the one who is skeptical in the face of the 'adamant certainty' on the part of the AGW crowd. Mango does not express 'certainty' - but it does appear that there is no room for doubt in the [fantasy] world in which yourself and Manysummits live.
Here is a little article from Robert Bryce which you might find interesting...it talks about energy - and physics:
http://www.robertbryce.com/node/351
A replacement for fossil fuels will come, but not the way you envision it - it must meet certain criteria to be viable - my bet is on nuclear fusion, until then, you are just p**********g in the wind.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
#283
Lab Munkey: 'we need the full, unedited, un adjusted data. not the anomolous data, not the summaries, the full, date-stamped, location-stamped raw data. for ALL the stations. including the ones they 'leave out'.
In our previous discussion, you raised as an example the "scandal" of the NZ temperature dataset. In the end that discussion drifted off, as this one surely will soon, but I did follow up that story.
On the NZ National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research (NIWA), you can
1)download all the raw station data.
2) explore the nature of the "scandal"
The latter made a huge fuss because the headline 7-station dataset (1908-2007), once the adjustments were removed, showed a downward temperature trend.
You presumably agreed with this analysis, since you used this as an example of the perfidy of temperature data. However, the location (as I mentioned at the time) of the measuring stations moved - so adjustments are needed to make any sense of the data. The NIWA site helpfully lists all the adjustments for every site - another of your demands.
But what is really interesting is that they also show an unadjusted dataset - the 11-station dataset (1933-2008) which is made up of data from sites that didn't move. It isn't as long as the 7-station, but it is unadjusted. The rate of temperature increase in the 7-Station site (the "scandal" dataset) is matched - actually slightly exceeded by the unadjusted 11-station site.
SO...in the example you particularly highlighted, all your requests here are answered, and your previous accusations of deceit by the NZ data series are demonstrably untrue. To me, that merits a retraction.
Now, your last question: what do you consider to be the biggest improvements to the AGW theory since it's initial 'release'?
'AGW theory' is inevitably an interlocking mass of individual theories and data, interpreted through both models and practical observations of theories in action. So I'm not sure what you're actually asking - but I'll try.
For me, as a scientist with expertise in another part of science, the biggest, most convincing improvements are in the way scientific objections to the climate science view have been progressively removed through the normal function of scientific analysis, debate and publication. I remember when the record of temperatures in the high atmosphere presented a problem to the 'theory'. Further work showed clearly that the temperature record involved had been influenced by the nature of the data collection - once these biases had been removed, that challenge to the theory has now gone.
What is left to challenge the climate science view?
a)There's the howling blogosphere - you know, the ones who constantly refer to Al Gore, tax and scientific fraud/conspiracy. That may have an influence on public opinion to some extent, but it bounces right off any science.
b)There's the 'models are all crap' argument, which doesn't seem to make any headway, partly because of the convergence of different models to similar answers, and partly because models are used satisfactorily in so much of science elsewhere.
c)There are some genuine uncertainties which, when unravelled, will nudge the climate science view a bit, but won't overturn it. Things like the interaction of ocean currents, clouds and El Nino type events.
You asked for my perspective - I don't doubt others may disagree with it. But it remains to me really significant that the arguments are largely happening outside science now - in the media, in government, in the courts (Cuccinelli etc.). Since Lindzen and Choi 2009 got wallopped, I don't see any scientific challenge coming through at present. Not to say that it can't, but neither is it reasonable to wait forever before taking action on what we understand.
Complain about this comment
#278
Bowmanthebard: 'I do definitely think longer and harder about medical intervention -- and all other kinds of intervention -- than other people.'
You do realize how you sound, when you make sweeping, unsupported disparaging remarks about other people that promote your own intellectual superiority? Don't you know that even if you are better than everyone else (in a Dunning-Kruger-esque way), it's bad manners to go on about it?
Maybe some of your philosophers of science - you know the 'philosophers of science I broadly agree with, none of whom I have ever met in person, none of whom have ever expressed...a public opinion on climate "science"' can help you with your problem.
Lorax
Complain about this comment
#286
Larry, I think your arguments for the absurdity of a 'temperature of the earth' are both reasonable and irrelevant - or at least sophistry.
What is significant is that we establish a baseline temperature, and record changes to it in a consistent way. There are needs perhaps for trying to establish the absolute heat content of the system or parts of it - the deep ocean, for instance. But the headline use of the temperature record is to assess trends, not absolute figures.
But you knew that anyway.
Lorax
Complain about this comment
@ 287
thanks for taking the time to respond. A slight point, the scandal i was reffering to wasn't just limited to the station you are quoting. But we'll take this example if you wish.
"But what is really interesting is that they also show an unadjusted dataset - the 11-station dataset (1933-2008) which is made up of data from sites that didn't move. It isn't as long as the 7-station, but it is unadjusted. The rate of temperature increase in the 7-Station site (the "scandal" dataset) is matched - actually slightly exceeded by the unadjusted 11-station site."
i have been unable to log into the data as yet- i've found the links- eventually, but there seems to be a subscription involved. i'll have to check it later, but for now i'll take what you say as read.
Few questions immediatley popped into my head though:
-the unadjusted readings- do they take HIE into account? if so how, if not then the 'higher readings' are meaningless.
- were all the moved stations adjusted by the same amount?
Unfortunatley the 'scandall' i was reffering to was to do with the summaries submitted to the ipcc and that the 'country wide' data (not just one station) that on closer examination showed no net increase in average temp. I would wager your sources don't cover the entire story.
But of course, if the data shows this to not be the case i will retract my comment without hesitation.
i'll respond to the 'state of climate science/it's refinement' responce in a seperate post.
Complain about this comment
Re- 287 and continuing from my post at 290.
It was a purposely nebulous question, for which I apologise. I was trying to gauge your competency on the subject of ‘evidence’. This- by no means is an insult. Though we are currently on different sides of the debate, I understand and follow your logic and find you to be a good debater.
I was trying to tease out of you what you understood the corroborating evidence for the AGW theory to be and how this has been refined over the following decade.
I’ll highlight a few points in your post I disagree with, I’ll then try
“For me, as a scientist with expertise in another part of science, the biggest, most convincing improvements are in the way scientific objections to the climate science view have been progressively removed through the normal function of scientific analysis, debate and publication”
This, as far as I am concerned- is simply not true. The HIE adjustments have been thoroughly debunked, yet ignored (Vienna study), the climate models- those people have access to (which is not many) have all been shown to be a) inaccurate (diverging immediately from reality upon ‘release’) and b) to have in-built warming bias. But are still harped about as if proof incarnate.
Now- this warming bias is due to poorly understood feedback systems (namely clouds) and a new body of work has shown that including this extra feedback DOES in fact model the climate more accurately and does model past events too.
We also have the stifling of opposing viewpoints- the fact that papers showing different results have actively been suppressed which has been shown, rather damningly in the CRU emails.
We also have the unfortunate fallacy of ‘supporting work’. As all significant work is based off the same faulty data, it is hard to believe they would come up with any OTHER conclusion. It doesn’t make them less wrong.
For your points a, b and c.
a)- The howling blogosphere would also include steve mcintyre, WUWT and other, very reputable sources.
b)- and herein your logic fails. Models work very well in other FULLY UNDERSTOOD areas of science. Climate science is not fully understood. And the models simply don’t work. It’s not a case of interpretation- they are consistently WRONG.
c) I think you’ll find clouds have highly significant role to play- as do oceans, it is not possible that recent climatic changes have affected the ocean temperatures, it’s basic physics. These have the ability to more than nudge the science. Also, more importantly- climate sensitivity wrt co2; Prove that’s low, and AGW disappears overnight. (Conversely prove its high and then the AGW theory gets a HUGE boost.
Now- for my view point (for you to rip apart at your leasure):
The science and the theory revolve around temperature and co2. It may seem obvious to restate this, but it is necessary. What we need is the link. The recent temperature rise (up to ~2003) does not prove the link; the recent C02 level rise does not prove the link.
We see a lot of information on ice levels, dangerous sea level rises (categorically false), polar bear populations, species loss etc etc. All these are symptoms of a warming climate- NOT a proof of a cause. As such- they are ALL irrelevant to the discussion of the theory (they ARE important, but not in this context). Every single related article on the BBC science page, specifically covers these issues, but not the ACTUAL important issue. Can you see the distinction?
Ice melting does not prove co2 causes AGW more than Newcastle’s relegation last season does. It’s symptomatic not diagnostic.
If we actually look at what we DO have to support the theory we have this:
-temperature rises
-co2 rises
-models and theory
Now, the first and second points are important, but do not provide the proof we need. They can be used as a basis of a theory, but nothing else.
The third points show the AGW theory for what it is- overly simplistic and full of ‘unfounded’ assumptions. I could go into this more but already this post is gigantuan.
Finally, the fact that the vostock ice-core samples show greater variation in temperature- over shorter periods of time, suggest to me that there isn’t even an issue.
I’ll leave it there to allow you to comment.
Complain about this comment
#291 'I understand and follow your logic and find you to be a good debater.'
"Flash Message for Secret International Cabal of Climate Alarmists - ALERT - recent reports suggest 'They' are now attempting flattery. Ends."
I'm going to pick out some elements from your post, since it would be tedious to go through line by line.
1. Let's start with the heat island idea (you seem to call it HIE, others more often the UHI). At least, I'm assuming that it what you mean by HIE, rather than my local Highlands and Islands Enterprise.
The Wattsup effort - to show that changes in the surroundings of some temperature monitoring stations have provided a 'warming bias' to the data - was a good try. It did provide a challenge - and that challenge has been taken up. There's now published science demonstrating that while there are absolute differences between rural and urban sites - as you would expect - both show the same trends, i.e. both show the same temperature rises. If, by the Vienna study, you mean the Vienna component of "Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China (Jones et al 2008)" - the trends between rural and urban are nearly identical.
This neatly sums up the convincing nature of the climate science. A challenge is raised. Once the dust settles a bit, it is recognised as a fair point that needs addressing. Someone addresses it. It is shown no longer to be a challenge. Oh, and I think the process rather challenges your view that WUWT is 'reputable' - as far as I know Watts has not acknowledged that his UHI 'scandal' has been punctured.
2. Climate sensitivity. Crucial, of course. Lindzen and Choi 2009 suggest that it is low - ~1.0C per doubling of CO2. Numerous other independent studies are all converging on ~3.0C. The Lindzen and Choi paper has been shown to have numerous failings, not least their dependence on using only tropical ocean data. This is an example of the lack of scientific challenge to the current climate science view - not much really meaty stuff gets published, and when it does, it does not survive very long.
3. Now your final point, that temperature and CO2 rises do not prove a link between the two. OK, we've been here before, and yes, correlation doesn't prove causation. However, this pithy mantra would be better restated as 'correlation doesn't prove causation unless you can adequately account for all other confounding factors and show a theoretical framework which accommodates the observations.' It isn't catchy - but that is in essence what we do in a lab. If you can remove all the other reasons why X happens except Y, than Y must be the cause.
Thus a coincident rise in CO2 doesn't alone account for the rise in temperature - but (as we've discussed before), the persistent lack of any other factor that could influence the observed changes DOES build a stronger case for a causal role for CO2 (and other greenhouse gases). That is the hypothesis which your side has failed to dent - because you haven't shown any other mechanism that could bring about the changes we are seeing, and the theoretical underpinning of greenhouse gases as a major cause is strengthening.
And yes, there is still acknowledged uncertainty, and we cannot explain in detail every aspect of the system we are studying and modelling. You and others may not regard the current case as strong enough yet. I think, if you take that view, you are setting an unreasonably high and abrupt threshold for 'proof'.
I've no doubt you can find information and opinion to buttress your disagreement with the above, just as I can find support for it. What is really significant to me, as I suggested when this thread first started back in Ordovician Era, is that the works reviewing the whole of the science, such as the NAS study, come down unequivocally on the side of current climate science. I would love to see Lindzen, or Svensmark, or Spencer put together a review of all the evidence combined - rather than their close scrutiny of cherry-picked elements. Or perhaps you could suggest that they, or Steve McIntyre, or Anthony Watts does a detailed analysis of why the NAS report is wrong. Until the 'sceptics' are prepared to take on such broad reviews, I'll have trouble respecting their science. Maybe the Royal Society review will, with its 'sceptic' participants prove to be the way forward.
Lorax
Complain about this comment
thanks again for the response, and i liked the humor- but don't worry i'm not trying to win via flattery. although have you been working out???
anyhow...
1- i wasn't specifically reffering to the WUWT work on HIE/UHI (your assumption was correct, HIE=heat island effect).
the vienna case study, if you read it thoroughly show's that adjustments via population- which as far as i'm aware is the norm, is wholly inaccurate and totally misleading. It's a genuinley interesting paper. i'll try link it somehow (getting around the pdf thing) but casts huge doubts over the legitamacy of the global city-wide temp data.
2- these estimates (~3C) are based on predictive models that are unable to simultaneously model past and present events. they are also huge issues with those predictions- not least the models assume a flat planet, they don't model the sea, clouds and assume the earth stores no heat.
i also take your point on the papers (specifically the low sensitivitty ones) there are issues, however, different issues appear in the other ones. i think it is fairly safe to say that we STILL have no idea about climate sensitivity, but that the observations do not support the case for high sensitivity.
3- and this is the clincher.
you're reasoning is sound, assuming a full working knowledge of the factors involved. Unfortunatley this simply is not the case for climate science. we don't understand clouds- we can't model the oceans (and what we do know doesn't support AGW) and there are HUGE gaps in our knowledge.
You cannot simply say 'we don't know what else it is so it MUST be Co2'. As by your own definition, that is STILL not proof.
I am not trying to hang onto some gold standard for climate change wrt evidence. i just cannot see that that much evidence ACTUALLY exists.
again i put my list- we have
-temp rises (which are now stalling/reversing)
-co2 rises
-computational models that diverge from reality immediatley.
Using ignorance as an method of proof (i.e. it can't be anything else we KNOW of so it must be co2) is a logical fallacy.
Finally "the persistent lack of any other factor that could influence the observed changes DOES build a stronger case for a causal role for CO2 (and other greenhouse gases). That is the hypothesis which your side has failed to dent "
there is one very simple factor that can explain this; Natural climatic variation that we don't yet understand.
historical data (ice cores) shows our current temp range to be WELL within the norm. PLease address this point if you won't address any other.
how can these changes be proven to be co2 (via the 'it can be nothing else' argument) if we're not even sure these changes are abnormal?
There is zero evidence (that i know of) that shows our recent climatic change to be out of the ordinary, and plenty, to support the conclusion that it is normal. How can there be an issue, if this can be explained, easily, by natural phenomena?
Complain about this comment
@lorax #292
The Wattsup effort - to show that changes in the surroundings of some temperature monitoring stations have provided a 'warming bias' to the data - was a good try. It did provide a challenge - and that challenge has been taken up.
I think you will find the challenge was taken up using the wrong report. The challengers used data from only 40% of the stations currently surfaces stations are at around 80%, so the challenge remains:
/Mango
Complain about this comment
@lorax and labmonkey
there is also this, which if true is a really big nail in the coffin of AGW, although personally i can't believe it is true:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/sustainability_choices_choices.html#P96780972
/Mango
Complain about this comment
#293 & 294
OK guys, last response, then I'm going to go and look at the discussions on Richard's latest blog. I'm getting behind.
#294 - Maybe you're right, but the signal was very clear even if only 40% of the stations were assessed. Still, I'm content to wait until the other 40% are shown to have exactly the same trend. But you gotta be a real optimist to bet on the likelihood of a trend established by a 50% sample being reversed. Can I interest you in some BP shares?
#293 'historical data (ice cores) shows our current temp range to be WELL within the norm. PLease address this point if you won't address any other.'
I'm surprised by this one, you normally bowl much more challenging ones. Yup, the earth has been hotter, and colder. So? The issue at hand is whether our actions are going to render our only planet much less suitable for us.
Oh, and what is with this 'Natural climatic variation' as a deus ex machina? The climate has varied before we came along, sure - but it still varied because something changed - solar output, tectonics, vulcanicity, orbital wobblies and so on. It seems wholly unsatisfactory to say that greenhouse gases can't be the cause because The Big Natural Thingy - Gaia, God, the Tooth Fairy - may be making stuff change. My trees grow new leaves every year - it's natural - but it is not without clearly understood mechanisms. Something appears to be changing our climate. If it is a natural variation, we should be able to track it down, measure its impact and compare that with observed changes. So far, you don't appear to be finding any good candidates.
Lorax
Complain about this comment
#296. Lorax wrote:
"Something appears to be changing our climate."
Really?
In any case, there is zero actual evidence that the changes we have or may have seen are not within the range of natural variability.
As far as I can tell any warming that may have occurred since the late 1800s is simply the ending of the Little Ice Age.
Real global climate change cannot be measured or detected in the short term blips. That's why these IPCC et al projections are so ridiculous.
Moreover, if you would look beyond the selective propaganda at RealClimate you would learn that our methods of measuring global climate are laughable. Thus we know even less than you think we know.
"If it is a natural variation, we should be able to track it down, measure its impact and compare that with observed changes."
Again, what "observed changes" are significant in the longer term picture of climate change? None.
This kind of short term trends projected to long term conclusions is so absurd that I can't believe so many people have bought into it. For the past few months the days have been getting longer where I live... I guess we should project this out indefinitely and raise alarms about the end of night and the extinction of bats.
What seems totally obvious to me is that the CO2 story is just too conveniently simplistic, and that this baby science of glopbal climatology, even if it were not so corrupted by political advocacy 'science,' is not yet capable of understanding much yet... let alone making "the debate is over" assertions.
P.S. BP shares are starting to look like a very good investment - unless you simply project a short term blip into a long term conclusion. Timing is everything. And if you have a British pension, you should be hoping that they bounce back.
Complain about this comment
#297
'In any case, there is zero actual evidence that the changes we have or may have seen are not within the range of natural variability.
As far as I can tell any warming that may have occurred since the late 1800s is simply the ending of the Little Ice Age.'
Not nearly good enough - as I said, a deus ex machina explanation. If we are seeing the ending of the Little Ice Age, then you've got to explain the mechanism that is causing this. It sounds to me suspiciously as if you are proposing a kind of autonomic elastic rebound from some pre-existing climate norm. The ending of the Little Ice Age isn't an explanation - changes in solar output, vulcanism, albedo changes, orbital wobblies and greenhouse gas changes ARE potential candidates.
Care to guess which of these looks like the most likely?
Lorax
Complain about this comment
@ 298.
you're missing the point. It is not up to us to explain the natural variation, it is up to you to prove the current warmth IS NOT natural variation.
Which you can't, clearly.
It amazes me still, how little this theory is actually based on.
Complain about this comment
@Lorax #298
If we are seeing the ending of the Little Ice Age, then you've got to explain the mechanism that is causing this.
From the emails:
"Kevin Trenberth on 14th October, 2009:
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are nowhere close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter?
We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we cannot account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geo-engineering quite hopeless, as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!"
Even the AGWers admit they don't know what is happening
/Mango
Complain about this comment
#300. The thread that wouldn't die.
Trenberth is talking about the energy budget. That is, specifically about the balance of energy in/energy out on a day-to-day basis. On a climate-basis - i.e. 30 years or so things are much clearer, and the recent information about deep ocean warming is proving very useful in this.
#299 But back to my question - if you are seriously proposing 'Natural Variation' as a mechanism that changes our climate, do you not think that you should be prepared to support that hypothesis with some evidence? Would that not be the way that, er, scientists do their thing? Or am I going to have to talk about the Natural Variation Fairy? Come on, we may not agree, but you are good enough at the science to know that blaming a fuzzy external force isn't convincing. That's a phlogiston answer.
Lorax
Complain about this comment
@ 301.
tell me about it!!
right. i understand your point, honestly- but i'm coming at it from another angle- that is all.
You cannot prove c02 causes AGW until you have ruled out natural causes. The vostock ice cores suggest that this kind of natural variation has, does and will always occur. Do you agree on that point?
So, the next question is this- if we have evidence of this sort of natural variation in the historic proxies- any claims of unprecedented warming go straight out of the window.
It's a logic exercise. The simplest answer is natural variation- the co2 theory, (the key argument at present being we don't know what else it could be) dissapears if we accept this logical conclusion.
For me- the massive variation in co2 and temp levels in the past, over all sorts of timescales/levels completely negates the 'unprecedented' part of the AGW theory. can you see that?
Complain about this comment
#302
Yup, no problem with your last point. But...I'm not claiming 'unprecedented' warming. I'm saying that this episode of warming is very rapid and dangerously large for our civilization, and this time around, we seem to be causing it. And once again, natural variation isn't a reason why things change - it is description of change that doesn't have our fingerprints on it. But in this case, you need to explain what the mechanism of natural variation is.
Since we've hopped over to the more recent blog, we can continue this there. There's more meat on this discussion yet.
Lorax
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS