IPCC review: friend or foe?
"Now that we're in the kitchen, we have to take the heat," said Rajendra Pachauri.
"And we have to recognise that the stakes are very high. So we have to prepare ourselves for criticism, and this is not something we have done in the past."
Indeed not. The worlds of climate science and politics were very different in 1988 when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the organisation that Dr Pachauri now chairs, came into being.
Concern there was about the potential of humanity's greenhouse gas emissions to produce a net warming of the planet's biosphere, which was why the organisation came into existence.
But computers on which scientists ran models were mere calculators beside today's petaflop behemoths; and many of the observation systems that now provide valued data, such as the global flotilla of Argo floats, were barely at the stage of conception, never mind in their infancy.
As a result, the risk of warming might have been perceived as real, but it also went unquantified.
And as a result of that, there was barely a prospect of painful greenhouse gas emission cuts, never mind the wholesale decarbonisation of economies within a few decades that many now advocate.
Fossil fuel lobbyists had barely begun to organise, and a webless world did not facilitate the instant fractious exchanges of angry words and equations - the game, sometimes played on astroturf, that now makes the climate blogosphere as relentless as Shinjuku station in rush hour.
And so we come, via the hockey stick and the passing of the Waxman-Markey bill and "ClimateGate" and Copenhagen and erroneous Himalayan glacier melting dates and the Tea Party movement to this, the start of the UN-commissioned review of the IPCC on a sunny canalside morning in Amsterdam.
The scene in the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences was a world away from the media scrums of the IPCC report launches in 2007, let alone the Copenhagen maelstrom.
The review panel of 12 academics - their CVs richly adorned with professorships and advisorships and awards - sat around a U-shaped table in a bare room while a handful of reporters and support staff scattered themselves around chairs at the back.
At the top of the U were the first people to present material to the review - Dr Pachauri himself and IPCC secretary Renate Christ.
Their presentations consisted mostly of background material about how the IPCC works: how it selects lead authors for its reports, how it relates to governments, how its cycles of reporting run.
Along the way, Dr Pachauri unveiled some issues that had concerned him for a while.
Communications with the public have historically been poor. Support networks are established for the duration of one assessment cycle, meaning that if something subsequently goes awry - such as discovering you've put the wrong date for the melting of Himalayan glaciers in your report - the team that should be in place to assess and deal with the issue has already disbanded.
These things are very small beer compared with the assault cannon constantly being fired in the IPCC's direction, and specifically at Dr Pachauri.
The organisation is accused of deliberately selecting report leaders "fully signed up to the global warming theology", as you might put it, and of deliberately excluding dissenting voices through a variety of mechanisms.
It is accused of routinely neglecting the influence of natural climatic cycles in its projections, and of concocting projections of the world's socio-economic future that bear little relation to reality.
Dr Pachauri himself is accused of making money out of promulgating climate concerns, despite recently being cleared of financial irregularities by auditors KPMG.
The last time I wrote about this review - when UN secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced its constitution back in March - I was already receiving emails assuring me that it was a whitewash, and I don't expect this to change.
Review panel chairman Harold Shapiro, a Princeton University economist and former advisor to both the George Bush and Bill Clinton presidencies, assured me it won't be - they are "neither friend nor foe" of the IPCC.
When I asked him whether critics who have seen the IPCC at first hand will be called - I mentioned both Richard Lindzen and John Christy in this context - he replied that this sort of
"...'thoughtful critic' - very very respectable and highly thought of scientists with criticisms of the organisation - we definitely want to hear that."
And anyone can send in comments - they're already arriving, apparently.
What's interesting me is that scientists I've spoken to, both in camps that are seriously concerned about climate change and those that find IPCC projections overblown, want this review to succeed.
By that, they mean changing the organisation as much as is necessary to help it do its assigned job as best it can: improving the quality of its scrutiny, removing inherent biases if they exist, supporting lead authors better as they wade through an every-rising tide of scientific papers, and enhancing communication of findings to the public who ultimately are paying for it.
It's a big task, let's be honest; Professor Shapiro acknowledged as much.
The 12 panellists are already very busy people, and there is a stack of material to get through and an army of people to hear from - and all before the end of August.
One presumes none will be having a relaxing summer break this time around, stuck as they'll be in Dr Pachauri's ever-warming kitchen.
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~59~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Richard Black.
"What's interesting me is that scientists I've spoken to, both in camps
that are seriously concerned about climate change and those that find
IPCC projections overblown, want this review to succeed."
no doubt, scientists will. but what about you, ie. the journalists? not a sinlge word in your piece about the crucial role of the media in disseminating the content of (IPCC) reports/findings; any organisation, even the UN, struggles to get 'the truth' out there when torpedoed by 24/7 TV misrepresentation.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@richard
You make it sound like "climategate" and the erroneous glacier figures were no big deal.
They were. They killed the IPCC.
It doesn't matter what the report says. It doesn't matter what cosmetic changes are made. It doesn't matter who prostrates themselves before the media in sackcloth and ashes crying mea culpa.
The trust is gone, and it's never coming back.
For over 20 years we, the public, were told that whilst we might not fully understand the mechanics of global climate, we could trust the IPCC as its methods, contributors and goals were all above reproach.
If only one out three had proven to be true...
Complain about this comment
Once you've said, "This is a complex subject, but you can trust us, we're impartial scientists seeking only the truth" and this has been found to be not true, they you're finished. Forever. You only get one chance at 'Trust me'. The glaciers were just the last straw.
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me."
The IPCC is finished.
Complain about this comment
There are plenty of people who want the IPCC to be "finished" because they don't like the conclusions that science has reached and which the IPCC reports. It conflicts with their politics. For these people no amount of genuine honesty will be sufficient, they will refuse to accept scientific results they don't like as "whitewashes".
It's a bit like the people who use Piltdown Man as an excuse to deny the theory of evolution. They are just looking for excuses.
In that regard the IPCC review is a waste of time. But for the bulk of people, such as policymakers who are objective enough to hear it out, it will be useful.
Complain about this comment
Genuine honesty?
If the IPCC ever gets some, let us know, won't you?
Complain about this comment
Brunnen_G #3.
"You make it sound like .. the erroneous glacier figures were no big deal."
Harvey #4.
"The glaciers were just the last straw."
never mind the exact date, see what's happening:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Glacier_Mass_Balance_Map.png
Complain about this comment
Typo: It's "UN secretary-General Ban Ki-moon" as opposed to "US secretary-General".
Complain about this comment
#5. infinity wrote:
"There are plenty of people who want the IPCC to be "finished" because they don't like the conclusions that science has reached and which the IPCC reports. It conflicts with their politics. For these people no amount of genuine honesty will be sufficient, they will refuse to accept scientific results they don't like as "whitewashes".
Or how about this:
There are plenty of people who want the IPCC to be believed because they like the conclusions that the IPCC reports. It supports their politics and their vested economic interests. For these people no amount of genuine honesty will be sufficient, they will refuse to accept scientific results they don't like as "denial."
----------
This will be entertaining. Let's pretend that nobody knows everything we already know about the IPCC and its "science" and let its chosen 'experts' tell us what to think instead.
I know. Let's call it peer review! That label used to fool most of the people most of the time.
Complain about this comment
#1 jr4412 - I don't know where you live but in North America the media coverage of Climategate and the seemingly endless subsequent stream of exposed problems with the IPCC's reporting and its aleeged 'science' has been almost nonexistent.
When they actually do mention it, the spin it to attempt to dismiss it.
For the most part they have simply reduced the non-stop scare stories which used to be a daily feature (like they were on the BBC) but kept marching on as though the Emporer still had clothes.
That, among other things, is why the public no longer trusts the mainstream media or pays much attention to it. The polls tell the real story. That and the eyes rolling when Al Gore et al is even mentioned.
Its the boy crying wolf on a continental scale, and I'm guessing in Europe too. And India of course, where they know the IPCC head the best.
Complain about this comment
The IPCC and "consensus" on man-made global warming is one of the biggest embarrassments of modern science - it shows that mankind is still not that far removed beliefs in witchcraft and voodoo.
No doubt, future historians will write about this period of mass hysteria and future generations will laugh at the pompous priests of climate science who predicted doom and gloom without any substantiated evidence at all.
Complain about this comment
Well Brunnen, Harvey, Infinity, Shadorne ...
You can scratch your itches in public if you wish. Meanwhile we pour greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and the world warms. If you would care to put forward a well-constructed explanation of the evidence that challenges the IPCC position it would be welcome. The data and our understanding of the global climate system is there for all. Go to it. Meanwhile the rest of us, with the IPCC, will roll up our sleeves and get on with tackling the problem.
Complain about this comment
The starting point for this discussion is simple: Increased CO2 since industrialisation started has caused extra plant growth that has fed a billion people and countless animals. Increased CO2 in coming years will feed an extra billion or two. Reversing CO2 emissions will either starve the people who now rely on increased food production or cause them to invade wildlife areas and exterminate species. That's the starting point. Why does no one who advocates CO2 reduction to avert a few tenths of a degree warming (all you Brits who run away from the cold to Spain, for example!), why do you always ignore this stark fact of life? Reducing CO2 means immediate food starvation. What is the proven and immediate danger that makes that seem like an acceptable sacrifice to you?
Complain about this comment
The IPCC created a new religion that will survive long after it is gone, religions don't need truth or science to flourish, quite the opposite.
I followed the links above and found myself on the UKs Royal Academy of Engineering reading one of their news releases about Low Carbon Future etc... by someone who makes their living selling that story to insurers.
So it seems the peer review organizations are in on it too.
Complain about this comment
#12 Bryn_hill - Meanwhile the rest of us, with the IPCC, will roll up our sleeves and get on with tackling the problem.
I assume Bryn-hill is not a part of "climate change" passe that using the "issue" to loot public coffers. Then it's a member of the second group of IPCC supporters - those who Lenin called "useful fools".
40 years ago Soviet IPCC worked on the problem of providing Middle Asia republics of USSR with much needed water. Soviet IPCC "experts" worked out the plan of turning around some great Russian rivers so that they will run to South instead of their natural north-bound direction. And the "useful ... supporters" of the plan rolled up their sleeves... That "idea" enabled number of those "scientists" to keep sucking out money for a while. You know the end.
Complain about this comment
@Bryn_hill #12 who wrote...
"If you would care to put forward a well-constructed explanation of the evidence that challenges the IPCC position it would be welcome. The data and our understanding of the global climate system is there for all. Go to it."
Maybe the IPCC could actually start out by using the scientific method instead of this idiotic post-normal science nonsense.
Complain about this comment
Goodness, chaps, what an itch it must be.
Complain about this comment
The lobby is out in force on this thread - dissembling.[1]
Meanwhile, the new temperature anomaly for the month of April 2010 is just in at NASA.
It is 0.73 degrees C. Here are the last four months for 2010:
January 0.69
February 0.72
March 0.84
April 0.73
Average anomaly: 0.745 degrees C
That's the warmest average for the first four months of the year in NASA's instrumental land/ocean global temperature record, as far as I can see.
The record goes back to 1880:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
==================
The IPCC's science will be found to be sound, which it is.
The IPCC will be found to be politicized to some extent - which it is.
And then what?
The planet where all our children are growing up continues to warm.
- Manysummits -
[1] 'Dissembling' (Wikipedia)
"A lie (also called prevarication, falsehood) is a type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement, especially with the intention to deceive others, often with the further intention to maintain a secret or reputation, protect someone's feelings or to avoid a punishment or repercussion for one's actions. To lie is to state something that one knows to be false or that one does not honestly believe to be true with the intention that a person will take it for the truth. A liar is a person who is lying, who has previously lied, or who tends by nature to lie repeatedly - even when not necessary."
Complain about this comment
I'm up real early this morning - a bad dream.
And I'm looking over Al Gore's latest book on global warming - "Our Choice."
I have to do this on occassion because I am only human, and I wish this was all a bad dream, like the one which woke me up.
Bad dreams have a purpose - sometimes it's difficult to figure out the message - sometimes not.
The 'Deepwater' fiasco in the Gulf of Mexico is such a bad dream - only it's not a dream.
This is another opportunity to decisively move away from our soul and planet-destroying dependence on fossil fuels, a non-renewable resource, and use our talents to invent cheaper clean sources of energy.
We can cancel all deep drilling where our remit permits, and place a moratorium on drilling in the Arctic Basin and the Antarctic - our two polar regions.
Let us hope we do not flub this new opportunity - yet again.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
I have just had a quick flick through the IPCC website and my immediate impression is of 'work in progress.' There appears to be a framework of activities rather than finished investigations. These are very early days and I do not believe that any organisation can 'dish up the dinner' before the preparation and processing is completed. How about giving the IPCC a chance to deliver? When an organisation is under intense scrutiny it tends to be seen with 'warts and all', which is good thing but seen out of context, distorts the positive things that are being attempted. It is perhaps, better to step back and see the bigger picture and then focus on the minutiae at a later date when the dish is served up.
Complain about this comment
\\\ Thinking out Loud ///
The review of the IPCC represents an opportunity.
Why not take it?
From where I stand, I'd like to see the IPCC and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change bring on board the Interacademy Panel on International Issues, the 'United Nations of Science,' to actually review and present the actual science. This would ensure that the 'science' aspect of the IPCC is of the very highest scientific quality - rigorously peer-reviewed - and all nations with science academies would be a part of this process.
I'd like to see the policy aspects discussed in a separate IPCC forum, which would then be based in part, on the Interacademy reports.
The United Nations is our only truly global organization, and it remains our best hope for a sustainable future.
Like it or not, we all sink or swim together.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To sensiblegrannie #20: (dishing it up!)
I like that analogy - glad to see you posting again,
Manysummits
Complain about this comment
The problem with the IPCC and everyone who believes the C02-driven climate armageddon nonsense is simple.
You are all ignoring the reality of our planet and assume, arrogantly, that our current climate is the "norm" and that any deviation is not the "norm".
As an example, people panic about sea level rise. the real issue is population and placing of our cities on the coast.
The reality of glacial melt and sea levels is very, very simple:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Sea_Level.png
Take a look. Even the most blinkered can see that our current sea levels are the lowest in 250 MILLION years and the second lowest in 500 MILLION years.
So our current sea levels are not "normal", and our screams to pay highert taxes and cut back on a gas we contribute a trace growth to is nothing short of madness. Nature and our sun will take our sea levels higher whatever we do - the long term record (not 100 years of data) clearly tells us that.
-getagrip -
Complain about this comment
@sensibleoldgrannie
They've had over 20 years to 'dish up the dinner'. How much longer do we have to wait before they serve us a course that doesn't have to be sent back to the kitchen?
Complain about this comment
Perhaps the head chef is listening, taking note and planning a better meal right now ;-)
Complain about this comment
Jeez, what a load of nonsense is spouted here every day. Get real? The glaciers, ice sheets, and the permafrost are the best indicators of Earth's heating up as they strip out high frequency noise, leaving us with the low frequency warming signal. Thank god there are real journals where real scientists hash out the real science and are subject to real peer review by other (often quite hostile) scientists. The problem here seems to be that many people have lost touch with what is real (and like it that way). Just as Luntz said (and wrote). Yes, it's all a massive conspiracy and almost ALL the scientists are on board. Get real. You want to argue with scientists -- fine. but But you cannot argue with the data on glaciers, ice sheets, and permafrost. If you think you can, we have a forum for that: it's called the scientific literature. If your manuscript holds up, we look forward to reading it in Science or Nature. Unfortunately, as The Izzard noted, it's 70% how you look, 20% how you sound, and only 10% what you say -- outside of science.
Complain about this comment
jasonsceptic (#23) wrote: "Take a look. Even the most blinkered can see that our current sea levels are the lowest in 250 MILLION years and the second lowest in 500 MILLION years."
Seriously? What a red herring! I'm more concerned that we keep the levels we've had during the period in which we developed agriculture, cities, transportation, computers, iPhones, and so on: the last 10,000 years of the Holocene. If you think conditions were so good 250 million years ago, you've got some serious reading to do (er, on the Permian extinction). Do you really want a do-over of the end-Permian? Because that's where we're headed.
Complain about this comment
CanadianRockies #10.
"..in North America .. reporting .. has been almost nonexistent. When they actually do mention it, the spin it to attempt to dismiss it."
yes, the media circus here (UK) has moved on long since too; 'spin' and 'misrepresentation' are pretty much the same.
"That, among other things, is why the public no longer trusts the mainstream media.."
true, yet most of us get our information that way, it is a dilemma.
"Its the boy crying wolf on a continental scale.."
also true, however, I do think that a reformed (!!) UN "is our last, best hope for peace" (apologies to Babylon5 fans).
Complain about this comment
jasonsceptic #23.
just to add to melty's #27: have a google and find out just how many people live in costal areas and how much arable land is at or near sea level.
Complain about this comment
To melty:
I'd recommend you add sea level to your list.
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/SeaLevel/
James Lovelock points out in "The Vanishing Face of Gaia" that actual sea level rise has outstripped the most pessimistic sea level predictions of the IPCC.
And speaking of Science - and thinking out loud - we do need a series of predictive climate models, let's call them Generation Two Plus, that are capable of displaying the almost certain non-linear response of our climate system.
All of the IPCC GCMs are linear extrapolations. I'll excerpt from Mark Maslin's "Global Warming," Oxford University Press, 2009:
"All the impacts discussed above assume that there is a linear relationship between greenhouse gas forcing and climate change as produced by AOGCM's [Atmosphere/Ocean General Circulation Models]. There is, however, increasing concern among scientists that climate change may occur abruptly."
==========================
In my opinion as a geologist and a student of mass extinctions and climate change, that would qualify as an understatement.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Earth Climate System is drastically non-linear.
The great climatologist Wallace Broecker uses the analogy of a large and powerful beast - and we are prodding it.
- Manysummits -
- p. 106 chapter "Surprises"
Complain about this comment
@melty
No one is denying that the planet is warmer now than it was 100 years ago. What IS in dispute is the cause. Some people blame the CO2 boogeyman, ignoring the facts that CO2 is a minor player in global climate and is reactive to the climate, not a driver of it.
Others, on the other hand, look at the temperature rise as being nothing more than a perfectly normal spike in an interglacial warming period.
Indeed, there is no evidence to suggest that the current holocene period is a permanent end to the last ice age.
Complain about this comment
PS to my #30 re non-linear climate system:
I think this is where the regional effects of the climate come into play as regards especially impacts on us. For example, a change in position of the thermohaline deep-water sinking points in the North Atlantic would directly and dramatically affect Europe's agricultural capacity. One can think of the monsoons, which feed China and India, etc...
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
#29 jr4412 wrote: "just to add to melty's #27: have a google and find out just how many people live in costal areas and how much arable land is at or near sea level."
How much danger they're in depends on who you get your figures from.
If you get the facts from the IPCC the sea will rise up to 88cm this century.
If you get the facts from the IPCC the sea will rise up to 59cm this century.
If you get the facts from the IPCC the sea will rise up to 38cm this century.
Of course, you could also get your facts from Al Gore, who claimed the sea would rise by 7 metres this century.
Nope, there's no credibility problem here...
Complain about this comment
Brunnen_G #33.
"..depends on who you get your figures from."
the site linked to by manysummits (#30) uses satellite data, apparently we're talking about 3mm/yr. sea level rises are probably the least of our immediate problems, still, worth bearing in mind.
Complain about this comment
@infinity wrote:
There are plenty of people who want the IPCC to be "finished" because they don't like the conclusions that science has reached and which the IPCC reports. It conflicts with their politics. For these people no amount of genuine honesty will be sufficient, they will refuse to accept scientific results they don't like as "whitewashes".
-------------------------------------------------------------
There are plenty of people who want the "IPCC Finished" because they don't trust the IPCC - and with good reason.
Whether you believe or not, I would like to see a significant reduction in fossil fuels - but for different reasons - not CO2 for sure - but all the other pollutants associated wtih fuels are a concern to me. In particular, things like mercury, benzene, lead, methyl-tertiary-butyl-ethylene and so many other by products of the production and refinement process. Although we have come a long way with developing cleaner technologies, and it has made a big difference, we will move on - petroleum will still be a part of our cultures for a very long time to come, but will probably not be the fuel it is today in the next 50-100 years. We will have fusion, we will have batteries which are viable and 'clean' (which today's batteries require all sorts of terrible pollutants to make...) We will have that future - and I think everyone wants it.
We also want to 'equalize' the playing field in the world in terms of energy and take power away from some of the worst regimes in the world who control much of the fuel supply.
But we need to (and most want to) be smart about it. Lets invest in the next generation of technologies - mainly fusion - not old, off the shelf solutions which are neither green nor cheap - like windmills and photoelectric cells.
The one who leap-frog's ahead and invests in the 'next generation' will be the one who wins - and wind and solar ain't it...
Now on to more important stuff - more important than a defunct organization which will never be a phoenix rising from the ashes...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate) is a friend, trying very hard to do its job. There was a time when humanity's greenhouse gas emissions were thought to produce the net warming. This was never true, but it made a nice diversion.
Diverted from looking for the real cause of global warming and finding solutions, the IPCC, especially Dr Pachauri, has been forced into a position of self-defence. Self-defence too is a good diversion.
Analysts seldom mention the fact that there is "Climate Chaos" that is being purposely manufactured by the same criminal-types who manipulate finances and economies.
And this global warming ios not coming from human tailpipes.
There is a 50-year old Project happening which is called "Owning the Weather": Technologies such as HAARP have been used to completely hash the electromagnetic integrity and composition of the ionosphere, conjoined with 10 years of spraying a chemtrail blankets all over the whole earth and creating climate disturbances.
Oh yes, global warming is man-made. It is a Weapon of Mass Destruction. It was designed by men, manufactured by humans.
Just as there is economic warfare, there is also weather warfare. The controllers of the WMD (Weather) have used weather to manipulate an naive and weather-trusting public into accepting weather catastrophe as God's work.
Robert McNamara (when Head of the WB): talked about "controlling the weather" (for crop failures &famine and creating pandemics, with vaccines attached. Why?
Too many people. The world needed "effective depopulation".
When will HAARP & the Chemtrails be exposed?
As long as their criminal technologies are given the American-elite license to play with humanity and the environment, we will never be able to assess the truth of global warming.
Al Gore's accolades, achieved while he was misleading the public on global warming, can’t eliminate or take back the Katrinas, the mud & mountain slides, the famines...the devastation that has occurred under HAARP.
I say again HAARP:
In the United States of America, this technology is being perfected under the High-frequency Active Aural Research Program (HAARP) as part of the ("Star Wars") Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI). HAARP is fully operational and is fully capable of triggering floods, droughts, hurricanes and earthquakes. It is a weather weapon of mass destruction.
While there is no evidence that this deadly technology is being used, this is solely because, for some reason, we have not begun to investigate. The United Nations should be addressing the issue of "environmental warfare" alongside the debate on the climatic impacts of greenhouse gases.
"WEATHER WARFARE" is occuring and we ignore it at our peril. World renowned scientist Dr. Rosalie Bertell confirms that "methods include enhancing of storms and the diverting of vapor rivers in the Earth's atmosphere to produce targeted droughts or floods".
1970s, former National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski: "Technology will make available, to the leaders of major nations, techniques for conducting secret warfare..."
Marc Filterman, a former French military officer refers to "weather war," indicating that the US and the Soviet Union had already "mastered the know-how needed to unleash sudden climate changes (hurricanes, drought) in the early 1980s
Dr. Rosalie Bertell depicts HAARP as "a gigantic heater that can cause major disruption in the ionosphere, creating not just holes, but long incisions in the protective layer that keeps deadly radiation from bombarding the planet."
US military documents suggest that HAARP's main objective is to "exploit the ionosphere for Department of Defense purposes." Without explicitly referring to the HAARP program, a US Air Force study points to the use of "induced ionospheric modifications" as a means of altering weather patterns as well as disrupting enemy communications and radar.
If we are to stop global warming, save the planet from weather wars, we must stop, acknowledge HAARP, investigate HAARP, and take criminal action where warranted.
It is also worth recalling the ban - UN General Assembly in 1997, the ban: "military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects." Both the US and the Soviet Union were signatories to the Convention. The Convention defines "environmental modification techniques" as referring to any technique for changing-through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes - the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere or of outer space."
The EU has tried: A EU Committee requested a "Green Paper" on "the environmental impacts of military activities", however, its request was casually dismissed on the grounds that the European Commission lacks the required jurisdiction to delve into "the links between environment and defense". Brussels was anxious (at that time)to avoid a showdown with the United States of America. That was then; this is now. Let's have a showdown!
Complain about this comment
Dateline Gulf of Mexico, Day 27
As I reported several weeks ago - and recent studies seem to be confirming, the oil spill may be much greater than currently suggested.
Estimates of the leak from different independent sources now place the volume of oil leaking at 30,000 to as much as 100,000 bbl per day. (The figure of 100,000 bbl per day came from Columbia University who used their experience with water tunnels and flow dynamics along with slow-motion footage of the biggest leak to make their estimate).
Thisw could easily become the worst spill ever - eclipsing even the 540m gallons of oil purposely spilled into the Persian Gulf by the Iraqi's at the beginning of the first Gulf War.
Unfortunately, the weather is turning bad once again - and beginning to hamper the containment and clean-up efforts. Here in Houston, we had some horrendous thunderstorms yesterday, more coming today. My 130 lb dog would not leave my side for hours...lol. This unstable atmosphere over the region is causing strong winds and will be bringing bad weather to the area for days to come.
BP apparently now has a couple additional ideas to try and cap the worst pipe - both involve a way to capture the leaking oil - one being a smaller box (as opposed to the larger one which failed) and inserting a smaller pipe into the leaking pipe and seal around the smaller pipe and begin pumping the oil to waiting barges on the surface. I have to ask if they have a 5th grade class developing their solutions - and if so, how much they are paying them. It would seem that all their efforts, with exception of the relief well - which we won't know if it will work until August - all these solutions involve not just capping the well on the ocean floor - but doing so in such a manner as to be able to not seal the wellhead, but actually turn it into a 'producing well'.
I am concerned that I have not seen this observation made from anyone else. It seems to me that we should be able to seal the wellhead - designing a structure which will also capture and pump oil to the surface only increases the level of difficulty from an engineering perspective by several orders of magnitude.
To me it is comparable to an asteroid made of solid gold heading toward earth - a planet killer - and the guys trying to 'save the planet' are also trying to find a way to obtain all that gold as well. The two goals are incompatible.
A significantly heavy structure with no openings could be lowered over the wellhead, crush any pipes and sink a couple of meters into the seabed, sealing the well. When you try to lower something on the pipe and have this complex plan to recover the oil - well, you are just lowering the odds of success - in this humble engineer's opinion.
@Richard - anything to add? Would like to hear any additional thoughts you might have as you haven't commented for a couple of weeks...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
As an additional comment - 2 inch tarballs are now washing ashore along the Northern Gulf Coast. Not good at all...
Additionally, I don't believe I mentioned this last week - but the first 20 or so turtles that died, did not die from the oil - but because the shrimpers removed the turtle exclusion devices on their trawls (these are trap doors that allow the turtles to excape the back of the net and not get entangled and drown - however some of the shrimp also escape as the turtle escapes. A number of unscrupulous shrimpers removed these required devices from their nets - causing the turtles to drown in the nets.
That is it for today - expecting lots of rain and lightning here today...
Kealey
Complain about this comment
#36 bluesberry wrote: "While there is no evidence that this deadly technology is being used"
Or indeed any evidence that it exists.
I hate it when the conspiracy nuts show up in a discussion. They always manage to derail the debate with their lunacy.
Complain about this comment
The IPCC might consider posting the thousands of papers that we are paying for on line. Allow millions of people access to information that could change their lives as early as possible. Any errors that have been in the public domain for months could not be considered as a conspiracy. 2035 - 2350.
Complain about this comment
\\\ To Davblo re "The Hartwell Paper" - pro or anti-AGW? [1] ///
"How rising CO2 levels – and other human forcings [my emphasis] – may relate to prospective climate change is, by extension, a further articulation of theory, data and modeling of the most mysterious of complex systems on Earth." (p. 21, pdf version of "The Hartwell Paper" - see [1])
==========================
I think this is the 'proof' in writing that you have been looking for?
I read your comments with great interest on the previous blog.
I can only say that my reaction - that the paper was pro-AGW - was initially an instinctive one, for I too have been wondering at the failure of society to reduce CO2 emissions.
But I realize that proof in writing is also required, and so I offer this in the bolded excerpt above.
I believe the authors sought purposely to downplay the anthropogenic factor, as this is realistically the only point of controversy in the whole debate. As such, they advocate a more human-based, realistic approach, centered around initial actions - of which they outline three.
No thinking person with access to the Internet doubts the empirical findings of the scientific community, i.e. that:
1) The CO2 graph from the top of Mauna Loa and elsewhere is real, currently at ~390 ppmv.
2) The planet globally is warming, as documented by the MET Centre, NASA, NOAA etc..., and regionally by every competent national meteorological office in the world.
3) Sea Level is rising, as documented by our top science organizations.
4) Worldwide, the overwhelming majority of the world's mountain glaciers are melting.
5) The two great Ice Sheets on Earth, the Greenland and Antarctic, are melting and calving into the sea at alarming rates, as documented by a variety of methods, satellite, on site etc...
6) The Arctic Sea Ice over the Arctic Ocean is disappearing.
And no thinking person can escape wondering if these above six empirical facts are not related, cause and effect.
So the Hartwell authors wondered, as we all have, why nothing in the way of emissions reduction has happened?
Their paper is an attempt at an answer - and a way forward.
The paper is subtle, but people in government and in the sciences will get it.
I believe it is a step, a big one, in the right direction.
\ Personal Note /
I am at the library now, at 10:45 on a beautiful Saturday morning, away from my family.
I don't know how many hundreds of hours I have devoted freely to this cause.
It is hard.
- Manysummits -
[1] http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/mackinderProgramme/theHartwellPaper/Default.htm
Complain about this comment
Richard had written:
"What's interesting me is that scientists I've spoken to, both in camps that are seriously concerned about climate change and those that find IPCC projections overblown, want this review to succeed."
*Some times I also ignore or only talk with those who all ready agree with my own assumptions and posistions.*
"By that, they mean changing the organisation as much as is necessary to help it do its assigned job as best it can:"
* Allready in place from each "Assessment Cycle!"*
"improving the quality of its scrutiny,"
* Only selected authorized individuals will be allowed access *
"removing inherent biases if they exist,"
*Androphobic Global Warming is not biased at all*
"supporting lead authors better as they wade through an every-rising tide of scientific papers,"
* censoring what materials actually reach their inbox is crucial *
"and enhancing communication of findings to the public who ultimately are paying for it."
* After all 24/7/365 coverage hasnt been enough so far *
How is this any different than what has allready been done? I'm being critical because I absolutely have too here!
Mr. Black why keep propping up a process and orginazations that have shown themselves to be compleatly disfunctional and outright corrupt?
I'm absolutely flabbergasted at the continued hope and support afforded to the IPCC. I'm even more horrified that enviromentalists and scientists are willingly associating themselves with the UN. Dont they even read the news anymore?
Complain about this comment
@Manysummits for #41
I admire many things about your postings and what they represent. I would absolutely love to have access to alternatives to fossil fuels and the damages they cause.
You consistantly show faith and support for people that quite frankly I despise. Which is a strange dichotomy to overcome in expressing my appreciation of your personal efforts and knowledge.
But I'm one of those people who has absolutely no faith in UN or its supporting governments, institutions, and individuals. The litany of failures, corruption and outright evil is almost endless.
It is my own personal belief that things began to go wrong when people and scientists turned their concerns and findings over to politicians instead of acting directly.
That is the power that was lost. Scientists and enviromentalists used to actually LEAD the way to solutions. And governments and bussiness where draged along weather they wanted solutions or not. Not by laws or treaties, but by public support of the scientists and enviromentalists. Now that leadership has disolved into associative guilt, holier then thou tantrums, or outright thuggery.
The public is more then willing to support actuall science and enviromental solutions. Their eager for it. Desperately eager for solutions, and leadership, not politics.
Complain about this comment
LarryKealey #37: "...all these solutions involve not just capping the well on the ocean floor - but doing so in such a manner as to be able to not seal the wellhead, but actually turn it into a 'producing well'."
That's exactly what has been bothering me.
Surely a military strike with precision torpedoes (or whatever the latest underwater weaponry is) could have compressed the site and covered it in a mountain of rubble; sealing off the well; and of course, sealing it for good, making it inaccessible.
It seems they want to be able to recover the well at any cost... but cost to whom...?
/davblo
Complain about this comment
manysummits #41: "To Davblo re "The Hartwell Paper" - pro or anti-AGW?"
Thanks manysummits. The quote you presented in bold is actually part of the quote I showed (#100 on previous blog) to demonstrate my point. You actually left out the final 2 sentences which I included (see again below in bold).
"How rising CO2 levels – and other human forcings – may relate to prospective climate change is, by extension, a further articulation of theory, data and modeling of the most mysterious of complex systems on Earth. These efforts too have become controversial. But what is certain is that such projections are uncertain."
They are saying AGW is "controversial" and "uncertain".
I don't understand their motive for doing that if they accept that AGW is real; so I assume they do not accept AGW.
The rest of the paper treats AGW in a similar manner.
All the best; davblo
Complain about this comment
To Phlogiston #43:
Thank you for your words - I truly appreciate their message.
I'm just in from outside, where my five and a half year old son Cloudrunner is busy being a little boy, and trying to self-destruct down hills on his bicycle, and jumping in and out of sprinklers when possible.
So I'll keep this short, but if you are open to discussion, we can continue later?
I share much of your sentiment - let's call it disgust or incomprehension at the world of politics and business as usual, and all that means today.
Jr4412 and Davblo and I wrote the 'Mayday Declaration' a year ago, and one of its main points, insisted upon by JR, was substantive reform of the UN.
Before I was married, my feelings on the world of man might be summed up in one line from the Vedas:
"In the society of men, the best man becomes a sinner."
And so I left that world and climbed full-time at my own expense for seven years - seven years.
That straightened me out, for I found a young woman, Underacanoe, a fellow climber and kindred spirit, and we are now married almost six years.
Having a son - and becoming so in tune with the rhythms of the seasons that they are a part of your soul - that changes a man.
I remember that despite our flaws, which as you point out are truly there, where are we to run.
Flight or Fight?
That answer is made easier because there is no where to run to!
So one looks around - and sees that most men are not innately evil - just dumb as hammers.
I can live with that.
I am then required, by all that is sacred, to put my money where my mouth is, to stop! - and put my finger in the hole in the dike.
This blog allows me to do that.
More later,
Manysummits
Complain about this comment
Richard had written:
"What's interesting me is that scientists I've spoken to, both in camps that are seriously concerned about climate change and those that find IPCC projections overblown, want this review to succeed."
------------------------------------------------------------------
Please, define what is meant by success of the review. Personally, I would find the review successful if the IPCC was scrapped - but I don't think that is how you would define success for this 'review'.
So please, define the criteria for success that scientists on both sides of this issue agreed with?
This is just the same kind of blanket statement - open to so many interpretations which has brought about the downfall of the mainstream AGW movement.
So, what does success in this review process mean to you?
Kindest.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
44. At 7:25pm on 15 May 2010, davblo wrote:
LarryKealey #37: "...all these solutions involve not just capping the well on the ocean floor - but doing so in such a manner as to be able to not seal the wellhead, but actually turn it into a 'producing well'."
That's exactly what has been bothering me.
Surely a military strike with precision torpedoes (or whatever the latest underwater weaponry is) could have compressed the site and covered it in a mountain of rubble; sealing off the well; and of course, sealing it for good, making it inaccessible.
It seems they want to be able to recover the well at any cost... but cost to whom...?
/davblo
----------------------------------------------------------------
Military strike on the ocean floor - with what? Nuclear weapons? Very bad idea in my opinion. Lots of methane hydrates there in the sea floor which could be released from any sort of 'military attack' on the wellhead.
The main point is that if all we wish to do is cover and seal the wellhead, it becomes a simpler engineering problem. Doing so with a structure which will allow for the immediate recovery of oil from the well and the field is a much more complex and risky undertaking.
How about a 5,000 ton 'cap' of steel re-enforced concrete with no openings to 'siphon' oil out with - dropped on the wellhead. It would be heavy enough to sink into the seabed a couple of meters and heavy enough to hold the oil inside.
Ask any submariner, the weak point is any opening to the outside - same with this structure - trying to protect the leaking pipe and have an additional pipestring to the surface makes no sense - except to be able to recover oil from the well.
Not acceptable in my view - in that we agree devblo.
The well is not really important, the field is viable and new wells will be drilled into the field - it has already been proven out - the investment risk in the field itself is gone - it will just cost more to build a new platform, and drill new wells, in addition to the 'relief well' - which from BP's perspective, is just another cost as the only way it can work is to use it to pump heavy fluids and concrete into the relief well, permanently sealing both the leaking well and the relief well.
Kealey
Kealey
Complain about this comment
#41 manysummits wrote: " The two great Ice Sheets on Earth, the Greenland and Antarctic, are melting and calving into the sea at alarming rates, as documented by a variety of methods, satellite, on site etc..."
Are they really?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517035,00.html
Funny, The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research has reported the amount of ice in Antarctica has expanded over the last 30 years, not shrank.
Complain about this comment
Brunnen_G #49.
"Are they really?"
The 2009 Arctic sea ice extent is the third lowest on record
see also:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/IceSheet/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Seaice-1870-part-2009.png
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7006640.stm
Complain about this comment
I'd be the first to admit that Fox news isn't exactly the unbiased news source of choice, but since the BBC didn't even cover The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research 2009 report (that's the one that states Antarctic ice is getting thicker and more plentiful) what are we supposed to do? Pretend the report didn't exist like they clearly decided to?
I hate having to accuse the BBC of bias. I no longer live in the UK and the beeb is my primary news source. However, when the BBC only present one side of an argument, what other conclusion can I come to?
Complain about this comment
LarryKealey #48: "Military strike on the ocean floor ...Very bad idea in my opinion."
I bow to your judgement on that. But concrete or whatever, I'm sure we have the capability to "plug" it with something and as you say...
"...trying to protect the leaking pipe and have an additional pipe-string to the surface makes no sense".
Agreed; davblo
Complain about this comment
Brunnen_G #49.
sorry, the references in #50 are for sea ice not Greenland/Antarctica, see these:
Antarctica lost much more ice to the sea than it gained from snowfall..
..the rapidly thinning ice sheet in the Amundsen Sea Embayment of West Antarctica..
Greenland Ice Sheet has thinned and retreated over the past hundred years
#51. "I hate having to accuse the BBC of bias."
why not? the BBC is the propaganda outlet for the British establishment.
Complain about this comment
Larry Kealey - Thanks once again for your valuable updates on the Gulf.
That detail about the real cause of death of the turtles was most enlightening. Seems ALL the media somehow missed that. Guess that just didn't fit the story they wanted to tell.
That whole spill scenario is tooooo depressing, given where the oil is headed and the difficulty of plugging the leak.
And it seems a real irony here is that there sure must be a lot of oil down there to generate this kind of a gusher. Had this accident not happened it would have been a major discovery that would have made everybody happy.
I understand that there are 3500-4000 wells in the Gulf that are not leaking. And didn't BP or somebody just do a successful super deep water well called Thunderhorse or something?
I also understand that there were wells galore in the North Sea in shallower water with very few problems (and which kept the UK from going bankrupt even sooner).
And I also understand that the new mega-field they found off Brazil is going to be much deeper than anything in the Gulf, so I hope they learn from their mistakes here.
Oh yes. This blog is actually about the upcoming IPCC whitewash. Sorry for going so deep off topic.
Complain about this comment
The overwhelming paleoclimate evidence from around the globe is that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), the Roman Warm Period and the Minoan Warming were synchronous, world wide and much warmer than today.
However, the MWP deniers, such as the IPCC, will never admit the existence of the MWP because it means that their religious-like belief in AGW is exposed for the steaming pile of junk science that it truly is.
In total, climate change is complex and not well understood.
But this part is simple.
Since the world was warmer when CO2 levels were lower, CO2 cannot be the earth's temperature regulator.
In the past, the Earth was warmer than it is today; before the social and industrial advances that have made modern people the healthiest and most prosperous in history. MWP deniers want us to believe that plant friendly and life giving CO2 is a bad thing to better advance their meglomanical desire to both boss around the developed world and further impoverish the poor while pocketing a lot of taxpayer money along the way.
Useless, misguided attempts to control carbon are not the answer to the ever changing climate.There is only one answer to changes in climate that has ever worked for humanity.
That is adaptation.
One of the many links to the overwhelming Paleoclimate evidence of the global nature of the MWP is below.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
Complain about this comment
Gal #55: "Since the world was warmer when CO2 levels were lower, CO2 cannot be the earth's temperature regulator."
That's rather bad logic.
If, as you imply, something else made it warm "when CO2 levels were lower"; why would that stop CO2 making it warm when CO2 levels are high?
/davblo
Complain about this comment
#50 jr4412
There are problems with the links you posted on Antarctica.
The first one is four years old as opposed to the link I provided, which is a news report from last year. Keep it current.
The second link fails as the purpose they state for their investigation is to report to the IPCC.
Tainted from the start I'm afraid...
Complain about this comment
Sorry, I meant #53, not #50 jr4412.
Complain about this comment
Dang. I wish America could have a civil discussion for over 50 posts. In the US, the BBC equivalent is NPR and on those blogs, there is a near guarantee that someone who has been watching/reading/listening to Fox News (which commonly propagates conspiracy theories) and Rush Limbaugh who pretty much does the same thing post a rant about government coming to "ration care", or "purposely cause the Gulf oil spill", or something about thousands of scientists being in league with politicians to "tax tha air". I wonder if it has to do with the sensationalist media in the US. Are the discussions in the UK always this polite?
Complain about this comment
To Davblo #45: re The Hartwell Paper - pro or anti-AGW?
From your #45:
"How rising CO2 levels – and other human forcings – may relate to prospective climate change is, by extension, a further articulation of theory, data and modeling of the most mysterious of complex systems on Earth. These efforts too have become controversial. But what is certain is that such projections are uncertain."
They are saying AGW is "controversial" and "uncertain".
======================
Well, I read this and it seems to me that:
1) "How rising CO2 levels – and other human forcings", is the definitive position on AGW - that CO2 is one of "the other human forcings"
So I take that to mean that they accept that CO2 is a human forcing, and in combination with their stated main point, that they favor decarbonization of the world's energy sources - that this makes them pro-AGW, especially as they view the Mauna Loa 'Keeling Curve' of CO2 as the least controversial aspect of the debate.
Later in the paragraph above, they state that "these efforts too have become controversial", but by this I take them to mean that the 'human forcings (including CO2), are imperfectly understood in terms of future climate.
This is true in the narrow sense - a sort of Freeman Dyson position.
However, what I find interesting is that these very articulate and learned men have intentionally or unintentionally stated their position in such a way that we are even having this discussion.
Was this what they wanted?
I don't know. I suppose we could collectively ask Richard Black to investigate - to ask them directly, or one of us could write the lead author of the report?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To 'James' #59: re "polite" discussions
Perhaps not always!
I am from Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and there are posters here from all around the world.
Perhaps the BBC moderators are a partial answer?
Nice to hear from you,
Manysummits
Complain about this comment
mannysummits #60: "'How rising CO2 levels – and other human forcings', is the definitive position on AGW - that CO2 is one of 'the other human forcings'"
...but look at the very next words...
"How rising CO2 levels – and other human forcings – may relate to prospective climate change..."
A possibility on top of a possibility.
To me they are talking around the subject and never directly acknowledging AGW.
All the best; davblo
Complain about this comment
My #62:
To be clearer I should have said...
To me they are talking around the subject and never directly stating that they accept AGW to be true.
Complain about this comment
Dr Pachauri has claimed, on a number of occasions, that the 2007 IPCC Report relied solely on peer-reviewed scientific literature. In everyone's mind, that sets an expectation of a certain standard and quality about the report... the "gold standard" of climate science. It is understandable if perhaps one or two citations in the report were found not to be peer-reviewed literature. Perhaps ten or twenty citations that are not actually peer-reviewed literature is also reasonable... in fact, maybe even one hundred or two hundred is a tolerable number. But when, on close scrutiny, 5,587 out of the 18,531 citations (30%) are found not to be citations to peer-reviewed scientific literature as is now known, but rather to a wide range of articles, opinion pieces, and so forth, which do not even come close to being peer-reviewed literature, then that totally diminishes the credibility of the 2007 IPCC Report, the IPCC and the IPCC's Chairman, Dr Pachauri.
Complain about this comment
Mervyn Sullivan #64: "But when, on close scrutiny, 5,587 out of the 18,531 citations (30%) are found not to be citations to peer-reviewed scientific literature as is now known..."
Would that statistic be part of a peer-reviewed report, or did you determine it yourself; or it hearsay? Presumably you have a link to the source of that information. If you would be so good as to post it here we could all look for ourselves and find out.
/davblo
Complain about this comment
Where is IPCC’s "accelerated warming"?
IPCC projected for 0.2 deg C warming per decade:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html
However, the actual observed warming is ZERO deg C per decade:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend
IPCC must acknowledge to the public this mistake in its projection of global warming.
Complain about this comment
OK, the following is intended as an attempt to clarify statements about AGW in the Hartwell Paper by looking for clearer statements by the authors as individuals (or in smaller groups).
The Hartwell authors are
Professor Gwyn Prins, Mackinder Programme for the Study of Long Wave Events, London School of Economics & Political Science, England
Isabel Galiana, Department of Economics & GEC3, McGill University, Canada
Professor Christopher Green, Department of Economics, McGill University, Canada
Dr Reiner Grundmann, School of Languages & Social Sciences, Aston University, England
Professor Mike Hulme, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, England
Professor Atte Korhola, Department of Environmental Sciences/ Division of Environmental Change and Policy, University of Helsinki, Finland
Professor Frank Laird, Josef Korbel School of International Studies, University of Denver, USA
Ted Nordhaus, The Breakthrough Institute, Oakland, California, USA
Professor Roger Pielke Jnr, Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado, USA
Professor Steve Rayner, Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Oxford, England
Professor Daniel Sarewitz, Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes, Arizona State University, USA
Michael Shellenberger, The Breakthrough Institute, Oakland, California, USA
Professor Nico Stehr, Karl Mannheim Chair for Cultural Studies, Zeppelin University, Germany
Hiroyuki Tezuka, General Manager, Climate Change Policy Group, JFE Steel Corporation (on behalf of Japan Iron and Steel Federation), Japan
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/mackinderProgramme/theHartwellPaper/authors.htm
I can't find any strong sceptics in this list. Some are obvious "luke warmers" (e.g. Pielke Jr). Some obviously accept mainstream AGW science (e.g. Hulme) but are political moderates sceptical of carbon trading. As well as climate scientists they include economists, sociologists and policy experts. Some of them have made it clear in the past they want to effectively ignore the impact of AGW and focus on energy security.
@manysummits you may find Nordhaus and Shellenberger interesting in their own right
http://www.thebreakthrough.org/about.shtml
You may also like a comment in an article Stehr co-wrote with Hans von Storch
"Climate policy must be compatible with democracy, otherwise the threat to civilization will be much more than just changes to our physical environment."
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01/inconvenient-democracy-guest-post-by.html
@bowmanthebard with your interest in the clarity of the debate you may find Sarewitz's comments on "Value disputes that are hidden behind the scientific claims and counterclaims" interesting. (towards end of article)
http://www.slate.com/id/2247487/pagenum/all/
Complain about this comment
Dateline Gulf of Mexico, Day 28
As an initial note - my counting of days differs from BP's in that they didn't start counting until the rig actually sank - I started counting when the wellhead blew out.
Well, BP has had a setback this morning on the latest scheme from their 5th grade class of budding engineers to start recovery of the oil leaking from the pipe on the seabed - one of the robots working on the ocean floor must be brought to the surface and 'reconfigured'.
This latest scheme involves inserting a smaller pipe into the leaking broken pipestring on the seabed and then pumping the oil up this smaller pipe to waiting barges. With all the pressure of the oil and gas coming out of that pipe - I just don't see this as being a viable solution.
Good Morning America, this morning (a morning news/entertainment program in the US) is asking their viewers to send in their ideas to stop the oil and clean up what has leaked. Perhaps they will come up with better ideas than the 5th grade class BP is rumored to be using as their 'think tank'.
Hey, here is an idea, cut the pipe at the wellhead on the sea-floor - they have that capability - and then lower a 5,000 ton 'cap' on top of the whole well head. The 'cap' could actually be filled with an epoxy and resin, with a mechanism inside to release these liquids, which, when combined, will turn into a hard acrylic seal. There may be a minor amount of seepage, but this would stop almost all the oil while the relief well is being drilled.
Oh, but that's right - they need to recover that leaking oil to make the bottom line while paying for the clean-up.
The short sightedness of this approach boggles my mind. BP will lose much more money repairing environmental damage than they will make with these silly recovery schemes. The field is proven - within six months to a year - it will be producing. It will produce a lot of oil for many many years to come (and it would appear, a lot of nat gas as well).
While there have already been hearings on capital hill - and the blame game has begun - it is just the beginning. At some point, someone is going to examine the ideas BP has looked at for capping the well - and if it surfaces that all efforts are directed around solutions which will 'allow recovery of oil from the leaking pipe', rather than just sealing it - there is going to be a big price to pay for 'The Company Formerly Known As British Petroleum' (TCFKABP).
Well, not a whole lot else to say today, except I have serious doubts about the viability of this 'latest scheme' of inserting a smaller pipe into the leaking pipe. The flow dynamics themselves (you know, engineering calculations) will prevent this solution from being viable. Cap the pipe string without surrounding support - and its just going to burst from backflow pressure. I don't even see them inserting the smaller pipe successfully - too much pressure coming out of the leaking pipe. Even if somehow, they could make this scheme 'work' - I think 85% recovery from this 'Rube Goldberg' device is quite optimistic. That still leaves a heck of a lot of oil leaking into the gulf while BP will undoubtedly pat themselves on the back for making this 'band aid' 'work'. I would like to see the criteria for success to be clearly defined: Complete sealing of the wellheads on the sea floor.
Well, thats about it for today - on a final note, while the whole AGW arguments are being hashed here (business as usual) - history is happening. This is an event - a spill and environmental disaster which will be remembered by so many for so long. How many remember being glued to the TV as the Exxon Valdez disaster unfolded?
@Richard, when are we going to get your take on the spill and what is being done again?
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
65. At 2:00pm on 16 May 2010, davblo wrote:
Mervyn Sullivan #64: "But when, on close scrutiny, 5,587 out of the 18,531 citations (30%) are found not to be citations to peer-reviewed scientific literature as is now known..."
Would that statistic be part of a peer-reviewed report, or did you determine it yourself; or it hearsay? Presumably you have a link to the source of that information. If you would be so good as to post it here we could all look for ourselves and find out.
/davblo
-----------------------------------------------------------
@devblo - why the attack? We have known for some time that the IPCC used a great many sources which were not 'peer reviewed papers'? They even used excerpts from the opinion page of the New York Times.
I don't know if the numbers presented above are completely accurate, but would not surprise me at all.
One quick question - how would you define 'success' for this 'review process'???
Kealey
Complain about this comment
Gal #55: "Since the world was warmer when CO2 levels were lower, CO2 cannot be the earth's temperature regulator."
davblo #56: That's rather bad logic.
If, as you imply, something else made it warm "when CO2 levels were lower"; why would that stop CO2 making it warm when CO2 levels are high?
The claim was not that something would stop CO2 making it warm, but that CO2 cannot be THE earth's temperature regulator. Notice the word 'THE'.
Complain about this comment
To Jane #67: (re The Hartwell Paper)
Thanks for the input. I am glad to hear that you think there are no true anti-AGW authors there, and I went to the links you kindly provided - interesting, and especially as it in effect increases my feeling that this is a very good report, in that it is looking for 'new ground.'
To Davblo: (ibid) and JR4412?
It's Sunday, and I don't wish to document and reference this morning, so I'd like to convey impressions, which I can back up later if required with excerpts:
Jane's information is very helpful - we don't appear to be dealing with a hard-core lobby group, at the least?
I was reading the report over carefully again this morning, up to page 12.
I recommend that we study the report in discrete sections, because my instinct tells me that they have got here a new approach which will work.
1) They point out that the Rio(1992); UNFCCC/Kyoto; COP-15 approach has failed to produce any discernible or important emissions reductions, nor to have accelerated the processes which would eventually lead to significant reductions. And they state this is why they convened to write this report.
I have to agree.
In the spirit of 'you are what you do' and of 'stupid is as stupid does,' we can try something else.
2) The entire report both implicitly and explicitly strongly endorse decarbonisation of the economy, and they advocate an actual carbon-tax, increasing year by year, with which to fund their stated three initiatives. The tax would be lower than many might want, for its purpose is to 'start,' and fund innovative alternate energy sources.
These innovative alternate energy sources will need to be developed to the point of providing a non-subsidized cost-competitive alternative to fossil fuel sources, and these will be deployed to the 1.3 to 1.5 estimated world citizens who are currently entirely without electricity. Hopefully the world citizens so 'deprived' will agree?
This is the heart of their strategy then - to in fact begin eradicating poverty by supplying non-environmentally damaging clean energy to the world's un-electrified billion or so.
They feel governments could actually pass the necessary bills to enable this, presumably, and that is their true goal - ACTION, short term immediate - leading to long term effective.
That is their 'goal #1' of three.
How if we look at this only - pages 10 to 12 should do it.
The overall idea is that these three goals, initial goals, are all stand-alone concepts. They all have as a contingent rather than primary benefit, the reduction of emissions.
'Goal #1' is such a stand-alone project.
What do we think of 'goal #1' as a stand alone project???
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
@davblo
@bowmanthebard
@Gal
davblo I think what you meant to say was that Gal has either come up with an accidental straw man or is trying to debunk Al Gore's grossly oversimplified version of the science. The scientists have never claimed that CO2 is the be all and end all of temperatures, only that CO2 and other greenhouse gases contribute to temperatures and that recent (since mid 20th Century) manmade greenhouse gas emissions are probably responsible for most of the recent rise in current temperatures.
IPCC on Milankovitch cycles
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-4-2.html
Judgement on Gore's film
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html
Complain about this comment
Bowman # 70:
Milankovitch Cycles are seen by many as the 'trigger,' or initial climate forcing, for climate change without Man - i.e., before the Industrial Revolution and our drastic increase in population.
That is climatology 101 - surely you haven't 'conveniently forgotten that'?
I believe it was Wallace Broecker who stated that to understand climate you must first understand the Ice Ages.
Do you now who Wallace Broecker is?
Do you know the history of the Milankovitch Cycle Theory?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
\\\ Thought on Sunday ///
I am almost finished Lester Brown's "Plan B 4.0," which is also available free on the Internet.
I read half the book, then put it away for a couple of months, and now I can get a lot out of the second half, so I am reading it.
Here is the thought that came to mind this morning:
None of these ideas are going to work without honest people - and that includes politicians.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
@56. At 01:20am on 16 May 2010, davblo wrote:
Gal #55: "Since the world was warmer when CO2 levels were lower, CO2 cannot be the earth's temperature regulator."
"That's rather bad logic."
That is very good logic. As the peer literature show the Holocene Optimum and MWP to be warmer than today when the same literature shows that CO2 was lower then it definitely shows something else has a strong influence on temperature. I'm not saying CO2 can't have an influence, but the logic behind seeing equal temperature changes in the past with no CO2 changes does give an insight to what effect it may have.
Complain about this comment
LarryKealey #68: "@devblo - why the attack? "
Just curious. You keep calling me "devblo".
If it's some kind of "dig" or joke then it's lost on me.
/davblo
PS. The attack? Because quoting such precise figures without so much as a supporting link is (a) kind of ironic considering the subject concerns peer-review, and (b) begging the question as to what the source is.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #70: "The claim was not that something would stop CO2 making it warm, but that CO2 cannot be THE earth's temperature regulator. Notice the word 'THE'.
If you think the use of the word "the" was intentional (as opposed to "a") then the logic is even more flawed becaue it is assuming, without any proof, that there is just one ("the") temperature regulator.
I thought you would have been the first to point that out.
I bet you even know what that kind of flawed logic is called.
/davblo
Complain about this comment
As per my pledge to try to just get up to date facts:
google:
NASA: Easily the hottest April — and hottest Jan-April — in temperature record - Plus a new record 12-month global temperature, as predicted
Complain about this comment
And:
"The record temperatures we’re seeing now are especially impressive because we’ve been in “the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century.” "
(Climate Progress)
Meaning, despite decreased solar activity, the temperature is climbing, which means there is a forcing going opposite to SOP. Unless someone has a rash of scientific data supporting something else, that forcing is CO2 and related greenhouse gases.
Complain about this comment
@selti1
I owe you a big apology for my earlier patronising treatment of your posts.
I agree 1998 was the hottest year. I agree temperatures since then have effectively flatlined. I agree this seriously undermines IPCC models. I agree this hurts the main case for AGW.
I am sorry that I was so rude when you were telling the truth.
You have been missed. Glad to see you back.
Complain about this comment
@selti1
Apologies. Not trying to debunk the MWP.
"I agree 1998 was the hottest year."
should be
"I agree 1998 was the hottest year since satellite measurements began."
Complain about this comment
@wichitazen
"the temperature is climbing"
You need to make it clear that this is only true if you go back at least into the nineties.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from%3A1979/compress%3A12/plot/uah/from%3A1979/compress%3A12/plot/rss/from%3A1979/compress%3A12/plot/gistemp/from%3A1979/compress%3A12
The warm temperatures of recent months are associated with an El Niño.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from%3A2005/plot/uah/from%3A2005/plot/rss/from%3A2005/plot/gistemp/from%3A2005
The case for AGW is good. Please don't overstate the case.
Complain about this comment
Viz: 82
Thanks for your information. The current El Nino began a weakening in April (see: NWS site); there is a nice discussion in layman terms on RealClimate.org:
El Niño and Global Warming
Filed under: Climate ScienceEl NinoOceans— group @ 17 May 2006
By Rasmus Benestad & Raymond Pierrehumbert
I hope you didn't think I was merely sailing into generic huzzahs about every datum concerning warming. I was merely posting some interesting facts, which the interested reader can then explore further. I doubt that it is only El Nino which accounts for the entirety of the recent upward global temperature trends. However, that is for the reader to find and interpret for themselves.
AGW is a robust theory; I will try to avoid 'knee-jerk' posts, but will continue to add thoughtful data as I encounter it. Please feel free to correct any errors I may make. I'm open to learning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global Surface Temperature Anomalies
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Climatic Data Center
There are some good graphs and information concerning global temperature variation over the past 100 years....
Complain about this comment
@ JaneBasingstoke
"The Case for AGW is good. Please dont overstate the case."
BINGO! We have a winner!
Now even if the IPCC could find leadership capable of understanding it, the damage is allready done.
Complain about this comment
Oh, oh. More trouble brewing for hockey stick manufacturer Mann and the IPCC who so eagerly wrapped their arms around his junk science.
Did a Secret Climate Deal Launch the Hockey Stick Fakery?
By John O'Sullivan Thursday, May 13, 2010
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/23136
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #85
Ugh. Ages to download and spyware alerts all over the place.
You might prefer this link.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5700&linkbox=true&position=1
(Note, looks grubby but doesn't look illegal.)
Complain about this comment
@wichitazen #83
"Please feel free to correct any errors I may make. I'm open to learning."
Whoa. I make mistakes as well. Less embarrassing with the anonymity of this blog.
Complain about this comment
#85 - Thanks Jane. Everything Goldman Sachs et al did was legal too.
Some (hopefully) good news about the Gulf spill.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bp-says-it-inserts-pipe-into-leaking-gulf-well-2010-05-16
Complain about this comment
There is no denying that climate change is taking place.
It is time to talk but time to act on order to save our planet.
Complain about this comment
Re: Phlogiston: "Now even if the IPCC could find leadership capable of understanding it, the damage is allready done."
This is not clear....as: already done...in all scientific fields, modifications in predictions (e.g. glacial melt rate in Himalayas) does not a catastrophe make. It is standard science modus operandi...
Re: CanadianRockies: by any chance are you referring to article(s) by Dr. Tim Ball?
Complain about this comment
@ Wichitazen
My refrence to "the damage is allready done" is in regards to the public credibilty of the IPCC and AGW.
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #88
Really. Mann's latest crime seems to be that his career might have benefited from a bit of undeserved favouritism. This apparently a new crime despite existing criticisms of his field being too chummy/cliquey. You add that to Mann being pushy/rude and Mann's stats being open to ridicule. And you then compare him to Goldman Sachs?
on Mann
http://climateaudit.org/2010/05/02/cuccinelli-v-mann/
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/05/fishing-expedition.html
on Goldman Sachs
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704250104575238170222303084.html?mod=rss_com_mostcommentart
You do see how over the top your comparison is, don't you.
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #88
Agree things are looking up on the Deepwater Horizon front. Fingers crossed.
Complain about this comment
Ugh! Problem is - the glaciers are melting. Not just Kilimanjaro, the ones here in the Kootenies where i live. I saw a program where a researcher was going to see a glacier he had seen a few years ago. He was in a boat. They went around a corner where the glacier was supposed to be and he found a lake. The IPCC got an incorrect report from a researcher who was not 100% wrong. The Himalaya glaciers are melting and the problem is our carbon and its' various oxides. Their conclusions are not wrong and i want them to continue with their pier reviewed materials.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#92 - Jane. I'll try again. Seems I broke some rule.
You dismissed that Mann thing because it was not "illegal." Thus my comparison to what GS et al did. It was not "illegal" either. But that did not make it any less of a problem. And the public doesn't really care about such technicalities. One doesn't need a lawyer to tell you when something smells bad.
Complain about this comment
94. normfields wrote: "Problem is - the glaciers are melting... ones here in the Kootenies where i live. I saw a program where a researcher was going to see a glacier he had seen a few years ago. He was in a boat. They went around a corner where the glacier was supposed to be and he found a lake."
I know your region very well Norm. Problem is, that there is no place where a researcher could have been in a boat and saw what you claim. You must be confused. And the glaciers in that region have been shrinking since the end of the Little Ice Age. There is a photographic record of that going back to the 1880s.
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke - You know this blog? I think you'd like it.
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/04/23/an-inconvenient-provocateur/
Complain about this comment
The Instrumental Land/Ocean Temperature records - which year was warmest - which decade - etc..., and why the IPCC AOGCMS are not being faithfully followed?
I guess I'll jump in.
I would have preferred to discuss the goal #1 of The Hartwell Paper, but we seem bent on caving in to the lobby and discussing details which almost no one understands, and therefore continuing to play right into the hands of the lobby, by seeming to have controversy and doubt about AGW and its causes and consequences.
Such is life. I actually like the detail, but I don't think the public does.
Anyway -
The scientific case for AGW has never been stronger, and it gets stronger by the day. Any doubts are academic - literally.
The projections into the future utilizing Atmosphere Ocean General Circulation Models, which the IPCC and others use, is another matter.
Why do we not address the real cause for the discrepancies - we can't model a chaotic climate system.
All the extrapolations are based on the completely erroneous assumption that the climate response to climate forcings is linear, which every scientist doing this work knows is not the case, but it's the best that can be done at this time.
That's Freeman Dyson's opinion, among others, such as James Lovelock.
Why don't we address this JaneBasingstoke et al, and stop beating around the bush, like the politicos at the IPCC.
For me, the strongest case for the future lies in the paleoclimatic record, and the mathematics of chaotic systems - including the 'critical slowing down' expected of this type of system near bifurcation.
To be brief - the future is uncertain, but history paints a truly frightening range of possible scenarios.
This is why the precautionary principle is important.
Here's a mountain climber's analogy:
The avalanche slope is at a dangerous angle - we can't see how big it is above us - too many clouds, and we can't see very far below us, where a terrain trap might make even a small avalanche deadly, even if we leave our mates behind, probes and shovels in hand, in case it goes. If the slope above us is 700 meters, and the snow that releases two meters deep, well - good luck.
If a terrain trap exists below us, say a big cliff, we'll probably be dead before we stop, rendering our mates shovels and probes useless. Maybe there's a deep gully instead, and deep burial is then a near certainty - good luck again, even with immediate response from the group.
Do you see the analogy?
Route finding around this baby is the only sane course.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
I just finished Lester Brown's "Plan B 4.0", avaiable for free on the internet.
Highest recommendation from yours truly in Calgary,
Manysummits
Complain about this comment
#99 - Manysummits - If you followed the precautionary principle, you would never climb a mountain. Well, maybe Nose Hill.
Complain about this comment
Meanwhile, back in the real world:
G20: Climate Change No Longer A Priority
Thursday, 13 May 2010 14:49 The Canadian Press
"Canada brushed aside a direct public demand Wednesday by the visiting United Nations chief and reiterated that it will not make climate change a priority agenda item when it hosts the G20 summit next month.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper stuck to his G20 plan to keep the summit's focus squarely on the global economic recovery after he met UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in his Parliament Hill office."
http://www.thegwpf.org/international-news/947-g20-climate-change-no-longer-a-priority.html
Complain about this comment
@ 89
correct, no doubt whatsoever that climate change is taking place.
mans influence however is highly debatable.
Complain about this comment
#8 fastchecker - thanks for spotting this - amended now in the post.
#37 LarryKealey - I'm watching things unfold in the Gulf of Mexico with the same fascination as you're evidencing in your comments. The reality is that US media organisations are likely to devote bigger resources to covering this than those based elsewhere. But I'll post as and when I might have something to add. In the meantime, I'm glad you can post your insights here, as I'm sure are other readers.
#47 Larry again - the review process itself cites as the over-arching goal to "strengthen IPCC’s policies and procedures so as to be better able to respond to future challenges and ensure the ongoing quality of its reports". The longer version of their terms of reference shows that pretty much everything is up for grabs.
Incidentally, audio and PowerPoints from Friday's session are now available here.
#59 James - discussions here haven't always been as polite as this one. I suspect the difference is that the US is in a crucial period regarding legislation on carbon emissions, whereas the UK is not.
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #96
Goldman Sachs have been in the news with fraud allegations. Even the legal behaviour of people in their industry has contributed to the recession that put millions of people out of work. And I remind you that the world of high finance is all about money and power.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8645945.stm
Meanwhile the public does care about the difference between actions motivated by money and power that have contributed to massive job losses and the forthcoming public spending cuts, and the far more petty behaviour of a small clique of scientists being cliquey and over-defensive of their work.
Your metaphor is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Complain about this comment
"This is why the precautionary principle is important."
The precautionary "principle" is a bit of conceptually confused political garbage masquerading as something simple and basic.
No one who has given any thought to the rationality of action would ever appeal to this half-baked lump of pure hokum.
Complain about this comment
Question for all who appeal to "the" "precautionary" "principle":
What makes an action rational or irrational?
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #96
Perhaps you are mistaking Mann for a carbon trader.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/04/police-hunt-carbon-trading-fraudsters
http://www.desmogblog.com/how-to-get-rich-by-scamming-the-climate
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #107
This is when we miss xtragrumpymike2.
I will point out that nearly everyone in the debate is applying at least one precautionary principle, and that half the problem with the debated is the only one that ever gets mentioned is the environmental one, almost always ignoring its loopholes.
Precautionary principle as applied by environmentalists.
Don't take risks with the environment.
Precautionary principle as applied by sceptics.
Don't take risks with the economy.
Precautionary principle as worded in Rio. Loopholes in bold.
"In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #102
Old news.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=aypC61AZIPec
And you may be over-interpreting that item of news. Canada's government have been resistant to tackling climate change for some time.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6600585.stm
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/02/nations-re-pledge-co2-targets.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/30/canada-tar-sands-copenhagen-climate-deal
Complain about this comment
#109 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
"I will point out that nearly everyone in the debate is applying at least one precautionary principle"
Well I'm not applying any highfalutin "principle". I'm just trying to work out what's the best thing to do. It's a rubbish idea that there's some sort of authoritative -- perhaps even mathematical -- "rule of rationality" that we can appeal to. It's so typical of non-sceptics to invoke occult powers like that!
Complain about this comment
Brunnen_G #57.
"There are problems with the links you posted on Antarctica.
.. second link fails as the purpose they state for their investigation is to report to the IPCC."
curious 'reasoning'.
anyway, googling 'antarctic icesheet extent' or similar combinations of keywords will yield more than enough results, hope you'll find something suitable there.
Complain about this comment
Bowman re precautionary principle:
I agree the term is 'high-falutin' - typical academia.
Your question what to do? is a good one.
We are all trying to figure this out - hence after COP-15 we have the Bolivian People's Conference, then "Reviving the Spirit of Rio" by Stearn, then the Hartwell Paper.
Let's rename the precautionary principle the survival instinct.
In my analogy, a real one encountered every day by mountaineers, you either cross the slope and 'takes your chances' or you find another way around, a 'safe route.'
As to why climb at all - i.e., the 'rational' behind it all - it just makes one feel fully alive, and tests your mettle in all sorts of ways.
Example - nearly everyone uses the South Col route on Everest - that is plain stupid - it's highly dangerous, and getting through it always involves a substantial element of luck.
Why go there?
Because life here in the civilized world is even more certain to kill you.
How's that for a philosophical answer?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Bowman at 311
You wrote: "Well I'm not applying any highfalutin "principle". I'm just trying to work out what's the best thing to do."
Actually, it seems rather more that you are just trying to rubbish everyone else's attempts to do so.
Complain about this comment
Some of the deniers admit the climate is changing but contend that co2 is not the cause, yet that want the IPCC disbanded. The IPCC is to investigate the causes. Apparently we shold be relyng in right-wing blogs and fossil fuel company studies as our primary sources. I do think the media, as a function of business, has helped to create a controversy bigger than deserved by providing much more space and attention to the deniers than they deserve based on their lack of science and open political agendas. The health and environmental costs related to fossil fuels should be enough to create the support for replacements. It is hard to understand those of think that spewing billions of tons of chemicals into the air and water each year has no impact. Cultures reteat when they have lost their intitative. Consoldiated wealth and weapons can only sustain a culture for but so long.
Complain about this comment
in 45. davblo wrote:
"manysummits #41: "To Davblo re "The Hartwell Paper" - pro or anti-AGW?"
"How rising CO2 levels – and other human forcings – may relate to prospective climate change is, by extension, a further articulation of theory, data and modeling of the most mysterious of complex systems on Earth. These efforts too have become controversial. But what is certain is that such projections are uncertain."
They are saying AGW is "controversial" and "uncertain"."
Good, The Hartwell paper actually shows that they have thought about the problem rather than jumping on bandwagons. My paraphrasing of their thoughts would be that global warming is occuring: some of the warming may be down to man, and some of that may be due to CO2, but just how much is controversial and uncertain - AND NEEDS BETTER INVESTIGATION.
Complain about this comment
in 99 manysummits wrote:
"The scientific case for AGW has never been stronger, and it gets stronger by the day. Any doubts are academic - literally."
Really - the case for climate change may be stronger, but the case for it being man made hasn't; and the case for the primary cause being CO2 remains as flaky as ever. My doubts are not 'academic', on that last point but scientific - the energy from all the CO2 increase since 1760 is just not enough to generate the 0.9C increase in the last century - and whatever people would like to think, the basic laws of physics still rule.
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
"seem bent on caving in to the lobby and discussing details which almost no one understands, and therefore continuing to play right into the hands of the lobby, by seeming to have controversy and doubt about AGW and its causes and consequences"
The lobby's concerns have "gone viral".
I see this in opinion polls. I see this in my personal life. I see this in the way sceptic front pages sell UK newspapers.
I see this in the sheer volume of grumbling sceptics in the blogosphere. Here they are at the Guardian, a pro-AGW site, campaigning hard for what they believe in.
(scroll down to comments)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/14/rajendra-pachauri-defends-ipcc-report
Over-defensiveness and spin by people on our side have played straight into the hands of the most cynical of the sceptics. (No I am not including you in that statement.)
So when sceptic members of the public post here I respond with politeness, deference to their concerns and scrupulous openness about the science.
PS, I remind you that there are more options than 100% doubt and 100% settled science.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/unsettled-science/
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #99
"The scientific case for AGW has never been stronger, and it gets stronger by the day."
Agreed.
However that's the overall case. We can't brush the recent flatlining of warming under the carpet. I remind you that both Kevin Trenberth and Phil Jones recognised it as an issue.
Trenberth
http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1052
Jones
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=948
Meanwhile ignoring selti1's point contributed to this Daily Mail front page with its technically accurate but misleading headline.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
"Any doubts are academic - literally."
Any doubts have gone viral and been lapped up by an eager public.
Complain about this comment
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/15/niwas-kiwi-kaper/#more-19528
it contiunes. is anything in ir4 based on fact?
Complain about this comment
So the angel continuing dancing on the head of a pin... Arguments about GW and whether its man made and whether its happening on a serious scale are pointless. The thing about the future is that you only know how it will be once you get there. -The sad thing for the IPCC is that it is the very savagery of the climate change argument that has pushed them into their errors and mistakes. Good science becomes very difficult in this kind of atmosphere and the argument has become almost impossible for them or the general scientific community to win conclusively. Most scientists are so ignorant of politics that they don't understand that, instead the science has twisted completely out of shape and instead of trying to solve the problem we have already wasted two decades arguing about it.
The scientific way to deal with this issue is to work with probabilities and there is a serious probability (ie possibility) of climate and ecological disaster in the next hundred years. As far as engineering and science are concerned that should be enough to act. About half of the climate science to me seems to be a waste of effort, while looking at the engineering side far to little has been done. If you have a system with a serious probability of failure you should act commensurate with the size of the difficulties and the danger involved. -
A/ The costs of acting in realistic terms are probably fairly minimal or at least reasonable, probably less than 5 to 10% of global GDP. ($1 to 2 trillion per year) Since a lot of these costs are for new technology (assuming a technology solution) the costs can be ameliorated until they end up positive as increased profit.
B/ The size of the dangers are very complex. As a physicist I would look at it as a phase space and it is enormous- so any guess is exactly that. This is the flaw in IPCC's science, its better trying to do a simple determination of minimal verses maximal probabilities for different scenario's. The danger of a serious disaster from climate change is - From minimal 5 to 10%, To maximal 50 to 60%.
So should we act? if that was the probability of a car crashing or a bridge collapsing we would definitely act. So yes WE NEED TO ACT!!!
An optimal solution as a physicist would be to invest several trillion dollars into nuclear fusion technology which should be enough to bring it into commercial use within about 10 to 15 years. A short term solution until then is coal gasification and current methods. People forget that everyone switching to electric vehicles will likely double the electricity demand. In the third world the problems are more difficult, maybe a first step is building subsidized green power stations. The main immediate need for Britain would be for more engineers and construction workers.
So if I can come up with that with practically no resources why can't people like the IPCC?, that's their real failure - a lack of imagination. (there's no i in team, ingenuity, innovation, imagination, etc)
Complain about this comment
A "principle" is generally understood as a basic claim that we can appeal to because it's "self-evident" in some way, or everyone assents to it as soon as they understand it, or it belongs to a theory so central to our understanding of the world and our place in it that we would descend into incoherence if we rejected it.
But this idiotic "precautionary principle" is none of the above. It's unclear. It's complicated. It's shallow rather than basic. There is no obvious reason why anyone should accept it. It's an "ought" rather than an "is", which is supposed to guide human conduct, but it says nothing about which moral framework it belongs to or speaks for. It's just a dishonest piece of parochialism, tarted up to look like something solid by having the word 'principle' attached to it, designed to silence people who are impressed by "scientific-sounding" words.
Well I'm not impressed.
Complain about this comment
#114 simon-swede wrote:
"it seems rather more that you are just trying to rubbish everyone else's attempts to do so."
Appealing to a "principle" that is neither clear nor obvious is not a genuine attempt to work out what's the best thing to do, but to shut people up. I've seen cowardly, unoriginal academics trying this trick a thousand times.
Complain about this comment
#118 Jane at least you are open as to the IPCC well science doesn't come into so lets call AR4 "Science Fiction"
The list of failures, rule breaking, distortions and out and out lies is very long and detailed. Just one major failing that doesn't get aired very much is the use of science papers after the submission deadline of January 2006 within the report. Their inclusion breaches the IPCC's own rules and by-passed review editors, the biggest whooper being the joke "Stern Review" mentioned 26 times in 12 chapters.
There is a lot more than a dodgy date for glacier melt
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/05/cutoff-dates-what-cutoff-dates.html
Complain about this comment
@ 121
i disagree with your assessment of the risk associated with climate change- complex reasons, but my main sticking point is 'the unprecidented warming' part. But i do like your analysis. About time we got some more reasoned people on this blog
as for this paragraph:
"An optimal solution as a physicist would be to invest several trillion dollars into nuclear fusion technology which should be enough to bring it into commercial use within about 10 to 15 years. A short term solution until then is coal gasification and current methods. People forget that everyone switching to electric vehicles will likely double the electricity demand. In the third world the problems are more difficult, maybe a first step is building subsidized green power stations. The main immediate need for Britain would be for more engineers and construction workers."
couldn't agree more. ESPECIALLY the last sentence.
Complain about this comment
The precautionary principal in itself is a principal of precaution and by it's nature precaution dictates it needs to be used in principal. By this way using the precautionary principal leads to the precaution of whether in principal it is precautionary to apply it to the particular principal without precautionary effect being consider to the original principal on which precaution should be exercised. In that way precautionary principal should be exercised only when it is precautionary to do so whilst considering the principal of the first state that is precautionary to the principal.
So with that in mind it would be precautionary and quite within principal as we exercise the precaution by doing nothing.
Sir Humphrey Appleby
Complain about this comment
#121 Robert Lucien wrote:
The size of the dangers are very complex. As a physicist I would look at it as a phase space and it is enormous- so any guess is exactly that. This is the flaw in IPCC's science, its better trying to do a simple determination of minimal verses maximal probabilities for different scenario's. The danger of a serious disaster from climate change is - From minimal 5 to 10%, To maximal 50 to 60%.
Excuse me, but as a physicist you are no better placed than anyone else to make judgements about risks and probabilities. If you think you are better placed than the rest of us, you are making a mighty error of self-importance, and almost certainly are deeply confused about the difference between epistemic probability and mere statistical relative frequency.
Get a bit of honest humility, please.
Complain about this comment
Combating man made global warming is not just desirable in itself, it is also a catalyst for fixing so much else that is wrong with society and the world at large, it is almost as if we needed to have it, as if it were meant to be, almost too good to be true.
Complain about this comment
Still, there is no evidence that the scientists have got it very wrong. All I see is comments from an under-informed public stating that the scientists are wrong or deluded, but still no evidence of why or how. Since the series of 'scandals' started, not one serious accusation attacking the methodology used in the bulk of the peer-reviewed literature has stuck. The science still stands strong. Scepticism is inevitable, whether justified or not. I wish more people would look harder at whether the scepticism stating that the consensus view on AGW is flawed from its foundations is justified.
Complain about this comment
Re: John O'Sullivan...a brief education bio from National Review:
"O’Sullivan was born in Great Britain in 1942. He was educated at London University where he received a B.A. (Hons.) and a Diploma of Social Studies."
O'Sullivan was an advisor to Margaret Thatcher, and has been a mainstay of conservative journalism for many years. His background is, as far as I can ascertain, not grounded in science.
Re: my question about Dr. Tim Ball...his degree is in historical geography, also from the University of London. He was (I do not know the outcome) involved in litigation concerning whether his expertise extended into climatology. He was professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg for eight years. He has written for CanadaFreePress as well, I believe, hence my question.
Re: Michael Mann: his education:
"Dr. Michael E. Mann received his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Applied Math from the University of California at Berkeley, an M.S. degree in Physics from Yale University, and a Ph.D. in Geology & Geophysics from Yale University" (from his site bio)...
Complain about this comment
To Ghost #15: re 'health & environmental costs'
"The health and environmental costs related to fossil fuels should be enough to create the support for replacements." (Ghost #15)
I think this is the main point in the Hartwell Paper.
They think that using this approach we can pass things politically and get on with it.
They say that in doing this we will automatically clean up the environment and reduce emissions of all kinds, including CO2.
I like this approach, because it just might work.
But it reminds me of my favorite mountaineer, Bill Tilman, and his sense of humor.
I cannot remember his words exactly, which is a shame, because he had a way with words and a highly developed sense of humor.
But they were to the effect that the humble mountaineer, climbing mountains for 'spiritual' reasons, inadvertently, as it were, sometimes found himself atop a mountain. On climbing Nanda Devi in 1936, at the time the highest mountain ever ascended, he remarked that he and his companion 'lost control of themselves so much that he believed they may even have shaken hands.'
I can't help but think that after five hundred years of pillaging the rest of the world, now that our own lives are at stake, we are developing a global conscience, and thinking to help out the world's poor, and inadvertently of course - save our own hides.
Better late than never, I suppose, but it really does have a comical aspect to it.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To oldterry2 #117: re AGW
I will answer in the words of the great Irish American Pat Moynihan:
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not to his own facts."
- from Al Gore's terrific book, "Our Choice."
- manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Re: 97:
Columbia Basin glaciers shrinking, scientists report
By Colin Payne
Nelson Daily News
NELSON — They are the lifeblood
of Kootenay residents – and
they are disappearing.
Our Glaciers, Our Legacy, a
recent conference held in Golden
by the Columbia Basin Trust
(CBT), relayed the dismaying
news that glaciers in the region
have receded significantly in the
last 100 years and will likely continue
to do so into the future.
“It seems the glaciers are
receding and getting smaller,”
said Kindy Gosal, CBT director of
water and environment. “We don’t
know the exact speed (of recession)
because we haven’t done the
research that’s required to get that
information.
“But we’re starting to see
stream-flow changes related to the
recession of the glaciers.”
Just a bit of background to the glacier story...
Complain about this comment
To Jane #118: re politeness
The lobby uses this sensibility to politeness of yours, and mine (in bygone days) to their own advantage.
I got into an actual physical fight the other day over AGW - I proved a point intellectually - the skeptic got mouthy - and I won the brawl too!
There is a reason James Hansom got himself arrested and is studying Ghandi's methods.
I hope the Hartwell approach works, or some other approach.
But if it doesn't, then I have another answer - an answer that we are all too familiar with.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To Jane #119: re AGW certainty?
There is and always be an academic, or intellectual uncertainty. You and I know that.
When Douglas MacArthur attacked Inchon from the 'wrong' side of the island - there was massive doubt and uncertainty.
If the stakes are high enough, Goethe comes into play:
"Boldness has power genius in it."
How much higher do the stakes have to be?
_ Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To bowman #122: re precautionary principle
In a sense I agree.
It is time to be bold.
Only an ignorant person or a fool thinks there is no chance that global warming and its possible aftermath are not worth dealing with now, or that we humans are not a great part of the cause.
Get off the fence Bowman - should we do something, or sit on the fence with you?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke...I hope you know I was sincere in my thought. Not trying to stoke any fire there...really.
I find your depth of knowledge and general analysis refreshing and worthy reading.
When I see source claims and similar ilk, I do like to browse about and find out who it is that is being quoted as a source or authority. The same theme holds true for me in those quests as well...although perhaps the results might be uncomfortable, I'm trying to put information out without (I'd like to think anyway) any personal animus. If it appears to be too grumpy, my apologies to all.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
To Robert Lucien #121:
Excellent post.
Not sure about fusion - too techy - same for nuclear.
We are already leveraged to the hilt as far as technology - think of the 'green revolution' in farming - that's a lose-lose scenario.
As a mountaineer and former wellsite geologist - I always found that using 'best practice' works.
In the oil business, you would be surprised how seldom this simple rule is overlooked. Or maybe not, considering 'Deepwater' in the Gulf of mexico.
You test BOP's before - not after - any roughneck can tell you that. massive failure on the part of the operator - period.
In the mountains, same thing. People routinely ascend the Columbia Icefield via the normal route, right up the Athabasca Glacier and under the always calving Snow Dome. In my opinion, having almost been killed there once - "The Age of Stupid." You know why I went up that route, and why others do - because everyone else does.
After a number of escapes of this nature, in other words, through no thought of my own, i.e., I was lucky, I have come to follow religiously 'best practice' in the mountains too.
Following it in the oilpatch gave me a living for some twenty years, and following it in the mountains gave me that rare old-bold mountaineer perspective.
Still - at times the only course is boldness, not because of some statistical calculation - usually it's because there is no alternative - so we use the word bold to make ourselves feel better. that way, when we get killed, we can be thought of as courageous.. That's not entirely facetious - its more like the architect Douglas Cardinal said:
'Creativity has the appearance of chaos."
Things are messy now - life is messy.
It's time we got out of our little boardrooms and safe ivory towers, for this reason:
It's not safe in there anymore.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Wolfiewoods #128: too good to be true
Carl Sagan thought so - as does Mark Maslin.
Where did you get that name?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
But bowman my guess is purely that - no statistics or detailed analysis behind it. Saying the chance of a global disaster is between 5% and 50 percent is giving a huge margin of error. The point is that for an engineer the probability of even 5% is far to high not to act. If every time a plane flew it had a 5% chance of crashing ...
As for attacking the idea of expertise, I understand that as a philosopher when you need surgery you probably just get a neighbor to do it. [humor]
BTW Like I said before I'm a general scientist. My primary specialties are Strong AI closely followed by Relativity and FTL geometries plus QM in physics, I'm also interested in life systems and ecology, computer technology and engineering, electronics, nuclear physics, plus rocket science and space tech. I admit I'm a Jack of all trades and I know the areas I fully understand are tiny compared to the breath I don't.
The point of most science is that its logical, by definition it is possible for anyone smart enough to understand most of it, but when you understand one science its much easier to understand the others. (Not being big headed about it but S.AI and its related 'human sentience' are probably the most complex and 'difficult' of all sciences - thats why sentient robots don't quite work yet. :) )
Complain about this comment
\\\ Question ? ///
Why does no one want to talk about the actions suggested in the Hartwell paper, or for that matter anything else that might work?
Or come up with a few ideas?
The lobby is happy - we answer them politely, they obfuscate, and laugh.
We think advising the public on science is easy - and answering the skeptics is like shooting fish in a barrel - which it is.
No One likes anyone who shoots fish in a barrel - it's unsporting, and the public is in no position to decide on the science.
By fair means - or - QUALITY.
How about that - how about some practical ideas that actually will work?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
re- my 138 I presume it is true then
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/17/iccc-conference-day-1-chicken-of-the-sea-and-bbc/
Complain about this comment
Dateline, Gulf of Mexico, Day 28
Well, BP declared 'success' with their scheme to 'siphon' the oil from the largest leak - the leaking pipestring.
The US government has said - this is not success - and I agree wholeheartedly.
BP now says that eventually, this inserted siphon tube could eventually 'capture' 75% of the oil leaking from the pipe string and transport it to waiting tankers on the surface. What about the other 25%++?? Do we just wait until August when the relief well should be complete? There is also no word on how much oil this scheme is now capturing. BBC news has a nice article on this 'rube goldberg' contraption (in my humble opinion) on the news/environment page.
This seems totally unacceptable to me. As I stated previously, if it is shown that BP only entertained schemes which involved recovering oil from the leaking well on the ocean floor - and in my opinion, that is certainly the way it appears - then I believe there will be a reckoning for BP - a big one.
If I was a shareholder in BP right now, I would be screaming for heads to roll and a new management team in place today - with a sole focus on stopping the leak and cleaning up the spill.
It was also discovered that there are large 'plumes' of oil which have not floated to the surface. One was reported to be over 10 miles long and over a mile wide. No telling how many 'plumes' are out there somewhere between the surface and 5,000 ft down.
I wish there were better news related to this - I really wish there were - but it does not seem that their is.
As it stands, it appears that BP will not have the leaks completely under control until August - the height of the hurricane season in the Gulf.
Very bad, very bad indeed.
Well, that is all I have for today. I am going to investigate other mechanisms which have been used in the past to deal with blown-out wellheads on the seafloor in the past, hopefully this afternoon or in the morning.
As a final thought, I wonder how much of a bonus whoever came up with the 'siphon' pipe scheme got. It sounds like tens of thousands of barrels of oil per day could be recovered with this scheme - and that is a lot of money, but in my view, pales in comparison to the cost of continuing to have oil leaking into the Gulf.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
#128 wolfiewoods wrote: "Combating man made global warming is not just desirable in itself, it is also a catalyst for fixing so much else that is wrong with society and the world at large, it is almost as if we needed to have it, as if it were meant to be, almost too good to be true."
The truth is exposed for all to see.
Many people on the AGW bandwagon don't care a jot about global climate. They don't care if the temperature is rising or falling, as long as they get to use it as an excuse to restructure society in line with their ideals.
That's hard for me to accept as I'm a bit of an old school leftie at heart, but when science is hijacked to pursue a political agenda, honest people must speak up.
Complain about this comment
in response to #141
I think those who do not have experience with academia may well have the mistaken impression that it is a clique of like-minded individuals perpetuating the status quo. This is not true. If you make a mistake, you will be torn apart, especially if you have a good reputation and the impact of the research is high. I've seen this happen. However, if you attack and are found to be ignorant in some way, you end up looking rather stupid. It seems like the sceptic community can attack at will from outside the circles of academia and avoid looking stupid. Within the science, however, the consensus remains strong. The next trick is to claim the scientists are corrupt. This is not true. Yet another trick is to say they aren't clever enough to tackle the problems. This is wishful thinking.
The context of what i'm saying is not whether AGW is true or not, but whether we can trust the opinions of the majority of the scientists, stating that there is a very high chance that AGW is happening. My personal belief is that the evidence is too diverse and plentiful and the methods used too robust to discard the consensus view.
Complain about this comment
#142 manysummits wrote "The lobby is happy - we answer them politely, they obfuscate, and laugh."
You consider calling people who don't agree with your alarmist approach "ignorant" and "fools"? Interesting approach to manners...
I also love the assumption that anyone who isn't a paid up member of the Church of AGW is automatically a member of some shadowy "lobby".
Complain about this comment
#141 Robert Lucien wrote:
My primary specialties are Strong AI closely followed by Relativity and FTL geometries plus QM in physics, I'm also interested in life systems and ecology, computer technology and engineering, electronics, nuclear physics, plus rocket science and space tech.
And these areas of specialization make you think you are entitled or able to attach numbers as estimates of how much something ought to be believed?
I think not.
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
regarding #142
I think everyone would like realistic solutions. Even though we differ on the causes of man-made climate change, we do agree that a lot of issues need be addressed.
Fundamentally, it is time for the world to move on to the next generation and leave fossil fuels behind as a main fuel source - nuclear fission as well. Answer - we need a 'Manhattan Style Project' to develop nuclear fusion, as well as other viable, clean sources of cheap energy (not talking windmills or solar panels here...but viable solutions).
We need to continue to develop the electric car and make additional advancements with battery technology, making it both clean (which it is not today) and affordable.
We can do these things. We can also focus our efforts on all the other aspects of our environment which need attention - like clean air in the third world, pollution enforcement in same, cheap energy and cheap food for the third world - which will lead to development.
We need to recognize the constraints under which we must operate and focus our efforts on areas where we can achieve real success, defined, measurable success.
Even if you went forward with the huge expense of trying to convert as much energy requirements in the west as possible to solar and wind - it would not reduce CO2 emissions (your goal) nor would it be a viable long term solution to meet the worlds energy needs for the future = cheap energy for the third world (my goal).
While we have different goals, they are not incompatible. In fact, they are co-dependent. But the right way to go is to invest in the next generation of technology and energy sources - not spend huge amounts on short term 'solutions' which are not really clean (take a look at what chemicals are involved in making solar cells or windmill turbines) - we need to really tackle fusion - put real money into making it happen. I see it as our next step and best path.
Additionally, we can also work on all the 'old environmental issues' at the same time.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@145 brunnen_g
"Many people on the AGW bandwagon don't care a jot about global climate. They don't care if the temperature is rising or falling, as long as they get to use it as an excuse to restructure society in line with their ideals."
I don't think so. Rising temperatures are the primary reason to reduce CO2 emissions. There are a whole raft of unintended consequences, some good, some bad, that will occur too but make no mistake, reducing emissions is predominantly to curtail the increase in temperature. The economic case for mitigation is dominated by the huge costs of adaptation further down the line. If you look at the financial breakdown, it is the effects of rising temperatures that contributes most to the cost of adaptation. It is just a brutal economic decision based on the balance of probability and projected costs.
Complain about this comment
@SR
Science by consensus is a dangerous path.
Complain about this comment
#136 manysummits wrote:
Get off the fence Bowman - should we do something, or sit on the fence with you?
I recommend the fence, partly because as a rule the truth is usually "in between" the extremes, and as a rule doing nothing is usually the wisest course of action!
Look at us humans. A sizable proportion of every generation of humans have always believed that "the end of the world is nigh". I'm not sure why that is, but I'd guess it has something to do with the fact that few of us are genuinely, explicitly aware of our own mortality. Of course we all go through the motions of saying we are aware of it, but few of us really get to grips with the inevitability of our own death, because the prospect is a bit like staring into a blazing black Sun from which our eyes -- our attention -- naturally turn away. For that reason -- or maybe some other reason, I don't know for sure -- we tend to "parcel up" the anxiety and the horror and "externalize" it as a outside threat that can be somehow be avoided if we all cooperate.
Sorry for the pop psychology, but I think that is what's really going on with all this end of the world nonsense. Acting on irrational fears like that instead of sitting on the fence can do real damage. Under the intoxicating influence of mass panics, we are quite capable of ostracizing the sick, or unjustly interning people we imagine to be enemies. We can squander vast amounts of money on misguided follies instead of helping the poor.
I warmly invite everyone to come and join me on the fence! It's quite liberating actually.
Complain about this comment
SR, I disagree. I've heard many statements over the years concerning how people in the radical left use the concern over the changing climate to push their agenda.
I even once heard a member of the Scottish Socialist Party say "you have to be red to be green".
Complain about this comment
Brunnen_G # 147 & Larry Kealey #149: re Doing Something!
And to all skeptics, contrarians, doubters, whatever you prefer to be called:
It's time to get off the fence, and it's time to leave the dreaming of some Utopian super-source of energy - FOR THE TIME BEING.
Just as it is time to leave the pursuit of Space Resources - FOR THE TIME BEING!
Let's eliminate world destitute poverty - which we are responsible for - NOW.
The Hartwell authors say innovate with a low carbon tax and electrify the over one billion world citizens currently in the dark with clean energy.
Plan B 4.0 says stop burning down the world's forests and adopt best practice everywhere! Get out of your car. Move to the middle of the food chain, like the Italians - you'll use one half the grain of the American diet, and although it is double the grain requirements for the Indian sub-continent, you will be healthier than an Indian and an American. I could go on and on - but it's all free on the internet gratis Lester Brown.
This is mostly low tech, and implementable starting today.
You have a problem with that?
Or a better idea of where to start?
Speak up - we are all listening!
The race is immature - for whatever reason.
The planet is warming, it's probably Man-induced, soon the big positive feedbacks will kick in for real, if they have not already, and as Robert Lucien has so nicely pointed out in #121, there is every reason to move NOW!
OK - let's say you are not paid members of the LOBBY - not even sycophantic followers - but genuine doubters.
\\\ SO WHAT ? ///
"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality."
- Dante Alighieri, poet (1265-1321)
Are you fence-sitters?
Chamberlains talking to Churchill?
What?
And if we're all going out no matter what we do - let's go out in style - helping our fellow man.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Bowman #152: re the fence
\\\ "I recommend the fence" ///
Thank you - clear at last.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
I can put in an important sounding quote too.
In fact, whenever I hear about the consensus and how those who are sceptical of it are treated, I always think of this quote:
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong." - Voltaire
Complain about this comment
As to the current scientific consensus, consensus is worthless in science.
Until 1543 and Copernicus, the scientific consensus was that the Earth was the centre of the universe.
Until late in the 19th century, the scientific consensus was that there was nothing smaller than an atom.
Until the 1970's the scientific consensus was that the planet was cooling and a new ice age was imminent.
Today the scientific consensus tells us the planet is warming and mankind is to blame.
I wonder what the scientific consensus will be tomorrow?
Complain about this comment
#154 manysummits wrote:
Are you fence-sitters?
Chamberlains talking to Churchill?
Chamberlains talking to Churchill? -- What that is supposed to mean? Churchill did keep Chamberlain in his War Cabinet, so it is hardly surprising they spoke to each other occasionally!
Complain about this comment
"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality."
What makes the science of climate change a moral issue?
With every post, you reveal your agenda more clearly.
Complain about this comment
105. JaneBasingstoke wrote:
@CanadianRockies #96
"Goldman Sachs have been in the news with fraud allegations..."
Yes, and so has Mann and the IPCC.
"And I remind you that the world of high finance is all about money and power."
Yes, and so is the IPCC and all its behind-the-curtains backers in the world of high finance.
"Meanwhile the public does care about... actions motivated by money and power..."
Yes, that's why most people are opposed to this IPCC project, and know that what you dismiss as merely the "petty behaviour of a small clique of scientists" is just the tip of this iceberg.
Follow the money and power Jane. This isn't about climate or the environment at all. Or are GS et al environmentalists who do all they do to 'save the planet'?
#108. "Perhaps you are mistaking Mann for a carbon trader."
No. Carbon traders - if not their bosses - are more honest.
#110. "Old news... Canada's government have been resistant to tackling climate change for some time."
Not old news. Canada's official position has been to follow the U.S. position. This shift tells you more about the real U.S. position. And this is the first time Canada has told the UN to go fly a kite for a very long time. Most refreshing.
The former government did sign on to Kyoto - then did absolutely nothing about it. Sort of like when Gore signed for the U.S., then the U.S. Senate voted 98 to zero against that.
That said, the current Canadian government, unlike the UK government, is reflecting the wishes of the Canadian people. Its called democracy. Of course, the Canadian PM doesn't have a father-in-law hugely profiting from Big Green windmills.
Complain about this comment
133. wichitazen - Yes, newspaper reports quoting NGOs. If one resorted to using only BBC reports like that the AGW debate would be over. But it isn't.
As I noted, there is a photographic record of the recession of glaciers in that region going back to the 1880s. And there are historical records/descriptions of some of those glaciers being larger which go back much further. This would be expected as the Little Ice Age ends. That has nothing to do with the current spin.
Almost all of Canada was covered in ice 12,000-14,000 years ago. It also melted.
Complain about this comment
152. bowmanthebard - Very well said. And the view from atop the fence is so much better. The sure sign of a religious fundamentalist is unwarranted certainty and, given the complexity of global climate and the 'baby' science now addressing it, there certainly is no certainty - even before discounting all the dubious and biased interpretations of the missionaries masquerading as 'scientists' now drawn to this supposed 'save the planet' cause.
Such false certainty is also the opposite of real objective scientific thinking. And screams that 'the debate is over' and associated name calling - 'denier' - is the clearest possible evidence of nonscience.
Complain about this comment
re. sitting on the fence.
those who prefer to 'sit on the fence' know at least exactly where their stake (in society) is. LOL
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
I am not a fence-sitter - I advocate real action.
You want to throw every penny we have - and more, at solutions which have no hope of solving the problems they are supposed to solve, you would bankrupt economies, end space exploration, institute taxes on carbon and so many other rash, bad, ideas - which will do nothing to solve your supposed problem of 'CO2 emissions'.
Are you going to go to war with China and the Middle East - and anyone else who gets in your way and wants to burn fossil fuels? I don't think you have the stomach for it boy.
No, you are going to keep slinging that stuff that smells really bad and tell us it is what we need - we must do this or the world is doomed.
=Save it and spare us - you wanted realistic - I gave it to you.
You don't want realistic, you want YOUR WAY. What you don't even realize is that all you are doing is supporting a position that will make a lot of money for a lot of people who don't deserve it - and it will come from the pockets of people like me.
Get Real
Kealey
Complain about this comment
brunnen_g #157
"Until the 1970's the scientific consensus was that the planet was cooling and a new ice age was imminent."
This statement is completely and utterly false. Look it up. There was never a scientific consensus that we were on the verge of entering an ice age. It was a media exaggeration based on a single line in a single paper.
You also state that "Until late in the 19th century, the scientific consensus was that there was nothing smaller than an atom.". You may offer this example as a misguided consensus, but I can offer you several others that have stood the test of time. It is poor logic to pick on one consensus failing as an indication that all consensus will fail. The key is to look a how well a theory is able to predict observations. Clearly, the atom as the basic building block was not able to explain certain observations that were made in the early 20th century. AGW and the subset of theories it comprises are good to excellent at predicting observations. There is no serious sign of this changing. So just like the atomic model is good (and still used in certain applications today, i.e., chemistry), we can be confident that amendments to AGW will not really cause a polar shift in what the theory says will probably happen. Assess its usefulness, not its absolute ability to be a law-like absolute eternal truth.
Complain about this comment
manysummits:
Sometimes the practical is the best thing to do. Better to be getting things done than to argue and do nothing as that is the strategy of the fossil fuel industry.
If enviornmental laws were simply enforced things would be moving on many fronts. Do not even need any debate about new laws, just enforce what is law right now. The fossil fuel industry likes to have laws passed as they end up writing most or making sure they have their people on the enforcement end. Enforce the laws, the weaknesses will become apparent and the role the industry plays in enforcement as well. People will see that legislation has nothing to do with the political name on the legislation,i.e. "Clean Air Act" and things like that. Move the research to documented damage to human health and the environment. These political games do nothing but delay change and arguing these points are silly.....getting things done, step by step.
“Deer-hunter, waste not your arrow on the hare"
Complain about this comment
"Such false certainty is also the opposite of real objective scientific thinking. And screams that 'the debate is over' and associated name calling - 'denier' - is the clearest possible evidence of nonscience."
The science isn't certain. By definition, it cannot be certain. The thing sceptics deny is the existence of a large body of evidence pointing toward man-made C02 induced warming. This large body of evidence exists - that is certain. It exists in the literature, it exists in the IPCC, it exists in the minds of the world's top climate scientists, it exists conceptually in the minds of all those who are willing to accept that the evidence is valid. It is simple to disprove. Prove the evidence is not valid. Prove that the methods are not valid Nobody has done that, nobody has even come close (though many have tried). I can't believe anybody with the remit of being fair and honest can stand up and say the large body of evidence supporting AGW is not worthy of taking action. In fact, it continues to grow. It is gullibility on a grand scale to google 'AGW scepticism' and absorb the inevitable trash and pseudo-science as solid fact. Instead google 'history of climate science' and learn the sequential run up of events that have led to the position we're in now.
Complain about this comment
Bowman #158: re Chamberlain
My mistake (my #154).
I meant to say - Chamberlains talking to Hitler.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Brunnen_G #159: re moral isue
The clear and present danger to the world population, as seen by those of us who think we understand the magnitude of the threat of a rise in global land-sea temperature of from four to six degrees C, and who also recognize that more is possible, and that the reason we call the climate system and other 'deterministic non-linear dynamical systems' chaotic is because we don't understand them well enough to model them accurately.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
#162 (Cdn Rockies) and other fence sitters:
Please stand up and identify yourselves. It will be easierfor the rest of us to work.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Jr #163:
Priceless!
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Kealey #164:
One - don't put words in my mouth!
Two:
Plan B 4.0: (Lester Brown - check it out - its free on the internet or you can support us and buy the book)
187 (One hundred and eight-seven billion) Billion dineros per year for everything to work.
That's roughly one third of the US military budget, or ~13 percent of the global military budget.
It is affordable, particularly since it is climate change - aka global warming, man-made, which is currently the number one strategic threat to you and to all of us.
PS: Lester Brown is an American - as is Al Gore - or do you think only you are qualified for that rol?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To SR #165:
As I said earlier, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
They know that - they want you to be the big tough guy with the fancy degrees shooting down the little guy, who is just a concerned citizen.
The PR side of the lobby - they are very very good.
How do you think we control so many countries on this planet?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Ghost #166: ("Deer-hunter, waste not your arrow on the hare")
(PS to SR - Another way to put it!)
==========================
Agree 100% Ghost.
The Millenium Development Goals can all be met, even I imagine ahead of schedule if the countries which comprise the United Nations simply pay the share of their GDP that they have already agreed to.
Simon-swede!
Where do we find out who has paid and who has not?
I will do a search, but I imagine you know right off.
Scandinavia is noted I believe for living up to its committments, and the United States is not.
I will check on Canada, and do some lobbying of my own.
Ghost!
The Hartwell Report has something then?
They seem to be advocating what you have been advocating all along.
Do you want to leave for awhile and run the United Nations?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
JR4412: re Food and Population
Lester Brown has an interesting take in his book "Plan B 4.0":
@ 800 kg of grain per person (The American average): 2.5 billion sustainably
@ 400 kg of grain per person (The Italian average): 5.0 billion sustainably
@ 200 kg of grain per person (The India average) : 10 billion sustainably
Caveats:
1) The Italians live longest of these three, even though the US spends far more per person on medical care.
2) The Indian is malnourished.
3) The Italian 'Mediterranean-style' diet might then be thought of, to the first approximation, as a World Health Organization gold standard.
Of course in detail it is more complicated, isn't everything?
But I have never seen it summarized so succinctly and understandably.
I know a fair amount about nutrition - enough to know that the four hundred pound adults in the 'West' with their obese children is a disaster in the making, and just plain wrong, wrong, wrong.
- Chapter 8, "Plan B 4.0"; Feeding Eight Billion People, p. 233-244.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
"I meant to say - Chamberlains talking to Hitler."
Interesting mistake, no?
Complain about this comment
#167 SR wrote:
"The thing sceptics deny is the existence of a large body of evidence pointing toward man-made C02 induced warming."
The thing non-sceptics don't seem capable of even talking about is what counts as evidence in science. I've asked this question a hundred times, but I may as well be asking the wall.
Non-sceptics seem to think that evidence in science is something like a "foundation" of "data" that theory is "based on". This reveals a profound failure to grasp what's going on in science.
Complain about this comment
170. manysummits wrote:
#162 (Cdn Rockies) and other fence sitters:
Please stand up and identify yourselves. It will be easierfor the rest of us to work.
- Manysummits -
-------
If you can't figure out where I stand on this issue you must not be reading very well.
I think #164 Larry Kealey's comments sum up my views rather nicely.
In any case, the problem with simplistic black-white thinking is that the world is actually gray. And, as they say, fools rush in where angels fear to tread, especially when fools are fooled into thinking they are on some kind of holy crusade. History is full of that. Lenin called them 'useful idiots.' And we all know what a utopian paradise the USSR turned out to be, at least for the sheep-herders at the top.
Now, I'll ask you again, for perhaps the fourth time. When was your hero Ehrlich ever right about anything?
I'll give you a clue: never.
Complain about this comment
#167 SR - The weight of evidence does not support your claims, unless you choose not to look at all the evidence - as the IPCC gang does.
If you would look at wattsupwiththat or climateaudit you will find multiple examples of why the IPCC 'science' and data is not valid.
But I'm sure you won't.
Complain about this comment
LarryKealey #164.
"..all you are doing is supporting a position that will make a lot of money for a lot of people who don't deserve it - and it will come from the pockets of people like me."
CanadianRockies #178.
"..Larry Kealey's comments sum up my views rather nicely."
in 2008 global military expenditure totalled $1464bn US, I suppose you both agree that all of this money was well spent and went to "deserving" people?
Complain about this comment
Bowman #176: re the sub-conscious mind
Yes - an interesting mistake.
Churchill perplexes me too, along with Al Gore.
As does Harry Trueman, as does John Kennedy, as does Tony Blair, as does Douglas MacArthur.
I have read a fair amount on the Second World War, its aftermath and its pre-history.
Dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, fire-bombing Dresden and Toyko, the Holocaust, Stalingrad - the list was summed up by Churchill in the movie "The Gathering Storm", with Richard Burton playing Churchill - a victor's tale, to be sure. He said something to the effect:
"The long lamentable catalog of human misery and suffering ..."
And I have read revisionist history.
Of course I wasn't there, on the spot, with the awesome responsibility each of the men listed carried.
Perhaps it is too much for any man.
And all of us grew up indoctrinated - that is sure.
I have no pat answers.
But we live in the present - and we have a problem.
Now it is our turn.
It doesn't seem the thing to do to sit on the fence.
I am not saying anything new in this regard.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Cdn Rockies #178: re Paul Ehrlich - when was he right?
Most of the time, I would say.
- Manysummits -
PS: Is this the type of discussion you prefer?
Complain about this comment
Cdn Rockies #179: re IPCC
There is a committee looking into that now.
And there is a new head of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Her name is Christiana Figueres, and she hails from Costa Rica.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10119753.stm
Here is a question for you?
Why don't you believe me, or SR, or Davblo, or Simon-swede, or Ghostofsichuan?
Why not?
Why are your website links preferable?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
manysummits #181.
"It doesn't seem the thing to do to sit on the fence."
sitting on the fence leads to:
"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)
Complain about this comment
Kealey #164:
I just realized you called me 'boy.'
And here I was thinking you Texans were such gentlemen.
War with the Middle East? With China?
And what is war Kealey? A B1 bomber against a Kalishnikov?
Or do you advocate a nuclear exchange?
Are you a war-monger in sheeps clothing?
In search of the next war on terror?
What do you stand for Kealey?
If you are who you say you are, then you know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas - you know it as surely as you know how massive is the 'Deepwater' disaster.
And you know that those graphs of sea level rise are real and accurate, that the ice is melting everywhere, that the ocean is acidifying, that the extinction rate is orders of magnitude above background, that our trajectory for population and their desired standard of living is unsupportable - how could you not know this, and be who you say you are.
You are supposedly an officer and a gentleman, yet you don't talk like one.
Why is that Larry Kealey?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
JR4412:
It's been a long day.
The Mayday trees are just in bloom, and the scent of them is everywhere.
I wish by all that is holy that this would all just go away, and I could show Cloudrunner the Mountains of my dreams, with Underacanoe and I. And I'd love to drive up to them in a big old Ford halfton, and a map and compass.
Man this is a nightmare.
I am glad you came back to the blog - I am glad to be reading Al Gore's new book, "Our Choice." It seems to confirm the ideas of the Hartwell Group by the way.
It is focused on global warming as an environmental problem with technological solutions - which in one way it is of course. This new book is a gem in that regard - really well put together and as clear as a pane of new glass.
But as we all now know, when science meets politics - it is an unequal contest, and depending on your point of view, the 'other' is incompetent.
The trouble is - Nature is going to decide.
If that Gulf of Mexico spill is not cleaned up by the hurricane season, and I can't see how it could be, even if they plug it tomorrow, Nature will give us yet another demonstration of who is in charge here.
And reading Lester Brown's book, and the Worldwatch book on the state of the planet 2010 was very uplifting, in that you get to see that a lot of seed work has already been done and is proceeding well.
As Lester Brown says, this is very much a race of tipping points.
One is the natural tipping points of the climate and environmental type, the other the political tipping point which will finally galvanize action.
We can't call this race because of conflict of interest.
We're all in it!
Good hunting JR,
Manysummits
Complain about this comment
Re: Canadian (and general) glacial retreat in latter 20th century:
Google: NORTH CASCADE GLACIER CLIMATE PROJECT
Mauri S. Pelto, Director Founded 1983
Nichols College, Dudley, MA [Personal details removed by Moderator]
Some excellent data about specific glaciers, ranges and the extent of measurable retreat. This should help to answer questions about this issue.
Complain about this comment
Sorry on the inadvertant contact info...
Good site though. Covers more than just Canada; there is a fairly extensive glaciation record for other areas as well.
Complain about this comment
#183. manysummits wrote:
Cdn Rockies #179: re IPCC
"Here is a question for you?
Why don't you believe me...?"
Because I have read your posts.
Complain about this comment
187. wichitazen wrote:
"Re: Canadian (and general) glacial retreat in latter 20th century"
Do you know where the North Cascades are?
Do you know anything about the Little Ice Age?
Complain about this comment
Richard - This kind of stuff isn't going to help the BBC.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/17/iccc-conference-day-1-chicken-of-the-sea-and-bbc/
Complain about this comment
Manysummits at #174
You wrote: "The Millenium Development Goals can all be met, even I imagine ahead of schedule if the countries which comprise the United Nations simply pay the share of their GDP that they have already agreed to. ... Where do we find out who has paid and who has not?"
The OECD regularly reviews and publishes data on this. It's latest such review was published mid-April 2010, and contains preliminary data for 2009.
In 2009, five countries exceeded the United Nations ODA target of 0.7% of GNI: Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden.
You also specifically mentioned Canada. Net ODA rose or fell in Canada during 2009 (-9.5%), following a large contribution to IDA in 2008 and a reduction in debt relief.
The OECD press release from 14 April 2010 contains much more detail, and also has links to related tables and figures. See:
http://www.oecd.org/document/11/0,3343,en_2649_34487_44981579_1_1_1_1,00.html
Complain about this comment
Re my #192
Sorry, concerning Canada, that should have read "Net ODA fell in Canada (-9.5%)...". Careless me!
Complain about this comment
The popularity of the current Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has fallen by 14 percentage points in less than a month reports the Economist (13 May 2010). Apparently the main cause for his declining popularity has nothing to do with the economy (Australia is doing ratehr well), but rather because he has postponed new legislation on climate change, following opposition in the Senate to plans for an emissions-trading scheme. It seems that the majority of the Australian public is expecting that their politicians should do more on climate, not less.
Complain about this comment
#184 jr4412 wrote:
"THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew."
This smug self-congratulation doesn't look so great when you look at the links between fascism and environmentalism.
A defining feature of both is the apotheosis of the group and the subsumption of the individual to the group. For fascists the groups in question are races; for environmentalists they are species. For fascists, the goal is "purity", which thereby contributes to the proper order; for environmentalists, it is "survival", which thereby contributes to the proper order (usually referred to as "biodiversity"). In both cases, the goal is regarded as a fundamental "given" that requires no defence. In both cases, the welfare of the individual disappears as an irrelevance that deserves no defence.
Both fascism and environmentalism wrap themselves in mystical appeals to an imaginary past, be it "Ein Volk" in traditional costume working together in the fields, or "a natural balance of nature" in which the struggle for survival simply doesn't exist. Such fantasies are usually dressed up to look like "science", but essentially they are religious myths, unrecognized for what they are.
There are clear historical links too between such movements as the "greenshirts" and the blackshirts, brownshirts, blueshirts, etc., etc. Many military-style environmentalist scouting movements have clear affinities with the Hitler Youth. Just look for the combination of the word 'folk' and uniforms!
Above all, the philosophical inspiration for both is a confused mishmash of Rousseau and Heidegger's anti-technological writings (some would say "ravings"). Heidegger was a card-carrying, badge-wearing member of Nazi Party throughout the Second World War. Afterwards, he blamed the Holocaust not on Germans killing Jews (and others) but on the "depersonalizing effects of technology"! Both were utterly vile men in their personal lives, and unclear in their thinking and their writing. But that very lack of clarity partly explains their continuing attraction, combined with a sloppy sentimentalism about a technology-free utopia and the detestation of individuality.
Complain about this comment
@ sr #167.
paraphrased- "there is a conciderable amount of evidence that co2 causes warming".
catagorically wrong. Sorry. There is circumstantial evidence, mountains of it. But nothing causal.
I've said this again and again, and it's something anyone who's gone through setting up clinical trials will understand- laboratory experiments and computational models are no substitute for real-world testing,as they can OFTEN and usually are wrong.
There is a hell of a lot of obfuscation going on in this debate:
-melting glaciers: irrelevant to the discussion, as they're symptom not proof.
-rising temperatures: irrelevant (though highly interesting and a possible basis for the foundation of a testable theory) to the discussion as they're a symptom, not proof
-rapidly rising sea levels: (a down right lie): irrelevant to the discussion, as it's a syptom not proof.
the list is endless: lizard extinction, polar bear population numbers, sea ice extent, asthma cases (i actually saw one on that!) all irrelevant,as they're syptoms, not proof.
If you are unable to grasp that simple point, they you do not understand science and have no buisness commenting on it. It is that simple.
Now what DOES matter are correlative experiments, anything that tells us about climate sensitivity (wrt co2) and real-world measurments.
We have issues with the real world measurements- they've only been accuratley taken for ~100 years (being kind) and there's huge issues with data-splicing, massive and unwarrented extrapolations and estimates (bolivia as a prime example). There is also prime evidence of mistakes/fraud/unintentional inproprieties- NZ, CRU etc.
With science- at least the sience i was trained in- a single mistake/calculation error calls the ENTIRE data set into question. It also calls every related data set into question (especially if performed by the same body/person). You can't just dismiss it, you have to then PROVE the data's 100%. This simply doesn't happen with climate science.
This is my issue- i couldn't care less what the blogs say (though i do link amusing ones). I don't care what the government says, or what 100's of scientists say- i make my own mind up. And for me, as a trained scientist- someone who's job it is to find inconsistencies in data and (in my own work) to prevent them happening in the first place- i just don't trust the data that's being presented.
There are FAR too many errors, FAr too many outlandish and unsupported predictions, FAR too much grey literature and FAR FAR too many assumptions- that are made without the slightest bit of proof.
We need to sort out climate sensitivity, and we need to fully audit all the temperature logs. That is the only way to regain the trust that many scientists have lost in the process.
Complain about this comment
Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
Complain about this comment
Manysummits # 140 asked where I got my name, well it was my nick name back in the 1970’s after the character Wolfie in a popular BBC sit-com.
Manysummits, I have been following your comments for many weeks now, I may have got you completely wrong but I can’t help getting the impression that your comments are false flag attacks, are you really a part of the lobby?
Complain about this comment
@197 too true.
Complain about this comment
#197 simon-swede wrote:
"Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
This is hardly a profound insight in discussions where the word 'denier' is the preferred term of abuse for "the other side". Hence manysummits' introduction of the analogy (his #158 -- with the slight complication that he's liable to get confused between Hitler and Churchill) and jr4412's development of the theme (his #184 -- with the slight complication that he is the saviour of the Jews).
Complain about this comment
I wonder which 'camp' the bbc think they are in, many see them as advocates/gatekeepers of AGW..
I would just like them to be impartial reporters.
On Newsnight a littlewhile ago:
Fiona Fox:
"Fight the good fight for accuracy, in fact
On Climate change there has been a real change..
People like Richard Black and Roger Harrabin, fighting internally (at the BBC) to say we DON'T have to have a sceptic every time we have a climate story."
Fiona Fox is about 6 minutes in..
Definetly worth watching the whole program, the BBC trying to defend their position..
BBC Trusts, been asked to lead a review of the BBC's coverage of science, especially 'climate change' review Worth watching, the whole program 15 minutes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/newswatch Newswatch 23/04/2010
LISTEN very carefully, about 9mins 24 secs in, Fiona Fox nearly had a BIG slip of the tongue
and said Climategate. changed direction very rapidly... ;)
Fiona Fox: Chaired a report, for Lord Drayson, the science minister, looking into the quality of science reporting 6 months
"to have a sceptic in every interview is misleading the public about 'climate science'" - Fiona Fox
Interviews like this on Newswatch would demonstrate why (the bbc environment team)they are not perceived by many to as NOT impartial observers. Maybe not conciously, in many fields of reporting it is a very common risk to get too close to the story or sources, and become part of the story or an advocate of a message. Especially if in the same field for years and bombarded by the special interest lobby groups..
'stockholm syndrome' for journalists - does it have a name?
Complain about this comment
Complete waste of time.
The way in which they have used 'global warming' as an excuse to line their own pockets renders them entirely without credibility. How many of them would not face a serious cut in their income/prestige if the global warming gravy train came to an end?
Millions of ordinary people are not rebelling against the global warming conspiracy because of some nonsense about glaciers. People are rebelling because of the unacceptable package of tax, opression and destruction of quality of life which has been piggy backed onto the science.
Complain about this comment
#196 Lab Munkey, I'm sure you realize that climate science can only ever be vague and somewhat tenuous in its predictions. - The climate is a complex chaotic system and worse it is driven by many small and unpredictable variables, put those together and any solid prediction is next to totally impossible. The same problem is what makes assigning blame categorically just as impossible as well - that is why this whole argument so fruitless and pointless. - As I said literally angels dancing on the head of a pin.
A sane scientific engineering approach is to work from basic probabilities of risk, they can be deduced as assigned from a far lower level of knowledge and back of envelope calculations.
The reason the approach you suggest is so wrong is that the only way to do the experiment is do nothing and allow climate change happen. We'll only have results and empirical proof when after a hundred years either nothing has happened or the world has suffered cataclysm.
The other side has its problems to, if the whole thing is real the current approach of trying to slow and stop it is all to little to late. - In fact it is less than nothing because carbon emissions are still rising. To me a far better approach is to focus on technologies that will help the world survive a potential cataclysm - whether it be global warming or volcano or something else.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #195.
well done, you have developed a 310 word exposition of your "intellectual prowess" from a partial, misrepresenting quote of a quote. classic bowman.
no need to comment on your #200 either (and no complaint since I do believe in free speech); cast aspersions as you will, the published comments are there for all to read.
it will be interesting to witness you languishing 'on the fence', splinters and all. :-)
Complain about this comment
#203 Robert Lucien wrote:
A sane scientific engineering approach is to work from basic probabilities of risk, they can be deduced as assigned from a far lower level of knowledge and back of envelope calculations.
Oh no they can't.
Complain about this comment
jon112uk at #202
And some are not "rebelling" at all, or at least not in the way you think they are. In Australia if they are "rebelling" it is because the government is not doing enough about climate change (see post #194).
Complain about this comment
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/17/gistemp-is-high/#more-19603
interesting- make sure you read the last paragraph.
Complain about this comment
Barry Woods #201.
the BBC has never been "impartial".
"..after the baptism of fire of covering the 1926 General Strike - the company was dissolved and the British Broadcasting Corporation formed with a royal charter."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/1231593.stm
Complain about this comment
Have any of you seen this rubbish?
Most idiotic global warming headline ever
Posted on May 18, 2010 by Anthony Watts
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/08/01291.html
Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012
HELP! We are doooooomed!!!!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
@203
firstly,:
"To me a far better approach is to focus on technologies that will help the world survive a potential cataclysm - whether it be global warming or volcano or something else"
i'd agree whole heartedly there
now:
"The reason the approach you suggest is so wrong is that the only way to do the experiment is do nothing and allow climate change happen"
not true. Perhaps i wasn't explaining myself correctly- in which case i apologise.
The problems are with the data and how it's been presented and the fact there's no testability or verifiable evidence for co2 as a primary driver of AGW.
The data issues are actually very easy to sort out. a full, independant audit would put all those questions to bed within 2-6 months.
the assumptive problems will only bear-out in time. As the 'core' scientists are unwilling ot engage with the 'geniune' sceptics.
I understand your concerns over having to wait until the climate changes suficiently for the case to be proved (or disproved), but, this is how science works. You cannot act without proof and that 'proof' has to be concrete. If we are moving into the risk-based area, then it is no longer science, it is politics and lobbying.
The single best thing the AGW group could do is try to disprove their theory. Publicly and as well as they can. Preferably with a nullifiable test. It is good scientific practice, would instantly help them recover a lot of lost respect and would aid the debate no-end. If they succeed, then oh well- we move onto something else. if they don't, it only strengthens their case.
I'm genuinely worried that these core scientits feel they are 'so far gone' or have invested so much in the theory, that they have lost objectivity.
I'm hoping the independent inquiry is thorough, transparent and takes info from both sides. Hopefully, it'll have far more credability than the two 'sham' inquiries performed by the uk gov and as a result finally start putting some of the big issues to bed.
Complain about this comment
@ 203- just noticed this
"The climate is a complex chaotic system and worse it is driven by many small and unpredictable variables, put those together and any solid prediction is next to totally impossible"
so why do we need to act at all then if this is true? (brushing aside momenteraly the entirely sensible call of moving away from fossil feuls and reducing general pollution)
Complain about this comment
LabMunkey at #210
You wrote: "If we are moving into the risk-based area, then it is no longer science, it is politics and lobbying."
But we are engaged in the 'risk-based area' (i..e. where there are uncertainties) - and it's not just about politics and lobbying, it is also about exercising judgement.
Complain about this comment
"any solid prediction is next to totally impossible"
As LabMunkey #211 already noted, this is an important admission.
When we act rationally, we have to take account of how likely we are to achieve our goal as well as how desirable the goal is.
For example, just this morning we ran out of milk in my house, yet again. But it was getting late, and it looked my son had to go to school without his usual bowl of cereal... unless I drove the quarter mile to the local shop. That was likely to get me the milk, but it also introduced a possibility that I would be killed in a road accident on the way. That too would be bad for my son's future!
I wonder how "the precautionary principle" guides us here?
...But anyway, back on planet Earth, I figured that by driving to the shop I was very likely to get the milk and very unlikely to get killed in the process, although the first was only moderately desirable, and the second was extremely undesirable. I think I did the rational thing, because we can make reasonably reliable predictions about short trips to the local shop.
However:
If "any solid prediction is next to totally impossible" with the Earth's climate, then that's entirely different. It is imperative that we do nothing.
Complain about this comment
@ 212. i appreciate that. honestly.
i just can't get past the fact that we're making assessments of risk, based on poor data, a under-understood 'model' (climate) and that the bodies pushing these 'assessments' have come under heavy criticism for breaking their OWN rules.
I don't know if co2 is actually doing anything (untoward) to our climate. None of the data/arguments put forward hold. I totally understand the concept of minimising risk, and i totally support the reduction of ALL emissions/pollutions.
HOwever, i do not see the evidence that catastrophic changes are on the way and i totally refute the calims that anything we are seeing is unprecedented. So i just keep coming back to this point- why not concentrate on affecting what we KNOW will work (cleaner energy- NOT wind, reducing fossil feuls usage/reliance, reducing all pollution etc) rather than spedning trillions on something we a) don't fully understand, b) don't know for sure is an issue and c) don't know if any of the remedies touted will actually DO anything.
I am genuinley not being argumental here for the sake of it- my 'logic' path just can't get past these points.
Complain about this comment
209. Daviid_Dublin wrote
"Have any of you seen this rubbish?
Most idiotic global warming headline ever
Posted on May 18, 2010 by Anthony Watts
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/08/01291.html
Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012"
This is so ridiculous it may not be what it seems. It seems to provoke readers to respond on "The Canadian Blog" which comes up as an attack site.
Does anybody else think it's just a way of getting into you pc?
Complain about this comment
#215 DrBrianS wrote:
This is so ridiculous it may not be what it seems. It seems to provoke readers to respond on "The Canadian Blog" which comes up as an attack site.
Does anybody else think it's just a way of getting into you pc?
It does to me -- it's too ridiculous to be genuine.
One thing worth remembering is that moral outrage is the great "suspender of disbelief". Most of the greatest con tricks, pyramid schemes, even April Fool Day stories have some moral "bait" that gets people on the hook by engaging them morally and so blurring their sense of reality.
Complain about this comment
LabMunkey in 210 writes '...this is how science works. You cannot act without proof and that 'proof' has to be concrete. If we are moving into the risk-based area, then it is no longer science, it is politics and lobbying.'
Nonsense. Worse than nonsense, this is part of the deliberate attempt to suggest that there is only one sort of science - a cod-Popper version which refuses to acknowledge issues like probability. To demand proof that has to be 'concrete' is an impossible, unreasonable and unnecessary requirement - right out of the deniers' playbook right back to tobacco. By LabMunkey's analysis I can only imagine that he never flies in a plane nor takes a prescribed medicine - because they can't be guaranteed not to kill him.
Listen folks, the world and our knowledge of can never be absolute. Science gives us an partial understanding. There are risks from action, and risks from inaction in every sphere, including climate. The only rational approach is to make decisions based on the most likely outcomes. The analysis of those likely outcomes is absolutely the role of Science. What individuals and societies do with those probabilities is a different matter. By all means let's debate the probabilities, but to demand some (usually vaguely defined) form of absolute proof is no part of a scientific, rational approach.
Lorax
Complain about this comment
@217
sigh. perhaps i wasn't clear, or the use of the term 'concrete' was ill advised.
i am fully aware that there is no such thing as an absolute in science. And again, i am fully aware of probabilites and significance values.
what i was trying to say, inelegantly it would seem, is that the proof has to be significant for there to warrant an responce. This is not the case in climate science. i am not trying to write off climate science because it cannot give cast 'concrete' evidence, i am writing it off because the probabilities they give are vague in the extreme, and based on exceptionally shoddy data/assumptions.
" this is part of the deliberate attempt to suggest that there is only one sort of science -"
there IS only one form of science. and thats the testable, re-producable kind. i had no intention to decieve or mislead- so perhaps save your vitriol for later.
Complain about this comment
#217 Lorax wrote:
"Worse than nonsense, this is part of the deliberate attempt to suggest that there is only one sort of science - a cod-Popper version which refuses to acknowledge issues like probability."
I agree that there is no proof in science, and that the cod-Popper version of science is rubbish. But what do you mean by "issues like probability"?
Science never delivers certainty. Nor does it ever deliver numerical estimates of probability, which is just an insidious a substitute for certainty. It seems to me that non-sceptics who think science tells us exactly how much a theory ought to be believed ("we are 90% certain" etc.) are every bit as gullible as sceptics who think science gives us proof ("we are 100% certain").
Some branches of science give us statistical estimates of relative frequency ("50% of the electrons will end up in band A") but these are quite different from estimates of how much a theory ought to be believed.
"To demand proof that has to be 'concrete' is an impossible, unreasonable and unnecessary requirement"
It depends what is meant by "concrete", of course, but I agree the word 'proof' here is misplaced.
"the world and our knowledge of can never be absolute."
In the most obvious senses of the word 'absolute' all knowledge is "absolute" because knowledge is true, and truth is "absolute".
I think what you mean to say is that no knowledge is certain.
Complain about this comment
#215 DrBrianS wrote:
This is so ridiculous it may not be what it seems. It seems to provoke readers to respond on "The Canadian Blog" which comes up as an attack site.
Does anybody else think it's just a way of getting into you pc?
It turns out this [Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012"] was written in 2007.
Go figure!
Complain about this comment
Dateline Gulf of Mexico, Day 29
Well, BP told us yesterday that they are 'siphoning off' some 1,000 bbl per day - if their optimistic estimate of 5,000 bbl per day leaking is accurate, then they are capturing 20% of the oil from the worst leak - hardly success by any measure I know of.
BP has begin drilling a 'second relief well'. I really don't understand this. Why are they drilling a second relief well? They have stated that they are certain that the first relief well will work. It sounds to me (and I could be wrong) but that BP is actually getting around the moratorium on new drilling by calling this a 'relief well' instead of a 'production well'. This would allow them to begin tapping this field in earnest in September.
In the meantime - I don't hear about any other immediate plans from BP to seal the leak on the seabed.
We also had our first resignation yesterday, from Washington, the guy in charge of oversight for offshore drilling.
This morning, tarballs were reported in Southern Florida - they will need to analyze the oil to determine the source (oil has a 'fingerprint' based upon its constituents - which is unique for every field). So we will know for sure soon - if so, it would mean the oil is caught up in the 'loop current' of the Gulf, which supplies the Gulf Stream - which is a river of water in the Atlantic from Southern Florida to the British Isles and back down to the Canary Islands...not good.
Perhaps we will have better news tomorrow - but somehow I doubt it.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@Daviid_Dublin #209
@DrBrianS #215
It could be a scientifically illiterate journalist, but don't rule out a spoof.
Theories about the effects of methane emissions from clathrates on climate have been around a lot longer than the article suggests. And that article paints a very very very extreme version of one of them.
Here is a link to Watts's coverage, without the virus problem
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/18/most-idiotic-global-warming-headline-ever/
Meanwhile here's a RealClimate conclusion about the threat of runaway methane emissions. Emphasis mine.
"So, in the end, not an obvious disaster-movie plot, but a potential positive feedback that could turn out to be the difference between success and failure in avoiding ‘dangerous’ anthropogenic climate change. That’s scary enough."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/12/methane-hydrates-and-global-warming/
Complain about this comment
Found this bit (Wikipedia) on El Nino and global warming...there is a longer explanation of the history of the study of the phenomenon (and La Nina and El Nino "Modoki") that may help give a context to discussions about global temperature and climate and regional temperature and weather changes during these Pacific Ocean cycles.
"During the last several decades the number of El Niño events increased, and the number of La Niña events decreased.[43] The question is whether this is a random fluctuation or a normal instance of variation for that phenomenon, or the result of global climate changes towards global warming.
The studies of historical data show that the recent El Niño variation is most likely linked to global warming. For example, one of the most recent results is that even after subtracting the positive influence of decadal variation, shown to be possibly present in the ENSO (El Nino Southern Ocillation..my insert here) trend[44], the amplitude of the ENSO variability in the observed data still increases, by as much as 60% in the last 50 years[45].
"It is not certain what exact changes will happen to ENSO in the future: different models make different predictions (cf.[46]) It may be that the observed phenomenon of more frequent and stronger El Niño events occurs only in the initial phase of the global warming, and then (e.g., after the lower layers of the ocean get warmer as well), El Niño will become weaker than it was[47]. It may also be that the stabilizing and destabilizing forces influencing the phenomenon will eventually compensate for each other[48]. More research is needed to provide a better answer to that question, but the current results do not completely exclude the possibility of dramatic changes."
43) Trenberth, Kevin E.; Hoar, Timothy J. (January 1996). "The 1990-1995 El Niño-Southern Oscillation event: Longest on record". Geophysical Research Letters 23 (1): 57–60. doi:10.1029/95GL03602.
44) Fedorov, Alexey V.; Philander, S. George (2000). "Is El Niño Changing?". Advances in Atmospheric Sciences 288: 1997–2002. doi:10.1126/science.288.5473.1997.
45) Zhang, Qiong; Guan, Yue; Yang, Haijun (2008). "ENSO Amplitude Change in Observation and Coupled Models". Advances in Atmospheric Sciences 25 (3): 331–336. doi:10.1007/s00376-008-0361-5.
46) Merryfield, William J. (2006). "Changes to ENSO under CO2 Doubling in a Multimodel Ensemble". Journal of Climate 19 (16): 4009–4027. doi:10.1175/JCLI3834.1. [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator].
47) Meehl, G. A.; Teng, H.; Branstator, G. (2006). "Future changes of El Niño in two global coupled climate models". Climate Dynamics 26: 549. doi:10.1007/s00382-005-0098-0. edit
48) "
Complain about this comment
Re: Bowmanthebard's comments on certainty:
These are worthwhile reads about this subject, which is commonly misunderstood in scientific and resultant practical action contexts; do a Google on each and I hope some of the confusion will clear...
WHAT DOES REASONABLE CERTAINTY MEAN?
Dr. David C. Elliott, P. Geol.
Chief Petroleum Advisor
Alberta Securities Commission, Canada
Surprise! Science shows that climate change is a certain threat (again). Monday, March 9, 2009 at 8:51am
By David Suzuki
Australia’s Chief Scientist discusses certainty and the science of climate changeThe process of science is inherently self-critical and must continue to be, Australia’s Chief Scientist has said in response to recent controversies surrounding climate change research.
Union of Concerned Scientists:
Certainty vs. Uncertainty
Understanding Scientific Terms About Climate Change
Complain about this comment
Re: "The climate is a complex chaotic system and worse it is driven by many small and unpredictable variables, put those together and any solid prediction is next to totally impossible"
Go to: Whatis?com
chaos theory....
A pretty good explanation of this issue, which gives a 'why' viz chaos and predictability.
Complain about this comment
#221 LarryKealey wrote:
"I really don't understand this. Why are they drilling a second relief well?"
I don't understand why they didn't just drop bargeful after bargeful of anything heavy they could get their hands on -- mud, gravel, old building materials, anything dredged from anywhere nearby. (They must dredge the lower courses of the muddy Mississippi, mustn't they?) You'd think that after a couple of weeks of dropping stuff through the water they'd end up with a little hill that the oil just couldn't push its way through.
But what would I know?
Complain about this comment
Re: CanadianRockies response on glaciation...
Locating the geographic area, yes, I know where it is...and the Little Ice Age, yes, I do know what that is, and the Maunder Mininum and so on. I wasn't clear what your point was here...that these weren't specifically the area you were delineating, and that there was a global temperature dip (mostly northern hemisphere) in the general period of 1300's to about 1800? Or am I not understanding what you intend...
I merely gave some general data available online about the subject, so that an interested reader could find out more about glacial retreat, growth, patterns and trends of same. That is all...simply furthering the general discussion through some research available online.
Complain about this comment
Labmunkey wrote: "I don't know if co2 is actually doing anything (untoward) to our climate. None of the data/arguments put forward hold. I totally understand the concept of minimising risk, and i totally support the reduction of ALL emissions/pollutions."
That is a very broad statement...especially 'none of the data/arguments put forward hold'...
Could you elaborate? 'None' is pretty obliterating as a term. I think it is a fairly simple exercise to produce a rather large body of accumulative evidence to the contrary.
I totally agree on eliminating as much pollution and getting away from carbon-based energy resources for a variety of reasons.
Complain about this comment
Simon-swede #192: re OECD link & UN contributions by country
Than you Simon - I have added this link to my files and will review asap.
Good Hunting,
Manysummits
Complain about this comment
Wolfiewoods #198:
"Manysummits, I have been following your comments for many weeks now, I may have got you completely wrong but I can’t help getting the impression that your comments are false flag attacks, are you really a part of the lobby?"
WoW - that's a new one!
Last time I looked - No.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #160
Superficially it looks like you've run out of sins to pin on Mann so you're padding your argument with references to the IPCC.
There's a big difference between the fraud investigations of Mann and the fraud investigations of Goldman Sachs. Mann's opponents have denounced the fraud investigations of Mann. The same is not true of Goldman Sachs.
Any relationship between high finance and the IPCC does not directly involve Mann. I remind you that Hockey Sticks are neither a key part of the AGW case nor anything to do with high finance nor liable to hurt the economy or jobs.
"Not old news. Canada's official position has been to follow the U.S. position. This shift tells you more about the real U.S. position.
Yes old news, although it provides more detail. It probably wasn't thought out at the time (except possibly by one lone Canadian blogger) but keeping climate change off the official meeting agenda is possibly the only effective way of "[using] Canada’s co-chairmanship of next year’s Group of 20 countries meeting to urge members to put economic recovery before efforts to protect the environment".
"Dec. 7 (Bloomberg) -- Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he will use Canada’s co-chairmanship of next year’s Group of 20 countries meeting to urge members to put economic recovery before efforts to protect the environment."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=aypC61AZIPec
Incidentally I point out that "[following] the U.S. position" was actually a step backward as even in the Obama era it gives Canada an excuse to make a pledge significantly below the Kyoto target it originally signed up to.
And your phrase "the real U.S. position" is horribly vague. Different people will read very different interpretations into it. For starters there's "what the Obama administration really wants", "what Congress will force the Obama administration to accept" and "what the US general public want".
Complain about this comment
Wichitazen #224: re ENSO
Thanks - valuable info for a die-hard weather watcher like myself.
Manysummits
Complain about this comment
PS # 232 - should have referred to #223:
Manysummits
Complain about this comment
#182 manysummits wrote:
"Cdn Rockies #178: re Paul Ehrlich - when was he right?
Most of the time, I would say."
Was he right when he predicted global famine in the 70's and 80's?
Was he right when predicted that India could cope with no more than 200 million more people?
Was he right when he predicted Mass starvation in Europe and the US in the 80's.
Or was he just another idiot looking to make a fast buck out of people's fears and insecurities?
It's no wonder you are a believer in AGW, you swallow Al Gore's rubbish with the same gusto you swallow Ehrlich's.
Despite the fact that both of them have been shown to make predictions that have proven to be laughably inaccurate.
Complain about this comment
196. LabMunkey wrote:
"There are FAR too many errors, FAr too many outlandish and unsupported predictions, FAR too much grey literature and FAR FAR too many assumptions- that are made without the slightest bit of proof."
Excellent post! You summed it up very well. And it only gets much worse when you look behind the curtain.
Complain about this comment
#224. wichitazen - Citing David Suzuki won't help your cause. He's a Green Pat Robertson, if you know what I mean.
He came up with this 'rational' comment last year...
Canadian Environmentalist David Suzuki Calls for skeptical leaders to be thrown ‘into jail’ - Excerpt: At a Montreal conference last Thursday, the prominent scientist, broadcaster and Order of Canada recipient exhorted a packed house of 600 to hold politicians legally accountable for what he called an intergenerational crime. […] “What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing is a criminal act,” said Dr. Suzuki, a former board member of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. “It’s an intergenerational crime in the face of all the knowledge and science from over 20 years.”
Complain about this comment
\\\ United Nations ODA (Official Development Assistance) target of 0.7% of GNI ///
United States 2008 OAD contribution: $ 26.8 billion (0.19 % of GNI)
United States 2009 OAD contribution: $ 28.7 billion (0.20 %of GNI)
Canada 2008 OAD contribution: $ 4.8 billion (0.33 % of GNI)
Canada 2009 OAD contribution: $ 4.0 billion (0.30 % of GNI)
Source gratis Simon-swede:
http://www.oecd.org/document/11/0,3343,en_2649_34487_44981579_1_1_1_1,00.html (click on tables and charts for 2009, which is a pdf)
Back of envelope calculation by yours truly:
If the US were simply to honor their full 0.7 % committment for both 2008 and 2009, they would add ~ $216 Billion to the United Nations coffers.
As a world leader - leadership by example is gold!
If my country Canada was to honor our committments for 2008 and 2009, that would add another ~ $17 billion to the United Nations coffers.
Etc...
Congratulations to those countries meeting or exceeding their committments.
I am thinking back to a recent post by Ghostofsichuan. If we just did what we said we were going to do, and enforced the regulations already in place - it would be a significant beginning.
I concur - and I will write somebody in the Canadian government soon and include this post in that email.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
213. At 11:19am on 18 May 2010, bowmanthebard wrote: "For example, just this morning we ran out of milk in my house, yet again. But it was getting late, and it looked my son had to go to school without his usual bowl of cereal... unless I drove the quarter mile to the local shop. That was likely to get me the milk, but it also introduced a possibility that I would be killed in a road accident on the way. That too would be bad for my son's future!"
But surely you do realize that you can only do it safely because engineers and scientists have already done many comprehensive safety analysis on cars. Just try driving a car without any of those safety features - seatbelts, mirrors, airbags, safety windscreen, crumple resistant frame, reliable mechanics (like steering), horn, doors, brakes. - Even the very first generation of cars had basic safety systems like brakes but since you don't believe in them...
========================
#219 bowmanthebard wrote: "Science never delivers certainty. Nor does it ever deliver numerical estimates of probability, which is just an insidious a substitute for certainty. It seems to me that non-sceptics who think science tells us exactly how much a theory ought to be believed ("we are 90% certain" etc.) are every bit as gullible as sceptics who think science gives us proof ("we are 100% certain"). "
Now that shows that you have really outsmarted yourself, science if full of numerical estimates of probability that are usually extremely accurate. Do you think that when rockets are fired into space they just say "thataway!!", no the course needed is a precalculated preplotted probabilistic trajectory. There are millions of examples.
The only difference with things like climate change is that the system is not closed, it is open, badly behaved, huge and exceptionally complicated. - That is the problem, chaos and incomputability give climate prediction a much lower probability. Defining probability as low simply means your confidence in the answer isn't high - but that doesn't mean you throw it away, it just means the dangers of getting things wrong no matter what you decide to do are much higher.
Complain about this comment
Brunnen_G: re Paul Ehrlich
"Was he right when he predicted global famine in the 70's and 80's?" (#234)
=====================
"No one really knows how many people are malnourished. The statistic most frequently cited is that of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, which measures 'undernutrition'. The most recent estimate, released on October 14, 2009 by FAO, says that 1.02 billion people are undernourished, a sizable increase from its 2006 estimate of 854 million people...
http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm
This website is a good summary, with an interesting pie-chart as well.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Brunnen_G #234 (again)
"Was he right when predicted that India could cope with no more than 200 million more people?" (#234)
"Overview
Nearly 50 percent of the world's hungry live in India, a low-income, food-deficit country.
Around 35 percent of India's population - 350 million - are considered food-insecure, consuming less than 80 percent of minimum energy requirements."
http://www.wfp.org/countries/india
==================
I could go on, but you are actually wasting my time, and everyone elses' too.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
#218 LabMunkey wrote:
"i am fully aware that there is no such thing as an absolute in science."
Well I'm not! I say that all hydrogen atoms have exactly -- and absolutely -- one proton, neither more nor less.
Complain about this comment
How did things reach a state where even ash cloud predictions are wrong? We have sophisticated and expensive scientific gadgets to give us information and yet they don't appear to be working as well as the price tag suggests. I have been looking at the graphs from the HAARP site to see if an increase in the wiggly graph lines correlates with an increase in volcanic activity or earthquake activity. It seems as if the red line and the blue line connect and overlap and increase in wave hight about 48 hours before increases in volcanic activity. Perhaps it is my vivid imagination but that is what appears to be happening. There may be no correlation but I have the benefit of not being in the trade, so it doesn't matter if I am wrong.
However, when the real scientists get it wrong in a big way it costs other people big bucks.
Complain about this comment
172. At 10:22pm on 17 May 2010, manysummits wrote:
Kealey #164:
One - don't put words in my mouth!
Two:
Plan B 4.0: (Lester Brown - check it out - its free on the internet or you can support us and buy the book)
187 (One hundred and eight-seven billion) Billion dineros per year for everything to work.
That's roughly one third of the US military budget, or ~13 percent of the global military budget.
It is affordable, particularly since it is climate change - aka global warming, man-made, which is currently the number one strategic threat to you and to all of us.
PS: Lester Brown is an American - as is Al Gore - or do you think only you are qualified for that rol?
----------------------------------------------------------------
In your opinion, and that of some others, man-made global warming is the number one strategic threat...I do not agree.
I think land and water use are the biggest threats.
As for my comment on war with China and the Middle East - you obviously took it out of context - how are you going to make them stop burning fossil fuels (or producing and selling) without going to war?
As for Plan B - 187B 'dinero' per year - do you mean dollars? pounds or euros? - and there ain't no way - except in the fantasy mind of some left wing ultra liberal. If it can be done so cheaply, then you and your buddies should be able to raise the money without any new taxes or requiring anyone to contribute who does not want to.
Oh, but we all have to change our lifestyle and how we live for it to work - then I suppose only the 'privileged' get to travel or enjoy things like air conditioning or have an increased lifespan that we in the west now enjoy...no thanks.
As for the US Military Budget, while it may seem like a lot, it has been a small price to pay for the relative peace of the last 60 years.
As for you hero Al Gore, I have no respect for the man whatsoever - you can warship him if you want. His family's zinc mine was named the worst polluter in Tennessee. He is poised to make billions from 'man-made global warming'. Now that he holds no public office - he does not have to reveal his finances - don't look for him to hold a public office anytime soon. You can see how he is set to profit off global warming on Forbes - if you don't believe me.
The whole point is that you asked for realistic - and I gave it to you.
You are the one who sees everything in black and white - not me - I have known for a very long time that it is all gray and it is all about trade-offs - every decision is a trade-off. Nothing is black and white.
Now, how about doing something which has a real impact, one which can be measured??? Something real. You complain about what you call 'fence-sitters' - but you are worse - you sit there and do nothing except spout rubbish about how evil the world is and how it must all change or we are all doomed - and what exactly do you accomplish with this? Does it make you feel better? I think not.
Go plant some trees or pick up some garbage in the park - you'll feel better afterward...
Kealey
Complain about this comment
#238 Robert Lucien wrote:
"science if full of numerical estimates of probability that are usually extremely accurate."
Well, science is full of numerical estimates of estimates of relative frequency that are usually accurate enough. But scientists are not purveyors of belief.
I'm probably repeating myself here, but I think it's really important to see that scientific theories describe things in the world -- such as atoms, gravity, viruses, the greenhouse effect, that sort of thing...
Even scientific theories that are false at least purport to describe things in the world such as phlogiston, caloric, mass-as-an-intrinsic-property-of-objects (a la Newton), and so on.
What scientific theories do not do is describe themselves, or the human mind, or the state of our knowledge, or our belief-systems, or our relationship with them, or anything like that.
Every now and again scientists have to make a decision between rival theories: which will they accept as true, or at least accept as good enough to use as an instrument for prediction? -- When scientists do that, they're still scientists, but they're doing something like philosophy -- or more prosaically, something like shopping. They have to use their judgment to make a more or less "subjective" decision about which is the better theory -- in other words, which is the better "buy". Decisions like that are guided by various aspects of the theories involved in the same way as shopping is guided by various aspects of things one is thinking about buying.
But, please note, just as nothing you can buy carries a label telling the buyer how much it deserves to be bought, no theory carries a label telling a scientist how much it ought to be accepted. Some shoppers are better than other shoppers at snapping up a bargain, and some scientists are better than other scientists at snapping up a true theory, but in neither case is the decision a matter of looking at a label or "taking a reading" from anything. It is a subtle and quite mysterious matter of personal judgement and intuition.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#240 manysummits wrote: "I could go on, but you are actually wasting my time, and everyone elses' too."
There's no need to be rude.
And Ehrlich predicted hundreds of millions would starve to death in the 70's and 80's and that many of those victims would be in the industrialised world.
He was flat out wrong, and has admitted as much.
He said nothing of people simply being hungry and malnourished, he said they would die.
If you want to stop wasting your precious time, stop following the teachings of fools.
Complain about this comment
Good news out of Canada:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10123210.stm
Deal to effectively manage 2/3 of the Canadian forests between conservationists and loggers - this is real stuff - real impact, long lasting.
Bad news:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10122639.stm
New climate head demands ambition and transparency.
And of course, her main focus (only focus it would appear) is on emissions cuts. An impossible goal - why spin your wheels on something that will not work.
As long as oil is pumped from the ground - it will be burned, as long as coal is mined, it will be burned. When we have clean, cheap viable energy solutions to replace fossil fuels - no one will want them anymore - that is the only answer that will work.
Oil is just a fad - like all our other energy sources. We became the dominant species when we began to 'control and use' energy - fire in the beginning. There have been many sources along the way - oil, natural gas, whale oil, coal, wood, peat, nuclear fission, wind, solar, the list goes on. As sources are used up and prices rise, new sources are found - you want to stop CO2 emissions - stop burning - that is the only way. Stop burning oil, stop burning wood, stop burning coal, stop burning anything, period - and that ain't gonna happen.
So, lets be real and invest in the next (viable) generation of energy sources - geothermal, nuclear fusion, magnetic, other stuff we haven't even thought of.
The only thing that these 'emissions cuts schemes' will accomplish, if enacted, is a vast redistribution of wealth, from those who have earned it, to those who have not. None of this will curb emissions - you would have to stop burning oil and coal to do that - and that is not going to happen in the near future.
There will be newer, cleaner, better, cheaper energy sources in this century - lets invest and speed that process - and in the meantime, we can also work on real environmental issues.
At least the UN Convention on Climate Change is going to Mexico next - the final resting place of UN Conventions that fail...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
LarryKealey #243.
"As for the US Military Budget, while it may seem like a lot, it has been a small price to pay for the relative peace of the last 60 years."
Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Serbia, Somalia, Iraq (x2), Afghanistan, plus various "operations" like Nicaragua, Colombia, El Salvador, etc.
of course, there have been plenty other 'conflicts' where the US of A was not (directly) involved.
truth is there has not been a single day during the "last 60 years" where there has not been war someplace on Earth but one wouldn't know listening to a 'peacenik' like you.
Complain about this comment
227. wichitazen - Re: CanadianRockies response on glaciation...
My point is very simple. Since we KNOW that the glaciers of this region have been shrinking since the 1880s via photographic evidence, and earlier via historical descriptions, the fact that they have also been shrinking more recently cannot be 'blamed' on AGW as so many are trying to do. They are shrinking from their most recent maximums reached during the Little Ice Age. So one could argue - and I certainly would - that all we are seeing now is the continuation of the effects of that.
One of the problems, or shall we call it tricks, of the AGW proponents is their selective use of short term trends while ignoring the longer ones. In the worst case, as in the phoney hockey stick, they attempt to revise history.
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #230
Methinks we have a wind up merchant on our hands.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wind-up
Complain about this comment
231. JaneBasingstoke - Sorry Jane. This post is simply shhhpinnnnn!
This is particularly ludicrous:
"Any relationship between high finance and the IPCC does not directly involve Mann. I remind you that Hockey Sticks are neither a key part of the AGW case nor anything to do with high finance nor liable to hurt the economy or jobs."
Or perhaps you are just more naive than I thought?
Complain about this comment
248 cont'd.
also, you will find this site interesting, though perhaps not to your liking:
'The United States carried out extremely serious interventions into more than 70 nations in this period.'
Complain about this comment
248. At 8:31pm on 18 May 2010, jr4412 wrote:
LarryKealey #243.
"As for the US Military Budget, while it may seem like a lot, it has been a small price to pay for the relative peace of the last 60 years."
Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Serbia, Somalia, Iraq (x2), Afghanistan, plus various "operations" like Nicaragua, Colombia, El Salvador, etc.
of course, there have been plenty other 'conflicts' where the US of A was not (directly) involved.
truth is there has not been a single day during the "last 60 years" where there has not been war someplace on Earth but one wouldn't know listening to a 'peacenik' like you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Truth is that there has not been a single day during the last 6000 years where there has not been war someplace on Earth.
There has been relative peace and prosperity over much of the world during the last 60 years. More people enjoy more freedoms today than they did 60 years ago. Relatively speaking, the last 60 years have been much better than the 60 or 600 before that. At least in my viewpoint.
You have the freedom to write what you want on this blog - as do so many hundreds of millions of people, the world over - without fear.
No, I am not a peacenik, but I do not like war, just see it as a part of life in this world today - as it has been for thousands of years. And of course, the best defense is a strong offense. I don't really like the US taking the role of 'world police' - but I also recognize that there are a lot of people who are kept in line because they fear the ability of the US to project power anywhere in the world, anytime, anyplace, anywhere with pinpoint accuracy.
As for the conflicts and wars which you have listed - what of them? Vietnam was lost - and only now are they rejoining civilized society again - after thirty years. Korea? Tell me - where would you rather live - North Korea or South Korea? Afghanistan?? So, tell me - are you a fan of the Taliban? Iraq and Saddam Hussein - genocide in our time...
Serbia? NATO intervention on behalf of the Muslims being exterminated??
Panama - to take from power a man who became a corrupted, drug dealing thug? Looked at Panama lately? People who live there like it a lot - and it is a great and safe tourist destination now - some really great deep sea fishing (they like it when you practice catch and release) and wonderful preserved jungle forests...
So...please explain it to me - the point you were trying to make??
You mean that the world is not perfect yet - but it could be if not for the US??? Yeah, ok, keep on believing that...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@jr4412
Thanks for the link. I really loved this one:
Italy, 1947-48:
Using every trick in the book, the U.S. interfered in the elections to prevent the Communist Party from coming to power legally and fairly. This perversion of democracy was done in the name of "saving democracy" in Italy. The Communists lost. For the next few decades, the CIA, along with American corporations, continued to intervene in Italian elections, pouring in hundreds of millions of dollars and much psychological warfare to block the specter that was haunting Europe.
We defeated fascist Italy in WWII - we had every right to 'interfere' - we would have been within our rights to claim it as our territory. But the US has never fought a war for territory - isn't it interesting that is what the Italians were doing during WWII.
Please - come up with something better than this...
LOL
Kealey
Complain about this comment
LarryKealey #253.
"So...please explain it to me - the point you were trying to make??"
that you believe in all the spin and propaganda, I guess, in spite of your obvious qualities.
I've a lot of time for your views on environmental issues and, say, the coal powered plants for various African nations (some blogs back but I'm sure you'll remember).
I begin to struggle when you use terminology like "..people who don't deserve it.."(#164) or "..redistribution of wealth, from those who have earned it, to those who have not"(#247) -- it jars and does not gel with your otherwise savvy and well-informed views; there's an undercurrent of (white??) supremacy that gets me riled.
perhaps I read you wrong but I think that you believe in division and divisive policies, whereas I think 'united we stand, divided we fall'.
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #251
I have yet to see any evidence that Mann's problems directly involve him with high finance. Or any evidence that his main opponents think him guilty of problems that you seem to allege.
Perhaps I am naive. Perhaps you are looking at the wrong target.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
Complain about this comment
252. At 8:49pm on 18 May 2010, jr4412 wrote:
248 cont'd.
also, you will find this site interesting, though perhaps not to your liking:
'The United States carried out extremely serious interventions into more than 70 nations in this period.'
--------------------------------------------------------------
I want to thank you for the link and the wonderful laugh. Couple of minor points - there are not 70 nations listed as many are listed multiple times.
I also like how it blames the US for the Taliban, for Pol Pot, for the East German Stazi - all resulted because of 'American Oppression'.
The world would be so much better without the US...do you actually believe this one-sided garbage in the link you posted?
When are you going to move to North Korea? I hear that winter there is just fabulous - but I don't think we will be seeing much of you on this blog once you move...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@Wolfiewoods #198
(@manysummits)
"nick name back in the 1970’s after the character Wolfie in a popular BBC sit-com"
That would be Citizen Smith rather than Citizen Woods, wouldn't it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMKsR_wUSfA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYIqzYkW9ZQ
http://uk.imdb.com/character/ch0030970/
Complain about this comment
LarryKealey #254.
"But the US has never fought a war for territory ... Please - come up with something better than this..."
not physical territory, correct, but the following quotes from the same site paint a different picture:
"making the world safe for American corporations"
"preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model"
having been raised in continental Europe, I can go along with those.
IMO, the net effect is the same as taking physical territory -- control (of resources and policy decisions).
Complain about this comment
@jr4412 - further to #242
We set up the elections in Italy and we certainly had the 'right' to prevent a government from being 'elected' which would immediately ban elections. We set about bringing democracy to Western Europe - while Russia set about bringing communism to Eastern Europe. Who fared better? What has history told us of this? Even communism in China is failing. Eastern Europe is becoming democratic, and life is improving.
Please - share your view on this for us all - you think it would be a better Italy if we had just given it over to the communists and elections were banned right after the first one? Communism is not a democracy - the two are in conflict. Which do you prefer? Please tell us? Do you like the freedoms (like blogging here) of Western Democracies? Or would you prefer to live in North Korea? I'm dying to know...
Cheers.
Kealey
Kealey
Complain about this comment
Further to my post #237: re writing to my Member of Parliament about the payments in arrears of the Canadian People to the United Nations with regard to the 'Official Development Assistance' plan.
Here is the letter I have just sent to my Member of Parliament. I have deleted the member's name and address, and my own, as the moderators might not like it if I didn't:
============================
Dear Mr. xxx:
I blog on the environmental weblog for the BBC, around Richard Black's 'virtual campfire,' as an advocate for our shared environment - an environment in crisis.
It has come to my attention that Canada is in arrears in our payments to the United Nations with regard to the 'Official Development Assistance' payments. ( 0.7 % GNI )
I include below the post I sent to the BBC weblog on May 18, 2010 for your perusal and I would appreciate your assessment of this situation.
The United Nations Millenium Development Goals are in danger of not being met, and as this is one of the areas in which we as a collective at the UN are making significant progress, I would ask that you clarify why we are not honoring our committments?
I will keep the weblog readers informed as to the response time to this request, and would invite you personally to comment on this matter at the weblog itself.
Failing that, I will of course pass on your comments to me, should you choose to respond.
(On the BBC weblog, I am manysummits.)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/ipcc_review_friend_or_foe.html#comments
Thank You,
(see post # 237 which I attached in full to this letter.)
=====================
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
@jr4412 - further to #242
We set up the elections in Italy and we certainly had the 'right' to prevent a government from being 'elected' which would immediately ban elections. We set about bringing democracy to Western Europe - while Russia set about bringing communism to Eastern Europe. Who fared better? What has history told us of this? Even communism in China is failing. Eastern Europe is becoming democratic, and life is improving.
Please - share your view on this for us all - you think it would be a better Italy if we had just given it over to the communists and elections were banned right after the first one? Communism is not a democracy - the two are in conflict. Which do you prefer? Please tell us? Do you like the freedoms (like blogging here) of Western Democracies? Or would you prefer to live in North Korea? I'm dying to know...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
Kealey #243: re 'go do something'
I appear to have riled you some!
Remember your 'Art of War' now Kealey - you must stay calm.
On a more serious note, you remind me of a former acquaintance of mine who refused the sharp end of the rope because "I have too much to lose."
This was a millionaire retired professor of mathematics.
Another time he suggested that if Underacanoe and I were so concerned about the world situation, we could always go and help out in Africa.
You aren't he, are you? Just kidding, but it is hard to tell you apart.
I'll stand by what I say on this weblog - it is recorded for posterity.
And your comments, venom and all, are posted for all to see.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
255. At 10:49pm on 18 May 2010, jr4412 wrote:
LarryKealey #253.
"So...please explain it to me - the point you were trying to make??"
that you believe in all the spin and propaganda, I guess, in spite of your obvious qualities.
I've a lot of time for your views on environmental issues and, say, the coal powered plants for various African nations (some blogs back but I'm sure you'll remember).
I begin to struggle when you use terminology like "..people who don't deserve it.."(#164) or "..redistribution of wealth, from those who have earned it, to those who have not"(#247) -- it jars and does not gel with your otherwise savvy and well-informed views; there's an undercurrent of (white??) supremacy that gets me riled.
perhaps I read you wrong but I think that you believe in division and divisive policies, whereas I think 'united we stand, divided we fall'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Funny, you talk about 'spin and propaganda' and yet you are the one who posted the link. I recognize that everything is gray - but at the end of the day, there is better and worse - and the US has done a lot to make the world 'better'.
As far as redistribution of wealth to those who 'don't deserve it' - yep - I stand by that one - two bit dictators and their cronies in third world oppressed nations - they don't deserve it. You think any of that wealth would get to the poor? To people who need it? Or deserve it? I don't.
Once you put any money into a corrupt third world nation - its gone - it does not help the people it was intended for. It gets skimmed from the top on down until it is gone. The rich and corrupt in those nations get richer and more corrupt - and the poor get nothing. Look at the track record on UNAID programs.
Redistributing wealth is not the answer - building wealth in the third world is. If only the two-bit dictators weren't so shortsighted. They would have much more wealth and power if they had people who were richer and happier...
It is up to the people there to put an end to corruption and brutality. Then, they too can share in wealth and prosperity. It will happen - but it will also take time. It is not something that can be fixed overnight.
There world is not a nice place - it never has been. Read a little history - look at all the spin and propaganda and make up your own mind.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
Brunnen @246 and canada: Not sure what your obsession with picking on single characters is? While you may be doing wonders for the egos of Gore and Ehrlich, they are not bellwethers of the cannon of climate change science or resource analysis. They are flawed people who have got some stuff right and some stuff wrong. Given that there are far fewer academics arguing for your apparent beliefs on issues like climate change, then, relatively speaking, it would make more sense to critique the key figures from your 'camp'. With some notable exceptions, such an exposition makes uncomfortable reading. Ian Plimer or Lord Monkton anyone?!
JaneBasingstoke @231: A simply excellent post. Not that it will have made any difference to the person you aimed it at...
Complain about this comment
LarryKealey @ 253: Thanks for your informative posts on the oil mess but you really don't help yourself by intermittently veering off into 'neo-con' mode...
"Panama - to take from power a man who became a corrupted, drug dealing thug? Looked at Panama lately? People who live there like it a lot - and it is a great and safe tourist destination now - some really great deep sea fishing (they like it when you practice catch and release) and wonderful preserved jungle forests..."
I recall reading somewhere that Costa Rica has the largest proportion of land under national park protection in that part of the world. It also has no army! I'm afraid i'm with the hippies on this one. If you visit countries in Europe that have feeble military forces, you invariably find world class public transport etc. 'Many Summits' figures are crude but there is an essential truth there: moving to a low carbon economy will not be cheap, but we could easily pay for it by cutting back on wasteful government spending elsewhere. The worst culprit, in absolute terms, of the latter is clearly military spending.
I'm not gonna way into the argument on the ethics of US foreign policy in the last century because it's been done to death elsewhere. Suffice to say: it is not black and white.
Complain about this comment
LarryKealey #257.
"..blames the US for the Taliban.."
'created', ie trained, by the CIA to be a thorn in the side of the (then) USSR.
"..for the East German Stazi (sic).."
I did live in (then West) Berlin for a number of years, it was rumoured that the Americans interferred quite a lot!!
"The world would be so much better without the US.."
no, I don't think so; all the same, a little less gung-ho and a little less arrogant would go a long way.
"When are you going to move to North Korea? I hear that winter there is just fabulous.."
I like good winters but Iceland would be nicer. :-)
Complain about this comment
259. At 10:57pm on 18 May 2010, jr4412 wrote:
LarryKealey #254.
"But the US has never fought a war for territory ... Please - come up with something better than this..."
not physical territory, correct, but the following quotes from the same site paint a different picture:
"making the world safe for American corporations"
"preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model"
having been raised in continental Europe, I can go along with those.
IMO, the net effect is the same as taking physical territory -- control (of resources and policy decisions).
------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I also spend a number of years growing up overseas (including 4 in Germany) and have lived in over 40 countries in my life. In growing up in 'Continental Europe', where you in the West or the East? You seem to imply that the US prevented the 'success' of the Soviet System in Eastern Europe. Is that what you are saying?
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, some of the freedoms you enjoyed growing up in 'continental europe' may have been a result of US efforts and US involvement in WWII and subsequent Soviet Containment??
Kealey
Complain about this comment
Wow. So how did this get onto the U.S. military spending and all that?
Of course there are parallels. Both the military-industrial complex and the eco-crisis research-industrial complex use fear to sell their projects and enrich themselves. WMDs, AGW, same trick.
But #252, jr4412, I am a little confused by your post. Are you from the UK? Are you mad about the US intervention in WW II which rescued your country? Do you not understand that before the US took on the role, the British Empire played world policeman?
Who would you suggest should do that now if not the US? Who would you prefer, China or Russia?
In any case, things are changing and the US is now almost as bankrupt as the UK. All empires rise and fall. Change is the only constant, in political and climate history.
Complain about this comment
256. JaneBasingstoke - Oh well. Is that the wind, or did that parrot move?
Complain about this comment
LarryKealey #262.
"Please - share your view on this for us all.."
don't mind.
"We set up the elections in Italy and we certainly had the 'right' to prevent a government from being 'elected' which would immediately ban elections."
Italy, at this point, was in transition from a monarchy, it is very difficult to say what might have happened w/out US 'help'.
"..you think it would be a better Italy if we had just given it over to the communists and elections were banned right after the first one?"
I'm not familiar with Italian constitutional details; in (West)Germany and
Japan the US 'encouraged' the countries to adopt an US-style constitution -- one size fits all??
"Communism is not a democracy - the two are in conflict. Which do you prefer? Please tell us?"
I doubt that there ever has been true communism, ie untainted by state or other interests, so I cannot really answer your question; by the same token, there isn't any true democracy anywhere in this world either (even in ancient Greece only the citizen had a vote and slavery was the norm).
I suppose some halfway-house between communism and democracy could be worthwhile.
"We set about bringing democracy to Western Europe.."
wow, ever heard of the Weimarer Republik? brought to its knees by WWI reparation payments to?? you guessed it: chiefly the US and Britain.
anyhow, my preference is liberal governance combined with stringent controls on 'the means of production'.
I trust that answers your questions?
how about yourself? can you see yourself giving up 'privileges' knowing that this will help others?
Complain about this comment
LarryKealey #268.
"In growing up in 'Continental Europe', where you in the West or the East?"
West, Rhineland, American 'sector'.
"You seem to imply that the US prevented the 'success' of the Soviet System in Eastern Europe."
not at all, I'm saying that US policies were/are confrontational and I think that unhelpful; the voracious nature of US (Anglo-Saxon, really) style capitalism led to an escalation of our problems (cold war and all), and I'm not in favour.
CanadianRockies #269.
"..world policeman? Who would you suggest should do that now if not the US? Who would you prefer, China or Russia?"
I think rational, grown-up people can do largely w/out 'policemen'.
if you take the time to dig back in the blogs (about a year ago) you'll find that I'm also in favour of doing away with nation states altogether.
Complain about this comment
I just watched a CBC documentary:
"Climate Change 1: An Uncertain Future", with David Suziki ca 2007 on Baffin Island (the Arctic), where iron ore mining can now work because of the opening of the Northwest Passage.
Where the mountain pine beetle has jumped the mountain barrier from the Weat Coast into the boreal forest of the North.
The area around Hudson's Bay is predicted to warm by some seven degrees Centigrade by the second half of this century. The pine beetle will increase the likelihood of forest fire.
=====================
I'm about to watch another CBC documentary, "The Gospel of Green," ca 2008, about Hermann Scheer, the German parliamentarian who has done a lot of legal work to green Germany.
========================
The lobby is increasingly desperate, but I am starting to breathe easier.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
#265 Yorkurbantree wrote:
"Brunnen @246 and canada: Not sure what your obsession with picking on single characters is? While you may be doing wonders for the egos of Gore and Ehrlich..."
Assuming you mean me, my only "obsession" with Ehrlich is due to manysummits constant reference to his always false doomsday predictions and my asking him for an example of a case when his hero was actually right. Never have got an answer, of course.
I don't recall mentioning Gore but I may have.
And I don't have a "camp." That kind of simplistic 'us and them' thinking is only for sheep, and those who profit from dividing sheep.
Some of my recent comments have been about Mann simply because he was the principal manufacturer of the bogus AGW hockey stick, and because there was some recent news about his history.
I'll let you critique those others you mentioned.
As for your assertion that "there are far fewer academics arguing for your apparent beliefs on issues like climate change," that's just plain funny. And it wouldn't matter to me if there were.
Complain about this comment
96. At 04:10am on 17 May 2010, CanadianRockies.
Your comment that what Goldman Sacks did was legal seems premature at best. From what I've heard, there is a criminal investigation on going along with the SEC civil investigation. Perhaps you would like to use a different analogy?
Complain about this comment
It was claimed by some one in an earlier post that the U.S. never got land through warfare -- How do you think Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California came to be part of the United States?
Complain about this comment
#259 jr4412 wrote:
"having been raised in continental Europe"
You don't say!
I have a theory about ethnic dislike. I think it's proportional to the degree to which a group can be said to have been "rescued from an aggressor". For example, Irish hatred of Britain reached fever pitch after the Second World War. They wanted to look at Churchill as if he was "just like Hitler" -- pay attention manysummits -- but it involved a lot of cognitive dissonance, which emerged as hatred. You seem to be filled with dislike for the Americans, so I'm guessing that you belong to an ethnic group that has been "rescued" big time by the Americans. Are you French, peut-être?
Complain about this comment
#273 manysummits wrote:
The area around Hudson's Bay is predicted to warm by some seven degrees Centigrade by the second half of this century. The pine beetle will increase the likelihood of forest fire.
...
I am starting to breathe easier.
Yep -- nothing like a bit of external apocalypse to take your mind off your own mortality!
Complain about this comment
@ 228
re- none of the data holds up.
A very broad sweeping statement yes, i will clarify it though.
There is significant data that shows the world WAS until recently warming, recent data is... inconclusive, to be kind. There is also significant data on symptomatic matters- ice melts, alarming sea levels rises (though 100%wrong), species decline, asthmas increase (sorry i love that one) etc etc. These, while all very good and useful for evaluating and studying the effects of a changing climate, don't actually tell us what is causing it. So, in the context of this discussion and this point only, can be discarded as irrelevant.
So, what do 'we' actually have that links co2 to temperature increases?
Well, we have conincidental evidence (i'm only calling it coincidental as no direct link has yet been established, beyond simplistic and totally blinkered 'theory') of rising temperatures against a background of rising C02 levels.
This is useful, but not proof. A casual relationship proof does not make.
There are also issues with the temperature rises themselves.
-the data is suspect; huge areas of the globe are estimated- and usually with a warming bias (bolivia, the north pole, large areas of russia, etc). There is a problem with the 'unprecedented warming' statement too, as the proxies we use to 'map' past temperature trends don't marry with current methods (the divergence 'trick' and HIGHLY 'selective' use of proxies).
So we have warming, but we're really not sure if it's unprecedented or not (and therefore if it's not natural or not, and i'm sorry, but if anyone tells you the recent warming trend is unprecedented then they are either a charlaton, or a pathetic excuse for a scientist, as exceptionally basic statistical analysis shows that not to be true) and we have C02 rises, but no link.
Now, the link is important- as it is one of two things that this 'debate' hinges on. there is laboratory evidence (easily reproducable) that shows, an increase in co2 levels in a sealed environment, increases local temperature. The textbook 'theory' also support this statement.
But, and here's the kicker, that experiment cannot be extrapolated to a real world environment. Just as a theoretical and characteristic analysis of a drug is not a guarantee of something passing a tox-screen. it CAN be used as a basis for experimental design, a proof-negative experiement, if you will, but it is not scale-up-able. Again, the belief that this is the case is simply misguided.
So what else do we have? Well there is selective use of paleoclimatic data to try to support the argument- but there's large areas that don't fit the theory (belying a basic misunderstanding of the principles involved) and then there's models.
The models are hopeless. The amount of arbitrary adjustments they require to stop them going into 'runaway greenhouse' mode is very telling. That and the immediate divergance problem.
So to get back to answering your question- in an exceptionally round-a-bout way:
We have lots of circumstantial and 'symptomatic' evidence of a changing climate, but- no proof that this period (last 100 years) is unprecedented, and no proof (proper) that this temperature change is due to C02.
The only thing that i can see to 'save' the AGW theory, would be some work showing very high climate sensitivty wrt C02. I've seen some work that show's sensitivity to c02 is higher than we thought (but still lower than needed for agw to be true) and i've also seen data that shows not only are the models over-exxagerating co2 sensitivity, but that they are downplaying the negative feedback sensitivity.
It's all a bit up in the 'air' at the moment (bad pun sorry) as no one 'really' knows the 'figure', be fascinating when they figure it out though!
Complain about this comment
#279 LabMunkey wrote:
"This is useful, but not proof. A casual relationship proof does not make."
You need to get clear that there is no "proof" in science. It seems that you cannot learn this.
Complain about this comment
#279 LabMunkey wrote:
We have lots of circumstantial and 'symptomatic' evidence of a changing climate, but- no proof that this period (last 100 years) is unprecedented, and no proof (proper) that this temperature change is due to C02.
I take that as an open admission that you believe in AGW. Lots of evidence but "no proof proper" just means "lots of evidence".
Complain about this comment
@280 and 281
you're just being argumental for the sake of it now.
I have explained, at length, many times before that there is no such thing as an absolute in science- however using terms such as 'proof' and 'concrete evidence' are a lot easier than saying 'beyond all reasonable doubt given your current understandings of the mechanisms and concepts involved' every time i want to try to make a point.
Picking up on inconsistancies in an argument are all well and good, but if you are deliberatley trying to obfuscate matters and find fault in the tiniest and most insignificant technicalities then you are no longer bringing anything to the debate, other than an air of self importance.
These terms are a necessary fallacy for the sake of ease in this argument.
Complain about this comment
also- @ 281. your comment shows that you are either uable, or unwilling to see the distinction in the post i made.
no i do not think that the AGW theory is correct, as that statement makes painfully clear. And the proof 'proper' was a purposful inclusion to comment on the state of the evidence itself.
Complain about this comment
@282 Lab Munkey
Having previously stepped back from your impossible demands for 'proof' and 'concrete evidence', you reveal that what you really mean is:
'beyond all reasonable doubt given your current understandings of the mechanisms and concepts involved'
That's just more of the same thing. What you're still doing is holding climate science to an unreasonable, unscientific standard, just as deniers of the link between tobacco and health tried to do 50 years ago. Why does it need to be beyond all reasonable doubt? I just had a major operation - the surgeon explained the relative risks, but no choice was safe 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.
The current science of climate change and its conclusions are not held as 100% certain. They might be wrong. We are in the same position as I was with the surgeon - having the choices in planetary management explained to us. None of the choices are without downsides, uncertainty and the risk of being wrong. But by setting impossible demands for the science you are seeking to smear one of the choices from the outset.
Perhaps you could explain, given the seriousness of potential consequences why you picked 'beyond all reasonable doubt' as your yardstick? Why not, for example the lower standard of proof used in UK civil courts - 'on the balance of probabilities'? Also, could you perhaps explain which the other hypotheses suggested to explain current observed climate change - the sun, cosmic rays, volcanoes, leprechauns etc. can be shown to be 'beyond all reasonable doubt given your current understandings of the mechanisms and concepts involved'?
Lorax
Complain about this comment
#282 LabMunkey
"you're just being argumental for the sake of it now." - remember it's bowman....he has a reputation you know :o)
Complain about this comment
#279 LabNumkey
"none of the data holds up." - i'm afraid i'm going to go back to my appeal to authority on this one. you say the data doesnt hold up. all major national academies, nasa, royal society, woods hole, ipcc, metoffice, uk govt chief scientist etc etc etc etc all say it does.
add to that the fact that the data i've studied over they past few years, for the most part, looks pretty convincing and i'm happy to say i think a rational response is "i don;t agree with your analysis....you must be mistaken".
Complain about this comment
Thirty years ago millions of people watched & enjoyed David Attenborough’s Life on Earth series, it lead to an increased awareness of nature and conservation. As more negative news emerges about the case for warming there is a danger that nature and conservation will be hurt by association in an anti-green backlash by the ignorant masses who can think no further than their foreign holidays & their new cars. If the case for warming is allowed to fail then so much more will be lost. There must be a new drive to educate the public if a greater tragedy than warming is to be averted.
Complain about this comment
#273 manysummits
and the uk has its first ever green mp!! now that is progress :o)
Complain about this comment
@ lorax-
i feel i'm being hauled over the coals here for my (perhaps) inelegant use of language. oh well, you make your bed and all that...
'beyond reasonable doubt' i am using this term, specifically, to answer bownans post on what constitutes proof in science. Not as a yard stick for climate science. You are so eager to attack me that you didn't read my post properly.
there are HUGE questions over the integrity of the data. I am not even commenting as such, on the theory here- just the data. To be in a situation where you can give any credance to a theory, the data has to be rock solid.
If the data is good, reliable and reproducable, you are already in a good situation. But this simply is not the case for climate science.
Can any of you honestly say you are happy with (what little) data we have and that you'd be confident it'd stand up to an external audit??
As for the rest of you post- given your complete misunderstanding of my use of that term- is irrelevant and so shall be ignored.
@286.
the data doesn't hold up because of the issues already pointed out.
New zealand have been cuaght, red handed, tampering with the data to introduce warming bias. This was then submitted to the IPCC and was used as the basis for its predictions in that area. The IPCC, NASA, GISS etc EXTRAPOLATE huge regions of the earth where no temperature moniters EXIST. Those that they do use are incredibly selective and have been spliced and moved, repeatedly.
I say again- are you seriously suggesting, for one minute, that any of this would stand up against an external audit?
Complain about this comment
#272 jr4412
"if you take the time to dig back in the blogs (about a year ago) you'll find that I'm also in favour of doing away with nation states altogether."
absolutely agree. if there's one thing for certain, global problems will not be solved by 250+ nation states all fighting for their own interests. eventually we'll either have to accept that our interests are converging or see the planet degraded to such a level that it will be a very unpleasant place to live.
to paraphrase lovelock "the world USED to be a wonderful place", but it could get much much worse.
Complain about this comment
@ 285.
good point.
Complain about this comment
The question is not whether there are "reasonable doubts" -- one can have "reasonable doubts" about any scientific theory. The question is whether we have assurance enough to act, given that we also have assurance that acting would have severe side-effects. Cheap energy means cheap food, and expensive food kills poor people.
Our lack of assurance to act isn't confined to the theory of AGW. We also lack assurance that global warming is a bad thing, we lack assurance that the supposed "disease" is worse than the proposed "cure", and we lack assurance that we can organize ourselves to act effectively (because it is probably rational not to comply with any international agreement to act).
So we lack assurances all over the place -- and that is enough to prohibit acting.
Complain about this comment
267. At 11:25pm on 18 May 2010, jr4412 wrote:
LarryKealey #257.
"..blames the US for the Taliban.."
'created', ie trained, by the CIA to be a thorn in the side of the (then) USSR.
====================================
Actually the CIA had a role in supporting the MUJAHEDIN - who fought against the soviet invasion.
The TALEBAN is usually accepted as having formed in 1996 - long after the US turned it's back on Afghanistan. Some of the taleban were previously mujahedin but equally many of the people who were/are fighting the taleban were also mujahedin.
The US has never funded, trained or armed the taleban.
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #270
I was down the pub the other day and someone said that the longer an internet conversation went on the more likely it was to descend into Monty Python references. Which has obvious implications for anyone making such references instead of presenting an alternative argument.
A web search suggests there is competition for a name for this law.
Complain about this comment
@289 Lab Munkey
The trouble with your 'perhaps inelegant' use of language is that it surely reflects your thinking. So in several posts you have demanded concrete evidence and proof, beyond all reasonable doubt and so on.
And in this post, you are at it again - with the statement:
'To be in a situation where you can give any credance to a theory, the data has to be rock solid.'
So we've moved from 'concrete' to 'rock' have we? It's the same ploy, right out of the generic deniers' playbook - demand impossible levels of proof, data and evidence as a way of casting doubt on the science. And never demand equivalent degrees of certainty from alternative hypotheses.
So, asking in a different way what I asked last time - why does the data have to be 'rock solid'? Wouldn't 'generally pretty good and getting better with some grey areas' be sufficient? And can you demonstrate any data supporting alternative conclusions that is 'rock solid'?
Lorax
Complain about this comment
@292
In arguing whether we have 'sufficient assurance' to act, you don't include the other part of the logic - do we have 'sufficient assurance' NOT to act? How sure do we need to be that this possibly existential threat is not going to happen? If the scariest outcomes are, say, 50% likely - shouldn't we take action just in case? All I'm asking of you and Lab Munkey is that you consistently apply the same standards of data/evidence and certainty to all sides of the climate debate. So...
if you think there's no evidence of warming - provide the 'rock solid' data to demonstrate this.
if you think it is all down to some mysterious natural cycles - let's have the 'beyond all reasonable doubt' evidence and fundamental theory to show this.
if you think it's all a conspiracy between the scientific community and tax-raising politicians - could we have some concrete evidence please?
Lorax
Complain about this comment
HungeryWalleye #276.
"It was claimed by some one in an earlier post that the U.S. never got land through warfare -- How do you think Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California came to be part of the United States?"
correct, but we were talking about the "last 60 years" or so.
Complain about this comment
#295 Lorax wrote:
"So we've moved from 'concrete' to 'rock' have we? It's the same ploy, right out of the generic deniers' playbook"
Just to be clear: as a "denier" I complained about this -- twice -- before you did. So not all of us "deniers" are using the "generic deniers' playbook."
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #277.
"I have a theory.."
you don't say!! :-)
"You seem to be filled with dislike for the Americans.."
not per se, I dislike bullying and dishonest machination -- that's how I perceive US American politics/policies post-1900.
Complain about this comment
@ 295.
wow. you really just don't get it do you?!?
Do you understand what constitutes good data??! Do you have ANY idea the lengths good scientists go to to ensure their data is above reproach? Do you have any idea how much pride a scientist takes in producing a good, reproducable, tracable set of data?
You seem to think i am arguing one thing when in fact i am trying to alert you to something else. So let's try this to see if it sinks in:
I am not asking for incontrovertable proof that the AGW theory is correct. Ok with me so far??
What i am asking for is for their data to be 'good'. I.E. if it were to be independantly audited would they be able to (in the case of temp records):
-trace the equipment used to collect the readings
-have maintenence/calibration records for this equipment
-have full records of any changes to the device, it's situation and the location it is in?
-show full workings for any data splicing/extrapolations/omissions/adjustments with associated reasoning and confrimational testing?
- show the correct error limits and apply the correct adjustments to any predictions based on these error limits?
and so on and so on.
Can you see what i am trying to say here. By concrete proof, be rock solid evidence by whatever other term you are trying to trip me up over i am simply referring to the quality of the data itself.
This isn't a generic deniers trick, as you are willfully trying to 'prove'. This is an analytical scientist looking at a shockingly poor data-set wondering how the HELL they managed to make ANY predictions off it at all.
Complain about this comment
Wolfiewoods #287.
"As more negative news emerges about the case for warming there is a danger that nature and conservation will be hurt by association in an anti-green backlash.."
the cynic in me would say that that was the idea all along.
Complain about this comment
rossglory #290.
thanks.
and this is worth repeating:
"if there's one thing for certain, global problems will not be solved by 250+ nation states all fighting for their own interests."
Complain about this comment
@295 re- alternative theories.
A difficult subject- not for the reasons you will undoubtedly think.
There is nothing significant to suggest the warming in current times is unprecedented. Paleoclimatic data shows rapid temperature rises, much more significant than present. it also shows rapid temperature drops.
One has to actually question the need FOR an alternative theory based on that, but, to humour you-
the majority of alternative theories are not good enough- frankly. They too either make unfounded assumptions or just don't quite tally with the observations, barring one- the recent publication on cloud feedbacks that as far as i can tell (albeit with only cursory investigation) fits the observed trends much closer than the IPCC models do.
You seem to be of the mistaken belief that the failure of certain 'alternate' theories somehow strengthens the case for the AGW theory. This is symptomatic of zealotry and pre-determined bias, not a reasoning mind.
Put it this way- if someone produced a paper tomorrow showing climate sensitivity to c02 was as high as it would need to be to illicit the predictions touted by the IPCC, and if the data was published and verifiable/reproducable. I would totally re-evaluate my stance and in all likelyhood, change my entier stance on the subject.
Conversly, if a paper came out showing climate sensitivty to c02 to be exceptionally low, i would wager significant money that you would not do the same.
For all your protestations about bias and your blatant attacks and attempts at slight via associateion, i am only concearned over the quality of the data- i.e. the science.
To use an analogy- you're too busy sat up in the branchs enjoying the view, whilst i'm at the roots trying to establish if there's rot.
Complain about this comment
jon112uk #293.
"Actually the CIA had a role in supporting the MUJAHEDIN.."
correct of course, my bad..
still, begs the question where those mujahedin went. don't you think that some of the training may have been passed on to the next generation?
Complain about this comment
@JaneBasingstoke
I know we've crossed swords on the whole hockey stick/Mann/IPCC thing in the past, and I know that we've come to an amicable accord on the same, but this caught my eye:
"Any relationship between high finance and the IPCC does not directly involve Mann. I remind you that Hockey Sticks are neither a key part of the AGW case nor anything to do with high finance nor liable to hurt the economy or jobs."
If hockey sticks are not key to whole AGW the argument, then why do:
1) the pro-AGW camp expend so much time trying to defend them?
2) so many papers reference the work?
3) you see the pesky little graphs almost everywhere you look?
And, why was so much effort put into smoothing out the earlier variants of said graphs?
Just curious, as without them it's quite difficult to present the case for any unprecedented warming at all.
One certainly has to question all of the subsequent work, that's taken Mann et al's work as a given. If a core assumption in your work is not right then neither, by extension, is that body work. At least, not right with any reasonable level of confidence. It's certainly liable to suffer from a confirmation bias, which is never a good thing :-(
Complain about this comment
#296 Lorax wrote:
In arguing whether we have 'sufficient assurance' to act, you don't include the other part of the logic - do we have 'sufficient assurance' NOT to act?
Yes, I think we do. The population of the world shot skywards with modern developments in agriculture, especially since the world got cheap energy. It goes to show that the human population is largely subject to the same constraints as the population of other animals (and indeed plants). But sudden rises in populations are attended with great dangers. Look at the Irish Famine. Should something happen that made food significantly scarcer, many humans would die. We must be very careful about anything that threatens to "rock the boat". Messing about with cheap energy instead of a slow, careful development of fusion is dangerous. Messing about with the growth of developing counties is especially dangerous (for the people who live there).
A lot of people aren't aware of those dangers, because they are taken in by the utopian fantasies of Rousseau, Engels and Heidegger instead of thinking about evolution and population growth, and looking at history. Vast and disastrous "experiments" fuelled by utopian ideologies are all too common.
If I thought we had good reasons to expect climatic disaster, it would be worth taking the risks mentioned above. I think I am quite open-minded, and if I see some good evidence for impending disaster, I'll heed it. But so far, apart from the greenhouse effect, I think the evidence is very meagre and conflicted. The science itself is inductive, which is another way of saying it is wholly misconceived. I prefer not to call it "science". There has been no significant warming for ten years, and intriguing hints that the warming before that had other causes than greenhouse gasses. But in addition to that, I have no good reasons for thinking CO2 and heat are bad, and many reasons for thinking they are good -- for plant life, and therefore for animal life, and therefore for civilization.
How sure do we need to be that this possibly existential threat is not going to happen?
Well, acting to avoid climate change is itself an existential threat -- at least to the poor in developing world. So caution is appropriate.
If the scariest outcomes are, say, 50% likely - shouldn't we take action just in case?
The very idea that some event is "50% likely" is misconceived. It either will happen or it won't happen, and our degree of confidence that it will or won't happen is not something that can be measured in percentages. To say something is "50% likely" is a pretentious way of saying "we haven't a clue either way".
if you think it's all a conspiracy between the scientific community and tax-raising politicians
I have consistently and repeatedly ridiculed this idea on this very blog. Anyway, I'm in favour of hefty taxes for the rich and generous social welfare for the poor, so it would suit me fine. But there is no such conspiracy, nor is there a big oil-funded "lobby" on the other side. Most people in this debate are completely sincere, although that doesn't affect the truth or falsity of what they say.
Complain about this comment
@LabMunkey #303
Very well said!
Complain about this comment
#299 jr4412 wrote:
bowmanthebard: "You seem to be filled with dislike for the Americans.."
jr4412: "not per se, I dislike bullying and dishonest machination -- that's how I perceive US American politics/policies post-1900."
America is a democracy, and American people are the collective author of its politics/policies. If you don't like the latter, you probably don't like the former much either.
Personally, I am eternally grateful to America and Americans for the destruction of the Nazis, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the best art, science and philosophy of the last 100 years. Oh yeah -- and the protection of freedom of thought and expression that makes those things possible in the first place. God Bless America!
Complain about this comment
I've been following the war between LabMunkey and Lorax et al with interest.
One question you are dancing around is just who has the responsibility of supplying proof of AGW and how compelling should that proof be.
My own tuppenceworth is that it is up to the warmists.
The costs involved will go a long way towards bankrupting the West especially our own nearly broke country.
As I don't want to see my grandchildren living in penury because a fantasy theory hooked the politicians, I'd like to be 100% certain that Britain will be doing the right thing by de-industrialising.
So asking for the highest possible standard of proof seems eminently sensible.
Complain about this comment
\\\ Paul Ehrlich as Hero - and Others ///
Aspersions have been cast on Dr. Paul Ehrlich from various quarters on this weblog.
Generally I don't like catering to the machinations of the lobby.
Since many denials of belonging to the lobby have also been made on this weblog - how if I mention a thing or two about Dr. Ehrlich which many of the infantile non-lobbyists might conveniently have forgotten, or are simply ignorant of?
======================
"The scientific discoveries described in this book may turn out, in a world lucky enough to continue its history, to have been the most important research findings in the history of science."
- Lewis Thomas, M.D., in the Foreward to "The Cold and the Dark - The World after Nuclear War," by Paul R. Ehrlich, Carl Sagan, Donald Kennedy, & Walter Orr Roberts (1984)
A quote from the preface is required, to balance out the equation:
"It is thus a direct responsibility of scientists in the Soviet Union and in the United States to make known to all people what great dangers would be posed by the starting of any kind of a nuclear conflict, in order to preclude the very possibility of a nuclear war, which undoubtedly would result in not just the dying out of the present civilization, but would threaten life as such on this beloved planet of ours."
- Alexander Kuzin, Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences
==========================
In case any non-members of the lobby missed it, the man heading up the team of twenty biologist in the summer of 1983 who were charged with the responsibility of further defining the effects of a nuclear exchange on the biosphere was Dr. Paul Ehrlich
I won't go into the details of the study, except to say they have been recently confirmed and actually found to have been too conservative, i.e., the effects of a nuclear exchange are even worse than originally envisaged in 1983/84.
Since we are dealing here on this weblog with both members of the lobby, and with a few infantile members of the public, I suppose an outright apology by say Brunnen_G or Canadian Rockies or Larry Kealey would be too much to ask.
But perhaps those members of the public who are not so infantile, or not members of the lobby, could pause for a moment and think back to those cold war days, and reflect that it was scientists on both sides of the Iron Curtain who first clearly elucidated the catastrophic consequences of a nuclear exchange between the United States of America and the former Soviet Union.
To these scientists, who undoubtedly braved the wrath of many members of their respective military members and rabid political 'patriots', I say:
Thank you
Manysummits
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #277
Mr B. wrote: "I have a theory about ethnic dislike. I think it's proportional to the degree to which a group can be said to have been "rescued from an aggressor"."
Golly! Looking at all the groups you profess dislike for (climate scientists, psychologists, environmentalists, covert religionists...), you must have been saved in an impressive number of rescues!
On the other hand, maybe its simply nonsense!
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #306 wrote: "I think I am quite open-minded".
If someone else said this, you'ld probably react along the lines that anyone who feels a need to claim this about themselves is probably anything but open-minded!
Complain about this comment
@300/303
Crikey, where to start...
You've said:
'By concrete proof, be rock solid evidence by whatever other term you are trying to trip me up over i am simply referring to the quality of the data itself.'
Come now, you're not simply referring to the quality of the data - you are making an implicit judgement about what constitutes an acceptable quality of data. You have used the terms:
'concrete proof'
'rock solid evidence'
'beyond all reasonable doubt'
'above reproach'
All of these imply that the standard of data that you are prepared to accept is terrifically high - and thus any other data is of no value. That is simply unreasonable and unscientific - and it is undoubtedly one of the most common denier methods (Bowman - ack'd that you have argued this point as well).
I conceive, design, commission, analyze, peer-review and publish environmental datasets for a living. They are all flawed in various ways - both in the dataset themselves and in the way that they get used. Environmental data is like that, because humans are like that, especially in relation to complex systems. That is not to say that any old rubbishy data is valid, just that the standard you seem to want to apply is unreasonably harsh.
No single one of these climate science datasets is in itself the killer argument - not least because they all have flaws. But because the datasets consistently line up in the same direction, reinforce each other and can be explained coherently by physical theory, then you start to build up the overwhelming evidence base we have for climate change.
As for your view that the strength of alternative hypotheses has no bearing on the current climate science, well I have to disagree. We have a series of changes to our world going on. No science explains these changes better than the increase in our atmosphere of greenhouse gases. Thus it seems to a rational mind that we had better take some notice of current climate science - not that it is perfect, but that it best fits the observed changes. If you believe that there are no changes happening, then fair enough - no hypothesis is required. But then you perhaps should provide some evidence (rock or concrete) that the world isn't changing. Because there seems to be a significant amount suggesting that it is.
Lorax
ps I don't really understand why I'm supposed to be up on a branch, but maybe it gives me a clearer view of all the trees - pieces of evidence - in the climate change forest.
Complain about this comment
308. At 1:46pm on 19 May 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:
#299 jr4412 wrote:
bowmanthebard: "You seem to be filled with dislike for the Americans.."
jr4412: "not per se, I dislike bullying and dishonest machination -- that's how I perceive US American politics/policies post-1900."
America is a democracy, and American people are the collective author of its politics/policies. If you don't like the latter, you probably don't like the former much either.
Personally, I am eternally grateful to America and Americans for the destruction of the Nazis, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the best art, science and philosophy of the last 100 years. Oh yeah -- and the protection of freedom of thought and expression that makes those things possible in the first place. God Bless America!
---------------------------------------------------
@Bowmanthebard
Well said.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@ 309.
a very good point. short answer i don't know, but i'd certainly agree that the onus is on those who support the theory- not those questioning it.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #308.
hoisted by your own petard -- again. sigh..
"Personally, I am eternally grateful .."
as you, the masterful user of exact definitions, know well, this is w/out value since no one has an 'eternity', in fact 'eternity' is very much a religious concept; surprising, given that for months you have been berating people on the blog for their alleged religious 'misconceptions'. "God Bless.." indeed.
in #277 you say "I have a theory..". to be frank, I'd been gobsmacked if there was any subject on which you do not; even when you talk right off the top of your head (as in the previous blog, your exchange with simon-swede, #67, #106, #109), you have 'an opinion'.
my own theory regarding you is this: sitting on the fence for too long has left you with a lot of splinters in a very sensitive place.
kindest regards.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I read on the BBC of very young children in India eating mud to stave off hunger pains while we in the west make fuel out of food. One of many reasons why the world needs some sort of professional administration above national governments to decide exactly what we may and what we may not do, leaving governments to deal with domestic issues such as the hosting the Olympic Games.
Complain about this comment
277. At 08:10am on 19 May 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:
#259 jr4412 wrote:
"having been raised in continental Europe"
You don't say!
I have a theory about ethnic dislike. I think it's proportional to the degree to which a group can be said to have been "rescued from an aggressor". For example, Irish hatred of Britain reached fever pitch after the Second World War. They wanted to look at Churchill as if he was "just like Hitler" -- pay attention manysummits -- but it involved a lot of cognitive dissonance, which emerged as hatred. You seem to be filled with dislike for the Americans, so I'm guessing that you belong to an ethnic group that has been "rescued" big time by the Americans. Are you French, peut-être?
---------------------------------------------------------------
I am guessing that he is an American. He probably lived in Germany as a kid (as I did) as a dependent of an American who was over there during the cold war.
I think he is just one of the ultra-left wing liberal America haters that we have here - and tolerate. If he lived in so many other places in the world - or had been to so many other places, perhaps he could appreciate the fact that he 'is allowed' to express himself and his irrational hatred for his own country.
Really sad if you ask me.
Kindest.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard
regarding the psychological complex apparent in the French regarding their hatred of Americans - you have to remember, this is a country with a war record of 0-13-1 - no wins, 13 losses and 1 tie - if you could call it that.
Interestingly enough, the French are now becoming the anti-muslim leaders of the world, they are banning the Burkka and trying to keep their country from becoming an Islamic State - want to make book on whether their 'war record' improves??
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@LabMunkey #303
In the absence of strong evidence on climate sensitivity any failure of alternatives to AGW is reminiscent of tossing a double headed coin. A few coin tosses won't really help the "double headed" argument. But many coin tosses with heads coming up each time might add weight to "double headed".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbInZ5oJ0bc&feature=related
Complain about this comment
#311 simon-swede wrote:
"On the other hand, maybe its simply nonsense!"
Just think of the deep affection people feel for those who are kind enough to lend them money -- or correct their mistakes!
Complain about this comment
DrBrianS #309.
"..de-industrialising."
surely the issue is re-tooling using up-to-date and appropriate technologies.
Complain about this comment
#311 simon-swede wrote:
"Looking at all the groups you profess dislike for (climate scientists, psychologists, environmentalists, covert religionists...)"
I suppose I shouldn't interrupt you when you're being jocose, but have I actually "professed dislike" for anyone at all? I routinely disagree with all of the above, but that doesn't mean I dislike them. If anything I have an affection for people I find interesting enough to disagree with.
Complain about this comment
#316 jr4412 wrote:
you say "I have a theory..". to be frank, I'd been gobsmacked if there was any subject on which you do not;
Yes, the word 'opinionated' often sprang to my teachers' lips in their descriptions of me. They meant "he has an opinion" when of course the pupil is supposed to not have an opinion.
Complain about this comment
@309
DrBrianS has suggested that the key question in our debate is
'who has the responsibility of supplying proof of AGW and how compelling should that proof be.
My own tuppenceworth is that it is up to the warmists.'
Can't say I agree. The responsibility for the climate scientists is to collect and analyse data, build the theoretical underpinnings and reach a conclusion WITHOUT PRECONCEIVED ANSWERS as to
a) whether there are changes happening to our climate,
b) what factors cause these changes (if any), and
c) what actions would limit the damaging aspects of such changes.
You say 'I'd like to be 100% certain'. In what other sphere of life do you get 100% certainty? My sparring partners will not let go of this idea that climate science is in a special category that demands utter certainty - 'beyond all reasonable doubt' as Lab Munkey put it. This is unscientific and unreasonable, and I maintain is standard denier methodology going right back to the tobacco/health wars.
Can I suggest that we all let go of the binary perspective of climate change/no climate change, warmists/coolists and so on? The science is not absolute, complete, static or uncertain. It is trying to explain a complicated system and the answers we are getting are significantly disturbing enough to suggest that action should be taken. There's a risk we might take action where none is needed - and as Bowman says, trigger a range of problems especially for the poor. On the other hand, there is a risk we might do nothing, and climate change will, er, trigger a range of problems especially for the poor.
A more productive approach might be to try to identify the easiest things to change, which currently seem to carry the highest risks. Stuff like insulating houses or providing sub-Saharan Africa with closed iron cooking stoves (to reduce black carbon, deforestation and illness) is a no-brainer, and yet isn't being done fast enough. It's also a no-brainer in my view to move away from our massive dependence on fossil fuels - for numerous reasons other than climate, like Kealey's tar balls.
What I'm trying to suggest is - why don't we discuss more the things we could agree on?
Lorax
Complain about this comment
@ lorax at #313
You are again, as is no doubt traditional by now, spectacularly missing the point, whether through some sort of blinkered cannon or by choice.
Again, let me try to make this as clear as I can so you can understand. I am not trying to hold climate science to a different standard than any of the other sciences (but, to be called a science it MUST meet the same levels). I am not writing off the data because it has slight issues here and there, I DO NOT expect it to be perfect- all data sets have problem- as you rightly pointed out.
My issue is that there are very clear, very worrying FUNDAMENTAL issues with the data. Data for which this whole theory is based upon.
Instead of trying to use generic terms and imply there is more evidence than there actually is (remember ‘peripheral data’ is not relevant, the world is undoubtedly changing- that is not the debate) try to respond to these two very important points, if you can.
The temperature data.
1-Are you, as someone who designs, carry’s out and peer-reviews experiments, happy with the state of the temperature data, and,
2-Are you and do you support the notion that the level of warming we are experiencing now is unprecedented.
It is pointless debating any of the other points with you until you can get around to answering these two questions as they affect the rest of the debate.
Let’s try specifics again. I have highlighted numerous issues relating to point 1, again, if so inclined would you care to explain, again as someone who designs, carry’s out and peer-reviews experiments why it is- for example perfectly legitimate to homogenise two geographically separated data sets, whilst using the error bars from one set only, for the whole spliced, data set.
Also, in your expert opinion, do you think it is valid to keep the data from moved stations/stations who’s surrounding land-use has changed in the data sets?
The issue is, people like yourself (and to tie in with my tree analogy) spend SO much time getting absorbed in every new piece of news- sea ice levels, lizard extinction, glacier melt, biodiversity drops etc that you forget just how this theory, how the whole AGW movement is structured.
Everything and I mean absolutely everything on the AGW theory hinges on the temperature and co2 relationship. Everything else is just noise. If, as I am trying to point out, the data on temperature is not good enough to allow, with any level of certainty, you to suggest the current warming is unnatural- then any causal link evaporates instantly. And with it the entire theory.
If you STILL cannot grasp that point, then I’d suggest you get a loved one to check on you periodically- lest you fall out of your tree.
To attempt another analogy: the AGW movement is attempting to pull itself up by it's braces- without realising it's feet aren't firnly on the ground.
Complain about this comment
#310 manysummits wrote: "Since we are dealing here on this weblog with both members of the lobby, and with a few infantile members of the public, I suppose an outright apology by say Brunnen_G or Canadian Rockies or Larry Kealey would be too much to ask. "
Way too much to ask. Can you guess why?
Firstly, I don't any need to apologise someone who insults people who do nothing more than disagree with him.
Nor do I feel any need to apologise for my remarks about Ehrlich or Gore. Both men have been proven to be alarmists willing to lie in pursuit of their goals.
Lastly, it takes an incredible amount of hubris to dismiss all those who disagree with your prophesies of doom as either 'members of the lobby' (paranoid much?) or 'infantile members of the public'.
Who do you think you are?
Complain about this comment
LarryKealey #320.
"regarding the psychological complex apparent in the French regarding their hatred of Americans.."
disappointment rather than "hatred" I'd say -- how would you feel if you'd gifted a young nation with a Statue of Liberty only to see the values she embodies trampled underfoot by subsequent administrations.
don't you say "America, land of the free"? and do you not have the highest proportion of prisoners per capita? do you not have more young black men under seventeen in prison than in college? did you not give us Guantanamo and extra-ordinary renditions?
liberty? where is she now?
Complain about this comment
Well, we are no longer discussing the IPCC, or the Hartwell Report, or Lester Brown's "Plan B 4.0", or Al Gore's "Our Choice," or even the brand new head of the UNFCCC.
Now I wonder how that happened?
- Manysummits -
PS: No apologies for the slurs on Paul Ehrlich - how surprising!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@Lorax
"I conceive, design, commission, analyze, peer-review and publish environmental datasets for a living. They are all flawed in various ways"
Sorry, but I think that you've hit the nail right on the head there.
That's simply not how the rest of us do science! In Areas where your data maybe a bit sketchy, drug trails for example, the burden of documentation and supporting work that's required to further bolster the case for the new drug is enormous.
An FDA submission is the culmination of years of work and fills a not terribly small room, almost floor to ceiling and that would be per drug/per authority.
Unless, you lot are able to provide similarly rigorous documentation and supporting information for each of your data sets, then you(the warmist collective) are basically the same as the man down the pub....
It simply beggars belief, that you can even type such a statement!
There are serious flaws in almost every data set you guys are using to support your case and there's also strong evidence of both manipulation and bias.
In any other field of scientific endeavour, the people responsible would have been run out town a long time ago!!!
This is simply not science, you might as well be using bones or Tarot cards.
Complain about this comment
#330 manysummits wrote: "No apologies for the slurs on Paul Ehrlich - how surprising!"
No apology due. I haven't said anything about him that can't be verified.
You just don't like one of your sacred cows being speared.
Complain about this comment
Been following these debates on Richard's blogs for several months now, but today i finally cracked and had to say something. Manysummits, please knock it off with your smug, think you know-it-all attitude, because you most certainly dont. Your insistence of being right about MMGW bares startling resemblence to that of a religious zealot, mocking naysayers, even though your ability to use LOGIC and REASON is inherrently flawed from the get go.
The science most certainly is not settled in any way shape or form, this is obvious because future temperature predictions are based on computer models, that SO FAR have not predicted anything correctly. Correlation does NOT equal causation, thats one of the basic principles that you should understand. There are so many other flaws in the whole MMGW theory i cannot possibly cover them all right now, but open your mind, and consider the ICE AGE for starters. We weren't involved then were we? CLIMATE CHANGES whether we are here or not doesnt it? MMGW proponents want to tell you its man made whether it gets warmer / colder whatever. You cant have it all ways, initially you said it was Global warming, so if the world has not warmed, then you are clearly WRONG both in your predictions, methods, and therefore understanding of the earth's vastly complex processes.
I have more to say, and will do soon.
Complain about this comment
294. JaneBasingstoke wrote:
@CanadianRockies #270
I was down the pub the other day and someone said that the longer an internet conversation went on the more likely it was to descend into Monty Python references. Which has obvious implications for anyone making such references instead of presenting an alternative argument.
-------
What you call "descend" I would call "ascend." Sometimes such references sum things up the best. References to the dead parrot skit are simpler that continuing with a pointless discussion that is going nowhere, and in which one side is twisting the other's comments, and is nicer than just saying that.
My parrot comment was in response to this:
#256. "I have yet to see any evidence that Mann's problems directly involve him with high finance. Or any evidence that his main opponents think him guilty of problems that you seem to allege."
OK. Let's look at the deceptive twisting here.
PART A. "I have yet to see any evidence that Mann's problems directly involve him with high finance."
I never said that. Here's what I did write in #160, replying to your #105, with your words in quotes:
"Goldman Sachs have been in the news with fraud allegations..."
Yes, and so has Mann and the IPCC.
---------
That is unequivocally true, period. These allegations have been in the news. So, where's my alleged statement that he was "directly involved with high finance" Jane? Only in your own mind.
---------
"And I remind you that the world of high finance is all about money and power."
Yes, and so is the IPCC and all its behind-the-curtains backers in the world of high finance.
---------
Well... I can't help it if you are so naive and ill informed not to understand this. And where's Mann in this statement? In your own mind.
---------
PART B. "Or any evidence that his main opponents think him guilty of problems that you seem to allege."
I would certainly 'allege' this simply because it is so obvious. But your trick here was to qualify this statement with "main opponents." Unfortunately that is false. It only applies to Steve McIntyre who, being Canadian, is too nice to call a spade a spade. I'm guessing he would rather use a Monty Python analogy.
In any case, what Mann's "main opponents" or any other people think is irrelevant to me. I think for myself.
Jane, when someone pulls slippery 'strawman' tricks in a discussion it is simpler to call parrot than bother going further. Its the Canadian way, particularly when the discussion has zero consequences in the real world.
Complain about this comment
275. HungeryWalleye wrote:
"96. CanadianRockies.
Your comment that what Goldman Sacks did was legal seems premature at best. From what I've heard, there is a criminal investigation on going along with the SEC civil investigation. Perhaps you would like to use a different analogy?"
Unfortunately, the big things they did were technically legal. So much for the laws. As for the SEC investigation, that will be as valid as the IPCC investigating themselves. The SEC watched them do it all, and did nothing. All part of the same club.
And don't get too fixated on just Goldman Sachs. They are just the visible scapegoat for the whole gang. And they were also the largest single contributor to Obama's campaign. BP was the biggest contributor of the Big Oil crowd. Hope that makes you feel better.
Complain about this comment
272. jr4412 wrote:
CanadianRockies #269.
"..world policeman? Who would you suggest should do that now if not the US? Who would you prefer, China or Russia?"
I think rational, grown-up people can do largely w/out 'policemen'.
if you take the time to dig back in the blogs (about a year ago) you'll find that I'm also in favour of doing away with nation states altogether.
------
The real and the ideal are two different things. In the real world we have basic human nature, complete with irrational behaviour, and Darwinian competition powered by the "selfish gene."
If you want a world without policeman,try that in your own hometown first and see how that goes.
As for your vision of a one world government, I guess you prefer giant faceless unaccountable self-serving bureaucracies over democracy. As for their effectiveness, think Rwanda.
Complain about this comment
Funny. There goes manysummits praising his hero Ehrlich again. Someday maybe he will provide us with one example of when he was actually correct in any of his doomsday predictions. Just one specific example would be nice.
P.S. #310 doesn't count. A sixth, third, first grader could warn about the consequences of nuclear war. And it wasn't a prediction in any case.
Complain about this comment
@ blunderbunny # 332 couldn't agree more.
at lorax #326. i would certainly agree that a pragmatic approach is warrneted. things like insulation etc, alternative feuls- all eminintley sensible.
Complain about this comment
DrBrianS #309.
further to #323, a concrete example:
shipping: re-inventing the sail
Complain about this comment
#329 jr4412 wrote:
"do you not have the highest proportion of prisoners per capita?"
On its own, a high incarceration rate doesn't imply a lack of freedom in a society. A high incarceration rate might be the result of more crime -- in which case imprisoning criminals augments the freedom of non-criminals (to walk the streets, etc.). There might conceivably be less crime in such a place, but a more efficient system for keeping criminals out of circulation. A high incarceration rate might also reflect a lower rate of other types of punishment -- from corporal to capital -- that remain routine outside of the West.
But of course the reality is that there is more crime in America. America is a big, mixed, open society with a lot of mobility and huge diversity of both ethnicity and creed. This mixed population share fewer values than most populations -- apart from respect for individual freedom and a healthy disrespect for authority -- including the authority of the executive branch of government. Life in the US is very different from life in a rural European village, say, where a large proportion of the villagers are related to each other, and "everyone knows what everyone else is doing".
It comes as "second nature" to Americans to stay out of other people's private lives if they feel their involvement isn't welcome. That can mean "stepping over the victim of a mugging" or ignoring the couple having a loud argument, but it can also mean a lot of privacy, and a guaranteed space in which individuals can conduct their own "experiments in living". Crime in America is like the trouble you find in an unruly classroom -- in many respects it's bad, but on the whole an unruly classroom is better than the opposite.
To bring this back "on topic", I think the theory of AGW is dying a death in both America and in Australia, for very similar reasons: both societies have that "healthy disrespect for authority" I mentioned above. They are "anti-clerical" societies, which nowadays pretty much means "anti-academic". That is one of the reasons why new ideas emerge from these societies more often than elsewhere.
Complain about this comment
The topic is the IPCC - that's shorthand for CO2 - Carbon Dioxide.
And the knives are out, the latest by the name of 'jeffvader.'
I almost ran over here to the library. The upper cloud deck here in Calgary speaks of Chinook, and the Arch is set up over the mountain front to be sure.
But the ground wind is intermittent from the North and Northwest, which speaks of - something else.
The air is unusually humid.
Connect the dots - weather coming?
==================================
Just as in the above physical case, there is something wrong here, on this weblog.
We have been deflected nicely from the issue of the IPCC & CO2, and more importantly, from the Hartwell Report, which thinks that the lack of real progress on CO2 emissions reductions is because our approach has been wrong, i.e., the IPCC - the reason the last leader Yvo de Boer left, etc...
I am all ears!
The People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth just finished last month with Ban Ki-Moon personally receiving Bolivian President Evo Morales, and Naomi Klein has filed her report on the event, which I recently linked to here.
The silence is deafening! The mainstream. 'business as usual,' democratic? media has seemingly forgotten their mantra about equal coverage??
And the lobby on this weblog has studiously remained silent too??
It is entirely clear where I stand, but I thought to bring in another voice:
"As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."
- Justice William O. Douglas
(1898-1980), U. S. Supreme Court Justice
from Naomi Wolf's book, "The End of America," (2007)
=========================
The Bolivian Conference is pretty radical - they believe the choice is between Capitalism - or our Shared Environment - Mother Earth, as they put it.
Now you'd think that would be worth a few lines by the Democratic Press, I mean, after all, it was a people's conference, and thirty-five thousand people took part, representing more than ~ two thirds of the countries on Earth!
As I work my way through Al Gore's new book, "Our Choice," this is what I think is going on - particularly after just finishing Lester Brown's "Plan B 4.0."
We have indeed been confronting global warming head on - and making precious little way. Between Al Gore's and Lester Brown's book there are revealed many and sundry ways that the problem of global warming and environmental destruction is being addressed in many many parts of the world. One tends to be optimistic after these reads.
But James Lovelock's "The Vanishing Face of Gaia - A Final Warning," paints a much grimmer picture, as does the book "Sea Sick - The World Ocean in Crisis," by award winning environmental reporter Alanna Mitchell. Tim Flannery from Australia, and Richard Leakey from Africa would be of the pessimistic camp, I think.
Then there are the others - James Hansen of the USA, Boris Worm from Nova Scotia, Paul Crutzen from Europe, Freeman Dyson from the US, Richard Alley from Pennsylvannia, Lonnie Thompson from the high mountains, etc etc ... virtually every national academy of science in the world, the Interacademy Panel on International Issues -
and still no reduction in CO2 emissions, even as the atmospheric level approaches 390 ppm, and the oceans continue to acidify.
What is going on here?
People are increasingly asking this question.
A little while ago I posted on Heroes
In the final pages of her book "Sea Sick," Alanna Mitchell asks:
Where will the heroes come from - how will they gather?
I am often accused of having heroes - Paul Ehrlich being the latest example.
But in thinking about it, and seeing how much is being done at the personal leval all around the world, from the books mentioned and elsewhere, I thought:
Some of the heroes have strange names indeed!
JR4412 for example, or Davblo, Ghostofsichuan, Lorax and SR and Rossglory, JaneBasigstoke and Sensiblegrannie, Simon-swede, Robert Lucien, and on and on and on...
While emissions continue to rise, and the lobby continues to successfully promote this trend, the heroes will multiply, and speak out, louder and louder.
I think I can finally answer Alanna Mitchells question:
The heroes are coming - from everywhere.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
How if we get back on track?
"After the crash - a new direction for climate policy"
- by Professor Mike Hulme
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
CanadianRockies #337.
nobody says it will be easy.
"In the real world we have basic human nature, complete with irrational behaviour, and Darwinian competition powered by the "selfish gene.""
capitalism (Anglo-Saxon-style) makes this situation worse because it primes people to compete against each other instead of with, the 'selfish gene' is given opportunity to express itself to the worst excesses.
surely you too can think of altenatives to this?
"As for your vision of a one world government, I guess you prefer giant faceless unaccountable self-serving bureaucracies over democracy."
given that only a relatively small percentage of humans benefit from the current setup, I think we should give it a try.
a univeral Bill of Human Rights would be a good start; why should your rights as a person depend on whether you were born in the US of A rather than, say, Saudi-Arabia?
also, do you not agree with rossglory (#290) "if there's one thing for certain, global problems will not be solved by 250+ nation states all fighting for their own interests."
"..think Rwanda."
all about money, as usual.
http://www.cellular-news.com/coltan/
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #341.
"A high incarceration rate might be the result of more crime.."
or of a surfeit of unsuitable legislation.
Complain about this comment
There's that shadowy 'lobby' again...
Who are these people? Do they have a newsletter? If I join them, do I get a cape and decoder ring?
Grow up manysummits. The Lobby you speak of so often only exists in your imagination.
And you're citing James Lovelock? Seriously?
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #341: "A high incarceration rate might be the result of more crime.."
jr4412 #345: "or of a surfeit of unsuitable legislation."
That's possible, but I wonder which bits of "unsuitable legislation" you have in mind with the real US? The entire US is currently up in arms about a bit of unsuitable legislation recent introduced in Arizona. The fact that this has created a huge stink speaks volumes about the various checks and balances that exist in US society.
Arguably, the UK has had a lot worse. And unquestionably, most continental European countries already have a lot worse. There's a law against minarets in Switzerland!
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #347.
"The entire US is currently up in arms about a bit of unsuitable legislation ... the UK has had a lot worse. And unquestionably, most continental European countries already have a lot worse."
sounds like an excellent argument for a global legislature, do you not think?
Complain about this comment
@327
Enough canards here to start a duck farm. Let's start with Lab Munkey's absurd assertion:
'Everything and I mean absolutely everything on the AGW theory hinges on the temperature (data) and co2 relationship. Everything else is just noise.'
What you're saying is that only the temperature record matters. So therefore ocean acidification, ocean temperature, glacier mass loss, sea ice volume and area loss, a whole rash of biological signals are 'just noise'. Nonsense. There are, as I've repeatedly said, a significant number of datasets - all imperfect, but all pointing in the same direction. What you are trying to do, once again, is set impossible and unscientific demands - this time by arguing that only one type of data is valid - and then that it cannot meet your impossible standards. The temperature data isn't perfect - duh - of course not - but the combination of redundancy (different systems) and clear trends do give me confidence. No doubt you'll seek to howl that view down - but you really do need see that data in the context of all the other data that supports and buttresses it.
Another trap you want me to fall into is the idea that the climate change we have seen is unprecedented. More quacking please. That is an irrelevance - we can learn from palaeoclimatology, but DIRECT comparison are spurious. CO2 levels were much higher during the Ordovician ice age - partly explained by a sun ~4% weaker than today. Apples and oranges.
Finally, I think your braces analogy needs work...or a humane death.
@332 - Blunderbunny
Your argument - 'That's simply not how the rest of us do science!' could perhaps do with a better example than drug trials - an area of science notorious for dodgy statistics, modification of samples to meet the requirements of those paying for the trial, and spurious press releases not backed up by data. Have a look at Ben Goldacre's Bad Science column for a depressing amount of this. You're wrong - this is exactly how science is done. Science comes with flaws, because it is carried out by humans. The reason we can have confidence in overall outcomes is when multiple threads of scientific enquiry all point in the same direction. Any single component isn't enough on its own and needs to be repeatedly tested through the peer-review process.
@334 - 'I have more to say, and will do soon.' Oh goody.
Lorax
Complain about this comment
340 jr4412 wrote:
"DrBrianS #309.
further to #323, a concrete example:
shipping: re-inventing the sail"
Not a new idea at all I'm afraid. There have been numerous examples of attempting to use sail power on cargo vessels over the last 30 years or so. The installation costs are very high and they are subject to damage requiring expensive replacement. None of the experiments have been successful.
In many ways the thinking resembles that behind electricity generation by windmills. A sentimental return to an earlier technology turning out to be hopelessly uneconomic.
I still wish them all luck as long as they're playing with their own money and not with ours.
As I said in an earlier blog, scientific arguments like AGW (or evolution or ozone layer holes or comets killing the dinosaurs) don't matter a fig until politicians get involved with their bottomless coffers filled by us.
The real damage from warming won't be to agriculture or from flooding or to polar bears. It will be the waste of resources that ambitious politicians scatter about like drunks on a spree.
A pity insufficient people voted for UKIP!
Complain about this comment
Brunnen_G #346: re James Lovelock
Is there anyone you won't attempt to trash?
Are you aware that it was James Lovelock who invented the super-sensitive instrument which enabled the detection of the hole in the ozone layer?
How about thanking him?
Or thanking Paul Ehrlich for heading up the team of biologists that worked on the 'nuclear winter' scenarios back in 1983?
Are you that small that you cannot give credit where credit is due?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
@349.
beautiful.
right, in order.
ocean acidification- insignificant, the pH change is shockingly small and we have evidence that sea life has survived, quicker, harseher changes. Though interestingly, this has more 'legs' as a negative side effect of co2 theory than global temperature rise does.
ocean temp- you're kidding me right? want to regail us on how sea temps are gathered? i'd be suprised if you actually knew.
glacier mass loss/sea ice loss/ sea ice volume. irrelevant as i've painfully and at length- pointed out. you are trying to use a symptom as proof of cause AGAIN. it doesn't work like that.
"There are, as I've repeatedly said, a significant number of datasets - all imperfect, but all pointing in the same direction"
but none of which provide any ACTUAL proof for the link.
and yes, i stand by my assertion, that if the temperature records cannot be tied to co2 levles (which they can't at present) then the theory is bust.
you so know what a falsafiable test is right? without it you DON'T have a theory.
"but you really do need see that data in the context of all the other data that supports and buttresses it."
and that is the main issue you seem to have. the gaping chasms in the data and the theory are all overlooked because we THINK everything else points to the same thing. Despite the repeated use of syptoms as proof of the link. You do actually realise the repeated mistakes you keep making with that right? seriously, our junior technicians wouldn't make that mistake.
"Another trap you want me to fall into is the idea that the climate change we have seen is unprecedented. More quacking please. That is an irrelevance - we can learn from palaeoclimatology, but DIRECT comparison are spurious. CO2 levels were much higher during the Ordovician ice age - partly explained by a sun ~4% weaker than today. Apples and oranges.
"
so, if by your own admission this climate change is not unprecidented, just how in whatever deity you care to invoke- do you know it's man made? the answer- quite plainly- is you don't.
And please- try to remember we are not arguing that the climate is changing- thats a simple pro-agw 'trick'- avoiding the specific questions by pointing at the general symptoms, we are agruing over the cause.
and on your final drugs-trial related point. you clearly have no idea what you are talking about, again. have you ever worked at trying to get a drug through even the pre-clinical regulations??
probably not, as you were too busy peer-reviewing shoddy work.
You, it seems, are one of these people who have already made their mind up and is now,desperatly trying to make the data fit.
it's also worth noting you didn't answer a SINGAL question i raised. another typical agw-er tactic. (see i can cast unwarranted dispersions too)
Complain about this comment
DrBrianS #350.
"The installation costs are very high.."
installation "..costs 5 million euros with a payback period of about 4 to 5 years."
"None of the experiments have been successful."
perhaps you should have read all of the article:
"The MV Beluga SkySails, a bulk carrier, was the first new-built ship equipped with Wrage's SkySails kite system. Since 2008, the giant kite has helped the vessel reach ports across Latin America, Africa and Asia."
there are also references to other technological changes which can improve efficiency.
Complain about this comment
Roger Harrabin (BBC) seems to have got upset that a non science journalist (James Delingpole - Telegraph) is speaking against AGW..
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100040219/only-morons-cheats-and-liars-still-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/
The irony is perhaps lost on Roger Harrabin (english grad - I believe)
Who is widely seem to be more of an advocate to AGW theory than an impartial BBC science/environment editor.
At the BBC, Michael Mann (IPCC 'hockey stick') just thought to call Richard Black, t find out what was going on, when Paul Hudson(BBC) dared to write an article about: Whatever happened to Globar warming...
I wonder if anybody at the conference, is now on the BBC's phone list.
Complain about this comment
from foi requests on appointing people to the Oxburgh, CRU enquiry.....
A bit like 'hide the decline'...
poor choices of words perhaps...
'warm up'
".....Ron is keen that they are “warmed up” by influential people rather than us inviting them cold. Martin Rees is asking Ralph Cicerone (President NAS) to approach the Americans, Brian Hoskins will approach Huw Davies, Ron himself is talking to Kelly and Huppert.
I wonder if you would be prepared to “warm up” David Hand – on the basis that you know him and you suggested him!
We are most keen, if at all possible, that we can hit the April 6/7/8 window and I’m sure you will be very persuasive in convincing him that this is an important job for science, etc......"
http://climateaudit.org/2010/05/19/warming-up-the-oxburgh-inquiry/#more-10977
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/5/19/the-idea-of-oxburgh.html
Complain about this comment
May in Britain has started cold with temperatures down to minus 6 degrees and May skiing in the Cairngorms.
The late Spring follows on from a winter that was the coldest for 30 years, a summer in 2009 that was cool and wet and a 2008/2009 winter that was the coldest in 13 years.
True believers in recent months have taken comfort from the tropical Pacific which in the middle of a strong El Nino has shown record warmth. But now the El Nino is rapidly dying and even that shred of comfort is fast being taken away.
Polar sea ice areas in both north and south are pretty near the long term average and it now appears for example that the reported 0.9 degree warming last century reported by IPCC for New Zealand was caused by a mix up in an undergraduate thesis and that in reality there has been no warming there at all in the past 130 years.
It doesn't really matter what Pachauri's forecast for Himalayan glaciers may be or how many self serving reviews may say the science is sound. There is now a steady drip of incontrovertible fact that gives lie to the IPCC message. Sooner or later this will destroy it.
Complain about this comment
Oh no! Looks who's in the diabolical "Lobby"!
Shock: Green Guru Lovelock warms to skeptics! 'The skeptics have ...James Lovelock -- formerly the world's number one leading global warming fear promoter -- is now praising climate skeptics! What a difference 3 years makes. ...
www.climatedepot.com/.../Shock-Green-Guru-Lovelock-warms-to-skeptics-The-skeptics-have-kept-us-saneThey-have-kept-us-from-regarding-climate-...
------------
James Lovelock on Ozone hole science: 'We should have been warned ...'Something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done' -- Environmental news and analysis.
www.climatedepot.com/.../James-Lovelock-on-Ozone-hole-science-We-should-have-been-warned-by-the-CFCozone-affair-because-the-corruption-...
------------
Green Guru James Lovelock: Humans are too stupid to prevent global ...Lovelock on Climategate: Scandal left him feeling 'utterly disgusted' -- 'Fudging the data in any way whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the holy ...
www.climatedepot.com/.../Green-Guru-James-Lovelock-Humans-are-too-stupid-to-prevent-global-warming--Urges-putting-democracy-on-hold-for-...
Complain about this comment
#344. jr4412 - Let's just say we disagree. I can't think of anything worse than the global government view you suggest.
Aside from what that would inevitably be - a global serfdom ruled by a global elite - I prefer cultural diversity over cultural monocultures for the same reason that I favour biodiversity over biological monocultures. More stability in the long run.
And who is to say which culture is better?
As for capitalism, we really don't have that but what we do have is the worst system except for all the other ones. Since I believe in evolution I like competition and accept its consequences.
P.S. I do greatly admire France for going so wholeheartedly into nuclear power.
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #335
OK. I didn't twist your posts. There have been misunderstandings on both sides.
And now, six posts later, things are tangled.
CanadianRockies #85
You flag up the story about Mann's PhD
JaneBasingstoke #86
I comment it was grubby but legal
CanadianRockies #88
You make the Goldman Sachs comparison
JaneBasingstoke #92
I complain this is too extreme
CanadianRockies #96
You emphasise the similarities and claim "the public doesn't really care about such technicalities"
JaneBasingstoke #105
I remind you of the Goldman Sachs fraud allegations and bring up the relationship of high finance, money and power to Goldman Sachs. I again complain your comparison is too extreme.
[Up to this point in the argument the argument has been whether or not it is fair to compare Mann's flaws to Goldman Sachs'.]
CanadianRockies #160
You remind me of the fraud allegations against Mann and against the IPCC. You make comments about the IPCC being involved in high finance and therefore money and power. You also make it plain that you have less issues with carbon traders than Mann.
JaneBasingstoke #231
[This is the comment where the misunderstandings crept in.]
[I am upset. #160 appears to link Goldman Sachs's very worst flaws to Mann as if he were guilty of them. A naive reader could read #160 and think Mann was involved in high finance and a fraud investigation into high finance. This has been achieved by talking about Mann + IPCC instead of just Mann, and by the continuing comparisons with Goldman Sachs. And I thought perhaps you, CanadianRockies, might actually think that Mann is directly involved in high finance and that is why you have problems with Mann.]
[In response to the #160 introduction of references to the IPCC in an argument about Mann]
Superficially it looks like you've run out of sins to pin on Mann so you're padding your argument with references to the IPCC.
[In response to the #160 comment about Goldman Sachs, Mann and the IPCC all being investigated for fraud]
There's a big difference between the fraud investigations of Mann and the fraud investigations of Goldman Sachs. Mann's opponents have denounced the fraud investigations of Mann. The same is not true of Goldman Sachs.
[In response to the #160 comment being used to introduce the IPCC and therefore high finance into an argument that had just been about Mann's flaws]
Any relationship between high finance and the IPCC does not directly involve Mann. I remind you that Hockey Sticks are neither a key part of the AGW case nor anything to do with high finance nor liable to hurt the economy or jobs.
CanadianRockies #251
[Misunderstandings. You think I am deliberately twisting your post.]
You complain about my defence of Mann over high finance.
JaneBasingstoke #256
[Continuing misunderstandings. I think you are defending a Mann high finance link]
I reply that I don't believe Mann is involved in high finance.
CanadianRockies #270
[Continuing misunderstandings. You still think I am deliberately twisting your post.]
Your Python reference
JaneBasingstoke #294
[Continuing misunderstandings. I still think you are defending a Mann high finance link]
I make a comment about your Python reference.
CanadianRockies #335
You clarify what you found wrong with my #231
PS I hope you see that your Python quote didn't help in this situation.
Complain about this comment
CanadianRockies #358.
"..that would inevitably be - a global serfdom ruled by a global elite .."
ghastly, eh? much better to be a serf ruled by a local elite?
global has many advantages: no more tax evasion, no more 'flags of convenience', no more cheap labour in 'developing countries', etc, etc.
"I prefer cultural diversity over cultural monocultures.."
as do I; one body of law for all humans does not mean cultural differences would disappear, in fact I think regional identities would become more important.
"Let's just say we disagree."
ok.
Complain about this comment
"It is not possible to have a "climate policy" that has emissions reduction as the all-encompassing and driving goal."
- Professor Mike Hulme (of The Hartwell Report)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8673828.stm
=============================
"The IPCC - friend or foe?", asks Richard Black:
"Asked if it was time for the UN to look at ways to control the climate other than by enforcing tough cuts in carbon emissions, Ms Figueres re-iterated that emissions will remain the focus of her efforts. (my emphasis)
But she did suggest it was wrong to devote all political attention to curbing harmful gases, saying efforts to help countries adapt to a changing climate had become "relegated to the side, and need to come to the centre and front".my emphasis)
- Christiana Figueres, new head of the UN Climate Convention
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10122639.stm
Mike Hulme on adaptation:
"Adaptation policies should be un-tethered from those focused on decarbonisation.
And the long-promised commitment of industrialised nations to commit 0.7% of national wealth to meeting the development needs of the poor should be honoured.
Just this one action alone would swamp the miserly amounts of money being offered under the Copenhagen Accord." (see link at the top of the post)
===========================
There are three primary goals in the Hartwell Report:
1) Access:
"Energy policy should focus on securing reliable and sustainable low-cost supply, and, as a matter of human dignity, attend directly to the development demands from the world's poorest people, especially their present lack of clean, reliable and affordable energy." (Mike Hulme - article)
2) Sustainability:
"Fossil carbon emissions contribute only about 45% of the human forcing of the climate system.
We should not allow the difficulty of decarbonising energy technologies to hold hostage moves for addressing the other 55%." (Mike Hulme)
3) Adaptation:
"All societies - rich and poor - are mal-adapted to climate to varying degrees - for example, where expensive buildings are located on flood plains, or human settlements right on the shoreline." (Mike Hulme)
=======================
Discussion:
I don't see a lot of common ground here. Only on adaptation is there some agreement.
Here is my take.
The IPCC is not primarily a scientific body. It's science comes largely from volunteer experts. And Ms Figueres looks to me like 'business as usual' in the IPCC sense.
I would like the science presented by the Interacademy Panel on International Issues. They have proven able to tackle difficult and complex issues as a body, and their statements are short and to the point.
We need the IPCC as they are the United Nations middle-man between science and policy, and we need the United Nations.
We also need reform of the United Nations.
The Millenium Development Goals of the United Nations can bridge the current gap between the disparate views listed and excerpted above.
The committments to fund the United Nations are not being met. Meeting them would provide the money, the Hartwell initiatives would provide the 'reformed' framework for the IPCC, and at the same time see the full meeting of the Millenium Development Goals.
As a contingent benefit, as pointed out in the forty-two page Hartwell Report, the emission of CO2 would begin to drop.
That's why the lobby won't touch this report with a ten foot pole.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To JR4412:
I believe in the United Nations JR!
I always have - it's a feeling.
Good hunting,
Manysummits
Complain about this comment
@Lorax
Sorry mate, but you obviously don't know what you're talking about. Science and it's practice has long been set out via the scientific method. Hopefully, you’ve at least heard of it? I'll happily let you call it what’s currently going on 'Climate Mucking About a bit' or even 'Climate Studies', but you can't call it ‘Science’ until your guys start practicing it.
I recommend just googling 'The Scientific Method', looking it up on wiki or perhaps you could just take a Remedial Science course.
As to your point about peer-review process, that's merely the process that's used to weed out the both the misguided and the absolute and complete idiots - Think of it as slightly more intelligent spell checking, it's not an absolute test of the veracity and accuracy of your work.
With regards to drug trails, you seem not to have noticed that you’re actually making my point for me (Thanks for that, by the way):
"drug trials - an area of science notorious for dodgy statistics, modification of samples to meet the requirements of those paying for the trial, and spurious press releases not backed up by data."
This is precisely why the burden of supporting evidence and information required for a new drug is so large – because some of the data involved might not be that cast iron, because there are dishonest individuals, because people just make mistakes, because it’s a Friday afternoon and I just want to go home etc etc.
Given the number of life saving and safe drugs on the market, it does seem to generally work doesn’t it?
And, on the rare occasion where it doesn’t work, the process itself is re-evaluated and changed if required, the result of which is a continually improving process.
If your side of the argument want to conduct yourselves as per the drug discoverers of this world and to submit their research on a par with a new drug submission, then you’d be pleased to know that I’ll happily let you call yourselves scientists as loudly and as many times as you like ;-)
By the way, Fraud is Fraud in any arena. An inaccurate FDA submission, can not only lead to serious contraindications, it can also lead to deaths (the ultimate contraindication).
Normally, criminal charges and Law suits.... Oh so many, expensive Law suits.... would soon follow.....
So, are you up for the challenge – Are you ready to put the Science, back in Climate Studies?
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #357
Excellent Post.... A certain Mr. Summits is really, really going to love you :-)
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
"The topic is the IPCC - that's shorthand for CO2 - Carbon Dioxide."
Actually, I think you'll find that it's longhand.... It's 4(IPCC) characters, rather than 3(CO2) ;-)
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Regards,
One of the Lobby
Complain about this comment
manysummits #362.
"I believe in the United Nations.."
the concept, yes, me too.
the crooks and fat cats will need to be named and flushed out though before the UN can fulfill its mission, a long way to go.
----------<snip>----------
This is a public service announcement
With guitar
Know your rights all three of them
Number 1
You have the right not to be killed
Murder is a CRIME!
Unless it was done by a
Policeman or aristocrat
Know your rights
And Number 2
You have the right to food money
Providing of course you
Don't mind a little
Investigation, humiliation
And if you cross your fingers
Rehabilitation
Know your rights
These are your rights
Know these rights
Number 3
You have the right to free
Speech as long as you're not
Dumb enough to actually try it.
Know your rights
These are your rights
All three of 'em
It has been suggested
In some quarters that this is not enough!
Well..............................
Get off the streets
Get off the streets
Run
You don't have a home to go to
Finally then I will read you your rights
You have the right to remain silent
You are warned that anything you say
Can and will be taken down
And used as evidence against you
The Clash 'Know Your Rights'.
Complain about this comment
#359 - No, actually I don't. That said, enough said.
Complain about this comment
Correction!
Actually I think it was James Lovelock's instrument for detecting CFC's that was so sensitive - bit of a hurry there.
And speaking of Mr. Lovelock, and the blunderbunny 364 re Rockies 357:
I read that whole article - very good indeed!
I think I am in broad agreement with Mr. Lovelock except for the part about putting democracy on hold. Actually I don't like nuclear either, or the concept of lifeboats.
But I can agree with him on many points. I have never been able to warm up to the IPCC, despite valiant attempts.
What I think in that regard is in post #361.
Having read an awful lot this last year and a half on our collective limits to growth, on our planetary boundaries, on global warming, there are indeed camps of thinking.
No one person or book or institution appears to have a pat answer.
It seems to me the complexity students are as close to truth as anyone - the planet and its inhabitants are some type of system - and we an integral part.
Together we create the future, and what appears is 'emergent,' with a life and agenda of its own - unknowable - an eternal mystery.
This view does not free we 'agents' from acting, however.
So we do our best, and the struggle between the forces arrayed on either side is the stuff of legend and poetry.
Waxing a little philosophical there, on a Wednesday evening in Calgary,
Manysummits
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #367
I misunderstood your #270 post. Hence "didn't help".
I understood your #335 post. Your #335 post fixed my misunderstandings.
I spent a lot of time on my #359. At one point I had five windows open on this web page all at different positions. My #359 is not intended as a point scoring post, it is an attempt to fix misunderstandings.
However I did forget to apologise for my misunderstandings and my appalling #231.
Sorry.
Complain about this comment
@Yorkurbantree #265
(@CanadianRockies)
My #231 was awful.
I grossly misinterpreted CanadianRockies. I have had to apologise. Please see his #335 and my #359.
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #335
Most of Mann's main opponents actually denounce Cuccinelli's approach
Stephen McIntyre at Climate Audit
Steven Mosher (CRUtape Letters co-author) in Climate Audit comments
http://climateaudit.org/2010/05/02/cuccinelli-v-mann/
Note, I can't find an opinion by Ross McKitrick on Cuccinelli's behaviour.
Jeff Id at Air Vent
Ryan O at Air Vent
(both contribute Hockey Stick critiques to Climate Audit)
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/05/03/cuccinelli-v-mann/
Thomas Fuller (CRUtape Letters co-author)
http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m5d2-Global-warming-Open-letter-to-Virginia-District-Attorney-Kenneth-Cuccinelli
However you are in luck. My statements in earlier posts are wrong. One of Mann's main opponents, Doug Keenan, does appear to approve of the fraud investigation.
(scroll down to 2nd comment)
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/5/7/grilled-cuccinelli.html
Seems to be the exception that proves the rule. Perhaps the others don't like the implication of flawed science = grant fraud.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/varied-critics-assail-official-probing-climate-scientist/?emc=eta1
Complain about this comment
30. At 2:00pm on 15 May 2010, manysummits wrote: "... All of the IPCC GCMs are linear extrapolations."
Hi, ManySummits,
nice to be back to real world issues after the UK elections.
Can you check an earlier posting of mine on mathematical modelling of catastrophic climate change conditions (GeoffWard posting history).
I think you will find there is a whole science of non-linear investigations of climate change.
Geoff.
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #357
(@blunderbunny)
(@manysummits)
Lovelock is not endorsing all sceptics.
That full "sane" quote (14 March)
"I think you have to accept that the sceptics have kept us sane — some of them, anyway,” he said. “They have been a breath of fresh air. They have kept us from regarding the science of climate change as a religion. It had gone too far that way. There is a role for sceptics in science. They shouldn’t be brushed aside. It is clear that the angel side wasn’t without sin."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7061020.ece
More in depth (29 March)
"What I like about sceptics is that in good science you need critics that make you think: "Crumbs, have I made a mistake here?" If you don't have that continuously, you really are up the creek. The good sceptics have done a good service, but some of the mad ones I think have not done anyone any favours. Some of them, of course, are corrupted and employed by oil companies and things like that. Some even work for governments. For example, I wouldn't put it past the Russians to be behind some of the disinformation to help further their energy interests. But you need sceptics especially when the science gets very big and monolithic."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock
Complain about this comment
106. At 10:24am on 17 May 2010, bowmanthebard wrote: "This is why the precautionary principle is important."
The precautionary "principle" is a bit of conceptually confused political garbage masquerading as something simple and basic.
No one who has given any thought to the rationality of action would ever appeal to this half-baked lump of pure hokum.
==============
There are a few thousand barrels of crude washing around in the Bay of Mexico - I guess the coastal folks are wrong in taking barrier precautions - just in case.
These is a big-ass volcanic ash cloud snaking around the Atlantic and adjacent continents - I guess the airlines were wrong to stay on the ground until its movements are plotable and able to be predicted.
Supermarket food spoils at a mean rate per product - I guess the food scientists are wrong to allow a contingency when setting Sell-by Dates.
The Precautionary Principle is all around us all the time; AGW is just another area of sensible application.
Really, bowman, if you want to twist a tail or set a hare running you can do a bit better than this - you usually do!
Nice to be back after the Election-posting season, Geoff.
Complain about this comment
#351 manysummits wrote: "Is there anyone you won't attempt to trash?"
Lovelock effectively trashed himself with his Gaia theory nonsense. He repaired some of the damage he did to his reputation with his work on the ozone hole, but then became nothing more than a joke with his outlandish claim that by 2100 80% of humanity would be dead and life would only exist in the Arctic circle.
At least he's learned his lesson regarding his gibberish. This time he won't be alive to be laughed at when his predictions fail to materialise.
Complain about this comment
Brunnen_G #375: re James Lovelock
"outlandish claim that by 2100 80% of humanity would be dead and life would only exist in the Arctic circle."
===================
We're all hoping he is wrong, aren't we Brunnen?
Trouble is - he's one of our best scientists - a genius of the first rank.
I doubt very much you and I are in that category, but unlike you, I try and give credit where credit is due.
You sound scared Brunnen.
- Manysummits
Complain about this comment
\\\ Dark Mountain ///
George Monbiot - "Money's Hunger; May 10, 2010
"So the Dark Mountain project, whose ideas are spreading rapidly through the environment movement, is worth examining. It contends that “capitalism has absorbed the greens”(6). Instead of seeking to protect the natural world from the impact of humans, the project claims that environmentalists now work on “sustaining human civilisation at the comfort level which the world’s rich people – us – feel is their right.”"
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/05/10/moneys-hunger/
==========================
I can hardly describe the amount of information I have been trying to absorb these last six weeks or so. It's like a fever.
Of a sudden, reading George Monbiot's piece - a flash of light.
Absolutely!
As Mr. Monbiot points out, something struck him as fundamentally true as well. Then George goes on to point out the flaws in the Dark Mountain case, etc... Well worth it to read his full piece for yourselves.
However, I read revisionist history.
A few quotes from one of my favorite writers, Ronald Wright, author of "Stolen Continents," of "A Short History of Progress," of:
\\\ "What is America?" /// (2008)
"The history of the United States is not the story of triumphant anti-imperial heretics. It is the account of the power of empire as a way of life, as a way of avoiding the fundamental challenge of creating a humane and equitable community or culture."
- William Appleman Williams, 1980 [Chapter 8]
"The end of the world begins not with the barbarians at the gate, but with the barbarians at the highest levels of state."
- Ben Okri, 2003 [Chapter 9]
=======================
Discussion:
I watched a film on the windmills in Germany the other night - I saw the Canadian firm who couldn't get anything in the way of encouragement from the Canadian government to build a new type of solar panel - so Germany said: "Come here and build them", and they did. (We Canadians apparently prefer the Tar Sands approach)
The Hartwell Report is speaking to all of these issues at the same time I think, whether this was the intention or not I do not know.
But I know the truth when I see it - and the truth is very much in evidence in the above quotations.
I could list a dozen more, from Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy ... but the moderators probably wouldn't like that.
"The message is written on the subway walls" sing Simon and Garfunkel, and in Cochobamba, Bolivia!
I still have hope that we will abandon this non-civilized way of life, and become, for perhaps the first time - worthy.
Actions speak louder than words.
Many affluent nations owe the United Nations the arrears for the 0.7 % of GNI they have committed to.
Where is it?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
GeoffWard at #374
I agree with you that the Precautionary Principle is a useful guide when dealing with uncertainties. Bowman denounces it as hokum, but typically before doing so he hasn't bothered to try and understand what it is or isn't in practice.
Complain about this comment
#369 - JaneBasingstoke - Thanks but no need for any apologies. Sometime things get off track and seem to be going nowhere, and on blogs it just takes too long to clarify everything so...
And, anyhow, its the Canadian thing to apologize for anything/everything so I apologize too for misunderstanding what you meant.
To quote an unnamed source... Always look on the bright side of life, ta dum, ta dum de dum ta dum.
#371 - If you look at WUWT's coverage of that Heartland's conference, not many are as charitable as McIntyre. Me neither.
#373 - Those Lovelocks links were primarily for the benefit of Mr. Summits. I think this was his most significant statement:
"They have kept us from regarding the science of climate change as a religion."
Unfortunately for many it has become one.
And I must say I was rather amazed by his comments on the great ozone scare. I had never thought to even question that one.
Complain about this comment
In response to requests from congress, the US National Academies' National Research Council (NRC) has produced 3 reports on climate change.
The three reports are:
- Advancing the Science of Climate Change
- Limiting the Magnitude of Future Climate Change
- Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change
In a nut-shell, the message from the NRC is: "The world's climate is changing, humans are causing it, and the United States should put a price on carbon soon to stanch emissions of the greenhouse gases responsible."
See: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/05/three-academy-reports-urge-clima.html?etoc
Complain about this comment
@simon-swede #380
no matter how often the "message" is repeated, without evidence that climate sensitivity is high, there is still no reason to assume CO2 is the primary driver of global warming
/Mango
Complain about this comment
#374 GeoffWard wrote:
There are a few thousand barrels of crude washing around in the Bay of Mexico - I guess the coastal folks are wrong in taking barrier precautions - just in case.
You don't have to embrace "the precautionary principle" to be cautious. My point is that the precautionary principle is a bit of political twaddle masquerading as a basic principle. People rightly think we should be cautious, but mistakenly think we have to "buy" the "principle" to exercise caution in a rigorous manner.
That's the main reason I hate "the precautionary principle". It's an attempt to "take people in".
I have repeatedly said that there is no political "con job" to use AGW as a ruse to raise taxes. But "the precautionary principle" is an intellectual con job.
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK at #381
I didn't say anything about how the NRC reached its conclusions, just that they had. It is worth noting that the NRC reports draw from the past 5 years of research that was completed too late to be included by IPCC. If you want to look at the how, have a look at the reports. And it may help some that the NRC panels included many who were not involved in the last IPCC process.
Complain about this comment
#378 simon-swede wrote:
I agree with you that the Precautionary Principle is a useful guide when dealing with uncertainties.
We don't need to appeal to "the precautionary principle" it when judging how best to deal with risk. A much simpler strategy is simply to compare the expected values of various courses of action:
expected value = likelihood of achieving goal X desirability of goal
This assumes ideal circumstances in which numbers can be assigned to the two "quantities" to get their product -- which is an oversimplification, but you get the basic idea. I think Occam's Razor favours this approach.
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #384
Like many of your hypothetical examples, it is over-simplification and one that is inadequate in the real world.
However, if one considers your equation, the precautionary principle is intended to guide decision makers where the expected value is not able to be estimated because of the uncertainties in one or both factors.
Complain about this comment
Brunnen_G #375: "outlandish claim that by 2100 80% of humanity would be dead and life would only exist in the Arctic circle."
manysummits #376: "We're all hoping he is wrong, aren't we Brunnen?"
Include me out -- I only hope for or against scenarios that I regard as genuine possibilities. But pretending for a moment that this is a genuine possibility, we need more information to judge whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. If the "80% of humanity" that is presumed dead in 2100 all die at a ripe old age of natural causes, isn't fewer humans a good thing for the planet?
Your immediate assumption that it's a bad thing shows that you're thinking about groups instead of about individuals. But groups don't matter -- they're not sentient, and they don't have interests.
manysummits #376: "You sound scared Brunnen."
This might be a case of "projection"!
Complain about this comment
i'd just like to highlight post # 356 from bandythebane
it reiterates (and expands) on a point i've made quite a few times already in this thread-
namely the 'wrong' (lets be kind) data from New Zealand.
All the new Zealand data, that was used to extrapolate the temperature rises in the whole region (including covering australia) has been shown to be 100% wrong. There was 'supposed' to have been a steady and incontrovertable warming in the country- traceable for over 100 years.
It now turns out (after digging in the raw data, that we had to be fought tooth and nail to get released) that that is simply not the case. NZ has not warmed significantly in over 130 years.
All the data submitted to the IPCC and thus, ALL the subsequent work/models performed on it are wrong.
This is not something that can just be dismissed as a 'mistake', or as a triviality. This shows, a statistically significant section of the globe has not performed as the IPCC have claimed even BEFORE they began their predictions.
This, to explain for non-scientists, is an exceptionally serious matter. It's akin to finding out that (to use the drug trail example) that someone has falsified clinicla trial results (which you can actually go to prison for).
As far as i'm aware the source of the (major, repeated and compunded) error(s) has not been found. Bandy alluded to the data being confused with a postgrads or something of that ilk.
If that is the best they can come up with- that the entire data records for an entire country were 'confused' with a postgrad research paper, and then submitted to a UN appointed institution for (arguably) one of the most important 'reviews' of our time (assuming AGW was true natch#). Then i think it is clear just what the state of climate 'science' is; pathetic.
Lorax- i'd LOVE to see you try and defend this little gem.
Complain about this comment
#385 simon-swede wrote:
if one considers your equation, the precautionary principle is intended to guide decision makers where the expected value is not able to be estimated because of the uncertainties in one or both factors.
That is exactly the case with both approaches. But my approach is honest, in that it wears its fuzziness on its sleeve, and "the precautionary principle" approach is dishonest. Perhaps the most dishonest thing about it is its appeal to the "consensus of scientists" -- as usual without giving anyone the slightest idea of who counts as a "scientist". -- Tom Cruise? John Travolta? Mary Baker Eddy?
Complain about this comment
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/19/tom-karls-senate-dog-and-pony-show-its-worse-than-we-thought-again/#more-19692
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/19/tom-karl%e2%80%99s-ghcn3-trends-are-wrong-at-least-in-slide-21/#more-19733
while we're on the subject..
Complain about this comment
@ 388
it's also the absurd notion that a consensus of scientists ACTUALLY means anything too. Being in the majority doesn't gaurantee that you are right, far from it- especially in science.
Complain about this comment
#385 simon-swede wrote:
"Like many of your hypothetical examples, it is over-simplification and one that is inadequate in the real world."
My last point was rather subtle, so I'll try to make it again in slightly different words:
Inasmuch as we are unable to assign numerical values to the desirability of our competing goals or to the confidence with which we can hope to achieve them, there is no fact of the matter about how much we ought to act to achieve them.
This is a familiar problem in philosophy. Language is a much finer-grained medium than thought itself. So we routinely put more detail than we are entitled to put into our descriptions of our thoughts. For example (from Daniel Dennett) I'd like "some" beans on toast. But I do not specifically want exactly 137 beans on toast.
When we cannot have exact estimates, we should be honest about it and admit that the best we have is inexact. The worst thing we can do is disguise the inexactitude by pretending we have exactitude. That is a depressingly familiar habit of proponents of AGW.
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #388
In fact the opposite is true. The precautionary principle was developed and applied precisely to counter the failings of the approach you describe. Your approach hides the inherent fuzziness by claiming to be able to calculate an 'expected value' where this is in fact inderterminate because of the uncertainties. The more you write your opinion about the precautionary principle, the more it becomes apparent that you have no experience of its actual formal application in decision-making in environmental contexts.
As for the consensus in science line - neither I nor the precautionary principle make an appeal to such a claim.
I reiterate, in the actual application of the precautionary principle, uncertainties are made explicit and highlighted in the decision-making process - as are the values and assumptions used in making judgements.
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #391
"Inasmuch as we are unable to assign numerical values to the desirability of our competing goals or to the confidence with which we can hope to achieve them, there is no fact of the matter about how much we ought to act to achieve them. ... When we cannot have exact estimates, we should be honest about it and admit that the best we have is inexact. The worst thing we can do is disguise the inexactitude by pretending we have exactitude."
My point exactly - it is exactly for these contexts that the precautionary principle was developed and has been applied in practice.
Complain about this comment
#393 simon-swede wrote:
it is exactly for these contexts that the precautionary principle was developed and has been applied in practice.
But then all it does is say "take the advice of the majority of scientists" -- without making any distinction between scientists and pseudo-scientists. (This is where proponents of AGW always seem completely illiterate.) And it is emphatically not a principle. It nothing more than a politically biased appeal to authority. So it has no business calling itself a "principle". That is just a political trick for fooling people who don't have the critical faculties to see through it.
Complain about this comment
#392 simon-swede wrote:
The more you write your opinion about the precautionary principle, the more it becomes apparent that you have no experience of its actual formal application in decision-making in environmental contexts.
As far as I am concerned, environmentalism is an anti-liberal religion masquerading as "science", so it's hardly any wonder I'm not interested in those "decision-making contexts". (Big words -- "fast lane stuff", no doubt!) I imagine most of the decisions made are completely misguided and stupid.
Why don't you demonstrate the magnificent decision-making powers of "the precautionary principle" by applying it to the real-life example I gave yesterday? (I need milk for my son's cereal, but if I drive to the shop I might get killed in a road accident.)
Complain about this comment
A paper in Nature this week argues that there is clear evidence for warming in data for global upper ocean 1993-2008 temperatures, in spite of considerable uncertainties arising from the "messy data".
For a description, see "Global change: The ocean is warming, isn't it?" (Nature, v465, p304, 20 May 2010), for the full paper, see Lyman et al "Robust warming of the global upper ocean"(Nature, v465, p334-337, 20 May 2010).
In connection with the preceding discussion, it is perhaps worth emphasising that the paper is explicit about the uncertainties and the limits to their analysis.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #391: "Inasmuch as we are unable to assign numerical values to the desirability of our competing goals or to the confidence with which we can hope to achieve them, there is no fact of the matter about how much we ought to act to achieve them. [...]"
simon-swede #393: "My point exactly"
But it simply cannot be your point exactly, because if there is no fact of the matter about how much we ought to act, anything that decisively tells us how to act is simply making things up. Its decisiveness is an illusion. The "detail" it adds must be artifactual rather than real.
By analogy, Shakespeare doesn't specify whether Hamlet had a sister. So there is no fact of the matter as to the colour of her hair. If you come along with a clever-looking device that says "Hamlet's sister had blond hair", it's just making things up. It's generating nothing but lies.
If our condition -- or the human condition -- is one of uncertainty as well as unclarity about how desirable various goals may be, then we are obliged to acknowledge that fact by honestly saying "we don't know". It is grotesque to pluck a supposed "principle" out of thin air that tells us what to do on the basis of merely artifactual detail. We may as well use a ouija board.
By the way, I wonder if you've read The Dice Man? Its protagonist starts to making life-decisions on the basis of rolls of a die. Things go awry!
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #394 & #395
You wrote: "But then all it does is say "take the advice of the majority of scientists" -- without making any distinction between scientists and pseudo-scientists."
This exists only in your imagination, the precautionary principle says nothing of the sort!
You wrote: "environmentalism is an anti-liberal religion ... so it's hardly any wonder I'm not interested in those "decision-making contexts"."
Yes, well. Leaving 'religion' to one side (as many of us can choose to do, even if you can't), as the precautionary principle is a guide for environmental decision-making in the context of uncertainty, it is ridiculous to comment about its usefulness or otherwise outside the context of its application.
As to your milk example (which is not dealing with the application of the precautionary principle), a precuationary-like approach would have indicated that a consequence of the consumption of the limited supply of milk in your fridge would give rise to a future shortage - so this could have been anticipated before a 'crisis' occurred.
Complain about this comment
@ 396, also as a qualifier i will add that this is not proof of MMCC or AGW, but only a symptom of a changing climate- which was never in doubt.
Complain about this comment
#396 simon-swede wrote:
"In connection with the preceding discussion, it is perhaps worth emphasising that the paper is explicit about the uncertainties"
And is it explicit about the desirability of the various goals involved? If it is written from the typical "environmentalist" perspective, what it considers valuable is the integrity of groups (such as species) and impersonal patterns (such as "biodiversity") instead of the welfare of sentient individuals. Environmentalism is essentially a type of "communitarianism" -- like socialism and fascism -- and it has little appeal to liberals like myself why judge the goodness or badness of arrangements in terms of how well the individuals fare in them.
In other words, I don't want to save "The Whale", because I'd prefer to protect the welfare of individual whales.
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #397
It IS my point exactly. You are mistakenly assuming that the precautionary principle gives an "answer". It simply doesn't do what you seem to think it does. It is guidance on HOW to go about making decisions in the context of uncertainty, it is not a tool which says WHAT those decisions should be.
Complain about this comment
@ simon and bowman. perhaps you could agree to disagree?
you both seem to be arguing over specific's on something which is by definition, non-specific.
A question- does the precautionary principle (in theory and application) take into account the possible harm that could be done BY action- not just inaction? was never clear on that point.
cheers,
lab
Complain about this comment
@JaneBasingstoke #331
First things first, thanks for the very eloquent response. I was going to respond last night, but I’m afraid tiredness got the better of me. Anyways, I’m vaguely compos mentis now, having reached my caffeine saturation point, otherwise known as my happy place, a couple more cups and I’ll start getting cranky ;-)
So, back to the post:
"1. [why do] the pro-AGW camp expend so much time trying to defend them?
1.1. Michael Mann is an extremely vocal defender of his work.
1.2. The historical accident that RealClimate (set up by Gavin Schmidt) has very close links with the Hockey Stick authors, giving Mann a platform.”
With you here….
“1.3. Some of the flak is unfair or unnecessarily unpleasant (this applies to both sides), which tends to rally people in defence. I point out that Cuccinelli has Stephen McIntyre speaking up for Mann (although continuing to criticise Mann's Hockey Sticks).
http://climateaudit.org/2010/05/02/cuccinelli-v-mann/”
Sort of semi with you, here too. (I know that’s not a terribly precise response, but it is an accurate one……….
“1.4. Some of the flak involves combining an oversimplified version of the scientific method and peer review ("peer review traps all errors" instead of "peer review is the first hurdle in ongoing scrutiny") with Hockey Stick incidents to denounce peer review and the scientific method. Not only does this tend to rally people in defence, but it is often the way people on my side of the debate get drawn in to Hockey Stick discussions. “
I think we might be starting to differ, though I don’t and wouldn’t denounce peer-review – I’ve defended the process on these blogs many times. But some people seem to think that getting through a peer-review indicates that your work is correct, that it’s somehow vindicated, when in fact all it indicates is that your work is not obviously stupid…..
The problem with the climate change lobby and the peer review process is the allegations of collusion. A peer review’s not worth a lot in the first place, but a co-opted peer review is a very dangerous thing as it lends the thin veneer of science and assumed scientific rigour to work that simply doesn’t deserve it.
Note: Just making a general statement, I’m not pointing any fingers at this point…
“1.5. Some of the flak is not up to McIntyre's standards. The infamous Soon and Baliunas 2003 paper undermines the credibility of more competent sceptical critiques of Hockey Sticks.
(I remind you that von Storch is no friend of the Hockey Stick proponents.)
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Yep, back to agreeing with you….
“"2. [why do] so many papers reference the work?"
I don't know the full spread of where they are cited. But it is my impression that much of the work is concerned with either improving them (more and better proxies, more reliable stats) or debunking them.
I also remind you that if and when we have enough decent proxies combined with stats that everyone is happy with we will have an invaluable window on the past that can be used to look at issues beyond the simple "unprecedented warming" question.”
Well, I’ll start compiling a list of papers if you like (won’t be as good as one of davblo’s obviously), but I’d go with almost every pro-AGW paper that I’ve ever read and actually bothered to check. It’s especially true of those that one might consider ancillary papers, but as these make up the greatest body of the work I’d argue that it is a bit of a problem.
It’s especially worrying when you see people referring to this ancillary body of work and saying things like….. Look at all this work, all this evidence that we’ve got, even if you think some of our data and methods might be a little wonky/not quite right… look at all of this….. With this much evidence we can’t be wrong……
Sadly, though, that isn’t true is it? It’s just circular referencing. Amphibians are having a tough time - it must be global warming….. Not this incredibly communicable and pathogenic fungus that I keep finding in the corpses!!!!
All of this, does not a body of work make.
When the foundation of this work/edifice begins to crumble, then so does that body of work….. That’s circular referencing for you….. And I’d argue that’s the real reason for pro-AGWers roundly trying to defend the indefensible…. Personally, I think the “jig is up” for Climate Studies.
There’ll be some agonised squealing, cries of foul play, but I think that’s it, it’s all over bar the shouting. The head just doesn’t realise that it’s dead yet, to mix my metaphors even more, the freshly decapitated chicken is still merrily running round the farmyard………..
Plus the proxies that one might consider decent (I guess you’re talking about oxygen isotopes?), don’t produce a non-bumpy hockey stick anything like the originals, do they?
Then we get to the unprecedented warming issue. Despite the general denials, this is key to the AGW case, isn’t it? I notice that the IPCC choose their wordings quite carefully, in this regard.
Without being able to attach the word unprecedented to the whole thing, you loose the whole implied urgency thing, from your side’s argument…… don’t you?
"3. [why do] you see the pesky little graphs almost everywhere you look?"
They are iconic. Unfortunately this meant that the non-specialists over interpreted them as the smoking bullet that proved global warming. Turning clumsy spin into an accidental lie.”
Back to agreeing with you, “lies to children”, so to speak. Unfortunately, a lot of those kids have grown up and actually believe this rubbish and I don’t see a great queue of Pro-AGWers, trying to set them right… I wonder why?
Yep, I’ve read AR4…. Very useful, I’m surprised that more of your brethren don’t seem to have read it, though that does seem endemic. Poor Research, makes for poor science…
The problem is, as pointed out by LabMunkey in an earlier post, is that we’d happily change sides in this whole affair as our only interest is in the science and we don’t get the feeling that your lot feel the same way about the whole thing?
Sceptics are supposed (if you can attribute a general purpose to us) to keep the rest of you honest…. But time after time we point out problems and inconsistencies, especially in your source data, and your lot just blithely ignore us. They start calling us names, accuse us of being a lobby or in the pay of big oil…. Which, just goes to show how weak your arguments really are…..
Still, truth will out and I think we’re rapidly approaching the truly sticky, hockey perhaps, end of the wedge ;-)
Got to stop mixing metaphors……..
Thanks for the response, though. Hopefully, I’ve given an insight into my thoughts on the matter and it’s always nice to talk to a reasoned and balanced individual for once.
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #400
Amazing, if predictable. A whole line of irrelevant argument based on some absurd fantasy and all because you comment on what you assume is in something you haven't read.
The Lyman et al paper is a reappraisal of the upper oceans temperature data for the period 1993-2008. It doesn't recommend a particular course or menu of actions as you seem to imagine, beyond identifying what the authors consider to be the most significant of the remaining sources of uncertainty with respect to the data they considered.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #394: all it does is say "take the advice of the majority of scientists" -- without making any distinction between scientists and pseudo-scientists.
simon-swede #398: This exists only in your imagination, the precautionary principle says nothing of the sort!
According to Wikipedia,
"The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those who advocate taking the action. [My italics]
Let's leave aside the completely obscure epistemic status of the phrase "burden of proof". The above paragraph is usually invoked in situations where there IS a supposed "scientific consensus". So in nearly all actual applications of this rule, the appeal is to a consensus.
In situations where there is no consensus, the decision is supposed to be made on the basis of those who "advocate action". Now I wonder who would these advocates of action might be if not people who have a theory about the situation in question? -- People who flatter themselves with the description "scientists", I'd be guessing!
Where in the above rule is any distinction made between those who determine the "scientific consensus" and those who merely have an opinion, be they phrenologists, astrologers, reflexologists, et al?
Please -- no more on this dishonest, pretentious codswollop! Rational action is much more subtle and insecure area than that bit of Whiggism would have us suppose.
Complain about this comment
#402 LabMunkey wrote:
"does the precautionary principle (in theory and application) take into account the possible harm that could be done BY action- not just inaction? was never clear on that point."
It was never clear on any point. It is empty verbiage. It cannot even advise me on whether to go to the shop to buy milk, because "I should have thought of that already"!
Complain about this comment
Labmunkey at #402
You ask whether the precautionary principle (in theory and application) takes into account the possible harm that could be done BY action- not just inaction?
An unequivocal "Yes" - both are covered. The precautionary principle is a guide to HOW to take decisions in the context of uncertainty. To consciously decide to do "something" (act) or "nothing" (inaction) are both decisions.
Complain about this comment
401. simon-swede wrote: About the precautionary principle.
"It is guidance on HOW to go about making decisions in the context of uncertainty, it is not a tool which says WHAT those decisions should be."
This is nearly the case. Unfortunately simon-swede has missed out the word "reasonable" before the word "decisions".
Differing views on the meaning of the word "reasonable" have generated a bonanza for the legal profession, turning every minor trip and fall into a compensation claim, causing insurance rates to rocket and making events and pastimes prohibitively expensive.
The entire concept of common sense has disappeared because of its overzealous interpretation by rapacious lawyers. Playing conkers banned or only with the wearing of safety goggles, playgrounds closed, trees felled, school trips canceled etc all because Mrs Blair et al wanted the income.
Complain about this comment
#401 simon-swede wrote:
You are mistakenly assuming that the precautionary principle gives an "answer". It simply doesn't do what you seem to think it does. It is guidance on HOW to go about making decisions in the context of uncertainty
And its guidance is: "consult the experts". Empty, ignorant, misguided authoritarian rubbish!
Complain about this comment
#404 simon-swede wrote:
A whole line of irrelevant argument based on some absurd fantasy and all because you comment on what you assume is in something you haven't read.
The Lyman et al paper
For the twentieth time: I'm not remotely interested in what I regard as pseudo-science. I never mentioned your paper. We were discussing the rationality of action in situations of risk and uncertainty, and as usual you make the "priestly" manoeuvre of appealing to an academic publication that I regard as a complete waste of time and ink!
Please try to remember that I regard climate "science" as worse than astrology. I have explained why -- its inductivism -- but you never seemed interested enough to follow the argument.
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #405
The quote from Wikipedia is the author's paraphrasing - and it is a poor one. It most certainly is not a formulation of the precautionary principle that comes from an international agreement or decision or regulation. If you look at the rest of the Wikipedia piece, you would see that in the actual formulations the opposite is stressed (i.e. the absence of certainty should not be used to preclude action).
The Rio Declaration is one example: "Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation." And, as Jane pointed out in an earlier thread, this makes explicit a lot of important qualifyers.
However I can agree with you on one thing here, please -- no more on this dishonest, pretentious codswollop! I'm sure other blog readers would be delighted!
Complain about this comment
DrBrianS #408.
"The entire concept of common sense has disappeared because of its overzealous interpretation by rapacious lawyers. ... all because Mrs Blair et al wanted the income."
Tony is/was a lawyer too!!
Blair's 'frenzied law making' : a new offence for every day spent in office
Complain about this comment
DrBrian at #408
I didn't leave out 'reasonable' - with or without it, the precautionary principle is still about the HOW to take decisions in the context of uncertainty, not the WHAT those decisions should be.
Complain about this comment
"Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."
That's just uninteresting. Who could either disagree with it or, importantly, use it for any sort of guidance? It's just empty verbiage.
International "legal" agreements are no place to look for profound thoughts. This is no exception. It's a bit of fluff.
Complain about this comment
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/20/giss-arctic-trends-disagree-with-satellite-data/#more-19740
re- my earlier point on data extrapolation of the temperature records.
Complain about this comment
Simon-swede #428 wrote (in reply to LabMunkey's question):
You ask whether the precautionary principle (in theory and application) takes into account the possible harm that could be done BY action- not just inaction?
An unequivocal "Yes" - both are covered.
Just a minute! Some misguided innocents may still be labouring under the misapprehension that the Wikipedia version of the "principle" says something useful. According to it, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those who advocate taking the action.
That assumes that the burden of proof that it is harmful does NOT fall on those who do NOT advocate taking the action. And that assumes a sharp asymmetry between taking action and NOT taking action.
And that is an appeal to the traditional catholic theological distinction between "acts" and "omissions". (The "sins" of one are less severe than sins of the other, apparently.)
Complain about this comment
#357 CandianRockies
"Oh no! Looks who's in the diabolical "Lobby"!"
It seems Lovelock is saying "the events of the recent months have seen him warming to the efforts of the "good" climate sceptics".
Now we can argue what he means by 'good' sceptics, but the 'lobby' imho are a collection of non-sceptics and 'bad' sceptics. i'm most definitely in the pro-agw camp but consider myself an arch sceptic (sceptical of much of the nonsense from the 'lobby' for a start).
now my fingers are worn out with all those inverted commas!
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #414.
"International "legal" agreements are no place to look for profound thoughts."
maybe that is because that's not their purpose?
would you look for your "pint of milk" in a CD rack?
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #414: International "legal" agreements are no place to look for profound thoughts.
jr4412 #418: maybe that is because that's not their purpose?
Well then I wonder why were we directed to look at the text of an international "legal" agreement to find a workable version of "the precautionary principle"?
If such a "principle" is to give us guidance in rational decision-making, it's going to have to be pretty profound, wherever it is to be found.
Complain about this comment
To Simon-swede #380:
"In a nut-shell, the message from the NRC is: "The world's climate is changing, humans are causing it, and the United States should put a price on carbon soon to stanch emissions of the greenhouse gases responsible."
See: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/05/three-academy-reports-urge-clima.html?etoc (#380)
==============================
Simon, do you think this new report by the National Research Council of the United States changes the conclusions of the 'Hartwell Report' on how to proceed?
President Obama would obviously have known of this report, which was "two years in the making" while at Copenhagen, and undoubedly John Holdren and other advisors could have given him a preview of the reports likely final results, as just reported.
Was COP-15 purposely derailed to buy time for this NRC report to mature fully?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
@rossglory #417
So, what about the whole AGW thing, arouses your arch-sceptical curiousity then?
Are we, perhaps, ever so slightly curious about the source data ?
If not, and you are indeed an arch-sceptic, then why not?
Plus, how does one define what a 'good', 'bad' or even 'naughty' sceptic might be?
Regards,
One of the Lobby (Think I'm going to start using that in future - It's nice to have a club)
Complain about this comment
at the end of the day, even the best of us makes mistakes. it just doesn't seem fair to these scientists. they were asked to do a job to the best of their ability, and they came up with what they came up with. i really don't think any of the IPCC members chose to do a bodge job.
it just seems to me here though, that the power is in the medium. so in reality, it doesn't really matter what the IPCC comes up with.
Complain about this comment
To Simon-swede: post #380 and beyond
It seems to me that this new report from the NRC has gotten you all fired-up.
Would that be an accurate assessment?
We are all looking for some light at the end of the tunnel. I'm afraid there is much truth in that 'Dark Mountain' report by George Monbiot.
It's not just replacing the old infrastructure with the new, cleaner technology that needs addressing - it's a fundamental shift in thinking about our place in the world.
Reading between the lines, it seems to me you are a tentative suporter of Greenpeace.
My wife Underacanoe is currently reading about the fellow who started 'Earth First,' and spent time in prison for his efforts.
The Hartwell Report is echoing the frustration of mainstram activists, if I may use that term, such as James Hansen.
But at some point - the talk may give way to action. Action is what I as mountaineer prefer. The 'precautionary principle' is something that is part of my psyche as a climber.
I know how to move quickly and decisively, and to make it work.
Reading about the conventional world, say in Al Gore's "Our Choice," the thought always bursts across the skyways of my mind that the world is in some type of super slow-motion - like some phantasy of Stanley Kubrick's imagination.
I am almost frantic to get up and get going on this thing.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
@387
Lab Munkey is happy to be rude about the scientific abilities of others, but produces - as evidence of the mendacity of temperature records, a Wattsup special - the NZ temperature records. He relays Wattsup claims that the NZ record was adjusted - and without such adjustment NZ and by extension the whole of Oceania has not warmed at all.
A little elementary investigation reveals that the work on which this canard is based omitted to explain why the temperature record was adjusted - because the monitoring stations have moved around over the last 90 years. So an example from Wellington goes like this...
Temps before the mid-20s were recorded at Thorndon, near sea level, but then the recording station moved to Kelburn at 125 m above sea level. To these were later added records from a third site - Wellington airport. In order to make a direct comparison between these sites and to thus construct a single temperature series, adjustments were made to account for the different locations. Thus the adjusted data is rightly used in the national temperature data - in fact it would be very poor science to use unadjusted data as Wattsup trumpeted.
I'm afraid that just because Wattsup says what you already want to hear, that doesn't make it true.
Lorax
Complain about this comment
#376 manysummits wrote: "We're all hoping he is wrong, aren't we Brunnen?
Trouble is - he's one of our best scientists - a genius of the first rank.
I doubt very much you and I are in that category, but unlike you, I try and give credit where credit is due.
You sound scared Brunnen."
Of course we all hope he's wrong. But let's face it, if his guesswork about 2100 is as accurate as his guesswork about the 70's and 80's we can all sleep easy knowing the future of humanity is safe.
Why on Earth would I be scared that the predictions of a crackpot might come true long after I'm dead?
Yes, his work on the ozone layer was indeed laudible, but that doesn't make him immune from criticism when he comes out with nonsense and acts like a second rate prophet of doom.
Complain about this comment
\\\ Dark Mountain Project ///
Here is an excerpt:
=====================
"The very fact that we have a word for ‘nature’ is evidence that we do not regard ourselves as part of it. Indeed, our separation from it is a myth integral to the triumph of our civilisation. We are, we tell ourselves, the only species ever to have attacked nature and won. In this, our unique glory is contained. Outside the citadels of self-congratulation, lone voices have cried out against this infantile version of the human story for centuries, but it is only in the last few decades that its inaccuracy has become laughably apparent. We are the first generations to grow up surrounded by evidence that our attempt to separate ourselves from ‘nature’ has been a grim failure, proof not of our genius but our hubris."
http://www.dark-mountain.net/about-2/the-manifesto/
=================
Discussion:
Finally, I see why I climbed all those years, oblivious to all that was reasonable.
Finally, I see why Underacanoe liked what she saw.
Let me be brief:
We had better get our act together - and fast.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To Ghostofsichuan: re 'Dark Mountain Project'
Ghost, I think you might want to read this.
I can hardly wait for your take on this!!!
http://www.dark-mountain.net/about-2/the-manifesto/
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
@363
Blunderbunny
do you imagine your discourtesy strengthens your argument? This isn't the Daily Telegraph!
Anyway, lets look at what you actually say. You're making a comparison of the science of drug trials versus climate science. You agree with my original point, that drug trials are an area of science notorious for dodgy statistics, modification of samples etc, etc. You then assert:
'This is precisely why the burden of supporting evidence and information required for a new drug is so large – because some of the data involved might not be that cast iron, because there are dishonest individuals, because people just make mistakes, because it’s a Friday afternoon and I just want to go home etc etc.
Given the number of safe drugs on the market, it does seem to generally work...And, the process itself is re-evaluated and changed if required...'
OK, in summary: a mostly good valid outcome is obtained by applying the scientific process to data of mixed quality - as you say, some of the data involved might not be that cast iron. As weaknesses in the process (and data, presumably) appear, they are fixed.
And the comparison to climate science - well actually, that could be a pretty good description of climate science as well. Except that you, and especially Lab Munkey are having none of it. While you accept that your drug trials are good science even though the process may include non-cast-iron data, you require that any data used in climate science is rock solid/concrete, and in Lab Munkey's immortal phrase, 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.
Thus - you are demanding an impossible unreasonable standard for climate data, one which you don't apply in your own field.
Does it thus surprise you that the US National Academy of Sciences disagrees with you?
Lorax
Complain about this comment
\\\ Dark Mountain (2) ///
"And so we find ourselves, all of us together, poised trembling on the
edge of a change so massive that we have no way of gauging it. None of us knows where to look, but all of us know not to look down. Secretly, we all think we are doomed: even the politicians think this; even the environmentalists. Some of us deal with it by going shopping. Some deal with it by hoping it is true. Some give up in despair. Some work frantically to try and fend off the coming storm."
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
More - Dark Mountain:
"The last taboo is the myth of civilisation...
We believe that artists—which is to us the most welcoming of words,
taking under its wing writers of all kinds, painters, musicians, sculptors, poets, designers, creators, makers of things, dreamers of dreams—have a responsibility to begin the process of decoupling. We believe that, in the age of ecocide, the last taboo must be broken—and that only artists can do it."
http://www.dark-mountain.net/about-2/the-manifesto/
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
From my wife Underacanoe:
'I believe art is heroic. I believe that it deals with issues of what it's like to be a human on the most compelling and highest level.'
- Eric Fischl)
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
rossglory #417: "...but the 'lobby' IMHO are a collection of non-sceptics and 'bad' sceptics. I'm most definitely in the pro-AGW camp but consider myself an arch sceptic (sceptical of much of the nonsense from the 'lobby' for a start)."
Just passing; but have to "second" that.
All the best; davblo
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #419.
"..directed to look at the text of an international "legal" agreement to find a workable version of "the precautionary principle"". (my emphasis)
if such an agreement is worth the paper it is printed on, it will embody the principle rather than spell it out.
see JaneBasingstoke's #109 (last para) for a 'worked example'.
Complain about this comment
\\\ Dark Mountain ///
"Uncivilised writing is more rooted than any of these. Above all, it is
determined to shift our worldview, not to feed into it. It is writing for outsiders. If you want to be loved, it might be best not to get involved, for the world, at least for a time, will resolutely refuse to listen."
from Dark Mountain manifesto - see above
==================
That's it - that's what I have been all about - uncivilized writing.
Finally - I am understanding what I have been doing.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
I have just finished reading this manifesto, the 'Dark Mountain Project.'
I can hardly believe what I am seeing - this makes sense - entirely.
For all who have a deep and abiding passion for life, I urge a read immediately of this document.
===============
"Jeffers wrote, ‘when the cities lie at the monster’s
feet / There are left the mountains.’" (p17, Dark Mountain Manifesto)
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Brunnen_G #425: re James Lovelock
"Why on Earth would I be scared that the predictions of a crackpot might come true long after I'm dead?" (#425)
1) "crackpot" - an abusive term, and also incorrect.
2) Have you no children? No relatives? No thought at all for those who will be alive to face an extremely problematic future?
Are you a monster?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
manysummits wrote: "My wife Underacanoe is currently reading about the fellow who started 'Earth First,' and spent time in prison for his efforts."
That's one way to put it.
Another, more accurate way to put it, is that he is nothing more than a common thug who deserved to go to jail for endangering human lives in the pursuit of his goals.
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
Anyone who predicts disaster without supporting evidence is a crackpot, simple as that.
A monster? No, just not a gullible hippy. The Earth is fine, my family are and will continue to be fine and they will note a complete lack of ecological doom throughout their lives.
The biggest challenge of the 21st century is likely to be providing enough food for everyone, not fleeing raging heat and rising seas.
Complain about this comment
Richard Black.
how about a speculative piece on Craig Venter and the potential of (what Channel 4 News calls) bio-error and bio-terror??
Complain about this comment
manysummits,
Must have a look at Dark Mountain as soon as I get a spare hour.
Live each day as it comes; try to do no harm; serve rather than command others; make 'less' the goal; learn to accept limitations.
Complain about this comment
Craig Venter creates synthetic life form
finally, an opportunity for the US of A to arrange life on our planet more to its liking.
Complain about this comment
#433 jr4412 wrote:
see JaneBasingstoke's #109 (last para) for a 'worked example'.
Huh? -- You call that a worked example?
What I would call a worked example would be an application of "the" "precautionary" "principle" to a problem (maybe a simplified, imaginary problem -- that's fine) that helped to guide us as we decide what to do. Empty bits of pretentious, phony legalese do absolutely nothing.
Complain about this comment
#439 jr4412 wrote:
"Craig Venter and the potential of (what Channel 4 News calls) bio-error and bio-terror?"
About time too -- one more thing to worry about worry about worry about worry about worry about worry about
Complain about this comment
#436 manysummits wrote:
"Have you no children?
[...]
Are you a monster?"
Maybe he doesn't have any children because he ate them already?
Complain about this comment
#439. jr4412 wrote:
Richard Black.
how about a speculative piece on Craig Venter and the potential of (what Channel 4 News calls) bio-error and bio-terror??
----------
I agree. Just saw a report about this on the BBC. Synthetic life forms created by messing with DNA. Now that's a real threat. Scientific hubris is rampant enough already and these fools are truly playing with something far more potentially dangerous than anything else discussed on this blog.
If there was ever a time when the precautionary principle would be appropriate, it is for this issue.
The term 'Mad Scientist' comes to mind. And 'invasive species.' And global super multi-species pandemic. Of course I see they are trying to flog this dangerous idea with words about 'cleaning up the environment' and 'curing diseases' but one error here can have unimaginable consequences. Simply not worth the risk.
Complain about this comment
@lorax
"do you imagine your discourtesy strengthens your argument? This isn't the Daily Telegraph!"
Discourtesy, implies that I was inaccurate, would you care to point any of these inaccuracies?
It's really not my fault that you lot are not conducting yourselves, as those of us that would normally call ourselves scientists. If you're happy with the drug trial analogy, then where's the room full of supporting information for each of your lot's current data sets - GISS, HadCRUT etc etc
BTW I'm not a big Telegraph reader.................. Though, I'm guessing my library's quite a bit bigger than yours..........
Reagards,
One of the Lobby ;-)
Complain about this comment
Brunnen_G: 'evidence of impending catastrophe'
And anyone (connected to the internet), who thinks there is any lack of evidence is either a mental incompetent -
OR
a member of the lobby.
Or have I missed something?
You may disagree with the evidence, but as Patrick Moynihan has said:
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts."
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #442.
"You call that a worked example?"
an excerpt to illustrate rather than a complete document, still, I think it demonstrates the point.
"What I would call a worked example would be an application of.."
a quick google of "the precautionary principle in action" brings up 250,000+ results, including:
"It set the stage for the passage of an ordinance on June 17th, 2003 which pulls together San Francisco's existing precautionary-based laws, including an arsenic-treated wood ordinance, an Integrated Pest Management plan, a healthy air ordinance, and a pilot Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program, and codifies them as a San Francisco Environment Code Ordinance."
http://www.takingprecaution.org/inact_bayarea.html
am a bit short on time now o/wise would have tried to find something 'closer to home', anyway, HTH.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard wrote: "Maybe he doesn't have any children because he ate them already?"
You eat one child and you're labled for life...
Complain about this comment
411. simon-swede
"The Rio Declaration is one example: "Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."
I have seen this applied in action as an excuse for some people to fulfill their agenda without any scientific evidence whatsoever.
First, as discussed in other posts, there is almost never "full scientific certainty" about anything related to the environment.
That includes alleged "threats," which is compounded by the term "serious," whatever that means.
So one can invent a threat and demand action on one's chosen solution.
If you like this, then you must have loved the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq based on the threat of WMDs.
Even the zillions of dollars and lives wasted on that was more "cost effective" than those "mushroom clouds," right?
Or if you don't like that example, try swine flu. Or the Y2K computer sales program.
Fear sells, and appeals more to basic instincts and dumbed-down groupthink than rational thought.
Complain about this comment
'Climate change' is 'distraction' on malaria spread - reported on the BBC
My thoughts:
How many real people have died allready, how much money has been wasted,
because of AGW alarmism distracting politicians and money away from real issues:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the BBC article:
"Climate change is, in our view, an unwelcome distraction from the main issues."
"Mosquito nets are proving effective - where they are available Climate change will have a
tiny impact on malaria compared with our capacity to control the disease, a study finds. "
"Noting that malaria incidence fell over the last century, researchers calculate that control measures have at least 10 times more impact than climate factors. "
"I am slightly sceptical of the furore surrounding (malaria and) climate change in the sense that we have to bear in mind there are other factors that are moving much faster than climate change," he said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10127989.stm
on the BBC and Richard Black!!!!!
"Research leader Peter Gething from Oxford University described the climate link as an
"unwelcome distraction" from the main issues of tackling malaria. "
Of course it has to finish with:
"I don't doubt climate change is happening, BUT..."
(of course not a single sceptic doubts climate change, the doubt is MAN MADE Climate change)
my translation from scientist speak: (ie BUT)
"I always thought 'alarmist' AGW was rubbish really,
but I still cant say it yet less I get labbeled a deniar (see New Scientist) and more people get hurt because my funding dries up...
I personally expect to here more of this phrase from scientists/politicians over the next couple of years:
Complain about this comment
I still think that Manysummits is somebody having a laugh with us.
Complain about this comment
447. At 7:55pm on 20 May 2010, manysummits wrote:
And anyone (connected to the internet), who thinks there is any lack of evidence is either a mental incompetent -
OR
a member of the lobby.
Or have I missed something?
I think you may have missed that fact that a lot of people writing on the internet are a bit mentally ill -- paranoid schizophrenics, in fact -- so you have to filter out the nutty, over-wrought ideas they peddle endlessly. Take everything you read on the internet with a shovel of salt!
Complain about this comment
AGW - man made global warming, alarmism previously...
years worth of the stuff....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4827362.stm (2006)
Climate link to African malaria
By Richard Black - Environment Correspondent, BBC News website
"The incidence of malaria is rising in parts of the East African highlands. Rising temperatures may partly explain increasing cases of malaria in regions of Africa, new research suggests.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2008/nov/20/1
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/3490944/Global-warming-will-cause-malaria-epidemic-in-Australia-and-Pacific-Islands.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/malaria-fear-as-global-warming-increases-447385.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/31/climate-change-malaria-kenya
Complain about this comment
@Lorax again ;-)
Actually, whilst I'm at it:
"Thus - you are demanding an impossible unreasonable standard for climate data, one which you don't apply in your own field."
I think that you'll find that there's nothing unreasonable about it, it’s simply what the rest of us call normal.
And you're really not reading stuff are you?
The drug trial example was used to illustrate exactly how much extra information is required for you to be still treated seriously if your source data, might be even a little bit dodgy.
The current set of temperature records are of an appoximately similar quality (I'm being quite kind here), so where is it?
As to the Academy of Sciences, I think you'll find that they are assuming that you guys are behaving appropriately in the first place and sadly, that simply isn't the case, now is it?
Regards Again,
Still one of the Lobby ;-)
Complain about this comment
My understanding of the increased rate of malaria in Africa is that it is due to
A. the taking under the plow of marginal and marshy areas due to land hunger from an expanding population and
B. the banning of DDT following the publication of Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring". This latter is estimated to have cost 40 million lives.
Complain about this comment
449. Brunnen_G wrote:
"bowmanthebard wrote: "Maybe he doesn't have any children because he ate them already?"
You eat one child and you're labled for life..."
I thought that was just part of the standard satanic rituals practised by all the monstrous planet-haters of The Lobby?
#452. Wolfiewoods wrote:
"I still think that Manysummits is somebody having a laugh with us."
Works for me. But I am worried. I read on some blog somewhere, or maybe just dreamt, that Paul Ehrlich predicted that we were all going to die laughing by next Tuesday.
453. bowmanthebard wrote:
"I think you may have missed that fact that a lot of people writing on the internet are a bit mentally ill -- paranoid schizophrenics"
Why are you saying that about me? And why are you following my comments?
How come there's 13 letters in your name?
Complain about this comment
It must pay well, being a member of the lobby, judging by the way they fall over each other on the way to this site.
The comment above would be in the nature of an opinion - a 'speculation' on the nature of Man.
We all wonder about the nature of Man, now don't we.
See the bankers on the Hill, for example, or the oil companies off the coast, or the barbarians at the highest levels of state.
Wait a minute - that would be unfair. Barbarians aren't like that at all. With a true barbarian, you know where you stand.
=================
\\\ News on Arctic Sea Ice ///
Arctic sea ice heading for new record low
by Bob Weber; The Canadian Press; May 20, 2010.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/arctic-sea-ice-heading-for-new-record-low/article1575212/
“Could we break another record this year? I think it's quite possible,” said Mark Serreze of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo.
“We are going to lose the summer sea-ice cover. We can't go back.”...
One of Canada's top sea-ice experts [David Barber of the University of Manitoba] suggests things might even be worse than Dr. Serreze thinks...
“What we think is thick multiyear ice late in the summer is in fact not,” he said. “It's heavily decayed first-year ice. When that stuff starts to reform in the fall, we think it's multiyear ice, but it's not.”
======================
Those with an unimpaired memory will remember that I reported extensively on the findings of Dr. Barber in several posts a few months ago. The satellite data is misleading - being unable to distinguish between true muti-year ice and newly formed ice.
http://umanitoba.ca/news/blogs/blog/2009/11/27/news-release-thick-arctic-sea-ice-goes-missing/
========================
Also from the first Globe and Mail article cited:
"True multiyear ice – the thick, hard stuff that stops ships – now comprises about 18 per cent of the Arctic ice pack. In 1981, when Prof. Barber first went north, that figure was 90 per cent."
==================
Now gemtlemen and women of the non-warmist point of view - do you have an opinion on this most recent development - or some facts to present countering these assertions?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
DrBrianS: re malaria
Good - we now know that this is your O-P-I-N-I-O-N
- Manysummits (rats, only eleven letters in my name) -
Complain about this comment
459. manysummits wrote:
"DrBrianS: re malaria
Good - we now know that this is your O-P-I-N-I-O-N"
Gosh don't you go for the jugular as a first option rather than discuss cases.
It's a good principle to look for local causes of problems rather than immediately pointing at potential general causes.
In this case the reasons that I gave are local matters that go a long way towards explaining the local increase in malaria and have been suggested in Open University courses. There may be others such as the carriage of Anopheles mosquitos by truck transport in a manner resembling the odd mosquito imported to Heathrow.
Certainly there is no case at present for blaming climate change although it's a good way of getting experimental funding and thus has to be mentioned in the paper.
Also an "understanding" of a case isn't necessarily an "opinion".
Complain about this comment
#459. manysummits wrote:
"Manysummits (rats, only eleven letters in my name)"
Wow. Do I detect a sense of humour? Hope so. All that doomsday isn't good for your health.
Complain about this comment
\\\ As Good as it Gets ? ///
This has been an exciting day, made so by the 'Dark Mountain [Artistic] Project.'
This project is the first glimmer of hope for me personally. The other 'camps' of environmental repair work always seemed to lack something - Feeling, except for The Bolivian Peoples Conference on the Rights of Mother Earth - which at this time appears to reject capitalism, at least in its present configuration.
However, I am still working my way through one of these 'camps', Al Gore's "Our Choice."
To get a handle on the technical and business side of things, in language that is easily understood, and with truly beautiful pictures and illustrations, this book is unmatched in my experience. It implicitly believes in capitalism, or perhaps a reformed capitalism.
I am about halfway through, having just finished the main sections up to and including 'the nuclear option.'
So I thought I'd give my impressions so far. That's in keeping with the 'Dark Mountain' approach, I would think - an artists take - spontaneous - while still in the throes of Dark Mountain's Manifesto - a piece of poetry really:
Energy Options 'IN' (in order of personal preference)
1) WIND (+ smart grid)
2) PV (Photo Voltaic)(very flexible - price dropping)
3) CST (Concentrated Solar Thermal)(+ smart grid)
4) GEOTHERMAL (base load)
5) BIOMASS (base load)
Energy Options 'OUT' (in order of personal dislike)
1) NUCLEAR (not a chance)
2) COAL - EVEN WITH CSS (not a chance - mining and huge waste stream)
3) TAR SANDS OF CANADA (absolute folly - criminally negligent)
======================
That's it in a nutshell.
In between we have our present oil and gas, conventional and unconventional, biofuels first and second generation; some new ideas, some not yet public?; space-based power, etc...
- Manysummits, hoping for input -
Complain about this comment
\\\ On Being Human ///
This thread is getting long in the tooth, and I feel like writing.
Pretty much everyone across the pond is in bed I imagine, so I'll just take my time.
I just bought a brand new copy of E.O. Wilson's book - "Anthill." This is the great biologist's first ever novel, and I read the first chapter to see if I would like it.
I do.
I can't really afford this book, not the others I've purchased lately - just like I couldn't afford to climb those seven years at my own expense back in the last years of the old century and into the new - just like I couldn't afford to take a year and a half off in /94/95 to think about things down the eastern seaboard, all the way to the Florida Keys.
The reason I climbed, the reason for that mid-nineties sojurn, 'for to admire an' for to see,' those are best explained in that 'Dark Mountain Manifesto' I just came across yesterday, thanks to George Monbiot.
But why buy the books?
I could wait a bit and get them for free at the local library - that only makes sense.
But I just had to have this book, and others like it - Why?
Maybe it's that there is a connection made. Instead of being an efficient observer, I made a statement. I like this man E.O. Wilson - I like him and I like what he stands for - and I don't even know him.
Buying the book - somehow I am not an observer - somehow I am showing my respect for the author. I don't imagine he needs the money - there's something else going on here.
So I've made a nice fire, and I'm going to sit around it for awhile with the good Doctor, because he has invited me to hear a story, and I very much want to listen.
The wood is crackling - sparks arc into the evening sky.
As night falls, I feel the heat from the fire - see the flickering shadows on the weathered face of my mentor - and feel the mystery and the power.
I wish I had the courage to tell my own story - I wish people wanted to hear it.
- Manysummits, in Calgary -
Complain about this comment
DrBrianS #460: 'an understanding'
Fair enough - but unless you back it up with reputable research or equally relevant information which can be verified and checked - it's an opinion.
I am somewhat familiar with your argument. James Lovelock himself talks about Rachel Carson's Silent Spring and the possible negative consequences of outlawing DDT where it might have been appropriate.
There are pros and cons. You only gave the cons - and no back up.
There are also many levels on which to look at this.
Does the end justify the means, for example.
DDT is an introduced and lethal toxin.
It is not black and white - nor is the nuclear option for replacing fossil fuel, another area where I disagree with James Lovelock.
I will say this, on the off chance that you are not a bona-fide member of the lobby:
Read that Dark Mountain Manifesto - its message is unusual in its beauty and wholeness.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
CanadianRockies #461: sense of humor
I have been told that my sense of humor is well developed - and that my smile is infectious. I have been told that when I climb, my smile grows and grows on the way up, and not on the way down.
I don't really know where you are coming from - your posts are incomprehensible to me in any other light but that of a dedicated disinformation campaign, and I mean that, and this applies to many of our so called non-warmists.
It's not just the arguments you present - it's the manner and lack of credible sources - over and over and over - always the same.
There are about four thosand things I'd rather be doing than studying and writing about global warming and environmental destruction - were these two subjects not as important as they are.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
A useful (?) update/overview on the oil-spill (admittedly slightly off-topic for the thread - but then, what hasn't been...?)
Five Questions on the Oil Spill
Key questions that scientists will be trying to answer over the coming months and years.
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/05/five-questions-on-the-oil-spill.html?etoc
Question 1: What's happening with the oil?
Credit: Christopher Berkey The magnitude of the catastrophe will depend on the oil's fate: the amount of oil released, how the oil is transformed chemically and physically, and how...
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/05/5-questions-1.html?etoc
Question 2: What's happening to life on the sea floor?
Erik Cordes / Lophelia II 2009 Two types of communities exist on the deep sea floor of the gulf. Where hydrocarbons seep out of the sediment, clams and mussels...
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/05/5-questions-2.html?etoc
Question 3: What's happening to marine life?
Dave Martin / AP Photos Just after the spill, researchers at the state-funded Dauphin Island Sea Lab off the Alabama coast stepped up their existing research to trawl for...
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/05/5-questions-3.html?etoc
Question 4: What's happening to coastal ecosystems?
Coastal wetlands in the Gulf of Mexico have been under siege for decades. Chronic exposure to large amounts of oil could worsen their plight, killing marsh grasses and the creatures...
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/05/5-questions-4.html?etoc
Question 5: What's happening to fisheries?
Credit: NOAA On 18 May, NOAA shut down fisheries in a 118,000-square-kilometer area in the gulf. The move has threatened the lucrative shellfish industry. But the government says it...
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/05/5-questions-5.html?etoc
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
CanadianRockies at #450
You are writing what you imagine the Precautionary Principle to be, not what it is...
Perhaps the emphasis added here (to the version from the Rio Declaration) helps - otherwise see Jane's earlier posting: "Where there are THREATS of SERIOUS or IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE, LACK of full scientific certainty shall NOT be used as a reason for POSTPONING COST-EFFECTIVE measures to PREVENT environmental degradation."
Or, in other words: the threats should be real (not imaginary or fabricated); the threatened damage should not be trivial (the use of serious or irrerversible creates a higher threshold, not a lower one); lack of certainty should not be a reason for postponing action (it is not about triggering a specific course of action); measures should be cost-effective (not a frivolous, wasteful unnecessary expenditure); and measures should be preventive (i.e. before the serious or irreversible damage is done).
The reason why I refer to various legal texts (national and international), is that these have been used as the basis for decisions and action plans in actual practice - and it is from these real life examples which is where my experience comes from.
In most attempts to implement the Precautionary Principle, consultation prior to decision-making has become more inclusive (rather than narrower as Bowman would have us believe). As a consequence of this, a greater range of considerations from differing perspectives tend to be taken into account prior to decisions. In practice, the options for action tend to be wider also - rather than choosing only between X or Y, it becomes a discussion of which option or combination of options would be likely to give the most effective outcomes.
I'll try to refrain from posting about this theme again for a while. My apologies to those for whom this has been too much, too often.
Complain about this comment
ManySummits at #420 & #423
About the NRC reports, I highlighted them here (as I did the Lyman et al paper on ocean temperatures), not because I feel especially passionate about them, but simply because I learned about them yesterday and I thought others might find them interesting also. (I am passionate about the precautionary principle however, but that is another story.)
The only information I know about the political context of the NRC reports is that they were produced in response to requests from congress. I doubt very much that there is any special linkages between them and decisions made at COP-15 or the conclusions of the Hartwell Report.
On the Hartwell Report, I have a rather different take on this than you do. While I acknowledge the attempt to 'reframe the debate' made by the Hartwell Report's authors, I think the proposed courses of action will not address important elements of the problem. The NRC reports take a different approach, whereby climate change remains at the centre of the problem formulation and their proposed courses of action.
Complain about this comment
The quoted version of "the precautionary principle" is a non-starter as a guide to action -- as I said before, it's just empty fluff -- because it doesn't take account of an essential component of the badness of any risk: the undesirability of the thing we're in danger of.
For example, suppose one course of action entails a probability of my catching a very minor disease; the alternative course of action entails the same probability of my catching a major, life-threatening disease. Then, obviously, the second course of action involves a worse risk.
Desirability and probability of alternative outcomes are both essential factors in rational decision-making.
Complain about this comment
468. simon-swede wrote:
"CanadianRockies at #450
You are writing what you imagine the Precautionary Principle to be, not what it is..."
No. I was writing based on personal real world experience, seeing this Rio principle applied on the ground in Canada.
You explained it when you wrote:
"Or, in other words: the threats should be real (not imaginary or fabricated); the threatened damage should not be trivial (the use of serious or irrerversible creates a higher threshold, not a lower one)..."
Note your use of the word "should." True, threats should be real. But that doesn't mean that they are.
And it specifically says "serious" which is a very fuzzy word, particularly when one begins with a threat which might not be real in the first place.
There are several layers of reasons why threats and their consequences can be, and are, exaggerated. You do understand that the greater the threat, the greater the research and restoration funding, don't you? And you do understand how this can impact decisions about land and resource management, don't you? And you do understand how environmental groups use the media to promote threats, and thus rally public opinion to drive political decisions about land management, don't you?
So, if you are a researcher looking for funding, allied with an environmental group with a land use agenda, this principle is the ticket to override any questions about the actual credibility of the scientific evidence used to support one's career or cause.
Sometimes the threats are real and the actions warranted. But sometimes they are not. Perhaps in Sweden the science is not as politicized and dubious as it is in Canada. Perhaps there you don't have so many 'freelance' researchers looking for their next contract or NGOs with such large agendas. Or perhaps not.
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke - Seems I broke a House Rule when trying to post a link for you, as a follow up to our conversation. I think I know what rule was broken - a forbidden word in the link - so I'll try again.
About Mann. At http://www.climatedepot.com/ - yes, I know, its evil right wingers and you never go there!!! - they have a link to a story from the Richmond Times in Virginia about how "Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli says his investigation into the research activities of a former University of Virginia climate change scientist is about..."
This could get more than "grubby." This AG is not nearly as charitable and polite as McIntyre and, as they say, the natives there are restless.
Complain about this comment
"Where there are THREATS of SERIOUS or IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE, LACK of full scientific certainty shall NOT be used as a reason for POSTPONING COST-EFFECTIVE measures to PREVENT environmental degradation."
It beats me how an intelligent person could take this as anything remotely like a "guide" to making decisions. Its bloated verbosity makes it semi-literate. It's clearly the work of a civil servant or a lawyer rather than a scientist.
There are lots of asteroids in space. Sooner or later, a large asteroid will hit the Earth. There is a threat of "serious or irreversible damage". We do not have "scientific certainty" (nor is there such a thing). According to the above, that lack of certainty "shall" not be used as a reason for "postponing cost-effective measures for preventing environmental degradation". So what are you doing sitting on your hands?
There are some genuine guides to rational decision-making. For example, when you buy a lottery ticket you have to take account of the probability of winning and the amount you would win. If you would win £2 million, say, and there are four million tickets sold (in other words the probability of winning is one four-millionth), then the "expected value" is what you get when you multiply two million pounds by one four-millionth. In other words, the "expected value" of each lottery ticket is about 50 pence. So it's rational to buy tickets for less than 50 pence each, but not for more than 50 pence each.
That is a greatly over-simplified example, but it hope it illustrates how sensible scientific ideas can be brought to bear on decision-making. You'll get nowhere trying to appeal to scientifically illiterate legalese cobbled together by Sir Humphrey Appleby.
Complain about this comment
To JR: Hi,
I had to change my name from underacanoe to underanothercanoe..BBC system change...
Manysummits mentioned to me that you sent a message regarding whether there should be a one world gov't to oversee the environmental crisis?
It's funny that you are interested in my opinion, being that I am not a scientist like Mike, but a female artist.
Perhaps the ying and yang need a little balance and want a bit of the other perspective?
From my artsy, instinctual perspective I see profit deciding what is to be done with our fresh water that is left and the last of our clean air.
The collective masses have little chance at fighting the profit motive, unless we change which companies will make a profit.
Responsible companies with zero emissions or polluting wasteful companies ...
This is our only chance I believe..I see all the governments in the pockets of all the big corporations..so they are one and the same...SO I suppose if we want to have a say with the gov't we will have to do it with our purchasing power..
take care..
and hug a furry friend
underanothercanoe
Complain about this comment
@ lorax # 424.
you do realise you've actually made your case worse right? You accept any explanation as cannon without looking into the actual implications.
from your post
"Temps before the mid-20s were recorded at Thorndon, near sea level, but then the recording station moved to Kelburn at 125 m above sea level. To these were later added records from a third site - Wellington airport. In order to make a direct comparison between these sites and to thus construct a single temperature series, adjustments were made to account for the different locations."
so, we have a temerature recording site, that was moved significantly, was placed at a different altitude, and then had arbitrary adjustments made to it before being spliced with a third record? brilliant. the agw case have an astonishingly good track record at making arbitrary adjustments- just take HIE and the vienna case study.
You put one site as proof positive that everythings ok. Did you go through the entire data? is it the case that every station was moved? were only some moved? all of a sudden your argument starts falling apart...
@lorax #428
and this is where the level of your scientific knowledge shows itself i'm afraid.
You harp on, repeatedly that the drug trial data is not perfect. that it has issues and that that shows that climate science should be allowed the same grace.
I'm literally speechless at the level if ignorance in that statement- bit i will try to address it regardless:
Typical issues in drug trial data can involve anything of the following:
-incomplete form filling
-incomplete calibration records
-non conformities (explained or otherwise)
-anomolous data justification (eg outliers)
there HAVE been instances of deliberate fraud, but they were pretty much all picked up (99.999%). The current safety record of on-market drugs is a direct testiment to that.
For every single deviation, and by deviation here i mean anything that happens in the experiement that is a) not fully documented/explained, b) not fully expected, the amount of corroberative paperwork required to back that single case up is, significant. Blunder was not being flippant when he said the paperwork of a single drug trial can fill a medium sized storage room, floor to ceiling.
now lets look at climate 'science', specifically temperature.
-incomplete temperature data with- repeatedly moved stations. incomplete, arbitrary and undocumented adjustements.
-Spliced data sets.
-Spliced data sets with no records.
-spliced data sets with incorrect analysis applied.
-Spliced data sets from geographically distinct sites.
-incomplete, arbitrary and completely inadequate HIE adjustments.
-incorrect and highly selective use of proxies
i could go on all day. also, i have direct examples of each of these cases.
a single issue like this, if it were to happen in a drug trial, would require SO much corroborative paperwork it would make your head spin.
All we are asking for, if you boil it all down to the basics, are JUSTIFICATIONS. For every adjustment, for every data set that was still added after numerous issues (in preference to other 'normal' sites) we need full, documented proof for:
-why the adjustments were made,
-why the adjustments are proper- with corroberative experimentation
-why the data is still 'sound' to be included in the 'package'
-which analyses were applied and why
and most importantly
-the raw data so we can REPEAT these analyses
You are trying, very unsuccessfully may i add, to suggest that these points are somehow being overly critical- that science and in particular, climate science can not and should not be held to these levels of rigour; well sorry mate- you're wrong.
Science is all about the integrity of the data. When you are performing initial experimentation- proof of concept work for example, shoddy record keeping is understandable, frankly, expected. the minute you move onto more important work (development of a theory/product/drug) the integrity of the data becomes critical.
For drugs, this is understandable- people can die if things go wrong.
For AGW? something that is trying to completely overhaul our economic structure (for good or for bad- but it will have serious implications), something that is creating an entirely NEW ineffective economic market (carbon trade), something that is claiming that our lives as we know it are over if we don't do as it says?
now do i want to make sure the data is good? the data everything is based on is sound and above reproach? you're damn-right i do. it's common sense, but it's also good, basic, scientific process.
Complain about this comment
@ 469- some analysis on that submission you refer to
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/20/tom-karl-hiding-the-decline-at-both-ends/#more-19767
Complain about this comment
on a side note thanks for all the updates on the oil leak. the msm seem to be loosing interest in it and it's quite an important (and worrying) story.
i can't help thinking that BP could be doing more to stop the leak.
Complain about this comment
To Simon-swede #469: re NRC reports to Congress (USA); & Hartwell;
Thanks Simon for your thoughts - always appreciated.
I am intrigued about your 'passion' for the precautionary principle.
If I had to guess - I'd say it had something to do with CFC's and the Ozone Hole?
As for Hartwell & the NRC - well, I'm not surprised that the US is focused on climate change - that's very mainstream, and I regard global warming as central to the Planetary Boundaries idea. As the US has I believe steadfastly withheld full 0.7% GNI Official Development funding to the United Nations, it is also in keeping with policy as regards the Hartwell Approach.
There is something very straightforward, perhaps even noble, about simply attacking global warming head on.
But then I remember the world we live in - and I remember Inchon - and I am then confronted with the glowing beauty of the 'Dark Mountain Project.'
It was with a start that I saw mentioned in the Dark Mountain Manifesto the author Cormac MacArthy. You may remember how strongly his book "The Road" affected me.
And I am impressed, and have been for some time, with some of the ideas of Stuart Kauffman (complexity and the origins of life).
While I see that it is all well and good, even necessary, to 'maintain an even strain,' and advise governments as best as possible with regard to science, and to use tried and true principles, such as the precautionary principle - I intuit - and have acted on this intuition all my life - that none of this is guaranteed to work in this time, when the 'perfect storm' is indeed in sight.
In the early seventies I read the Club of Rome report as a young man. It made such an impression that I remember it like yesterday.
But you live your life - and almost forty years later - the 'future' is the present.
Maybe we really have been on the wrong side of the tracks as regards climate change - putting it first.
Maybe people come first.
I sense an unconscious desire on the part of the many to bring this system down and start again.
Looked at in a certain way, this is our history.
Regards - and good luck in your endeavor,
Manysummits
Complain about this comment
@LabMunkey #475
Well said that man/woman/person/blogger, I couldn't have put it better myself.
Personally, I don’t think that decent data is too much to ask for, given the gravity of what's being discussed - I often have to share data with people and groups that I'm not too keen on.
I might ever so slightly drag my feet if I really dislike you, but the data gets shared and I tell you, in detail, what I've/we've done to it. You might just get it all on Monday/Tuesday Morning rather than last thing on a Friday night and if you've really annoyed one of us recently we might stick it on a shed load of floppy disks, but given how long that takes us to do, we'd really, really have to dislike you.....
The point is the data is still shared and we will eventually give it to you on some more socially acceptable media.
I honestly cannot even fathom how some of the people involved in climate studies fail to understand this point. It's not like it's a complex idea and it's not like it's a new one.
The more I hear about what goes on and the practices that appear to be endemic, the more worried I get!!!!!!
Climate "Science" - I'm amazed that they can even spell it....... They certainly don’t seem to understand it..... and oddly they even seem proud of that fact that they don’t!!!!
Regards,
One of the Lobby
Complain about this comment
To Simon-swede: further to my #478
I was just roaming around the front pages and articles on the BBC World News.
1) Japan is holding interest rates at 0.1% - and launches a Venus probe. Canada has decided to not raise interest rates - which are also ridiculously low.
I was a stockbroker for a year, and a businessman for several. If you want people to save, you give them a reason.
We (global civilization), we want people to borrow.
That's exactly backwards Simon.
2) The Greek debt crisis is spreading. Eric Margolis pointed this out - it's there for everyone to see - the United States and the United Kingdom are only months away from a situation similar to Greece, according to Mr. Margolis. The stock market is thinking about this - we'll see what these good-hearted people come up with.
3) British Airways is losing blood from the jugular - three proposed runways have been canceled. (George Monbiot) All around the world, airlines are basically a subsidized and losing proposition. Everyone knows this. We cut airline pilot's pensions, and have them flying on food stamps in the United States. ("Capitalism - A Love Story")
This too is backwards. A commercial passenger airline pilot making less than enough to live on? A high school dropout making a hundred G's in Fort MacMurray while working for a transnational oil company trashing the planet in full knowledge of what they are doing?
This too is backwards.
4) The Bolivian People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, and now the Via Campesina readying for the Cancun COP-16, and no mainstream reports on either.
Democracy - free press? Where?
I could go on for quite some time, but a pattern emerges even now.
We are going backwards - we are already in reverse - and there is nobody at the wheel.
Regards Simon,
Manysummits
Complain about this comment
464. manysummits wrote:
"I am somewhat familiar with your argument. James Lovelock himself talks about Rachel Carson's Silent Spring and the possible negative consequences of outlawing DDT where it might have been appropriate.
...............................
DDT is an introduced and lethal toxin."
This is a lay fantasy.
Plenty of people have eaten DDT without becoming ill and it has been applied to the skin in huge amounts without harm. See films of GIs spraying it into people's clothes at the end of WW2.
Carson suggested that it weakened bird's shells and consequently there was a fall in songbird's numbers.
This is probably untrue. DDT killed the bugs that the birds fed on. Less food, less birds.
Of course, Carson, having been deified as the saint of the conservation movement, there was little attempt to re-examine her ideas until recently.
The estimate of 40 million deaths as a consequence of the banning of DDT is actually a UN figure. Of course, if you believe in the need to reduce the world's population, you might think it's a good thing.
Complain about this comment
To Simon-swede: more on business and the environment - inextricably linked
I've found myself cruising the pages of Foreign Policy Review, and Oilsands Review, and The Economist - of late.
Usually I'm just science and geography and history.
I called the crash of 1987.
What I'm seeing now gives me that same sinking feeling.
Maybe that's why I've been so frantic to get through all this reading, while I still can, while the world is still on its rails.
I've been off work for a few months - thinking about things - again.
Not Good Simon - not good.
Manysummits
Complain about this comment
\\\ James Hansen in France ///
May 18, 2010: Copies of charts used in presentation at the French National Assembly
see 'Recent Communications' at:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
DrBrianS: re DDT
Tell you what - whu don't we let the public decide for themselves who to believe:
Y-O-U
or
M-E
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
@418, i've read numerous articles on this issue- and i'm of the same opinion as you- the banning of DDT was a huge error based on next to no evidence and is solely responsible for the massieve spread and persistance of malaria.
Complain about this comment
DrBrianS #481.
"This is a lay fantasy.
Plenty of people have eaten DDT without becoming ill and it has been applied to the skin in huge amounts without harm. See films of GIs spraying it into people's clothes at the end of WW2."
go ahead, eat all you can, before you do though, consider the children you may want to sire afterwards. :-)
Blood levels of DDT and breast cancer risk among women living in the north of Vietnam
http://www.spinwatch.org.uk/-articles-by-category-mainmenu-8/41-corporate-spin/3737-ddt-and-malaria-setting-the-record-straight
http://www.elitefarmer.com/agricultural/e/Chemicals/Insecticides/Organochlorine/DDT/
(plenty other references but many are PDFs)
Complain about this comment
underanothercanoe #474.
hallo again and thanks for the good wishes.
"..you sent a message.."
a paragraph in the last email, seems I will have to re-write it.
"..SO I suppose if we want to have a say with the gov't we will have to do it with our purchasing power."
since consumers do not usually acquire nuclear submarines and similar, the impact of such a movement would be limited.
that said, I do believe we (as consumers) need to make choices too (ie purchasing local produce rather than stuff which racks up high food miles, etc).
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #483
"\\\ James Hansen in France ///"
Good, if we're very lucky, maybe they'll keep him. Better still, if he annoys the French Agricultural Lobby, maybe they'll barricade his hotel room with tractors or the odd burning sheep ;-)
Regards,
One of the Lobby
Complain about this comment
@ 484
you do realise you've just scored a spectacular own goal there?
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/banned-ddt-best-hope-for-malaria-626446.html
as confusious says, 'he who rely on wikipedia for information, often find his pants on fire'
Complain about this comment
LabMunkey #485.
"..i've read numerous articles on this issue- ... - the banning of DDT was a huge error based on next to no evidence.."
yes, selective reading does help one to keep one's blinkers.
DDT is an insecticide that can pass up the food chain ..
Effects of DDT
..DDT, its breakdown products, and the other chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides (and nonpesticide chlorinated hydrocarbons such as PCBs) posed a more insidious threat..
Complain about this comment
DrBrianS #481.
further to #486:
"So exactly how much DDT can my body tolerate before I should really start worrying? That depends on how much you weigh. At concentration above 236 mg DDT per kg of body weight, you'll die."
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/pest/effects.html
bon appétit
Complain about this comment
I can't believe how anyone can read through the relevant scientific evidence examining the link between DDT and cancer, developmental growth other human diseases and not conclude that there are nasty effects on human health.
You can argue the case for and against the use of DDT to prevent malaria all you like, but the starting point has to be an acceptance that there is scientific evidence that DDT, amongst other things, increases the risk of a wide range of cancers, reduces male fertility and is associated strongly with diabetes.
It seems to me that some people are not completely informed or have an inherent distrust in evidence based science. I think these people need to crash course in the details of how many lives have been saved worldwide through the effective use of trials and studies similar to those relating to DDT.
Complain about this comment
@490 i was aware of that. but to be fair, the studies aren't exactly thorough (though i am not saying this doesn't happen) and does the benefits of wiping out maparia, off set any risk>?
Complain about this comment
This is a good article, there is a sceptic conference going on in Chicago at the moment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8694544.stm
Would be interesting to hear the reaction to this from some of the posters here.
Complain about this comment
The raw temperature station data is obtainable if people want it. All analyses of this data to date show a similar picture of 20th century temperature rise and the methodology for these analyses is clear and published. That's why I find the result convincing, and is why the scientific community do to.
So far "skeptics" have not performed their own analysis of the data, which I regard a necessary step to establish good faith on their part. Either through incompetence and/or laziness they just haven't bothered to do the analysis.
Complain about this comment
#458 manysummits wrote: "Now gemtlemen and women of the non-warmist point of view - do you have an opinion on this most recent development - or some facts to present countering these assertions?"
Now that you ask, yes I do.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html
From the article: "According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this."
Complain about this comment
@Richard Black
Do you think the IPCC review will look at things like this?
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/05/the-great-dying-of-thermometers/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JoNova+%28JoNova%29
Since 1980, as temperatures have assumed such encompassing importance, they’ve been funded, studied, and vast bets have been placed; simultaneously, somehow, temperature stations that used to number 6000 have been expanded all the way up to… 1500
/Mango
Complain about this comment
0r this:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/horrifying-examples-of-deliberate-tampering/
The researchers found –
All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit very serious problems that render them useless for determining accurate long-term temperature trends.
All of the problems have skewed the data so as greatly to overstate observed warming both regionally and globally.
Global terrestrial temperature data are gravely compromised because more than three-quarters of the 6000 stations that once existed are no longer reporting.
There has been a severe bias towards removing higher-altitude, higher-latitude, and rural stations, leading to a further serious overstatement of warming.
Contamination by urbanization, changes in land use, improper station sitting, and inadequately-calibrated instrument upgrades further overstate warming.
Numerous peer-reviewed papers in recent years have shown the overstatement of observed warming is 30-50% from heat-island contamination alone.
Cherry-picking of observing sites combined with interpolation to vacant data grids may make heat-island bias greater than 50% of 20th-century warming.
In the oceans, data are missing and uncertainties are substantial. Comprehensive coverage has only been available since 2003, and shows no warming.
Satellite temperature monitoring has already taken the place of terrestrial stations in compiling the global lower-troposphere temperature record.
The terrestrial global-temperature databases on which so many important policy decisions based are entirely inadequate and unfit for further use.
NOAA, not CRU, was the driving force behind the systematic hyping of 20th-century “global warming” – a warming that has been exaggerated in level and rate.
No? Me neither
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #379
Your #379 on my #369
Thanks for that. Perhaps if we could both chalk this up to the way sincere people with different perspectives and strong opinions can misinterpret each other.
PS, on this occasion the Python quote helps rather than hinders.
:-)
Your #379 on my #371
Perhaps if I remind you McIntyre has a perspective on Mann that many sceptics don't. He has looked at the detail of Mann's work. He will have been able to read between the lines in Mann's work. He will have seen what type of flaws are present. And he may be in a much better position than others to tell the difference between genuine mistakes made by someone who has a weak grasp of stats and deliberately introduced statistical flaws.
Your #379 on Lovelock and ozone.
Don't you remember the story as to how the ozone hole was accidentally overlooked for some years because extreme readings from the Antarctic were stripped out as "error". Surely you as a climate sceptic should be aware that the ozone story is a triumph of measurement over model, before manual measurements were made in the Antarctic the models were not clever enough to anticipate the ozone hole.
From the same Lovelock interview
"[On the over-reliance on computer modelling:]
I remember when the Americans sent up a satellite to measure ozone and it started saying that a hole was developing over the South Pole. But the damn fool scientists were so mad on the models that they said the satellite must have a fault. We tend to now get carried away by our giant computer models. But they're not complete models. They're based more or less entirely on geophysics. They don't take into account the climate of the oceans to any great extent, or the responses of the living stuff on the planet. So I don't see how they can accurately predict the climate. It's not the computational power that we lack today, but the ability to take what we know and convert it into a form the computers will understand. I think we've got too high an opinion of ourselves. We're not that bright an animal. We stumble along very nicely and it's amazing what we do do sometimes, but we tend to be too hubristic to notice the limitations. If you make a model, after a while you get suckered into it. You begin to forget that it's a model and think of it as the real world. You really start to believe it."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock
Perhaps that gives you a different perspective on Richard Black's recent Ozone article.
" The "luck" came in several forms. One was the location of the British Antarctic Survey's Halley research base on the Antarctic Peninsula, which proved - serendipitously - to be a good place from which to see the "ozone hole", which was often offset to that part of the continent.
Another was the fact that as someone without meteorological training, Shanklin was not affected by preconceptions of how and where ozone destruction "ought" be happening - he just called the numbers as he found them."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/ozone.html
Complain about this comment
@491
this is the issue with statements like that- 236 mg /kg is actually a HELL of a lot. salt will kill you at that conc.
for a 88 kg male (myself), that is equivalent to 20.7 g of DDT.
that's a rether significant amount. There are numerous things that will kill you at those levels.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS