War and peace: Making sense of climate conflict
It must have seemed a good idea at the time; to get a group of people together from "both sides of the climate debate", put them in a room for a few days, and see whether peace would spontaneously break out.
It's worked with apparently thorny issues such as nuclear arms control, it's failed with others - notably, and repeatedly, Middle East peace.
Politics can be a passionate business
The meeting I'm referring to took place a few weeks ago in Portugal.
I first read about it on the New Scientist blog written by Fred Pearce, who was there; and as Fred relates, there doesn't appear to have been a magical exchange of olive branches.
There may be many reasons for that, but one is central, fundamental and simple - a truism explained to me many times down the years by experienced negotiators.
Essentially, you can only make deals and make peace if everyone involved wants to.
Apply that to the bitter world of climate politics and... what do you think the chances look like?
You have genuinely held differences, some regarding interpretations of science and some regarding political philosophies.
And while the former ought in principle to be capable of resolution, there's no reason why political factions should agree on anything - in fact in this case, they're actively lobbying for very different sets of policies.
So while you might expect little meeting of minds, what emerged was something even worse, at least from Fred's point of view - finding himself subject to attack from "warmist" bloggers who accuse him of having made things up to discredit one of the invited scientists - Nasa's Gavin Schmidt, a prominent climate modeller and a bete noire of "sceptical" bloggers.
The messenger, too, is painted as a combatant.
So much febrile heat; so little light.
This is familiar stuff in the political world where part of the job description is to be able to give and take knocks without complaining - some of the best politicians, in fact, revel in the scrap.
But it's not the way science is: nor, I would suggest, the way it ought to be.
The issue is illustrated again by a row over temperature trends in Antarctica.
Almost exactly two years ago, a research group led by Eric Steig from the University of Washington published a somewhat controversial analysis of the Antarctic temperature record.
Their analysis suggested that the giant frozen continent had, on average, warmed up over the last half-century - clarifying a picture in which other studies had produced various accounts of trends in different parts of the region.
I say "controversial" because the team, acknowledging that there wasn't as much data as they might have liked, used various techniques to produce data that instruments would probably have generated if they had been in existence (that's the best lay description I can muster, but around the time of publication Eric Steig wrote a fuller description on RealClimate, the website to which he and Gavin Schmidt frequently contribute).
Shortly afterwards, RealClimate noted that a blogger called "Ryan O" had posted a new analysis he'd done that showed, he claimed, flaws in the Steig study.
That blog eventually turned into another scientific paper that has just been published in the Journal of Climate - "Ryan O" turning out to be Ryan O'Donnell.
Well - so far, so good, you might say.Researchers are doing what researchers do - using different methods to reach differing conclusions, putting them into the scientific literature and allowing the research community as a whole to sift and sort and decide, in time, what is wheat and what is chaff.
Except that outside the strictly scientific corridors, an almighty row has blown up over who-said-what-to-whom.
Tempers grew pretty hot over the icy continent
Eric Steig was one of the experts the Journal of Climate called on to review the paper before publication, and has been accused of trying to block it - which he denies.
You can read the whole account elsewhere - mainly on the pages of RealClimate and ClimateAudit - if you want to.
Or you can read the potted version from jcmmooreonline - or you could short-circuit the lot and go straight to the contribution Andy Revkin of the New York Times highlights on his dot.Earth blog from Cornell University's Louis Derry, himself a journal editor.
It's the most cogent, no nonsense account I've seen.
And the most cogent point in it (which he doesn't highlight, but I will) is surely that what he terms the "Steig vs O'Donnell debate" played out in the open - and largely before the paper was published.
That means that arguments seeking to assert the validity of one conclusion or the other are being made long before the methods - which are key in assessing validity - have been thoroughly scrutinised.
Such rows make brilliant fodder for bloggers on "both sides of the debate"... and for the newish breed of journalists in mainstream media who've discovered that climate blogs make superb sources for stories, the entries requiring minimal adjustment in order to generate articles that appear ahead of the game and brim with righteous indignation - all without having to spend time reading peer-reviewed scientific papers.
So much febrile heat; so little light... and perhaps deliberately so - especially given that the O'Donnell paper did not disagree with the most important point from Steig's analysis, that warming had not been limited to the Antarctic Peninsula, but had affected the much more globally relevant West Antarctic region.
In the process, sophisticated analytical techniques have been dissected at length, which should mean we have better ones to work with next time - everyone wins.
So you might ask - what was all the fuss about?
There are certain issues where factions come together apparently seeking peace, reconciliation and a common way forward, when in reality at least one and possibly both profit from maintaining the status quo.
Climate change may be one; in which case, events like the one in Portugal are condemned to failure even before they begin.
And both episodes surely show more clearly than ever the need to separate the very different discplines of science and politics, in order that the factual conclusions of one can properly inform the choices of the other.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~14~RS~)
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.
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Essentially, you can only make deals and make peace if everyone involved wants to.
Disagreement isn't war. In fact it's the lifeblood of science. So it's a very bad sign if people are looking for "peace" in the sense of looking for an end to disagreement.
Complain about this comment
Richard asks "So you might ask - what was all the fuss about?"
Based on this apologist shhpinnnn piece, that might be a fair question. But based on the whole story it is more obvious:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/08/coffin-meet-nail-more-on-steigs-reconstruction-issues/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/11/o%e2%80%99donnell-responds-to-steig/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/17/peer-review-pal-review-and-broccoli/
Complain about this comment
Here, from Barry Woods, is a look at the AGW gang's latest propaganda tool:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/18/the-carbon-brief-the-european-rapid-response-team/
Complain about this comment
Canadian Rockies, as a matter of interest, why would what you describe as "the whole story" appear on WUWT?
If I linked to three pages on RealClimate and told you that represented "the whole story", you'd say I was talking rubbish, wouldn't you?
I'd imagine the Revkin link suggested by Richard gives a far more informed view.
Complain about this comment
CanadianRockies @3
Your link referenced the Carbon Brief:
http://www.carbonbrief.org/website
I encourage all to take a look at it and read CanadianRockies link for some background.
It re-enforces for me that there are very rich and powerful folks who are desperate to move forward on an agenda that requires CO2 to be linked to AGW. Why else would folks go to such lengths?
The website RealClimate was an early attempt and obviously too subtle that they created this PR monster machine to replace it.
Very, very disturbing and has me seriously wondering what their full agenda looks like.
Complain about this comment
I agree with this,
'And both episodes surely show more clearly than ever the need to separate the very different disciplines of science and politics, in order that the factual conclusions of one can properly inform the choices of the other'
Complain about this comment
Next you'll be telling us how George W Bush ands his left wing cronies personally brought down the two towers on 9/11 with their secret demolition charges, or how the left wing conspiracy of NASA faked the moon landings to promote their socialist agenda for comrade Uncle Sam. I've read the Spectator and I've read a bit of Nazi propaganda and I have to say that the nazis generally seem a lot more fair and moderate and balanced.
Complain about this comment
IF there is GW occurring...
IF out of those proponents of GW
a group says that they actually
believe it's AGW, then, why would
there be a fight over CO2 as being
just one of a mixed bag of AGW
components? Especially, here goes,
if the CO2 levels can be seen to
be higher than in the past (I know
there is refutable evidence against
this so don't bother). Why, even if
they are not higher, can they not be
included into the mix? It seems to
me that once you allow that part of
'business' to be concluded, then, one
could get on with getting something
accomplished: Hear me out - Just
because it is included doesn't seem
to me that it would rule the roost.
You know, this sort of fight occurs
all throughout history... and when
the dust finally settles everyone
looks around and says what was that
all about? I know the 'grandiose'
concepts and the 'OMG they're going
tax us out of house and home!'
scenario's...
Well, I say, "Ha!" "Ha! Ha!"
(M. Brando, Streetcar Named
Desire)
Complain about this comment
@Pkthinks
'in order that the factual conclusions of one can properly inform the choices of the other'
Yes, yes. Sounds wonderful, doesn't it?
Only one little problem: factual conclusions? Factual conclusions?
Factual conclusions don't count in this tangle, because, the opposite
parties will never accept 'factual conclusions' from the opposite parties.
Complain about this comment
Eric Steig was caught subverting the peer review process. That's why the corporate media had to write
"So you might ask - what was all the fuss about?"
Can you imagine if a sceptical scientist had been caught lying and behaving like a naughty little rascal ? The corporate media would have moved heaven and earth to cover it up as they did with climategate.
Let's not forget that Realclimate was set up for political reasons (to defend the hockey stick scam) in an another obscene subversion of the scientific process. I propose that we stop using the term 'climate scientists' and use 'climate technicians' unless we want to completely destroy the reputation of real scientists, like physicists, many of whom are very dubious about AGW.
Complain about this comment
And both episodes surely show more clearly than ever the need to separate the very different discplines of science and politics, in order that the factual conclusions of one can properly inform the choices of the other.
Very much enjoyed your posting.
Politics and science are different disciplines, sure. But the idea that science could, or even should, stand aloof from the political seems wrong to me.
Firstly, the scientific community itself is in may ways defined by an internal politics: egos, money, glory, ... all are at play. Think Leibniz/Newton, for an architectonic example.
Secondly, all research, no matter how abstract or esoteric, has a social context. What gets or doesn't get funded, what is recognised, what is ignored, etc. all are functions of broader social priorities -- priorities which are themselves more or less political.
In the case of climate change, the politicisation seems, perhaps inevitably, to mirror the profound polarisation of the social context. Given what is at stake, it would be nice to imagine science playing the role of dispassionate advisor. But those same high stakes make it almost inevitable that each side in the issue will be eager to fund and promote research which supports its own agenda.
All of which leaves policy makers struggling, as so often they do, to balance different interests on the balance of probabilities.
Complain about this comment
#4. Paul Butler wrote:
"I'd imagine the Revkin link suggested by Richard gives a far more informed view."
By all means. Be a good serf. Limit your thinking. Read only the approved books. Just read what Richard writes or suggests and you won't be troubled by any inconvenient thoughts. After all, the debate is over, right?
More information, from more sources, is always better - if one is actually interested in forming conclusions based on information rather than what somebody wants to spoon feed you.
In this particular case, Richard is being even more of an AGW industry apologist than usual - and that is saying a lot - and any further reading on this will confirm that.
This episode simply confirms what many people, including me, knew for a long time and Climategate confirmed - that the so called peer review process and publishing has been hijacked by the AGW gang. It is now a corrupt 'pal review' system. It is modern Lysenkoism.
Complain about this comment
In order for me to present this view the reader must suspend
all thought of corporations and wizards and warlocks. Fair enough?
This just involves regular walking around folk:
I find it kind of interesting that whenever there is a battle of
views/beliefs one side tends to be more intense than the other...
like something is being taken away from them and they are in no
way going to allow that to happen.
Example: Abortion. People who have or would simply like to have
the access to abortion look to be the ones most affected.
The Anti-abortionists are technically unaffected,
except by their own sensibilities. Yet, they are the ones who,
generally, come off the wall about this. Even to the point of
murdering doctors (I know, but it's true).
Global Warming (yes, complex): Remember... just regular walking
around folk (your peers, accept it). The ones who accept GW,
in all of it's guises, just accept it.. Hardships, taxes, etc. They
accept it. They are not upset beyond the fact, as they see it, that
their planet may go through changes that they are going to have
to face. And, perhaps, make personal changes. The Deniers (Yeah,
that's right. What else can you be?) come off of the wall over this. When the reality is that if there are taxes and other hardships to
be had, they would be shared with everyone else (Remember... regular folk). Once again, the 'intense side' really have nothing to complain
about.. I mean really, why are you afraid?
Now let's blow this sucker up, big: Contrary to what you may believe...
You are actually working for the big corporations and banks and corrupt governments. Can't you see that? What's wrong here, that you can't see,
that they, want to hang onto their power and wealth and keep you 'down on the farm', lapping up their swill. You are their lackey's. So much so, that you continually deny all that you hold near and dear in order to
support them (What's near and dear? The Integrity of your fellow man). I can say, safely, all (of course, not all) the scientists
agree. They might be wrong! But that's not the point. They all agree.
Ever see a movie where a woman tears her own blouse and runs down the street yelling? The crowd of 'do-goods' run to her 'rescue' (notice how 'intense' they be, matey) and proceed to lynch the 'offending' male who 'assaulted' her. Well, guess what Deniers, you're the crowd of 'do-goods'... Can you say: sucker?
Complain about this comment
5. Titus wrote:
"CanadianRockies @3
Your link referenced the Carbon Brief:
http://www.carbonbrief.org/website"
Yes indeed. What kind of 'science' needs this? Not real science. If there was any doubt left about what this is, this dedicated propaganda site should confirm that for everyone.
Oh well. I guess Goldman Sachs et al don't want to give up on this cash cow that easily. So many taxpayers to milk.
Complain about this comment
I grew up within a culture that inculcated the moral sensibility that you shouldn't pour oil over troublred water. It appears that the New BBC has removed itself to some feral region beyond.
Complain about this comment
'So much febrile heat; so little light.'
Can't argue. That picture of the punch up: it isn't fully captioned. Who are these folk?
Or is it akin to there not being as much imagery as some might have liked, so various techniques were used to produce stuff that cameras would probably have generated if they had been present... and it happened?
Reading the link to Mr. Pearce I was interested in this line, from Mr. Schmidt: '..people who are picking through the scientific evidence for cherries they can pick to support a pre-defined policy position.'
I do, of course, accept the irony of the choice of favoured orchards I wander though myself to make a point in support of my views. Including...
'... the need to separate the very different discplines of science and politics, in order that the factual conclusions of one can properly inform the choices of the other.'
... no argument here. With, perhaps, the notion that other related, influential professions do get included, especially when editorial, especially by omission, can play a major role.
Complain about this comment
The trouble is that there are no absolutely accurate predictions. Scientists can only interpret data. Data is only a set of facts and figures based on observations of the real world and model simulations of that world. Patterns exist in data but not exact patterns. The world of reality shifts and evades the world of rigid mathematical principles. All we have are possibilities and percentage chances of either x or y happening.
The massive solar flare shows us an example of scientific prediction and media interpretation of that prediction working together to form a bias statement according to whom pays the piper. Our interpretation of the media interpretation affects our judgement and our responses, like the old game of Chinese whispers. The message changes yet again when in the hands of the politician and we are left confused and out of pocket when that message impacts on our own welfare.
So deliver the whole message in its unvarnished form and let us pick from that message the parts that we can digest. Richard, you are our only hope of some sanity in this environmental bun fight.
Complain about this comment
@Richard Black
Typo:
Nasa's Gavin Schmidt, a prominent climate modeller and a bete noire of "sceptical" bloggers.
Sceptical shouldn't have the quotation marks unless you are trying to infer that people who are sceptical of AGW are "deniers".
Hmmmm, since climate changes all the time as witnessed by billions of years of earth climate, perhaps it's time people who accept the evidence of climate change give the AGW believers a new moniker "Climate Change Cranks"?
Works for me lol
/Mango
Complain about this comment
@Richard Black
Why did Stieg try to block the O'Donnell paper if, indeed, the O'Donnell found the same result?
Could it be that Stieg's original paper had a warm bias? Here's a clue - yes
/Mango
Complain about this comment
sensiblegrannie #17 wrote:
The trouble is that there are no absolutely accurate predictions. Scientists can only interpret data. Data is only a set of facts and figures based on observations of the real world and model simulations of that world.
You're at best only half-right here. Some science is capable of producing some stunningly accurate predictions. For example, after Newton, the positions of the planets, future eclipses, etc. could be predicted with great accuracy. Nowadays, quantum theory yields predictions of great accuracy. These predictions are "statistical" in the sense that typically they say what proportion of a group of particles will have a property X. They are not "based on observation" but first derived from a mathematical formula and later tested against observation, which seems to concur with the mathematical formula. (The theory is not "based on statistical evidence", but produces statistical claims which are found to agree with observation.)
Most science produces predictions that are less accurate than those examples, but that doesn't mean the science isn't dealing in predictions -- it's just that these predictions (and hence the theories that yield them) are more coarse-grained. Their "grip on the world" has less fine detail in it.
It's true that all "data" have to be interpreted, and that "data" are got by observing and experimenting the world, but it isn't true that theories are "based on" data. In my opinion this is the biggest conceptual error of our age. Theories are just guesses, which are later tested against data. Usually no one thinks of looking for data unless they have a theory they are trying to test.
For example, no one would have thought of getting samples of ancient lake beds unless they had an idea that they would find something interesting that "confirmed their suspicions" about -- or "ruled out" -- something else they were thinking about. Unfortunately, that's not the way lake bed samples have been used, nor tree-ring samples. Instead they've been harnessed to the pantomime horse of climate science's grasp of science, which is wrong because it puts the "cart of data" before the "horse of theory".
Complain about this comment
There will always be deniers and accepters - so what. Can we agree that -
1. there have always been climate changes, naturally caused that is.
2. there was a world temperature increase after the last ice age - thank God or if that isn't pc - thank the sun.
3. some time after that man discovered the power of fossil fuels.
4. some time after that world temperatures started going up.
5. now we find that temperates are increaring at a rate per100 years that naturally took many thousands of years naturally.
6. that is the real problem and if that isn't controlled we will eventually ALL suffer and we will leave an even more horrible problem for our grandchildren and their children to deal with - that is if they survive!
Complain about this comment
21. At 11:06am on 19 Feb 2011, c_w_d wrote:
if that isn't controlled we will eventually ALL suffer
No, we (individuals on this blog) we all be dead by then, so won't suffer.
and we will leave an even more horrible problem for our grandchildren and their children to deal with - that is if they survive!
How do you know that ? -- None of us have a clue about that, any more than our ancestors had a clue about our problems or how we would deal with them.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@C_W_D #21
5. now we find that temperates are increaring at a rate per100 years that naturally took many thousands of years naturally.
several hundreds of years naturally, not many thousands.
/Mango
Complain about this comment
@C_W_D #21
1. there have always been climate changes, naturally caused that is.
2. there was a world temperature increase after the last ice age - thank God or if that isn't pc - thank the sun.
You missed out "thousands of years of natural warming, the Roman Warming Period, the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age"
3. some time after that man discovered the power of fossil fuels.
4. some time after that world temperatures started going up.
Wow! A correlation. Now I'm convinced!
But wait, there is also a correlation between the rising cost of American postage stamps and temperature rise, therefore rising temperatures must be caused by American postage stamps!
/sarc
/Mango
Complain about this comment
Phew! I had to read through your post several times to get the full meaning. Thank you for your time in explaining observation and theory. I hope I did not imply that the 'cart of data' comes before the 'horse of theory.' In my mind, science happens when natural curiosity and observation is followed by some sort of methodology to record what has been observed. I would not naturally chose maths as my means of recording phenomena because that is not my strength. However, I might pinch someone else's mathematical data and incorporate it into my artistic interpretation. ;-) Thank goodness for people with natural curiosity who aren't forcefully blinkered like the poor old cart horse of our discussion.
Complain about this comment
b5happy 00:53
?The problem with facts is they are used by both sides in an argument quite naturally, and the term the 'facts show' is a common misnomer for evidence.
The climate 'facts' of the last 50 years are well agreed(collections of data with little but some uncerainty)whereas the evidence for the predictions for the next 50 years is not factual but are theories based upon facts(much less certain)dealing with a very comlex system
.
The key skill that is missing in the society/media/politics is the ability to individually appraise the facts the quality of evidence and the likelihood of future events.The media swings with the consensus view or risks supporting another MMR type fiasco. So the fact that it has become politically incorrect to question catastrophic warming predictions does not improve the evidence in any way
Undestanding fortunately usually evolves with time as in the case of antarctic warming
Complain about this comment
#20 bowmanthebard wrote:
"It's true that all "data" have to be interpreted, and that "data" are got by observing and experimenting the world, but it isn't true that theories are "based on" data. In my opinion this is the biggest conceptual error of our age. Theories are just guesses, which are later tested against data. Usually no one thinks of looking for data unless they have a theory they are trying to test."
In the above: "but it isn't true that theories are "based on" data."
That is an absurd statement! The fact that 'Usually' appears in the last sentence makes it doubly absurd. 'Theory' and 'Data' are two dogs on the loose, pacing each other. There is no rule as to which starts out first.
There is no 'chicken or the egg' complexity, here... just two dogs on the loose. Come what may from that.
And:
"Unfortunately, that's not the way lake bed samples have been used, nor tree-ring samples. Instead they've been harnessed to the pantomime horse of climate science's grasp of science, which is wrong because it puts the "cart of data" before the "horse of theory"."
This can only mean that the "pantomime horse of climate science's grasp of science" is ahead of the "horse of theory" with it's "cart of data".
That there "horse of theory" better get a move on... An interesting race, indeed.
Place your bets...
Complain about this comment
#27 Pkthinks wrote:
"Undestanding fortunately usually evolves with time as in the case of antarctic warming"
Not very comforting for this scenario...
Complain about this comment
@MangoChutneyUKOK #19
Why did Stieg try to block the O'Donnell paper if, indeed, the O'Donnell found the same result?
Could it be that Stieg's original paper had a warm bias? Here's a clue - yes
(Afternoon, Mango)
Not quite. O'Donnell also had a warm bias, it just distributed the warmth differently.
The main backstory is that O'Donnell thought he'd found an error in Steig's use of statistics. This turned into a proxy for the old McIntyre vs Mann argument, which is the real reason why so much vitriol got poured out in the blogosphere after O'Donnell's paper got published.
Also, Steig didn't try to block publication - he could have advised straight rejection instead of giving it a tough review.
Who's right? I don't know, because I don't have the skill to judge the use of stats. It may be that both methods can be justified.
But one thing's for sure - neither paper changes the overall picture, which is one of largely human-induced warming over at least the past 60 years.
Complain about this comment
@29
Just ask the Chinstrap Penguin...
Complain about this comment
I am now totally confused. Does that mean we can approach these problems from any starting point? I look at data and don't understand it. However, when I search for evidence for what I believe might happen (gut instinct) and match it up with real-time data from a variety of sources, then I start to see connections and the data starts to make some sort of sense. It 'aint' scientific but it works for me.
Complain about this comment
#32 sensiblegrannie wrote:
"I am now totally confused."
Rejoice for your confusion...
it definitely places you ahead of the game!
Complain about this comment
For instance, when there is talk of sunspots and magnetic storms I look at a magnetometer. Now after doing this every day for a whole year I notice that magnetic interference shows a startled cat signature on the graph. The greater the magnetic disturbance, the more startled the cat looks and its legs elongate according to the strength of the disturbance. Coupled with lots of lovely yellow and orange on the other graph tells me there is a pretty big magnetic storm with (sometimes) consequential planetary disturbances. You know the sort of thing, earthquakes/ volcanic activity etc.
I have never studied tree ring data because there are so many variables of growth conditions. For instance, in untouched virgin forest full of ancient trees there is the possibility of an animal dying at the base of the tree and releasing valuable nutrients to the tree. Also there is the possibility of near by trees dying and creating a gap in the canopy for our tree to have a sudden burst of growth with the extra light.
I don't yet know where to find the most reliable data about polar ice cap melting and refreezing patterns.
By the way, the guys in the picture above are probably fighting over the last sticky bun in the tea room.
Complain about this comment
@Paul Butler #30
Afternoon Paul,
But one thing's for sure - neither paper changes the overall picture, which is one of largely human-induced warming over at least the past 60 years.
We all know the earth has warmed, Paul, but there is no real, empirical evidence to show the warming is human-induced, just conjecture and correlation
/Mango
Complain about this comment
#35 MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:
"We all know the earth has warmed, Paul, but there is no real, empirical evidence to show the warming is human-induced, just conjecture and correlation"
So, we just hang around with our hands firmly jammed into our pockets?
Complain about this comment
#35 & #36 Mango & b5happy
This is an ongoing discussion. The basic question is whether the null hypothesis is that anthropogenic emissions have no effect and that present day changes are no different from the natural background, or whether the null hypothesis also includes the effects of enhanced greenhouse gases predicted by models of the radiative properties of gases.
I, and, I have to add, the vast majority of climate scientists, as well as physicists and most other brands of scientist, assume the latter.
Mango assumes the former, and requires quite a high level of proof that modern warming is largely anthropogenic in origin.
I might argue that Mango's requirement for proof is also a requirement that some climate driven "catastrophe" actually happens. On the other hand, my position requires that we take measures to avoid said "catastrophe", thus ensuring that a satisfactory proof of the correctness of my position never emerges.
Ironic or what?
Complain about this comment
28. At 3:07pm on 19 Feb 2011, b5happy wrote:
'Theory' and 'Data' are two dogs on the loose, pacing each other. There is no rule as to which starts out first.
To put it more rigorously: data never IMPLY theories, as climate scientists and psychologists suppose. It's the other way around: theories imply that various things should be observed, and whether or not they actually are observed is the deciding factor.
If a datum is by accident gleaned before a theory is tested, which I agree is possible, if the theory is deliberately shaped to agree with the datum, the datum doesn't count as a test.
Complain about this comment
#37 Paul Butler wrote:
"thus ensuring that a satisfactory proof of the correctness of my position never emerges."
'Proof of the correctness' may emerge... it is doubtful, though, that it
would ever be 'satisfactory'... (cryptic alert!) to 'them'.
Complain about this comment
Paul Butler #37 wrote:
The basic question is whether the null hypothesis is that anthropogenic emissions have no effect
The "null hypothesis" is a bit of makey-uppey nonsense cobbled together by psychologists (et al) to make their rubbish methodology sound like real science, which involves real tests for real hypotheses.
Whenever I hear the words 'null hypothesis', I know I'm dealing with fakery.
Complain about this comment
re: 37 Paul Butler
I might argue that Mango's requirement for proof is also a requirement that some climate driven "catastrophe" actually happens. On the other hand, my position requires that we take measures to avoid said "catastrophe", thus ensuring that a satisfactory proof of the correctness of my position never emerges.
I take the latter position as well.
One of the issues that seems to cause confusion is the notion that political decisions ought to be made on the basis of some notion of certain, settled, scientific fact. Which is problematic in the first instance because I doubt I shall ever meet such a beast.
However, the standard of evidence used by the public need not meet the standards (whatever that may be, and however one might define it) used within scientific discourse itself. In law courts and legislatures across this great blue earth everyday thousands of judgements are rendered on the basis of a balance of probabilities. Let the competing interests make their cases, and let us decide, in time honoured fashion, based on the preponderance of evidence.
More importantly, the notion that science should be the arbiter of policy ignores the need to consider, measure, and accommodate competing social interests and priorities. And then we want also to consider teleological issues: what sort of future do we want to see?
The knowledge provided by science is often necessary to inform good policy decisions. It cannot, I believe, be the only, or even the primary, basis for such decisions.
Complain about this comment
#38 bowmanthebard wrote:
"data never IMPLY theories, as climate scientists and psychologists suppose."
And:
"if the theory is deliberately shaped to agree with the datum,"
Prove that this 'has been/is being' done other than by how you
think it looks. Otherwise, this sounds like slander, to me.
----------------------
An aside:
I said: 'Theory' and 'Data' are two dogs on the loose, pacing each other. There is no rule as to which starts out first.
(A further aside: To which I add - nor as to how many times one is to lead the other.)
Scientific theory involves making observations, and integrating them into previous research. Hence, by simply opening my eyes or touching something, I can form a theory of 'being'. Well, yes... in the grand scheme of things.
I find this a very weak hook from which one should hang their hat. It's a below-the-belt argument to say, 'You have a theory? That means that you have a brain.
Your brain is data, therfore, data always come first'.
Well, that's your theory...
Complain about this comment
#41 chronophobe wrote:
"It cannot, I believe, be the only, or even the primary, basis for such decisions."
Well, what then? Money? Witch Doctors? Astrollogy?
I'm not being cryptic or funny nor am I challenging.
I'm asking. It's a serious question.
What would take precidence?
Complain about this comment
re: b5happy
I love the image of theory and data as two loose dogs, perhaps circling each other, each chasing the other's tail.
What we humanities geeks would call the hermeneutic circle.
Complain about this comment
@b5happy #36
"We all know the earth has warmed, Paul, but there is no real, empirical evidence to show the warming is human-induced, just conjecture and correlation"
So, we just hang around with our hands firmly jammed into our pockets?
Ah! The precautionary principle.
An ice age would be much more devastating to us. If there was a 1% chance of ice age happening over a particularly period and the impact on the earth was 10 times those of the gloomiest predictions, then applying the precautionary principle we should be burning more fossil fuel (assuming for the moment that those who deny climate changes are correct about CO2).
@Paul butler #37
I might argue that Mango's requirement for proof is also a requirement that some climate driven "catastrophe" actually happens.
No it doesn't Paul.
First of all, it isn't an assumption. My view is based on looking at the evidence for CO2's ability to raise the temperature significantly and finding the case not proven.
If want to discuss assumption, I would say the whole AGW argument is based on assumption. The assumption that a lab based experiment works in the real world atmosphere with no empirical evidence to suggest it does
My requirement for proof is based on empirical evidence. No amount of catastrophe proves the catastrophe was caused by mans emissions
@b5happy #39
I have stated many times on this blog what evidence would make me change my mind on AGW and i have invited contributors to point to the evidence. I'm not going to bother with the same argument (partly because the mods will probably delete the comments as not being on topic), but look back through my comments and you will see the evidence I require isn't particularly onerous.
'Proof of the correctness' may emerge... it is doubtful, though, that it would ever be 'satisfactory'... (cryptic alert!) to 'them'.
"May emerge". So basically your saying there is no proof and you're taking the AGW on faith?
If proof of AGW does emerge than I will change my mind about CO2 induced warming. If proof doesn't emerge, will you change your mind?
/Mango
Complain about this comment
re: 43 b5happy Well, what then? Money? Witch Doctors? Astrollogy?
I'm not being cryptic or funny nor am I challenging.
I'm asking. It's a serious question.
What would take precidence?
That is, in my view, an existential question.
How about this: The tangled, contradictory, confused, incomplete, corrupted, noble, necessary, ever aspiring answer to the question "what is good for man? what is good for the (global, nowadays) polis?"
Complain about this comment
From #42
'You have a theory? That means that you have a brain.
Your brain is data, therefore, data always come first'.
Ah-ha! I have a retort to my own statement: In order to access the
data in ones brain... one must think about it.
What is thinking, if not... theory?!
Complain about this comment
#45 MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:
"My requirement for proof is based on empirical evidence. No amount of catastrophe proves the catastrophe was caused by mans emissions"
I repeat: So, we just hang around with our hands firmly jammed into our pockets? Got a problem investing in something that might prove to be helpful, while risking at the same time, that it might not?
And:
"If proof doesn't emerge, will you change your mind?"
No problem. But, either way, we will still be warmer.
Complain about this comment
#46 chronophobe wrote:
How about I just borrow a quote from 'Pulp Fiction'?
'Well, what then? Day-jobs?'
'Not in this lifetime.'
Complain about this comment
@49
Correction: 'Not in this life.'
Complain about this comment
Correction to #49 (my sincere apology for being sloppy)
#46 chronophobe wrote:
"That is, in my view, an existential question."
How about I just borrow a quote from 'Pulp Fiction'?
'Well, what then? Day-jobs?'
'Not in this life.'
Complain about this comment
Having followed the climate debate for many years now, I and millions of others (including a majority of the world's scientists and politicians), are willing to accept the science -- namely that humans, through burning fossil fuels, are adding greenhouses gasses to the atmosphere over and above what our planet can naturally sequester; consequently we're changing our climate in ways that are detrimental to our existence and we must take action.
We are thus what the sceptics call the 'AGW gang', 'AGW believers' or 'climate change cranks' -- to quote some of the titles we've seen used on this thread.
On the other hand...
Sceptics believe the following -- well, some of the following.
Climate change is not happening.
At the moment the Earth is cooling.
OK, the Earth is warming but it's a natural cycle (or the sun).
Humans are not adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
OK, humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere but it's not enough to have an effect.
CO2 is plant food -- it's great we putting it in the atmosphere!
There is no such thing as 'the greenhouse effect'.
OK, there is such a thing as 'the greenhouse effect' but it's not significant enough to warm the Earth.
OK, OK, human emissions of greenhouse gasses are warming the Earth but, we should accept it and adapt/ technology will overcome it.
And that sums up, simply, some of the arguments I've heard from sceptics. Seems to me that if you put them all into a room and asked them to agree a statement of what's actually happening (or not) to our climate, you'd be lucky to arrive at any kind of consensus -- other than "the AGW-ers are wrong".
No wonder we conclude that they're all in denial.
Complain about this comment
John Russell #52 wrote:
Sceptics believe the following -- well, some of the following.
You've misunderstood the word 'sceptic'. A sceptic is someone who withholds belief in some way, for whatever reason.
Complain about this comment
i followed this on a number of blogs (not just realclimate).
all the bluster from the ''sceptics'', 'deniers', 'contrarians' counts for nothing here. the o'donnell paper actually painted a worse picture (wrt antarctic warming) than the original.
a classic case of creating an argument about trivia whilst the big picture is clear. for all intents and purposes the science is decided, the current noise is filibustering for political/economic purposes.....that's why there can be no peace and that's why gavin schmidt declined the offer to attend.
Complain about this comment
@52 John Russell
Nice job!
I had been contemplating making this observation:
Has anyone noticed that their seems to be a quieting
of 'There's absolutely, positively, no warming....'
on this blog site?
You have said it 'all' very well.
Thank you.
Complain about this comment
#53 dowmanthebard
"A sceptic is someone who withholds belief in some way, for whatever reason."
no problem with anyone withholding belief (i mean belief in the non-religious sense).....as long as there is a good, rational reason for it.
in the case of agw i have only come across irrational, non-scientific reasons either political (greenies want to create a world govt), economic (you will damage our economy or distort the free-market) or contrarian (i always reject consensus views because i'm a free thinker waiting for the emperor's new clothes moment).
of course you can withhold belief for no reason whatsoever but that's just foolish......especially when you look at what's at stake.
Complain about this comment
re: 51
'Well, what then? Day-jobs?'
'Not in this life.'
Tee hee. Very funny!
But you will note that even your sociopaths here are asking after what is best for themselves. But being sociopaths, are quite unable to make a decision that leads to anything other than criminality and death. Or something.
Anyway, relating back to the issue at hand, I hope you're not suggesting we are all sociopaths unable to make reasonable choices and judgments? Or that science is somehow the only cure to human folly?
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard writes: "You've misunderstood the word 'sceptic'. A sceptic is someone who withholds belief in some way, for whatever reason."
I know exactly what 'sceptic' means. However in the context of climate change it seems to be what many people in denial prefer to be called -- in spite of possessing strongly held beliefs. I'd take it up with them.
Complain about this comment
#57 chronophobe
"Or that science is somehow the only cure to human folly? "
i don;t think anybody is saying that but when the scientific community is saying 'we are significantly damaging the planet to an extent somewhere between dangerous and catastrophic' you need to have a bloody good reason to ignore their warning.
Complain about this comment
#52. John Russell wrote:
"Sceptics believe the following -- well, some of the following...
Climate change is not happening."
John, nobody believes that. Change is the only constant. The climate is always changing. Indeed, the natural variation (change) in climate is one of the foundations for skepticism about the AGW story.
Seems you have fallen for the AGW gang's most obvious, deliberate and calculated Orwellian trick of switching terms from 'Global Warming' to 'Climate Change' to fool the lemmings. No wonder you so easily fall for the rest of it.
---------
#54. rossglory wrote:
"the o'donnell paper actually painted a worse picture (wrt antarctic warming) than the original."
Rather pointless to make stuff up when anybody who looks into this will see that you are.
------
And in the shhpinn department, Richard writes that Fred Pearse found "himself subject to attack from "warmist" bloggers who accuse him of having made things up to discredit one of the invited scientists - Nasa's Gavin Schmidt, a prominent climate modeller and a bete noire of "sceptical" bloggers.
Richard forgot to explain that Schmidt did not attend this meeting at all - in the Al Gore tradition of avoiding any real questions - and that what Pearse supposedly 'made up' was the reason why Schmidt did not attend:
"But the leaders of mainstream climate science turned down the gig, including NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, who said the science was settled so there was nothing to discuss."
Schmidt's response was lame as usual. Read about it here:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/2/5/the-big-cutoff.html
Complain about this comment
#57 chronophobe wrote:
"I hope you're not suggesting we are all sociopaths unable to
make reasonable choices and judgments? Or that science is
somehow the only cure to human folly?"
Science is a good place to start...
That is why I posed the question:
Well, what then? Money? Witch Doctors? Astrology?
I'm not being cryptic or funny nor am I challenging.
I'm asking. It's a serious question.
What would take precedence?
And I notice that there seems to be a reluctance/hardship
towards deliverance of alternative or companion support
to sciences delving...
Allow me to offer one: Start by simply doing the right thing...
Is basic pollution a bad thing? At least sloppy or even rude to
our environment? Can we agree on that(no directed at you)?
If yes - then we could dispense with the parsing of what is
good or bad pollution and move forward.
Not a lot of science involved there.
I guess I have started to answer my own question.
Still looking for more answers in order to build strength
(which could be interpreted as becoming scientific... okay.)
In the meantime 'evil' runs rampant.
Complain about this comment
Good news!
On February 19, "the U.S. House of Representatives as it voted to eliminate U.S. funding for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Republican majority, on a mostly party-line vote of 244-179, went on record as essentially saying that it no longer wishes to have the IPCC prepare its comprehensive international climate science assessments."
This was sponsored by Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Missouri), who stated:
"Scientists manipulated climate data, suppressed legitimate arguments in peer-reviewed journals, and researchers were asked to destroy emails, so that a small number of climate alarmists could continue to advance their environmental agenda.
Since then, more than 700 acclaimed international scientists have challenged the claims made by the IPCC, in this comprehensive 740-page report. These 700 scientists represent some of the most respected institutions at home and around the world, including the U.S. Departments of Energy and Defense, U.S. Air Force and Navy, and even the Environmental Protection Agency."
In other good news, the House has also "voted to block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/19/house-votes-to-defund-ipcc/
Complain about this comment
#60 CanadianRockies quoted:
"But the leaders of mainstream climate science turned down the gig, including NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, who said the science was settled so there was nothing to discuss."
A good analogy here: The US school system being under attack from the
Creationists to have their version taught in schools versus the Science
of Evolution. The latter is not interested in giving the time-of-day to
the former. Why? How would you feel if someone asked you,
"Prove that you just came into the room through that door"?
Complain about this comment
#62 CanadianRockies wrote:
"Good news!
On February 19, "the U.S. House of Representatives as it voted to eliminate U.S. funding for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
And:
In other good news, the House has also "voted to block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases."
#13 I wrote:
Ever see a movie where a woman tears her own blouse and runs down the street yelling? The crowd of 'do-goods' run to her 'rescue' (notice how 'intense' they be, matey) and proceed to lynch the 'offending' male who 'assaulted' her. Well, guess what Deniers, you're the crowd of 'do-goods'... Can you say: sucker?
That woman, in the above scenario, who is now walking done the street away from the lynching with a smirk on her face... well, meet the Republican majority accomplishing the tasks for the Banks and the Corporations... guess who helped them? The lynch mob.
Can you say: sucker?
And, yes, I am the lynched. Thanks a lot!
Complain about this comment
@CR #62
Good news
Don't get your hopes up, CR. These vanity votes introduced by Tea Party ideologues will lose in the Senate and/or be vetoed by the President.
Its a fine example of what might happen if government ceases to be informed by reliable peer reviewed science
Complain about this comment
65. Paul Butler wrote:
"reliable peer reviewed science"
Now that is truly hilarious.
Complain about this comment
#65 Paul Butler wrote:
"Don't get your hopes up, CR. These vanity votes introduced by Tea Party ideologues will lose in the Senate and/or be vetoed by the President."
You are absolutely correct!
Complain about this comment
b5happy - I think it is best that people like you don't understand that the Banksters and big corporations are driving the AGW fraud.
Are you familiar with the term "useful idiot"?
Complain about this comment
#68 CanadianRockies wrote:
"b5happy - I think it is best that people like you don't understand that the Banksters and big corporations are driving the AGW fraud."
Exactly how they want you to think. So sad and depressing...
Complain about this comment
#68 CanadianRockies wrote:
"Are you familiar with the term "useful idiot"?"
Yes...
Complain about this comment
re: 59 rossglory
i don;t think anybody is saying that but when the scientific community is saying 'we are significantly damaging the planet to an extent somewhere between dangerous and catastrophic' you need to have a bloody good reason to ignore their warning.
You'll get no argument from me on that.
My point is to suggest that science cannot rise above the fray of politics, nor should we wish for it to do so. Science can illuminate the choices we must make, but it does not, and should not, make them. Such important choices should arise out of a public consensus built up around what we do, why we do it, and where we are going.
In the case of climate change, where so many very divergent interests are at stake, this consensus building is not going to be easy. And because science is not isolated from politics, it is not surprising to find that it is riven by the same conflicts.
Thus what we have here is not so much a scientific problem as a political one, and the solutions are going to be political as well.
Complain about this comment
#68 CanadianRockies wrote:
"b5happy - I think it is best that people like you don't understand that the Banksters and big corporations are driving the AGW fraud."
Actually, there is an element of truth in your statement. "the Banksters and big corporations are driving the AGW fraud." Yes, the 'fraud' being: some well-meaning, albeit, over-zealous AGWers, inadvertently, played into their hands... it boggles the mind that you cannot see that.
It can only mean that you are blinded by the light of their evil quest.
Complain about this comment
#72. b5happy wrote:
"their evil quest"
Glad you confirmed, again, that your thinking is as sophisticated as that of George W Bush.
Complain about this comment
@rossglory #54:
"the o'donnell paper actually painted a worse picture (wrt antarctic warming) than the original."
No it didn't. It set out to show that Steig's statistical analysis was inappropriate, and that's what it did.
Complain about this comment
#74 - I said:
"It can only mean that you are blinded by the light of their evil quest."
These 'Masters' want nothing to change... Oh, if 'we' got 'our' way to make some healthy changes it would be a temporary inconvenience, nothing more. But, an inconvenience none-the-less. And they Hate that with capital H. When you're a hog, you don't like anyone telling you what to do... I look upon you, simply, as a victim. which, in turn, makes me a victim. It's drag. You know, way back in the beginning, when automobiles were new, Los Angeles, California, had a very up-to-date transportation system. The Oil Companies bought the company and proceeded to tear out the tracks. This is a scenario that has been repeated over and over in any field that threatens to DISTURB their sty.
Safety belts in cars, air bags in cars, lining disposal pools, I could go on and on and on and on... They will fight and spend millions just to be allowed to wallow undisturbed. It's amazing.
Yes, it's all about 'Do Not Disturb'. I don't understand why you seem to
be unable to comprehend this simple fact. And what it means to you, really.
Complain about this comment
#73 CanadianRockies wrote:
"Glad you confirmed, again, that your thinking is as sophisticated
as that of George W Bush."
As I illustrate in #75: There is no 'sophistication' involved in the
concept of 'Do Not Disturb'. It just is. That's whole point: a big lump.
Their 'evil quest'? Not to be bugged. As in: 'Don't bug me, man.'
Yeah, real soFISTicated.
Complain about this comment
#75 - You forgot about the way Big Oil supports Greenpeace and the other nuclear power fear mongers to keep nuclear power from being developed in the US.
And you forgot to explain the way they use environmentalists to restrict the supply of oil, and oil prices up.
And you forgot to notice that fossil fuel prices and use have and will keep getting higher with or without this AGW scam, and how the Big Oil gang will profit from that too.
Yes, I know this is rather more complicated than the usual 'Big Oil is Evil' story, but...
Complain about this comment
Richard concludes, "And both episodes surely show more clearly than ever the need to separate the very different discplines of science and politics, in order that the factual conclusions of one can properly inform the choices of the other."
This is exactly the problem with what used to be a relatively obscure science called atmospheric physics. The UN (through the IPCC), Al Gore, environmental NGO's, and political activitsts at NASA have co-opted climate science precisely for political agendas. Richard has stumbled upon the root cause of the problem. Skeptics are simply arguing that the factual scientific conclusions (evidence) do NOT support the hypothesis of man-made global warming. The fact that it has become warmer lately is neither here nor there as it has ALWAYS been getting either warmer or cooler - climate change being the normal state of affairs.
Complain about this comment
#77. At 01:17am on 20 Feb 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:
"#75 - You forgot about the way Big Oil supports Greenpeace and the other nuclear power fear mongers to keep nuclear power from being developed in the US."
Personally frustrating for me... I am against Nuclear Power Plants. I know, I know... But I object to them. Does this mean that I get to use Big Oil to my own advantage and that makes me big a hypocrite?!
Well, I'd like to think not. Just a coincidence.
You know, all the entrepreneurs lining up, smacking their lips, and rubbing their hands together: I do not find disgusting. And I do not
think that they are manipulating AGWers (AGWers don't need manipulating). They are simply opportunists who see a 'better' mousetrap to build... right or wrong, they just 'are'.
There's good side and bad side and bad on the good and good on the bad...
Let the chips fall where they may.
Complain about this comment
#78 Shadorne wrote:
This is in no way directed at Shadorne and I am keeping
it simple for expediency sake: Bunk!
Complain about this comment
It was minus 30 C this morning. Any one want to swap for some CO2 (just as long as I gets lots of global warming in the deal).
Complain about this comment
b5happy wrote: Bunk!
No not bunk just fact
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_hi-def3.gif
Climate change is FACT - only recently has it been attributed to man-made CO2.
Sheeple are all too easily manipulated from what is pure political propaganda! Anyone who bothers to investigate will discover that climate has ALWAYS changed. In the past the Political Leaders blamed changes in climate on the angry gods who were unhappy with the Sheeple. Now that no longer will wash. So the politicos couch the message in pseudo-science. It is a scam as old as time.
Complain about this comment
If nothing else, the posts here illustrate to perfection Richard's comment: "So much febrile heat; so little light."
Really inspiring. Not.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@b5happy #48
No problem. But, either way, we will still be warmer.
Maybe, but just because we may be warmer, it doesn’t prove the warmth was made by man’s emissions, does it?
John Russell #52
We are thus what the sceptics call the 'AGW gang', 'AGW believers' or 'climate change cranks' -- to quote some of the titles we've seen used on this thread.
“Climate change cranks” is actually the new moniker that the AGW believers are trying to label AGW sceptics with
Sceptics believe the following -- well, some of the following.
Climate change is not happening.
No, AGW sceptics know climate change happens, all the time in fact. It’s AGW believers who seem to think that the climate doesn’t change.
The rest of your claims about AGW sceptics are utter rubbish
No wonder we conclude that they're all in denial.
But you don’t conclude that AGW sceptics are in denial. Instead you try to move the argument away from empirical evidence and claim people like me are akin to holocaust deniers.
@rossglory #59
i don;t think anybody is saying that but when the scientific community is saying 'we are significantly damaging the planet to an extent somewhere between dangerous and catastrophic' you need to have a bloody good reason to ignore their warning.
Some of the scientific community
@b5happy #69
#68 CanadianRockies wrote:
"b5happy - I think it is best that people like you don't understand that the Banksters and big corporations are driving the AGW fraud."
Exactly how they want you to think. So sad and depressing...
Your turn for the tin foil hat
/Mango
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #62
Good news!
There's no chance this will happen at the moment and the US contribution barely covers the cost ($2.5m) of 1 IPCC junket according to Jo Nova.
It's a useful shot across the bows though
/Mango
Complain about this comment
simon-swede #83 wrote:
Really inspiring. Not.
What a fine example of a non-febrile, illuminating comment, so unlike the comments you're complaining about!
Complain about this comment
Would someone who defends the apparatus of "the null hypothesis" kindly try to explain how it gives us a reason to believe anything, preferably by means of a simple, non-scientific example?
For example, suppose I'm wondering whether it's raining. How would doing something with "the null hypothesis" help me out in that situation?
Complain about this comment
@rossglory #59
I don;t think anybody is saying that but when the scientific community is saying 'we are significantly damaging the planet to an extent somewhere between dangerous and catastrophic' you need to have a bloody good reason to ignore their warning.
Eugene Parker put forward a theory on the solar wind in the late '50's. Opposition of the solar wind theory was very strong and the paper was rejected by the reviewers because they believed it was wrong (nothing new under the sun!). The editor of the Astrophysical Journal decided to publish anyway
The solar wind theory was still not accepted until Russian cosmonauts experienced it first hand.
Just goes to show, the scientific community can be wrong again and again and again.
/Mango
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK #89 wrote:
the scientific community can be wrong again and again and again.
It isn't just that they "can be" wrong again and again -- they actually have been wrong again and again. The history of science is a succession of theories that have been rejected as false. We can reasonably hope that these theories are getting closer to the truth, of course, but we never have any guarantee that we are in possession of the truth. It is quite stunning how long the best science of the day remained in place despite being obviously false -- for example, consider Aristotle's theory that "flat things float", accepted for centuries!
There is a "category mistake" lurking in the background here, a mistake that is worth bringing out into the open. We almost all accept that there is something very valuable and impressive about science. But if we don't reflect on exactly what is so good about it, we might think that science gives us a certain or very trustworthy picture of the world. But that's wrong -- it doesn't do anything of the sort. Instead, science gives us a very penetrating, explanatorily powerful picture of the world by revealing the hidden mechanisms that lie behind the superficial appearances. That makes it very risky rather than very trustworthy. It's like taking a very long shot at a very distant target rather than shooting an elephant right in front of you.
Science is extremely valuable -- perhaps the most valuable of all human enterprises. But it's a lot less trustworthy than ordinary common sense, because it's a lot more ambitious.
(Of course it's another question whether practitioners of AGW really belong to "the scientific community" since they use methods of the humanities such as psychology rather than those of real sciences such as physics. That's one of the reasons why humanities types seem to be more impressed by AGW than physicists.)
Complain about this comment
#85 MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:
@b5happy #48
No problem. But, either way, we will still be warmer.
Maybe, but just because we may be warmer, it doesn’t prove the warmth was made by man’s emissions, does it?
--------
Still marching along to the tune of madness eh? Of course we cant 100% PROVE that climate change is man made, there is very little in science that is 100% - classic Newtonian physics, classic chemistry, taxonomy - but they are only 100% because they limit themselves in what they say. Look beyond their limits and they soon break down too- Newtonian mechanics begins to become slightly inaccurate at speeds about 10,000 x faster than a bullet- classic chemistry becomes quantum mechanics- taxonomy only catalogs Earth based life and will never be a complete catalog. We cant prove the Big Bang but most scientists currently believe in it.
The statistical rules and laws of eco-systems are pretty much 100% proved, as are most of the physics of weather, and the rules of systems, and actually computer modeling and simulation. The rules of the three combine together to produce predictions of past present or future, these can never be 100% proven but we can have some faith in them. - The predictions of science are that climate change is happening now and will continue to get more extreme, the predictions of science say very confidently that it is man made. Its been deluged under a veritable wall of propaganda by the political enemies of science but the hockey puck graph of CO2 is all we really need to say that ON BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES Climate change is man made. (there are hundreds of other indicators and proofs especially things comparing the present to the past)
--------
...
@rossglory #59
i don;t think anybody is saying that but when the scientific community is saying 'we are significantly damaging the planet to an extent somewhere between dangerous and catastrophic' you need to have a bloody good reason to ignore their warning.
Some of the scientific community
-------
Above somewhere I heard a claim that some 700 respected scientists had signed themselves up as sceptics or deniers (I know there is huge difference between the two) Given that there are something like 100,000 - 200,000 plus professional scientists in the world that puts the sceptics at something less than 1% of the total. I would guess that about 70% to 90% of scientists are in the camp that believes climate change is more probable than improbable, and the remainder either don't know or don't care.
--------
@b5happy #69
#68 CanadianRockies wrote:
"b5happy - I think it is best that people like you don't understand that the Banksters and big corporations are driving the AGW fraud."
Exactly how they want you to think. So sad and depressing...
-------
Unlike the tiny petroleum companies, the coal industry, people like Haliburton, the US Republican party, or Rupert Murdock's media empire, who are all avowedly on the deniers side.
-------
Your turn for the tin foil hat
/Mango
-------
Your generosity is huge Mango to give him one of your hats .... :)
Complain about this comment
@Robert Lucien #91
Still marching along to the tune of madness eh?
So now it’s madness to be sceptical of AGW? Do you actually have any kind of evidence to support that claim or is it just another ad hom attack to support the cause?
/Mango
Complain about this comment
CanadianRockies @68:
"Are you familiar with the term "useful idiot"?"
Oh the beautiful irony of a man doing pro bono work for fossil fuel lobbyists to use that phrase...
There was an interesting documentary the other day which explained how the Tea Party were being bank rolled by wealthy fossil fuel industrialists. Moderate republicans who were open to science were elbowed out of electoral positions in favour of ones that were 'on message'. Now, these 'useful idiots' are opposing any environmental regulation which may threaten the aforementioned fossil fuel industrialists profits. In the USA, you are faced with a situation that has all the subtlety of a fossil fuel lobbyists punching a polar bear in the face. Another inconvenient truth...
Complain about this comment
@Robert Lucien #91
but the hockey puck graph of CO2 is all we really need to say that ON BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES Climate change is man made.
Perhaps a little perspective is called for?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_hi-def3.gif
Given that there are something like 100,000 - 200,000 plus professional scientists in the world that puts the sceptics at something less than 1% of the total.
Appeal to authority – remember Eugene Parker?
And how many professional scientists actually work in climate related fields? Does the opinion of a scientist working on the production of fuel cells count? Does it really matter how many support the idea of AGW? Isn’t it empirical evidence that trumps opinion in science?
/Mango
Complain about this comment
Robert Lucien #91 wrote:
there is very little in science that is 100%
100% what? Are you avoiding the word 'certain' because you know how absurd it is to suggest that science gives us anything remotely approaching such a thing?
In your last message you are "writing Whig history" -- in other words, giving an account of how each successive regime has been built on the previous regime to yield an orderly "monotonic" sort of progression, so that it all leads up inexorably to a glorious present.
But that papers over the revolutionary changes and often shocking dislocations that have occurred over the course of the history of science. For example, you are downplaying -- nay, completely ignoring -- the profound conceptual differences between Newton and Einstein. Mass is no longer considered an intrinsic property of an object. Time is no longer thought to "flow" at a steady rate, nor even to be entirely independent of space. The idea of absolute simultaneity has been abandoned. And so on.
If you just want to focus on numerical differences, it simply isn't true that "Newtonian mechanics begins to become slightly inaccurate at speeds about 10,000 x faster than a bullet". If you choose tight enough tolerances, Newtonian mechanics is just plain wrong for all velocities above zero. It's a useful formalism, but it cannot be true.
The overall effect of this downplaying of the revolutionary aspect of the history of science is to give the impression that science doesn't change its mind a lot, or make dramatic U-turns, or even run into brick walls from time to time. But it does all of those awkward things and more. Even if you don't find that exciting (as I do), the awareness that it does is crucial, because it shows that the deliverances of science are very uncertain. I'm afraid that's the very conclusion you don't like!
Complain about this comment
#94. MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:
@Robert Lucien #91
...
Given that there are something like 100,000 - 200,000 plus professional scientists in the world that puts the sceptics at something less than 1% of the total.
Appeal to authority – remember Eugene Parker?
And how many professional scientists actually work in climate related fields? Does the opinion of a scientist working on the production of fuel cells count? Does it really matter how many support the idea of AGW? Isn’t it empirical evidence that trumps opinion in science?
/Mango
Yes your absolutely right it is just opinion, but we are talking about predicting the future. Unless we figure out how to achieve accurate precognition over long time spans, I'd say that empirical evidence is about a hundred years away.
Like a lot of science it is guesswork but its an educated guess backed up by extrapolations and historical studies and statistical analysis - and computer simulations. All we can ever talk about with future prediction is the balance of probability and it is pretty clear (to most scientists) where the highest probabilities lie.
- Lucien
Complain about this comment
@Robert Lucien #96
Robert,
Even the IPCC think the computer models are inaccurate!
Why are we spending so much money on something that may be a problem sometime in the future, when we could save lives now for a fraction of the cost? $80b buys an awful lot of clean water and sanitation.
/Mango
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #87
With illuminating comments like yours, mine will always be mere shadows.
Complain about this comment
re: 88 Bowmanthebard
For example, suppose I'm wondering whether it's raining. How would doing something with "the null hypothesis" help me out in that situation?
Why on earth would one need to do anything other than stick one's hand out the window in a case like that?
However, if you were trying to ascertain if it was raining in Borneo without the ability to ring someone up and ask, perhaps it could be useful. Knowing that it is the rainy season you might propose the hypothesis that it is raining. Knowing further that during the rainy season rain usually falls at a given time of day, and that it is (or is not) currently that time of day in Borneo, you could make a reasoned assessment of the likelihood precipitation.
Not great, but better than nothing. Add more data (oh, I don't know, say dew point, barometric pressure, barometric pressure across time) and your ability to test the null hypothesis (it's the rainy season, therefore it's raining) becomes much more accurate.
How's that?
Complain about this comment
Whats truly terrifying about this entire childish argument (and anyone who calls it a debate needs looked at) is that not a single person who has commented so far has made a factual statement which is wholly accurate. It doesn't matter which side you associate yourself with; this sort of scene, which is played out in 99.9% of climate debates on the internet, in politics, and even within academic circles, is at best pathetic and at worst deeply damaging to the position of science within our society.
It deeply worries me that science has begun to descend to the level of so many parts of modern society, where hard work and well presented arguments are a distant second to a high podium and a loud voice.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #88: For example, suppose I'm wondering whether it's raining. How would doing something with "the null hypothesis" help me out in that situation?
chronophobe #99: Why on earth would one need to do anything other than stick one's hand out the window in a case like that?
A simple example that we fully understand and can "examine from all angles" can help to illustrate how a methodology works. In the "raining" case, the straightforward hypothetico-deductive method (which says absolutely nothing about "the null hypothesis") would work as follows. I'd think to myself, "I wonder if it's raining. If it is raining, then the streets are wet, and if the streets are wet, then the next time a car drives past it will make a distinctive swishing sound". Then I'd wait for a car to pass, and if it made the distinctive swishing sound, I'd say my guess that it is raining was probably right. It's quite possible for it to be wrong, though, as the street might be wet for some other reason such as a burst water main. But it would be a weird sort of coincidence if it were wrong.
I'm wondering how or what the idea of "the null hypothesis" could add to that.
Knowing that it is the rainy season you might propose the hypothesis that it is raining. Knowing further that during the rainy season rain usually falls at a given time of day, and that it is (or is not) currently that time of day in Borneo, you could make a reasoned assessment of the likelihood precipitation.
Not great, but better than nothing. Add more data (oh, I don't know, say dew point, barometric pressure, barometric pressure across time) and your ability to test the null hypothesis (it's the rainy season, therefore it's raining) becomes much more accurate.
I appreciate your taking the trouble to explain it, and maybe I'm missing something, but I don't find that really explains anything. What you give as an example of "the null hypothesis" is in fact two claims, not one, the first of which supposedly implies the second. Are you saying that "the null hypothesis" is the conditional that expresses the supposed implication between these two claims?
Complain about this comment
Gaz #100 wrote:
at worst deeply damaging to the position of science within our society.
You think society should treat science with a sort of awed, respectful reverence? The same way earlier generations treated the priesthood or royalty?
Why? Genuine science doesn't need the kid-glove treatment. The scientific impulse is essentially iconoclastic -- it's all about questioning received opinion and refusing to take the word of any authority. Science is a living, breathing, arguing, competitive hive of disagreement, not a stilted moribund old church.
Complain about this comment
#93. Yorkurbantree wrote:
"CanadianRockies @68:
"Are you familiar with the term "useful idiot"?"
Oh the beautiful irony of a man doing pro bono work for fossil fuel lobbyists to use that phrase..."
Like most of the AGW herd, you have fallen for this false argument. The suggestion is that "fossil fuel" companies are threatened by the acceptance of this excuse to raise taxes and thus are battling it full tilt.
In other words, they will make lower profits and sell less if this project succeeds. That is a fairy tale. Fossil fuel use continues to rise, and no matter how much the Euro martyrs do to destroy their economy for this cause, the Chinese and Indians, etc. have only just begun ramping up their fossil fuel use. So fossil fuel use and prices are going nowhere but up, and so are the profits of those companies.
Moreover, all the 'Big Oil' companies are also getting in on the AGW inspired gravy train. With subsidies this rich, who can pass up these kind of government corporate welfare handouts?
But even where people have made huge politically correct investments in solar and wind power, they are so unreliable they still need backup power.
How did the UK top up its power needs this winter? Coal? I would guess with French nuclear power too - and, of course, the green clones are against that too.
In any case, I find it rather ironic that the UK would now pretend to be against 'Big Oil' just as the North Sea fields are running down. If it were not for the exploitation of those resources the UK would have been bankrupt 30 years ago. Now the UK economy depends on 'The City', the Banksters - which probably explains why the UK supports the AGW project designed to enrich them.
And no surprise that you also believe this: "the Tea Party were being bank rolled by wealthy fossil fuel industrialists."
I guess you know other fossil fuel companies supported Obama's run for President. Especially BP.
The key point of the Tea Party is to stop the government from spending money it does not have. That includes wasting money on AGW related schemes and especially on the Bankster's cap and tax proposals.
The name of that party comes from the American revolution, when they successfully kicked out an oppressive imperial power that tried to treat the Americans like they treated their serfs back home.
Complain about this comment
@100 Gaz:
"this sort of scene, which is played out in 99.9% of climate debates on the internet, in politics, and even within academic circles, is at best pathetic and at worst deeply damaging to the position of science within our society."
And:
"science has begun to descend" (yes this is slightly out of context)
I think, 'familiarity breeds contempt', meaning, the longer the 'debate' drags along...
Action is what is required. Even if it is (on a planetary basis) as mundane as 'everyone MUST pick up trash'. It's inactivity - our nemesis.
All else suffers under its weight.
Dib
There is some truth in what you say... a little harsh perhaps.
However, don't you think that that answer
Complain about this comment
@#103 CanadianRockies:
Definition of 'Tea Party': Tool
Complain about this comment
86. MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:
"@CanadianRockies #62
Good news!
There's no chance this will happen at the moment and the US contribution barely covers the cost ($2.5m) of 1 IPCC junket according to Jo Nova.
It's a useful shot across the bows though"
----------
I agree. But it is highly symbolic. We are seeing is a "tipping point" and the feckless and incompetent puppet Obama - unless his masters can create a Reichstag moment - is rapidly heading to Jimmy Carter status. After 2012 things will change dramatically. In the meantime, nothing will happen from the US - and thus Canada - to support this UN led fraud.
In the meantime, China and India just ramp up there CO2 output exponentially and the EU just sucks up to them for more business. Poor AGW Connie dare not say anything lest they stop buying Vestas wind turbines from her good friends. What a joke.
What ever happened to "Lord" Stern's threat to use trade embargoes to force this issue? LOL. With Lords like that, who needs fools?
Complain about this comment
#106 CanadianRockies wrote:
"We are seeing is a "tipping point"
True! Which is why you should wise-up...
Complain about this comment
#86. MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:
"@CanadianRockies #62
"Good news!"
Here is the 'Good news': Deniers, etc., are 'ants' standing on a rail while the 'train' bears down... Can you say, 'Squish'?
Can't you that? You must see it... I believe that is the definition of 'denier'.
Complain about this comment
re: 101 bowmanthebard
Chuckle. Well, I thought I'd try ... .
I'm wondering how or what the idea of "the null hypothesis" could add to that.
I don't think it could add much. But it is a straight forward question easily verifiable by observation (even if only of the swooshing sound).
Are you saying that "the null hypothesis" is the conditional that expresses the supposed implication between these two claims?
Yes. The point of my Borneo example (sadly lacking, it would seem!) was to find an example where one must rely explicitly on probabilities, where the question of raining/not raining depends upon a statistical assumption (it rains more in the rainy season). This assumption I (perhaps erroneously) understand as the null hypothesis in my example.
Complain about this comment
@Canadian Rockies #103
Two very important points relating to your post. These are responses to two very common memes, which we hear from other people as well ...
First the oil companies. They publicize their pro-renewable activities and spending. Why? It's good PR of course. And its a backup to ensure that they continue to profit when affordable fossil fuels run out (which I suspect they will rather sooner than you'd like).
Obviously, they don't publicize their spend on shills spreading climate change denial. That money is laundered through dedicated PR agencies and its purpose is kept as vague as possible.
So its meaningless to counter the argument that Big Oil funds climate change denial by citing their contributions to Greenpeace/ CRU/ etc because the two income streams don't show up on the balance sheets in any comparable way.
Second, let's talk about China. Yes they are currently intensifying their muse of fossil fuels. That's inevitable given their rate of economic expansion. But they are also well aware that fossil fuel usage on that scale isn't sustainable and that ensuring energy security into the future demands rapid and large scale decarbonization. China is not a democracy, which has its disadvantages of course, but one advantage is that their politicians and planners don't have to deal with the kind of economic alarmism that anti-AGW propagandists are so fond of.
Consequently they can fund the necessary research into renewables development without the constant torrent of whinging about subsidies that we get over here.
I suggest we need to keep up with that. Otherwise, one day we'll wake up and smell the coffee. It'll smell of the last sticky, filthy, inefficient kerosene from the Alberta tar sands
Complain about this comment
#110. Paul Butler
Yes let's talk about China et al... part one:
"The Department of Energy released yesterday its estimates for global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from energy use:
Global CO2 emissions from energy use were 30.45 billion metric tons.
U.S. emissions were 5.42 billion tons, about 17.8% of global emissions (2nd place).
China’s emissions were 7.71 billion tons, about 25.3% of global emissions (1st place).
India has overtaken Russia for third place (1.60 vs. 1.57 billion tons).
South Korea’s growing emissions (528 million tons in 2009) is on the verge of passing Canada’s declining emissions (541 million tons).
North Korean emissions increased 14.5% to 79 million tons from 2008 to 2009, while U.S. emissions declined 7.1% during that period.
For those who wonder why we can’t be more like the Chinese, here are a few more facts:
US GDP in 2009 was $14.1 billion according to the World Bank. China’s GDP was a mere $4.98 billion.
For every ton of CO2 emitted, the U.S. added $2.60 to GDP.
For every ton of CO2 emitted, China added about $0.64 to its GDP.
The figures for France, Japan, Germany and the UK are $6.68, $4.62, $4.35 and $4.18, respectively.
While the U.S. is not the most efficient user of energy, as measured in terms of CO2 emissions, it is way ahead of China. There can be no doubt that heavy reliance on nuclear power by France (79%) and Japan (61%) is what makes those economies so efficient emissions-wise."
http://greenhellblog.com/2011/02/01/us-co2-cap-more-nonsensical-than-ever/
For the record, I am 100% for nuclear power, and 100% against sending any Canadian tax dollars to China or anywhere else based on this CO2 fraud.
Complain about this comment
#103 CanadianRockies wrote:
"But even where people have made huge politically correct investments in solar and wind power, they are so unreliable they still need backup power."
This is a personal pet peeve: How can anything ever be considered viable
if the weight of society never gets thrown behind it? And, excuse me, there is no argument to be had on this, hence it being a pet peeve.
'Look, see? See? It can't work!
Bull! It's really disgusting... and dare I say, sick.
Complain about this comment
Paul Butler.
China part two:
Here's ALL that China committed to do (as if they are believable at all):
http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2010-12/10/content_11834746.htm
"Updated: 2010-12-10 10:27
CANCUN, Mexico - China will stay the course of sustainable, low-carbon and green development and will never repeat developed countries' old path of high energy consumption and unlimited emissions, China's climate chief negotiator said Wednesday."
Wow! Sounds nice eh? But...
"The Chinese government last year announced its mitigation actions, aiming at reducing carbon dioxide emissions per unit of gross domestic product by 40 to 45 percent from 2005 levels by 2020."
Read carefully. "per unit" of GDP. Since GDP is projected to grow at about 10% per year, that means nothing in terms of total emissions.
Thus... "China will adopt comprehensive policies to slow down the speed of emission growth, and strive to reach emission peak as soon as possible."
Yes. They will try to slow that down "as soon as possible." LOL!
Complain about this comment
Paul Butler,
China part three. Let's see what 'Green China' is actually doing. This puts that into perspective, except that it is slightly dated; they have recently announced higher targets for nuclear power by 2020.
"Mainland China has 13 nuclear power reactors in operation, 25 under construction, and more about to start construction soon.
Additional reactors are planned, including some of the world's most advanced, to give more than a tenfold increase in nuclear capacity to 80 GWe by 2020, 200 GWe by 2030, and 400 GWe by 2050...
Most of mainland China's electricity is produced from fossil fuels (80% from coal, 2% from oil, 1% from gas in 2006) and hydropower (15%). Two large hydro projects are recent additions: Three Gorges of 18.2 GWe and Yellow River of 15.8 GWe. Rapid growth in demand has given rise to power shortages, and the reliance on fossil fuels has led to much air pollution. The economic loss due to pollution is put by the World Bank at almost 6% of GDP.1 In 2009 power shortages were most acute in central provinces, particularly Hubei, and in December the Central China Grid Co. posted a peak load of 94.6 GW.
Domestic electricity production in 2009 was 3643 billion kWh, 6.0% higher than the 3,450 billion kWh in 2008, which was 5.8% more than in 2007 (3,260 billion kWh) and it is expected to rise to 3,810 billion kWh in 2010. Installed capacity had grown by the end of 2009 to 874 GWe, up 10.2% on the previous year's 793 GWe, which was 11% above the previous year's 713 GWe.2 Capacity growth is expected to slow, reaching about 1600 GWe in 2020. At the end of 2007, there was reported to be 145 GWe of hydro capacity, 554 GWe fossil fuel, 9 GWe nuclear and 4 GWe wind, total 713 GWe. In 2008, the country added 20.1 GWe of hydro capacity, 65.8 GWe coal-fired capacity, and 4.7 GWe wind."
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html
Wow, look at all that wind power! They only added about 16 times more coal power in 2008.
So why do misinformed people gush about China? Here's a clue from Cancun:
China’s top negotiator meets with representatives of int’l NGOs
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010cancunclimate/2010-12/10/content_11682641.htm
Oh yes, what was Cancun actually about?
"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated."
Ottmar Edenhofer
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/ipcc-official-%e2%80%9cclimate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth%e2%80%9d/
If you want to send your money to China, just go shopping.
Complain about this comment
A simple perusal of this thread and many other blog threads relating to climate change will easily confirm that James Delingpole was right.
The majority of Skeptics simply question that the science is settled and warn that man- made global warming is looking more and more like a trumped up scam from politicians and self-interested climate researchers who desire contol, taxes and funding. And for these "crimes", the AGW Environmentalists call them "deniers" who deserve to be squashed "like ants".
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100076404/why-do-i-call-them-eco-nazis-because-they-are-eco-nazis/
It would all be simply amusing if it was not so very very scary. "Those who know what's best for us must rise up and save us from ourselves!" - the 10:10 children snuff video being a prime example of the dangers of zealots who believe they hold the truth.
Complain about this comment
#115 Shadorne wrote:
"the AGW Environmentalists call them "deniers" who deserve to be squashed "like ants".
Let's keep a proper perspective here: In #108, I describe a rhetorical scenario. The word nor thought of 'deserve' ever entered into it.
Hence, my reference in #13: 'I find it kind of interesting that whenever there is a battle of views/beliefs one side tends to be more intense than the other...' is a perfect example of this.
Complain about this comment
#115 Shadorne wrote:
"It would all be simply amusing if it was not so very very scary. "Those who know what's best for us must rise up and save us from ourselves!" - the 10:10 children snuff video being a prime example of the dangers of zealots who believe they hold the truth."
Are you talking about yourself, again?
So intense ye be that "the 10:10 children snuff video" (of which I have never heard nor would want to) is quotable for you. Such intimate knowledge you have of this , I assume, junk?! Yes, you are correct: "very very scary"
Complain about this comment
CanadianRockies #111.
"US GDP in 2009 was $14.1 billion according to the World Bank."
given the amount of figures you quote, one hopes that you've your millions/billions/trillions straight.
US GDP in 2009 14,119,000 millions == 14.1 trillion.
"The figures for France, Japan, Germany and the UK are $6.68, $4.62, $4.35 and $4.18, respectively."
out of interest, what's the figure for Denmark?
#113.
""..reducing carbon dioxide emissions per unit of gross domestic product by 40 to 45 percent from 2005 levels by 2020." Read carefully. "per unit" of GDP. Since GDP is projected to grow at about 10% per year, that means nothing in terms of total emissions."
not so, it will be over 40% less than no commitment at all.
anyway, all you demonstrate is that equitable allocation of resources and responsibilities on a planet divided into 200-odd nation states, all squabbling to get their slice of the cake, will never work. "LOL!" indeed. hominids.
Complain about this comment
Shadorne #115.
"It would all be simply amusing if it was not so very very scary."
yawn. go blame the men in suits.
Complain about this comment
@Shadorne #115
'Deserve to be squashed "like ants"'
Citation please. I don't believe anybody said that. Looks to me like a made up straw man.
Also - "the 10:10 children snuff video" - do you actually know what a snuff video is? Are you seriously telling us that people were literally killed during the making of the 10:10 video?
Presumably not. So why call it a "snuff" video? You're not some kind of "alarmist" are you, by any chance?
Complain about this comment
Oh so its you b5happy with the ants thing .... with friends like that who needs etc etc ;-)
Complain about this comment
@Canadian Rockies #111 #113 #114
I don't think my post at #110 claimed that the Chinese were very efficient right now energy wise. But I said they recognized the challenge of powering an advanced society in the coming decades with scarce and diminishing fossil fuel resources. And since, as you point out, their GDP per head is relatively low, they'll be able to carry out the necessary research and development more cheaply than we can.
So it seems likely that they'll be way ahead in the next decade or two - particularly if our big energy infrastructure projects - DESERTEC and the Supergrid are held up for fiscal or ideological reasons.
Complain about this comment
118. jr4412 wrote:
Right you are. That is a typo.
Nice that you accept what the Chinese say as gospel. Silly you.
But I agree when you say "all you demonstrate is that equitable allocation of resources and responsibilities on a planet divided into 200-odd nation states, all squabbling to get their slice of the cake, will never work. "LOL!" indeed. hominids."
More to the point, evolution. And what we are talking about is not any "equitable allocation" - as per Marxist fantasies - but rather further concentration in the hands of the rich global elite. The rest is a naive fairy tale.
Complain about this comment
#120. Paul Butler.
Anyone who defends that fear-mongering video must think that the best thing we can do "for the children" is traumatize them with constant fear mongering to deliver propaganda into their immature minds.
I am guessing you would have been a big Hitler Youth supporter too.
Complain about this comment
#124 CanadianRockies wrote:
"#120. Paul Butler.
Anyone who defends that fear-mongering video"
And:
"I am guessing you would have been a big Hitler Youth supporter too."
Huh? What 'defends'? Just a statement of qualification, me thinks.
And, please, leave Hitler Youth supporter out of this... you're so intense...
Complain about this comment
CanadianRockies #123.
"Nice that you accept what the Chinese say as gospel. Silly you."
please, don't put words in my mouth; I 'believe' as much in the Chinese government pledges as I do in ours (I trust you're up to speed with Mr Cameron's BS idea? (apparently, it stands for Big Society. could have fooled me ;))).
"..further concentration in the hands of the rich global elite."
yes, and that is facilitated by each and every person who argues for 'the national interest'.
(afaict, that would be the overwhelming majority of commenters here. including you?)
Complain about this comment
122. Paul Butler wrote:
"@Canadian Rockies #111 #113 #114
"I don't think my post at #110 claimed that the Chinese were very efficient right now energy wise."
Hope not, because that would be false.
"But I said they recognized the challenge of powering an advanced society in the coming decades with scarce and diminishing fossil fuel resources."
Well that must explain why they are building so many coal-fired plants. But you are correct to some degree, as explained here:
"And since, as you point out, their GDP per head is relatively low, they'll be able to carry out the necessary research and development more cheaply than we can."
Their other main thrust is nuclear power and, thanks to a lack of idiotic and obstructionist environmentalists, they can indeed build those plants much faster and cheaper. And they aren't troubled by any complaints from their taxpayers or any other democratic nuisances.
"So it seems likely that they'll be way ahead in the next decade or two - particularly if our big energy infrastructure projects - DESERTEC and the Supergrid are held up for fiscal or ideological reasons."
They will be way ahead no matter what, barring World War III. Because while the West cripples itself with much higher energy costs based on this AGW scam, they are not. Look at what they do, not what they say.
In the meantime, you should be nice to them. Maybe they will lend you the money to waste on 'green' energy projects. It is all good for them.
Complain about this comment
#127 CanadianRockies wrote:
"money to waste on 'green' energy projects."
Bingo! You are finally correct... that is the attitude which prevents
'green' energy projects from eventually becoming viable.
Where there is a will, there is a way.
All those intense feelings that you are having will evaporate if you would only crawl down off of that rail. It's a lot of pressure to be
under when you see a train bearing down upon you. I feel your pain.
Save yourself, then, you can help us to save ourselves...
Complain about this comment
@CR #124
#120. Paul Butler.
Anyone who defends that fear-mongering video (ie the dreaded 10:10 video)
Did I defend it? I criticized Shardorne for hyperbole (calling it a snuff movie). Please show me where I defended it.
With respect, you need to learn to respond to what I actually say. Not to what you imagine I believe.
Complain about this comment
@62 .. 'Since then, more than 700 acclaimed international scientists have challenged the claims made by the IPCC, in this comprehensive 740-page report. These 700 scientists represent..."
- CanadianRockies
..so, scientific consensus is wrong, unless it is a Contrarian consenus..
Appeals to authority are also wrong, unless they are a Contrarain appeals to authority..
700 'scientists' (this appears to be a reference to the update of the utterly discredited 'Inhofe Report') have to be correct .. but thousands of scientists have to be wrong..
'After assessing 687 individuals named as “dissenting scientists” in the January 2009 version of the United States Senate Minority Report, the Center for Inquiry’s Credibility Project found that:
• Slightly fewer than 10 percent could be identified as climate scientists.
• Approximately 15 percent published in the recognizable refereed literature on subjects related to climate science.
• Approximately 80 percent clearly had no refereed publication record on climate science at all.
• Approximately 4 percent appeared to favor the current IPCC-2007 consensus and should not have been on the list.
Further examination of the backgrounds of these individuals revealed that a significant number were identified as meteorologists, and some of these people were employed to report the weather.
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/opp/news/senate_minority_report_on_global_warming_not_credible/
..indeed I understand that one of the 'scientists' on Inhofe's infamous list is a veterinarian..
Blaine Luetkemeyer, not only references the discredited 'Inhofe Report' but also the 'Swifthack' emails, which comprehensively failed to prove Anthropogenic forcings do not have a significant effect on Climate.. which indicates his (and the rest of the Tea Party club) level of expertise on the subject.
Shame Luetkemeyer wasn't more passionate in opposing the enormous subsidies ExxonMobil at al receive from the US government, funded by the taxes of hard pressed families in his district, eh?.. that way he might have saved them considerably more money.
Complain about this comment
#126. jr4412 wrote:
"CanadianRockies #123.
"Nice that you accept what the Chinese say as gospel. Silly you."
please, don't put words in my mouth; I 'believe' as much in the Chinese government pledges as I do in ours"
Sorry. It sounded like you did.
"I trust you're up to speed with Mr Cameron's BS idea? (apparently, it stands for Big Society. could have fooled me ;)))."
Not fully up to speed. But I did see some commentary on it, which described it as ideal for the government: if it doesn't work, it is the fault of the people, but if it does it is thanks to the government.
No surprise that Orwell's 1984 was set in the UK.
Re "..further concentration in the hands of the rich global elite."
You: "yes, and that is facilitated by each and every person who argues for 'the national interest'.
(afaict, that would be the overwhelming majority of commenters here. including you?)"
It is facilitated even more by supporting the UN or any of these global eco-crisis industries. At least on the national level we still have some level of democracy. I am proud to say that despite endless pressure from the AGW gang, our government has not taken any stupid plunges into that abyss... unlike the UK, which seems determined to be the leading lemming, sacrificing the well being of its people for the benefit of the Banksters and your ruling "elite." Good luck with that!
Complain about this comment
To add to CanadianRockies comments about China:
1) Many people confuse the fact that China is a leader in the manufacturing of "green products" i.e. Solar Panels & turbines. The reason they are leaders in these areas is because there is a customer for them - but NOT inside of China. Its all export.
2) The coal that China burns is some of the dirtiest coal around. It is responsible for birth defects and respiratory problems. They lie about this at the state level, but their lies are proven out in measurements of emissions.
3) China is the main culprit behind massive release of NF3 - ironically used to make our solar panels. Google "NF3" and find out that its far more dangerous as a GHG than CO2. 17,000x times more dangerous. And lasts in the air many hundreds of years longer than CO2. Recent measurements show it was 400% more prevalent than expected and its use has ramped up immensely as its not covered by Kyoto!
4) China's "improvements" in "CO2 reductions are illusory. It is only because they are taking old plants offline and replacing them with newer plants that their per unit emissions are going down. This would happen with or without any action from the west. Its simple economics and the fact that modern plants are more efficient. Yet China uses this to claim "improvements"
As someone who has visited China many, many times over the last 25 years I have seen firsthand the pollution, the incredible growth, rivers flowing in every color imaginable.
On the one hand I certainly admire their freewheeling capitalism. On the other its shown me that regulations are in fact needed. I am very pro-business and capitalism, global markets etc. Its the single greatest innovation in the history of mankind and has brought wealth, security and safety to billions. Some degree of "intelligent" regulation is required however. Total freedom looks like China (or Cambodia - even worse).
Thanks for the insightful comments CanadianRockies. I've been reading with interest.
Great reading on this whole issue on wattsupwiththat as well.
Complain about this comment
#128. b5happy wrote:
"#127 CanadianRockies wrote:
"money to waste on 'green' energy projects."
Bingo! You are finally correct... that is the attitude which prevents
'green' energy projects from eventually becoming viable."
It is not an attitude, it is a reality:
"the relative subsidies for various energy sources... wind and solar get in the neighborhood of 100 times the subsidy that oil and gas do, per unit of energy produced (according to the Energy Information Administration): $23.50 per MwH for wind, $24.50 for solar, $0.25 for oil and gas, whereas coal gets $0.44, nukes about $1.60, and dams $0.60"
http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/231257/yes-lets-give-renewables-chance-compete/chris-horner
For example...
"Sunny Spain suspends solar subsidy scam
17th June 2010 15:03 GMT
Dead broke Spain can't afford to prop up renewables anymore. The Spanish government is cutting the numbers of hours in a day it's prepared to pay for "clean" energy.
Estimates put the investment in solar energy in Spain at €18bn - but the investment was predicated, as it is with all flakey renewables, on taxpayer subsidies. With the country's finances in ruins, making sacrifices for the Earth Goddess Gaia is an option Spain can no longer afford. Incredibly, Spain pays more in subsidies for renewables than the total cost of energy production for the country. It leaves industry with bills 17 per cent higher than the EU average...
Spanish economist Professor Gabriel Calzada, at the University of Madrid estimated that each green job had cost the country $774,000.
Worse, a "green" job costs 2.2 jobs that might otherwise have been created - a figure Calzada derived by dividing the average subsidy per worker by the average productivity per worker. Industry, which can't afford to pay the higher fuel bills, simply moves elsewhere."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/17/spain_sustainability_scam/
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#130. Lamna_nasus
Good cherry picking from my post. On the topic of 'consensus' this sums things up for me:
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
–Michael Crichton, The Caltech Michelin Lecture, 17 January 2003
I would also recommend Crichton's book 'State of Fear,' a page-turning novel which depicted the AGW tricks well ahead of its time.
Oh yes. Consensus. Then there's this sleazy trick from, who else, the AGW gang, which I wrote up earlier and saved for times like this:
The next time one of the usual suspects starts screaming about this supposed 97% consensus of scientists who agree on AGW you can simply ask... all 75 of them?
Yes, 75 of 77 is 97%.
Thought there were more scientists than that?
Well, first you EXCLUDE "the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth - out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers."
That left 10,257 deemed 'worthy' for this on-line survey.
But only 3146 bothered to answer it, and only 83% of that selected (for their bias) group agreed on AGW. So they narrowed that down to a cherry picked sample of 77, and voila, 97% of them agreed. Most astonishing that it wasn't 100%.
Here's a link to the original paper:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/consensus_opiate.pdf
Here's Solomon's article about it:
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/#ixzz1A5px63Ax
And here it is again, complete with lots of interesting comments:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/04/lawrence-solomon-on-consensus-statistics/
130. At 10:49pm on 20 Feb 2011, Lamna_nasus wrote:
Complain about this comment
@Kozlowski #132
I'm under no illusions about the state of China now. I'm well aware that their emissions will continue to rise for a good few years. Obviously I don't think that's a good thing as far as the issue of increasing greenhouse gases is concerned.
The difference between my position and that of yourself and CR is that I think that the Chinese politicians are well aware that the situation is not sustainable in the long term and that they need to decarbonize as rapidly as possible. It just won't look like that for a while because they also need to increase their GDP quite rapidly just to achieve some kind of parity with the rest of the developed world. But by the time they achieve that parity they'll already be way ahead technologically.
Complain about this comment
#132. Thanks Kozlowski for your first hand observations. Rather amazing how naive or perhaps deliberately blinkered the AGW gang is about the realities of China. China appreciates that, and takes it to the bank.
Complain about this comment
CanadianRockies @124: Nice one! You win the Godwin's Law award for this blog.
Regarding your 103, I do enjoy watching the intellectual acrobatics that one must go through to try and make out that your defending the 'man on the street'. So many pots and kettles, that I have lost count. Anyway, I must dash. I have to go and work out how AGW is simultaneously a plot to send us back to the stone age, a plot for one world commie government, a plot by big oil to get richer, a pot by capitalists to make more money and a plot by the LEDW to bring down the west...
Complain about this comment
#129. Paul Butler wrote:
"@CR #124
Did I defend it? I criticized Shardorne for hyperbole (calling it a snuff movie). Please show me where I defended it."
It was intended to have the same effect as a "snuff movie" so your point is rather moot. And by strecthing that point you defended it.
Now here's your chance. Do you actually approve of that kind of fear-mongering propaganda being directed at children, or not?
Obviously the AGW gang doesn't. Which makes them despicable.
Complain about this comment
re moot points.
"because a child watches 1500 murders before he's
twelve years old and we wonder why we've created
a Jason generation that learns to laugh
rather than to abhor the horror"
(lyrics: DHOH 'Drug of the Nation')
also, I tried to reply to "..we still have some level of democracy.." (#131), comparing your and our Tories, alas, the moderators won't have it..
Complain about this comment
While I don't agree with the scare science being pushed onto the public, the CO2 in the atmosphere does concern me. There is no question it is rising and will continue to rise, even if the west were to disappear overnight it would still rise dramatically.
I REALLY want to know what this means. Sadly we have only politicized "science" to look at for the moment. Its fantastic that Berkeley is setting up its own temperature dataset. Independent of HADCRUT, NASA GISS ETC. The problem is that the "climate scientists" will not release their data and code. Despite years of FOIA requests, lawsuits etc. I find that utterly shocking. And anyone involved with science knows this runs counter to everything that science stands for. The few times outsiders have gotten data, such as with Climate Audit, they have shown that the climate scientists used faulty statistical methods, such as with Michael Manns "Hocket Stick" - you could have fed it the data from a phone book and it would have produced the same curve.
Also the computer models MUST STOP being used as a surrogate for observational data. All these scare stories are based on computer models. If you look at observational data, there is NO WARMING for the last 12 years. In fact a slight cooling trend, which has turned into even more cooling of late.
Looking at recent surveys the public is tired of the scare stories as well. No, the oceans are not rising. No, CO2 has not been proven to act as a green house gas. Its still a theory. They have to throw in 3x "forcing" of water vapor to get the levels of warming needed in their "computer models" to cook up the scare stories.
However... It still leaves the question of CO2 totally unanswered. We do not know what it means, what it will do and what higher levels in the atmosphere will affect. Its time to let the scientists go back and do science. They need to stop being public advocates. People like James Hansen need to be fired. The science is going forward. If you look at the "story behind the story" on this very article, once the name calling is removed, guess what - its real science, in action!! ODonnel pwned Steig. Publicly. Steig aint happy, but he has to take his lumps.
I suspect it will take a few more decades of careful measurement to get a better idea of what are natural variations vs. man made. And NO, we currently do NOT - most definitely do not - have enough data to make any sort of predictions. The AGWers made predictions and so far have been 100% wrong in every single prediction made. So the theory is incomplete.
More science. Less politics. Science being done on the BLOGs is absolutely AMAZING! I have been a fan for a few years ever since learning about wattsupwiththat, realclimate and climateaudit after ClimateGate. It is really awesome for interested parties to follow science happening in realtime. Slower than football, but far more interesting (for me anyways :)
Complain about this comment
#138. Yorkurbantree wrote:
"CanadianRockies @124: Nice one! You win the Godwin's Law award for this blog."
Thanks York! But since the parallels between that youth brainwashing and what the AGW gang is doing are so obvious, it was easy. Now do they have a cutely named law for these other examples?
"Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted." - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
"Education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." - Josef Stalin
"The education of all children, from the moment that they can get along without a mother's care, shall be in state institutions at state expense." - Karl Marx
And, by the way, excellent imagination on your other points! You must have taken a creative writing course or something.
Complain about this comment
Paul Butler,
I am horrified that anyone would object to the hyperbole I used and hence go on record as defending my criticism of the extremist 10:10 video, which graphically shows children being blown up by their teacher simply for expressing no desire to curb their CO2 emissions (it graphically shows their classmates splattered with blood of their friends).
James Delingpole was absolutely right about the more extreme aspects of the Eco movement - some of these aspects being demonstrated right here on this thread. Just like the teacher in 10:10, many eco extremists know what is best for "deniers" - they also know the implied connotations of this word.
b5happy,
We skeptics all understood the implied threat in your "rhetorical" post.
Complain about this comment
@103 - The name of that party comes from the American revolution, when they successfully kicked out an oppressive imperial power that tried to treat the Americans like they treated their serfs back home. ' -
CanadianRockies
The truth about the 'patriotism' of the Boston Tea Party..
Tea in America was a taxable commodity, this tax was designed to help pay for local government and military security.. the problem was, American smugglers were bringing tea into America at a lower price.. so the British government reduced the tax on tea.. it was actually cheaper for citizens in America to buy tea, than for citizens in the UK after this reduction..
However the American organised crime syndicates were not happy at losing the money they had been making from tea smuggling and hatched a plan for a group of people dressed as 'Indians' to dump the cheap 'government' tea into the harbour at Boston..
Remarkable how informative a little research can be...
Complain about this comment
CanadianRockies #142.
"Lenin ... Stalin ... Marx"
fwiw, your argument would be more credible had you seen fit to include the 'teaching' of creationism and all the other religiously biased schools and 'philosophies'.
never mind though, 1984 and all that..
Complain about this comment
#140. jr4412 wrote:
"I tried to reply to "..we still have some level of democracy.." (#131), comparing your and our Tories, alas, the moderators won't have it.."
Ours are closer to their name, yours aren't. And Orwell would have had a particularly good laugh at your "New Labour." I guess what Banksters do could be called labour.
I wonder how things are going in the People's Republic of North Korea?
Complain about this comment
#144. Lamna_nasus wrote:
What? Complete silence on the fake 97% consensus?
Instead you tried to pick something else to quibble about:
"The name of that party comes from the American revolution, when they successfully kicked out an oppressive imperial power that tried to treat the Americans like they treated their serfs back home."
Yes. The "American revolution" not the Tea Party incident in particular. So, while you comments about the "the 'patriotism' of the Boston Tea Party" are interesting, they are beside the point.
Are you familiar with the American Revolution?
But I am shocked, shocked! that somebody would exploit patriotism for money! That is almost as shocking as the idea that someone could play on the fears of people for money! You know, like the fear of imaginary eco-apocalypses, and all that.
No sirree. The massive AGW research-industrial-financial complex is just doing what they do "for the children."
And once you graduate from some 'climate studies' program, you are no longer effected by groupthink or career or financial concerns. No sirree. Nothing but the noble search for the truth.
Complain about this comment
#143 Shadorne wrote:
"We skeptics all understood the implied threat in your "rhetorical" post."
Alright! Hold it right there! I've already made it crystal clear what
that was all about! And, yes, I take offense to your offending comment!
You are speaking for the 'skeptics', are you? I said rhetorical not 'rhetorical'... You're going to insist upon slandering me?!
Then, I'm going insist on an apology.
Complain about this comment
CanadianRockies #146.
"And Orwell would have had a particularly good laugh at your "New Labour.""
haven't read much of his writings, but somehow I doubt that he would have found the plight of the people a laughing matter. perhaps though, you know different?
"I wonder how things are going in the People's Republic of North Korea?"
I see we're still on 'moot points'. never been there, by all accounts the people are starving while 'we' in the West take care of the regime's banking, education, etc. as RB says, "..you can only make deals and make peace if everyone involved wants to."
(and that would include Canada and the UK, n'est pas? ;))
Complain about this comment
145. jr4412
Sorry, those were the only quotes I had handy. You are right. And given how far down the tubes most education systems have gone in the West at least, it just keeps getting easier to fill young people's brains with whatever mush one chooses.
I find this to be very disturbing, and at the same time it explains a lot about this AGW debate and the quality of graduating 'climatologists':
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/08/college-students-lack-scientific-literacy-study-finds/
Complain about this comment
@138 .. 'Regarding your 103, I do enjoy watching the intellectual acrobatics that one must go through to try and make out that your defending the 'man on the street'. So many pots and kettles, that I have lost count. Anyway, I must dash. I have to go and work out how AGW is simultaneously a plot to send us back to the stone age, a plot for one world commie government, a plot by big oil to get richer, a pot by capitalists to make more money and a plot by the LEDW to bring down the west...'
- Yorkurbantree
Contrarians can square any circle.. just like Truthers and Creationists.. once you know about the secret Global Conspiracy.. and ignore the reputable, peer reviewed science.. Bingo!
Complain about this comment
CanadianRockies #150.
"..mush.."
agree, proper gander's everywhere. ;)
Complain about this comment
b5happy wrote " I'm going insist on an apology. "
Surprise surprise, showing your true colors of righteous indignation.
My my, you wrote
"
"Good news!"
Here is the 'Good news': Deniers, etc., are 'ants' standing on a rail while the 'train' bears down... Can you say, 'Squish'?
"
Now you are demanding an apology? Everyone here knows that "deniers" means skeptics in the context of this thread. And you stated that deniers getting squished is the good news!
I suppose you will threaten me next.
There is little that will stop the more zealous in the Eco-movement - destroying careers no less!
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100076821/how-the-green-lobby-smears-its-enemies/
Complain about this comment
#149. jr4412 wrote:
"haven't read much of his writings, but somehow I doubt that he would have found the plight of the people a laughing matter"
You are right. Wrong phrase from me. I don't think Blair (Orwell) laughed about much at all. My point was that the kind of fuzzy language he described in 1984 is so obviously being used all over the place now. Like the very deliberate switch from Global Warming to Climate Change. Thus one allegedly doesn't accept climate change, when in the real world everyone knows that the climate is always changing. Now we're on to Climate Disruption. And the warmcold.
That is also why I mentioned the "People's Republic of North Korea" - because it is not a republic and it is not for the people. Its only relevance to the AGW debate is that they would win Green prizes for their low CO2 emissions.
Complain about this comment
#151 - Here's some peer reviewed papers for you to ignore.
On the recovery from the Little Ice Age
ABSTRACT
"A number of published papers and openly available data on sea level changes, glacier retreat, freezing/break-up dates of rivers, sea ice retreat, tree-ring observations, ice cores and changes of the cosmic-ray intensity, from the year 1000 to the present, are studied to examine how the Earth has recovered from the Little Ice Age (LIA). We learn that the recovery from the LIA has proceeded continuously, roughly in a linear manner, from 1800-1850 to the present. The rate of the recovery in terms of temperature is about 0.5°C/100 years and thus it has important implications for understanding the present global warming. It is suggested on the basis of a much longer period covering that the Earth is still in the process of recovery from the LIA; there is no sign to indicate the end of the recovery before 1900. Cosmic-ray intensity data show that solar activity was related to both the LIA and its recovery. The multi-decadal oscillation of a period of 50 to 60 years was superposed on the linear change; it peaked in 1940 and 2000, causing the halting of warming temporarily after 2000. These changes are natural changes, and in order to determine the contribution of the manmade greenhouse effect, there is an urgent need to identify them correctly and accurately and remove them."
http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=3217&JournalID=69#abstract
-----------
A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data
Anagnostopoulos, G. G. , Koutsoyiannis, D. , Christofides, A. , Efstratiadis, A. and Mamassis, N. ‘A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data’, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55:7, 1094 – 1110
Abstract
"We compare the output of various climate models to temperature and precipitation observations at 55 points around the globe. We also spatially aggregate model output and observations over the contiguous USA using data from 70 stations, and we perform comparison at several temporal scales, including a climatic (30-year) scale. Besides confirming the findings of a previous assessment study that model projections at point scale are poor, results show that the spatially integrated projections are also poor."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/05/new-peer-reviewed-paper-shows-just-how-bad-the-climate-models-are/
-----------
Recent energy balance of Earth
R. S. Knox and D. H. Douglass
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627-0171 USA
Abstract
"A recently published estimate of Earth’s global warming trend is 0.63 ± 0.28 W/m2, as calculated from ocean heat content anomaly data spanning 1993–2008. This value is not representative of the recent (2003–2008) warming/cooling rate because of a “flattening” that occurred around 2001–2002. Using only 2003–2008 data from Argo floats, we find by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from –0.010 to –0.160 W/m2 with a typical error bar of ±0.2 W/m2. These results fail to support the existence of a frequently-cited large positive computed radiative imbalance."
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_InPress_final.pdf
-----------
Dynamical Response of the Tropical Pacific Ocean to Solar Forcing During the Early Holocene
Abstract
"We present a high-resolution magnesium/calcium proxy record of Holocene sea surface temperature (SST) from off the west coast of Baja California Sur, Mexico, a region where interannual SST variability is dominated today by the influence of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Temperatures were lowest during the early to middle Holocene, consistent with documented eastern equatorial Pacific cooling and numerical model simulations of orbital forcing into a La Niña–like state at that time. The early Holocene SSTs were also characterized by millennial-scale fluctuations that correlate with cosmogenic nuclide proxies of solar variability, with inferred solar minima corresponding to El Niño–like (warm) conditions, in apparent agreement with the theoretical “ocean dynamical thermostat” response of ENSO to exogenous radiative forcing."
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6009/1378.abstract
----------
Synchronized Northern Hemisphere climate change and solar magnetic cycles during the Maunder Minimum
Abstract
The Maunder Minimum (A.D. 1645–1715) is a useful period to investigate possible sun–climate linkages as sunspots became exceedingly rare and the characteristics of solar cycles were different from those of today. Here, we report annual variations in the oxygen isotopic composition (δ18O) of tree-ring cellulose in central Japan during the Maunder Minimum. We were able to explore possible sun–climate connections through high-temporal resolution solar activity (radiocarbon contents; Δ14C) and climate (δ18O) isotope records derived from annual tree rings. The tree-ring δ18O record in Japan shows distinct negative δ18O spikes (wetter rainy seasons) coinciding with rapid cooling in Greenland and with decreases in Northern Hemisphere mean temperature at around minima of decadal solar cycles. We have determined that the climate signals in all three records strongly correlate with changes in the polarity of solar dipole magnetic field, suggesting a causal link to galactic cosmic rays (GCRs). These findings are further supported by a comparison between the interannual patterns of tree-ring δ18O record and the GCR flux reconstructed by an ice-core 10Be record. Therefore, the variation of GCR flux associated with the multidecadal cycles of solar magnetic field seem to be causally related to the significant and widespread climate changes at least during the Maunder Minimum.
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/48/20697.abstract
-----------
On sea level rise, here's an article that provides a long term perspective, looking at a study from the National Oceanography Centre at the University of Southampton; complete with a link to the original paper, a very interesting graph, and plenty of comments discussing it... at:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/01/sea-level-rise-jumpy-after-last-ice-age/
Oh yes... "Over the last five years, satellite altimetry shows average sea level rising at 1.96 mm/year."
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_global.txt
Complain about this comment
CanadianRockies #147.
"..the idea that someone could play on the fears of people for money! You know, like the fear of imaginary eco-apocalypses.."
as you probably know (I've said it often enough), I've no position on AGW. I am worried however that our (shared) eco-sphere is on the 'brink'. and not just because of unnecessary pollution and effluents (like phthalates). BBC4 TV broadcast a thought-provoking item on the honey bee colony collapse disorder a few days ago; apparently, Australia is the only continent where hives are still intact, and they export healthy bees by the container load (and to watch the way the bees are packaged and shipped is, well, seriously distressing).
the signs of imminent disaster are visible wherever you look: the sea, the forests, the farmed areas, we don't even need to mention the atmosphere. have a read of Planetary Boundaries (a couple of years old now, still).
meanwhile we're busy developing 'useful' and 'labour-saving' combat robots. "shocking" sums it up nicely.
Complain about this comment
@147.. '97% consensus?' - Canadian Rockies
You mean this threadbare straw man of yours?-
'EXCLUDE "the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth...'
.. except excluding those scientists from thinking that anthropogenic forcings have a significant effect on Climate has absolutely no basis in fact.. they simply didn't bother to answer the survey.
Yet there is plenty of evidence that Inhofe's infamous list is not only stuffed with individuals with absolutely no expertise on the subject but also contains genuine scientists who not only accept that Anthropogenic forcings have a significant effect on Climate but in at least one case actually asked to be removed from the list and was ignored!
Michael Crichton wrote science fiction.. emphasis on the fiction.. much like most of the Contrarian material featured on WUWT..
The irony of your continual disingenuous complaints about 'cheery picking' is priceless...
Complain about this comment
#156. jr4412
I essentially agree with you, but I do see AGW as very low on the human problem priority list, and definitely not worth devoting nearly so much of our limited resources to. I'm more worried about the bees.
Must go. Has been an interesting day here and I've done my part to ramp up Richard's blog hit numbers and contribute to AGW "war and peace."
Complain about this comment
157. Lamna_nasus
Was just leaving but your comment popped up...
".. except excluding those scientists from thinking that anthropogenic forcings have a significant effect on Climate has absolutely no basis in fact.. they simply didn't bother to answer the survey"
Wrong. Read the article. Cheers
Complain about this comment
@159 ..'Read the article...'
- Canadian Rockies
The frightfully academic sounding Science And Public Policy Institute is in fact merely a libertarian political propaganda shell site.
The SPPI contact details are for Robert Ferguson.
Robert Ferguson was also Executive Director of the libertarian, Center for Science and Public Policy which had its contact details at the same address in Washington as the SPPI.. interestingly there have been claims (Wikipedia) that the two organisations are unconnected, however this would appear to stretch the boundaries of credibility to breaking point...
Possibly this disingenuous claim is made because of the fact the Center for Science and Public Policy was a project of the corporate-funded libertarian think tank, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, which has links to Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.. it has received generous funding from several large Tobacco corporations.. and more than $1.25 million from ExxonMobil alone, since 1998 (Exxon Worldwide Giving Reports).
So the banksters, politicians and corporations who CanadianRockies alleges are profiting from a Global scientific conspiracy on climate change are also supplying the Contrarians with their propaganda?.. curioser and curioser...
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@155 '..some peer reviewed papers..' -Canadian Rockies
.. except no-one is disputing that the Sun has a significant effect on Climate, Contrarians have to demonstrate that Anthropogenic forcings do not have a significant effect on Climate.. merely linking to an extract of a scientific study or wild speculation about a paper on WUWT does not achieve that.
.. for example the Koutsoyiannis et al paper is a development of work they published in 2008, which was criticised for some important methodology issues -
'So what did Koutsoyiannis et al do? They took a small number of long station records and compared them to co-located grid points in single realisations of a few models and correlate their annual and longer term means. Returning to the question we asked at the top, what hypothesis is being tested here? They are using single realisations of model runs, and so they are not testing the forced component of the response (which can only be determined using ensembles or very long simulations). By correlating at the annual and other short term periods they are effectively comparing the weather in the real world with that in a model. Even without looking at their results, it is obvious that this is not going to match (since weather is uncorrelated in one realisation to another, let alone in the real world). Furthermore, by using only one to four grid boxes for their comparisons, even the longer term (30 year) forced trends are not going to come out of the noise...'
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/08/hypothesis-testing-and-long-term-memory/
Complain about this comment
@161 '..i am not able to post any comments on Soutik Biswas site' - th7india
Thread hijacking.. on a completely unrelated blog..and it contains a conspiracy theory.. what is it about the internet and conspiracy theorists?...
Complain about this comment
@60 ..'Seems you have fallen for the AGW gang's most obvious, deliberate and calculated Orwellian trick of switching terms from 'Global Warming' to 'Climate Change' to fool the lemmings. - CanadianRockies
..amidst all the fun and games I had overlooked nailing this very popular Contrarian canard -
'The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has "lost the environmental communications battle" and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.
"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation.
"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.
"Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."
The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says...'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange
.. Contrarians attempting to make alarmist Orwellian comparisons about environmentalists, should probably endeavor to avoid being caught rewriting history themselves, in the same sentence.. its a little too blatantly Ingsoc...
Complain about this comment
OK, for those of you not following the Dellingpole link to the Johnny Ball story,
here's a Times Educational Supplement link to the Johnny Ball story.
http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6070579&navcode=94
and Ball's own account (dated Wednesday 9/2/2011)
http://www.johnnyball.co.uk/html/johnnysblog.html
Some of you may be interested in the Tim Lambert (Deltoid blog) take, which is that the porn site using the name JOHNNYBALL as a search term was a genuine porn site after punters rather than a fake porn site smearing Ball.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/was_johnny_ball_really_victimi.php?utm_source=networkbanner&utm_medium=link
Lambert also found that the "Johnny Ball should not be allowed near children" was incomplete, was originally "Johnny is not a man who should go anywhere near children with his ideas", and was a criticism of Ball's current ideas about science.
http://thefamilyvoyage.blogspot.com/2009/03/johnny-ball-what-happened-to-you.html
This does not excuse the booing at the Ince gig a couple of years back, when Ball mangled the sceptic take on AGW, including infamously referring to methane emissions from termites as "spider farts".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6825502/Johnny-Ball-booed-by-atheists-over-climate-change-denial.html
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke #165 wrote:
when Ball mangled the sceptic take on AGW, including infamously referring to methane emissions from termites as "spider farts".
Wasn't that just a thing called a "joke"? (J.O.Q.U.E., joke!)
You can tell that at least one or two people didn't quite get it with this tweet: “Oh my god just been listening to johnny ball blame global warming on farting spiders. Weirded out.”
Complain about this comment
#165 janebasingstoke
was following this story on the guardian. leo hickman appeared to have been taken in by this particular piece of misinformation. it's a classic case of using elderly, egoistic has-beens to fuel the anti-agw campaign whilst simultaneously trying to revive their careers.
wrt the porn link, it would seem very odd to me if 'johnnyball' was not linked to porn on the internet.
Complain about this comment
CanadianRockies #146: And Orwell would have had a particularly good laugh at your "New Labour."
jr4412 #149: haven't read much of his writings, but somehow I doubt that he would have found the plight of the people a laughing matter.
I recommend you read his Animal Farm, in which Orwell uses humour to great effect to highlight both the plight of the people and the absurdity of choosing beliefs on the basis of "who else believes them".
It is gallows humour, of course, but Orwell obviously regards some serious subjects as a "laughing matter" -- humour is humour.
It's interesting how equivocation between opposed sides makes humour invisible. The 10:10 video was a joke, rather than a "snuff movie". Johnny Ball's remark about "spider farts" was a joke too, rather than a "mangled attempt" to explain the sceptic take on AGW.
Speaking for myself, I regard AGW's mass death scenarios as very similar to the Catholic Church's interpretation of contraception. Both equate the non-birth of potential persons with the death of actual persons, as if there's a "queue of souls" waiting to be born, and whatever threatens the "natural" movement of the queue is tantamount to killing. Ridiculous! -- And funny, when you see how ridiculous it is.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #168.
"It is gallows humour, of course, but ... humour is humour."
true, and if all humans agreed tomorrow to kill each other, that'd be fine with me.
what I find upsetting though is that we're destroying our shared eco-sphere, eventually depriving all other living things to enjoy their 'pre-ordained' Darwinian experience.
Complain about this comment
#168 bowmanthebard
"Both equate the non-birth of potential persons with the death of actual persons"
once again your navel gazing zeal leads you to miss the obvious facts. people have died, people are dying and people will die because we have pumped gigatonnes of co2 into the atmosphere.
and your euphemistic 'queue-of-souls' tries to hide the fact that we are at risk of making the planet uninhabitable. surely that thought would trouble any sane person, even a relatively small possibility (and personally i don;t believe it is that small).
Complain about this comment
#jr4412
wrt animal farm, i'm sure you know that any book precis from bowman comes with a health warning. the book was an attack on communism and was a parable about power and the abuse of power. and unless you subscribe to the tea party news (or the daily mail) you'll know that power does not currently rest with the environmentalists (have you seen the slightest dip in co2 emissions excluding economic crises?)
Complain about this comment
rossglory #170 wrote:
people have died, people are dying and people will die because we have pumped gigatonnes of co2 into the atmosphere.
Baloney. Fewer people die from weather-related events as time goes by. There's no good reason to think that will change.
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #166
If so it's a joke that no one else has fully appreciated. I can't find anyone else on the web that has linked his spider farts comment to methane emissions by termites. I wanted to draw attention to the possible link because no one else has, and it makes his spider farts comment less stupid.
Ball got other stuff embarrassingly wrong, like apparently not realising that atmospheric gases including carbon dioxide are well mixed in the troposphere (perhaps he is over interpreting carbon cycle diagrams). He also seems to have issues with trace gases causing a greenhouse effect. His climate sceptic stuff is not representative of the better sceptic stuff on the web.
http://thefamilyvoyage.blogspot.com/2009/03/johnny-ball-what-happened-to-you.html
http://www.johnnyball.co.uk/html/johnnysblog.html
Complain about this comment
rossglory #171.
"..i'm sure you know that any book precis from bowman comes with a health warning."
seems to me that "..the absurdity of choosing beliefs on the basis of "who else believes them"." (#168) is a fair description. as for your actual point, blogging requires 'pinches of salt' which easily exceed my R.D.A., and yes, I do think that I have 'the measure of' most regular contributors here. :-)
Complain about this comment
Oh, and thumbs up to Dellingpole for actually getting his interpreting of an interpreter right in his reporting of Ball's story.
This contrasts with Brendan O'Neill's unfortunate reference to "photoshopped", which looks like a misread of the Telegraph news article and does not appear to be substantiated elsewhere.
O'Neill - novel reference to "photoshopped"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100076870/the-persecution-of-johnny-ball-and-how-gross-intolerance-is-crushing-free-debate-on-climate-change/
Main Telegraph article - no references to "photoshopped"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8330836/Johnny-Ball-abused-by-environmentalists-over-climate-change-denial.html
Ball's own blog - no references to "photoshopped"
http://www.johnnyball.co.uk/html/johnnysblog.html
TES - no references to "photoshopped"
http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6070579&navcode=94
Dellingpole - no references to "photoshopped"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100076821/how-the-green-lobby-smears-its-enemies/
Complain about this comment
Must be fair to the crowd at the Ince gig.
Further reading of that Tim Lambert (Deltoid blog), Lambert has also quoted Richard Wiseman's account of the Ince gig.
It wasn't Ball's climate scepticism they were responding to. And it wasn't booing. They slow hand clapped a dodgy pun involving "asians" and "crustaceans".
http://richardwiseman.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/a-quick-note-about-johnny-ball-gate/
Complain about this comment
Having said that, another first hand account of Johnny Ball at the Ince gig combines both AGW scepticism (accusing East Anglia climate scientists of fraud) as the trigger and booing as the description of the response.
(Warning, d-word in use.)
http://lordmauve.mauveweb.co.uk/2009/12/johnny-ballsup/
Complain about this comment
The Dellingpole article also quotes David Bellamy.
"It was in 1996 that I criticised wind farms while appearing on Blue Peter and I also had an article published in which I described global warming as poppycock."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100076821/how-the-green-lobby-smears-its-enemies/
Bellamy's account might have you think he was anti-AGW back in 1996. However Bellamy does not explicitly say this. Instead he says that he was anti-windpower back in 1996. (There are a lot of warmists and greens that are either anti-wind or have caveats over wind.) Then he mentions his 2004 "poppycock" article without mentioning its date.
14 January 2004 - anti-windpower argument by Bellamy where he appears mainstream on AGW
(unfortunately Bellamy's words appear paraphrased)
http://www.futureenergy.org/infowindblmy.html
22 May 2004 - that infamous letter to New Scientist
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18224484.200-hot-on-warming.html
9 July 2004 - "poppycock" article
http://www.junkscience.com/july04/Daily_Mail-Bellamy.htm
Tim Lambert (Deltoid blog) found an example from 2001 where Bellamy is explicitly mainstream green on AGW.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/11/the_australians_war_on_science_25.php
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke #178.
"Instead he says that he was anti-windpower back in 1996."
while it is certainly true that wind power in isolation cannot provide for all of our energy needs, and it is also true that the technology does have its drawbacks (relying on subsidies, high % use of rare earth materials, etc), I feel that there is one aspect of European implementation of wind power tends to get ignored by the (UK) detractors: "By 2001 over 100,000 families belonged to wind turbine cooperatives, which had installed 86% of all the wind turbines in Denmark. By 2004 over 150,000 were either members or owned turbines, and about 5,500 turbines had been installed, although with greater private sector involvement the proportion owned by cooperatives had fallen to 75%. The cooperative model has also spread to Germany and the Netherlands".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark
cooperation is such a 'dirty' word in the UK, downright 'socialist', whot??
Complain about this comment
rossglory #171 wrote:
the book was an attack on communism and was a parable about power and the abuse of power.
But it was also a satirical look at the way people uncritically swallow such lines as "four legs good, two legs bad".
In seeing flaws in people who are blinded by visions of utopian societies and hence accept abusive powers that be -- indeed immerse themselves in the power structure to do so -- Animal Farm is a more penetrating book than 1984, in my opinion. As satire it was meant to be funny, in a grim sort of way. The reader was supposed to laugh.
Complain about this comment
@JaneBasingstoke #175
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8330836/Johnny-Ball-abused-by-environmentalists-over-climate-change-denial.html
I very much liked the first blog entry on this news article.
“If JBall was guilty of an error of judgement he is in good company. I would suggest he has done much less damage to the credibility of UK science than the combined efforts of PJones, UEA and the Met Office.”
@JaneBasingstoke #176
Instead of using a dodgy pun involving "asians" and "crustaceans" Johny Ball could have used the following joke.
Q. What is the largest crustacean in the world?
A. Kings Cross Station
Complain about this comment
leo hickman at the guardian has reposted with johnny ball's response. i think he's trying to say it was a tes balls up!! apparently someone was on holiday so the editor published the misquotes (i'm sure mr ball tried valiantly to get the misinformation corrected and was dismayed that the daily mail etc got the story and he got a few interviews on the back of it).
all in all an interesting view of how false memes are generated.....this one will bang around the right wing echo chamber for a long time no doubt.
Complain about this comment
#172 bowmanthebard
"Fewer people die from weather-related events as time goes by. There's no good reason to think that will change."
apart from the science of course......and these are climate-related so also include famines, wars over water, rising sea levels etc.
Complain about this comment
@162. Lamna_nasus wrote:
Contrarians have to demonstrate that Anthropogenic forcings do not have a significant effect on Climate.
---------------------------------------------
Actually, no. The burden of proof rests with your side. So far we have not seen a single shred of conclusive evidence that anthropogenic GHGs have had any significant effect on climate.
Oh, and if you insist on acting like a child and calling sceptics contrarians or deniers, then don't be surprised when you get called a watermelon or eco-facist.
Complain about this comment
You know that spectacularly obvious Orwellian Big lie that the AGW gang is currently flogging about warmcold... you know, the way all the snow is caused by the planetary fever.
Well, looks like even NOAA has caught on to the real changes that are happening and is scared honest enough to explain that that Big Lie is one:
"This analysis from NOAA’s Climate Scene Investigators (CSI) shows that there’s no historical signature which would implicate a human fingerprint, or as they say:
Specifically, they wanted to know if human-induced global warming could have caused the snowstorms due to the fact that a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor. The CSI Team’s analysis indicates that’s not likely. They found no evidence — no human “fingerprints” — to implicate our involvement in the snowstorms. If global warming was the culprit, the team would have expected to find a gradual increase in heavy snowstorms in the mid-Atlantic region as temperatures rose during the past century. But historical analysis revealed no such increase in snowfall."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/21/noaas-csi-explains-record-snows-global-warming-not-involved/
http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/2010/articles/forensic-meteorology-solves-the-mystery-of-record-snows/all/1/
WUWT has links to the original article, as well as a nice summary and, as usual, plenty of interesting comments.
So, the next time one of the AGW Winston Smiths tries to explain that warm is cold and that snow shows that, you can just tell them that war is peace, slavery is freedom, and, for them, deceit is truth.
P.S. #183. rossglory wrote:
"rising sea levels"
These rising sea levels?
"Over the last five years, satellite altimetry shows average sea level rising at 1.96 mm/year."
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_global.txt
Run, run! Its a tsunami!!!
Complain about this comment
"NOAA’s CSI explains record snows: global warming not involved
This analysis from NOAA’s Climate Scene Investigators (CSI) shows that there’s no historical signature which would implicate a human fingerprint, or as they say:
Specifically, they wanted to know if human-induced global warming could have caused the snowstorms due to the fact that a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor. The CSI Team’s analysis indicates that’s not likely. They found no evidence — no human “fingerprints” — to implicate our involvement in the snowstorms. If global warming was the culprit, the team would have expected to find a gradual increase in heavy snowstorms in the mid-Atlantic region as temperatures rose during the past century. But historical analysis revealed no such increase in snowfall."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/21/noaas-csi-explains-record-snows-global-warming-not-involved/#comment-603877
http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/2010/articles/forensic-meteorology-solves-the-mystery-of-record-snows/all/1/
Complain about this comment
#180. bowmanthebard wrote:
"Animal Farm is a more penetrating book than 1984, in my opinion."
It certainly is penetrating and revealing. Apart from the 'two legs bad, four legs good' line - which seems to be the motto of some extreme environmentalists now - my favourite line is 'everyone is equal but some are more equal than others.' I think of this line each time I see hypocrites flying off to lavish beachside resorts to lecture others about CO2 emissions.
Complain about this comment
#183. rossglory wrote:
"rising sea levels"
----------
"Over the last five years, satellite altimetry shows average sea level rising at 1.96 mm/year."
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_global.txt
Run rossglory, run! Its a tsunami!!!
Complain about this comment
@rossglory #182
I think it should be encouraged to echo round, but not in the sense you mean. I think it's a very good straightforward example of the way that honest misunderstandings can arise and poison the atmosphere.
There are other examples not as straightforward, and more familiarity with the straightforward examples might help tackle them.
Here's a link to the Graun article you mention.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/feb/21/johnny-ball-climate-smear-challenged
Complain about this comment
“The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !”
Phil Jones
http://bit.ly/i4qCjf
“I would not give them *anything*. I would not respond or even acknowledge receipt of their emails. There is no reason to give them any data, in my opinion, and I think we do so at our own peril!”
Michael E. Mann
http://bit.ly/eIBnT1
Complain about this comment
#188 canadianwockies
"Run rossglory, run! Its a tsunami!!!"
you lot remind me of children bickering over sandcastles on a beach understandably oblivious to the threat from the sea. 'no my castle's better', 'but you don;t have a flag and i do'.....
you'll need to scoot off back to wuwt to get an incisive reposte now.
Complain about this comment
#188 canadianwockies
"Run rossglory, run! Its a tsunami!!!"
run run, the green commies are coming, with their commie world govt!!
that pretty much sums up 90% of your posts. it might be worth pointing out that nobody follows those wuwt links apart from those that have just come from wuwt, may save you a bit of copy and pasting.
Complain about this comment
Ho hum we've got some "awful emails" on record. Little evidence of some of the mooted bad behaviour in the emails actually being carried out, but still pretty strong reading that can be dredged up any time it looks like proponents of AGW are having an easier time of it.
So that's all right then.
Complain about this comment
#191. rossglory wrote:
"you lot remind me of children bickering over sandcastles on a beach understandably oblivious to the threat from the sea."
No. I'm aware of that "threat." It is rising at 1.96 mm/year. The children will be very old before they notice it.
#192. "nobody follows those wuwt links"
Obviously not you, or you might know about sea level rise. But just to help you I often also post some condensed summary of their contents.
Complain about this comment
#193. JaneBasingstoke wrote:
"Ho hum we've got some "awful emails" on record."
Yes, move along, nothing to see here.
"Little evidence of some of the mooted bad behaviour in the emails actually being carried out"
Where's the original data? Oops, he lost it!
"still pretty strong reading that can be dredged up any time it looks like proponents of AGW are having an easier time of it."
On what planet is the AGW gang "having an easier time of it"? The whole thing is collapsing like Mubarak's regime, for many of the same reasons.
"So that's all right then."
Indeed. The sooner the better!
Complain about this comment
@184 ..'The burden of proof rests with your side. So far we have not seen a single shred of conclusive evidence that anthropogenic GHGs have had any significant effect on climate.' - Brunnen
No, the evidence has been supplied.. Contrarians simply do not wish to accept it and have recently made the initial political attempt in the US of withdrawing the US government funding to the IPCC..
Except the IPCC does no original scientific research itself, it merely tries to draw together the reputable, peer reviewed scientific research and present it in a manner that the politicians can understand..
So The Tea Party club is actually saying they want to stand on Capital Hill with their fingers in the ears screaming 'LA,LA,LA,LA,LA,LA,LA,LA.. Can't hear you!' at the top of their voices.. very scientific eh?
..'calling sceptics contrarians or deniers, then don't be surprised when you get called a watermelon or eco-facist.' - Brunnen
Libertarian activists use those and other equally derogatory terms routinely to describe environmentalists on every internet forum and have done for years.. and as other contributors have pointed out the bouncing between McCarthyism and Godwins is hilarious...
I have already explained in the past, in my opinion denialist and contrarian is the correct description for individuals who repeatedly post material that indicates they have done no research whatsoever - the polar populations are increasing.. the glaciers are advancing.. the eco-commiefascists changed the use of Global Warming to Climate Change.. etc.. etc...
It is impossible to have genuinely researched those subjects and be unaware you are posting a refuted fallacy.. therefore no scientific skepticism is involved, its purely political.. and therefore contrarian and denialist..
Spamming links to WUWT at the beginning of every thread does not make you a skeptic either, it makes you a libertarian activist raising WUWT's hit count profile, by piggybacking the mainstream media.. which is the reason why Contrarians get so very steamed up if anyone has the audacity to link to RealClimate...
.. and on many forums the response to the terms 'Watermelon' and 'Eco-fascist' is usually not Denialist or Contrarian.. it is actually 'Libtard' or 'Libdiot'.. terms which I personally don't use or approve of.. it will be interesting to see if it gets a complaint in this explanatory context or not.
Complain about this comment
196. At 11:15pm on 21 Feb 2011, Lamna_nasus wrote:
@184 ..'The burden of proof rests with your side. So far we have not seen a single shred of conclusive evidence that anthropogenic GHGs have had any significant effect on climate.' - Brunnen
No, the evidence has been supplied.
--------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSIVE evidence is what we're looking for, not bulls*** computer models, guesswork and crystal ball gazing.
Provide conclusive proof that the (very) small change in the climate we have witnessed over the last century is caused by human action and is not natural.
Go on, there'll be a Nobel prize in it for you, because no one else on the planet has managed to do so.
If not, then you're you're just another believer, taking prophesy and doomcrying as Gospel truth.
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #195
"Yes, move along, nothing to see here."
Actually this time it was you who was trying to change the subject.
"easier time of it"
Oh, you mean you weren't trying to change the subject from one where some sceptics got caught making a fuss about nothing.
"The whole thing is collapsing like Mubarak's regime, for many of the same reasons."
LOL. Since when did Phil Jones or Michael Mann deserve comparing to a regime criticised in Amnesty's annual report.
http://thereport.amnesty.org/regions/middle-east-north-africa
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS