Comments for en-gb 30 Mon 04 May 2015 18:56:28 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at jr4412 bowmanthebard #176."..moral rapture.."forced to somewhat agree, although I'd point to immaturity, in addition to the religious undertow; people going on about their 'rights' without once acknowledging duties or obligations."Yes, I'm half-sorry about that.."it's me who ought to apologise, and I do. Fri 18 Jun 2010 02:42:20 GMT+1 Dave_oxon @Bowmanthebard, #173.thanks for the explanation - I hope this response to my #170 will serve to clear up an amount of misunderstanding on both sides... Thu 17 Jun 2010 13:46:42 GMT+1 bowmanthebard Yes, I'm half-sorry about that -- I didn't bother reading that far.Have you noticed the way everyone loves moral outrage? -- It's the standard way of disguising racism, political resentment, and other less lovely human emotions, even from ourselves.It seems to me that a good many of us in these discussions are morally overwrought -- we whip ourselves up into a sort of moral rapture in which we kid ourselves that we are paragons of virtue and our real concern is "our children" -- when what's really going on is we hate Americans, capitalists, Thatcherites, neo-liberals, or whatever.I cannot count the number of times I have heard self-described atheists "justifying" their own ethnic hatred by saying group A did something bad to group B -- meaning that some ancestors of the former did something bad to some ancestors of the latter. If we assume that ancestors do not interbreed (a mistaken idea) and that culpability is inherited (a disgusting idea) we end up with a nice "moral-sounding" pretense for racial violence.I think some of us in these discussions lose contact with reality by gleefully flagellating ourselves into a sickly sentimental, overwrought state in which "war" is justified because we are morally virtuous and people who disagree with us are morally vicious. And truth is irrelevant.No doubt I am as guilty as the next person, but I hope not! Thu 17 Jun 2010 07:34:30 GMT+1 jr4412 how to quote selectively to construct an insult:bowman (#174):"#172 manysummits wrote:In a war - you shoot to kill.This isn't a "war", and I suggest you consult a medical professional, because I think you are in some sort of emotional trouble."manysummits (#172):"In a war - you shoot to kill. ... Of course a weblog is not a battlefield literally, and one does not die or bleed from insult or ridicule - true in a narrow sense."pathetic. Wed 16 Jun 2010 23:07:27 GMT+1 bowmanthebard #172 manysummits wrote:In a war - you shoot to kill.This isn't a "war", and I suggest you consult a medical professional, because I think you are in some sort of emotional trouble. Wed 16 Jun 2010 17:43:39 GMT+1 bowmanthebard @ Dave_oxon:Apologies -- my last response was too quick.I don't regard Popper as a great philosopher at all, not do I count the issue of falsifiability as central.(Having said that, I should add that if a theory is so vague and "slippery" that no observation can count against it, that's bad, because it means its observational consequences are not easy to deduce, and that means its "passing a test" cannot be regarded as any significant success. For example, I have heard it claimed that we can BOTH expect "warmer, wetter winters" as a result of global warming AND that we are all set for cold dry winters like the last one, again because of global warming. Obviously, that's garbage. To be fair, falsifiability isn't all-or-nothing, and I think it's more a measure of how a person holds a theory than a mark of the theory's own shortcomings. Whatever -- I don't think I can fairly be said to have argued "at length" about it.)Why do I regard Popper as a rather poor philosopher? -- The main reason is this: he strikes me as a "foundationalist". In other words, he strikes me as someone who assumes that all knowledge has a "foundational" structure like mathematics, in which "theorems" rest on "axioms". You can tell how common this idea is from the number of people who talk about science as being "based on" observations, as if theories can be derived from observations.A sure sign of Popper's foundationalism is his acceptance of Hume's problem of induction. Hume's problem only arises if we assume foundationalism by treating induction as if it had the structure of a deductive argument. Popper does, and so rejects all induction as never giving the slightest reason to believe anything. But frankly, that's just nuts!In my (anti-Popper) opinion, induction does indeed give us a reason to believe things fairly often, depending on the context, which is critical. But induction is certainly not "the characteristic form of inference used in science" and it is a fatal error to suppose it is. I'm calling that error 'inductivism', but it is nearly always motivated by foundationalism. In the present context, I'm using the words 'foundationalist' and 'inductivist' almost interchangeably, but I would tighten up my usage if we got much further into the discussion.It's a straightforward matter to show that induction doesn't play the role that inductivists suppose it has in science. Scientific theories describe things that cannot be seen directly, such as gravitational fields, electrons and viruses. But observations do describe things that can be seen directly, such as tides, sparks and sneezes. There is absolutely no way that claims about tides, sparks and sneezes can be extrapolated from to arrive at claims about gravitational fields, electrons or viruses. To assume they can is to miss almost everything interesting in science -- the creativity, the cunning, the magic! Wed 16 Jun 2010 17:42:03 GMT+1 manysummits To Rossglory:Appreciate your comments re Monbiot.He describes the liberal left as 'effete.'Strong stuff, but not without foundation.The world is messy. Many on this blog attempt to maintain the so-called even strain - to answer only politely.In a war - you shoot to kill.Forgetting this is not a good way to continue the line.Of course, the case is made that this is not war - just intellectual weight-lifting.Not for me. It was only a matter of a few weeks on this blog some year and a half ago that I realized what was really going on here.Of course a weblog is not a battlefield literally, and one does not die or bleed from insult or ridicule - true in a narrow sense.But if the UN figures are correct, and preventable deaths are occurring all the time due to inaction on any number of issues, from climate change throughout the whole gamut of international issues - then the consequences of a disinformation campaign are transformed into real suffering and needless death and destruction - a war.Like all wars, the fight is a complex of emotion and ideology, with access to resources somewhere at the base.Warmist regards, and see you? on the next thread,Manysummits Wed 16 Jun 2010 16:34:18 GMT+1 bowmanthebard @ Dave_oxonI reject Popper's rejection of induction completely, in fact I regard him as a pretty poor philosopher of science. Would you mind putting your point in your words instead of Popper's, to keep things simple? Wed 16 Jun 2010 15:39:47 GMT+1 Dave_oxon @Bowman, #159, 167If I may (since I added a brief note of support for Lorax who may be feeling like he is defending the corner alone)... You have, on numerous occasions, referred to climate science as inductivism.To attempt to understand exactly what you (may!) mean by use of the word "inductivism" I quote Karl Popper [Popper, K. R. (1981). Conjectural knowledge: My solution to the problem of induction. In K. R. Popper (Ed.), Objective Knowledge (pp. 1-31). London: Oxford. - PDF available by suitable googling]:"Are we rationally justified in reasoning from instances or from counterinstances of which we have had experience to the truth or falsity of the corresponding laws or to instances of which we have had no experience?The answer to this problem is: as implied by Hume, we certainly are not justified in reasoning from an instance to the truth of the corresponding law. But to this negative result a second result, equally negative, may be added: we are justified in reasoning from a counterinstance to the falsity of the corresponding universal law (that is, of any law of which it is a counterinstance). Or in other words, from a purely logical point of view, the acceptance of one counterinstance to 'All swans are white' implies the falsity of the law 'All swans are white' - that law, that is, whose counterinstance we accepted. Induction is logically invalid; but refutation or falsification is a logically valid way of arguing from a single counterinstance to - or, rather, against - the corresponding law."From the final sentence of the quote I give above, one concludes:"A falsifiable law is not inductivism. Conversely an inductivist claim is not falsifiable."It is therefore a logical conclusion to have reached that you consider the hypotheses of climate science to be un-falsifiable (unless that logic is flawed... as this blog's resident philosopher, a comment from you on this reasoning would be enlightening). Although you have pointed out above that:"I have repeatedly said that no scientific theory is ever conclusively falsifiable"This is rather different to implying that the theory is completely un-falsifiable..In addition, by demonstrating that climate science is falsifiable, one may demonstrate that it is not inductivist, i.e. that acceptance of a counter-example will falsify the hypothesis (others on this blog maintain this has already been done! discussion of this point is not the purpose of this particular post.) Both Lorax and I feel that this has been shown on this blog.As a footnote I would like to point out that I used the word "may" above to indicate that I "may" (still!) have mis-interpreted your meaning in the use of the term "inductivism". If this is the case, a precise statement of what you do mean would prevent any future misunderstanding. Wed 16 Jun 2010 14:32:47 GMT+1 bowmanthebard #168 LabMunkey wrote:davblo- you seem to be suggesting that the only reason people are sceptical of climate change is because the findings may be uncomfortable.I would add:If a theory because makes grossly extravagant claims that are not borne out by observation, and that makes people feel "uncomfortable", that very discomfort is good reason to reject the theory.Scientific theories are not "based on" observation, but tested and constrained by observation. If a theory makes a ridiculous-sounding claim -- of a sort that is has been common throughout history among religious apocalypse-merchants, that falls flat on its face when compared to observation -- then it is appropriate to feel "uncomfortable" with it, and we are quite right to reject it because we feel "uncomfortable" with it. Wed 16 Jun 2010 08:36:24 GMT+1 LabMunkey @165,davblo- you seem to be suggesting that the only reason people are sceptical of climate change is because the findings may be uncomfortable.sure, i can totally believe there are people like that- but that cast majority of sceptics are sceptical due to the exceptionally shoody nature of the theory.Now- this has not been helped at all by the ipcc/cru et al, so there's an issue of trust here which i think you're downplaying in your (usually) flippant way- but even if the integrity of those two organisations were still fully intact (and you're a fool if you think it is) there would still be, genuine, credible sceptics who have issues with the theory.The theory is by no means as water tight as say..... plate tectonics.... Wed 16 Jun 2010 06:55:32 GMT+1 bowmanthebard #151 Lorax wrote:"the 'climate change isn't falsifiable' argument promoted at length, especially by Bowman."I'm still waiting to hear where I promoted this argument, or for some sort of admission from Lorax that he just made that up. Wed 16 Jun 2010 06:33:27 GMT+1 bowmanthebard #165 davblo wrote:"None of that has anything to do whether the theory is valid or not."Valid?Do you mean true? Worthy of belief? Or what?If a theory looks like someone lifted it from the backside of the cover of a Yes triple album, then it's hardly worthy of belief, although it might be true. We cannot step outside our skins to check whether it really is true, so we just have to judge it on how laughable it seems."Valid" is a word that applies to some deductive arguments -- as 100%-in-logic-manysummits will tell you -- but I don't see how it applies to theories. Tue 15 Jun 2010 20:32:33 GMT+1 davblo bowmanthebard #163: "If the theory says something completely laughable, people laugh -- and then dismiss the theory. That is as it should be."Like I said, you only accept the theory (plate tectonics) because it is credible and comfortable and doesn't bother you; but not if it stretches your imagination, makes you laugh or claims to affect you adversely.None of that has anything to do whether the theory is valid or not./davblo Tue 15 Jun 2010 19:51:57 GMT+1 CanadianRockies Why hasn't the UN set up a huge sprawling bureaucracy to monitor the threat of continental drift... just in case? You know, the Precautionary Principle and all that.Could be some great lavish conferences and plenty of jobs. And we would need some kind of taxing mechanism to pay for this and the preparations for the inevitable. Perhaps some kind of continental offsets trading system that the Wall Streeters could set up? Or insurance policies?Its just such a shame to see Europe and North America drift apart, and see the problems erupting from Iceland. Surely the UN can do something about this with sufficient funds and a large enough bureaucracy. Tue 15 Jun 2010 19:03:22 GMT+1 bowmanthebard #158 davblo wrote:"if plate tectonics started to lead to the conclusion that (for example) Europe was sliding under Africa at an alarmingly increasing rate"Plate tectonics already says that Europe and America are sliding apart at about the rate of a growing toenail. If it said that the two continents would start to slide apart at "an alarmingly increasing rate" -- so fast that people couldn't get out of the way -- it would and should be dismissed as rubbish.That's always the way evidence and theories work. If the theory says something completely laughable, people laugh -- and then dismiss the theory. That is as it should be. Tue 15 Jun 2010 18:42:34 GMT+1 bowmanthebard #161 Lorax wrote:"My, my, baffled as well as frivolous. Multi-talented!"I seem to have enough talent to address the question at issue. Tue 15 Jun 2010 18:37:30 GMT+1 Lorax #159My, my, baffled as well as frivolous. Multi-talented!Lorax Tue 15 Jun 2010 17:58:21 GMT+1 JB Good news for the warmists - the peak-oilers are on the case now. So maybe it won't matter if you're right or wrong :o) Tue 15 Jun 2010 17:23:51 GMT+1 bowmanthebard Lorax #151: "the 'climate change isn't falsifiable' argument promoted at length, especially by Bowman."Dave_oxon #152: "I reached this conclusion too, some time ago ... My arguments didn't go down well!"I'm baffled by these responses, especially as I have repeatedly said that no scientific theory is ever conclusively falsifiable. Tue 15 Jun 2010 16:37:39 GMT+1 davblo Lorax 130: {and vaious since} "So, do our 'sceptical' friends consider plate tectonics to be 'proper science'?"I would venture that plate tectonics doesn't actually "bother" people very much, so they just say "yes, that sounds like a good theory; off you go..."But; if plate tectonics started to lead to the conclusion that (for example) Europe was sliding under Africa at an alarmingly increasing rate, and that we (in Europe) should all pack up and move to Russia or the Far East (take you pick) then I'm pretty sure we get 101 reasons posted here claiming that plate tectonics was hocus-pocus and that numerous blogs can prove Europe is only "wobbling a bit" through natural causes, it's all a scam, it's all models, etc.Just a thought... /davblo Tue 15 Jun 2010 16:35:40 GMT+1 LabMunkey @ 151- lorax.You must have some sort of selective filter going on there bud- that's not what we were saying at all....I'm also not entirely sure what you are trying to say- the reason the tectonic plate theory has not been disproved, or falsified, is because it nicely fits the evidence and can be used to predict certain events (likelyhood of earthquakes in certain areas etc).If you could show that the plates do not actually move as predicted, then you would overnight disprove that theory. That's the criteria- show the plate movement, composition and size do not follow the criteria as set out by the theory.So- to extend that to climate science- we would have to show that the world/climate is not changing as outlined in the AGW theory to disprove it.... oh.... wait..... that's already happened...sorry- what was your point again? are YOU even sure? Tue 15 Jun 2010 15:48:45 GMT+1 bowmanthebard #151 Lorax wrote:"all I get in response are arguments that there is claims of 'no physical evidence' and so on."You're just not bothering to read. I gave several reasoned responses as to why plate tectonics and climate change science are not at all similar. Tue 15 Jun 2010 15:29:08 GMT+1 Barry Woods falsifiable?would that be 'climate chnage' lots of evidence..or man made climate chnage due to additional ammounts of man made co2 -Not 'supposed' long ago, primary driver of temps.see: 149 Tue 15 Jun 2010 15:10:50 GMT+1 bowmanthebard #151 Lorax wrote:"the 'climate change isn't falsifiable' argument promoted at length, especially by Bowman."Where did I say anything like that? Tue 15 Jun 2010 15:02:30 GMT+1 jr4412 Rob_Cambs #138."..(assuming your figures are correct).."in error, actually, sigh..should have read 'less than 35 years', apologies.bowmanthebard #147."Seems like a good time to remind everyone that I'm wholly frivolous."overcompensating, no doubt. Tue 15 Jun 2010 15:00:11 GMT+1 Dave_oxon @Lorax, #151So I think I'll take the 'climate change isn't falsifiable' argument as no longer defensible.I reached this conclusion too, some time ago ([1] and [2]). My arguments didn't go down well! Tue 15 Jun 2010 14:52:54 GMT+1 Lorax #146, 148 and so onPlate tectonics. The original point I attempted to get across was responding to the 'climate change isn't falsifiable' argument promoted at length, especially by Bowman. It is interesting that having raised the analogy with plate tectonics - also not, as a single entity falsifiable - all I get in response are arguments that there is claims of 'no physical evidence' and so on.So I think I'll take the 'climate change isn't falsifiable' argument as no longer defensible. Good.Lorax Tue 15 Jun 2010 13:54:01 GMT+1 LarryKealey This post has been Removed Tue 15 Jun 2010 13:13:24 GMT+1 Barry Woods 116# Manysummits:Over at Climate Audit Dr Judith Curry referred me to this: (I got moderated earlier - shorter quotes below)(look her up manysummits)Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implicationsAuthors: Nicola Scafetta(Submitted on 25 May 2010)Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2010)"We investigate whether or not the decadal and multi-decadal climate oscillations have an astronomical origin. Several global surface temperature records since 1850 and records deduced from the orbits of the planets present very similar power spectra...... .......It is found that at LEAST 60% of the global warming observed since 1970 has been induced by the combined effect of the above natural climate oscillations. The partial forecast indicates that climate may stabilize or cool until 2030-2040. "Demonstrating that far from certainty/consensus we are learning new things all the time about climate60% of warming since the 70's natural, compared to previous thinking...and the politicians saying: "the science is settled' 'Flat Earther' 'Anti-science' 'Cliamte Sabatouer'Peer reviewed science.. ManysummitsThese are real scientists, or are they part of the 'deniar' 'lobby' as well.... Tue 15 Jun 2010 13:08:23 GMT+1 bowmanthebard For what it's worth, I would say that the evidence for a theory has two components: its predictive and its explanatory power.A theory's predictive abilities enable it to be tested. The passing of tests is a reasonably "objective" measure of how much we can rely on the theory -- the more we can rely on it, the more its reliability suggests that it is true.However, a theory's explanatory power is more "subjective". It has to to with "how much mystery" it removes by enhancing our understanding of the way "everything seem to hang together". (Thus plate tectonics is very successful.) There are various further components to explanatory power: a theory can be simple rather than complicated, modest rather than extravagant, general rather than narrow in scope, and so on...In case you are concerned about the "objectivity" of science here, I should remind everyone that the truth or falsity of a theory remains a completely objective matter of what the world is really like. But evidence is always a more "subjective" matter of how a theory strikes an individual, given the other stuff he already believes.That shouldn't be surprising. Evidence is "what should sway a person's mind". It has to do with "how much something ought to be believed", which as an aspect of the mind is not the subject matter of any scientific theory.In my opinion, the greatest error of climate "science" (and psychology and similar disciplines) is that its practitioners hope that evidence itself (rather than truth/falsity) should be "objective". So they assume that enumerative induction exemplifies scientific inference, which it just doesn't. According the most flat-footed understanding of induction, it can yield a number that measures "how likely a theory is to be true". But really, that's just a classic confusion of truth and evidence. Tue 15 Jun 2010 08:13:04 GMT+1 bowmanthebard #137 manysummits wrote:I'm deadly serious.I find that a little troubling -- as if you're about to "go postal" or even "taxi driver"...Seems like a good time to remind everyone that I'm wholly frivolous. Tue 15 Jun 2010 07:39:51 GMT+1 LabMunkey @ lorax re-plate tectonics example.I can see what you were trying to do there, and it wasn't a bad punt to be honest. Unfortunatley, the analogy doesn't stand up as (has been pointed out, in a rather circumspect way above) there is actual significant evidence to back up the theory of plate tectonics, there just isn't that for AGW.Lorax i'm not arguing this with you just to be difficult, i genuinley think that the theory has exceptionally little 'actual' evidence behind it. I also look at the predictive aspects and cringe, they're just not anywhere near accurate enough for us to have any idea about the future climate. Serisously, when the error bars dwarf the rise you are actually trying to predict- you're in trouble before you've even started.A lot of people confuse symptomatic/correlative 'evidence' for causal.I do think this is what you, and a few others on here may have done.If you discount the PURE physical theory of co2 absorption (i.e. how it would behave in an ideal condition), the lab based tests (as they are not predictive of the real-world) all we have left are the models.And if, as i think it will come out in the wash, it turns out the whole AGW movement was based on a dodgy theory with dodgy models, a lot of people will be left looking very stupid.But- i hasten to add- prove, or at least show experimental evidence towards climate sensiticity wrt c02 to be high- then the theory will FINALLY have some actual evidence behind it.THEN, it can be taken a bit more serisouly. Tue 15 Jun 2010 07:29:25 GMT+1 CanadianRockies #144 - I think that if anyone wonders about the bison discussion they can find it on the blog 'Playing God' with the climate, where what began as a comment about the impact of the horse as an introduced species in North America turned into a long and detailed conversation between JaneBasingstoke and myself, and a few other comments.There they can see the attempted bluff by manysummits re Peter Fidler at post #188, and my initial response - quoting that source to support my point - at #199... and the silence of manysummits thereafter.I assume that because it is a rare document, manysummits thought that nobody would actually have it to check... but I do.By the way, there's no such thing as a "Canadian Buffalo" and that discussion dealt with North American plains bison in both Canada and the USA. Tue 15 Jun 2010 02:45:38 GMT+1 manysummits CanadianRockies # 143:1) So you've no answer for what drives natural climate change, except your partial answer to Lorax in #142, which shows you have no grasp of the subject. You plead some lame excuse for not answering instead.2) Same for Canadian Buffalo. You really have no response at all to my post #137. Is that because you have no grasp of this subject either?But you do manage to cast doubt - everywhere.Funny - that is what the professional anti-AGW Lobby certainly does, as they have no case at all science-wise.You're just a free spirit I suppose, casting doubt at will?Or a disturbed personality.Or a professional lobbyist.Tell you what CR - I'll meet you on the next blog.- Manysummits - Mon 14 Jun 2010 23:50:58 GMT+1 CanadianRockies #137 - manysummits - Your rambling post simply confirms that you don't actually have the Fidler document you claimed to have, which confirms my earlier conclusion that you are an "accomplished googler."Moreover, your whole post is irrelevant to the original point where you tried your Fidler bluff, and redundant to what was discussed there.So, good googling again. Mon 14 Jun 2010 22:26:01 GMT+1 CanadianRockies 136. At 9:16pm on 14 Jun 2010, Lorax wrote: "1.There's an abundance of physical evidence (for plate tectonics) - and...what? Presumably you're arguing that there isn't a similar abundance of physical evidence that supports climate change science . Er, is that it? That's all you've got?"No, but that's all it takes to critique your analogy.There is no physical evidence that CO2 is the driver of climate change, past or present. There is apparent correlation in the past but some argue that the CO2 levels lagged temperature rise, and NOBODY knows for certain. Its just not that simple.On the other hand there actually is unequivocal physical evidence of plate tectonics.And your complaint about "uncertainty" is a beauty. You are supporting the IPCC gang that was emphatically screaming that "the debate is over" and you still are. My point is that the baby science of global climatology doesn't really have a clue about what might be causing the short term fluctuations we are currently fixated on. The only thing I am certain about, in terms of global climate per se, is that one cannot make straight line projections into the future from short term trends.I am also certain about some of the underlying political and economic factors behind this AGW project. And the deliberate propaganda campaign, involving false poster children and fear-mongering, should be obvious to anyone. Mon 14 Jun 2010 22:18:58 GMT+1 bowmanthebard #136 Lorax wrote:"In fact consilience is clearly a fundamental inherent feature of climate science, just as in plate tectonics."Plate tectonics meets evolutionary theory by explaining why there are many marsupial species in Australia, quite a few in South America, just one in north America, and none anywhere else.What, pray tell, has "climate change science" done that can be compared to that? Are you tone-deaf to explanation? Are you suffering from a degree in psychology?PS: Hope the word 'marsupial' is is not too big or intimidating for you! Mon 14 Jun 2010 21:43:02 GMT+1 JB #113, SR wrote: vegetable_grower, What are the 'dodgy methods'? Use of correlation to imply causation.Use of hyperbole as in "all the science suggests that it probably is." So just one bit of scientific evidence is enough to disprove the statement. Although "suggests that it probably is" is not exactly convincing , is it?Passing off political decisions as scientific fact - when the most that can really be claimed is a general consensus that this is more likely to be true than other alternatives.I could go on, but the thing I'd like you to grasp it that it is not me that you need to convince. Whether or not I believe AGW to be absolutely true or absolutely false will not affect my life-style in any way whatsoever. I'm just trying to point out ways in which your argument might be improved.There are failings on both sides of this argument - but it was you who asked me the question :o) One of the biggest failings from both sides (though not that I've noticed from your own exchanges with me) is in not realising that offending/insulting someone very rarely succeeds in bringing them on-board to your way of thinking. And doing so in public merely puts off any bystanders who may have been interested in learning from the discussion. Mon 14 Jun 2010 21:41:29 GMT+1 bowmanthebard #136 Lorax wrote:"a little humility"I see -- it's all about how we personally present ourselves, is it, oh morally pure NON-"denier"?"In terms of my analogy, your arguments, though described with utter certainty"You seem to have given no thought -- yet -- to the concept of "certainty" or probability. It seems you're just talking about an arrogant attitude. Shall we move on to something relevant?"There's an abundance of physical evidence (for plate tectonics) - and...what? Presumably you're arguing that there isn't a similar abundance of physical evidence that supports climate change science . Er, is that it? That's all you've got?"I have spent much of my adult life pondering questions of evidence and what constitutes evidence. I'd be delighted to argue with you about just this issue. I'm really glad you raised the question. I've been itching to get down to real business on this question since I joined this blog months ago.So let's get down to business.I'll start.In general, the evidence for a scientific theory is its explanatory and predictive power. Plate tectonics has huge explanatory power. So does evolutionary theory. By contrast, quantum theory has very little explanatory power, but it makes up for that by having huge predictive powers. Most scientific theories have loads of both.Except "climate science". It seems to me that "climate science" is an embarrassing failure, since it seems almost entirely bereft of both explanatory and predictive power. Its attraction seems to be only in the creepy attitudes its adherents have towards religion and political partisanship.Now your turn, oh noble NON-"denier". Mon 14 Jun 2010 21:32:27 GMT+1 Rob_Cambs @JR4412Rob_Cambs #115."with an estimated 50 trillion dollars at stake.."'that's less than seventeen years worth of global military expenditure at 2008 level.'exactly ! or to put a little better - thats more than 16 years of military expediture (assuming your figures are correct) !! again, to be spent on an issue based on guessed-at probabilities (becasue by definition the probabilities cannot be properly assessed).shouldn't we figure out what is really going on first ? the world will not end tomorrow or in the next 10 years, and there is sufficient doubt for us to take a time-out to fully assessafter all, right now 3rd world countries need support in sustainability and medcicines more than anything else Mon 14 Jun 2010 20:31:28 GMT+1 manysummits 133. At 7:52pm on 14 Jun 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:#128 - You're funny.==============No, I'm deadly serious.You, on the other hand, are a promoter of disinformation.==============="I did provide quotes which did. You were silent. Thus I don't believe a word you say. Any summits? I doubt it." (CR)No, I was not silent. And you doubt my 'summits,' so you say. You are a dissembling liar, and that is the truth.I wasn't sure a discussion of the history of the Canadian Buffalo was germane to this forum, but perhaps it is.When Peter Fidler rode with the Blackfoot Peigan in 1792, this was hundreds of years after first contact. The very fact that they were riding horses should tell a true student of history and paleoanthropology and archaeology that.It was Spanish horses moving north from the areas of Mexico which resulted in the Appaloosa Indian pony, and others. The American horses had been extinct for many thousands of years. In her book "After the Ice Age - The return of life to glaciated North America," (1991, University of Chicago Press) the distinguished Canadian scientist E.C. Pielou relates on her section on the "The Great Wave of Extinctions" that "five species of Pleistocene horses and the western camel, all...became extinct in North America between 12K and 10 K B.P." [before the present, i.e. 1950]Coronado was riding the American southwest ca 1542, for example, and the Spanish conquistadors were in Mexico and South America even earlier, not to mention Christopher Columbus and company in the East in 1492, bringing European diseases and 'civilization' to a soon to be almost exterminated indigenous population (~ 90 percent) in the Americas, both North and South.The indigenous populations of both North and South America suffered a rolling series of contacts with the white man throughout this period, and were already on the move, reeling from contact and migrating West and elsewhere, centuries before Peter Fidler was even born.You are an ignorant man, and much worse than that, a deliberate promoter of half-truth.You don't intend to respond to me!Do you think I care? Do you think anyone cares!- Manysummits - Mon 14 Jun 2010 20:17:41 GMT+1 Lorax #134 & 135You know, you guys would be a great deal more convincing if you let a little uncertainty, a little humility into what you say. Phrases like 'absolutely zero', 'oh no it doesn't' and numerous other examples actually tend to diminish you as participants in a science discussion. Because real scientists are careful to qualify what they say, rather than Dunning-Kruger-ishly bulldoze their way through a discussion.In terms of my analogy, your arguments, though described with utter certainty, boil down to:1.There's an abundance of physical evidence (for plate tectonics) - and...what? Presumably you're arguing that there isn't a similar abundance of physical evidence that supports climate change science . Er, is that it? That's all you've got?2. When in doubt, Bowman likes to throw in a complicated word, to demonstrate his superior intellect. But in fact you are just airing your automatic, unconsidered response - that climate change science is rubbish. In fact consilience is clearly a fundamental inherent feature of climate science, just as in plate tectonics. Physics, chemistry, biology, in the atmosphere, in the ice, in the ocean, in space (well, not biology in space unless we include the natural variation fairy) - all combine in the theoretical and in the data and evidence. Not terribly convincing arguments, I'm afraid. Lorax Mon 14 Jun 2010 20:16:56 GMT+1 bowmanthebard #130 Lorax wrote:"Plate tectonics has many of the characteristics of climate science."Oh no it doesn't. Plate tectonics is very important for enabling "consiliences" -- i.e. places where different branches of science "mesh" with each other and hence provide mutual support as in an inter-theoretic reduction. Plate tectonics is an explanatory triumph, like evolutionary theory, even though both of them have very limited predictive power. Climate science is a failure on both counts -- it has practically zero predictive power (despite the fact that that is the feature we are supposed to put our faith in) and absolutely zero explanatory power. Mon 14 Jun 2010 19:02:49 GMT+1 CanadianRockies 130. Lorax wrote:"Plate tectonics has many of the characteristics of climate science. Just as we cannot conduct an experiment to test the whole of climate science as a single entity (or at least not without waiting 30 years), we similarly can't test plate tectonics without waiting a few million years."No it doesn't. There's an abundance of physical evidence and there are none of the political and economic forces involved that have corrupted climate science.That said, over the long term plate tectonics did and does impact global and regional climate change by blocking and opening ocean currents and lifting and sinking land masses.So, Lorax, you need a better analogy. In the case of IPCC et al science, anything connected to the Soviet Lysenko era would be closer. Mon 14 Jun 2010 19:00:16 GMT+1 CanadianRockies #128 - You're funny.Since you claim to have a copy of Fidler's journal, why did you cite it when its contents directly refuted your point and supported mine?I did provide quotes which did. You were silent. Thus I don't believe a word you say. Any summits? I doubt it.As for suggesting wikipedia is a reliable source on anything to do with this topic, I long ago posted two articles that explain why it is not... but you keep using it.Your paranoid fantasies about The Lobby are truly hilarious, particularly since one of your heroes, Lovelock, seems to have joined that diabolical cult.In any case, this is the last time I'll waste any time responding to your dubious posts. Since I thought you said that you finally got a job, I was expecting to see less of them. P.S. Your original dense question confused the specific discussion of the Little Ice Age with all ice ages. You do that kind of thing consistently. Most religious fundamentalists do. Its simpler that way. Mon 14 Jun 2010 18:52:57 GMT+1 manysummits 128. At 5:50pm on 14 Jun 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:116. manysummits wrote:"CandaianRockies has not gotten back to me... Why not?"Why? It is pointless to bring rational discussion to a religious fundamentalist.And ever since you tried to dishonestly bluff your way with that Peter Fidler source on an earlier thread* - that did NOT say what you implied that it did - that applies to you in spades.============1) "Why? It is pointless to bring rational discussion to a religious fundamentalist." (CR)Response: An outright lie.2)"And ever since you tried to dishonestly bluff your way with that Peter Fidler source on an earlier thread* - that did NOT say what you implied that it did - that applies to you in spades.: (CR)Response:My copy of Fidler's Journal is "38 of the second edition."The First Edition was a run of 50 copies; the Second of 200 copies.Your interpretation of Western Canadian History is as imperfect as your understanding of the Earth's climate system, but that is neither here nor there - the interpretation of history is difficult, as is the understanding of the climate system.The difference is the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community as regards manmade climate change.I doubted you would answer the question on what is the natural mechanism for climate change, and you have not.If you did cite Wikipedia, or a legitimate scientific source - you would lose your membership in the lobby, would you not?- Manysummits in Calgary - Mon 14 Jun 2010 18:09:34 GMT+1 bowmanthebard #116 manysummits wrote:"It's a state of mind - an ideological mindset of the political and conservative right, exemplified by the 'Tea Party' group in the US, by the 'Rush Limbaugh' followers and the 'Fox' news network. In short, roughly half of the electorate. It is amplified and made possible by a profound illiteracy in science and the scientific method"This is a cheap paranoid fantasy, cooked up to "keep things simple" so you never have to think for yourself. I am firmly on the left. Mon 14 Jun 2010 17:48:12 GMT+1 Lorax #108 'I would call proper science - ie: it was a statement of how a particular system operated that could be proved wrong'A repeated theme we come up against is the argument that climate change science cannot be tested/falsified/proved wrong. Veg-grower's comments are just the most recent example.Now, as I and others have explained, the science of climate change consists of many different individual hypotheses, and thus the 'theory' is supported by a number of falsifiable or testable components. I guess that can be discussed further. But to my mind, there is an interesting analogue to this - the science of plate tectonics. I dangled this tasty titbit before, but nobody chose to take it on, so I'll try again.Plate tectonics has many of the characteristics of climate science. Just as we cannot conduct an experiment to test the whole of climate science as a single entity (or at least not without waiting 30 years), we similarly can't test plate tectonics without waiting a few million years. So we have to work through the evidence and the components we can test - for example developing hypotheses about rock composition and age that can be tested. Any geologists around, please feel free to correct my assumptions...So, do our 'sceptical' friends consider plate tectonics to be 'proper science'? Mon 14 Jun 2010 17:46:42 GMT+1 Lorax #89So Barry, I assume you decided not to read the World Glacier Monitoring Service report I pointed you at. Pity. Why not? Surely a free-thinking sceptic like yourself would want to look at the scientific data and analysis?Lorax Mon 14 Jun 2010 17:33:20 GMT+1 CanadianRockies 116. manysummits wrote:"CandaianRockies has not gotten back to me... Why not?"Why? It is pointless to bring rational discussion to a religious fundamentalist.And ever since you tried to dishonestly bluff your way with that Peter Fidler source on an earlier thread* - that did NOT say what you implied that it did - that applies to you in spades. Mon 14 Jun 2010 16:50:41 GMT+1 James Evans Richard,Is it possible that the BBC will at any point cover this story: would seem that UEA and the Royal Society lied about who decided which documents should be examined for the Oxburgh report. As white-washes go, this is a particularly obvious one. Will you report it? James Evans Mon 14 Jun 2010 16:32:53 GMT+1 LabMunkey @ my own comment #123.i retract this comment, i 'bit' and i shouldn't have. apologies. Mon 14 Jun 2010 16:29:59 GMT+1 Brunnen_G #116 manysummits wrote:How is that for an answer?-----------------------------------A total pile of twaddle, but about what we've come to expect.I'm a political liberal, how does that fit into your 'conservative mindset'? Mon 14 Jun 2010 16:26:10 GMT+1 Barry Woods This post has been Removed Mon 14 Jun 2010 16:25:49 GMT+1 LabMunkey @ 114.astonishing. but par from the course from the 'your side'. Mon 14 Jun 2010 15:59:31 GMT+1 Brunnen_G #114When all else fails, go ad hom. Mon 14 Jun 2010 15:59:27 GMT+1 jr4412 SR #113.real nice analogy.Rob_Cambs #115."with an estimated 50 trillion dollars at stake.."that's less than seventeen years worth of global military expenditure at 2008 level. Mon 14 Jun 2010 15:56:21 GMT+1 manysummits 115. At 4:14pm on 14 Jun 2010, Rob_Cambs wrote:@SR:'Because time is so slow, they cannot be sure their theory is correct, but all the science suggests that it probably is. This is the position we are in with AGW right now.'with an estimated 50 trillion dollars at stake, 'probably' is simply not good enough===============Spoken by a man with his priorities evident.Suppose there were more than money at stake Cambs?Suppose it was our future that was at stake!Suppose that we were actually engaged in Ecocide?- Manysummits - Mon 14 Jun 2010 15:49:41 GMT+1 manysummits To Robert Lucien #114:It takes a man to speak the truth, no matter the consequences.An artist to let the chips fall where they may.Thanks for returning to this board Robert Lucien - we are all the better for this.Regards, Manysummits Mon 14 Jun 2010 15:45:41 GMT+1 manysummits The climate is changing politically as well as physically.The Globe and Mail was dense with climate and environmental coverage this morning, as was (is) the BBC.- Afghanistan has fabulous strategic mineral wealth - Surprise surprise!- Canada is set to turn over responsibility for patrolling the Arctic Basin and Ocean and Northwest Passage to the United States - Surprise surprise!- Canada's Conservative Party, a religious right party which effectively has attempted to deny AGW, is being forced to reconsider, as our coastal areas are being destroyed at ever greater rates by rising sea levels and intensification of the hydrologic cycle, i.e. AGW.- ConocoPhilips oil company is set to turn over half their water lease to the 'Water Conservation Trust of Canada' following the 2006 moratorium on new water leases in southern Alberta due to diminished river flows. Gee, I wonder what is causing this???- Mudslides are washing away expensive houses south of Oliver, British Columbia, in the wine growing regions of the Okanagan Valley, as twice the normal rainfall hits the region - Surprise surprise!And on and on.I could write about this stuff every day all day, but one has to maintain perspective now, doesn't one?We don't want to worry unnecessarily, now do we?- Manysummits - Mon 14 Jun 2010 15:41:13 GMT+1 bowmanthebard "doesnt care to hear or understand the others argument"Someone show me an argument, and I'll try to hear it and understand it. (By an argument, I don't mean a link to something written by someone else.) Mon 14 Jun 2010 15:35:51 GMT+1 manysummits 92. At 10:07am on 14 Jun 2010, Barry Woods wrote:"Manysummits...How do you join this lobby?"=========Good day Barry! Interesting question!!I will answer:It's a state of mind - an ideological mindset of the political and conservative right, exemplified by the 'Tea Party' group in the US, by the 'Rush Limbaugh' followers and the 'Fox' news network. In short, roughly half of the electorate. It is amplified and made possible by a profound illiteracy in science and the scientific method, described by the late Carl Sagan as the 'dumbing-down' of the electorate.While I cite the United States, this way of thinking is universal, and is present in all countries where people are free to speak their own mind.The best example is probably Sarah Palin, whom I will highlight briefly to illustrate the more general point. The mindset I spoke of earlier, and its psychological underpinnings, are illustrated extremely well by an article by Peter Scowen in June 12's Globe and Mail:"She cannot speak and cannot think, she is hateful and ill-informed, and yet people really, really like her, because those glaring failings make them feel less bad about themselves."===========Barry, look at the recent posts by the posters I refer to as 'the lobby.'You are all falling over each other to 'deny' the findings of science and the datasets, readily available to all, complete with their computer programs (eg UK's and US global land/sea temperature records).A huge conference in Oslo on the findings of International Polar Year has just concluded, initial results have been presented and posted here with links.Result - Complete denial or head in the sand by 'the lobby.'You fall all over yourselves lately bringing up natural climate variation, forgetting how you and the world know about natural climate variation - the scientific community - which you continually and disingenuously denigrate and ridicule - when it serves your nefarious purpose.And your purpose is nefarious.CandaianRockies has not gotten back to me (us) on what is the natural mechanism for climate variability with regard to the Ice Ages.Why not?Why don't you answer, you or any of the self-proclaimed experts of the lobby?Why not?Because you would cite scientific findings concerning Milankovitch Cycles, and the amplifying CO2 feedback mechanism, and the changes in CO2 content of the atmosphere. You might even have to resort to Wikipedia to illustrate! Unless you possess the requisite skills to calculate the gravitational perturbations of Saturn and Jupiter and the Moon etc. on the Earth's orbit - unless you possess the astronomical expertise to calculate the past and future tilt variation in the Earth's spin axis, and the wobble in the Earth's spin axis with respect to the ecliptic, resulting in a circle being described on the sky of some 46 degrees. The Earth's North pole only in this time points at the North Star - were you aware of this?How is that for an answer?- Manysummits @ the Climate Change Cafe in Calgary - Mon 14 Jun 2010 15:17:32 GMT+1 Rob_Cambs @SR:'Because time is so slow, they cannot be sure their theory is correct, but all the science suggests that it probably is. This is the position we are in with AGW right now.'with an estimated 50 trillion dollars at stake, 'probably' is simply not good enough Mon 14 Jun 2010 15:14:44 GMT+1 Robert Lucien I see the rabid dogs are out again, I think the only ones here totally certain in their beliefs are the climate change sceptics. Once in a position of aggressive argument scientific reasoning becomes impossible which is why the sceptics so often win. When a smart man and a stupid man get into an argument the stupidest always wins because he shouts loudest and doesnt care to hear or understand the others argument. Getting no-where the smart man eventually gives up.If you think I'm being rude count the number of your posts in the last month, is it more than 50? more than 100? is it more than 500? how aggressive are you? how often are you swayed by another's arguments?In the late 90's I gave myself an unpleasant mental illness with an unpleasant name - I was writing about 10 to 30 messages a day in a newsgroup of 500 a day. The funny thing is that experience teaches you to recognize the signs, I think bowman and a good number of others here could be of quite a lot of interest to mental health services. The principle cause of all mental illness is stress.(Funny thing is I just found a strong new argument that could actually probably support the sceptics side, but the aggression shown to any reasoned argument has quite put me off :[ ) Mon 14 Jun 2010 15:08:46 GMT+1 SR vegetable_growerWhat are the 'dodgy methods'? With Ohms law, it is easy to observe because the timescale of the experiment is small compared to the window of our observation. This is not true for AGW - we do not have the luxury of knowing the outcome of the experiment. Imagine time was slowed down to such an extent that Ohms law was not obvious and little people lived inside a metal. They measured the applied electric field and noticed that there was a general flow of electrons in the direction of that electric field. Then imagine their lives depended on that flow, but a byproduct of their existence was to add impurities to the metal that slowed down the electrons. The scientists living in the metal come up with a grand theory known as Ohms law based on a record they kept of electron flow, electric field and impurity levels - PLUS - what they knew about the interaction between an electron and an electric field, PLUS the effect an impurity has on the mean flow of electrons through the metal.Because time is so slow, they cannot be sure their theory is correct, but all the science suggests that it probably is. This is the position we are in with AGW right now. Mon 14 Jun 2010 14:36:11 GMT+1 jr4412 Smiffie #109."..Afghanistan..that barbaric country."LOL Mon 14 Jun 2010 13:36:48 GMT+1 JB Re #108: last phrase should've been . . . But then again they only need to convince the politicians that fund them and those than elect the politicians - they don't need to convince anyone who is capable of independent thought because they are such a minority that they can be ignored. I make no apologies for this because, after all, being capable of independent thought and being capable of writing a coherent sentence are not the same thing ;o) Mon 14 Jun 2010 13:30:31 GMT+1 Barry Woods How may times have you been told, if sceptical, 1000's of climate scientists say:I was shut down with this at my local Transitions Towns meeting last week...Someone corrects this mantra, actually a few dozen (an IPCC, lead author no less)Mick Hulme, Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia and an IPCC’s co-ordinating Lead Author, corrects the record: Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a FEW DOZEN experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields.From this article (can't provide link as PDF)Climate Change: what do we know about the IPCC?Mike Hulme and Martin MahonySchool of Environmental Sciences12th April 2010------------------------In 2006, Professor Edward Wegman raised this very fear in his report, commissioned by the United States House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee to examine the IPCC’s discredited “hockey stick”, devised by Michael Mann, which purported to show unprecedented warming last century: One of the interesting questions associated with the ‚"hockey stick controversy’ are the relationships among the authors and consequently how confident one can be in the peer review process. In particular, if there is a tight relationship among the authors and there are not a large number of individuals engaged in a particular topic area, then one may suspect that the peer review process does not fully vet papers before they are published… However, it is immediately clear that the Mann, Rutherford, Jones, Osborn, Briffa, Bradley and Hughes form a clique, each interacting with all of the others. A clique is a fully connected subgraph, meaning everyone in the clique interacts with every one else in the clique.... Michael Mann is a co-author with every one of the other 42 [in his clique]. The black squares on the diagonal [fig. 5.2] indicate that the investigators work closely within their group, but not so extensively outside of their group.Note those names again: Michael Mann, Scott Rutherford, Phil Jones, Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa, Ray Bradley and Malcolm Hughes are all climate scientists implicates in the Climategate scandal. from the Andrew Bolt Blog (so will be dismissed instantly - he is of course just a messenger. verify your selfs by refering to the comitte report. Mon 14 Jun 2010 12:58:18 GMT+1 Smiffie By his recent comments about BP, Present Obama has shown his true colour, hopefully this will strengthen our new government’s resolve to get the hell out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible. There is already much criticism of our previous government’s perceived policy of military social services in that barbaric country. The defence review is imminent. Mon 14 Jun 2010 12:39:34 GMT+1 JB SR: Before leaving the system I was an electronics engineer and relied for my work on being able to predict things based on the work of scientists such (Ohm's Law for example). It's before my time - so I can't be certain of this - but I don't think the validity of this law was based on a political-vote or any judgement of evidence that had an element of uncertainty. It was what I would call proper science - ie: it was a statement of how a particular system operated that could be proved wrong. Getting on for 200 years later it is still a useful model for predicting things. Personally, I think it might just be possible that humanity can affect the climate but, because such dodgy methods are being used to sell the idea to me, my natural inclination is to ignore the conclusion.Don't the IPCC, warmists etc realize how their claims of a connection with science make their statements appear ridiculuous? But then again they only need to convince the politicians that fund them and those than elect the politicians - they don't need to convince anyone who is capable of independent because they are such a minority that they can be ignored. Mon 14 Jun 2010 12:07:50 GMT+1 bowmanthebard #104 SR wrote:"Bowmanthebard, you are guilty of falling into the trap of thinking that it is the scientific process making the judgment."I've just accused you of making this mistake. How dishonest of you to pretend that you have suddenly had this insight and need to correct me. Mon 14 Jun 2010 11:30:34 GMT+1 bowmanthebard #104 SR wrote:"The IPCC does not carry out the science, it just assesses it."And it assesses it dishonestly, by pretending to speak with scientific authority for the science itself instead of as bible-thumping political partisans.Every judgement of any kind is uncertain. Not only are all judgements uncertain, exact numerical measurements of how uncertain they are are impossible. Yet the charlatans of climate science, ever-eager to cash in on general ignorance of what science is and what it is capable of, make outrageous claims about "what we know".I've had it up to here with church leaders going around the place claiming to have a Hot Line to God -- "we know with 95% certainty that climate change is blah blah". They know NOTHING OF THE SORT. Science doesn't do anything like that. They are lying to you.Any kind of expertise is a sort of power, because ordinary people are liable to think (wrongly) that a limited area of expertise extends further than it really does. Like all kinds of power, the power of "mistakenly extended expertise" is liable to be abused. Hence celibate priests give advice on sexual relations, doctors give advice on morality, politicians give advice on climate science -- and climate scientists give advice on how much their own theories should be believed. Codswollop!In the immortal words of Spike Milligan, "my uncle was a great man -- he told me so himself".We must stop abuses of power like the above -- let's take these dirty charlatans down a peg or two. Mon 14 Jun 2010 11:25:41 GMT+1 LabMunkey @104.Interesting you wanted to make this's actually one of my major points of contention- the politicians mis-representing the science.Sr- there is lots of symptomatic evidence, but honestly, the causal evidence is extremely thin. We have certain promising avenues (for AGW)- which really bear watching, however the 'climate fairy' is still there, and can still override all of these factors.You are right though, it is not for the scientists to make policy, to make changes to society. However, can you see the danger of having the politicians pushing this agenda??If proven wrong, any good scientist will (say thanks! then) immediatley change his position, based on that evidence. Can you honestly say, if the politicians involved knew, a few years into the AGW 'saga' that their posision was wrong- that they'd change their minds? Mon 14 Jun 2010 11:16:36 GMT+1 SR bowmanthebardThere has to be some escape from science for us to make use of it. The IPCC does not carry out the science, it just assesses it. It carries out no scientific research of its own.Do we cover our eyes and ears and go on as normal because there is uncertainty? No, we cannot. There is evidence and we must judge it. Are we all agreed on this point? Bowmanthebard, you are guilty of falling into the trap of thinking that it is the scientific process making the judgment. It is not. Scientists do have a big say in the judgment but this part of the exercise is not scientific. Mon 14 Jun 2010 11:01:45 GMT+1 Barry Woods I am not exagerting anything...Surely you mean to accuse the physicists, that I am merely linking too and quoting..THEIR words not mine. Mon 14 Jun 2010 10:23:08 GMT+1 bowmanthebard #101 SR wrote:"that shouldn't stop us making probabilistic assesments based on the balance of the evidence."Science doesn't make "probabilistic assessments based on the balance of the evidence" either. That is a mistaken fantasy of what science does.Science purports to describe things and processes in the WORLD, not the state our minds should be in, let alone how much they should be in such states!You have been led up the garden path by the word 'probability', I'm afraid. Mon 14 Jun 2010 10:20:40 GMT+1 SR bowmanthebard,For the sake of clarity and maybe to appease your overly hysterical respone my intention was to express that Barry is exaggerating the uncertainty. I'm not claiming there is no uncertainty at all. The uncertainty is of course there, but that shouldn't stop us making probabilistic assesments based on the balance of the evidence. Mon 14 Jun 2010 10:10:50 GMT+1 Barry Woods Looks like Nasa is tryingto justify it's existence:'s first ever 'field trip' to study effects of climate change on Arctic ice"Nasa has switched part of its focus from space to the ocean, after its scientists announced their first ever field study to investigate how climate change is affecting the Arctic’s ice."'climate science' seems to think anything histroical record, is just silly people that don't understand what they are observing, if it happens a hundred plus years ago, people were just 'mistaken'Found in the comments section:"I wonder if NASA will compare the ice today with historical record of the last 100 years, accurately showing ice melt in the 1930s being just as extensive as current levels of moderate melt since the 1970s."Or, perhaps they could look just a little further back:"It will without doubt have come to your Lordship's knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.(This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations."President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817 Mon 14 Jun 2010 10:09:58 GMT+1 bowmanthebard #98 LabMunkey wrote:"The 'AGW' crowd constantly understate the uncertaincies".I think you are underestimating their sanity. Let's shout what they really believe from the rooftops:"A false impression of uncertainty".Any AGW believers want to disown this full-frontal claim for CERTAINTY? Mon 14 Jun 2010 09:58:41 GMT+1 LabMunkey @, what barry is doing (rather, enthusiastically, i might add) is highlighting SOME of the massive uncertainties we have.Even the people at the CRU fully admit they don't fully understand the climatic system- not even close. They freely admit there may be mechanisms that they don't even understand at work (a good assertion actually, based off their models).The 'AGW' crowd constantly understate the uncertaincies, and overplay ANY possible symptom that can be attributed to AGW.I think some counter balance is badly needed.for my own two cents i'll throw in the fact we've only been keeping accurate temperature records for less than 100 years (versus the earths age- what 6 billion? not sure), less than half the stations we have are used by the ipcc and that the proxies they used to show past climate diverge from the accurate temperature readings.Less than 100 years, scetchy, incomplete and contaminated data, to model and entire planets climate.AGW can't possibly be wrong. Mon 14 Jun 2010 09:49:55 GMT+1 bowmanthebard "a false impression of uncertainty"What an absolutely ridiculous phrase. Mon 14 Jun 2010 09:43:47 GMT+1 bowmanthebard #94 SR wrote:"the conclusion is that it is very likely that"If the conclusion of a scientific inquiry is that something is "very likely", in the sense that a theory ought to be believed, then you can be sure you are dealing with charlatans. Science NEVER SAYS ANYTHING WHATSOEVER about how much a theory ought to be believed.If you are unaware of that fact, it's about time you did a bit of epistemology homework. Mon 14 Jun 2010 09:41:47 GMT+1 Barry Woods " 3 to 4 decades of peer reviewed literature..."yet the SATELLITE mentioned above has been up for ONLY 15 years ,and the SCIENTISTS are now learning new things all the time, about the sun..It was thought the sun was invariable, they have found by direct observation it is not... (this is the scientific process at work)4ppm of a trace minor green house gas man made per annum, vs 385 ppm in the atmosphere, absorbing, THE SUN's energy at a ceratin wavelengh, is the primary force!?Of course, other forces have occured in the past, ice used to be hundred of metres thick, where I live, in a blink of geological time... somehow it got cold enough for that to happen, somehow it got warm enough again for that ice to disappear... It must be the magic 'natural climate fairy' - words that have been used to be little AND BIZAREELY DISCOUNT THIS.I'm not giving false impressions... I'm merely showing OTHER Scientists, and quoting sicentists, that are quite excited at finding out new things. The fact that this might upset, the agw consensus, IS IRRELEVANTFalse impression, I think comes from the science is settled camp.The AGW computer models, assume, thatthe sun is invariant. Direct observational experimenation/measurement. SAY not.. so those old peer reviewed literature, can just gather dust on that one..Science has learned some new facts, and will have to adjust 'consensus' accordingly. Mon 14 Jun 2010 09:41:24 GMT+1 SR Barry, you are coming up with these things as if nobody has thought about it before. In fact, there are now 3 or 4 decades of carefully considered peer reviewed literature whose sole purpose is to answer those points you raise. When put together, the conclusion is that it is very likely that CO2 is the primary driver of the recent warming. Of course, distinguishing between what is natural and what is man made is a huge (probably the largest) part of the science. I think what you are doing is drastically underplaying what we do know about natural forcings to give a false impression of uncertainty. Mon 14 Jun 2010 09:18:31 GMT+1 Barry Woods New scientist: "We used to think that the sun's output was unwavering. "That would be what the the climate scientists computer models think.See below, they have only been doing this for 15 years and are learning new interesting things, changing what was thought to be previoulsy understood..."Since its launch 15 years ago, the SOHO spacecraft has watched two solar minimums, one complete solar cycle, and parts of two other cycles - the one that ended in 1996 and the one that is just stirring. For all that time its VIRGO instrument has been measuring the total solar irradiance (TSI), the energy emitted by the sun. Its measurements can be stitched together with results from earlier missions to provide a 30-year record of the sun's energy output. What this shows is that during the latest solar minimum, the sun's output was 0.015 per cent lower than during the previous lull. It might not sound like much, but it is a hugely significant result.Despite this variation, the TSI has dipped to the same level during the three previous solar minima. Not so during this recent elongated minimum. Although the observed drop is small, the fact that it has happened at all is unprecedented. "This is the first time we have measured a long-term trend in the total solar irradiance," says Claus Fröhlich of the World Radiation Centre in Davos, Switzerland, and lead investigator for the VIRGO instrument." Mon 14 Jun 2010 09:13:13 GMT+1 Barry Woods Manysummits...How do you join this lobby?Do you get paid?What are the perks?Because of course all I can see you get, abuse, patronised to, etc...The only lobby I see operating is the AGW one, UN, IPCC, countless governments, bankers (JPMORGAN climatecare - carbon offsets) countless lobby groups, pressure groups, wwf, greenpeace, campaign against climate change, etc,etc..This supposed 'lobby' is just a fantasy in the minds of some very 'emotional' people, who have not realised, they are no longer fighting the establishment... green is now the establishment, big oil, became big energy... and will be quite happily selling oil for many years to come, consumers will pay the taxes, and they will sneak a bit of extra profit in at the same time.. whilst producing bio fuel (at vast costs to the rain forests ) and play the carbon trading game profitably..whilst the EU and the UK is competing about how big the CO2 reductions in law should be, no doubt thinking about all the love fines (taxes) they can inmpose on people and business- The business will happily relocate abroad, making a killing selling their carbon offsets, allocated to them by the ETS because they have 'reduced' their CO2 here.. whilst starting up abroad, making more co2 in a less rigourlessly enforced environmental protection regime.If the lobby does exist?!!Where is my CHEQUE?!!! ;) Mon 14 Jun 2010 09:07:54 GMT+1 Barry Woods From New Scientist again:some how, the sun, can only have big regional effects, but not widespread climate ones.. !!!So of course they are now preparing us, for the next few winters of record cold temperature (depiste previous predictions ofno more snow in the UK) saing whilst overall it is global warming, we are getiung colder...What may I ask, is NOT a sign of man made global warming, but just the planet behaving due to very many natural complex processes(poorly understood, still discovering new ones), inclusing solar cycles.New Scientist:"The climate linkMike Lockwood at the University of Reading, UK, may already have identified one response - the unusually frigid European winter of 2009/10. He has studied records covering data stretching back to 1650, and found that severe European winters are much more likely during periods of low solar activity (New Scientist, 17 April, p 6). This fits an emerging picture of solar activity giving rise to a small change in the global climate overall, yet large regional effects.Another example is the Maunder minimum, the period from 1645 to 1715 during which sunspots virtually disappeared and solar activity plummeted. If a similar spell of solar inactivity were to begin now and continue until 2100, it would mitigate any temperature rise through global warming by 0.3 °C on average, according to calculations by Georg Feulner and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. However, something amplified the impact of the Maunder minimum on northern Europe, ushering in a period known as the Little Ice Age, when colder than average winters became more prevalent and the average temperature in Europe appeared to drop by between 1 and 2 °C.A corresponding boost appears to be associated with peaks in solar output. In 2008, Judith Lean of the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington DC published a study showing that high solar activity has a disproportionate warming influence on northern Europe (Geophysical Research Letters, vol 35, p L18701). Mon 14 Jun 2010 08:56:34 GMT+1 Barry Woods of course many 'climate scientists think that man made co2 is the primary driver of the climate...Astro physicists are gettingquite excited about the sun, not behaving as computer modeles predicted...WE don NOT fully understand the SUN... (big ball of fusion in the sky - not the newspapaer ;) )predictions /assumptions assumed in models about the climate/sun are now just wrong... From New Scientist (and they truly believe in all things AGW!!)"These findings have thrown our best computer models of the sun into disarray. "It is certainly challenging our theories," says Hathaway, "but that's kinda nice."It is not just our understanding of the sun that stands to benefit from this work. The extent to which changes in the sun's activity can affect our climate is of paramount concern. It is also highly controversial. There are those who seek to prove that the solar variability is the major cause of climate change, an idea that would let humans and their greenhouse gases off the hook. Others are equally evangelical in their assertions that the sun plays only a minuscule role in climate change."Think about it, 'others are evangelical in their assertions, that the sun plays only a miniscule role in climate change'!!!!!!!! Mon 14 Jun 2010 08:51:39 GMT+1 Barry Woods Lorax wrote:#58Barry, before you get too excited, you might want to consider the global picture. The authoritative data comes from the World Glacier Monitoring Service. Their report 'Global Glacier Changes: facts and figures' last year summarised--I am considereing the 'global ' picture which is....IPCC/wwf make scary annoucements about himalayan galciers... soeme actual scientists come back and say, depiste all the doom and gloom these glaciers are behaving pretty norammly... despite hordes of journalists and tv crews running around the himalayas, pointing at glaciers saying all these are doomed hundfred of millions of people will be effected..the 'message' has been passed onto the public..someone does some sicence checks the scare... oh nothing wrong here...but buried away on a website.. surely at least report this BIT of GOOD news bbc?Then , the ipcc / wwf / 'climate scientists' say, are you silly, you are NOT seeing the bigger picture.. doom and gloom could happen, just this one tiny little thing (despite them making it out it WAS a big thing, previoulsy) doesn't mean it is all not true...sorry pull the other one... this sort of spin manipulation is just getting very tiresome.. Mon 14 Jun 2010 08:44:12 GMT+1 LabMunkey a read... Mon 14 Jun 2010 08:12:35 GMT+1 LabMunkey @77. just don't get it do you. noone is invoking the climate change theory- your logic is serisouly flawed.We know the climate has changed more, on it's own and quicker.We cannot explain all these changes (as we don't understand the system).therefore you have ZERO evidence that what we are seeing now is:a)unprecedented andb) unnatural (though i would say human emmisions are propbably insulating the effect- though only slighlty)As for your glacier 'rant'. I think this just shows the problem you have- you're seeing correlative proof in everything around you- not pausing for the neccessary second to actually think about it and see, there is none.Each unto their own i suppose. Mon 14 Jun 2010 08:00:44 GMT+1 manysummits Canadian Dr. David Barber @ the International Polar Year Conference in Oslo:Presentation on Arctic Sea Ice:"We are losing 70 000 square kilometres of sea ice every year. That adds up to 2.5 million square kilometres over the last 30 years. The reality is even worse," continued Dr Barber. "Even though the extent of the sea ice - both the winter maximum and the summer minimum - increased in 2008 and 2009, the amount of multiyear ice continued to decline rapidly...We expected to be stopped at some point by thick multiyear ice, but the Amundsen, only ice classed to break ice 1.2 metres thick, was able to continue at full speed. We realised that the ice was rotten." the dissembling and misinformation of the lobby, this is the real McCoy - hard data by the scientific community - presented openly for all to see and to examine.I presented excerpts of David Barber's paper in Geophysical Research Letters many posts ago.Now here this new information, i.e. REAL SCIENCE, is presented on an even larger world stage.Where is Dr. Roy Spencer's presentation?Lord Moncton's?ETC...- Manysummits, Calgary - Mon 14 Jun 2010 07:48:56 GMT+1 manysummits Underacanoe had a bit too much Sun on our Sunday outing to Griffith Woods and the Elbow River. Since we're still on climate, I thought to pass on a few new observations on our changing climate.From the International Polar Year Conference in Oslo:"A warmer Arctic climate is influencing the air pressure at the North Pole and shifting wind patterns on our planet. We can expect more cold and snowy winters in Europe, eastern Asia and eastern North America." number of posts ago I mentioned that I had been observing very strange and in my experience, unique jet streams and weather patters over Canada and its North, up through the Arctic Archipelago. As I have been monitoring this same Environment weather map for some fourteen years now on a daily basis, and more or less living by them during my seven year climbing sabbatical, I thought it might be worth while to pass this on.Here is an interesting ENSO compilation of El Nino La Nina anomalies over the years, presented in a very interesting manner. A string of red numbers, over five in a row, indicates an official NOAA El Nino, and likewise a string of five numbers in blue in a row an official La Nina.In 2005 the Elbow River had its worst flooding event in well over a hundred years - note the long string of red numbers leading up to June 2005! Exceptional June rains occurred in 2005, hence the flooding.This year has seen a similar set of red numbers leading up to this June (2010), and we have already had a fair amount of rain, with more forecast for this coming week. Our visit to a local spot on this river surprised us - an entire island was missing!It will be interesting to see if this El Nino continues to taper off, and whether or not it will be followed by a La Nina??Here is the NOAA information - perhaps everyone can use this in looking to discern their own changing (or not) weather and climate? Manysummits @ the Climate Change Cafe, Calgary - Mon 14 Jun 2010 07:30:15 GMT+1 bowmanthebard #78 Lorax wrote:"Encyclopedia of what, may we ask?"The Planet Destroyer's Companion. Mon 14 Jun 2010 06:49:40 GMT+1 manysummits CR #81:"Second, as you say, the ending of the Little Ice Age is not the CAUSE of glacier shrinkage. It is the same thing. And since the Little Ice Age, and all other ice ages, happened naturally, why is this time supposed to be different?" (CR)================How did they happen naturally? (Ice Ages)What is the mechanism?==============="why is this time supposed to be different?" (CR)"Couldn't be seven billion people and a half a trillion tonnes of carbon released into the air by mankind since 1751 - could it?===========I am eagerly awaiting a reply to part one, i.e.How did they happen naturally? (Ice Ages)What is the mechanism? (the natural mechanism, of course)- Manysummits @ the Climate Change Cafe - Mon 14 Jun 2010 02:46:49 GMT+1 Motu Iti The only fair solution is to use per capita consumption and pollution as a basis. The Chinese would have to be retards to sign anything that could put limits to their growth. In my opinion the Chinese are not retards and if we treat them as such we will regret it. The first world will have to give a lot first since they are responsible for the vast majority of all the pollution made. If we keep trying to subjugate the third world, population growth will blow in our face. Current patterns of economic, population, and resource consumption growth are unsustainable, and will end one way or another. It's only a matter of when, not if.As Pogo once said, we have met the enemy and he is us. Sun 13 Jun 2010 22:31:12 GMT+1 CanadianRockies 77. Lorax wrote:"#72 'shrinking as the Little Ice Age ends.'And the Natural Variation Fairy strikes again! Look, how hard is this? Glaciers melt, because it is warmer. Not because they are on a schedule set out by the little ice age."Lorax, I almost missed this bit of mental contortion.Glaciers melt when it is warmer. True. Like every summer - if you think simplistically.But its not that simple, of course. We are talking about glaciers shrinking over time which involves net ice loss... 'melting.' That depends on both the winter snow accumulations and the summer melt. So if warmer conditions produce more snow, and all that melts in the summer is the snow pack, then glaciers can remain stable or even grow. This is but ONE reason why all glaciers are not and do not melt or expand at the same rate. But the IPCC gang only wants the world to notice the ones that are, or have been, shrinking.Second, as you say, the ending of the Little Ice Age is not the CAUSE of glacier shrinkage. It is the same thing. And since the Little Ice Age, and all other ice ages, happened naturally, why is this time supposed to be different?So you can sell me carbon offsets? Sun 13 Jun 2010 21:33:43 GMT+1 CanadianRockies #77. Lorax - If it were only that simple. But it isn't. The bottom line for me is that short term trends cannot be projected into the long term, particularly when we are talking about something as naturally variable as global climate. If you look over the longer term there is nothing unprecedented about what we have observed "since the 1930s" as you say. Indeed, throughout known human history even the current hype about causes of climate change is nothing new, though the coordinated global effort to sell it is. Sun Gods, witches, CO2, whatever. They all serve the same kind of SOCIAL ends.P.S. "Since the 1930s the solar and volcanic activity has declined, so the glaciers should be growing again."Again, short term and utterly simplistic. But that's the way some people like it. Sun 13 Jun 2010 21:21:55 GMT+1 JB Lorax, I am sure I am not the only one who, on encountering the word correlate or correlation in a sentence will simply ignore the entire sentence. Especially if the subject is science-related. Anyone of a sceptical nature will simply conclude that melting glaciers cause the air to warm-up or cause volcanoes to erupt or cause solar-activity. Sun 13 Jun 2010 20:53:57 GMT+1