People outside Australia are probably unfamiliar with Piers Akerman, who is an absurdly partisan columnist for Sydney's Daily Telegraph. Tobias Ziegler finds Akerman not only denying the existence of global warming but also the existence of any criticism of Plimer's book and even the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere.
- Log in to post comments
Sausage rolls can't be fattening, where's the fat layer?
I guess there are no carbonated beverages down under or if there they keep their bubbles to themselves after being opened.
Were the carcinogens in cigarettes ever found? Were the CFCs in refrigerators ever found? How about DDT metabolites in bird eggs?
Hey, potentially unfair criticism of Akerman here; it's possible that he's denying the existence of sunlight rather than that of CO2. And since his rejection of even the existence of rebuttal of Plimer implies that he reads with his eyes closed, it would be consistent.
Cut him some slack! It's not so easy to find CO2, after all it's an odourless, colourless gas. How do you expect regular people to notice it, hmm? And just because you're a regular guy with no extraordinary capability to discover trace gasses in the atmosphere, doesn't mean you should be disqualified from the debate, right?!
Ah, Piers Ackerman.
Whenever I hear that name, instead of getting angry and depressed and the state of journalism, I just think of this:
From the judgement in Richard James Talbot v Nationwide News Pty [2006] NSWDC 59
61. The inaccuracies of fact by the defendant [Piers Ackerman] on this topic are gross. In particular, to accuse the plaintiff of failure to attend committees that do not exist when in fact he consistently attended meetings of the Board which did consider such issues, is so extreme a misstatement of fact as to vitiate any defence of comment for any imputation based on it.
Very costly, as I recall.
:)
"instead of getting angry and depressed at the state of journalism,"
I guess the state of Science education in OZ is not much better than America. (Surely it can't be AS bad though...)
Excuse me, I seem to have misplaced my straw man. Perhaps Akerman knows where it can be found?
Akerman could fail harder but it would be an achievement of such monumental grandeur that it could possibly be said to constitute success.
Granted, Piers may not have all the Scientific Jargon 'down-pat', he is just a journalist after all, much like Tony Jones and Robyn Williams at 'our ABC' (or is it 'our ALP' ?)
Piers is on the right track though. There is no identifiable anthropogenic CO2 signature causing 'global warming'.
This tired old hypothesis has been thoroughly tested and it is now considered well and truly 'broken'.
This is not just my dumb opinion of course, and I didn't use computer model projections to arrive at my current conclusion.
As always though, I'm maintaining an open mind to see if things might change.
Billy Bob Hall writes:
1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (Tyndall 1859).
2. Carbon dioxide is rising (Keeling 1958, 1960, etc.).
3. Therefore (1, 2) the Earth's temperature should be rising.
4. The Earth's temperature is rising (NASA GISS, Hadley Centre CRU, RSS, UAH, etc., etc.).
5. Therefore (1, 2, 3) the increased temperatures should relate closely to the carbon dioxide level.
6. The correlation between NASA GISS temperature anomalies and ln CO2 is r = 0.87 for 1880-2007 (http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/Correlation.html).
7. The new carbon dioxide is primarily from fossil fuel burning (Suess 1955, Revelle and Suess 1957).
8. Therefore the global warming taking place is anthropogenic.
Which of the above points do you dispute?
What billy bob wants to put forward is that there's nothing on the CO2 molecules that say "I am anthropogenic" and that there's no proof that another earth with less CO2 (a control run) and showing lower temperature.
They want to be able to deny any proofs or evidence by claiming that it isn't the *right sort* of proof.
Of course, they have nothing themselves to add, since they don't have any proof themselves, so you'll always hear "It's the one with the theory must prove it" and if you say what their theory is, they'll ignore the question.
PS on another thread we can see what billy-bob's aim is. And it isn't science or enlightenment
"73
Yes 'TrueSkeptik'. I haven't got the faintest knowledge of the subject, but so long as I have wasted a few seconds of your precious time... well that's good enough for me. ;-)
Posted by: Billy Bob Hall"
Can we put him with Ray. With any luck, he'll learn nothing there either, but there's nothing to learn, so that balances out.
Hi Barton,
Points 4, and 5.
Given point 5 is not correct, points 6, 7 and 8 are rendered irrelevant.
On point 6 it will be hard to convince me that 'correlation' means 'causation'.
According to 'convention' I would normally agree with you on Point 3, however this is where the AGW hypothesis breaks down.
Thanks for the question.
No worries TrueSkeptic. I see you didn't post your ad hominem there either.
If the debate were along your preferred lines, I'm sure it would be 'attack the man', 'never discuss or debate the science' and then 'repeat the sky is falling mantra'.
Please have a nice day. :-)
Yeah, put him with Ray.
Billy Bob @,
What processes and checks have you made in your determination that temperature is no longer longer rising at a rate consistent with CO2e forcing?
I wrote this earlier:
>It has been explained that the difference between weather and climate is 30 years. This period allows for the natural cycles that can, for a short period, dominate the incremental changes produced by the steady accumulation of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
>In other words, the natural cycles that influence global temperature can act quicker than the steady rise in CO2e. However over the long term (30 years) CO2e forcing is greater, due to it operating in one direction, while natural cycles are, cyclical.
And [here is](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/mean:360) what a plot of 30 year mean temperature look like?
Oh, it have too!!
>This tired old hypothesis has been thoroughly tested and it is now considered well and truly 'broken'.
Wow, can you reference tbe papers that report this? As a researcher in the field I'm really surprised I missed the many papers that would be required to show this.
Shorter Billy Bob:
The Earth is cooling. The Earth is also warming, but the warming has nothing to do with carbon dioxide. Also, logic is merely a convention. Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem!
Billy Bob,
[HERE](http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm) is a simple experiment you can conduct in your kitchen that proves the causality of CO2's effect in the atmosphere.
Granted, Piers may not have all the Scientific Jargon 'down-pat', he is just a journalist after all, much like Tony Jones and Robyn Williams at 'our ABC'
Don't know about Jones, but Williams is a trained scientist, with an honours degree in biology. He is also a fellow of a number of senior scientific organisations, has written science books, is a very widely respected science communicator, and has held professorial posts.
Piers Ackerman is not even fit to lick William's boots when it comes to quality science reporting.
Since the time of Velikovsky, who first proved it, it's been established crank science that gases don't mix.
It's basic baraminological alchemy, for Hermes sake!
I was watching "The Insiders" on the ABC when Piers dropped that clanker. Ah, these are the moments we live for! The host, Barrie Cassidy, adroitly moved onto other matters as some trace gases of Piers' own making gently wafted through the air.
Piers makes the false claim that China is not limiting growth in its emissions. Under the current 5-year plan China is limiting growth in emissions to half its growth rate in GDP.
I assume that Piers means that China is not limiting the absolute scale of its emissions. Maybe that has something to do with the fact that China has 1/6th the per capita energy consumption of the US and about 1/4 of its per capita emissions.
Most proposals (e.g. those in the Garnaut report) see China (and India) closing the gap between developed and developing country per capita emissions by doing what these countries are currently doing - cutting their emission intensities. Once the gap is closed then absolute cuts in emissions can be sought.
The factual and interpretative errors in Ackerman's work are important enough to point out.
Billy Bob posts:
On 4: Global warming is shown by land surface temperature station readings, sea surface readings, balloon radiosonde readings, borehole readings, satellite readings, melting polar caps and glaciers, tree lines moving toward the poles, increased drought in continental interiors, more violent weather along coastlines, earlier hatching dates for the eggs of fish, insects, frogs, and birds, earlier blooming dates for flowers and flowering trees, tropical diseases moving into temperate zones, the altitude of the tropopause increasing while that of the stratopause decreases, etc., etc.
On 5: If carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, then more of it in the atmosphere should warm the ground, all else being equal.
On 6: The correlation doesn't prove the causation. The causation is a conclusion from radiation physics. The correlation was predicted many decades before it was observed. Finding it is just confirmation. Additional confirmation comes from the fact that the stratosphere is cooling as the troposphere warms, which is the specific signal of global warming caused by carbon dioxide.
On 3: 3 follows from 1 and 2. That's what a greenhouse gas means, by definition. If you want it as a syllogism, it's
Major premise. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the higher the ground temperature, all else being equal.
Minor premise. There is more CO2 in the atmosphere.
Conclusion. The ground should be warmer, all else being equal.
Are you disputing the existence of the greenhouse effect?
Mark Byrne; speaking of 30 year periods;
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1940/to:1977/trend/plot/giste…
Now what was that you said;
"However over the long term (30 years) CO2e forcing is greater, due to it operating in one direction, while natural cycles are, cyclical."
You must be thinking of the new McLean, de Freitas and Carter paper; gee didn't Tamino give them what for!
Cohenite,
Yes, [aerosols certainly](http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-14…) did affect the climate.
> No worries TrueSkeptic. I see you didn't post your ad hominem there either.
> Posted by: Billy Bob Hal
Billy Bob cannot read either.
Maybe he gets a teleprompter to do his reading...
BPL @ #27...
I don't think the Billy Bobs will get the relevance of increasing tropopause altitude.
Perhaps you should spell it out.
#37 Considering that the BBs of this world basically deny radiative transfer theory without even having worked through (say) Chandrasekhar's Radiative Transfer, I doubt that increasing tropopause height will even give them pause.
They left the path of reason a long time ago (that's not ad hominem btw, it's a conclusion that follows from clear evidence of scientific illiteracy).
The commmon characteristic of science denialists is that they cannot tolerate the consequences of the science being true (central control by government etc.) So they have zero interest in understanding it and a lot of interest in misunderstanding it.
Well, heated gas expands. The troposphere is heated, surface area can't increase, so height/depth must.
> Well, heated gas expands. The troposphere is heated, surface area can't increase, so height/depth must.
> Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson
Billy Bob is from ARkansas! You have to show him.
He'll just say "where's your EMPIRICAL PROOF!". And then explain how the earth isn't in a glass box...
I was thinking more along the lines of increasing CO2 opacity = increased depth x lapse rate = lower emission temperature x T ^ 4th = more retained heat. The actual mechanics of the so-called greenhouse effect.
Billy Bob Hall @ 13, amongst all your other inaccuracies, you claim that Robyn Williams is not a scientist. Untrue, as he's a biologist.
No Barton (#27) I am not disputing 'greenhouse'. However you are looking at the wrong gas. H2O is where the thermodynamics is happening. CO2 is just a trace gas.
And Dave I (#37), thanks for the info. I would never have guessed Robyn was a biologist. This sure is a surprize.
"CO2 is just a trace gas."
So what, Billy Bob?
> H2O is where the thermodynamics is happening. CO2 is just a trace gas.
> Posted by: Billy Bob Hall
But CO2 has an equivalent effect too and DOESN'T FALL OUT OF THE SKY.
Therefore you only have a week to accumulate H2O before it starts raining it all back to base again.
CO2 can last 1000 years for some processes, 200 years IIRC is the effective half-life.
200 years x 50 weeks = 10,000x the disturbance effect of H2O.
Billy Bob Hall.
[Ozone](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/10/monckton_on_the_commie_plot_ag…) is 'just a trace gas' too, but do you deny that it can have a significant ER-absorptive effect?
Upon what basis do you predicate your assumption that every substance needs to exert its physical effects at concentrations that are equivalent in terms of orders of magnitude?
Using your 'logic', vitamin and mineral pills should be the size of house bricks.
'But CO2 has an equivalent effect too and DOESN'T FALL OUT OF THE SKY.'.
Maybe, but it does get absorbed in the ocean. Isn't that the next 'fall back panic' from the 'warmists' ? 'Ocean Acidulation' from CO2 ? It's getting all too complex for me to follow now ! :-)
Anyway, plants apparently love the stuff too. So, I guess they will 'suck it out of the sky' as you indicate.
I've never thought of CO2 as a vitamin... but have it your way Bernard J, let's call it an 'atmospheric vitamin' ? ;-)
Billy Bob says:
It's true that water vapor is the major greenhouse gas on Earth, accounting for 60% of the clear-sky greenhouse effect. But carbon dioxide accounts for another 26%. And while water is a volatile at Earth temperatures, cycling roughly every nine days, CO2 is a well-mixed gas, and a pulse of it stays up about 200 years. We can change the level of carbon dioxide, but water vapor is a function of temperature (and in turn affects temperature, of course) through the Clausius-Clapeyron relation.
Sorry to disagree Barton. (#43) My sources tell me H2O contributes to approximately ~95% of 'greenhouse' and CO2 is down there at ~3.6 or so... ok let's round it up and call it 4%. N2O and CH4 are even lower.
BBH @ 44.
The percentages don't really matter.
What's important is knowing the difference between a "forcing" and a "feedback".
> Sorry to disagree Barton. (#43) My sources tell me H2O contributes to approximately ~95% of 'greenhouse'
> Posted by: Billy Bob Hall
And your source being...?
>My sources tell me H2O contributes to approximately ~95% of 'greenhouse' and CO2 is down there at ~3.6 or so
Garbage in == garbage out. Reference your laughably wrong numbers or don't use them. Kiehl and Trenberth (1997) work it out to more like 60% for H2O and 26% for CO2 (at 353 ppmv) for clear sky scenes, which is closer to the kinds of numbers we generally ballpark it at. In any case we are talking here about the global net radiative energy balance, even % changes in the single digits are a big deal, and we're well past that point.
BBH:
They're lying to you because they know you're credulous. If everything but H20 is removed, the greenhouse effect becomes 66% of its existing effect. If everything but CO2 is removed, the greenhouse effect becomes 26% of its existing effect. If just CO2 is removed, the greenhouse effect becomes 91% of its existing effect. The absorption bands of CO2 and the other greenhouse gasses partly overlap.
About one-quarter of it has a mean lifetime in the atmosphere of 30,000 years.
He's saying that denialists are lying when they say life on earth could not exist without CO2.
Because, it's a trace gas, therefore not important.
Right, Billy Bob?
'Trace gas' : Refers to a gas or gases which make up less than 1% by volume of the earth's atmosphere.
Last time I looked CO2 fits into that category.
Yes, John Armour (#43), first you have to demonstrate that the 'forcings or 'feed-back' are +ve or -ve. (and not just in computer models). The +ve feedback loop from CO2 that the 'warmists' are looking for seems to be pretty elusive. I'm prepared to accept however that there is +ve 'forcing' from the sun.
And just so I have the 'story' straight, any observed global cooling is from 'natural variation', but all warming is from CO2 ?
No dhogaza (#49) I did not say CO2 is unimportant. I think I said that I understood plants love the stuff. The more the better apparently. ;-)
Billy Bob writes:
>My sources tell me H2O contributes to approximately ~95% of 'greenhouse' and CO2 is down there at ~3.6 or so.
Billy Bob, usually people are preparied to cite who/what their sources are. Are you willing to cite your sources?
And I'm still waiting for your reply to [my previous question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/piers_akerman_takes_denial_to.p…).
Just to be clear Mark Byrne, are you asking me to cite someone with 'Authority' on the contribution of different gases to 'greenhouse' ?
Or are you asking me to cite some 'Authority' that has the overwhelming backing power of some 'saintly peer review' ?
I'm not going to take that bite out of your little side-order there. May I humbly suggest there is no 'Authority' in science. Nor should there be. I certainly do not intend to recognize any 'Authority' in any field, particularly climate science at this stage my career. I certainly do not recognize any authority that may be claimed by the IPCC. Neither should anyone else.
The question still is, do you have any empirical evidence that that anthropogenic CO2 has any significant direct effect on average global temperatures ? I actually don't mind if you have an 'Authoritative' or 'peer reviewed' opinion on this or not. You will not believe me I'm sure, but I do assure you I really am quite open minded.
Billy Bob,
You've made clear that you are wary of citing your sources. So be it. You may be aware that makes you appear quite fruity to people who are persuaded by evidence.
I guess you are free to claim what ever on the basis of secret soruces.
I noticed you also neglected my previous question (for a second time). Care to answer [that question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/piers_akerman_takes_denial_to.p…)?
BBHall says:
but also says:
So he has an authority sometimes but certainly doesn't intend to recognize an authority.
What a hypocrite.
Re #56 "You will not believe me I'm sure, but I do assure you I really am quite open minded."
Steve Fielding loved that little chestnut too.
How can Billy Bob cite his source? "Professor M I Anus" doesn't show up on a cite search...
> I did not say CO2 is unimportant. I think I said that I understood plants love the stuff. The more the better apparently. ;-)
> Posted by: Billy Bob Hall
They love sunshine too.
So why is the heatwave in the US midwest causing all those plant deaths? They have plenty of sunshine there...
And what about water? They love water. Yet the flooding that happens in Bangladesh seems to end with LESS greenery in the fields than before.
> The question still is, do you have any empirical evidence that that anthropogenic CO2 has any significant direct effect on average global temperatures ?
> Posted by: Billy Bob Hall
Yes.
Temperatures today are higher than they've been, even in the hottest year, since 1997.
CO2 is likewise higher than it's been since 1997.
Both observations.
Both evidence.
that should have been "since before 1998".
"You will not believe me I'm sure, but I do assure you I really am quite open minded."
Your postings belie that statement. But you are good for a chuckle.
Billy Bob writes, "there is no 'Authority' in science".
Utter rubbish. This kind of statement belies someone who clearly has no scientific acumen. In specific fields of science there are, of course, authorities - experts who have dedicated their careers to address specific areas of rsearch. David Tilman is an authority on bidoiversity and ecosystem functioning. Donad Strong is an authority on co-evolutionary processes. Bruce Menge is an authority on coastal ecology. Mike Hassell in an authority on ecological modeling. Charles Godfray is an authority on the evolution and ecology of parasitoid wasps. Edward O. Wilson is an authority on ant biology and ecology.
If there weren't authorities, then why are there universities teaching new generations of young scientists? The more that we work in our fields of research, the more expertise and experience we gain. I've worked a scientist for almost 20 years and the gist of BB's vacuous remark is that one doesn't have to study anything to be an expert. In other words, laypeople know just as much as scientists who have worked for 25 years in a certain field of research. BB backs this up by dismissing peer-review. This is the Forrest Gump type of argument. BB's statement is aimed at deligitmizing those who clearly know a lot more than he does. He cites bogus statistics, then supports them with invisible 'sources' that he refuses to disclose (knowing full well that thyey originate from some right wing think tank or lobbying group that has an axe to grind).
If you want to ignore climate scientists, who have done the field work and the measurements which are eventually the empirical facts, then go right ahead Billy-Bob. Before I'll consider anything you present as fact, I'll want to see your field work and measurements pertaining to your argument. Nevertheless, after all that effort, I might apply the same logic as you and ignore your interpretation of your measurments, on the basis that "There are no Authorities in Science".
OK Jeff Harvey, probably time to go back a step for you...
Are you really convinced I have no scientific 'acumen' ?
Here is one definition of science :
* 1 : 'the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.'
Probably not commonly thought of in this regard... This is a pure definition.... a 'state of grace' if you will. I accept or those 'warmists' amongst us with a 'spiritual' persuasion... that think they probably have attained this pure state of 'knowing' on climate change, I however will never claim this, being the humble person that I am.
Here is a more familiar definition :
* 2: 'knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method.'
Note the terms 'general laws' and 'tested' and 'scientific method'.
Particularly 'general laws'. There is no 'general theory of climate' and there is never likely to be.
Note in either of these definitions there is no mention of the word 'Authority'. And rightly so.
So yes, I do also contend that 'the average man in the street' has every right to question the 'Authority' of any of these great Scientists that you mention.
And finally I would like to just shere with you this old observation, from American geologist T.C. Chamberlin in 1890 he penned the following perspicacious description of the obligations of a scientist to maintain disinterest at all times.
"The moment one has offered an original explanation for a phenomenon which seems satisfactory, that moment affection for his intellectual child springs into existence, and as the explanation grows into a definite theory his parental affections cluster about his offspring and it grows more dear to him...As this parental affection takes possession of the mind, there is a rapid passage to the adoption of the theory. There is an unconscious selection and magnifying of phenomena that fall into harmony with the theory and support it, and an unconscious neglect of those that fail of coincidence...
When these biasing tendencies set in, the mind rapidly degenerates into the partiality of paternalism. The search for facts, the observation of phenomena and their interpretation, are all dominated by affection for the favored theory until it appears to its author or its advocate to have been overwhelmingly established. The theory then rapidly rises to the ruling position, and investigation, observation, and interpretation are controlled and directed by it. From an unduly favored child, it readily becomes master, and leads its author whithersoever it will...
When the last stage has been reached, unless the theory happens, perchance, to be the true one, all hope of the best results is gone."
Scientific method is not new it seems ?
So anyway Jeff, how does my 'acumen' look to you now ?
;-)
Billy Bob write:
> how does my 'acumen' look to you now ? ;-)
Billy Bob the answer to your question is, you look stupid, and you look doubly stupid for thinking this bazaar rant would in any way compensate for you choice to keep you sources secret.
But thanks for asking Billy Bob!
BBH: Your acumen looks as empty as it did before, sorry to say. Your statement that there are no authorities in science in an earlier post reveals that quite blatantly. All you have done is huff, puff and pontificate. Your virtuous rant does nothing to undermine the empirical evidence in support of AGW which is large and growing. What has Chamberlain's 1890 essay got to do with climate change? I might just as well cite the late Stephen J. Gould's perspective on the matter of new theories that become :
First, a new theory is seen as crazy, as are those who advocate it. After a variable period of time, it becomes dangerous, followed by a period of uncertainty. In the end, when the theory gains empirical support, its hard to find anyone who claims they didn't believe it in the first place. Note how the AGW denialists have also used similar tactics. Twenty years ago AGW was seen as a doomsday myth. During the 1990s, as evidence grew showing the planet's surface was warming, the denialists began to change their tactics. Suddenly the planet was warming, but within natural boundries. As this argument began to be falsified, they started suggesting that it was due to other forcings e.g. solar or that warming stopped in 1998. Wait another 5-10 years or so (some denialists are already suggesting this) and they will say, 'Heck, the combustion of fossil fuels is the main factor in the current warming, but its too late to do anything about it so we will just have to adapt'. The major themse is that we do nothing about it. Business-as-usual.
Basically, what you are saying is that, because a field or research is inherently complex, then we can never understand enough about that field in order to be able to make general predications about it. Listen pal, I've been through all of this over the highly contentious debate over the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Admittedly the science underlying this field is still in its relative infancy, and we have a long way to go to be able to confidently predict how much the loss of species richness y will affect a specfic ecological function x. But we do know enough even now to confidently predict that, as systems become biologically depauperated, some of the critical the services they generate that sustain us are likely to be impaired if not eliminated. Of course there are conditions, but the broad applicability of this assertion is empirically sound.
The same goes for climate. The planet's climate control system is unquestionably complex. But the effects being manifested now were predicted over 40 years ago, based on models projecting the increase in greenhouse gas emissions and their effects on warming. Of course there are doubts, but these are diminishing as new data come in. Most importantly public policy will never be based on consensus, because this will never be absolute. Scientists rarely agree on much: that is what makes the current broad consensus (with a few notable outliers) so remarkable. The vast majority of statured scientists are in agreement over the primary cause of the current warming, and most of us also agree that if we continue to procastrinate on this issue the consequences of this for humanity could be severe. Given this information, it is prudent to act.
Finally, I would like to ask you, if there are no authorities in science, why do we study science at all? Your remark was utterly flippant and without foundation.
Billy Bob posts:
Your sources are wrong. Deniers have been citing figures from 95% to 99% for water vapor for years, but there is zero theoretical or empirical backing for such a figure. My source is:
Kiehl, J.T. and K.E. Trenberth, 1997. "Earth's Annual Global Mean Energy Budget." Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 78, 197-208.
Thanks Janet Ackerman. I also choose to remain 'stupid' in your eyes. As for my sources ?
well, a 5 or 10 minute 'google search' will put you 'on the knocker'. :-)
Ok Jeff, so my 'acumen' is empty... oh well, I'll try to fill it with hubris then ? :-)
You see, the burden of proof really does lie with you 'warmist' guys. I maintain there is no problem. I advocate we just do nothing and see what happens for a while. It certainly is the cheapest option. Right now the climate is cooling. This is my opinion. I'm sure you are aware there are others who hold this view too.
Yes Yes, I accept that things like biodiversity and climate are complex. No argument from me. However, I think I'm seeing a trend - and one I think you are eluding to there, that of using anthropogenic CO2 and the prospect of 'dangerous global warming' as a 'reason' to attain funding to 'save biodiversity' or some other worthy environmental cause. This approach in scientific research is disingenuous. Again you won't believe me I'm probably 'with you' on more things than you know, and I am aware of the pressures of obtaining funding. I know it's not fun.
However, and again it is 'only my opinion' because of the funding crisis and the mechanisms we have to 'live with', the climate change issue is now contaminated with a lot of sloppy science. Unfortunately 'Peer Reviewing' will not fix this, and it is definitely no substitute for the null hypothesis.
So anyway, just for the record again, so that I am 'crystal clear' I maintain there is no 'Authority' in Science. I have always studied science for the knowledge it lends. In this regard I promise you I will never be flippant.
Billy Bob writes:
Everybody's opinion on every subject is not equally good. If I want somebody to perform surgery on my abdomen, I go to a GI surgeon, not a plumber. If I want someone to tell me about general relativity, I go to a physicist, not a barber. If I want someone to lay asphalt in my driveway, I'll go to a contractor, not a microbiologist. Your attitude is like that of a complete amateur going up to a 20-year union stonemason at a construction project and telling him "You're doing that all wrong." How the hell would you know? You don't have the training or the experience to know what's wrong and what isn't.
http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/Correlation.html
Billy Bob posts:
Wrong again:
http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/VV.html
Billy Bob writes:
>I maintain there is no problem. I advocate we just do nothing and see what happens for a while. It certainly is the cheapest option.
Fortunately, only silly billies will take seriously such opinions from people who decline to cite evidence.
:)
Billy Bob,
I note you have again asserted your claim about cooling. I invite you for the 4th time to address [my question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/piers_akerman_takes_denial_to.p…) on this topic, which you have chosen to not address so far.
BPL,
Thanks for presenting your CO2 vs Temp correlation. Nice work!
This argument over "authority" in science is a bit of a red herring. BBH is completely wrong in his assertion that there are no authorities. On the contrary there are many, in all fields. Including the fields of climate science and atmospheric radiation. (Those are different fields of work by the way, though there is some overlap.)
BBH, you were asked for references, and answered that you refused to recognise authority. Those are different things. There are two ways to get an answer to a question that you might have, you can do the work yourself or you can use someone else's work to provide the answer. If you do the latter the onus is on you to check the work yourself to verify that it as acceptable and to provide a reference so others can do the same. It doesn't have to be an "authority", just an answer.
You have been provided with sufficient reference to the standard answer to the question of the relative importance of CO2 in the radiation balance. You refuse to give us your reference so we can see how you can have derived such an absurdly wrong answer. Instead we get long bluster and ranting on "authority". If you want readers to think you have something to hide, you're doing a pretty good job.
If you ever come to an understanding of the importance of CO2 in the radiation balance, the obvious feedback in terms of increased atmospheric H2O vapor and the immutability of long term changes in the radiation balance you will learn how truly deep in the shit we really are.
Hey Bart (#72) Nice graph. Now can you 'hand on your heart' with certainty tell me that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes increasing average global temperatures. There is some more detailed work from ice cores, speilothems, marine and lacustrine sediment cores that show that in the very recent past that there is an approximate 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature rises. There are 'peer reviewed' papers on this, if that is what is required to convince you. No point me putting these up either. They don't necessarily comply with 'ALP policy' ! ;-) Or of course you could just take my word for it. I have no reason to lie to you. And I have no agenda to justify the 're-constructing of ideal truths' :-) Just helping to give you guys a 'leg up' to help with the science for when you want to take the discussion to a serious blog maybe, where the 'deniers' lurk in the darkness waiting to 'attack' ! ;-)
That's all. :-)
Gawd, the CO2 follows temperature canard yet again.
No-one is this stupid, or this uneducated - surely?!
William Robert is a troll, and not a very original one at that.
Sorry Mark Byrne (#75)... was getting distracted by 'red herrings' apparently ? (I wonder if they go getter with garlic or lemon pepper ?)
Anyway, here is some graphed NOAA data.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/8YearTemps.jpg
Yes I know it is only 1 source and it's from Huntsville therefore it cannot be 'correct' because they are not 'main-stream', so what the hell would they know ? They have 'No Authoratay' ! ;-) Betcha them 'good ole boys' down there didn't vote for the ALP neither ! ;-) Might as well get a graph from Latrobe University or somewhere ?! ;-)
But anyway, ya might as well get used to it, for the next few years at least... there's going to be more graphs looking much like it...
Yes I know it is only 1 source and it's from Huntsville therefore it cannot be 'correct' because they are not 'main-stream', so what the hell would they know ?
that graph is NOT incorrect, because of the source (icecap.us is utterly horrible).
the graph is incorrect, because it contains multiple errors!
the biggest one is a too short time period, to get any information about climate.
the worst one, is the scaling of the right hand y-axis. the artist decided, that the graph should look, as if an increase of 15 ppm CO2 should immediately generate a 0.45°C temperature jump.
among the minor additional problems is the smooth of the CO2 graph, removing the annual wiggles.
the 8 year graph that you presented is one of the worst examples of a misleading use of statistics!
> Nice graph. Now can you 'hand on your heart' with certainty tell me that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes increasing average global temperatures.
> Posted by: Billy Bob Hall
Yes.
You see when CO2 increases there's an increase after that of temperature.
Ergo, there is proof that CO2 creates temperature increases.
PS Mark G's point:
> BBH, you were asked for references, and answered that you refused to recognise authority.
rather kills Billy's statement:
> My sources tell me H2O contributes to approximately ~95% of 'greenhouse' and CO2 is down there at ~3.6 or so.
Since if there is no authority, there's no source to say that CO2 IS down there at 3.6%.
Excuse me, I seem to have misplaced my straw man.
If you can't show me where the straw layer is, how can we be sure it was ever formed in the shape of a man?
I'm not going to take that bite out of your little side-order there.
Sounds like Bill Dembski refusing to flesh out his ID "theory." That seems to be a common feature of denialists -- they all have an aversion to "pathetic level of detail."
May I humbly suggest there is no 'Authority' in science.
Yes, you may suggest that. And we may now conclude from your suggestion -- not to mention your subsequent feverish rant about conspiracies and coverups -- that you have no fucking clue what you're talkng about, and are desperately trying to pretend everyone else is as ignorant as you are.
Right now the climate is cooling. This is my opinion.
Calling it your "opinion" strongly implies you can't prove it as fact. So why is your opinion relevant, little man?
Billy Bob, Thankyou for posting a chart in response to [my question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/piers_akerman_takes_denial_to.p…) , *"What processes and checks have you made in your determination that temperature is no longer rising at a rate consistent with CO2e forcing?"* However your chart does not show a 30 year period. As I stated:
>the difference between weather and climate is 30 years. This period allows for the natural cycles that can, for a short period, dominate the incremental changes produced by the steady accumulation of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
>In other words, the natural cycles that influence global temperature can act quicker than the steady rise in CO2e. However over the long term (30 years) CO2e forcing is greater, due to it operating in one direction, while natural cycles are, cyclical.
>And [here is](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/mean:360) what a plot of 30 year mean temperature look like?
So Billy Bob, how did you determine that a chart of 8 years would be sufficient to determine temperature is no longer rising at a rate consistent with CO2e forcing?
Thanks Mark Byrne (#85) for keeping things 'civil'. The other ad hominem attacks the like of 'Raging Bee' I will choose to ignore. This is the norm amongst many 'warmists' sadly, ie 'attack the man', 'never discuss the science', and then 'repeat the sky is falling mantra'. I would urge you all to rise above this. The 'deniers' will surely 'go for you' on this sort of thing.
Getting back to the 30 year record Mark. I agree with you. Thei is generally what climatologists suggest is about the right length of time to consider changes in climatic conditions. Bear in mind this would only leave us with about a 5 point' data set if we were to run our 'moving average window' over the 150 year or so or 'modern' temperature / weather records that we have.
We should of course be looking back further than this. One way is with the geologic record or tree rings or some such. I maintain that 150 years is not enough to have everyone in a panic about polar bears dying or hurricanes occurring every day. The medieval warm period was significantly warmer than today. The polar bears did not die out.
Granted the temperature records have shown increases in the last 30 years. There were also el-nino events in this time and a relative lack of volcano's too. However, there is now quite clear evidence that average global temperatures have been decreasing since probably about 2002.
Oh and by the way, isn't there a sizable 'acid' volcano erupting in the Northern Hemisphere now ?
I'll take bets on what the average winter temperatures will be like for the next few years too if you like :-)
Oh, forgot to mention just then Mark. I'm not convinced about CO2 Forcing. However, despite the vehement opposition from some, I'm starting to really think that Solar Forcing needs a lot more attention. This is something I have reviewed fairly regularly since maybe 1980 or so.
There is fascinating paper out there using and 'indirect' method of atmospheric measurement by reviewing the spectra of periodic Lunar Eclipses. I thought it was fascinating anyway.
Billy Bob,
To clarify the 30 year moving average that I posted changes every year (by 1:30) so of our 150 years of global recorded temperature we have 120 data points not 5. That is, after the first 30 years we maintain a 30 year moving average.
There is much value and much to be learned by looking further back than our measured temperature record, and the weight of evidence does not support the claim that, â*The medieval warm period was significantly warmer than today.*
The weight of evidence suggest that the current warming trend has taken global temperatures higher than temperatures in the in at least [2 millennia](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/fig3.jpg).
A despite premature claims of cooling, we are still at those record high temperatures despite a solar minima and La Nina phases. And Unlike the MWP we have not had a century of lower than usual volcanic aerosol emissions. To the contrary, weâve had a century of more than usual [aerosol emissions](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/fig3.jpg).
When we account for account for El Nino and La Nina phases the warming trend [become clearer]( http://www.aussmc.org/documents/waiting-for-global-cooling.pdf) (less noise). That is the correlation between CO2e and Temp become even stronger, rather than weaker when we standardise for the influence of ENSO.
So regarding your bet, Iâll bet you $1,000 that this years global temperature will be above the mean temperature anomaly for Hadcrut or GISS ( your choice). That is despite a solar minima, a recent La Nina, the latent cooling from melting ice, and near record high aerosol emissions.
Will you take my bet? Or if youâd prefer Iâll bet that the 30 year moving average for this year is higher than last.
William Robert.
How do you figure that this would leave us with a "5 point' [sic] data set"? Do you actually understand how a 30 year moving average moves over a 150 year period?
What a good idea. I wonder why scientists have not thought of this?
Oh, that's right...
Scientists are basing their understanding on data spanning more than 150 years. Oh, and there has never been any panic about "hurricanes ocurring every day".
There have been El Niño events for thousands of years: do you not understand the concept of signal amongst noise, as [McLean et al](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/old-news/), with their bogus 'trend analysis', seem not to?
And I am sure that there has not been a reduction in the number of volcanoes present on the planet. Perhaps you were referring to eruptions? If so, what frequency of eruptions do you believe is required to maintain a 'constant' atmospheric temperature?
What evidence would this be? It must be amazing evidence indeed in order to be able to detect such a trend, especially as you yourself have just stated that a minimum of 30 years is required in order to detect a climatic change!
Is there? And through what mechanism will this 'acid volcano' exert its impact?
Upon what rigorous analysis of the scientific basic for such forcing do you doubt it?
So you've been 'reviewing' it for almost 30 years, and you are just now starting to think that it needs more attention?
And what of the solid evidence that indicates that solar effects are not primarily responsible for the 20th century warming?
But apparently you didn't think it sufficiently fascinating to actually provide the reference to us.
You are not even a good troll.
And you wonder why most here don't treat you with any degree of civility!
Yes Bernard J. I do wonder why ? Some degree of civility would be, well just nice.
And finally, there is no point providing any references on this blog, because most that I refer to don't come from any 'Authority'. This is not an error of judgment on my part. I cannot stress this highly enough, Science does not care about Authority. The empirical evidence will speak for itself and also whether I'm here or not.
Billy Bob: "I'm not convinced about CO2 Forcing."
Who cares?
You may well be the lowest-quality troll who's ever appeared on this site.
A bit more ad hominem Gaz ? Thank you. Ive had enough now. My 'Acumen' is now well and truly stuffed ! ;-)
Well hang on a minute now Billy Bob Hall.
I'm not arguing what you say must be wrong because you're a low-quality troll. Oh no, it's the other way around. What you say shows you're a low-quality troll.
So it wasn't argument by ad hominem, it was just an ordinary insult.
Of course you may be a wonderful person in the real world, a tireless worker for charity or a devoted family man, perhaps a philanthropic patron of the arts, or whatever, but here, on this blog site, you function as a time-wasting troll with nothing of value to offer.
The thing which irks me is that you're not really a very good troll, as Bernard pointed out a while back.
Arguing with denialists usually presents rational people with an opportunity to learn by responding to their challenges - a kind of intellectual homeopathy.
But you're arguments are so thin, so poorly researched and so devoid of backing in the literature that you are useless even in that regard.
Sigh.
Maybe I should go back to the Tim Curtin thread for some real denialist action....
>Arguing with denialists usually presents rational people with an opportunity to learn by responding to their challenges - a kind of intellectual homeopathy.
>But you're arguments are so thin,
Sorry Gaz, I think that's an analogy fail. Homeopathy says that the more dilute the stuff, the better it works. So BBH should be perfect.
Damn.
It would have worked if I'd said "non-existent" instead of "thin".
Even in homeopathy you have to start with something tangible.
> I'm not convinced about CO2 Forcing.
We know.
It has no basis in rationality, but you aren't convinced and because it is an irrational belief, there's no way to remove it.
Who cares.
> However, despite the vehement opposition from some, I'm starting to really think that Solar Forcing needs a lot more attention.
What makes you think the current work is insufficient?
You don't even know what work is done on solar forcing.
Billy Bob posts:
Yes.
Yes, but that doesn't mean what you think it means:
http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/Lag.html
In any case, did you miss the fact that the r = 0.87 correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature in my analysis was in the same year? Not with an 800 year time lag?
Billy Bob posts:
No, it was not:
Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K., and H.F. Diaz 2003. "Climate Change in Medieval Time." Science 302, 404-405.
Meaningless, since the characteristic time scale for temperature signal is 30 years. There have been many periods in the past century and a half when temperature declined or was flat for several years, but the overall trend was still up, and is so now:
http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/VV.html
I think Billy Bob Hall is pulling your legs...
> I think Billy Bob Hall is pulling your legs...
> Posted by: Lurker
No, but I DO think he's pulling something else whilst posting...
Eeeew.
> Even in homeopathy you have to start with something tangible.
> Posted by: Gaz
However, for severe symptoms, they (rather strangely) tell you to take two tablets, rather than a half...
So maybe that logical disconnect is why you equated Bob with Homoeopathy.
Billy Bob Hall,
instead of whining how all we are doing here is "attacking the man" you could [answer the questions I posed to you](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/jim_lippard_on_plimer.php#comme…).
See, there you go, bluegrue, attacking poor ole Billy again...
I think Lurker is correct. BBH is here just to wind people up. He clinched it for me when he wrote:
*Oh, forgot to mention just then Mark. I'm not convinced about CO2 Forcing. However, despite the vehement opposition from some, I'm starting to really think that Solar Forcing needs a lot more attention*
He also actually wrote that, *Right now the climate is cooling*. This si further evidence in support of Lurker's view.
And we are supposed to take him seriously? This isn't a scientific discussion with BBH. It's someone with what appears to be a grade school understanding of the science giving their opinion, and dismissing the vast majority of the scientific community as being 'warmest guys'.
I feel that I have more than countered BBH's simplistic vbiews in my previous posts. 'Do nothing' he says. I am sure that BBH belives we should have done nothing about CFCs, or about widespread habitat destruction, or to counter the threat to recipient ecosystems posed by invasive species. Do nothing. These kinds of words come from someone who obviously thinks humans are exempt from the laws of nature. Do nothing and all will be fine. At least for the privileged few. For the rest? Don't worry.
This is the sprint of folly.
BBH isn't convinced eabout AGW either (a) because he's a low quality prankster, or (b) if he is serious, he hasn't got much of clue about the empirical data and does not read the primary sources. It is one or the other.
When he claimed that 'solar forcing needs a lot more attention' this clearly suggested to me that the answer above is (a). Once the denila lobby could no longer rely on the 'it isn't warming' canard, they switched to a number of other tactics, including the 'it's natural' argument, with solar forcing being one of their first arguments. But this hypothesis has been demolished many times. This is why the denialists also constantly dredge up the equally flawed 'medievel warming period' and, more recently, the 'it stopped warming in 1998' arguments.
And now we have BBH claiming that it is cooling. What is the point in responding to this comic level book analysis?
> BBH isn't convinced eabout AGW either (a) because he's a low quality prankster, or (b) if he is serious, he hasn't got much of clue about the empirical data and does not read the primary sources. It is one or the other.
You sell our little winker short!
He could be BOTH!
(PS call a troll a troll. Not a "prankster").
Mark,
I stand corrected. Troll it is. I was just giving him the very tiniest benefit of the doubt. Even that is too much, I realize.
Troll, prankster, recalcitrantly uneducatable idiot...
...whatever BBH is, it is a sad thing indeed that he derives his jollies by making light of a profoundly significant and potentially life-destroying phenomenon. And all for the sake of his narrow-minded ideology, whatever it might be.
Very sad.
Billy Bob,
Will you take [my bet](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/piers_akerman_takes_denial_to.p…)?
What are the terms Mark Byrne ? If they are acceptable, I'll go a step further and transfer the ($1000 was it ?) to you, in one of your bank accounts for you to hold 'in trust' for the duration of the bet. Now you wouldn't steal it from me would you ? People on the green side of politics unfortunately tend to be a little untrustworthy.
"People on the green side of politics unfortunately tend to be a little untrustworthy."
Yep, definitely a troll.
Billy Bob the terms [are here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/piers_akerman_takes_denial_to.p…).
Thanks Mark, I see you want to use the corrupt Hadley Center... We would never reach any agreement if you insist on this lot being one of the arbiters.
BBH says, *Thanks Mark, I see you want to use the corrupt Hadley Center*
Evidence? Or is the evidence that this highly respected body produces data that you don't like?
BBH also says, *People on the green side of politics unfortunately tend to be a little untrustworthy*
What a hoot. And so people on the corporate (= right wing) side of politics are more honest and trustworthy are they? Gimme a break. Your analyses are descending to comic book level. Given that western so-called democracies are dominated by pro-business governments and routinely lie to promote their agendas (just look at the Iraq war and the current conflict in Afghanistan and their 'justifications') I find such a glib remark by BBH to certainly qualify him for troll-dom.
Bernard sums BBH up quite well (# 107).
> Thanks Mark, I see you want to use the corrupt Hadley Center...
> Posted by: Billy Bob Hall
Use the GISS data then.
Duh.
Billy Bob, I suggest you [opt for](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/piers_akerman_takes_denial_to.p…) GISS if you don't like Hadley.
Will you take my bet?
Billy.... Bob....?
Mark, I just been checking the latest propaganda from GISS, firstly they have James Hansen, and if that's not bad enough I just seen a recent paper where D Karoly is a co-author.
So GISS is corrupt too as an arbiters. I cannot win with you here on this one Mark, I give up. I'll just send you the $1000 bucks because it'll be just too hard to deal with all the dross.
"I cannot win with you here on this one Mark.."
That's because you're wrong, Billy Bob.
Billy Bob,
I agree you cannot win this bet. And it's not because of the quality of the data.
The planet will be warmer than the mean temp record anomaly. And it will be warmer despite a recent La Nina phase, solar minima, and near record high aerosol emissions.
This year will be warmer than the mean tempeture record beacuse of a contiual build up and thus a higher content of trace gases that which have the property of slowing the escape of heat (more opaque to heat than to visible light).
And like a dam blocking a river, slowing the excape of heat causes the temperature level to rise.
LB sugggests [an experiment](http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm) we can all try to at home to test the principle on a rough scale.
16 Billy Bob Hall,
Who are you talking to? And where are you talking about?
And please find out what "ad hominem" means. If I say you are as thick as a fencepost, that's not ad hominem; it's an observation that you never cease to provide evidence for.
It's possible that you are an incorrigible liar, of course, but it's hard to tell. All we know is that your grip on reality is somewhat tenuous.
You forgot to mention Billy Bob that they're all part of the greatest conspiracy of all time that was started more than 100 years ago by Fourier, Tyndal and Arrhenius who knew they could create opportunities for research grants more than 100 years into the future. In fact, the vast majority of scientists are in one this conspiracy because of the interlocking nature of science. Well spotted Billy Bob. You deserve a Nobel prize.
Why not use Wood For Trees? You can use the Wood For Trees Index, which is an average of all the main datasets, or any of the individual ones.
I think by posting on here BBH has achieved everything he set out to do. Amazing stamina and imagination. I bet he even thinks he is doing it for noble reasons. I wonder what would've been the outcome if he had just been ignored?
> I think by posting on here BBH has achieved everything he set out to do.
This DOES presume some sort of intelligence.
Something that does seem lacking in the evidence presented by billy.
Ha!
Guess who's booked to appear on the [ABC's Q&A](http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/) next Thursday AEST, at 9.30pm?
From the blurb at the end of tonight's episode, it appears that issues of climate change will be the order of the day - I can't wait to see how Piers performs...
Maybe one of the ABC Q&A questions should be where the CO2 layer should be if it existed. It is obvious we live in the oxygen layer, and the proof is that mountain climbers need oxygen once they get out of the oxygen layer.
I was just running my eye down this thread and surprise surprise, I noted the painfully predictable dance in which one really persistent troll simply hunkers down and utters nonsensical claims one after another. People with scientific insight try hard to stay civil, attempting to lead the troll to something like insight with reasonable arguments and attempts to urge him onto some shared ground so that progress can be made.
I am as guilty of taking my turn in this progressive barn dance as anyone on various blogs but of late I have come to wonder why we do it. Deep down we know that from the point of view of the troll, this is not an exercise the troll thinks he can win, nor an exercise in which, eventually, the troll will see reason when it butts up against his nose. I often want nothing more than to know why the troll is doing this at all. Mostly -- and BBH fits this exactly, it's hard to imagine that anyone could be paying them. But whatever reason drives this -- angst, loneliness, poor social skills, sociopathy, sheer boneheaded stupidity we're unlikely to find out. Nor do the trolls raise anything novel that could become a 'teachable moment' for their parties. Plainly someone who says "I don't believe in radiative forcing" or speaks of the corrupt "Hadlee Center" as if this is simply obvious is not adding anything that needs discussion.
So my question is -- why are we persistently tempted to respond to this arrant tosh? There's that old aphorism -- apt here I think -- never wrestle with a pig -- you both get dirty and the pig likes it. It has been remarked here that in BBH's case his stated goal was to waste the time of better people than him. He's a kind of cyber equivalent of a suicide bomber. Perhaps he thinks that wasting so much of our time on him his better equipped buddies can wreak mayhem where people really are making up their minds. I heard Patrick Michaels speaking on PM yesterday and despite the interviewer's best efforts, he was in full Gish Gallup mode, trotting out one red herring and specious claim after another and essentially interviewing himself.
For me, I find them irritating and offensive on any number of grounds. They are the embodiment of misanthropy and ignorance and venality -- unwitting catspaws in a larger game. It's like an allergic itch -- it doesn't help to scratch -- we know that -- but it's hard to resist.
Do others here have better explanations? Just wondering.
Fran
Fran,
No one, I think, expects to change Billy Bob's mind. We respond in case he should say something that sounds impressive to a lay lurker on the thread. It's the honest person just beginning to learn about this subject that we hope to influence, and that means, among other things, protecting such a person from misinformation and disinformation put out by the Billy Bobs of this world.
I often resort to this idea myself Barton, but I'm not convinced.
Anyone lurking can easily read the comments made repeatedly on any matter rasied by the BBHs of this world -- or ask for clarification.
Don't get me wrong -- your efforts are commendable -- I suspect I get more from them despite being familiar because your summaries are better composed than mine, but at times one tires and wishes we'd treat the trolls with the disdain they deserve.
I realise I just uttered a paradox, but I suppose it's the wrestling with this paradox that prompted my post.
Incidently Barton, since this thread is about Akerman, he is to appear on a panel show on ABC TV in Australia this Thursday called Q&A
Vodcasting can be done almost immediately, and a transcript is typically available on the following Monday.
Thanks once again for your efforts and the efforts of all your erudite peers here and at RC, OSS Foundation and similar. Humanity's prospects would be poorer but for the energy, insight and patience you bring to those of us who are at some distance from the scientific endeavour with which you are involved.
Fran
Hi Fran,
Barton nailed it in my view. The main reason I, speaking as a scientist, write in here occasionally, is that there are those posting here, like BBH, whose kind of radical innocence may appeal to some lay readers. I've experienced the kind of position espoused by the likes of BBH even amongst students before, so, as Barton said, I feel we have a responsibility to nip it in the bud.
As for motives, its hard to say. I think ignorance is a pretty good one. On the other hand, a lot (though not all, of course) of those in denial are, in my view, distorting science as a camouflage to promote a political agenda that is in line with their way of thinking. These people see any kinds of government regulation as a denial of freedom, and often draw the simple conclusion that one environmental law will lead to another et al. until many activities are curtailed or eliminated. Furthermore, many in the denial camp - and I refer to the general public - know very little about science and anyone who suggests that everything is OK, and that we are NOT part of the problem (I am speaking about the global injustices and inequity dilemma) will be seen as a guilt release.
BBH has made some points that suggest he actually knows very little about global environmental change and the number of synergies involved. He speaks about climate change as if natural systems - already stressed by a wide range of anthropogenic processes - will adapt. Like many of the other pseudoscientific scribes, he also appears to believe that humans are exempt from the laws of nature, and that no matter how much harm our species inflicts on ecosystems across the biosphere, that somehow we'll pull through. The bottom line is this, as I have said a million times before: the question is not whether humans can adapt, but whether natural systems that generate life-sustaining conditions for human civilization can adapt. In other words, how much can humans simplify nature and still expect these complex adaptive systems to effectively filter toxins, cycle nutrients, replenish soil fertility, moderate climate, control pest outbreaks, ensure clean water, and many other ecological services. These services emerge over variable scales - from that a very small local community to vast biomes, and are the by-product of trillions of interactions amongst billions of individuals and populations and millions of species. We certainly know enough today to say that nature functions as a sum of all of its parts, and these functions permit humans to exist and to persist.
Climate change, in combination with habitat loss and fragmentation, other forms of pollution, invasive species etc. are simplifying nature at an astrounding rate. The extinction rate is higher now than at any time in 65 million years. Humans are consuming aquifers at rates well beyond renewal. We are depauperating soils at an alarming rate. In other words, we are spending natural capital as if there is no tomorrow. Given my background in population ecology, I am well awre of these changes and of the potential consequences. The BBHs of this world clearly aren't, or cannot connect the dots. They do not realize that, in the long run, human well-being is intimately tied up with the state of the biosphere.
Another thing that strikes me about the denialists (e.g. the Tim Curtin thread) is that they cannot comprehend that humans can influence processes they think as being wholly determinisitc and beyond our control. But humans have profoundly interefered with the carbon cycle, the nitrogen cycle, the phosphorus cycle, as well as flows of water and through very large scale systems. Humans dominate the planet's surface, and thus have had a huge effect on large scale biotic and abiotic processes already. But many people just cannot get it through their heads that we can influence climate. Of course we can - and are.
For the non-Australians reading Deltoid, and who might be wondering what this Q&A thing is that Fran, T P Hamilton and I have mentioned, here's some background.
As Fran says, the program consists of a panel of various well-known members of Aussie society, including politics, journalism, science, law, medicine, and so on. It is hosted by Tony Jones, the ABC reporter who got up the noses of Plimer supporters when [Heaven and Earth first crawled into the light of day](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia…), and it covers nationally and internationally important subjects, usually with a decidely political bent.
The novelty about it is that there is live input in the form of both comments and of questions from the audience (sometimes stacked when interest-groups rush to book tickets - I'll bet that the Sydney Denialati are there in droves...), as well as from pre-supplied video and email contributions from members of the public.
To this end, if any international (and Aussie!) folk would like to try their hand at having a question put to Akerman on live television, visit the [Q&A site](http://www.abc.net.au/qanda) and follow the appropriate links. It would pay to understand the type of questions that are likely to be selected, so some homework might be in order.
I don't know to what extent the program's researchers would be interested in being supplied with background material to a question, in order to thoroughly ground the context od said question, but I suspect that they might not be averse to such because there have been occasions in the past when Jones has slapped around the person questioned, once an (inadequate) answer has been given. On these occasions he has been obviously anticipating a slippery response, and has been determined not to let the offender off without some reexamination of the matter.
Anyway, that's Q&A.
Jeff Harvey@131
I very much take your point. Indeed, I've just come back to this topic after skimming the TC thread. I very much appreciated your comments on the importance not merely of species richness, but of genetic diversity. It ought to be an obvious point, particularly as you pointed out, when we are asking unanswerable questions about the capacity of species to adapt to the changes driven by human activity to the biosphere -- yet one rarely hears this come up. It does trouble me though that what is implied in 'adaptation' is precisely a change in the composition of the genetic pool which will almost certainly be narrower in scope than prior to the adaptation. Is this inference fair? Another point that gets little mention -- since we know even less about this than is known about DNA -- is the implication for the underlying epigenetics of species of changes to biomes.
In broad terms, when I discuss these things with my (high school) students I ask them to consider what they'd do if confronted by a mass of wires and switches connected to circuit boards in turn connected to machines that maintained someone's vital systems on life support. Which knobs, if any should they 'adjust' to improve the patient's life chances? They agree they can't know without knowing what each switch does and how it affects all the others -- and then I note that amongst other things, the biosphere is a human life support system, and people are fiddling with it without knowing what will happen. I point out that as far as we know, we terrestrials are the only example of life in the universe and very little has to change for us to vanish and become like every other planet we know about. But I digress ...
I actually came across someone in the TC thread raising the point I did above and you answering! At the same time I could hear both your disgust and that of Bernard J at the conduct of TC. It seems a repellent thing that those of you for whom robust scientific inquiry is a given should spend so much of your valuable time enduring and responding to the disingenuous, malign and defamatory commentary of trolls such as TC. I mean it when I say that you and those possessed of similar expertise in the fields germane to Climate Change do all of us a great service when you give up your time to make complex and valuable information more accessible. I do fear that if you persist in responding to such arrant nonsense that far from setting the record straight, you will simply provide the trolls an enlarged platform to play out their misanthropy all the while becoming more drained by the effort. This latter outcome especially would be a serious loss for us all, but would no doubt be counted a victory by the trolls. For those at entry level in this matter, there are many mythbusting sites to which those confused by denier talking points could be referred and if further clarification is then needed, on some point it could be at that point you might respond.
There might well be some value in offering some scientific assistance to TJ prior to the show, but having gone on the show (as an audience member) a couple of times, I can assure you it will not get past the usual memes: "cooling since 1998" is virtually a shoe in; "China and India are laughing at the first world"; etc ... (Patrick Michaels is out here at the moment with CIS (described as a Climatologist no less!!) and he did the Denier Gish Gallup on PM -- and since that's on the ABC one can assume some of this is likely to come up. (see PMWed 5 Aug)
Anyway, all the best. You are made of sterner stuff than I am. That we have come to a point where the denier dance is predictable enough to be parodied means that I'm at a point where I struggle to maintain composure and am tempted to respond viscerally rather than analytically. I've had to adopt a certain cognitive dissonance just to avoid becoming angry and morose much of the time.
But that's what prompted my question.
All the best ...
Fran,
Thank you for the high praise. It helps to know someone thinks I'm making a difference.
I understand the point you're making and I think it's a valid one to a great extent. One coping strategy I've begun to develop recently is to lay out specific arguments on web pages at my web site and then just give a URL to respond to certain denier comments. It saves a little space on the blogs, which means people can read through a thread a bit faster. One guy on the amazon.com boards keeps posting "It's the sun, stupid!"--he has done so at least 15 times now. I always post back, but my posts only occupy two lines of text:
MW: "It's the sun, stupid!"
Science: http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/Sun.html
Since nothing interesting will happen by 2050 by which time I will be gone I clearly have no incentive to do anything that will cost me any amount no matter how small. So the enjoyment comes from paying people in the third world to burn coal for no useful purpose other than to annoy climate change supporters and leave, maybe, an unpleasant world for them at some later date. Am sure this is more fun than driving a Hummer