You still don't get it do you. Global Warming always has been a Global Lie, a 'sexed up' document by a government and political wing who have a history of sexing up documents, economies and education results - but who believes anything they say any more?
But even sexed up documents have their unravelling - when we get to 99% of students having A+ exam results, even the dumbest of the dumb will realise we have been had. So you cannot keep rising temperatures ad infinitum, to 30oc and beyond, because again you will be rumbled. So even the official sexed up record show NO WARMING FOR TEN YEARS.
I could go on, but in short, the Emperor has no clothes. Your time is up. You warmists are toast. We will have proper science back, without the pious preaching and hysterical screeching of the Greenists who want to take us back to the Stone Age.
(And I bet you don't have freedom of speech on your blog.)
See, current policy isn't far off business as usual. If the 'Global Liars' were actually right about the impact of CO2, we'd be in deep doodoo.
Oh Jesus. Trapped between people who are completely in denial (in [this sense](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial) not the holocaust sense, obviously) and the fact that we seem incapable of organising ourselves to actually address the problem.
Ralph, you have any idea how *amazing* it would be if you were right? Do you have any idea just how incredibly, unutterly far from being right you are?
Also: Tim - thank you for doing such amazing work, particularly unfailingly calling out the nonsense written in the British press. Even the Guardian seems to have gone a bit weird: "peer review excludes some papers scandal!" Errr... yeees, otherwise you'd have to publish papers claiming angry pixies cause fire...
No please do, its funny to see what passes for evidence and argument in the case you build. Please go on, and start by providing the temperature trend every location on the planet rather than central England only.
Then compare your cherry picked 1998 date with a relevent time frame for climate (ie, the 30 years necessary for CO2 signal o to dominate cycles and noise).
You boldly state: *Gore's Inconvenient Truth was actually a Convenient Lie:*
Even your own reference shows you are overstating your case:
>*Mr Justice Burton said he had no complaint about Gore's central thesis that climate change was happening and was being driven by emissions from humans. However, the judge said nine statements in the film were not supported by mainstream scientific consensus.*
>*In his final verdict, the judge said the film could be shown as long as updated guidelines were followed.*
I.e. Gore's film passes with clarification statements.
When you so easily claim : *Temperature data has been deliberately manipulated, to produce warming:*, I wonder can you regurgitate up any more bogus crap?
> Even the Guardian seems to have gone a bit weird...
Indeed. What is *that* about? They're conforming to that liberal stereotype: no stomach for a fight. Monbiot, in particular, has been disappointing. I'm looking forward to his voluminous apology for calling for Professor Jones resignation when he Jones is exonerated.
~~~
Ralph:
> (And I bet you don't have freedom of speech on your blog.)
Here's some free speech: you're a ranting wingnut.
> You warmists are toast.
Yes. You Deniers have been saying that every week for the past couple of decades. And yet the core science has become even more certain in that time. The evidence even more mountainous and compelling. Curious that.
> Oh Jesus. Trapped between people who are completely in denial (in this sense not the holocaust sense, obviously) and the fact that we seem incapable of organising ourselves to actually address the problem.
On that topic, the other day I was having a ponder about the oft-made parallel with the tobacco denial movement. You have similar denialist obstacles there, ranging from the quixotic amateur scientists (c.f. "my uncle smoked two packs a day and lived till he was 80") to the professional, industry-funded anti-science (e.g. Heartland institute). But besides that, you also have the general collective unwillingness to do anything about it; a number of decades separate the effects of smoking being recognised and the various legislation gaining serious traction.
The specific thing I was wondering was if it would be possible to estimate how many lives would have been saved over the decades had people in general been less slow to react to the science. A difficult sum, but this would be an example of denialist thinking and societal inertia having a body count, similar to what we're facing right now.
There must be freedom of speech here because they tolerate me, but not Girma.
The CE temps graph seems to indicate an insignificant winter warming since 1650, although they will probably argue that has something to do with UHI and nothing to do with climbing out of the coldest period since the Holocene max.
Honestly, you're so slow on the up-take over here. Let me repeat, the global warming scam is over, it's like Python's famous parrot, it has ceased to be! I mean, it was fun whilst it lasted but the minute people start laughing at you, it's finished. So, move along, get real (or as near real as you can), drop AGW and move on to the next 'Big Really Horrid Scare' - exploding meteorites hitting earth. If you are quick and beat the crowd they may let you have a turn holding the "End of the World is Nigh" banner. But watch out for 'Dhoggie', 'Jakerman', 'Maple leaf' 'et al', they could beat you to it!
Duff - I'll believe it when I see it. I'll be looking for data that is outside the range of expected scenarios in a world where AGW is true. In short, I will wait until AGW, as it is formulated at present, is falsified at the 95% confidence level*.
Which it isn't - not yet. I really am a 95% confidence kinda guy.
*That is, without some external influence, such as a large volcanic eruption.
As for the second people start laughing etc... what have we been doing with the various denialist crocks for the last God knows how many years? Some of them clearly deserve mirth and scorn - just check out Marohasy's graph in the link @ 8.
Duff, having od'd on gin or whatever, seems to think that the AGW is no more. HOw long are you going to hang around, Duff, so we can show you how wrong you are?
> Shorter JamesA: All people who smoke deny AGW and all scientists are non smokers.
Uh... no. I was referring to the general uptake of science by the general public, not trying to pigeonhole people as scientists and non-scientists. I know plenty of scientists who smoke like chimneys, but none of them are the ones researching the effects of tobacco on human health, if you catch my drift.
I was having a ponder about the oft-made parallel with the tobacco denial movement.
Well, there seems to be some evidence that the same processes have been applied to promote denialism...
...and there's the Denialist Deck of Cards which describes some of the tactics (in the broader context of consumer protection laws - but have a read and see what you think).
Can someone post this there for me as my posts get blocked (unlike the other night tim can control the debate on his blog by censorship )
"Question: HOW likely is it to have occurred by chance, based on what we know? And when you say "likely", what probability do you have in mind?"
Based on what Jones said; the warming is NOT "statistically significant" therefore It is more likely to have occurred by chance than to have not occurred by chance.
Therefore AGW is more likely to be a fraud than not be a fraud.
P.Lewis @ 19. Your statement is incorrect. I'm not going to be 'toast'. I can guarantee you that (I'll guarantee on an annual basis is necessary).
Shorter that jackerman.
"Remember the fun with Betula in Open thread 39 and the Woods Hole paper?"
Ah yes, the fun with Jakerman's delusions, which are always based on assumptions. Some would call it the funhouse, personally I call it the "Jakerman Zone".
...tim can control the debate on his blog by censorship...
Do you have any evidence this is due to Tim's actions?
Because I was posting my commentary on the debate during the debate itself, and some of my posts were held up until approved by the moderator. This suggests there is an automatic mechanism that may be triggered without human intervention - which casts at least some doubt on your claims that Tim is censoring your posts.
Devil's Advocate: crash course in essential statistics. "Statistically significant" is a level that would have to be clarified, but let's say that Jones is using the generally accepted probability value of 0.05, or 1 in 20 chance of occurring due to random events. This is the most commonly used cut-off point.
What he means when he says that the warming is not statistically significant is that the chance of the event being due to random chance is more than 1 in 20. You seem to know no basic statistics as you statement "It is more likely to have occurred by chance than to have not occurred by chance" is thus logically flawed. 1 in 20 chance is not the same as even chance. To say it is more likely to have occurred by chance denotes it is more likely than even probability, or 1:1, very far off the 1:20 that is the level of statistic significance generally employed.
This does not change the fact that if it is not statistically significant then it means nothing and referring to it is pointless.
Thought this may interest you: A $10,000 with Richard S Courtney re his "seminal" paper "Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, âThe Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycleâ E&E v16no2 (2005)"
As you may know Iâm a bit of a resident warmist over at JoNova's blog⦠not sure why I do it and I donât claim to be a scientist of any sort, I just find conversations with rabid sceptics to be entertaining.
I made a throwaway line (post 77)
âI am willing to bet that the science used by the IPCC uses the best that science has to offer when it is considering how the oceans will react to increasing atmospheric CO2 in terms of what proportion will end up in the ocean vs the atmophere.
But you never know maybe the worlds leading ocean scientists are also in on the deal and are keeping mum while their science is bastardised by the pseudoscientific cabal and the IPCC?â (thjat last bit is dramatic licence not what I think about the IPCC fyi).
To which Richard S. Courtney replies a lot later on:
âI accept the bet and offer to put up US$10,000 at odds of 2:1 in your favour.
Please read one of our 2005 papers; viz.
Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, âThe Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycleâ E&E v16no2 (2005)
Then please find any reference to it in any IPCC Report.
The paper assesses all the known interactions in the carbon cycle and concludes from this..
yadda yadda yadda
âWhen you fail to find any reference in any IPCC Report to our paper that I cite here (there is none despite my mention of it in my peer review for IPCC AR4) then please contact me so you can pay me the money.
Richardâ
Now the bet is (as determined by him â I actually have not made any bet) I owe him $5000 because I say the IPCC used the best science at hand, and he considers omission of his E&E paper as proof to the contrary.
Anyway anyone who can counter Richard can pocket $7500 (I assume USD â Iâm an aussie and he a pound using englishman), Iâll take $2500 spotters fee:)
All I need is a credible rebuttal of his paper, unfortunately the interwebs cannot provide such.
Of course no one will ever see the money â sorry â I just assume that to be the case.
'"Question: HOW likely is it to have occurred by chance, based on what we know? And when you say "likely", what probability do you have in mind?"
Based on what Jones said; the warming is NOT "statistically significant" therefore It is more likely to have occurred by chance than to have not occurred by chance.
Therefore AGW is more likely to be a fraud than not be a fraud.'
To clarify the point made by MFS above, firstly you're plain wrong. That's painfully obvious.
Secondly, yes the usual level of probability to which assign significance is 1/20, 1 in 20. So according to Jones, there's slightly more than a 1 in 20 probability that the observed trend has occurred purely by chance, i.e. that there's actually been no warming since 1995.
This is the shortest period for which there is no significant trend. Adding the slightly cooler year of 1994 would increase the significance past the 95% level by strengthening the signal and increasng the sample size - as you can see, this is more a statistical concept rather than a physical one.
But please, don't just take it from us, you should read about it yourself. I recommend Wikipedia and Wolfram Mathworld.
Even before one cracks open the paper, the very fact that it was published in Energy and Environment precludes it very being "the best that science has to offer".
E&E is a vanity publication for denialists who can't persuade peer-reviewed journals to accept their pseudoscience. It is a [dark alley](http://i48.tinypic.com/29ur986.jpg) frequented by scoundrels and snake-oil salespeople, and no credible scientist who values their reputation would be caught dead there.
If that's Courtney's offering, you win by default! And for what it's worth, you do a valiant service dogging the heels of the nutjobs at the New Swamp.
Cheers Bernard:) Trouble is the paper is 5 years old and if it were even vaguely almost credible it would have stirred up stern rebuttals easily accessible on the webs - but it is clearly so off the radar that I have to go from scratch. So I'm trying to assume that E&E could by some fluke harbour an undiscovered gem that could yet rock the climate science world, and maybe this is it;) But at the moment I feel a bit like Tim was answering some of those questions he got... sure Monckton waxed lyrical about nothing, but the true answer was "WTF?".
"I know plenty of scientists @18 who smoke like chimneys, but none of them are the ones researching the effects of tobacco on human health, if you catch my drift."
Yes, I catch your drift. They are probably climate scientists.
An ex-environmentalist, he's doing the rounds now in the UK, arguing (a bit Moncktony) that CO2 forcing is weak compared to everything else. He's doing a talk in my dept, though I can't make it sadly.
I haven't read the book, but there appears to be a large 'cargo-cult science' publishing trend going on at the moment. That's unfair, of course: who knows, maybe this guy really has discovered co2 ain't all that. Anyone read it?
England is only a tiny part of the world, and central England smaller still, so you claim is irrelevant in terms of *global* warming.
But as it happens, I do see warming in those graphs. It can be difficult to judge trends in "noisy" graphs by eye. Put trend lines on and you will see upward trends for all months since, say 1950, from barely up for Jun and Dec to strongly up for Jan & Feb. Not one month shows a downward trend, and the yearly average is, of course up.
how are you geniuses feeling about global warming by now? i guess prof. jones lost the data among the mountains of paper on his desk. maybe they don't have computers down in new zealand, to store the data in.
i think you need some high-profile endorsements. i saw a few weeks ago that bin laden was on board with agw. maybe you could sign up ahmadinajad, castro, or hugo chavez.
1. I got the name of Tim Lambert's country wrong. Therefore, I actually have a Ph. D.
2. A terrorist with a long beard believes the global warming theory. Therefore, everyone who subscribes to the global warming theory is a terrorist with a long beard.
3. I have a Ph. D.
I guess we still need to keep saying this - the 'lost data' you guys keep blattering about has NOT BEEN LOST.
CRU lost their local copy of a small amount of data that still exists, and can still be obtained from, the various originating agencies. It's still there. You could get it yourself, if you were competent enough to know what data is under discussion.
I was aware of the good professor's long-winded approach to climate change and accept his banning. I have a very short attention span.
Oddly enough, he's still complains about his exclusion from one of world's foremost science blogs. All GO had to do was learn the art of brevity and he would still be onboard.
>E&E is a vanity publication for denialists who can't persuade peer-reviewed journals to accept their pseudoscience. It is a dark alley frequented by scoundrels and snake-oil salespeople, and no credible scientist who values their reputation would be caught dead there.
For those of us who have not read all of the illegally hacked (id eststolen) CRU emails, out of respect for privacy, and who have only seen quoted snippets that purport to indicate the toppling of the AGW corpus but which do nothing of the kind...
...perhaps you could construct your own precis that clearly establishes your insinuation that thousands of mainstream scientists and scientific journals are conspiring to perpetrate a fraud of staggering proportions with respect to the human contribution to planetary warming.
Come on, make your case.
Oh, and you misattributed the quote to MattB. It was I who took an axe to the E&E orchard growing Courtney's cherry tree - and I would do it again, because Courtney's fruit were sour little bags of denialist nonsense, with no hard core of science.
As for Taylor and his book Chill, I saw it in the 2nd hand section of a local shop. I had a quick scan, saw the usual denialist lies, and put it back. Maybe I should buy it to keep it out of circulation.
Attempted to post the following at another blog, but failing to upload for some reason. With Tim's kind permission begged, and on the proviso of being semi-constructive to an open thread, and on the understanding that I'm not accusing censorship on the blog in question, I'd like to record it here.
-----------------------------------------------
Manacker - I'm glad that you get my point, but you most certainly don't spend any time addressing it. All science with policy implications is inevitably going to spend time in the public eye and is going to be debated by non-scientists. This we can all surely agree on. But this truism does not mean that the PNS critique is valid. We're not arguing about whether or not scientific truth should be subject to politics, we're arguing whether or not it is.
Truther - does it concern you that we live in a situation where people with political agendas selectively quote and misquote from working scientists in order to push accusations of a particular scientific paradigm that bares little relation to reality?
More to the point, given that your eponymous profession to 'truth', does it concern you that when people like yourself spin quotes from scientists to mean the opposite they mean in their correct context, it actively hinders free debate on important issues? Stephen Schneider's attempts to honestly consider the difficulties of putting science in the public eye have been maliciously misquoted to the extent that honest discussion of the important issues he raises has become nigh-impossible. Stefan Rahmstorf, Jonathan Gregory and Simon Holgate (to name but three) have all recently reported being misquoted by Times journalist Jonathan Leake, one claiming the experience had left him reluctant to speak to any media at all. Is this a healthy environment for scientists to be working in? Is it possible to make such obvious errors in quoting people and constructing narratives without following a political agenda? And if not, then what's yours?
> ...perhaps you could construct your own precis that clearly establishes your insinuation that thousands of mainstream scientists and scientific journals are conspiring to perpetrate a fraud of staggering proportions with respect to the human contribution to planetary warming.
>
> Come on, make your case.
You shouldn't jump to conclusions.
My "opinion" of the climategate emails is summarised here:
> ... I personally think the attitude displayed in the emails is understandable. They were also private/personal emails and one must expect people to speak frankly about people who are attacking them and frustrating them. The reality is people heavily involved in an area will have their own biases and agendas. All it does is emphasise the need for open honest discussion rather than the idea of political point scoring. There will always be an element of that, it is unavoidably human, but if the processes are not transparent, robust and open to scrutiny, people will start to doubt your cause.
Does that mean I approve of the approach to the "appearance" of stifling scientific debate ? NO
Do I believe there is sound evidence to prove such was happening, rather than just reading the venting of frustrated people in their personal communications ? NO
Do I approve of the sentiments the emails seem to show ? NO
Does that mean I approve of the approach to the "appearance" of stifling scientific debate ? NO
I believe there was no "appearance" of stifling debate without the stolen and very selectively released e-mails. And as far as I'm aware, no-one has demonstrated that any of the debate was actually stifled. IIRC some of the papers discussed in negative terms in the e-mails were even ultimately referenced by the IPCC.
So I take it you're condemning the selective and apparently misleading release of e-mails designed to provide an "appearance" of something that did not take place?
...but if the processes are not transparent, robust and open to scrutiny, people will start to doubt your cause.
As long as what's good for the goose is good for the gander. The various think tanks and politicians who are proclaiming that AGW is a crock should then be willing to provide a complete list of donors, sources for all of their assertions, and demonstrate that the claims they make have been reviewed by appropriately qualified panels of scientists for accuracy - otherwise people will start to doubt their cause.
You still don't get it do you. Global Warming always has been a Global Lie, a 'sexed up' document by a government and political wing who have a history of sexing up documents, economies and education results - but who believes anything they say any more?
This is the Central England temp record - see any warming?
http://www.climate4you.com/CentralEnglandTemperatureSince1659.htm
No, I thought not.
But even sexed up documents have their unravelling - when we get to 99% of students having A+ exam results, even the dumbest of the dumb will realise we have been had. So you cannot keep rising temperatures ad infinitum, to 30oc and beyond, because again you will be rumbled. So even the official sexed up record show NO WARMING FOR TEN YEARS.
Take a look at the Hadcrut data:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2009/plot/had…
Antarctic ice has been growing for years:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:1978/to:2009/plot/…
Gore's Inconvenient Truth was actually a Convenient Lie:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm
Temperature data has been deliberately manipulated, to produce warming:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
I could go on, but in short, the Emperor has no clothes. Your time is up. You warmists are toast. We will have proper science back, without the pious preaching and hysterical screeching of the Greenists who want to take us back to the Stone Age.
(And I bet you don't have freedom of speech on your blog.)
Ralph
> We will have proper science back, without the pious preaching and hysterical screeching of the Greenists who want to take us back to the Stone Age.
Oh, the irony.
Ralph: really? Phew, OK then. That's lucky, cos you'll notice that pretty much no-one seems to be making any serious commitments to cut carbon. Note -
http://climateinteractive.org/scoreboard
See, current policy isn't far off business as usual. If the 'Global Liars' were actually right about the impact of CO2, we'd be in deep doodoo.
Oh Jesus. Trapped between people who are completely in denial (in [this sense](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial) not the holocaust sense, obviously) and the fact that we seem incapable of organising ourselves to actually address the problem.
Ralph, you have any idea how *amazing* it would be if you were right? Do you have any idea just how incredibly, unutterly far from being right you are?
Also: Tim - thank you for doing such amazing work, particularly unfailingly calling out the nonsense written in the British press. Even the Guardian seems to have gone a bit weird: "peer review excludes some papers scandal!" Errr... yeees, otherwise you'd have to publish papers claiming angry pixies cause fire...
Rant over.
>*I could go on, but...*
No please do, its funny to see what passes for evidence and argument in the case you build. Please go on, and start by providing the temperature trend every location on the planet rather than central England only.
Then compare your cherry picked 1998 date with a relevent time frame for climate (ie, the 30 years necessary for CO2 signal o to dominate cycles and noise).
Then the Canary falling off its perch is actually [the Arctic](http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100203_Figure3.png)
You boldly state: *Gore's Inconvenient Truth was actually a Convenient Lie:*
Even your own reference shows you are overstating your case:
>*Mr Justice Burton said he had no complaint about Gore's central thesis that climate change was happening and was being driven by emissions from humans. However, the judge said nine statements in the film were not supported by mainstream scientific consensus.*
>*In his final verdict, the judge said the film could be shown as long as updated guidelines were followed.*
I.e. Gore's film passes with clarification statements.
When you so easily claim : *Temperature data has been deliberately manipulated, to produce warming:*, I wonder can you regurgitate up any more bogus crap?
Publish me! Publish me! I dare you! I dare you to to publish this killer blow to everything you believe in! Oh, won't you please LISTEN to me???
God, grow up.
Dan Olner:
> Even the Guardian seems to have gone a bit weird...
Indeed. What is *that* about? They're conforming to that liberal stereotype: no stomach for a fight. Monbiot, in particular, has been disappointing. I'm looking forward to his voluminous apology for calling for Professor Jones resignation when he Jones is exonerated.
~~~
Ralph:
> (And I bet you don't have freedom of speech on your blog.)
Here's some free speech: you're a ranting wingnut.
> You warmists are toast.
Yes. You Deniers have been saying that every week for the past couple of decades. And yet the core science has become even more certain in that time. The evidence even more mountainous and compelling. Curious that.
> Oh Jesus. Trapped between people who are completely in denial (in this sense not the holocaust sense, obviously) and the fact that we seem incapable of organising ourselves to actually address the problem.
On that topic, the other day I was having a ponder about the oft-made parallel with the tobacco denial movement. You have similar denialist obstacles there, ranging from the quixotic amateur scientists (c.f. "my uncle smoked two packs a day and lived till he was 80") to the professional, industry-funded anti-science (e.g. Heartland institute). But besides that, you also have the general collective unwillingness to do anything about it; a number of decades separate the effects of smoking being recognised and the various legislation gaining serious traction.
The specific thing I was wondering was if it would be possible to estimate how many lives would have been saved over the decades had people in general been less slow to react to the science. A difficult sum, but this would be an example of denialist thinking and societal inertia having a body count, similar to what we're facing right now.
I keep forgetting how many years there are in 10 years. Is it twelve, [eleven](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1999/to:2009/plot/had…) or [ten](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/to:2009/plot/had…)? That one's tough, because it's strangely unintuitive.
Ralph
There must be freedom of speech here because they tolerate me, but not Girma.
The CE temps graph seems to indicate an insignificant winter warming since 1650, although they will probably argue that has something to do with UHI and nothing to do with climbing out of the coldest period since the Holocene max.
I'll point this out because no-one else has. Ralph's link to the CET data suffers from Marohasy syndrome
The CET record shows an upward trend for all data, which is even more obvious for the 20th & 21st centuries.
So, that's where we see warming. So glad we found it - much more effective to put a trendline on the data rather than just eyeballing it.
Honestly, you're so slow on the up-take over here. Let me repeat, the global warming scam is over, it's like Python's famous parrot, it has ceased to be! I mean, it was fun whilst it lasted but the minute people start laughing at you, it's finished. So, move along, get real (or as near real as you can), drop AGW and move on to the next 'Big Really Horrid Scare' - exploding meteorites hitting earth. If you are quick and beat the crowd they may let you have a turn holding the "End of the World is Nigh" banner. But watch out for 'Dhoggie', 'Jakerman', 'Maple leaf' 'et al', they could beat you to it!
Shorter JamesA: All people who smoke deny AGW and all scientists are non smokers.
Shorter Betula: I am confused by analogies.
Duff - I'll believe it when I see it. I'll be looking for data that is outside the range of expected scenarios in a world where AGW is true. In short, I will wait until AGW, as it is formulated at present, is falsified at the 95% confidence level*.
Which it isn't - not yet. I really am a 95% confidence kinda guy.
*That is, without some external influence, such as a large volcanic eruption.
As for the second people start laughing etc... what have we been doing with the various denialist crocks for the last God knows how many years? Some of them clearly deserve mirth and scorn - just check out Marohasy's graph in the link @ 8.
Correction - @ 9
Remember the fun with Betula in Open thread 39 and the Woods Hole paper? Betula has now gone full circle in his cycle of dishonesty. He is now [arguing against himself](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2274…).
Duff, having od'd on gin or whatever, seems to think that the AGW is no more. HOw long are you going to hang around, Duff, so we can show you how wrong you are?
> Shorter JamesA: All people who smoke deny AGW and all scientists are non smokers.
Uh... no. I was referring to the general uptake of science by the general public, not trying to pigeonhole people as scientists and non-scientists. I know plenty of scientists who smoke like chimneys, but none of them are the ones researching the effects of tobacco on human health, if you catch my drift.
Ah,yes. So true. Very perceptive. But the problem is so will everyone else be toast.
Well, there seems to be some evidence that the same processes have been applied to promote denialism...
...and there's the Denialist Deck of Cards which describes some of the tactics (in the broader context of consumer protection laws - but have a read and see what you think).
re post 47 @Daily Mail Caught in another Lie
Can someone post this there for me as my posts get blocked (unlike the other night tim can control the debate on his blog by censorship )
"Question: HOW likely is it to have occurred by chance, based on what we know? And when you say "likely", what probability do you have in mind?"
Based on what Jones said; the warming is NOT "statistically significant" therefore It is more likely to have occurred by chance than to have not occurred by chance.
Therefore AGW is more likely to be a fraud than not be a fraud.
P.Lewis @ 19. Your statement is incorrect. I'm not going to be 'toast'. I can guarantee you that (I'll guarantee on an annual basis is necessary).
Shorter that jackerman.
Jakerman @16....
"Remember the fun with Betula in Open thread 39 and the Woods Hole paper?"
Ah yes, the fun with Jakerman's delusions, which are always based on assumptions. Some would call it the funhouse, personally I call it the "Jakerman Zone".
Betula, [please](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2274…) come and expose my delusions.
Do you have any evidence this is due to Tim's actions?
Because I was posting my commentary on the debate during the debate itself, and some of my posts were held up until approved by the moderator. This suggests there is an automatic mechanism that may be triggered without human intervention - which casts at least some doubt on your claims that Tim is censoring your posts.
Oh, and that comment eventually appeared on the other thread, casting a little more doubt on the censorship hypothesis.
But admittedly it's true we can't be confident enough that censorship can be ruled out at a level of statistical significance ;-)
Devil's Advocate: crash course in essential statistics. "Statistically significant" is a level that would have to be clarified, but let's say that Jones is using the generally accepted probability value of 0.05, or 1 in 20 chance of occurring due to random events. This is the most commonly used cut-off point.
What he means when he says that the warming is not statistically significant is that the chance of the event being due to random chance is more than 1 in 20. You seem to know no basic statistics as you statement "It is more likely to have occurred by chance than to have not occurred by chance" is thus logically flawed. 1 in 20 chance is not the same as even chance. To say it is more likely to have occurred by chance denotes it is more likely than even probability, or 1:1, very far off the 1:20 that is the level of statistic significance generally employed.
This does not change the fact that if it is not statistically significant then it means nothing and referring to it is pointless.
Hi Tim et al,
Thought this may interest you: A $10,000 with Richard S Courtney re his "seminal" paper "Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, âThe Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycleâ E&E v16no2 (2005)"
As you may know Iâm a bit of a resident warmist over at JoNova's blog⦠not sure why I do it and I donât claim to be a scientist of any sort, I just find conversations with rabid sceptics to be entertaining.
Anyway there is a thread about basically climate sensitivity:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/not-four-degrees-1-4-degrees/#more-6805
I made a throwaway line (post 77)
âI am willing to bet that the science used by the IPCC uses the best that science has to offer when it is considering how the oceans will react to increasing atmospheric CO2 in terms of what proportion will end up in the ocean vs the atmophere.
But you never know maybe the worlds leading ocean scientists are also in on the deal and are keeping mum while their science is bastardised by the pseudoscientific cabal and the IPCC?â (thjat last bit is dramatic licence not what I think about the IPCC fyi).
To which Richard S. Courtney replies a lot later on:
âI accept the bet and offer to put up US$10,000 at odds of 2:1 in your favour.
Please read one of our 2005 papers; viz.
Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, âThe Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycleâ E&E v16no2 (2005)
Then please find any reference to it in any IPCC Report.
The paper assesses all the known interactions in the carbon cycle and concludes from this..
yadda yadda yadda
âWhen you fail to find any reference in any IPCC Report to our paper that I cite here (there is none despite my mention of it in my peer review for IPCC AR4) then please contact me so you can pay me the money.
Richardâ
Now the bet is (as determined by him â I actually have not made any bet) I owe him $5000 because I say the IPCC used the best science at hand, and he considers omission of his E&E paper as proof to the contrary.
Anyway anyone who can counter Richard can pocket $7500 (I assume USD â Iâm an aussie and he a pound using englishman), Iâll take $2500 spotters fee:)
All I need is a credible rebuttal of his paper, unfortunately the interwebs cannot provide such.
Of course no one will ever see the money â sorry â I just assume that to be the case.
Cheers
Matt
Dodgy Applesauce @ 21:
'"Question: HOW likely is it to have occurred by chance, based on what we know? And when you say "likely", what probability do you have in mind?"
Based on what Jones said; the warming is NOT "statistically significant" therefore It is more likely to have occurred by chance than to have not occurred by chance.
Therefore AGW is more likely to be a fraud than not be a fraud.'
To clarify the point made by MFS above, firstly you're plain wrong. That's painfully obvious.
Secondly, yes the usual level of probability to which assign significance is 1/20, 1 in 20. So according to Jones, there's slightly more than a 1 in 20 probability that the observed trend has occurred purely by chance, i.e. that there's actually been no warming since 1995.
This is the shortest period for which there is no significant trend. Adding the slightly cooler year of 1994 would increase the significance past the 95% level by strengthening the signal and increasng the sample size - as you can see, this is more a statistical concept rather than a physical one.
But please, don't just take it from us, you should read about it yourself. I recommend Wikipedia and
Wolfram Mathworld.
MattB.
Even before one cracks open the paper, the very fact that it was published in Energy and Environment precludes it very being "the best that science has to offer".
E&E is a vanity publication for denialists who can't persuade peer-reviewed journals to accept their pseudoscience. It is a [dark alley](http://i48.tinypic.com/29ur986.jpg) frequented by scoundrels and snake-oil salespeople, and no credible scientist who values their reputation would be caught dead there.
If that's Courtney's offering, you win by default! And for what it's worth, you do a valiant service dogging the heels of the nutjobs at the New Swamp.
...very being ever being...
Cheers Bernard:) Trouble is the paper is 5 years old and if it were even vaguely almost credible it would have stirred up stern rebuttals easily accessible on the webs - but it is clearly so off the radar that I have to go from scratch. So I'm trying to assume that E&E could by some fluke harbour an undiscovered gem that could yet rock the climate science world, and maybe this is it;) But at the moment I feel a bit like Tim was answering some of those questions he got... sure Monckton waxed lyrical about nothing, but the true answer was "WTF?".
JamesA....
"I know plenty of scientists @18 who smoke like chimneys, but none of them are the ones researching the effects of tobacco on human health, if you catch my drift."
Yes, I catch your drift. They are probably climate scientists.
Anyone know much about or read [Peter Taylor's book, Chill](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chill-Reassessment-Global-Warming-Theory/dp/190…)?
An ex-environmentalist, he's doing the rounds now in the UK, arguing (a bit Moncktony) that CO2 forcing is weak compared to everything else. He's doing a talk in my dept, though I can't make it sadly.
He's challenged Monbiot to a debate, nothing yet. [Here's his thesis in brief](http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/monbiot-challenged-to-debat…).
I haven't read the book, but there appears to be a large 'cargo-cult science' publishing trend going on at the moment. That's unfair, of course: who knows, maybe this guy really has discovered co2 ain't all that. Anyone read it?
Oh, forgot, some [good background here on Taylor](http://www.alastairmcintosh.com/articles/2010-Peter-Taylor-Climate-Revi…), based on a review of his two last books.
1 ralph,
England is only a tiny part of the world, and central England smaller still, so you claim is irrelevant in terms of *global* warming.
But as it happens, I do see warming in those graphs. It can be difficult to judge trends in "noisy" graphs by eye. Put trend lines on and you will see upward trends for all months since, say 1950, from barely up for Jun and Dec to strongly up for Jan & Feb. Not one month shows a downward trend, and the yearly average is, of course up.
29 Bernard,
Is the Marohasy Bog dead or just in limbo? I suppose someone would fill the void with something or other and Jo seems to be the one.
9 el gordo,
GO was tolerated to an amazing degree. He was responsible for the longest ever thread here.
29 Bernard,
Aah, E&E, where bad science goes to die (and then give off a foul stench for years afterwards).
I know, cheap shot, but then look how cheap the target is.
how are you geniuses feeling about global warming by now? i guess prof. jones lost the data among the mountains of paper on his desk. maybe they don't have computers down in new zealand, to store the data in.
i think you need some high-profile endorsements. i saw a few weeks ago that bin laden was on board with agw. maybe you could sign up ahmadinajad, castro, or hugo chavez.
mark mozer, ph.d.
shorter mark mozer:
1. I got the name of Tim Lambert's country wrong. Therefore, I actually have a Ph. D.
2. A terrorist with a long beard believes the global warming theory. Therefore, everyone who subscribes to the global warming theory is a terrorist with a long beard.
3. I have a Ph. D.
I guess we still need to keep saying this - the 'lost data' you guys keep blattering about has NOT BEEN LOST.
CRU lost their local copy of a small amount of data that still exists, and can still be obtained from, the various originating agencies. It's still there. You could get it yourself, if you were competent enough to know what data is under discussion.
40 stepanovich,
I thought he was talking about Jones's papers. These are almost as far as they could be from NZ without going into space!
TrueSceptic
I was aware of the good professor's long-winded approach to climate change and accept his banning. I have a very short attention span.
Oddly enough, he's still complains about his exclusion from one of world's foremost science blogs. All GO had to do was learn the art of brevity and he would still be onboard.
@MattB
>E&E is a vanity publication for denialists who can't persuade peer-reviewed journals to accept their pseudoscience. It is a dark alley frequented by scoundrels and snake-oil salespeople, and no credible scientist who values their reputation would be caught dead there.
Yes we have all read the climategate emails.
What's that? I'm sorry. I couldn't read your comment. It was censored.
[El Fatso](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_41.php#comment-2277…):
Fixed.
[Codex](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_41.php#comment-2277…):
Humour me for a moment.
For those of us who have not read all of the illegally hacked (id est stolen) CRU emails, out of respect for privacy, and who have only seen quoted snippets that purport to indicate the toppling of the AGW corpus but which do nothing of the kind...
...perhaps you could construct your own precis that clearly establishes your insinuation that thousands of mainstream scientists and scientific journals are conspiring to perpetrate a fraud of staggering proportions with respect to the human contribution to planetary warming.
Come on, make your case.
Oh, and you misattributed the quote to MattB. It was I who took an axe to the E&E orchard growing Courtney's cherry tree - and I would do it again, because Courtney's fruit were sour little bags of denialist nonsense, with no hard core of science.
Hey, did someone just mention the central england temperature record? I know someone who knows about that...
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/summer-and-smoke/
As for Taylor and his book Chill, I saw it in the 2nd hand section of a local shop. I had a quick scan, saw the usual denialist lies, and put it back. Maybe I should buy it to keep it out of circulation.
>*mark mozer, ph.d.*
Mark Mozer ph.d., what is the Ph. D. in?
Given the bazzar ilogical nature of the [argument you seem to try and construct](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_41.php#comment-2276…), I was wondering what area of study have you focused on and apparetnly gained competancy in?
Obviously you believe your Ph. D. is relevent to the case you make.
Attempted to post the following at another blog, but failing to upload for some reason. With Tim's kind permission begged, and on the proviso of being semi-constructive to an open thread, and on the understanding that I'm not accusing censorship on the blog in question, I'd like to record it here.
-----------------------------------------------
Manacker - I'm glad that you get my point, but you most certainly don't spend any time addressing it. All science with policy implications is inevitably going to spend time in the public eye and is going to be debated by non-scientists. This we can all surely agree on. But this truism does not mean that the PNS critique is valid. We're not arguing about whether or not scientific truth should be subject to politics, we're arguing whether or not it is.
Truther - does it concern you that we live in a situation where people with political agendas selectively quote and misquote from working scientists in order to push accusations of a particular scientific paradigm that bares little relation to reality?
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Mediarology/MediarologyFrameset.ht…
More to the point, given that your eponymous profession to 'truth', does it concern you that when people like yourself spin quotes from scientists to mean the opposite they mean in their correct context, it actively hinders free debate on important issues? Stephen Schneider's attempts to honestly consider the difficulties of putting science in the public eye have been maliciously misquoted to the extent that honest discussion of the important issues he raises has become nigh-impossible. Stefan Rahmstorf, Jonathan Gregory and Simon Holgate (to name but three) have all recently reported being misquoted by Times journalist Jonathan Leake, one claiming the experience had left him reluctant to speak to any media at all. Is this a healthy environment for scientists to be working in? Is it possible to make such obvious errors in quoting people and constructing narratives without following a political agenda? And if not, then what's yours?
mark mozer, post hole digger?
I've drawn up a diagram showing how the SwiftHack archive was created -- according to my current understanding.
@ Bernard J
> ...perhaps you could construct your own precis that clearly establishes your insinuation that thousands of mainstream scientists and scientific journals are conspiring to perpetrate a fraud of staggering proportions with respect to the human contribution to planetary warming.
>
> Come on, make your case.
You shouldn't jump to conclusions.
My "opinion" of the climategate emails is summarised here:
> ... I personally think the attitude displayed in the emails is understandable. They were also private/personal emails and one must expect people to speak frankly about people who are attacking them and frustrating them. The reality is people heavily involved in an area will have their own biases and agendas. All it does is emphasise the need for open honest discussion rather than the idea of political point scoring. There will always be an element of that, it is unavoidably human, but if the processes are not transparent, robust and open to scrutiny, people will start to doubt your cause.
Does that mean I approve of the approach to the "appearance" of stifling scientific debate ? NO
Do I believe there is sound evidence to prove such was happening, rather than just reading the venting of frustrated people in their personal communications ? NO
Do I approve of the sentiments the emails seem to show ? NO
I believe there was no "appearance" of stifling debate without the stolen and very selectively released e-mails. And as far as I'm aware, no-one has demonstrated that any of the debate was actually stifled. IIRC some of the papers discussed in negative terms in the e-mails were even ultimately referenced by the IPCC.
So I take it you're condemning the selective and apparently misleading release of e-mails designed to provide an "appearance" of something that did not take place?
As long as what's good for the goose is good for the gander. The various think tanks and politicians who are proclaiming that AGW is a crock should then be willing to provide a complete list of donors, sources for all of their assertions, and demonstrate that the claims they make have been reviewed by appropriately qualified panels of scientists for accuracy - otherwise people will start to doubt their cause.
Right?