1) Global warming rate of 0.15 deg C per decade from 1910 to 1940, which gives a global warming of 0.45 deg C during the previous 30-years warming phase.
2) Global warming rate of 0.16 deg C per decade from 1970 to 2000, which gives a global warming of 0.48 deg C during the recent 30-years warming phase.
3) Slight global cooling from 1940 to 1970.
As a result, the effect of 60 years of human emission of CO2 between the two warming phases on the global warming rate is nil.
Also, the effect of 30 years of human emission of CO2 during the global cooling phase from 1940 to 2000 is obviously nil.
The data above describes the global mean temperature trend for 90 years until year 2000. What is the global mean temperature trend since 2000?
4) Since year 2000, the global mean temperature anomaly trend is nearly flat at 0.4 deg C as shown in the following plot:
Either (a) exactly 100% of the observed temperature trends are due to carbon dioxide, or (b) exactly 0% of the observed temperature trends are due to carbon dioxide! There are no other possibilities! What's more, by using the word "apolitical", I get to insinuate that the world's climate scientists are ideological hoaxers, without having to mention any specific conspiracy theories! Therefore, Al Gore is Fat.
Please have at 'em. I give up. I really had no idea that Steve M had such a devout following of mean-spirited deniers. Not just skeptics, but hard core deniers, not only of AGW but climate science in general. Steve is an absolute saint in their eyes and anyone who disagrees is an evil, corrupt person who is attacking and sliming McI for no good reason.
I tried my best to stem the tide, so did some others, but we were way outnumbered. What a hopeless effing exercise. I'm exhausted.
Maybe some of you will have better luck. Ot maybe we should just let them high-five each other and get drunk on their Dunning-Kugerness.
I do not believe those comments. It looks like an orchestrated campaign to me. I wonder how many real commmenters are there under different names?
For one thing, they all seem to be literate and good spellers. They keep saying he is transparent and honest.
I don't believe they are ordinary commenters. I mean, look at this one:
"...Janet H. Thompson
29 September 2010 at 00:52
Because of people like Steve McIntyre, we (Down Under) have narrowly avoided the most economy-threatening legislation ever.
Because of people like Steve McIntyre, we have hope in the goodness of humanity.
Because of people like Steve McIntyre, we continue to fightâ¦dailyâ¦in the hope that goodness and right âcan and will triumph over might.â
Thank you Steve McIntyre! (And the people like him.)..."
Sorry, Mapleleaf, I'm not my fearless, tireless 20s or 30s self now that I'm in my 60s. I do keep an eye on a couple of non-science groups I regularly visit and dive in when nonsense comes up for discussion.
I prefer to visit Wott'sUWT for updates on the denialati but never WTFUWT - it's too discouraging.
I'm afraid too many years in the public service makes Steve McI look to me like one of those grammar nazis who never got to grips with the actual policies in reports.
Picture yourself reading a report, already read by someone, with little red marks on every page. Do they refer to inconsistencies or references, or even spelling? Not a chance! They refer to the number of 'unnecessary' lines of space, because ---- ta daaa! If those spaces weren't there, the 30 page report **might** have been 1 page less, can't waste paper you know. Not. one. word. on the policy, the processes, the training, the staffing or any other implications of the paper.
Thanks jakerman, and thanks for sharing the trenches with me for a while. Still have no idea who you are, but I'm sure that they think it was orchestrated for our side. Heck they even thought that you and I were the same at one point.
What a surreal experience that was...I feel like I need a really good, long shower.
Have a good day...assuming that you are in Oz.
PS: I wonder if Steve was posting there under a pseudonym ?;)
Holly feel free to counter, but be prepared ot endure some serious mud slinging, Steve's acolytes are not holding back. They are really pissed that someone had the audacity to piss on his parade.
No news back yet form NewStatesman as to how they decided who makes the list.
Check out that second photo! Of course, we all know that the mouth would only have closed for a couple of drought years if the river weren't so devastatingly mismanaged, but still. If the La Nina effect lasts long enough, there might even be a reduction in temperatures and evaporation rates enough to keep those acidified lake beds covered for the time needed.
I'm wondering if Chris Mitchell and The Australian are starting to bend over? There's an article in today's Weekend Australian that reports that scientists at the Royal Society have released a paper where they are "honest" about the uncertainties in climate science. They treat this 19 page summary as if it is a great leap forward for climate science, as though it is a move from politics to science:
Sounds to me like Chris Mitchell and co have reluctantly accepted that human induced global warming is happening, and that it is significant. However, they seem to justify their previous stance because of all the "alarmism", and they have taken a new stance (?) because of the sudden "honesty".
Sounds bizarre to me.
Every climate scientist I have ever spoken to has been very frank about holes in the knowledge about the response of the Greenland ice-sheet to GW, for instance. The IPCC report was frank on this topic too (hence the uncertainty bounds of a sea-level rise between 20 cm and 7 m by the end of the century). To claim that only now scientists are opening up about the uncertainties is disingenious spin indeed, and is little more than self-serving justification for stupidly backing the wrong horse, and a desperate ploy to break their spectacular slide into irrelevance.
Guys,
Don't worry about the New Statesman stuff. Consider it a wake up call for the staff of that magazine i.e. they now have the evidence before their eyes of what deniers are like and how they act.
snedecor. It would be unkind to rub their noses in it right now. My own experience is that sometimes you just have to let the reality or an idea sit around for a while and it gradually becomes part of the wallpaper.
If this continues it might be worth saying later - Oh look, golly gosh, someone said this yonks ago. How interesting.
Challenge them now and they'll probably mend the hole in the ideological fence.
Denialism is a fact of life. Evolution is one of the most rigorous theories currently out there with volumes of evidence to support it. Yet still there are many who choose to disbelieve it based on their personal prejudices.
AGW is merely following the same path of human fallibility. Some years from now we will, yet again, hear the cries of "oh holy crap! The scientists were right!"
Like an apologetic Pope, people will say "oh yeah, I guess we should've listened to the evidence before we put you under house arrest".
For what it's worth Curtin, I know hundreds of scientists, and not a single one of them bar one psychologically unhealthy individual would speak as "TG" did - I seriously doubt the truth of that person's claims to be a scientist, or even to be scientifically trained.
By the way, how are you progressing with your struggle learning science at the level of Grade 6?
> It amazes me that even among supposedly enlightened pro-science people, when it comes to matters of PR, we start getting the same old extreme naïvete, idiotic and pointless turf wars, reluctance to change ways, and general closed-mindedness. This must stop.
The modus operandi of the deniers is to pick up on things and take them way out of proportion. They did this with the 'trick' word from the CRU emails, they did it many times again. I think "No Pressure" plays well into their field. If a denier is reading this, no pressure!
Constantly blaming the inactivists isn't going to help. If I keep my house door unlocked at night and a thief steals my things, I can't merely say, 'the real criminal here is the thief! it's the thief who's in the wrong!' and then continue to keep my house unlocked.
Neither can I say 'hey, what do you expect? I'm just a ordinary bloke, not a security expert!' and then continue to keep my house unlocked.
No, I find out what I can do to prevent future thefts as best as I can, and then I do it: I lock my door!
* * *
So yeah, the inactivists (egged on by the Koch family) are a big part of the problem. But so are we -- as long as we insist on making PR gaffes and giving the inactivists new openings for attack. There's no excuse for simply saying 'it's the inactivists who are the real bad guys!' or 'gah, we're just bad at PR, we're just bad at PR' and then continuing our merry path towards more PR gaffes.
Idiot-pools like WUWT are filled with testimonial comments like that. Whenever I come across a comment that follows the form:
"As a physicist/engineer/doctor/scientific researcher/nobel laureate I once accepted the supposed 'consensus', but the more I examined the evidence, the more I doubted it. I stumbled across climateaudit/wuwt/jonova's blog one day and the intellectual rigour and breathtaking integrity were the magnificent to behold. The scales fell from my eyes and lo, I did perceive the IPCC as beelzebub, and **C**AGW as the **FRAUD** that it really is. Oh and I know hundreds of scientists and they all feel the same."
It falls so neatly into the "internet tough guy" mould that I assume it to be either generated by some comment spamming program, or just deluded fantasy.
Speaking of deluded fantasy, it is interesting that Timmy - not known for his reliance on a single alias - should highlight that particular comment so gushingly. I'm not saying that he *is* foolishly and ridiculously promoting his own sockpuppet ravings here, just asking the question - and if its not true why isn't he denying it?
As you warmists shrink into an embattled enclave of True Believers
What's up with the creepy fantasy presented in over-dramatic language so common among denialists? It's just weird. You read like the announcer from an episode of Super Friends.
Not surprisingly, the denier trolls were directed there from Climate Audit. The comments on the site aren't a random sample of people, they are consist of the core obsessives of the denier community.
And I have another: over at Climate Progress about the 10:10 video brouhaha, there's a commenter named "Stu", but he doesn't sound like the "Stu" who frequents Deltoid:
> Personally, I am a sceptic of some of the pieces of evidence for AGW, and a believer (or no reason not to believe) for other pieces of evidence. I guess most people are not so black and white on this issue as some (the producers of this film?) would like to believe. I have also been involved in environmental restoration for most of my adult life, do not own a car or have a licence, am vegetarian and eat 80% organic food. I denounce rabid consumerism. I would like to know that just because I am sceptical of some of the claims of AGW theory that people around me would secretly like to explode me.
Nowhere does this "Stu" state what he/she is 'sceptic' about.
A Dr Richard A. Muller with mildly worded attacks on GISTEMP and HadCRUT (20:40 in the video) mentions that his "group" are currently working on a 4th global temperature dataset (he is evidentially unaware that GISTEMP, HadCRUT and NOAA are not the only global surface temperature datasets)
He claims the 3 existing records only include about "10% of the data" and boasts his will contain "100%".
He also claims his record will be based on statistics approved by statisticians and says the other three aren't.
He also claims his will be in easily downloadable format implying the others aren't.
He says this record and an analysis based on it will be out before the end of this year. That means everything downloadable of course.
This is tucked away somewhat as there are no references to any such work being done in google search or even on Muller's webpage.
Just a heads up because if he follows through this will no doubt turn into a future meme in the blogosphere.
[So, did he pilfer Curtin's old sock puppet, or was HLC always Brent? Not that it really matters - one is as refractory to the comprehension of science as the other...]]
What's your problem Foulspot? Lose your best mate?
You're hardly one to speak about being as weak as piss. Your approach to science involves no analytical facility: all you do is link to oft-discredited or to simply irrelevant (and always camouflaged) nonsense. That is as weak as piss.
If you have a problem with conventional estimations of climate forcing, prove to us your case using two or three paragraphs, in your own words, detailing the scientific basis for a supportable alternative. Refer to primary literature, and do not hide your sources. Provide a defensible reason, or reasons, why yours is a "more valid perspective".
> past sock puppetry is a weak excuse to censor a more valid perspective.
1. As to "weak as piss", sock puppetry - never mind other rule-breaking, such as posting to threads you're not allowed to - will get you banned the first or second time around at most of better Internet forums. Brent had more chances than most.
2. I don't believe Brent's perspective - whether valid or not - **has** been censored. For anyone who's been keeping score at home, pretty much the entire pantheon of his perspectives was offered by Brent in the first few weeks, and the sum total of valid perspective contributed since then (disregarding a penchant for colourful writing largely consisting of name-calling and ludicrous flights of fancy) is approximately zero.
The good Robert Ward clearly has not understood any of the work he 'peer reviewed'.
I think on this issue now, 'the new paradigm' cometh. :-)
Oh, and isn't the 'science show' supposed to be about Science ? ie. not 'Policy and Communications' from the
London school of Economics ?
There must be a bit of panic still amongst the 'alarmist pigeons'. :-)
ROFL. I don't blame you! :-D Well done to yourself, jakerman and anyone else who ambled over to New Statesman. I think it's quite fun, but I'm just plain weird I guess. McI has definitely become a personality cult. Reading some of those comments was like enduring someone scratching their nails all the way across a blackboard... again and again and ag...
Hey MapleLeaf, you're famous. Someone's taken umbrage to your call for help here at the New Statesman thread! Oh no! It's an orchestrated conspiracy! Hannibal ad portas!
Didn't Bent just go around and complain that people who used sockpuppets were the lowest of the low?
Seems like, as usual, the denialidiot was projecting.
Again.
And we're going to have to put up with spots being all angry and nasty because he's lost his lover. Such separation often causes anger and shouting because it's a coping strategy for the grief from losing a loved one.
This will be my last word on Brent, but he was a lying hypocritical weasel to the end. I can't imagine the lengths of self delusion that must go into criticising sockpuppets whilst sockpuppeting yourself.
Absolutely the last I will EVER say about that DAMNED man who loved me and left me. I never cared for him, oh no, and I am not REMOTELY interested in where he is right now and what he's doi....... sob...
Well, well-- they are predictable bunch. That is exactly how I expected they would try and spin that post.
Let me see, some facts. I "gave up" on 2 October and that is seen as some call to 'arms', or some coordinated attack. (Actually I was passing the baton after tiring from refuting BS and misinformation). When in fact McIntyre advertised his making the list on the very same day the list was published -- 27 September.
Steve (and CA fans), you are probably reading this (yikes, I'm being stalked on the net by McI et al.). Given that you allege to be an expert in chronologies, maybe you can figure out the timeline here ;) How many days passed between when you advertised (hmmm, you would not happen to be a narcissist would you?) the NewStatesman article on your very own blog and when I "gave up"?
Anyways, JBowers, so all those stats. someone calculated over there to demonstrate that the consensus is that AGW is dead (or something along those lines), are surprise, surprise, worthless.
And if I'm famous JBowers, you must now have a large "X" on your back after your truly Herculian efforts there. Thanks for standing up for the truth.
This year we have seen what I believe is an increase in extreme weather events. Are these events generally what is predicted in computer models for a given year in our time, or are they what should be more common in 20 years or so. Whould you say the computer models don't represent our current extreme events very well?
It seems that computer models don't represent sea level rise for 2100 very well according to resent SLR-studies (Stefan Rahmstorf 2009 as an example) - is this a problem?
And people are meant to believe that the views expressed here are spontaneous endorsement and support for McIntyre. Clearly not.
To whoever was calculating those statistics on the posts here, they are worthless, don't waste you time.
This is the time stamp from my post at Deltoid:
October 2, 2010 12:31 AM
Now, I hope the McIntyre fans here can do maths--how much time lapsed between 27 September when CA (McIntyre's blog) advertised the NewStatesman list, to when I passed on the baton on 2 October?
Also, And CA fans, please do a tally of how many *new* people critical of McIntyre have posted here since I officially "gave up" on 2 October.
A rather lame try to by CA to try and frame opposing views (and inconvenient truths) about McIintyre as some coordinated or orchestrated attack.
In reality, the only person here orchestrating responses to the NS article is the narcissistic Mr. McIntyre. And let us not forget that McIntyre orchestrated the vexatious FOI attack on UEA/CRU.
Thanks for demonstrating yet once again that CA and its cult-like following have no ethics or honor."
>This year we have seen what I believe is an increase in extreme weather events. Are these events generally what is predicted in computer models for a given year in our time, or are they what should be more common in 20 years or so. Whould you say the computer models don't represent our current extreme events very well?
>It seems that computer models don't represent sea level rise for 2100 very well according to resent SLR-studies (Stefan Rahmstorf 2009 as an example) - is this a problem?
You sound concerned, Pan.
Different climate models do different things with extremes. While they're all trying to faithfully reproduce the global climate, they do so in slightly different ways. Because (as the name suggests) extremes are on the 'fringes', models are less likely to deal well with them - for example a climate model may *never* take Los Angeles close to its recent record of 113F, perhaps because the resolution is too low. This doesn't mean the model is totally wrong overall.
So when you try and quantify extreme events, you can really only do it within one climate model, relative to an earlier period within that model run (or ensemble), eg a 20% increase in droughts in 2050-2070 relative to 1970-1990.
All of which mumbling means I don't think recent extremes are *inconsistent* with the model view of a warming world. But they can never exactly be predicted either.
As for sea level rise, models are indeed pretty bad - but current levels of SLR provide a lower bound to what can be expected. In what way do you expect this to be a problem - for the people living in low-lying areas, or do you expect there to be egg on the faces of those making predictions?
Stu N - I'm just curious, but of course I see the problems with current emission levels. Regarding current extremes - if you say these are within the boundaries of what models expect, this seems to be a bit under communicated by science, but then again I guess these events will need to be studied more in detail in regards of computer modeling?
Somehow it would be more convincing if models of SLR where more in agreement with current research (Grinsted et al. 2009, Vermeer & Rahmstorf, 2009). Perhaps the new study of deep water heat content in Climate Science will add some more knowledge into the models, and when this is included, the models will be more in agreement with the science?
> Somehow it would be more convincing if models of SLR where more in agreement with current research
Problem is that SLR is worse than modeled.
This is proof there's no problem how?
> and when this is included, the models will be more in agreement with the science?
The words are english, but the meaning is absent.
The models ARE in agreement with the science.
They aren't in great agreement with measurements, but this is because surface ice runoff is left out of the models because the mechanism of loss is highly uncertain (though it is known it WILL melt, so the uncertainty is "oh dear" to "oh f...").
Well I haven't heard back from Sir Patrick Moore about clearing up his misapprehension about the science behind AGW.
I'll try another one and then in the new year pop round and see if he's read it. It's possible he's just busy to respond or wants time to check that I'm wrong (and then find out I'm not).
It would be a pity if he let his political stance (right wing company line) make him forget his science.
WOW said:
"Well I haven't heard back from Sir Patrick Moore about clearing up his misapprehension about the science behind AGW."
It's the other Patrick Moore, Canadian environmentalist and one of the founders of Greenpeace, who has raised doubts about AGW. I am not aware of "Sir" Patrick Moore saying anything to that effect. Unless I missed something.
Apparently not, Robert. I thought so too, but someone here pointed me to his direct quote and where he made it.
It is the Sir Patrick Moore.
And I pointed out to him that the saturated gas argument often trotted out would mean that astronomers could not determine the composition of a stellar atmosphere. Since he knows that's wrong, he should know the argument is wrong.
Aye. Hopefully just political dogma means he's willing to listen to the people leading him up the garden path, which is why I figure trying to work with him on what he KNOWS to be true and correlating that with what "both sides" say.
The test then is whether he'll ignore the facts when they get in the way of his political ideology (as Roy Spencer does wrt religion and science), or whether he'll go with the uncomforting truth, the inconvenient truth that is the science leading to AGW.
Bellamy got twisted by bitterness at becoming old-and-busted and reached for anything to "explain" it and found that denial of AGW gave him some temporary limelight and he's not going to let go of it (he's conveniently "forgotten" his statements about the problems of AGW made while employed as a biologist and hides them), so he's a lost cause.
Patrick? I dunno. It's not impossible that he won't listen.
But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for the moment.
> Jo Nova / Codling and Anthony Cox have an article at The Drum.
No science, all politics.
It's entitled "Warming to misanthropy", riffs off old favourite of the deniers Malthus, tars people who think population should be reduced because of the growing impact on the ecosystem as misanthropes, and:
> This message, that humanity is bad and destructive, is one that is increasingly informing AGW philosophy and promotion. The âevilâ has been extrapolated from the fossil fuels and CO2 to humanity itself.
And at its core has the thesis:
> But what appears to be really driving AGW is not concern for humanity but a hatred of humanity; misanthropy.
And predictably it ties in the 10:10 video, unskeptically asserting that "...it defines the problem and the solution".
Interestingly, zero comments so far. I wasn't inspired to bother either.
It seems that you did indeed miss something, as much as it pains me to disagree with you and to put the non-Greenpeace Moore in the spotlight... again. I couldn't believe it either, but after doing a bit of sniffing I regret to say that Sir Patrick is as fallible as are other previously-respected scientists such as David Bellamy.
>*Europe is debating whether or not the European Union should increase its 2020 emissions cuts to 30 per cent. A joint statement by the British, French and German environment ministers in favour of 30 per cent set off the debate; Denmark, Ireland and the European Unionâs climate commissioner have all now backed the call.*
The recession has caused a glut in carbon permits that threatens the ETS.
Also note that 15 Euro's/tonne C is not enought to drive massive radical infrastructure in their climate.
(Might be a different case in regions like Australia with masses of solar insolation and land.)
>'However, if further studies find the same pattern over a longer period of time, this could suggest that we may have overestimated the sun's role in warming the planet, rather than underestimating it.'
Despite the ridiculous headline, a surprisingly good article from a newspaper not normally friendly to science.
The press is starting to wake up: Here is a powerful article published in Germanyâs biggest news magazine DER SPIEGEL. It highlights the denier propaganda machine as perfected by Singer, the Marshall Intitute et al.
What is remarkable about it is the fact that not long ago, the magazine published a series of credulous articles concerning the e-mail hack, the IPCC and itâs chairman and so on. One particular nauseuous piece featured Lomborg and Pielke Jr. prominently as honest brokers, without question.
In the 'sceptic' corner we have Monckton, Godfrey Bloom MEP, and Chartered Accountant Andrew Monckton. In the other corner (with shorter quotes and relegated down the article) we have Professor Joanna Haigh of Imperial and Professor John Shepherd of Univ of Southampton.
Monckton's tuppence worth:
Climate change sceptic Christopher Monckton said last night: âYou really have to look at a much bigger timescale, not just three years. But we know thereâs a very close correlation between changes in temperature of the earthâs surface and solar activity.â
Lord Monckton added: âThe conclusion this report comes to is consistent with the growing movement among solar physicists that the sun has a much greater effect on climate change than the straight-forward measurable changes in its output would lead us to suspect.â
Wow@52 - You say: "Problem is that SLR is worse than modeled."
Which indeed was the point I was trying to make. I have big faith in the results of Vermeer & Rahmstorf (2009), but the models are not in agreement yet (well, as far as I know - correct me if I'm wrong).
What are the errors (if any) in the models here? Is it that deep water heat uptake is calculatet wrong in the models? I'm trying to ask questions here - not to make a point.
(pls don't assume everyone has english as their native language - I don't, and if I don't express my self clear I appologise)
The controversy over âSatellitegateâ hots up as NOAA faces a court appearance for refusing to release evidence that would show whether one or more US satellites exaggerated global warming temperatures.
The story broke after an anonymous member of the public contacted a skeptic blog when he stumbled across thousands of alarming readings on a government website. The website showed thousands of surface temperatures of over 400 degrees fahrenheit. Dubbed Satellitegate the shocking revelations proved that all such bogus data had been fed automatically into data banks that the US Government then sold all over the world.
In the climate controversy dubbed Kiwigate New Zealand skeptics inflict shock courtroom defeat on climatologists implicated in temperature data fra*d.
New Zealandâs government via its National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has announced it has nothing to do with the countryâs âofficialâ climate record in what commentators are calling a capitulation from the tainted climate reconstruction
Too funny. If you look at [NIWA's defence](http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/statement_of_defence.pdf), they say that that there is nothing wrong with NZTR and anyway it's not a 'public record' for the purposes of the Public Service Act because it collected for research purposes. To describe this a "shock courtroom defeat" is beyond delusional.
> What are the errors (if any) in the models here?
Uh, the IPCC and the models have already said. And I said it too:
> They aren't in great agreement with measurements, but this is because surface ice runoff is left out of the models because the mechanism of loss is highly uncertain
But what IS certain is that the ice loss isn't less than zero.
> Is it that deep water heat uptake is calculatet wrong in the models?
If it is, what effect does it have?
If there's more to draw down, we have longer before we get 100% of the warming the models currently ascribe.
If there's less to draw down, we have less time before we get 100% of the warming the models currently ascribe.
Neither case has an effect on what the equilibrium state change is, just the timing, because the deep water isn't a source or (permanent) sink of energy. It all (well 99.99...%) comes from the Sun. And the ocean doesn't change that.
Greenhouse gasses do, because they stop non-solar radiation and don't stop solar radiation.
The source for that NIWA shock defeat story was John O'Sullivan, a conspiracy bozo of gargantuan proportions who is infamous for picking up news releases he doesn't understand, imagining whatever he does, then 'exposing' it.
I think his last one was when the data sensors on NOAA 17 went u/s meaning of course that all surface and satellite data was suspect and the Earth had no trustworthy temperature record. Little did he realise or bother to check that NOAA 18 & 19 were working perfectly (their status can even be checked online).
Still, his chief purpose is to give floons like Montford et al some unconfirmed crumbs of phoney scepticism to distribute to the flock, as faithfully picked up and regurgitated here by Sunsplat the Gullible.
> The source for that NIWA shock defeat story was John O'Sullivan, a conspiracy bozo of gargantuan proportions who is infamous for picking up news releases he doesn't understand, imagining whatever he does, then 'exposing' it.
I missed the first part of the sentence...and thought you were talking about sunspot.
When I said capable of understanding enough, I didn't mean enough to carry out new research in climate science. I meant enough to be able to understand information on the subject presented by experts for the benefit of non experts. It's only when they choose to listen only to disinformers that they have a problem.
>Capable, probably, but that doesn't mean they have left their ideologies behind
No, and the point is that it's the ideology that's the real problem, not engineering. It's a similar situation with Geology -- those denialists who have it try to use it for an appeal to authority. I think that tends to make it look like there's more of a connection than there really is.
As an EE myself, it's amazing to me that so many engineers of all stripes define themselves into the denial camp. I suspect that it's largely an issue of ideology - many, many engineers are libertarian types who resist the top-down, government-driven changes that are likely to be required in order to slow the rate of climate disruption and adapt to what cannot stopped.
I know from my education that a lot of the mathematics I learned in order to do my job on a day-to-day basis is the exact same math used by climate scientists. I don't personally know how many engineering disciplines learn feedback theory or state machines, but both are a major part of most undergraduate EE curricula and apply to climate science too. And I can throw probability theory as it relates to extracting signal from noise into the mix too. However, while statistics and probability are related disciplines, they are NOT the same, a fact that I continue to struggle with as I attempt to apply self-taught statistics to my climate journalism.
I discovered a long time ago that the math is all the same - it's opening your mind enough to learn that the math is the same that's the hardest part
I know it is hard work, but take a trip over to The Australian, it looks like their War on Science has started again. Coincidence that the denilaist rants have started with the first meeting of the "climate change committee"?
As an EE myself, it's amazing to me that so many engineers of all stripes define themselves into the denial camp. I suspect that it's largely an issue of ideology - many, many engineers are libertarian types who resist the top-down, government-driven changes that are likely to be required in order to slow the rate of climate disruption and adapt to what cannot stopped.
Engineers must be truthful to the observed data; otherwise, people die. When engineers look at the climate data, the following is what they see (it has nothing to do their ideology):
Here is the observed global mean temperature trend for 90-years from 1910 to 2000:
1) Global warming rate of 0.15 deg C per decade from 1910 to 1940, which gives a global warming of 0.45 deg C during the previous 30-years warming phase.
2) Global warming rate of 0.16 deg C per decade from 1970 to 2000, which gives a global warming of 0.48 deg C during the recent 30-years warming phase.
3) Slight global cooling from 1940 to 1970.
As a result, the effect of 60 years of human emission of CO2 between the two warming phases on the global warming rate is nil.
Also, the effect of 30 years of human emission of CO2 during the global cooling phase from 1940 to 1970 is obviously nil.
The data above describes the global mean temperature trend for 90 years until year 2000. What is the global mean temperature trend since 2000?
4) Since year 2000, the global mean temperature anomaly trend is nearly flat at 0.4 deg C as shown in the following plot:
1) Global warming rate of 0.15 deg C per decade from 1910 to 1940, which gives a global warming of 0.45 deg C during the previous 30-years warming phase.
2) Global warming rate of 0.16 deg C per decade from 1970 to 2000, which gives a global warming of 0.48 deg C during the recent 30-years warming phase.
3) Slight global cooling from 1940 to 1970.
As a result, the effect of 60 years of human emission of CO2 between the two warming phases on the global warming rate is nil.
Also, the effect of 30 years of human emission of CO2 during the global cooling phase from 1940 to 2000 is obviously nil.
The data above describes the global mean temperature trend for 90 years until year 2000. What is the global mean temperature trend since 2000?
4) Since year 2000, the global mean temperature anomaly trend is nearly flat at 0.4 deg C as shown in the following plot:
> A band called The Imperial Stars, who describe themselves as a "hard core hip hop band from Orange County," stopped a truck in the middle of the 101 freeway, jumped out, plugged in their instruments, and performed their latest single, "Traffic Jam 101." I'll withhold opinion on their music, but being stuck in traffic behind some publicity-hungry band from OC sure sucks.
The Us government has released a new figure for deaths due to the Iraq war:
In all, the U.S. data tallied 76,939 Iraqi security officials and civilians killed and 121,649 wounded between January 2004 and August 2008. The count shows 3,952 American and other U.S.-allied international troops were killed over the same period.
The article compares this number with other data from:
* the Iraqi Human Rights Ministry
* charts previously released by the Defense Department
* Iraq Body Count
* The AP's own count
The biggest of these numbers doesn't go much above 100,000. The problem with this is that the AP didn't mention the Lancet studies or the poll by OBR, all of which point to far more deaths in Iraq due to the war than the AP's article would have it. Instead of leaving people thinking that perhaps over a million died, people will think that "only" 80,000 or thereabouts did.
Phil Clarke, in the hope that you read this, go over to the Guardian and see a "Citizen Auditor" shrug off the mistakes you found in their little endeavour. One to bear in mind, and quite a revealing response to my mind. http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/8002968
Back from the dead and just as eager for brains, Jennifer Marohasy is appearing on ABC's Q&A show tonight (Monday 18 October). She's already drumming up dorothy dixer questions on her bog and complaining about being called a "climate skeptic". Let's [get some harder questions in](http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/) for Miss Sokwatic Iwony.
To Dr Marohasy: While you were hired by the IPA to comment on climate change, you turned your blog into a soapbox for Velikovskyans, "electric universe" cultists, deniers of the conservation of energy, and claims that HIV did not cause AIDS and oil was not a fossil fuel. To save face, you eventually claimed that all your posts were ironic. Why should we give any further credence to your views on this topic?
Dr Marohasy, you are a qualified population biologist. Do you deny that scientific studies have shown that the majority of animal and plant species are already changing their breeding and migration patterns in response to climate change, and that between 18 and 35% of species are predicted to be driven to extinction by 2050 as a result of global warming?
Dr Marohasy, you have repeatedly claimed in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary that there is no water crisis in the Murray Darling Basin. Short of the entire region becoming an extension of the Sahara desert, what event or evidence would cause you to change your views?
Graham Bird is in a way a manifestation of a Godwin-like principle. If a Birdesque nutter sets up camp in a blog and is not explicitly disavowed by the owner, one can be quite confident that the capacity of the blog to reflect reason is severely compromised.
Neil Craig is also a shining example of this damnation-by-association.
> If a Birdesque nutter sets up camp in a blog and is not explicitly disavowed by the owner, one can be quite confident that the capacity of the blog to reflect reason is severely compromised.
In my book it doesn't have to be as bad as Bird to demonstrate significant issues with reflecting reason - and Climate Etc. seemed to flirt with at least that level of concern from the first couple of posts.
..perhaps the most common complaint from scientists about the corporation's coverage of global warming is the exposure handed to sceptical non-scientists, such as former UK chancellor Nigel Lawson. This is the source of the long-standing 'false balance' problem. The BBC Trust, which is running the review, should take a stricter line here. If BBC staff want to use non-experts to criticize widely accepted science, they must explain this lack of expertise to the audience, and why the BBC has invited them to participate.
Funnily enough, in the comments there is an "it's a conspiracy" claim from Bishop Hill/Andrew Montford who was one of the non-experts that the BBC Newsnight recently relied on in its coverage of the Pakistan floods.
> While the Koch brothers -- each worth over $21.5 billion -- have certainly underwritten much of the right, their hidden coordination with other big business money has gone largely unnoticed. ThinkProgress has obtained a memo outlining the details of the last Koch gathering held in June of this year. The memo, along with an attendee list of about 210 people, shows the titans of industry -- from health insurance companies, oil executives, Wall Street investors, and real estate tycoons -- working together with conservative journalists and Republican operatives to plan the 2010 election, as well as ongoing conservative efforts through 2012.
>US publisher, Stairway Press [which sells Andrew Montford's Hockey Stick Illusion in the US], have chosen the Climate Fools Day gathering in Westminster to make the inaugural presentation of the "Ernst-Georg Beck Award for Scientific Integrity and Competence" (BASIC). Piers Corbyn gets the US$10,000 award for "his untiring efforts both as a climate skeptic and for his outstanding success in long-range weather forecasting".
OK, this is completely left-of-field compared to the general focus of Deltoid, but bear with me.
There's been a lot said about how the tobacco lobby tried in the past to obfuscate the state of general public knowledge and understanding of the risks of smoking. Vested interests convinced many smokers and regulators that there was doubt about the science that indicated a link between tobacco and cancer, and hence that there was not a firm basis for giving up the habit or for controlling it. As a consequence many people chose to believe that they didn't need to kick the habit, either because they thought that there was no danger, or - through the miracle of perceived personal invulnerability - that they as individuals would avoid being affected.
Many years were spent by many health professionals trying to counter this wrong notion, and even today there exists a sizable proportion of people who are willing to put off facing the bottom line in the matter. [This ad](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWtgZE4h-Io) however is the best effort that I have seen to put a perspective on the subject that might actually cause people to think beyond their immediate habitual inclinations...
Many Australians and some USAdians will have seen it, but there may be readers of Deltoid who have not. If it leads to one further person rethinking their tobacco habit for the link having been posted here I'd be pleased, but in fact my rhetorical question is...
...why is it that humans do not have a similar concern for the well-being of their decendants in the context of global warming, simply because the threat happens to be not as rapidly-acting or as directly targeting as is tobacco, even when the ultimate result will be inestimably more grim?
Are we that welded to the status quo if it means that we remain wallowing in milk and honey, that we can't be buggered thinking about the well-being of the cows and the bees that are keeping us thus, or about future generations who might not even have the opportunity to experience the metaphorical produce of these similarly-metaphorical bovine and apine benefactors?
In a truly startling moment, The Weekend Australian today reports on climate change and - well, doesn't fling poop at the fan. They've got the red book that the Department of Climate Change prepared for the government post-election and have just - reported what it said. Including the fact that it's freaking scary and economically reckless to keep going the way we are and that all indicators are that we're heading for worst case projections. It also says that all natural causes have been investigated for warming and dismissed and that scientist who say AGW is not happening are not persuasive.
Not only DOESN'T The Australian then go on to get Bob Carter or Ian Plimer to pooh-pooh the red book, it makes no editorial comment within the article AND Stephen Lunn writes a short piece talking about how Australia may regret the 1997 Kyoto concessions considering how poor the prognosis for Australia is. It doesn't even paint the DCC as full of pinko commie ecomentalists.
I am experiencing severe cognitive dissonance at this point.
I'm trying to work out what their nefarious motives are and coming to the weird conclusion that - maybe they don't have them. If anyone can work out what these very strange and almost unique stories are doing in The Australian, please let me know.
While I was looking, though, I came across this: R-Bloggers - Global Temperature Proxy Reconstructions ~ now with CO2 forcing
August 26, 2010 By apeescape
Thanks! Right now it seems that the figure is most similar to that in Briffa et al. (2001), but there are still some differences (perhaps Osborn tweaked it a bit for the purposes of the presentation).
Just read one Outraged Of Kingston comment on the Guardian website:
> I have looked into it, way more than I should. Look at what's going on in this article. The Global Warming Alarmists have started making indoctrination tools for children.
> They pay for bed-time-nightmares to scare the children.
But, funnily enough, these same people have NO PROBLEM in indoctrination of children by religions nor about the scare stories of Hell.
I am a little puzzled about your apparently novel interpretations of probablism and of statistical confidence.
Perhaps you might humour me and offer your analysis of the probability that the 2010 land/ocean index, as determined by GISS, say, will be greater than the index for 2005. As we currently await only the October to December results, perhaps you could also describe to us how one might determine the confidence in the previous analysis given that three quarters of the year's data are already in.
More interestingly, I would be most intrigued to know of your interpretation of what the 2010 result will mean in a climate change context, and of what confidence (and how derived) one can ascribe to said interpretation given all significant factors involved.
Judith Curry has decided to go all the way with the conspiracy angle- it's all IPCC corruption, scientists chasing funding money and persona ambition.....besides Judith the Pure of course.
Hilarious reading if you can stomach that kind of thing.
Michael, it was...erm...."interesting" reading. I really don't know what her intentions are, but essentially tarnishing all of the IPCC authors AND claim she wants to restore credibility of climate science is, well, contradictory.
The comment section is even worse. I thought WUWT was bad, but it seems Climate, Etc attracts the more 'intelligent' crackpots...
Tim,
You didn't really think the video was funny you're just engaged in a damage limitation exercise
Dennis Jensen : "A Royal Commission into the science is required." (September 30, 2010) - Quadrant Online.
And, I agree.
THE OBSERVED TEMPERATURE DATA DOES NOT SUPPORT MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING.
Here is the observed global mean temperature trend for 90-years from 1910 to 2000:
http://bit.ly/bylFMq
1) Global warming rate of 0.15 deg C per decade from 1910 to 1940, which gives a global warming of 0.45 deg C during the previous 30-years warming phase.
2) Global warming rate of 0.16 deg C per decade from 1970 to 2000, which gives a global warming of 0.48 deg C during the recent 30-years warming phase.
3) Slight global cooling from 1940 to 1970.
As a result, the effect of 60 years of human emission of CO2 between the two warming phases on the global warming rate is nil.
Also, the effect of 30 years of human emission of CO2 during the global cooling phase from 1940 to 2000 is obviously nil.
The data above describes the global mean temperature trend for 90 years until year 2000. What is the global mean temperature trend since 2000?
4) Since year 2000, the global mean temperature anomaly trend is nearly flat at 0.4 deg C as shown in the following plot:
http://bit.ly/aDni90
In conclusion, man-made global warming is not supported by the observed data.
According to the data, according to the apolitical science, the effect of human emission of CO2 on global mean temperature is NIL.
Shorter John:
Either (a) exactly 100% of the observed temperature trends are due to carbon dioxide, or (b) exactly 0% of the observed temperature trends are due to carbon dioxide! There are no other possibilities! What's more, by using the word "apolitical", I get to insinuate that the world's climate scientists are ideological hoaxers, without having to mention any specific conspiracy theories! Therefore, Al Gore is Fat.
FYI,
http://www.newstatesman.com/global-issues/2010/09/climate-mcintyre-keep…
Please have at 'em. I give up. I really had no idea that Steve M had such a devout following of mean-spirited deniers. Not just skeptics, but hard core deniers, not only of AGW but climate science in general. Steve is an absolute saint in their eyes and anyone who disagrees is an evil, corrupt person who is attacking and sliming McI for no good reason.
I tried my best to stem the tide, so did some others, but we were way outnumbered. What a hopeless effing exercise. I'm exhausted.
Maybe some of you will have better luck. Ot maybe we should just let them high-five each other and get drunk on their Dunning-Kugerness.
Have a good rest Maple, things will look brighter in the morning ;)
I do not believe those comments. It looks like an orchestrated campaign to me. I wonder how many real commmenters are there under different names?
For one thing, they all seem to be literate and good spellers. They keep saying he is transparent and honest.
I don't believe they are ordinary commenters. I mean, look at this one:
"...Janet H. Thompson
29 September 2010 at 00:52
Because of people like Steve McIntyre, we (Down Under) have narrowly avoided the most economy-threatening legislation ever.
Because of people like Steve McIntyre, we have hope in the goodness of humanity.
Because of people like Steve McIntyre, we continue to fightâ¦dailyâ¦in the hope that goodness and right âcan and will triumph over might.â
Thank you Steve McIntyre! (And the people like him.)..."
Yeah, right, thanks, Saint Steve.
Sorry, Mapleleaf, I'm not my fearless, tireless 20s or 30s self now that I'm in my 60s. I do keep an eye on a couple of non-science groups I regularly visit and dive in when nonsense comes up for discussion.
I prefer to visit Wott'sUWT for updates on the denialati but never WTFUWT - it's too discouraging.
I'm afraid too many years in the public service makes Steve McI look to me like one of those grammar nazis who never got to grips with the actual policies in reports.
Picture yourself reading a report, already read by someone, with little red marks on every page. Do they refer to inconsistencies or references, or even spelling? Not a chance! They refer to the number of 'unnecessary' lines of space, because ---- ta daaa! If those spaces weren't there, the 30 page report **might** have been 1 page less, can't waste paper you know. Not. one. word. on the policy, the processes, the training, the staffing or any other implications of the paper.
Remind you of anyone?
Thanks jakerman, and thanks for sharing the trenches with me for a while. Still have no idea who you are, but I'm sure that they think it was orchestrated for our side. Heck they even thought that you and I were the same at one point.
What a surreal experience that was...I feel like I need a really good, long shower.
Have a good day...assuming that you are in Oz.
PS: I wonder if Steve was posting there under a pseudonym ?;)
"... right can and will triumph over might ..."
that's from John D. Rockefeller, quoted in Boy's Life, sometime in 1941, I think. Or maybe he had an earlier source.
Adelady, thanks for the support.
Holly feel free to counter, but be prepared ot endure some serious mud slinging, Steve's acolytes are not holding back. They are really pissed that someone had the audacity to piss on his parade.
No news back yet form NewStatesman as to how they decided who makes the list.
Just to cheer you up there's a bit of good news every now and again.
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/life-flows-back-into-the-coorong-a…
Check out that second photo! Of course, we all know that the mouth would only have closed for a couple of drought years if the river weren't so devastatingly mismanaged, but still. If the La Nina effect lasts long enough, there might even be a reduction in temperatures and evaporation rates enough to keep those acidified lake beds covered for the time needed.
My sentiments exactly.
Although to me the words mean the diametric opposite of what the original poster probably intended...
Aw, man. It's really that bad. Imagine what would happen if Steven came out and said that AGW is a real problem. There'd be a few suicides, probably.
I'm wondering if Chris Mitchell and The Australian are starting to bend over? There's an article in today's Weekend Australian that reports that scientists at the Royal Society have released a paper where they are "honest" about the uncertainties in climate science. They treat this 19 page summary as if it is a great leap forward for climate science, as though it is a move from politics to science:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/spin-free-report-honest-ab…
Sounds to me like Chris Mitchell and co have reluctantly accepted that human induced global warming is happening, and that it is significant. However, they seem to justify their previous stance because of all the "alarmism", and they have taken a new stance (?) because of the sudden "honesty".
Sounds bizarre to me.
Every climate scientist I have ever spoken to has been very frank about holes in the knowledge about the response of the Greenland ice-sheet to GW, for instance. The IPCC report was frank on this topic too (hence the uncertainty bounds of a sea-level rise between 20 cm and 7 m by the end of the century). To claim that only now scientists are opening up about the uncertainties is disingenious spin indeed, and is little more than self-serving justification for stupidly backing the wrong horse, and a desperate ploy to break their spectacular slide into irrelevance.
Guys,
Don't worry about the New Statesman stuff. Consider it a wake up call for the staff of that magazine i.e. they now have the evidence before their eyes of what deniers are like and how they act.
Prolly should have posted here as this is the new Open Thread, but to save bandwidth I'll just [linkie](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/09/temperatures_and_projections.ph…).
snedecor. It would be unkind to rub their noses in it right now. My own experience is that sometimes you just have to let the reality or an idea sit around for a while and it gradually becomes part of the wallpaper.
If this continues it might be worth saying later - Oh look, golly gosh, someone said this yonks ago. How interesting.
Challenge them now and they'll probably mend the hole in the ideological fence.
Aww come on people.
Denialism is a fact of life. Evolution is one of the most rigorous theories currently out there with volumes of evidence to support it. Yet still there are many who choose to disbelieve it based on their personal prejudices.
AGW is merely following the same path of human fallibility. Some years from now we will, yet again, hear the cries of "oh holy crap! The scientists were right!"
Like an apologetic Pope, people will say "oh yeah, I guess we should've listened to the evidence before we put you under house arrest".
Ha! Tim Curtin [re-emerges](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/open_thread_54.php#comment-2832…) [again](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/open_thread_54.php#comment-2832…) for some evidence free proclamation.
For what it's worth Curtin, I know hundreds of scientists, and not a single one of them bar one psychologically unhealthy individual would speak as "TG" did - I seriously doubt the truth of that person's claims to be a scientist, or even to be scientifically trained.
By the way, how are you progressing with your struggle learning science at the level of Grade 6?
My take on the recent British 10:10 climate climate video fiasco:
> It amazes me that even among supposedly enlightened pro-science people, when it comes to matters of PR, we start getting the same old extreme naïvete, idiotic and pointless turf wars, reluctance to change ways, and general closed-mindedness. This must stop.
The modus operandi of the deniers is to pick up on things and take them way out of proportion. They did this with the 'trick' word from the CRU emails, they did it many times again. I think "No Pressure" plays well into their field. If a denier is reading this, no pressure!
BillT:
Constantly blaming the inactivists isn't going to help. If I keep my house door unlocked at night and a thief steals my things, I can't merely say, 'the real criminal here is the thief! it's the thief who's in the wrong!' and then continue to keep my house unlocked.
Neither can I say 'hey, what do you expect? I'm just a ordinary bloke, not a security expert!' and then continue to keep my house unlocked.
No, I find out what I can do to prevent future thefts as best as I can, and then I do it: I lock my door!
* * *
So yeah, the inactivists (egged on by the Koch family) are a big part of the problem. But so are we -- as long as we insist on making PR gaffes and giving the inactivists new openings for attack. There's no excuse for simply saying 'it's the inactivists who are the real bad guys!' or 'gah, we're just bad at PR, we're just bad at PR' and then continuing our merry path towards more PR gaffes.
Again: This must stop.
Bernard J.,
Idiot-pools like WUWT are filled with testimonial comments like that. Whenever I come across a comment that follows the form:
"As a physicist/engineer/doctor/scientific researcher/nobel laureate I once accepted the supposed 'consensus', but the more I examined the evidence, the more I doubted it. I stumbled across climateaudit/wuwt/jonova's blog one day and the intellectual rigour and breathtaking integrity were the magnificent to behold. The scales fell from my eyes and lo, I did perceive the IPCC as beelzebub, and **C**AGW as the **FRAUD** that it really is. Oh and I know hundreds of scientists and they all feel the same."
It falls so neatly into the "internet tough guy" mould that I assume it to be either generated by some comment spamming program, or just deluded fantasy.
Speaking of deluded fantasy, it is interesting that Timmy - not known for his reliance on a single alias - should highlight that particular comment so gushingly. I'm not saying that he *is* foolishly and ridiculously promoting his own sockpuppet ravings here, just asking the question - and if its not true why isn't he denying it?
What's up with the creepy fantasy presented in over-dramatic language so common among denialists? It's just weird. You read like the announcer from an episode of Super Friends.
I call Poe.
>Et bien sûr Henri le Cheval dansera la valse!
Not surprisingly, the denier trolls were directed there from Climate Audit. The comments on the site aren't a random sample of people, they are consist of the core obsessives of the denier community.
Bernard J, Dave H:
And I have another: over at Climate Progress about the 10:10 video brouhaha, there's a commenter named "Stu", but he doesn't sound like the "Stu" who frequents Deltoid:
> Personally, I am a sceptic of some of the pieces of evidence for AGW, and a believer (or no reason not to believe) for other pieces of evidence. I guess most people are not so black and white on this issue as some (the producers of this film?) would like to believe. I have also been involved in environmental restoration for most of my adult life, do not own a car or have a licence, am vegetarian and eat 80% organic food. I denounce rabid consumerism. I would like to know that just because I am sceptical of some of the claims of AGW theory that people around me would secretly like to explode me.
Nowhere does this "Stu" state what he/she is 'sceptic' about.
John @25,
"Not surprisingly, the denier trolls were directed there from Climate Audit".
Do you have a link for that? Tks.
I just came across an interesting claim in a youtube video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI
A Dr Richard A. Muller with mildly worded attacks on GISTEMP and HadCRUT (20:40 in the video) mentions that his "group" are currently working on a 4th global temperature dataset (he is evidentially unaware that GISTEMP, HadCRUT and NOAA are not the only global surface temperature datasets)
He claims the 3 existing records only include about "10% of the data" and boasts his will contain "100%".
He also claims his record will be based on statistics approved by statisticians and says the other three aren't.
He also claims his will be in easily downloadable format implying the others aren't.
He says this record and an analysis based on it will be out before the end of this year. That means everything downloadable of course.
This is tucked away somewhat as there are no references to any such work being done in google search or even on Muller's webpage.
Just a heads up because if he follows through this will no doubt turn into a future meme in the blogosphere.
*[Comment from Brent sock removed. Brent is now banned and his thread is closed]*
And that remark typifies the level of quality of debate, why I disengaged. Oodles of assertion, ad hominem remarks, misdirection and evasion.
Evidence and reality-based answers to serious questions ... zip.
The Brent thread is dead.
Oh frabjous day!
weak as piss tim,
weak like your CO2 climate forcing theory.
the brent thread was more popular than 98% of all the other threads, past sock puppetry is a weak excuse to censor a more valid perspective.
weak as piss tim
The Brent thread is dead.
Oh frabjous day!
[So, did he pilfer Curtin's old sock puppet, or was HLC always Brent? Not that it really matters - one is as refractory to the comprehension of science as the other...]]
What's your problem Foulspot? Lose your best mate?
You're hardly one to speak about being as weak as piss. Your approach to science involves no analytical facility: all you do is link to oft-discredited or to simply irrelevant (and always camouflaged) nonsense. That is as weak as piss.
If you have a problem with conventional estimations of climate forcing, prove to us your case using two or three paragraphs, in your own words, detailing the scientific basis for a supportable alternative. Refer to primary literature, and do not hide your sources. Provide a defensible reason, or reasons, why yours is a "more valid perspective".
Oo, and did I say...
The Brent thread is dead.
Oh frabjous day!
brn b, sr wn't bnd vr n frnt f cnd rs lk y, s shv t.
Quod erat demonstrandum
:-)
HLC was always Brent.
> past sock puppetry is a weak excuse to censor a more valid perspective.
1. As to "weak as piss", sock puppetry - never mind other rule-breaking, such as posting to threads you're not allowed to - will get you banned the first or second time around at most of better Internet forums. Brent had more chances than most.
2. I don't believe Brent's perspective - whether valid or not - **has** been censored. For anyone who's been keeping score at home, pretty much the entire pantheon of his perspectives was offered by Brent in the first few weeks, and the sum total of valid perspective contributed since then (disregarding a penchant for colourful writing largely consisting of name-calling and ludicrous flights of fancy) is approximately zero.
Thanks for noticing Frank!
Perhaps I need an appendage on my name to disinguish myself from other Stus.
Call me Stu N from now on - it's not like I haven't given away enough information for a determined Wattite to find out who I am.
Well Well Well. Robyn '100 metres sea-level rise' Williams has again demonstrated he has drunk way too many quarts of the IPCC 'Koolaid'.
Here it is : [More 'science show' Ranting] (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/3023812.htm)
The good Robert Ward clearly has not understood any of the work he 'peer reviewed'.
I think on this issue now, 'the new paradigm' cometh. :-)
Oh, and isn't the 'science show' supposed to be about Science ? ie. not 'Policy and Communications' from the
London school of Economics ?
There must be a bit of panic still amongst the 'alarmist pigeons'. :-)
1 MapleLeaf -- "Please have at 'em. I give up."
ROFL. I don't blame you! :-D Well done to yourself, jakerman and anyone else who ambled over to New Statesman. I think it's quite fun, but I'm just plain weird I guess. McI has definitely become a personality cult. Reading some of those comments was like enduring someone scratching their nails all the way across a blackboard... again and again and ag...
Hey MapleLeaf, you're famous. Someone's taken umbrage to your call for help here at the New Statesman thread! Oh no! It's an orchestrated conspiracy! Hannibal ad portas!
Hmmm.... what's this from the 27th September? Inspiration?
http://climateaudit.org/2010/09/27/new-statesman-50/
Didn't Bent just go around and complain that people who used sockpuppets were the lowest of the low?
Seems like, as usual, the denialidiot was projecting.
Again.
And we're going to have to put up with spots being all angry and nasty because he's lost his lover. Such separation often causes anger and shouting because it's a coping strategy for the grief from losing a loved one.
This will be my last word on Brent, but he was a lying hypocritical weasel to the end. I can't imagine the lengths of self delusion that must go into criticising sockpuppets whilst sockpuppeting yourself.
Absolutely the last I will EVER say about that DAMNED man who loved me and left me. I never cared for him, oh no, and I am not REMOTELY interested in where he is right now and what he's doi....... sob...
@43 is that sorry little sock puppet who can't live without us.
Climate 'skeptic' Alan Caruba deletes comments on his blog because he's too busy to respond to them. Oh, and more.
There's a similar outrage fest at the 10:10 site.
http://www.1010global.org/uk/2010/10/sorry
Hi JBowers,
Well, well-- they are predictable bunch. That is exactly how I expected they would try and spin that post.
Let me see, some facts. I "gave up" on 2 October and that is seen as some call to 'arms', or some coordinated attack. (Actually I was passing the baton after tiring from refuting BS and misinformation). When in fact McIntyre advertised his making the list on the very same day the list was published -- 27 September.
Steve (and CA fans), you are probably reading this (yikes, I'm being stalked on the net by McI et al.). Given that you allege to be an expert in chronologies, maybe you can figure out the timeline here ;) How many days passed between when you advertised (hmmm, you would not happen to be a narcissist would you?) the NewStatesman article on your very own blog and when I "gave up"?
Anyways, JBowers, so all those stats. someone calculated over there to demonstrate that the consensus is that AGW is dead (or something along those lines), are surprise, surprise, worthless.
And if I'm famous JBowers, you must now have a large "X" on your back after your truly Herculian efforts there. Thanks for standing up for the truth.
As for the blackboard analogy, agreed.
This year we have seen what I believe is an increase in extreme weather events. Are these events generally what is predicted in computer models for a given year in our time, or are they what should be more common in 20 years or so. Whould you say the computer models don't represent our current extreme events very well?
It seems that computer models don't represent sea level rise for 2100 very well according to resent SLR-studies (Stefan Rahmstorf 2009 as an example) - is this a problem?
Cross posted from the NewStatesman thread:
"This post appeared on **27 September** over at Climate Audit:
http://climateaudit.org/2010/09/27/new-statesman-50/
And people are meant to believe that the views expressed here are spontaneous endorsement and support for McIntyre. Clearly not.
To whoever was calculating those statistics on the posts here, they are worthless, don't waste you time.
This is the time stamp from my post at Deltoid:
October 2, 2010 12:31 AM
Now, I hope the McIntyre fans here can do maths--how much time lapsed between 27 September when CA (McIntyre's blog) advertised the NewStatesman list, to when I passed on the baton on 2 October?
Also, And CA fans, please do a tally of how many *new* people critical of McIntyre have posted here since I officially "gave up" on 2 October.
A rather lame try to by CA to try and frame opposing views (and inconvenient truths) about McIintyre as some coordinated or orchestrated attack.
In reality, the only person here orchestrating responses to the NS article is the narcissistic Mr. McIntyre. And let us not forget that McIntyre orchestrated the vexatious FOI attack on UEA/CRU.
Thanks for demonstrating yet once again that CA and its cult-like following have no ethics or honor."
>This year we have seen what I believe is an increase in extreme weather events. Are these events generally what is predicted in computer models for a given year in our time, or are they what should be more common in 20 years or so. Whould you say the computer models don't represent our current extreme events very well?
>It seems that computer models don't represent sea level rise for 2100 very well according to resent SLR-studies (Stefan Rahmstorf 2009 as an example) - is this a problem?
You sound concerned, Pan.
Different climate models do different things with extremes. While they're all trying to faithfully reproduce the global climate, they do so in slightly different ways. Because (as the name suggests) extremes are on the 'fringes', models are less likely to deal well with them - for example a climate model may *never* take Los Angeles close to its recent record of 113F, perhaps because the resolution is too low. This doesn't mean the model is totally wrong overall.
So when you try and quantify extreme events, you can really only do it within one climate model, relative to an earlier period within that model run (or ensemble), eg a 20% increase in droughts in 2050-2070 relative to 1970-1990.
All of which mumbling means I don't think recent extremes are *inconsistent* with the model view of a warming world. But they can never exactly be predicted either.
As for sea level rise, models are indeed pretty bad - but current levels of SLR provide a lower bound to what can be expected. In what way do you expect this to be a problem - for the people living in low-lying areas, or do you expect there to be egg on the faces of those making predictions?
Stu N - I'm just curious, but of course I see the problems with current emission levels. Regarding current extremes - if you say these are within the boundaries of what models expect, this seems to be a bit under communicated by science, but then again I guess these events will need to be studied more in detail in regards of computer modeling?
Somehow it would be more convincing if models of SLR where more in agreement with current research (Grinsted et al. 2009, Vermeer & Rahmstorf, 2009). Perhaps the new study of deep water heat content in Climate Science will add some more knowledge into the models, and when this is included, the models will be more in agreement with the science?
> Somehow it would be more convincing if models of SLR where more in agreement with current research
Problem is that SLR is worse than modeled.
This is proof there's no problem how?
> and when this is included, the models will be more in agreement with the science?
The words are english, but the meaning is absent.
The models ARE in agreement with the science.
They aren't in great agreement with measurements, but this is because surface ice runoff is left out of the models because the mechanism of loss is highly uncertain (though it is known it WILL melt, so the uncertainty is "oh dear" to "oh f...").
Well I haven't heard back from Sir Patrick Moore about clearing up his misapprehension about the science behind AGW.
I'll try another one and then in the new year pop round and see if he's read it. It's possible he's just busy to respond or wants time to check that I'm wrong (and then find out I'm not).
It would be a pity if he let his political stance (right wing company line) make him forget his science.
WOW said:
"Well I haven't heard back from Sir Patrick Moore about clearing up his misapprehension about the science behind AGW."
It's the other Patrick Moore, Canadian environmentalist and one of the founders of Greenpeace, who has raised doubts about AGW. I am not aware of "Sir" Patrick Moore saying anything to that effect. Unless I missed something.
> It's the other Patrick Moore
Apparently not, Robert. I thought so too, but someone here pointed me to his direct quote and where he made it.
It is the Sir Patrick Moore.
And I pointed out to him that the saturated gas argument often trotted out would mean that astronomers could not determine the composition of a stellar atmosphere. Since he knows that's wrong, he should know the argument is wrong.
And so on.
Well damn, that is depressing.
Aye. Hopefully just political dogma means he's willing to listen to the people leading him up the garden path, which is why I figure trying to work with him on what he KNOWS to be true and correlating that with what "both sides" say.
The test then is whether he'll ignore the facts when they get in the way of his political ideology (as Roy Spencer does wrt religion and science), or whether he'll go with the uncomforting truth, the inconvenient truth that is the science leading to AGW.
Bellamy got twisted by bitterness at becoming old-and-busted and reached for anything to "explain" it and found that denial of AGW gave him some temporary limelight and he's not going to let go of it (he's conveniently "forgotten" his statements about the problems of AGW made while employed as a biologist and hides them), so he's a lost cause.
Patrick? I dunno. It's not impossible that he won't listen.
But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for the moment.
Misled rather than malicious.
Jo Nova / Codling and Anthony Cox have an article at The Drum. It sounds like they've been paying a little too much attention to Tim Curtin.
> Jo Nova / Codling and Anthony Cox have an article at The Drum.
No science, all politics.
It's entitled "Warming to misanthropy", riffs off old favourite of the deniers Malthus, tars people who think population should be reduced because of the growing impact on the ecosystem as misanthropes, and:
> This message, that humanity is bad and destructive, is one that is increasingly informing AGW philosophy and promotion. The âevilâ has been extrapolated from the fossil fuels and CO2 to humanity itself.
And at its core has the thesis:
> But what appears to be really driving AGW is not concern for humanity but a hatred of humanity; misanthropy.
And predictably it ties in the 10:10 video, unskeptically asserting that "...it defines the problem and the solution".
Interestingly, zero comments so far. I wasn't inspired to bother either.
[Robert Murphy](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/open_thread_54.php#comment-2840…).
It seems that you did indeed miss something, as much as it pains me to disagree with you and to put the non-Greenpeace Moore in the spotlight... again. I couldn't believe it either, but after doing a bit of sniffing I regret to say that Sir Patrick is as fallible as are other previously-respected scientists such as David Bellamy.
In this case, [Moore even seals his proclamation of departure from science with his own signature](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/the_church_of_monckton.php#comm…).
Interesting article on [EU's carbon pricing](http://inside.org.au/europe-carbon-choice/)
>*Europe is debating whether or not the European Union should increase its 2020 emissions cuts to 30 per cent. A joint statement by the British, French and German environment ministers in favour of 30 per cent set off the debate; Denmark, Ireland and the European Unionâs climate commissioner have all now backed the call.*
The recession has caused a glut in carbon permits that threatens the ETS.
Also note that 15 Euro's/tonne C is not enought to drive massive radical infrastructure in their climate.
(Might be a different case in regions like Australia with masses of solar insolation and land.)
"There's no such thing as bad publicity" as the old saw goes. Particularly if your name is Ken Cuccinelli.
Wild. What's the betting The Oz features this heavily?
This is too funny.
>'However, if further studies find the same pattern over a longer period of time, this could suggest that we may have overestimated the sun's role in warming the planet, rather than underestimating it.'
Despite the ridiculous headline, a surprisingly good article from a newspaper not normally friendly to science.
Fixed.
I'll repost my own post from CP:
The press is starting to wake up: Here is a powerful article published in Germanyâs biggest news magazine DER SPIEGEL. It highlights the denier propaganda machine as perfected by Singer, the Marshall Intitute et al.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/35s989j
What is remarkable about it is the fact that not long ago, the magazine published a series of credulous articles concerning the e-mail hack, the IPCC and itâs chairman and so on. One particular nauseuous piece featured Lomborg and Pielke Jr. prominently as honest brokers, without question.
@John
For giggles you could look at the coverage in The Express:
[SOLAR PROBE WARMS HOPES OF CLIMATE CHANGE SCEPTICS](http://dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/203989/Solar-probe-warms-hopes-of-…)
In the 'sceptic' corner we have Monckton, Godfrey Bloom MEP, and Chartered Accountant Andrew Monckton. In the other corner (with shorter quotes and relegated down the article) we have Professor Joanna Haigh of Imperial and Professor John Shepherd of Univ of Southampton.
Monckton's tuppence worth:
An interesting article appeared in The Hill:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-a-environment/122627-runn…
Even more interesting are the wingnut comments.
Wow@52 - You say: "Problem is that SLR is worse than modeled."
Which indeed was the point I was trying to make. I have big faith in the results of Vermeer & Rahmstorf (2009), but the models are not in agreement yet (well, as far as I know - correct me if I'm wrong).
What are the errors (if any) in the models here? Is it that deep water heat uptake is calculatet wrong in the models? I'm trying to ask questions here - not to make a point.
(pls don't assume everyone has english as their native language - I don't, and if I don't express my self clear I appologise)
The controversy over âSatellitegateâ hots up as NOAA faces a court appearance for refusing to release evidence that would show whether one or more US satellites exaggerated global warming temperatures.
The story broke after an anonymous member of the public contacted a skeptic blog when he stumbled across thousands of alarming readings on a government website. The website showed thousands of surface temperatures of over 400 degrees fahrenheit. Dubbed Satellitegate the shocking revelations proved that all such bogus data had been fed automatically into data banks that the US Government then sold all over the world.
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/wfr
and..............
In the climate controversy dubbed Kiwigate New Zealand skeptics inflict shock courtroom defeat on climatologists implicated in temperature data fra*d.
New Zealandâs government via its National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has announced it has nothing to do with the countryâs âofficialâ climate record in what commentators are calling a capitulation from the tainted climate reconstruction
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/wfs
Too funny. If you look at [NIWA's defence](http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/statement_of_defence.pdf), they say that that there is nothing wrong with NZTR and anyway it's not a 'public record' for the purposes of the Public Service Act because it collected for research purposes. To describe this a "shock courtroom defeat" is beyond delusional.
> What are the errors (if any) in the models here?
Uh, the IPCC and the models have already said. And I said it too:
> They aren't in great agreement with measurements, but this is because surface ice runoff is left out of the models because the mechanism of loss is highly uncertain
But what IS certain is that the ice loss isn't less than zero.
> Is it that deep water heat uptake is calculatet wrong in the models?
If it is, what effect does it have?
If there's more to draw down, we have longer before we get 100% of the warming the models currently ascribe.
If there's less to draw down, we have less time before we get 100% of the warming the models currently ascribe.
Neither case has an effect on what the equilibrium state change is, just the timing, because the deep water isn't a source or (permanent) sink of energy. It all (well 99.99...%) comes from the Sun. And the ocean doesn't change that.
Greenhouse gasses do, because they stop non-solar radiation and don't stop solar radiation.
So, really, where's the beef?
The source for that NIWA shock defeat story was John O'Sullivan, a conspiracy bozo of gargantuan proportions who is infamous for picking up news releases he doesn't understand, imagining whatever he does, then 'exposing' it.
I think his last one was when the data sensors on NOAA 17 went u/s meaning of course that all surface and satellite data was suspect and the Earth had no trustworthy temperature record. Little did he realise or bother to check that NOAA 18 & 19 were working perfectly (their status can even be checked online).
Still, his chief purpose is to give floons like Montford et al some unconfirmed crumbs of phoney scepticism to distribute to the flock, as faithfully picked up and regurgitated here by Sunsplat the Gullible.
> The source for that NIWA shock defeat story was John O'Sullivan, a conspiracy bozo of gargantuan proportions who is infamous for picking up news releases he doesn't understand, imagining whatever he does, then 'exposing' it.
I missed the first part of the sentence...and thought you were talking about sunspot.
Obviously the John above isn't the REAL John around here.
Moved from Wegman thread...
[Katharine](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/wegman_scandal_gmu_investigate…):
>I don't know how much an engineering department really fosters the scientific method and a scientific way of thinking as much as a science department does.
When I said capable of understanding enough, I didn't mean enough to carry out new research in climate science. I meant enough to be able to understand information on the subject presented by experts for the benefit of non experts. It's only when they choose to listen only to disinformers that they have a problem.
>Capable, probably, but that doesn't mean they have left their ideologies behind
No, and the point is that it's the ideology that's the real problem, not engineering. It's a similar situation with Geology -- those denialists who have it try to use it for an appeal to authority. I think that tends to make it look like there's more of a connection than there really is.
As an EE myself, it's amazing to me that so many engineers of all stripes define themselves into the denial camp. I suspect that it's largely an issue of ideology - many, many engineers are libertarian types who resist the top-down, government-driven changes that are likely to be required in order to slow the rate of climate disruption and adapt to what cannot stopped.
I know from my education that a lot of the mathematics I learned in order to do my job on a day-to-day basis is the exact same math used by climate scientists. I don't personally know how many engineering disciplines learn feedback theory or state machines, but both are a major part of most undergraduate EE curricula and apply to climate science too. And I can throw probability theory as it relates to extracting signal from noise into the mix too. However, while statistics and probability are related disciplines, they are NOT the same, a fact that I continue to struggle with as I attempt to apply self-taught statistics to my climate journalism.
I discovered a long time ago that the math is all the same - it's opening your mind enough to learn that the math is the same that's the hardest part
I know it is hard work, but take a trip over to The Australian, it looks like their War on Science has started again. Coincidence that the denilaist rants have started with the first meeting of the "climate change committee"?
@ post hoc
Not so much hard work as knowingly wading into a toxic swamp. Take respirator and rubber gloves people...
Brain Angliss (#75)
Engineers must be truthful to the observed data; otherwise, people die. When engineers look at the climate data, the following is what they see (it has nothing to do their ideology):
Here is the observed global mean temperature trend for 90-years from 1910 to 2000:
http://bit.ly/bylFMq
1) Global warming rate of 0.15 deg C per decade from 1910 to 1940, which gives a global warming of 0.45 deg C during the previous 30-years warming phase.
2) Global warming rate of 0.16 deg C per decade from 1970 to 2000, which gives a global warming of 0.48 deg C during the recent 30-years warming phase.
3) Slight global cooling from 1940 to 1970.
As a result, the effect of 60 years of human emission of CO2 between the two warming phases on the global warming rate is nil.
Also, the effect of 30 years of human emission of CO2 during the global cooling phase from 1940 to 1970 is obviously nil.
The data above describes the global mean temperature trend for 90 years until year 2000. What is the global mean temperature trend since 2000?
4) Since year 2000, the global mean temperature anomaly trend is nearly flat at 0.4 deg C as shown in the following plot:
http://bit.ly/aDni90
In conclusion, man-made global warming is not supported by the observed data.
According to the data, what an engineer sees is that the effect of human emission of CO2 on global mean temperature is NIL.
THE OBSERVED TEMPERATURE DATA DOES NOT SUPPORT MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING.
Here is the observed global mean temperature trend for 90-years from 1910 to 2000:
http://bit.ly/bylFMq
1) Global warming rate of 0.15 deg C per decade from 1910 to 1940, which gives a global warming of 0.45 deg C during the previous 30-years warming phase.
2) Global warming rate of 0.16 deg C per decade from 1970 to 2000, which gives a global warming of 0.48 deg C during the recent 30-years warming phase.
3) Slight global cooling from 1940 to 1970.
As a result, the effect of 60 years of human emission of CO2 between the two warming phases on the global warming rate is nil.
Also, the effect of 30 years of human emission of CO2 during the global cooling phase from 1940 to 2000 is obviously nil.
The data above describes the global mean temperature trend for 90 years until year 2000. What is the global mean temperature trend since 2000?
4) Since year 2000, the global mean temperature anomaly trend is nearly flat at 0.4 deg C as shown in the following plot:
http://bit.ly/aDni90
In conclusion, man-made global warming is not supported by the observed data.
According to the data, according to the apolitical science, the effect of human emission of CO2 on global mean temperature is NIL.
WTF?
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/10/13/douchiest-rock-band.html
> A band called The Imperial Stars, who describe themselves as a "hard core hip hop band from Orange County," stopped a truck in the middle of the 101 freeway, jumped out, plugged in their instruments, and performed their latest single, "Traffic Jam 101." I'll withhold opinion on their music, but being stuck in traffic behind some publicity-hungry band from OC sure sucks.
Jeff Harvey,
If I could, what's your opinion on this web page [MICROBIAL TALK IN THE ENVIRONMENT](http://www.envismadrasuniv.org/nl20007articles%20talk.html) ?
Haven't read the thread, so forgive me if this has been brought up, but here's some dodgy statistics from the US government and the Associated Press:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iH7djl-Zmj3BM020o2PaN…
The Us government has released a new figure for deaths due to the Iraq war:
The article compares this number with other data from:
* the Iraqi Human Rights Ministry
* charts previously released by the Defense Department
* Iraq Body Count
* The AP's own count
The biggest of these numbers doesn't go much above 100,000. The problem with this is that the AP didn't mention the Lancet studies or the poll by OBR, all of which point to far more deaths in Iraq due to the war than the AP's article would have it. Instead of leaving people thinking that perhaps over a million died, people will think that "only" 80,000 or thereabouts did.
Tom Fuller provides some insight in the basis of his "luke warmer" status, but strangely despite his strong opinions on AGW, he [refuses to calculate](http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/10/13/when-politicians-check-out/co…) the temperature rise for a BAU scenario.
He accepts a sensitity of about 2 degC but appears unwilling to consider that BAU might continue throught he century.
I'm yet to learn why BAU is unbelivable from Fuller.
In case anyone is interested in a financial analyst's take on climate change, this might be an interesting webinar:
["Investing Risks, Climate Change, and Carbon Reporting" presented by Dr. Raj Aggarwal, CFA](https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/851213152)
It's scheduled for Oct. 20. You'll need to register in advance.
Phil Clarke, in the hope that you read this, go over to the Guardian and see a "Citizen Auditor" shrug off the mistakes you found in their little endeavour. One to bear in mind, and quite a revealing response to my mind.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/8002968
Glenn Beck [promotes the Cornwall Alliance's latest DVD](http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/15/glennbeck-oil-evangelicals/) on his show.
A bit more on [News Corp's donations promoting the Republicans in the US](http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_10/026157.php). Apparently Rupert didn't seem worried that some shareholders didn't find it appropriate.
Back from the dead and just as eager for brains, Jennifer Marohasy is appearing on ABC's Q&A show tonight (Monday 18 October). She's already drumming up dorothy dixer questions on her bog and complaining about being called a "climate skeptic". Let's [get some harder questions in](http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/) for Miss Sokwatic Iwony.
Here's the questions I have posted for Sokwates:
To Dr Marohasy: While you were hired by the IPA to comment on climate change, you turned your blog into a soapbox for Velikovskyans, "electric universe" cultists, deniers of the conservation of energy, and claims that HIV did not cause AIDS and oil was not a fossil fuel. To save face, you eventually claimed that all your posts were ironic. Why should we give any further credence to your views on this topic?
Dr Marohasy, you are a qualified population biologist. Do you deny that scientific studies have shown that the majority of animal and plant species are already changing their breeding and migration patterns in response to climate change, and that between 18 and 35% of species are predicted to be driven to extinction by 2050 as a result of global warming?
Dr Marohasy, you have repeatedly claimed in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary that there is no water crisis in the Murray Darling Basin. Short of the entire region becoming an extension of the Sahara desert, what event or evidence would cause you to change your views?
The "Iron Sun" theory is in play in comments over at Climate Etc.
I wonder how long it will be before the likes of Graeme Bird decide to make it one of their regaulr haunts?
Graham Bird is in a way a manifestation of a Godwin-like principle. If a Birdesque nutter sets up camp in a blog and is not explicitly disavowed by the owner, one can be quite confident that the capacity of the blog to reflect reason is severely compromised.
Neil Craig is also a shining example of this damnation-by-association.
> If a Birdesque nutter sets up camp in a blog and is not explicitly disavowed by the owner, one can be quite confident that the capacity of the blog to reflect reason is severely compromised.
In my book it doesn't have to be as bad as Bird to demonstrate significant issues with reflecting reason - and Climate Etc. seemed to flirt with at least that level of concern from the first couple of posts.
I'm moving my diagram of climate inactivist think-tanks to FortuneCity:
http://inactivism.fortunecity.com/think-tanks/
There is an interesting and rather good [editorial in Nature](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7318/full/467883a.html) that takes the BBC to task for it's coverage of climate science:
Funnily enough, in the comments there is an "it's a conspiracy" claim from Bishop Hill/Andrew Montford who was one of the non-experts that the BBC Newsnight recently relied on in its coverage of the Pakistan floods.
Q: What does a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy look like?
A: Look no further:
> While the Koch brothers -- each worth over $21.5 billion -- have certainly underwritten much of the right, their hidden coordination with other big business money has gone largely unnoticed. ThinkProgress has obtained a memo outlining the details of the last Koch gathering held in June of this year. The memo, along with an attendee list of about 210 people, shows the titans of industry -- from health insurance companies, oil executives, Wall Street investors, and real estate tycoons -- working together with conservative journalists and Republican operatives to plan the 2010 election, as well as ongoing conservative efforts through 2012.
Just saw this posting on [Desmog]
(http://www.desmogblog.com/debate-science-issues-other-side-doesnt-get-v…):
> chris.hostuart
> Amusing, but I cannot take Maher seriously until he applies this same point to the vaccination issue. He's just not consistent in approach.
Funny, but I still don't get how people can see some statement as wrong just because they don't apply it elsewhere.
Yes, it is hypocritical. And I guess that could make you dislike Bill and count his expertise for little.
But it doesn't make him wrong here. It just means he could apply it to himself.
The Guardian is [reporting](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/oct/25/climate-fools-da…) on a gathering of climate cranks in London tomorrow:
You really couldn't make this up:
>US publisher, Stairway Press [which sells Andrew Montford's Hockey Stick Illusion in the US], have chosen the Climate Fools Day gathering in Westminster to make the inaugural presentation of the "Ernst-Georg Beck Award for Scientific Integrity and Competence" (BASIC). Piers Corbyn gets the US$10,000 award for "his untiring efforts both as a climate skeptic and for his outstanding success in long-range weather forecasting".
@Dave R
I was just reading that. What a bunch of misfits and what an utter hoot. The [Ernst-Georg Beck](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/10/more_nonsense_about_co2.php) award has got to be a joke, surely?
Does anyone know, is Piers Corbyn still a Marxist and a campaigner for squatters rights? Just curious.
@Dave R
How lovely - a climate conference without a single climate scientist amongst them.
I expect they'll be swapping conspiracy theories all day - some might even be climate related.
Do these people have any idea how ridiculous ... no, I suppose not.
OK, the latest effort at Climate Etc takes it to the level of farce.
Judith now assumes the role of martyr.
Anyone thinking about [taking a bet on the Arctic sea ice](http://i51.tinypic.com/28utcer.jpg)?
More to the point, anyone game to predict what another breaking of the sea ice record would mean to the Denialati?
It means there's another recovery next year...
But it's fun watching the shenanigans on the Intrade betting on the Arctic.
< Friday night rant >
OK, this is completely left-of-field compared to the general focus of Deltoid, but bear with me.
There's been a lot said about how the tobacco lobby tried in the past to obfuscate the state of general public knowledge and understanding of the risks of smoking. Vested interests convinced many smokers and regulators that there was doubt about the science that indicated a link between tobacco and cancer, and hence that there was not a firm basis for giving up the habit or for controlling it. As a consequence many people chose to believe that they didn't need to kick the habit, either because they thought that there was no danger, or - through the miracle of perceived personal invulnerability - that they as individuals would avoid being affected.
Many years were spent by many health professionals trying to counter this wrong notion, and even today there exists a sizable proportion of people who are willing to put off facing the bottom line in the matter. [This ad](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWtgZE4h-Io) however is the best effort that I have seen to put a perspective on the subject that might actually cause people to think beyond their immediate habitual inclinations...
Many Australians and some USAdians will have seen it, but there may be readers of Deltoid who have not. If it leads to one further person rethinking their tobacco habit for the link having been posted here I'd be pleased, but in fact my rhetorical question is...
...why is it that humans do not have a similar concern for the well-being of their decendants in the context of global warming, simply because the threat happens to be not as rapidly-acting or as directly targeting as is tobacco, even when the ultimate result will be inestimably more grim?
Are we that welded to the status quo if it means that we remain wallowing in milk and honey, that we can't be buggered thinking about the well-being of the cows and the bees that are keeping us thus, or about future generations who might not even have the opportunity to experience the metaphorical produce of these similarly-metaphorical bovine and apine benefactors?
< /Friday night rant >
In a truly startling moment, The Weekend Australian today reports on climate change and - well, doesn't fling poop at the fan. They've got the red book that the Department of Climate Change prepared for the government post-election and have just - reported what it said. Including the fact that it's freaking scary and economically reckless to keep going the way we are and that all indicators are that we're heading for worst case projections. It also says that all natural causes have been investigated for warming and dismissed and that scientist who say AGW is not happening are not persuasive.
Not only DOESN'T The Australian then go on to get Bob Carter or Ian Plimer to pooh-pooh the red book, it makes no editorial comment within the article AND Stephen Lunn writes a short piece talking about how Australia may regret the 1997 Kyoto concessions considering how poor the prognosis for Australia is. It doesn't even paint the DCC as full of pinko commie ecomentalists.
I am experiencing severe cognitive dissonance at this point.
I'm trying to work out what their nefarious motives are and coming to the weird conclusion that - maybe they don't have them. If anyone can work out what these very strange and almost unique stories are doing in The Australian, please let me know.
I need a cup of tea and a good lie down.
Yep, agree entirely AmandaS ... today's Australian was like dropping into some sort of alternate universe.
Quick question for the Internets:
Has anyone come across a graph that looks like this thumbnail?
(Explanation here.)
Re. 104: Frank, that graph has identical features as Phil Jones' Figure 2.21 from TAR, but with two added plots.
First graphic: http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/11/mcintyre-provides-fodder-for-skeptics/
While I was looking, though, I came across this: R-Bloggers - Global Temperature Proxy Reconstructions ~ now with CO2 forcing
August 26, 2010 By apeescape
http://www.r-bloggers.com/global-temperature-proxy-reconstructions-now-…
Anyone seen that before?
Tom Fuller update:
He continues his descent into madness at mt's by giving the following pathetic comment:
You're (Tobis) a bad guy. That's the politest way of expressing it.
As for why, ready your own fucking post.
I wonder how much lower can he go?
J Bowers:
Thanks! Right now it seems that the figure is most similar to that in Briffa et al. (2001), but there are still some differences (perhaps Osborn tweaked it a bit for the purposes of the presentation).
Just read one Outraged Of Kingston comment on the Guardian website:
> I have looked into it, way more than I should. Look at what's going on in this article. The Global Warming Alarmists have started making indoctrination tools for children.
> They pay for bed-time-nightmares to scare the children.
But, funnily enough, these same people have NO PROBLEM in indoctrination of children by religions nor about the scare stories of Hell.
OK, so [I'm just baiting her now](http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/24/overconfidence-in-ipccs-detection-and…), but gosh I'd like to hear her answer...
Heh.
Curry's [sidestepping yet again](http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/24/overconfidence-in-ipccs-detection-and…).
She's definitely no Tamino.
Judith Curry has decided to go all the way with the conspiracy angle- it's all IPCC corruption, scientists chasing funding money and persona ambition.....besides Judith the Pure of course.
Hilarious reading if you can stomach that kind of thing.
Michael, it was...erm...."interesting" reading. I really don't know what her intentions are, but essentially tarnishing all of the IPCC authors AND claim she wants to restore credibility of climate science is, well, contradictory.
The comment section is even worse. I thought WUWT was bad, but it seems Climate, Etc attracts the more 'intelligent' crackpots...