Comments on the Hockey Stick is Broken article have really overrun, so they are now closed. I have not had the time to pipe in as much as I would have liked.
I have however seen the requests for an open thread for various digressions, such as Skip's interest in analyzing social science aspects of the climate debates, so here it is....
Given the recent outbreak of Yamalitis, it is probably a good time, too.
- Log in to post comments
Moving the narrative discussion over, and responding to this comment from Snowman:
Hi Eric. Let me suggest a reason for a preference for AGW activism among people who are disposed to save the world. The other issues you raise - the rain forest, endangered species and the like - are doubtless important; but none has quite the end-of-time, apocalyptic, rapturous, Hollywood-disaster-movie appeal.
These other matters simply do not provide the same frisson, the same tingle of anticipation, that arises from the contemplation of armageddon. That is what is unique about the AGW scenario. It is a perfect storm in which guilt over western materialism and a slightly hippyish mother earthism combine with - dare I mention it? - a dash of political correctness to bring about this thrilling doomsday cult.
Here in the UK it is instructive to contemplate the people who are most prominent in the AGW ranks. By and large - not exclusively, but mainly - they are those who until recently poured their energies into socio-political activism, generally viewing the world from a leftish perpective. But the collapse of socialism and the triumph of capitalism - recent market turmoil notwithstanding - left them bereft of a cause. Then, like manna from heaven, along came AGW.
That, at any rate, is how it seems to me Eric. Perhaps you see things differently, and I will be interested in reading your further thought.
Just some initial reactions to this:
1. I don't know what it's like for a liberal British activists, but certainly American liberal activists have lots to keep them busy without AGW. The potential political payoffs for, say, healthcare reform, are much bigger, but granted the Australian and British left took care of that decades ago and might be bored. At the same time, AGW is just as widely accepted to be real in the developing world nations, in nations with very different politics than developed western nations.
2. I do not deny the existence of a type of person who finds activism appealing and finds their identity in their causes. We all know plenty. But this seems to me to be a small part of the population, and isn't really any more typical of scientists than of the general population in my experience. Scientists, at least in my experience, are often rather introverted people who find publishing and presenting their work the least fun parts of their jobs. Not all of them, but most of them. I don't buy this narrative for them. I also don't buy it for the lay public, and I don't buy it for political officeholders, who tend to be very cautious and focused on the next election, at least here in the U.S.
3. So, who, exactly, would you expect to be out in front of this issue? It's the nature of this sort of issue that it attracts this sort of advocate.
Gotta run, I'll be back with my narrative around deniers on another day...
The whole debate over tree rings is a little confusing; there's just a lot of math to slog through. I've written up a layman's account of the controversy to explain the narrative logically and provide some key takeaways.
http://akwag.blogspot.com/2009/10/lesson-in-denial-rick-cantor-videos.h…
What I think is most disturbing about the whole thing is how McIntyre has not actually said anything of substance - he has not offered evidence that proves the Yamal tree rings wrong - and yet none of that matters to deniers. McIntyre's use of leading, rhetorical questions simply creates the illusion of doubt without ever engaging the arguments.
Snowman's comment is ridiculous dogmatic tosh.
From where I am sitting, research into the many areas which combine to give us our understanding of AGW is being done by a raft of scientists in a great range of research organisations.
Most capitalist enterprises' leaders in Australia got where they are because they are smart - they certainly aren't braindead enough to swallow the Exxon-funded disinformation gibberish.
As for the lefties - they are all too busy agitating to protect criminals and illegal immigrants from the law to contribute much to the AGW debate - they are mostly non-science graduates anyway, so they concentrate on social causes, not scientific reality. Even Bob Brown, after years of advocating solid sense on oil-proofing and greening our economy has allowed himself to be hijacked by silly fringe-dweller issues like homosexual marriage.
Nope. AGW is not a flag flown by lefties - it is flown by the scientists in this country.
Hello Vince. I see you are not overly impressed by my comments. Perhaps I did not make it sufficiently clear that I was speaking of individuals who are leading members of the AGW battalions, not the rank and file. Most people, after all, simply repeat what they read in the newspapers which, in most countries, overwhelmingly toe the AGW line.
There is a reason for this, and it has little to do with the robustness or otherwise of the scientific arguments. It is that journalists who decide to make a career as environmental correspondents are predisposed to accept the AGW argument. How could it be otherwise? It would be as if football correspondents decided that, when all is said and done, the game was a waste of time; or like business writers claiming we would be better off if we closed down the stock exchange.
What I am getting at, Vince, is that Climate Change increasingly has little to do with science. It is a social/political phenomenon, and a person's attitude towards it ultimately depends upon his or her views on politics and society generally.
PS: Thanks to Coby for opening this thread. I am sure it is a topic that interests many of us.
Snow:
Am I allowed to infer from your statements what *your* narrative is? It does seem telling.
Also, as nice as I tried to be about it in the now defunct "hockey stick" thread, you might want to chill on making sweeping generalizations about how "unscientific" the AGW hypothesis is. We've seen first hand how you can look at graph data and be utterly wrong--however sincerely--in understanding the relationship between short and long term trends. That in itself is an illustration of the role of narratives in conditioning what we see and miss.
Skip
Hello again Skip. I don't recall using the word 'unscientific', but if I did I withdraw it. I am perfectly happy to agree that the AGW case is heavy with science, indeed groaning with it.
But that doesn't make it right. After all, science is about truth, not consensus. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that climate-alarmist scientists (although I don't doubt the integrity of most) are immune from cognitive bias - from the herd instinct, in other words. One of the more interesting recent studies of this subject (cognitive bias, that is, not AGW) argues that when any group of individuals who broadly share a point of view gather together - either literally or as a virtual group such as the climate community - they push each other into ever more extreme and untenable positions. This appears to be true of any group, incidentally, whether it is scientists or sports fans.
But you asked about my 'narrative'. I am not entirely sure what you had in mind. Did you mean have I some sort of agenda, some dark purpose in expressing these views?
Well, at least Snowman practices his belief that some people substitute ideology for science when trying to understand the natural world. He demonstrates this daily.
Unfortunately, his projecting this onto people who have different political beliefs from him is unwarranted, and suggesting that climate science, by-and-large, is driven by leftwing ideology is defamatory.
No dhogaza, that isn't what I said - or at any rate it certainly isn't what I meant. My apologies if I was insufficiently clear.
I believe that many leading AGW activists are, consciously or unconsciously, motivated by ideology, or - if that is too specific a term - then at least by a certain way of looking at the world.
Scientists, I believe, have different motivations such as peer pressure and a wish to earn the goodwill of their colleagues. This is a perfectly normal, human response: but it doesn't necessarily lead to rigorous and dispassionate science.
Snowman said:
You are slandering every scientist who has dedicated their lives to finding knowledge which betters our understanding of the world and have made many advances in technology, medicine, environmental science and many other areas of direct benefit to mankind.
Since this is a site dedicated to science I think you owe an apology to all the scientists who you have smeared and visit this site.
You obviously know nothing about science or scientists. You contribute nothing but arrogant insults and slander.
You are just a piece of rotted pond-scum who gets a kick out of being an arrogant troll and behaving like an immature child.
rotted pond scum?
Oh, Jesus . . . here we go again . . .
No. I think its more like guys like Snow don't have "dark agendas" (to answer your query, Snowman) and a desire to "slander" scientists.
I think guys like Craker and Snowman *see the world a particular way*, and this perspective influences which side of this debate they find most compelling.
I *think* I have a grip on what this perspective is, and I don't think its a straw man. I *do* think that part of this denier narrative is a very tortured understanding of where *AGW believers* are coming from--in other words, the "narrative about the narrative".
If anyone is interested I can elaborate. I can just as easily shut up whenever.
Skip
"You are slandering every scientist who has dedicated their lives to finding knowledge which betters our understanding of the world and have made many advances in technology, medicine, environmental science and many other areas of direct benefit to mankind."
I disagree. Snowman is right. Clearly, science is about money and fame. When I was an undergrad, most of the research scientists drove Bentleys and Aston Martins around campus, dressed in designer lab coats, flaunting their gold-plated microscopes and diamond-encrusted mass spectrometers to all the humble investment banking hopefuls. If scientists were really interested in Truth instead of money/power, they would have become oil executives.
Plus, the best way to get famous in science is to say the same thing everyone else is saying.
Hi Ian. Good to hear from you again. Rotted pond scum, eh? I like that. It has a certain ring to it. May I use it? (Duly credited, of course.)
Oh, and WAG, a nice line in irony, there. But I said nothing about money and power. I am not sure what opinions of mine you are meant to be sending up.
And Skip, please do elaborate. I wouldn't necessarily say this about all the contributors here, but I am genuinely interested in what you have to say.
Hmm. IT seems that the discussion about a narrative is circling same old same old.
On the issue of AGW, the problem for those who don't wish to accept it is that they lack an alternative. What science has given us is data, in particular about the atmospheric changes and temperature record. What economists have given us is the calculations and date that explains where all the extra CO2 has come from- burning in the industrial age.
No other theory has been presented which accounts for the observations of either field anywhere nearly as well as AGW, which is why scientists are now busy working out other climate related questions. If ever there was an opportunity for fame, and attendant wealth, it is to be the person that proves all the rest of science wrong. And thousands have tried and failed.
So before we let a statement like Snowman's about AGW not being true, he really has to bring an alternative theory that can be tested peer reviewed and accurately predicts both medium and long term climate behaviors. Dismising AGW requires filling the gap.
As to the social dynamics, people have been predicting end times since the beginning. That those who like to have the end be near would embrace an issue that many advocates have tried to use fear to advance seems like application of the law of attraction- not a refutation of the facts of science.
Giving this thread more attention without demanding Snowman state an alternative to AGW or stating a thesis about the social dynamics just lets it wander around like water on a level table.
But surely, Patrick, the alternative has been proposed innumerable times: it is that AGW is a solution in search of a problem.
Those who are unconvinced by the AGW case see nothing in the 20th century pattern that requires a remarkable explanation. They argue that throughout history temperatures have risen and fallen. What we are seeing is simply business as usual.
Snowman's alternative is stated in his handle, i.e. that the world is cooiing, not warming.
AGW is a scientific theory based on a multitude of observed facts, much like the theory of gravity or theory of evolution.
It is neither a solution nor a problem, in and of itself.
Yes, we all know they deny well-established science, that's why they're called "denialists".
Sheesh, talk about stating the obvious.
Which 'theory of gravity' would that be, dhogaza? Would it be the classical Newtonian interpretation? Or perhaps you are thinking of Einstein's general theory of relativity, in which gravity arises from the geometry of space? Or maybe you had in mind a quantum treatment and the exchange of virtual particles?
And as for the theory of evolution, that would be the tradition Darwinian explanation, would it? Or maybe you were thinking of some of the exciting new ideas such as epigenetics (literally, outside the genes) or trans-species gene splicing through the action of viruses?
Science, like life, dhogaza, is seldom straightforward.
"Those who are unconvinced by the AGW case see nothing in the 20th century pattern that requires a remarkable explanation. They argue that throughout history temperatures have risen and fallen. What we are seeing is simply business as usual."
No one disagrees that climate has changed in the past. But those past climate changes were caused by SOMETHING (changes in the tilt of the earth's axis, solar irradiance, CO2, volcanism, etc.). None of those forcings are changing today except CO2. The rise in temperatures thus HAS to be due to CO2. I challenge anyone to show me a forcing that has increased steadily over the last 40 years in line with temperatures, and I may buy that CO2 is not causing warming. No one in the history of the world has ever answered this argument. Snowman, be the first.
Also, I think the fact that Snowman continues to post here, and seems to get a kick out of being called "Rotted pond scum," just proves that humans aren't all motivated by "peer pressure and a wish to earn the goodwill of their colleagues." Many of us get a kick out of being contrarian for its own sake. Humans do have a need to be accepted by the group, but we also have a need to see ourselves as having a unique identity.
Applying the social theory of conformity to scientific practice is especially ludicrous, since no matter how you look at it, the incentives punish conformity. If you care about acceptance by your peers, the best way to make your name in the community is to make a new discovery. Confirming what others have said about AGW does not win any accolades, since it's not new. Alternatively, if you care about money and fame, you can't stand out or win book deals saying the same thing as everyone else. In free markets, profits only exist for niche players; following the crowd leads to competition and drives down profits.
Not sure why I even bother.
Snowman, that's not exactly an alternative explanation. We know the climate has shifted from ice ages to interglacial periods, but we've pretty much worked out why. We have a pretty good idea of what the natural factors over the last few centuries have been -- changes in solar activity, volcanic activity, and ocean circulation being the prime suspects. But there isn't anything that could affect the climate that we would not be far better prepared to measure now than we can determine from proxies for 1300. To not even suggest any natural process but simply say that climates change is to chalk it up to "I don't know."
This gets to the heart of why I have trouble taking denial scientists seriously. Science has not been advanced by people who insist that the scientists have it all wrong and that instead we should believe ... that we don't know anything. One side is working to improve our understanding of the climate, and one side considers that a distraction from the real purpose, which is to say, do we really understand anything about this subject? When you strip the denial side down to the handful that have anything beyond doubt to offer, you get a couple of often mutually inconsistent hypotheses and very little effort at going beyond the hypothesis generation stage of the scientific method. Test your ideas. Quantify their effects. Flesh out a theory that can actually be used to make predictions about the past and about the future under given scenarios. Show that the climate record fits as well with your theory, then tell me what another century of CO2 emissions will do to the climate, and I'll consider it a possibility. Now that would be a lot to ask of any of the commenters here, but I expect no less of the Roy Spencers (to pick on no one in particular) of the world.
I said I'd lay out my narratives for how the other side thinks, so here goes. I mostly put deniers into one of the following buckets:
1. Bought and paid for. I think many people greatly overestimate the size of this group, but it does exist, and probably serves as the origin of a significant fraction of the disinformation out there.
2. Economic libertarians. So you believe government regulation pretty much always does more harm than good, taxes are way too high and are not a tool for encouraging or discouraging behaviors of any sort, and international frameworks are bound to fail and will simply serve as a way for poor countries to try to take from rich ones. Not entirely unreasonable as general rules, but what to do when confronted with a problem like global warming? Well, some can be flexible and decide to go against their principles on a case by case basis, but setting aside your ideology can be quite difficult. The alternatives are to deny the problem exists or is serious enough to be worth solving, or come up with a solution that fits within this framework.
This leads to a question for those of you that fit this category -- what would you support doing about it if you were convinced it were real? Another related question would be what you think of those solutions that have been put in place for similar problems? I'm thinking of the Montreal Protocol (phase out of CFCs), in the U.S., the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act and cap-and-trade for acid-rain related emissions and whatever the equivalents in your respective countries are -- were they the right thing to do, is there something else that would have been better? (Note, I'm only interested in those cases where you accept that the underlying problem was real -- listing all the other problems you think weren't real would not be an interesting discussion.)
3. Contrarians. WAG mentioned it, and I certainly run into them a lot. Global warming presents for some a perceived opportunity to be right when everyone else was wrong, and it can be part of a narrative about one's self where it just proves you're smarter than all these mindless lemmings that just believe whatever the latest scare story going around is.
4. Identity. Global warming is the cause of Al Gore and dirty hippies. You're not a dirty hippie are you? In all seriousness, it is well known in psychology that people will decide what they believe based on who they want to be associated with and who they want to distance themselves from. Al Gore probably doesn't mean as much for those of you outside the U.S., but here everyone got to vote for or against the guy for president, and he's made this his cause, so pretty much any comment thread at any popular denial blog is going to have people who can't stop talking about him.
5. Fence sitters. Generally low information types who know they don't know much about it, but are under the impression that this is all pretty contentious in the scientific community or that very little has been worked out and it's pretty speculative.
Hey, Vince, thanks for sharing your views on the topic. I do think if more people who believe that Global Warming is real and that lefties are primarily interested in advancing the interests of criminals and illegal immigrants really spoke up more often and got more attention, there'd be fewer people in groups 2 and 4. Seriously.
Thanks for that Eric - a very lucid account of your case, if I may say so.
Broadly, I agree with your analysis, with perhaps a minor caveat that many individuals will straddle two or even three of your categories. While this may be a complicating factor, it is no more than that and is hardly a fatal objection.
Could I suggest, however, that your explanation inevitably invites its reciprocal: namely, that if deniers can be placed in certain groups ('buckets' to use your term) then so too can believers. I won't bother to list them but I am sure you know the sort of thing I have in mind.
However, while I grant you that people tend to fall into certain categories (on both sides), I do not believe in some sort of moral relativism here. In other words, I am most emphatically not saying that truth depends upon your point of view or that there is no such thing as objective reality.
I do believe that this is a right-or-wrong issue. However, if one thing is clear from the arguments in this forum, it is that no one is ever, under any circumstances, going to convince anyone else. There is only one thing that will show who is correct, and that is time.
Personally, I do not believe climate alarmism can survive another two years of global cooling. But we shall see.
This may (currently) seem a little off topic, but I'm pretty sure that it was in the original hockeystick discussion that Dhogza pilloried Snowman for his lack of statistical understanding, most specifically for Snowman's claim that two years of increase in the summer minimum arctic ice extent absolutely must mean that the average rate of ice loss/year is decreasing. I couldn't find a good page on this, so I (gasp) ran the numbers myself in Excel.
Technically, I'm using the September average numbers, not the absolute minimum, but there's not much difference, they're considered more meaningful, and I could *find* these.
YearExtent
19797.2
19807.85
19817.25
19827.45
19837.52
19847.17
19856.93
19867.54
19877.48
19887.49
19897.04
19906.24
19916.55
19927.55
19936.5
19947.18
19956.13
19967.88
19976.74
19986.56
19996.24
20006.32
20016.75
20025.96
20036.15
20046.05
20055.57
20065.92
20074.3
20084.68
20095.36
Ok, here's where it gets excellent, and proves Dhogza right.
Do a liner regression(*) from
1979 to 2006: Slope = -0.062/yr
1979 to 2007: Slope = -0.075/yr
1979 to 2008: Slope = -0.082/yr
1979 to 2009: Slope = -0.083/yr
(*) Linear regression does not mean "connect two dots". But in Excel you don't need to understand what "least mean squares fit" means - you can just use the SLOPE function.
Now it happens (and you can test this) that if you think 2010 will be greater again, then the slope really will start getting shallower. But don't count that chicken before it hatches. Significant future increases, pushing the overall slope below say 0.05 might mean the ice is less at risk, but ... I really don't expect such data.
So we should expect a continued average loss somewhere in the range found above. One interesting point is that that would imply that the "ice free arctic summer by 2030" prediction is a little early. Unless we see a significant increase in slope, we've got 50 years to go on that. Not that it isn't very serious now, what with ice-albedo feedback, polar amplification, and the possibility of methane release.
Snowman said:
How any times do you deniers have to be told that there is no "global cooling" at present? No wonder you are referred to as "deniers".
For your information here are the temperature anomalies for the past three decades:
1980's - 0.159K
1990's - 0.249K
2000's - 0.505K
(GISS temperature anomalies based on 1951-1980 base period)
How on earth any one who is not neuronally challenged sees that as "global cooling" beats me.
Just in case you don't understand numbers, that table shows warming over the past three decades.
Well, you've certainly been busy, GFW, and I am grateful for the effort you have put in.
You are quite right that good old dhogz pilloried me for this - mind you, he has pilloried me for so many things that that is hardly surprising - but what I said was that the figures didn't seem to support the idea that the rate of ice loss was accelerating. I don't want to split hairs, but this is not quite the same as the views that you have attributed to me.
But, as I say, I don't want to quibble. And, in any case, I readily concede that I am not a professional statistician. If you tell me that your figures and calculations support the notion that rate of loss (at least in this technical sense) is accelerating, then I am glad to take your word for it.
However, I note your comment that if 2010 is greater again, then the slope will start getting shallower. So, let's wait and see.
Actually, Eric L., you kind of stole my thunder with your archetypes. My experience suggests 2 and 4 are the biggies. Part of 4 I think, is narrative interpretations of what us warmists are about.
To wit: Snow, you use words like "cult" and so forth and this is a dead giveaway (as my narrative would have it, anyway) that you see your AGW resistance as beyond intellectual concerns and as an epoch struggle against a faceless menace using AGW as a pretext for things you probably politically hate, like government and taxes. It looks a lot like you're one of those deniers who sees himself as a climate Omega Man trying to keep earth from being overrun by us AGW zombies. Configured this way, scientists are just dupes for the plot at best, mendacious collaborators at worst, and their conclusions are easy to dismiss--that is, once your narrative has taken its hold on you.
My additional narrative for deniers (that probably attaches to types 2 and 4) is that deniers probably genuinely see responses to AGW (like reductions in carbon, etc.) as *threats*. And people don't like being threatened. Look at the big ass vehicles we drive in the states. We're a fat-ass, big car culture. I don't regard it as evil in itself, just ignorant. There's nothing inherently wrong with wanting things, and if you want a Hummer its probably very comforting to hear someone say AGW is bullshit and call it good.
The reason I trust my narrative about deniers is that it strikes me as realistic. It doesn't require a "dark motive", Snow, just human nature at its most basic. Its more fun to believe things that reinforce your world than challenge it. The reason I don't trust the denier narrative about AGW is that I am a humble social scientist myself, and I know how the process operates. I couldn't forge a conspiracy among myself and my seven colleagues, let alone my whole field, as must be the case for AGW to be wrong despite the current overwhelming consensus.
However, I note your comment that if 2010 is greater again, then the slope will start getting shallower. So, let's wait and see.--Snowman
Actually, I don't think it will unless you had a massive spike in the summer extent. This is kind of the whole point again, but I don't want to stomp on your head about this, Snow. In any event, its going to take a lot more cooling before you can say, "I am Legend."
skip
Skip, I don't want to start picking minor holes in your eminently sensible analysis, but I guess I should defend myself on one point: I don't for one second believe, and have never suggested, that there is any type of conspiracy, plot, cover up or anything of the sort going on in the scientific community. On the contrary, I unhesitatingly accept that most scientists who promote climate alarmism are entirely ethical. But that doesn't mean they are right.
I have posted about the phenomenon of cognitive bias and group-think a number of times, so I won't trespass upon the forum's patience by rehearsing the arguments again. All I will say is that it doesn't take a conspiracy, Skip. All it needs is a highly charged, emotional atmosphere. Scientists, who are just frail human beings like the rest of us, are caught up in it all.
However, I do believe that there has been an intense moral pressure placed upon scientists to conform. I also think - although admittedly this is no more than conjecture - that over the next 12 months many more will break ranks and start to express their doubts.
Snowman:
But the slope *is* increasing, Snowman. GFW understands and showed I'm right (thank you GFW).
Which of these alternate explanations makes classic Newtonian mechanics useless for, say, calculating artillery trajectory tables?
if you're suggesting that AGW will be "disproven" in the sense that Newton's theory of gravity has been disproven well, warming by 2100 might be 0.0000000001C less (or more!) than would be true if our understanding of climate were somehow "100% perfect" (which no one says is true).
No, the modern synthesis.
These are interesting ideas for generating the changes in organisms needed for selection to select against. They hardly overturn modern evolutionary thinking.
Again, if our understanding of climate science evolves to this extent changes to predictions of temperature rise a century from now will be measured in fractions of a degree.
Oddly, climate scientists themselves present a larger range of uncertainty ...
You mean that after 2010 beats the 2005 global temperature record more will be convinced it's cooling?
That makes a lot of sense.
Part 1
The problem with living on the other side of the planet is that I always seem to be playing catch up, and when there are a lot of posts I do tend to not read them all fully. However I must say I read every word of every post this time because every post was very good, well except for one anyway. This all goes to show that we can play nicely when we want to.
Thank you Eric for your post 19 summary, I would like to respond to your narratives and then present you with my own views and then maybe you can tell where I fit into your #19 post.
1, Agreed it is greatly overstated, however having said that the IPCC is 90% confident the AGW theory is correct or they are 10% confident they are wrong. So why do they not allocate 10% of their enormous budget to investigate the remaining 10%? There are many scientists that do not support the AGW theory operating on shoe string budgets researching other areas of the climate so it comes as no surprise that the evidence of AGW is overwhelming.
2, In defence of economic libertarians can you name one problem faced by any government that has been fixed without throwing a tax on it?
In regards to the Montreal protocol obviously it was a good thing to do, unfortunately they replaced CFCâs with HCFCâs which also deplete the ozone layer albeit at a lower rate. As they say the solution to one problem always creates another and a good example of that is in Queensland where they have cane beetle infestations so they introduced the cane toad from Brazil to eat the beetles. The cane toad due to its toxicity had no natural predators and is now found in all but the driest parts of the country and the cane beetle? Well its still there.
Other environmental disasters here include the introduction of camels, donkeys, wild pigs, water buffalo, foxes, cats, rabbits and European carp to name but a few. So please forgive me when I cringe at the thought of lacing the atmosphere with sulphur or crushed glass in an effort to combat computer modelled global warming.
3, Agreed, some people just like to say âI told you soâ and risk being woefully wrong just to get the opportunity.
4, You have just described charisma, every politician worth his salt needs it. Did Obama win based on his policies or his popularity? Leaders that donât have charisma are called dictators. You do not need to be correct for people to follow you, just popular (Charisma).
5, Fence sitters are also people that can be described as lazy, in other words they feel that no matter what they say or do the government (or whoever) will do what they want to do anyway.
I also feel you have left out a couple of personality traits, for example some people like the idea of Armageddon âthe end is nighâ and all that crap, many religious people believe in Armageddon/rapture and actively want and await impatiently for this to happen. Holdren is another classic example in the 1970âs he ran around telling everyone the ice age is coming and we are all going to freeze and now he is pissing in Obamaâs ear telling him the planet is going to melt. Hollywood is well aware of this which is why every couple of years they regurgitate the end of the world doomsday armageddon blockbuster.
Letâs not forget those that need to be told what to do and how to do it from authorative figures. These types of people rely on the government and or media to tell them, they are generally aligned to one particular party and view the others very poorly. So when their preferred party is in power they can do no wrong and will blindly follow them to the ends of the Earth. They tend to believe in the most implausible stories told to them by both government and media (also links back to your point 4). They have an annoying ability to regurgitate chapter and verse what they are told and dogmatically stick to it. If you tell them something that does not come from what they deem a reliable source (Gov. and mainstream media) they will not accept it no matter how true it is. I think they take comfort in this somehow.
Part 2
So here is my take on this whole thing, in short AGW is the greatest scam ever conceived.
It started innocently back in the late eighties just after the âice age is comingâ scare had died down, some scientists suddenly realised that the Earth was warming instead of cooling so the old CO2 theory which was first postulated over 100 years ago was brought back to life.
Now this type of talk is nothing new people like this have been around since the dawn of man, many harbingers of death have been prophesized over the years which not one has come true. So why is this time any different?
Itâs different because until now science was left to the scientists and politics was left to the politicians but that has all changed. The UN is a political body which gave birth to the IPCC which coupled with the fact that the IPCC does no scientific research itself but merely reviews studies means that the IPCC itself is a political body. Therefore the term âthe science of AGWâ is a misnomer and is in fact âthe politics of AGWâ. Now this did not just happen it was orchestrated and it is no coincidence that the man pushing the AGW wheelbarrow the most is the one best positioned to profit from the AGW political ramifications.
So the adoption of the AGW theory by the UN/IPCC coupled with the Nobel and academy awards gives the AGW theory much needed street cred if you like.
Now lets look at how different people react to this (slightly different slant on what you did Eric).
1, The masses, most people fall into the categories we have already mentioned, they accept the AGW theory on face value. Most people I know that âbelieveâ have no idea what the theory is, they have no idea what the ppm of CO2 was in 1750 (IPCC baseline year) they have no idea what the ppm is today, they have no idea that CO2 alone cannot produce the projected warming claimed by the IPCC in 2100. They have no idea about any aspect of the science, but they do know that the Arctic is melting and the sea levels are rising and there will be more droughts, less rain, more storms, less rain, more droughts, more storms etc and we need to save the planet.
2, Politicians, politicians in power could not care less about whether AGW is real or not. The problem with politicians is that they only see as far as the next election so if most of the people believe in AGW then it is better for them to agree with the people so they attempt to enact legislation to reduce CO2 levels, this along with the main stream media bagging the AGW drum simply reinforces the peoples belief that AGW is a dire threat and goes along way to getting the incumbents re elected.
Have you ever wondered why political parties in opposition do not accept the AGW myth (one liberal here in Aust. was heard to say AGW is a load of crap)? Why is it that in the USA and Australia the opposition has (so far) thwarted any attempt to enact crippling CO2 taxes? Why is it that a party in power unanimously accept the AGW theory but the opposition does not? I would have thought if the AGW theory was solid then all parties would agree but they donât why is that? After all we are saving the planet.
3, Big Business could not care less about the AGW theory, they are opportunists and they see an opportunity to make money and lots of it. Over the last few years CO2 trading has generated billions of dollars so one can imaging that figure going into the trillions in the very near future especially if Copenhagen talks are fruitful.
4, Which brings us back to the UN/IPCC, as governments around the world salivate at the prospect of winning multiple future elections (after all they did save the planet) they are falling over themselves to hand out billions of dollars in funding for research. Now at this point lets not get confused, this funding is not provided to prove the AGW theory, remember âthe science is settledâ. This funding goes to things like GW effects on coral reefs or GW effects on the polar bears and other such useless things.
So a vast majority of the funding goes toward reinforcing the effects of an already accepted theory, which is why we are constantly bombarded in the MSM about stories of how bad things ARE going to be which in turn reinforces on the masses that AGW is real and ever present. I wonder how much money is handed out per year for research into the possibility of something other than CO2 to be causing a warming by governments around the world.
The IPCC have the same mentality, most if not all of the studies they review for publication in the next report do not look at proving AGW as we are way beyond that, it is a given that AGW is real which is why the hockey stick and son of hockey stick was accepted for publication. The peer review process is indeed broken just like the hockey stick itself.
The whole thing is like a self fulfilling prophecy, but as Snowman has alluded to one by one self respecting scientists are turning away from the AGW theory and declaring themselves as sceptics. As the evidence continues to mount (or lack thereof) more and more scientists will follow until all that will remain will be the handful of original self appointed scientist that called themselves a consensus. By then I fear it will be too late as it is now a lot of cash has been invested in this and like all ponzi schemes there needs to be a payout.
So Eric/Skip where do I fit into your list of narratives
Cheers
Crakar
Thank you for that, Crakar. Over the past 24 hours I have felt that I have been fighting the forces of darkness single-handedly. Great to have you return to the fray.
I don't have a huge amount to add to your really excellent summary of the position, except this: if you had asked me five years ago how long the AGW theory would survive, I might have said a decade. If you had asked me two years ago, I might have answered much the same. Now, with evidence piling up seemingly daily, I suspect that belief in AGW cannot last more than another couple of years, and perhaps even less.
It has always been evident that truth would eventually come out, and that a belief system based upon hysteria and intimidation could not last forever. Never in my wildest dreams, however, did I imagine the AGW case disintegrating so spectacularly before our very eyes.
This has been a sorry episode in the history of science, but at least it is almost over.
"Never in my wildest dreams, however, did I imagine the AGW case disintegrating so spectacularly before our very eyes."- Snowman
.............and then Snowman woke up.
I wonder if crakar is a reliable source of information?
Oops, his very next sentence is a lie ...
Oh, well, so much for that.
How about McIntyre? Is he honest?
Well, it turns out that despite all his rants and ravings of data being kept secret, withheld, researchers stonewalling, and all that ...
HE'S HAD THE BLEEPING RUSSIAN YAMAL DATA SINCE 2004.
Good grief.
I'm not them, but I place you in the ranks of the outright liars.
Interesting that the two posters here having a lovefest are named "crack" and "snow", isn't it?
Crakar14: care to explain to us why the Competitive Enterprise Institute, surely no friend of 'warmists', claims Holdren never believed in global cooling? Is it perhaps because they did not selectively read one book of which Holdren was a co-author, in which the possibility of global cooling was discussed?
Thats a good one, "crack and snow" see you can be quite funny when you want Dhogaza, keep them coming OK :-)))
Marco,
Cant explain that, he did co author the book so i assume he thought a cooling was coming, maybe i read too much into it however.
Snow,
Timezones and lack of time comspire together so there are times when i dont post, having said that i feel safe in the knowledge that i can leave you with "holding the fort" while i am away.
Cheers
Crack (i am still laughing Dhogaza)
Looking back at my last post, I realize it would have been better to list these as traits of people rather than types of people. It also occurs to me that they can be divided into two categories, those traits that would make people likely to believe climate denial talking points, and those that would make people more likely to create them in the first place. 1, 2, and maybe 3 fit into both categories, whereas 4 and 5 are strictly in the first. And it seems to me that you two have been better at coming up with plausible narratives for how people come to believe in global warming, given that it is already widely believed, but you're a bit short on ideas for how it came into being in the first place.
It started innocently back in the late eighties just after the âice age is comingâ scare had died down, some scientists suddenly realised that the Earth was warming instead of cooling so the old CO2 theory which was first postulated over 100 years ago was brought back to life.
Now this type of talk is nothing new people like this have been around since the dawn of man, many harbingers of death have been prophesized over the years which not one has come true. So why is this time any different?
While a media frenzy may have existed, there was never a consensus around this in the scientific community. That's one way this is different. If you really want to claim that all the scientists once believed in global cooling, move that discussion to the page devoted to that myth.
Therefore the term âthe science of AGWâ is a misnomer and is in fact âthe politics of AGWâ.
This sentence does not logically follow from anything before it, and the sentence after it is even less clear.
Most people I know that âbelieveâ have no idea what the theory is, they have no idea what the ppm of CO2 was in 1750 (IPCC baseline year) they have no idea what the ppm is today, they have no idea that CO2 alone cannot produce the projected warming claimed by the IPCC in 2100.
Same is true of most deniers I run into. But I expect that of lay people, what really doesn't impress me are the denial "scientists," for reasons I already got into. I guess what impresses me least about the lay people are that if I correct any of their misconceptions, they simply move on to another one, and you can tell in their head they figure they've heard lots of other things they believe prove it's all wrong, and if a few turn out to be incorrect, well that hardly puts a dent in the evidence, right? But they don't acknowledge their mistakes, and don't consider the possibility that the claims they put forward are representative of the claims they've believed. Also, their unreasonable demands for "proof." Fully proving it would take a few courses on the subject, or at the very least some books. As far as the vast majority studying this subject are concerned, it's pretty well proven. If you believe large numbers of scientists have gotten this all wrong, well, that's a pretty extraordinary claim, and you should present your evidence. That's right, I want proof.
Have you ever wondered why political parties in opposition do not accept the AGW myth (one liberal here in Aust. was heard to say AGW is a load of crap)? Why is it that in the USA and Australia the opposition has (so far) thwarted any attempt to enact crippling CO2 taxes? Why is it that a party in power unanimously accept the AGW theory but the opposition does not? I would have thought if the AGW theory was solid then all parties would agree but they donât why is that? After all we are saving the planet.
I'll cover these questions in reverse order, and maybe this is different in Australia, but for the US: The last question is for a reason I covered: economic libertarianism. The second to last question is not observed here, parties have changed power twice over the past decade, but the primary home for denialism has remained the conservative (economic libertarian) Republican party. As for why it has been difficult to enact anything, it's because the ruling Democratic party isn't that motivated. They've pushed it near last on their list of priorities. Meanwhile, getting anything passed requires the votes of a lot of Senators from coal producing states, and they seem to be reluctantly signing on, but they are under no illusions that this is a big political winner in their states. And the best thing that could happen as a result of this legislation is that down the road not much is different. Not a whole lot for a politician to like.
In defence of economic libertarians can you name one problem faced by any government that has been fixed without throwing a tax on it?
I'm not sure what you meant here. If you meant "fixed by," I'd say the cap-and-trade for acid rain related emissions was quite successful here, not the same as a tax but it fixes the problem by putting a price on it. If you meant governments will use this as an opportunity to tax, well, that further makes my point that economic libertarians will be suspicious of AGW precisely because they fear government solutions to it. Although it bears mentioning that legislation under consideration here is revenue neutral.
So there is nothing happening? Just mass hysteria?
That's why 270 arctic communities have to move after 4000 years of residence- because nothing is changing.
Snowman - you are the force of darkness. Where's the enlightenment in your information?
Let Snow & Crack talk amongst themselves. Instead go talk with the concerned, cautious and disengaged about how much money they could save by insulating their houses and civic structures right now.
Let's spend our time putting people to work making things work better right now. No more blowing hot air with those who think the laws of humans trump those of physics and chemistry.
Patrick - No one disputes that there was some warming in the 20th century, a process of course that stopped in 1998. Where we part company is in the cause of that warming.
However, it hardly matters. As the world is clearly cooling rapidly, belief in AGW is a dead duck. It will take a year or two for this to penetrate general awareness and for our spineless governments to stand up to the eco propagandists. Nevertheless, the writing is on the wall and the game is up. It is just that you don't realize it - not yet, anyway.
More lies from snowman:
How many times do you deniers have to be shown that this is complete garbage. You lie, lie and tell more lies.
How do you explain the following if the "world is clearly cooling rapidly"?
1980's - 0.159K
1990's - 0.249K
2000's - 0.505K
(GISS temperature anomalies based on 1951-1980 base period)
I have pointed you to this in the past (post #22 in this thread) and you completely ignore any factual information which shows how much of a liar you are.
Only a liar, Ian? Given that just a couple of days ago I was rotted pond scum that almost sounds like a compliment.
I note, by the way, that you keep throwing those GISS figures at me, with never a mention of UAH or Hadley.
Why would that be, I wonder? It's all very puzzling.
You lying piece of pondscum or as it is now called "rock snot" you are implying that GISS is fraudulently manipulating data.
That is a complete lie. All of the data sets show very good correlation as anyone who has more than two functioning neurons should know. Why you are allowed to spread your lies and disinformation without moderator comment is beyond me.
See:
http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/04/14/comparable-global-climate-metrics/
Craker:
Because a lot of the themes repeated throughout your post my quotes of you are not necessarily in their order. I have nonetheless tried to stay true to context and meaning.
"1, Agreed it is greatly overstated, however having said that the IPCC is 90% confident the AGW theory is correct or they are 10% confident they are wrong. So why do they not allocate 10% of their enormous budget to investigate the remaining 10%?"--Crakar
Crakar, this rhetorical question by itself shows how gripped you are by a narrative whose key dysfunction is a misconstruing of what science is and does. The intention of all climate research funding is to *find out*. (Of course researchers are biased and mortal but in the long run the process yields *findings*, not Moncktonian coverups and con jobs.) This mythical dichotomy you've created (spend some research proving it, spend at least a little disproving it out of fairness) betrays this crucial, fact-dodging filter in your narrative. Only if you start from the *assumption* that "AGW is the greatest scam ever conceived" can this craziness becomes believable, and your rhetorical suggestion plausible.
"In regards to the Montreal protocol obviously it was a good thing to do, unfortunately they replaced CFCâs with HCFCâs which also deplete the ozone layer albeit at a lower rate. As they say the solution to one problem always creates another and a good example of that is in Queensland where they have cane beetle infestations so they introduced the cane toad from Brazil to eat the beetles. The cane toad due to its toxicity had no natural predators and is now found in all but the driest parts of the country and the cane beetle? Well its still there.
Other environmental disasters here include the introduction of camels, donkeys, wild pigs, water buffalo, foxes, cats, rabbits and European carp to name but a few. So please forgive me when I cringe at the thought of lacing the atmosphere with sulphur or crushed glass in an effort to combat computer modelled global warming."--Ckakar
What for the love of God are you talking about? Past mistakes in addressing environmental concerns does not dictate that responses to AGW now would be mistakes, and believing in AGW does not *necessitate* atmospheric seeding as a policy solution. What point are you making here?
As for your narrative interpretation of warmists as either apocalypse seekers or automotons, I can't prove to you that such people don't exist. Maybe you've even met a couple (I never have), and maybe its true that "Most people [you] know that âbelieveâ have no idea what the theory is . . . " But try this narrative interpretation on for size:
*Based on the results of a scientific process and its *overwhelming* consensus, we believe that AGW is real, and very possibly dangerous enough to merit actions that are socially and economically tolerable--and undeniably beneficial in other ways.*
You want to know why this narrative makes sense to me, Crakar? Well, I'll tell you anyway: Because I know that its true of at least person on this planet--me.
And because my reasons strike me as so reasonable, its easy for me to project this reasonableness on the people whom I trust to conduct climate science. I wouldn't lie to them for anything except maybe to escape severe pain or save a loved one--certainly not for filthy lucre--and I can't believe that there could be so many pure liars telling me the same thing out of peer pressure (which seems to be Snow's current narrative) or to con for funding dollars. That makes no sense to me.
This in fact is also a part of this dysfunctional narrative from which the deniers I talk to also give their game away. The whole "its all about the funding" argument. If the narrative did not blind you, you could see that the desire for climate research funding, while admittedly consistent with a group of hacks contriving a "problem" they will get paid to study, also makes sense if people *genuinely see it as a problem that needs to be studied*. But your narrative is so set it cannot see this possibility. Again, narratives blind at least as much as they enlighten.
"Now this type of talk is nothing new people like this have been around since the dawn of man, many harbingers of death have been prophesized over the years which not one has come true. So why is this time any different?"--Crakar
It might not be, mate. I grant that. I've always contended we should act on AGW to hedge against risk *and* because the necessary changes are not just "costs" (smaller cars and homes, less air travel, etc) but also strategic and long term economic and energy benefits (cheaper energy in the long run, no need to occupy half the middle east and/or send our kids to die to defend our fucking black cocaine).
And don't forget the opposite is also true: Implicit or explicit predictions of *prosperity* have *also* been horribly wrong. Read *American Theocracy* and *Collapse* before doubting me. (And don't throw some secondhand blog shit about them at me. If you lack the time to read them, I accept that but then don't start telling me you know they're wrong based on something you read on CimateAudit.)
"one by one self respecting scientists are turning away from the AGW theory and declaring themselves as sceptics. "--Crakar
I've asked you to name one and you came up with Latif. You stand by that? Dhogaza seemed pretty confident in the last thread that you misread it, although I don't know enough to comment. Your statement implies a plurality of these converts. So now try listing three.
I couldn't find it in past discussion threads but the Doran et al, survey showed that almost half of even *petroleum geologists* (heavily industry-funded and with a the huge vested interest in denial) agreed with the AGW hypothesis, and even 64 percent of meteorologists (whom deniers love to cite even though they study weather and not climate). The numbers were not even close for people who actually study climate: 97 percent agreed with the fundamental AGW hypothesis.
But they're falling like matchwood, right Crakar? (Snowman just predicts they will; thus he can't name names yet.)
Ok, who are they?
This goes right back to narratives, Crakar and Snowman. You guys repeat these mantras over and over and over again (the earth is cooling; the consensus is breaking;) even after your arguments to these effects are shredded. I wonder if a long time ago you stopped trying to convince any of us and now you're just saying these things to convince yourselves. That again is the essence of narrative building.
So which do you fall into, Crakar? As Eric L recently pointed out the archetypes might be better thought of as attributes, and thus maybe a smidgeon of all of them might animate your denial as such. Maybe at this point its as much pride and habit as anything. I can only surmise, but whatever the exact balance narratives, they seem hard at work.
And what of me? What about skip's narratives? Well, as I said before in a manner that seemed to baffle you, Crakar, I don't *want* to believe in AGW. It gives me no joy; only distress. It bothers me that naked shortsighted self-interest is the only obstacle to addressing a potential problem whose solutions offer numerous concomitant benefits, not just tolerable "costs". And if its disproven? Great! It'll be a load off. But for that to happen I need better than Monckton. This again is why I find my own narratives more trustworthy. I am not believing out of preference, but perception, and I have no personal vested interest in a particular side.
skip
I think it's time to let crack and snow O.D. on their mutual stupidity and dishonesty.
Snowman,
Since you seem to think it would make a big difference, here's UAH:
1980s - -0.0485167
1990s - 0.05745
2000s - 0.217282
Note there is a bigger difference between the 1990s average and this decade than between the 90s and the 80s. Yeah, I know, 1998 was a really hot year. That happens sometimes. Doesn't mean warming has ended if the record holds for a while.
By the way, UAH has an average temp anomaly of 0.514 for 1998. So if we extrapolate the .16 degree jump, we can expect the 2010s to be still cooler on average than 1998 (though maybe not every year will be), and the 2020s will be slightly warmer on average than 1998 (though some years will still be cooler). But I have to say, if the next decade is the hottest decade on record in every data set, just as this decade will clearly be, I really wouldn't consider the existence of some data sets that claim some year outside the decade is the hottest year on record to be particularly compelling counter-evidence.
Thanks for that, Eric. When temperatures are descending from a peak, then inevitably they will still be relatively high for several years.
The real question, as you imply, is what will happen in the next decade. And for that, I guess we will just have to wait and see.
Notice how snowman refuses to accept statistically valid comments.
Snowman, the trend is still going up and in fact is trending higher with each of the last three decades.
You have to use simple statistics, which appears to be far beyond your basic mathematical skills (just as an aside, what is 2 plus 2, you have to start some where).
Why I spend so much of my valuable time showing how wrong you are is not because I think you don't know any better but because I know that your understanding is much higher and you are being deliberately dishonest.
You are a pathetic troll.
NEWS FROM THE MADHOUSE: An authoritative report has just been published in the UK showing that our energy bills could increase by as much as 60 per cent over the next five or six years, and that there is every chance that a cold winter could lead to widespread blackouts. And all of this arises from our craven government's attempt to appease the warmist lobby by setting ludicrous 'carbon' targets that are as pointless as they are unattainable.
And what is the government's reaction to this? It is to go on blethering about windmills. The lunatics have indeed taken over the asylum.
However, every cloud has a silver lining. And in this case, it is that once the British people fully understand the gathering and entirely needless catastrophe that it about to be visited upon them by our appeasement of eco propagandists, they will at last start to ask some hard questions.
See? Another hockey stick. They're all over.
Can I hereby have it duly noted that not even a significant portion of us Aussies are anything like Crackar. Repeat, he IS NOT representative. Thank you.
Well Matt, Crackar may not represent everyone down under but there seem to be plenty of Aussies who think as he does - enough, certainly, to maintain Australians' well earned reputation for independent thinking and refusal to be cowed by fashionable propaganda.
When climate alarmism is finally exposed as the folly we all know it to be (not long now) we will have Aussies to thank for leading the way.
Hate to burst your bubble Snowy but there's nothing to "be exposed". You'll be waiting a long time. Seriously, your should try reading some high quality science instead the intellectual-free climate equivalents of Answers in Genesis.
Of course, Matt, I know, you know and everybody here knows that no one is ever going to convince anyone of anything - fun though it is to try.
Only time will tell who is right. And Matt, you had better start to prepare your answers for the time - not far off now - when the gathering cold makes your position untenable. When people ask you in the very near future as they shiver through yet another bitter winter 'How could you possibly have been taken in by such fashionable claptap?' maybe you should have your reply worked out in advance.
Just a friendly suggestion.
Yeah.
It's narratives, Snow. You're not writing to us. You're writing to yourself. You don't even understand the report you just cited--which I know you didn't read. You think its supporting your idea that Great Britain should not control greenhouse emissions because fuel prices in England are going to get too high. You're utterly wrong (of course). Its a projection of different scenarios based on alternate assumptions about economic recovery and levels of investment in sustainable alternatives. The authors do not question the given that any future UK energy plan should take into account environmental concerns. Furthermore, one of the drivers of future price increases is supply instability from your country's sources of natural gas, which is an argument to invest in alternatives and promote demand reduction to help your national strategic and economic security. I wouldn't want to see you Brits flounder, Snow--not even you.
The attitude you seem to be taking toward this forum is the one you ought to use when chasing 'lasses' as you might say in the UK. If you get shot down once, just keep on trying. I wish you luck with the ladies with that technique but you need to learn the decency of recognizing when you're utterly missing a point, getting obliterated in any intellectual exchange, and just haplessly repeating yourself with these narrative articles of faith about "the gathering cold", etc. Its silly, man.
There is something oddly and darkly compelling about it, though: much like watching a drowning man thrash in the water and feeling some sense of obligation to help but hesitating for fear of being grappled and dragged under as well. Still, I'll throw an occasional lifeline if you have the sense to grasp.
This is why I asked Coby to start this thread about narratives. At least in my mind (narrative?) its an important issue.
If this keeps up though I might propose a separate thread in honor of you, Snowman:
"The Snow Report".
In it we could have the "Hall of Fame" of most outrageous and deluded posts by deniers.
Skip
Goodness, Matt, harsh words indeed. 'Obliterated in any intellectual exchange' you declare. Tell me, Matt, what intellectual exchange might that be? And this point of yours that I am so reprehensibly missing: just remind me, what point was that?
There is a wonderful and profound irony in the fact that the warming lobby accuses me and others of repeating 'narratives' (that tiresomely fashionable word), all the while quite unable to see that they are doing precisely the same. Even worse, they cannot understand that in endlessly urging us to read the science or the IPCC reports, they are merely taking refuge in consensus, as intellectually shoddy an approach as one can possibly imagine. So please, Matt, kindly refrain from lecturing me about my intellectual deficiencies.
Have a good day.
Sincere apologies, Matt. I carelessly attributed to you remarks that were of course made by Skip.
Oh, gosh, we take refuge in science rather than the blathering of Crack and Snow.
Who else should we be listening to, Uri Geller and Kent Hamm?
Don't worry about the name thing, Snow. I assume Matt's been called worse than "Skip". I know I've been called worse than "Matt."
narratives "tiresomely fashionable"?
God, Snow. A couple dozen posts ago you admitted you didn't even know what the word meant.
Skip
PS
Snowman: You might regard my comments as condescending "lectures" but at least I'm not calling you rotted pond scum. All things are relative, right?
Uh-oh
BBC News
Friday, 9 October 2009
What happened to global warming?
By Paul Hudson
Climate correspondent, BBC News
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.
So what on Earth is going on?
Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.
They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?
During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly. . .
But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences. . .
But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.
He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.
He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.
If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.
Ok, we've got to shut this down quickly or all is lost! Another denier grasping at straws! But how do we do that without appearing to be close minded?
There's so much wrong with that piece, where to begin.
Let's start with the fact that piers corbyn is not a "solar scientist". He's another weather forecaster, though perhaps not as uneducated as high school graduate anthony watts.
Then we could take a look at how successful his forecasts are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn#Reliability_of_forecasts_in_2…
Oops.
Oops indeed !
But this isn't helping.
You are right, his models are no more accurate than the IPCC models!
If inaccurate models impugn his credibility then it does likewise for the IPCC (or we'll be accused of being hypocrites)!
No dhogaza, we need something else.
We'll probably get him within the peer review structure after he presents in London the end of this month.
And then we'll certainly have more folks on board trying to squash this nonsense.
Piers Corbyn?. The same guy who insisted the greenhouse effect relied on a CO2 layer to trap outgoing energy from the sun?. That idiot??. No wonder you don't have a clue about climate.
DW,
good one we'll use that!
Oh, wait, that's the IPCC premise too.
Nope, gonna need something different.
If you think lying is going to change anyone's mind, keep it up.
"If you think lying is going to change anyone's mind, keep it up."
Not trying to lie, just observing the current situation.
Well, for now anyway, for the IPCC, we have 7+ years of cooling >
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/last:90/plot/wti/last:90/trend
But it could turn around. What do you think?
And Piers Corbyn failures have been proven, since they were (past) date dependent. While the IPCC is a future trend prediction, so there is still a chance . . . which, I guess, allows that the IPCC model is more accurate. Guess we'll have to see how it turns out.
But I wouldn't be comfortable bringing up the "inaccurate models" attack at the moment, I think it leaves us open.
Individual model runs show very realistic variation about the trend in the same way.
2000-2009 will be the warmest decade in the instrumental record. This cooling bullshit claim can only be made by those who deny statistics. If you deny statistics, then you have no notion what the model ensembles are saying in the first place.
Come back when you have a statistically significant cooling trend (it's a pity wood for trees doesn't plot error bars so people like you could see how wrong you are).
Oh, BTW, could you please point me to the "IPCC model"? (hint - such statements only enhance the obvious impression of ignorance you're making).
So, I am confused.
The woodfortrees does not show cooling data for the last seven years? And where is it claimed to be statistically significant? .(Maybe you can advise which conditions would be required for that to be true?)
This is just relatively short term data. I think we have agreed here that 30 years is climate, less is weather.
(And, well the methane and CO2 is quite below projections too. You know they will bring that up).
And yes, we all know the IPCC doesn't have models, it reports on those developed by others. We'll still have to wait and see if they come to be accurate. (In a Statistically significant way, of course)
Anyway aren't we trying to figure out how to blunt this Corbyn fellow and his latest denialist gimmick?
PaulInMI,
I'm not sure why you bothered to quote that article when it wasn't saying anything not already claimed on this thread, not to mention the HTTTAS guide page on this very claim.
As dhogaza was saying, trends over time periods that short aren't statistically significant, but then I suppose that's the IPCC line. You might try comparing your graph to this one:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/to:1995/last:90/plot/wti/to:1995/last:…
Same period of time, but now from right in the middle of a span of time where I think you'd agree it was warming. Would you have said in 1995, "Ha ha, Hansen, you gave a big speech to Congress right when global warming came to an end!"
As for the "compare to 1998" method of assessing trends... Let's consider 1999. It wasn't exactly a cold year -- it was warmer than about half of the years of the 90s, and all of the years of the 80s (and 70s, and 60s...). Yet in every global temperature data set, every year since 1999 has been warmer than 1999. Whereas 1999 was typical of its decade, 1998 was atypical, and in some data sets it is still the record. Now I would not consider either of these a statistically meaningful way to look at the data, but why do you think one is meaningful and one isn't?
PaulinMI,
As far as appeals to authority go, that has got to be one of the worst I have ever witnessed: a newspaper article citing Piers Corbyn.
You clearly don't care who says it or how they derived it as long as it conforms with your preconceived views.
Advice to read the IPCC report, BTW, is not an appeal to authority, it is a recommendation of the best place to find the current scientific findings.
Nowhere, which is why you're an idiot to raise it as an issue.
If it's not significant, it's not significant, except in those small minds who lead to casinos having a steady income.
Wanna come play poker?
Why wait? They've made accurate predictions in the past and are getting better.
Oh, damn, I forgot you're just a concern troll ...
Coby, why oh why do you put up with this shit? Between this stuff and Crack and Snow, I can't imagine recommending your "how to talk to a climate skeptic" stuff or this blog to any interested yet uneducated lay person.
So many posts and so little time, thanks snowman for holding the fort and a special thanks goes out to Paul for his assistants (keep the good work guys).
I would first like to talk to Skip re post 42, for a guy who claims to be well versed in narratives mine really did have you confused didnt it. I will only bother to reply to the most relevant points OK.
1, If an independant unbiased institution is formed to seek the truth/facts on a subject then it must by definition explore every aspect of that subject. The fact that the IPCC is only 90% certain that AGW is caused by man suggests that there is a chance (10%) that it is not. A good example of this unbias approach not happening is that the IPCC spared a whole 3 sentence paragraph to the discussion and rejection of Svenmarks cloud theory. Now regardless of what you think of his theory surely 3 sentences is hardly adequate to review and reject it. How many other theories have been treated this way i wonder? In other words Skip the IPCC is not setup to review the theory of AGW in an unbias way. Hence my comments.
2, What for the love of God are you talking about? There have been calls to lace the atmosphere with god only knows what, another great idea was to launch giant space mirrors up there to deflect the suns rays and lets not forget lacing the oceans with all manner of things to reduce Co2 or something. What makes morons make such stupid claims? Well according to these idiots we are beyond the point of no return and our only options left are the drastic ones.
These statements are based on ignorance and stupidity not science and they show a lack of foresight and will no doubt if implemented fall into the catagory of unintended consequences.
3, "one by one self respecting scientists are turning away from the AGW theory and declaring themselves as sceptics. "--Crakar
I have posted this link before, obviously you missed it
h.t.t.p://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/un_scientists_speakout.pdf
Also i would like to add, this link as a demonstration to both you and Eric that the masses are made to accept the AGW propoganda, a statement which you have both have lambasted me for making.
I know of at least two Nobel Peace prize winners and a handful of wannabe's that like to tell scary stories to scare little children into "believing" in AGW. The most well worn scary story is the one about the summer Arctic ice melt. A melt that will soon flood the world in biblical proportions however when the Antartic summer ice melt is the lowest in the sat era nothing is said.
Now why is that Skip? Is it because it defies scientific reasoning to suggest that AGW can melt the north pole whilst simultaneously freeze the south pole? I have heard here a theory postulated that it is possible, if so then why not announce to world that the south pole is "freezing faster than the models predicted" as another sure sign that AGW is gunna gitcha.
I would be interested in your views on this narrative. And no i am not interested in hearing anyones views on the AGW theory as to why there is more ice, just skips reasoning why increased ice is kept quiet while melting ice gets front page news.
w.w.w.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/10/06/antarctic-ice-melt-at-lowest-levels-in-satellite-era/
In regards to AL Gore and the amount of cash that he will
make
w.w.w.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/v1185475433.pdf
By the way, i know that in the US you have become oblivious to this (re Feinstien and her millionaire husband making millions off the blood of dead american soldiers as one example) but there is such a thing as "a conflict of interest".
I might have missed something Skip, if so just let me know OK.
Oh almost forgot, to Matt "aussie" Bennett can you please stop licking our international friends arses i find it embarassing.
Sorry, i knew i forgot something.
Skip or Eric, one of you questioned me on "the politics of AGW" If i am so wrong with this statement then please explain how an institution grounded in the pursuit of science can issue a summary for policy makers?
Gotta go
Cheers
Crakar, apparently the only sceptic in Australia.
"Oh, wait, that's the IPCC premise too." - Paulinmri
No dummy, only idiot's like you and Corbyn think there's a layer of CO2. The IPCC is aware that CO2 is dispersed in the atmosphere. They actually read scientific studies.
Thank-you all for the fine comments.
But, if we are talking about yanking dollars out of peoples pockets and changing their lifestyles, we're talking about "public perception". And as long as there are a number of years which show a trend (statistically significant or not) you're not going to see a political will large enough to implement solutions. Most are of the opinion that will come over time, not now. That is your challenge. That is my plain and simple point.
And of course having an open mind to evaluate and prove or dis-prove new theories certainly doesn't hurt perception. Getting them out in the public for a proper airing helps show the public your aims aren't merely political. A little congeniality goes a long way. You have much to learn about attitude and persuasion. You hurt only your own image and cause.
If there is, in fact, a 15-20 yr relief from the warming, how you handle it (scientifically and emotionally) will make all the difference in the world (literally).
Good Morning, Craker:
My response:
I would first like to talk to Skip re post 42, for a guy who claims to be well versed in narratives --Craker
20-some odd words into the post and you're already twisting my meaning. I am well-versed in the *idea* of narratives.
mine really did have you confused didnt it.--Craker
This is vague. I am uncertain what your narratives are; but i do have hunches that i've justified. I was clear on that.
I will only bother to reply to the most relevant points OK.--Craker
Which apparently does not include your handling of the Latif publication or a comment on my explanation of *my* narrative. I suspect this is because it does not fit *your* narrative about folks like me and you're not sure how to deal with it. (This is what I've been saying all along.)
1, If an independant unbiased institution is formed to seek the truth/facts on a subject then it must by definition explore every aspect of that subject.âCraker
They did, Craker. And it was through that investigation that they came up with the 90 percent figure.
The fact that the IPCC is only 90% certain that AGW is caused by man suggests that there is a chance (10%) that it is not. A good example of this unbias approach not happening is that the IPCC spared a whole 3 sentence paragraph to the discussion and rejection of Svenmarks cloud theory. Now regardless of what you think of his theory surely 3 sentences is hardly adequate to review and reject it.--Craker
Because the IPCC's purpose is to summarize research findings. You're so confused, Craker. What if they'd spend 100 pages explaining in detail why Svensmaark is wrong--as others have--would that have satisfied you? Or what if they'd parceled out exactly 10 percent of the document to explain the virtues of the denier side? It makes no sense. The 90 percent figure is the number they arrived at based on the science available. Their job at that point is to explain how they reached this conclusion. Its a document designed to summarize a scientific consensus, of which they regard Svensmaark as a marginal counterpoise. Besides, this is completely different from your dazed suggestion that the IPCC should spend "10 percent proving its wrong"[paraphrase], which is just a loony understanding of what science is and how it works. Youâre blaming the IPCC, having reached a conclusion you donât like, for not arguing against its own conclusion to your satisfaction.
How many other theories have been treated this way i wonder?--Craker
Probably most of the ones regarded as bullshit.
In other words Skip the IPCC is not setup to review the theory of AGW in an unbias way. Hence my comments.--Craker
A complete tautology, and yet another apparent illustration of a narrative at work. They are 90 percent sure of AGW, and the purpose of the document is to explain why they see it that way. You see the dearth of a 10 percent affirmative action plan for your side as proof of bias, and in a sense they *are* biased, Craker. They think youâre bloody *wrong*.
2, What for the love of God are you talking about? There have been calls to lace the atmosphere with god only knows what, another great idea was to launch giant space mirrors up there to deflect the suns rays and lets not forget lacing the oceans with all manner of things to reduce Co2 or something. What makes morons make such stupid claims? Well according to these idiots we are beyond the point of no return and our only options left are the drastic ones. These statements are based on ignorance and stupidity not science and they show a lack of foresight and will no doubt if implemented fall into the catagory of unintended consequences.--Craker
Repeating yourself. This has all the sophistication of, "Some people on your side are making outrageous proposals. Therefore you're wrong." I donât know the merits of cloud-seeding proposals but they have nothing to do with what Iâm arguing here so stay with me. Similar is your attempt to obfuscate the issue with Al Goreâs cash quest, Diane Feinsteinâs supposed hypocrisy (it has no bearing on my point about the relative costs of action on AGW) and climate alarmists terrorizing children with tales of climate doom: âPeople on your side have silly ideas and bad motives. This is *your* narrative.â This type of grasping shows that youâre out of ammo.
**3, "one by one self respecting scientists are turning away from the AGW theory and declaring
themselves as sceptics. "âCrakar**
I have posted this link before, obviously you missed it h.t.t.p://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/un_scientists_speakout.pdf
Also i would like to add, this link as a demonstration to both you and Eric that the masses are made to accept the AGW propoganda, a statement which you have both have lambasted me for making.--Craker
In the same way that Latif is an example of a âteeth grittingâ reluctant skeptic?
Craker, my mate. When my wife and I get to Oz I will happily buy you a fine night on the town--and no, we don't have to drink Fosters or watch rugby. (I'm a relatively open-minded man but sheep shagging is out.) So, please, again, don't take what I'm about to say personally, but this was exactly like Snowman quoting that UK energy report that I know he never read. It looks very much like you did not read this, either, Craker, because this link is just a cruel *joke*. I can't laugh, though, because people buy into this shit and that's what depresses me.
You can be forgiven for any ignorance of American politics but James Inhofe is a notorious shill for the oil industry, and this alleged list of â700â scientists an embarrassment to the cause of AGW denial (if shame is something that can be felt on that end of the debate).
Granted, I did not read all the quotes, but looked at many, the summary you sent me, and the main list as well. (And yes I did miss the link before; youâre right about that.)
First off, the document immediately tries to mislead its readers, promising 700 âinternational scientistsâ and âdissentersâ, when in fact it provides neither. The 700 number is derived from the total number of names cited, but its not until deep into the document that you see this little qualification where they basically say, âOk granted this next batch arenât really âskepticsâ, but weâre going to quote them because we think they have something important to say.â
And yes there are prominent names there, such as Richard Lindzen, but people of that level of credibility are few and far between. The list is packed with weathermen and non-climate scientists, and even blatant hacks. (One probably extreme case that someone else found was a TV weatherman with no degree and not even a credential for meteorology, who leaned on his Biblical Fundamentalism in explaining climate change, chastising us heathen for failing to recognize the role of God in the process. Jesus.)
But this isnât even the most crippling part of this. Its one thing to cite weak sources when desperately trying to score points for your âsideâ, as Inhoffeâs crew did, but to be so maladroit about it and not even recognize when youâre making no sense takes it to another level. The people who wrote this summary obviously were clueless. There are so many examples as you read through the list (They cite, for example, people who âdissentâ not on the fundamental theory of AGW, but on its specific short term impacts, such as polar bears or hurricanesâhardly an example of a crumbling consensus).
But there is one in particular that shows what bunglers they were. In the summary document, they cite Richard Tol as calling alarmism âridiculousâ (and Iâm sure he has), and right afterward cited Philip Lloyd as saying that our contribution to atmospheric carbon was negligible compared to natural processes.
How could they be such idiots? If they knew *anything* about Tol they would know heâs now at Dublin, not Hamburg, and that in his latest research article, in which he discusses policy implications of economic and environmental projections, he specifically argues that we should *hedge* against the risks of climate change. How do I know this, Craker? Because unlike the authors and (almost certainly unlike you) I have actually *read Richard Tol.* He does *not* question the fundamental premise of AGW; he only points out that we need to carefully weigh costs and benefits through the complex process of climate and economic modeling.
This is why citing Lloyd next shows that this was total amateur hour. They cite one guy just because he uses the thrilling word âridiculousâ without realizing his fundamental perspective is in conflict with the very next guy they cite! It shows there is no coherence or logic or central theme. The whole thing is a sloppy, ramshackle, ham-handed, scattershot prayer: âOur position is right somehow. Its in here somewhere. Look at all the names.â It was no effort whatsoever to convince, only to ring true to the *narratives* of those already convinced, and in your case Craker, they clearly found their mark.
But none of this is even the main point, Craker. Remember the challenge: I asked you to name three people, to quote you directly, who are âturning away from the AGW theory and declaring themselves as sceptics. " You cited this Inhofe blog, declaring with great bravado that it was a âdemonstrationâ of how the rest of us are brainwashed by AGW dogma.
The only thing this demonstrates is the rigidity of your narrative when deciding what your supporting sources are. There were two names on the list (that I could find) that identified themselves as âconvertsâ to skepticism. Both were meteorologists. One even admitted that he was only an AGW believer for six months, and that it was âreluctantâ. Their âconversionâ is only slightly more impressive than if I converted to Odenism. The fact remains, Craker, that even if *climate* scientists are converting to your side (and they arenât) you have a long way to go before you significantly erode the 97 percent figure recently found in the Donbar et al survey.
Along with the efforts to divert the discussion of narratives to all the âbadâ people associated with AGW, the moral of this story is that if youâre out of ammo, take a break for a bit and read carefully while formulating a position, sit back and think about how your narratives might blind you, and try not to bring bullshit to a fact fight.
Skip or Eric, one of you questioned me on "the politics of AGW" If i am so wrong with this statement then please explain how an institution grounded in the pursuit of science can issue a summary for policy makers?âCraker
Sorry, not following context or question. Rephrase please.
Ciao,
Skip
Ugh. God.
So much more I want to say but I've already posted a novel and want to give Craker and Snow or whoever a chance to rebut. But so much of this is prime material for the whole issue of narratives and how they filter our perceptions.
Coby: Can this link be renamed? (Btw: thanks for creating it.)
Maybe something like, "AGW is Just a Religion."
Skip
Hi there Skip,
Firstly I would like to apologies for my tardy reply, this was brought about because I am busy at the moment and I also acknowledge the effort you have made and wanted do your post justice by formulating a worthy response.
1, This point touches on the validity of the IPCC, my claim is that the IPCC are not an independent body and are subjected to political pressure to produce the results required rather than having an open mind and going wherever the data takes them so to speak. You can disagree with this Skip if that is your want, you are after all entitled to you own opinion. You speak of my narratives as if I base my thoughts/opinions on issues that I have essentially made up and which are supported by questionable studies by questionable scientists etc. I would be prepared to bet all the tea in China that every study I produce that supports my views would be rejected by you in an attempt to support your own views of AGW.
Note: some of the following text has been copied from an article, an article which expresses my views on the IPCC.
From the very beginning, the IPCC was a political rather than scientific entity, with its leading scientists reflecting the positions of their governments or seeking to induce their governments to adopt the IPCC position. In particular, a small group of activists wrote the all-important Summary for Policymakers (SPM) for each of the four IPCC reports [McKitrick et al. 2007].
While we are often told about the thousands of scientists on whose work the Assessment reports are based, the vast majority of these scientists have no direct influence on the conclusions expressed by the IPCC. Those are produced by an inner core of scientists, and the SPMs are revised and agreed to, line-by-line, by representatives of member governments. This obviously is not how real scientific research is reviewed and published.
The IPCCâs FAR 1990 reported without much analysis claimed that temp changes were âbroadly consistentâ with GH models, it arrived at a climate sensitivity of 1.5 to 4.5C
The IPCCâs SAR 1996, Its SPM contained the memorable conclusion, âthe balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.â The SAR was heavily criticized, this time for having undergone significant changes in the body of the report to make it âconformâ to the SPM â after it was finally approved by the scientists involved in writing the report. Not only was the report altered, but a key graph was also doctored to suggest a human influence. The evidence presented to support the SPM conclusion turned out to be completely spurious. (seitz 1996 Wall street editorial, and singer et al 1997). The SAR provided the basis for the Kyoto protocol in 1997.
The IPCCâs TAR was noteworthy for its use of spurious scientific papers to back up its SPM claim of ânew and stronger evidenceâ of anthropogenic global warming. One of these was the so called âhockey-stickâ paper, an analysis of proxy data, which claimed the twentieth century was the warmest in the past 1,000 years. The paper was later found to contain basic errors in its statistical analysis. The IPCC also supported a paper that claimed pre-1940 warming was of human origin and caused by greenhouse gases. This work, too, contained fundamental errors in its statistical analysis.
The IPCCâs AR4was published in 2007; the SPM of Working Group I was released in February; and the full report from this Working Group was released in May â after it had been changed, once again, to âconformâ to the Summary. It is significant that AR4 no longer makes use of the hockey-stick paper or the paper claiming pre-1940 human-caused warming. AR4 concluded that âmost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrationsâ.
Why have the IPCC reports been marred by controversy and so frequently contradicted by subsequent research? Certainly its agenda to find evidence of a human role in climate change is a major reason; its organization as a government entity beholden to political agendas is another major reason; and the large professional and financial rewards that go to scientists and bureaucrats who are willing to bend scientific facts to match those agendas is yet a third major reason. Another reason for the IPCCâs unreliability is the naive acceptance by policymakers of âpeer reviewedâ literature as necessarily authoritative. It has become the case that refereeing standards for many climate-change papers are inadequate, often because of the use of an âinvisible collegeâ of reviewers of like inclination to a paperâs authors. [Wegman et al. 2006] (For example, some leading IPCC promoters surround themselves with as many as two dozen co authors when publishing research papers.) Policy should be set upon a background of demonstrable science, not upon simple (and often mistaken) assertions that, because a paper was refereed, its conclusions must be accepted.
2, Sorry about the break in post but I had to go to the shop and buy some more ammo .If you know anything about Australia you will know how hard that is (thatâs a joke skip), point 2 was supposed to highlight the hypocrisy of Al Gore. We had a prime minister some years back that owned shares in a pig farm, this particular pig farm benefitted from a change in gov policy and the PM was forced to sell his shares or resign. If PM Rudd stood ready to earn squillions from CO2 taxes via personal interests he would be drummed out of office because he would have a conflict of interest. As Al Gore stands to earn squillions from the very threat that he warns us about, people may be excused for thinking he has an ulterior motive. As per point 1 Skip you can disagree if that is your want but it does mean you are right and I am wrong.
In regards to unintended consequences, if you believe wholeheartedly in the IPCC and its associated apocalyptic scenarios then maybe you will accept the case for drastic times calls for drastic measures, I on the other hand are not like you. I have seen the results of poorly planned and thought out actions of well meaning scientific bodies (cane toads etc) I am sure you can share some examples from your country. I just thought of another one Skip, there are 4 viruses that belong to one family, 3 of these viruses have been known to mutate to infect humans one of these is called the Ebola virus. The fourth and only viruses so far not to infect humans is the Calici virus, CSIRO decided to make a really cool way to kill rabbits with this virus unfortunately the World Health Authority would not allow the CSIRO to release the virus for obvious reasons. But as we know rabbits are rascally critters and they somehow managed to swim a few kilometres from their island home to the mainland. Calici has now spread throughout the country, the WHO are furious and have said when this thing mutates and you start dying donât come to us looking for help. So we now have a ticking time bomb in our midstâs, unintended consequences Skip.
3, Consensus, what is it? Well it is a group of people that agree with each other. Nothing more nothing less, if there is a consensus does this mean we automatically assume they are right? Of course not, science is not done by a show of hands is it. History is littered with incorrect consensus, so lets not confuse scientific fact with appeal to authority ok. Also you asked for quotes and I gave them, now you say they are no good. Toll says IPCC alarmism is preposterous and a small warming would be OK (less deaths in Germany etc). But this is no good now, now you change the rules, you ridicule meteorologists in post # 77 but in post #42 you use them to prop up your own views. I do find it hard to follow your train of thought sometimes Skip, I counted 28 IPCC employed scientists that spoke poorly of the IPCC, 10 from Never A Straight Answer and 4 from NOAA plus a host of other scientists etc who all spoke poorly of the IPCC. No, someone did not use the exact phrase âAGW is a crock of shitâ you were looking for, granted but I believe my point is made.
By the way there is no such thing as a Climate scientist, climate studies cover many fields and there is not one person in the world that could profess to be a master of them all.
Also you may have got a little confused (my fault) âAlso i would like to add, this link as a demonstration to both you and Eric that the masses are made to accept the AGW propoganda, a statement which you have both have lambasted me for making.âCrakerâ
This was referenced to the link showing Antarctic sea ice. I wanted your thoughts as to why the masses are only told about melting ice and not freezing ice.
To finish off (did I cover everything Skip?)
This was from Eric, so Skip you can disregard (post # 77), although it does highlight how some people carefully avoid responding to difficult questions, do you see what Eric has done here?
My statement does not logically follow from anything before and the sentence after is less clear, therefore Eric reserves the right to ignore it. Next time just ignore the difficult statements/questions altogether Eric that why you wont look desperate and out of your depth.
Therefore the term âthe science of AGWâ is a misnomer and is in fact âthe politics of AGWâ.
This sentence does not logically follow from anything before it, and the sentence after it is even less clear.
So in summary,
You believe in the IPCC conclusions whereas I reject some aspects of it.
You believe in the computer model predictions out to 2100 whereas I reject it due to our lack of understanding of the climatic processes
You believe and take refuge in the comfort of the consensus whereas I realize a consensus means nothing when searching for scientific truth
You believe your politicians past and present will to the best of their ability make decisions with your best interests at heart regardless of their conflict of interests whereas I reject this notion completely
You believe in the AGW theory and are not prepared to consider any other option regardless of the implications whereas I reject the theory of AGW based on a lack of evidence, if such evidence does comes to light then I will reconsider my position.
Skip you can break all this down into a simple Freudian exercise if you want but the above facts will not change for you. I on the other hand not constrained by preconceived beliefs have the ability to change my point of view. The best example that immediately springs to mind is the missing hot spot, the mere fact that the hot spot does not exist clearly falsifies the theory of AGW, if the hot spot suddenly appeared for all to see then I would seriously consider the theory of AGW to be very robust and highly plausible.
You and all of the dart throwers here do not care that the hotspot is missing, you yawn and wave your hand nonchalantly and then point to Arctic sea ice, sea level rise or show photos of polar bears.
You reject studies that do not conform to your beliefs not by any scientific measure but by simply labeling the author as a nutjob and a liar, thus shielding your belief system from the real world because thatâs where you feel most comfortable.
And yes by all means if you ever come to Australia we will have a beer, by the way there is an ITC conference in Las Vegas soon and yes I am trying my hardest to be there, unfortunately itâs the really big bosses turn to go so maybe next time I can make it.
Cheers
Help please:
I tried to post a response to Craker and Snow but I can't make the text keep my formatting.
Skip
All:
Not that I assume anyone's going to miss me but try not to have too much fun without me. I'm heading off to South Bend to watch the Irish kick USC's ass this weekend.
Skip
Here is a classic example of when i say the only thing the masses ever hear is scary stories.
The world vision Boss Tim Costello (yes he is the brother of Peter) has made the bold claim that global warming is the cause of all the pacific earthquakes. What a load of crap.
h.t.t.p://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26211144-2682,00.html
Here's an excellent hockey stick from the MET Office that's just CO2, that I think is really the only thing you need to know about global warming:
http://akwag.blogspot.com/2009/10/only-thing-you-need-to-know-about.html
I think it's safe to say that there's no way we can put that much CO2 into the atmosphere without something major - and bad - happening. If we triple the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the minutia of its precise impact on temperature is moot, since we know this is a level we haven't seen in 15 million years.
Here are a couple links to that idiotic liying nutjob, read them at your leisure.
h.t.t.p://www.infowars.com/obama-poised-to-cede-us-sovereignty-claims-british-lor…
h.t.t.p://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/climate_myths_and_national_sec.html
Consensus, what is it? Well it is a group of people that agree with each other. Nothing more nothing less,
You make it sound like a show of hands. Every scientific theory either rises to the level of consensus or else it is abandoned. Every single one. Consensus implicates a consilience of evidence and a preponderance of evidence for the best explanation. Consensus is how science works, and it is the difference between truth as we know it and poorly supported speculation we don't. The difference between science and its denial.
For people like Crack and Snow, your handle will prove you false.
Yes, they are that kind of people ...
"The world vision Boss Tim Costello (yes he is the brother of Peter) has made the bold claim that global warming is the cause of all the pacific earthquakes. What a load of crap." - Crakar
Maybe, maybe not, but................
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327273.800-climate-change-may-t…
"Consensus, what is it? Well it is a group of people that agree with each other. Nothing more nothing less"
This is really a debate over the nature of truth. It seems that the (post)modern conservative movement has adopted the relativist position that all knowledge is political, and there are no objective truths. They've utterly conflated normative claims ("what should be") with objective/positive claims ("what is"). You certainly have a right to your own opinion as to what we SHOULD do in response to knowable facts, because "should" statements depend on subjective values about the good life, obligations to others, etc. But you don't have the right to interpret what those facts ARE.
Fortunately, science is the one area of life where the truth is objectively knowable and ISN'T political. Unfortunately, when science implies that certain policies may be a good idea, ideologues opposed to those policies are all too willing to "interpret" the known facts to suit their preconceived beliefs.
If I may say so, WAG, this isn't the issue at all. It has nothing to do with relativism or the denial of objective truth, or similar malarky. No, the issue is quite straightforward: it is that sceptics believe that when a conflict arises between evidence and theory, evidence is to be preferred.
With evidence in support of the sceptics' position piling up daily, it is hardly surprising that their ranks are growing, even - wonder of wonders - in places like the BBC.
With evidence in support of the sceptics' position piling up daily,
You'll die a bitter man, if you ever regain sanity.
You know, ali baba, I really find it difficult to understand the fierce certainties that you and the other climate alarmists bring to this discussion. I can't for the life of me comprehend why you cannot see that your posture is no different from zealots throughout the ages. Your refusal to acknowledge the strength of opposing views, your intolerance, your intransigence - all of these are sure signs of individuals who are beyond the reach of reason.
Oh well, it doesn't really matter. Time, ali baba, will prove me right and you wrong. (And it will be much sooner than you think.)
snowflake said:
It is called science, something which you know absolutely nothing about. Why did you not learn any science during your so-called education?
Ian - I know you tend to blow your stack and unleash a string of invective at anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you. Nevertheless, I am going to assume that, underneath it all, you are a rational individual who is capable of coherent thought.
What I am leading up to is this: I understand why some people believe in AGW. Although I am convinced they are wrong, I acknowledge the reasoning that has led them to this point of view. I am fully aware of the IPCC reports and the many other sources of information upon which they base their position.
What I can't understand, Ian, is why you seem constitutionally incapable of acknowledging any validity whatsoever in your opponents' arguments. Your intransigence weakens your case.
Why do you do that? Why do you call people liars, scumbags and the like? Do you genuinely think that this advances your cause? These are not rhetorical questions. I am truly interested in knowing what you think.
You are a lying denier. You deny science which has been around for 150 years. You are a typical Dunning Kruger aflictee. Why do you think that you, with absolutely no knowledge or understanding of science can claim that thousands of scientists are wrong and you are right?
Is it any wonder that scientists get angry at you when you spout nonsense? You slander scientists, you completely misunderstand simple science, you accuse scientists of dishonesty and conspiracy.
This is a science blog. Either start learning some science or stop showing your ignorance with everything you post here. You are the one who is being dishonest, not the scientists. You are a pathetic troll and a very sad person indeed. If we are to act in the way you are advocating it will be a very worse future for my children and their children than we have now. You are a very selfish person if you want to have it good now and to hell with the future.
>>> With evidence in support of the sceptics' position piling up daily,
>> You'll die a bitter man, if you ever regain sanity.
You know, ali baba, I really find it difficult to understand the fierce certainties that you and the other climate alarmists bring to this discussion.
That's not the only thing difficult for you to understand.
Every research article contains evidence, obtained through research. You have merely to count research articles for and against AGW to realize the evidence against it has become almost extinct, not "piling up". Perhaps between making bizarre pronouncements on the Internet you can spare a few minutes to learn and understand simple arithmetic?
Ian, I am fully aware of the science of AGW. I completely understand the physics of your case.
However, I am also aware of the intense pressure that has been put on scientists over the years. I know how cognitive bias can distort the thinking of even the most intelligent group of people. I know that at the very least the evidence put forward to support the AGW case is ambiguous. I know how moral pressure has corrupted the peer review system, and led to an atmosphere of recrimination and near-hysteria. This has been a sorry episode in the history of science, one that will result in many reputations damaged beyond repair.
And ali baba, am I right in thinking that your argument is that we should count the number of for-and-against articles to decide who is right? Is that genuinely what you are saying?
However, as I have said before, this is not a time-neutral argument. The AGW hypothesis cannot survive another two years of plunging temperatures, and we will soon see who is right.
@snowman:
What plunging temperatures?
Your claim that "moral pressure has corrupted the peer review system" is simply not backed up by any factual evidence. But perhaps you are the one who has been hiding that, considering all other 'sceptics' I asked ran away when requested to provide such evidence.
The "sorry episode in the history of science" is the frequently highly erroneous claims of self-declared 'sceptics', who run after each and every article they can remotely interpret as being supportive for their position, while criticising any and all articles that go against. In the former cases, 'scepticism' is abandonded, in the latter case the arguments frequently indicate the believe in a large world-wide conspiracy. You're an excellent example of such a 'sceptic'.
"The "sorry episode in the history of science" is the frequently highly erroneous claims of self-declared 'sceptics', who run after each and every article they can remotely interpret as being supportive for their position" - Marco
Yes, the old denialist "dump and run" method. That's what Snowjob was talking about when he said "piling up", as in pigeon poo. That's all they've got.
Wow - what a lot of opinion and zero evidence from the denialists. I've been hearing this 'the case for global warming is about to collapse' line for years now in various debates; yet like tomorrow, it never seems to come.
Those who follow the evidence know that it is piling up and up; so the simple statement about 'understand the physics' is missing the point; it is not some hypothetical theory - to have AGW overturned now would mean dramatic new evidence from satellite measurements, ocean currents and temperatures, computational modelling, ecological species movement, weather patterns and so on and more.
As has correctly been noted; new evidence for the denialists case has been non-existent for a long, long time now. All they have is critiquing (badly) the evidence produced by the scientists - a kind of 'God-of-the-gaps' approach we find in creationism. This can only ever be a rearguard activity and ironically strengthens the evidence by forcing more rigour.
And ali baba, am I right in thinking that your argument is that we should count the number of for-and-against articles to decide who is right? Is that genuinely what you are saying?
One goalpost at a time. First: evidence against AWG is not "piling up", as you claimed, it's been dwindling for decades and today there is almost none. Evidence for AGW continues to accumulate at an expanding rate. If you're running out of evidence for X while accumulating evidence for Y, you may cling desperately to X if you wish, buy lottery tickets, throw salt over your shoulder, scribble on blogs & etc, but your wish is not a warrant against Y, is it? Therefore Y.
As is the case for evolution ... it's been killed off more times than I can count!
Snowman says: "I am also aware of the intense pressure that has been put on scientists over the years. I know how cognitive bias can distort the thinking of even the most intelligent group of people... I know how moral pressure has corrupted the peer review system, and led to an atmosphere of recrimination and near-hysteria."
Snowman - If you believe this, what could possibly prove you wrong? By convincing yourself that all evidence, even when it's objective and quantifiable, is the subject of "pressure" and "bias," you've set up a worldview that allows you to automatically disregard any evidence that conflicts with your position. No matter how convincing the evidence that you're wrong, you've got the failsafe of dismissing the evidence as "biased," and we're back to what I originally said regarding the nature of Truth. I'm reminded of the Pope who told Galileo that he believed biblical inerrancy over observations because, he said, God was so clever that he could create a geocentric universe that appeared to be heliocentric. Any observations could be dismissed as an illusion. So deniers, if all evidence is biased, what can we possibly show you that would be unbiased enough to cause you to change your mind?
Also, if we're to grant you that individuals suffer from cognitive bias, that doesn't logically lead to the conclusion that the evidence itself for AGW is wrong. How do you believe this cognitive bias manifests? Are multiple scientists repeatedly making identical errors in calculations? Are they deliberately falsifying observations and data? Please explain.
snowflake said:
What a lie. You know nothing about science and how it affects climate. You continually slander scientists and denigrate science. I just don't understand why anyone is allowed to spout their ASS rubbish on a science site.
#98 "Ian, I am fully aware of the science of AGW. I completely understand the physics of your case."
Remind me - how do you calculate a linear trend?
WAG:
In my extensive write up for Snow-Crack (that I left on a computer back in Reno) I essentially made the same point. Just because great minds think alike doesn't mean my mediocre mind can't think like a great one.
Coby: I'll try your formatting advice with my document when I get back to Reno tomorrow.
Greetings from Chicago, gents. The Irish lost but 'twas a great game.
Skip
How was South Bend Indiana Skip, must have been cold i imagine.
South Bend, IN: Coldest 1st two weeks of October on record
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE NORTHERN INDIANA
THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE THROUGH OCT 14 HAS BEEN 47.2 DEGREES...THE COLDEST FIRST TWO WEEKS OF OCT ON RECORD AT THIS LOCATION.
ADDITIONALLY...THE AVERAGE HIGH TEMP FOR THE MONTH SO FAR IS ONLY 54.4 DEGREES...MORE THAN A FULL DEGREE COLDER THAN PREVIOUS RECORD SET IN 1917. THESE TEMPERATURES ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE EXPECTED DURING THE FIRST WEEK OF NOVEMBER.
AT FORT WAYNE...THE AVERAGE TEMP THROUGH OCT 14 HAS BEEN 49.0 DEGREES... TIES FOR THIRD COLDEST START TO THE MONTH...TWO DEGREES WARMER THAN THE RECORD OF 47.0 SET IN 1917.
Is this the same Sth Bend you went to?
By the way i am patiently awaiting your reply (post 107) should be a good read.
Regards
Crack.
DW re post 89, thats interesting reading thanks for the link. I did read an abstract of a study once (link lost) which suggested that when the sun goes quiet we get more earthquakes and volcanos due to a lower solar wind makes the planet spin faster or slower cant remember, will try and find the paper again.
Cheers
Crak
I would be prepared to bet all the tea in China that every study I produce that supports my views would be rejected by you in an attempt to support your own views of AGW.
If you keep citing weak, partisan crap like Inhoffe and Singer (see below), you will probably get to keep your tea, especially since your demonstrated history is to cite things you clearly have not even read.
And of course you couldnât cover that bet, Cracker, which is why you make it so glibly. But thatâs ok; Iâm American and drinking little tea is part of our legacy of rebellion against the Crown. You Commonwealth folks prize it more than we do.
Note: some of the following text has been copied from an article, an article which expresses my views on the IPCC.
From the very beginning, the IPCC was a political rather than scientific entity, with its leading scientists reflecting the positions of their governments or seeking to induce their governments to adopt the IPCC position. In particular, a small group of activists wrote the all-important Summary for Policymakers (SPM) for each of the four IPCC reports [McKitrick et al. 2007].
You of course lifted this from one of Fred Singerâs reports (he copied and pasted from one to the other so I donât know which.) The absurdity of this source is manifest. He cites the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine survey (let me know if you want to debate the validity of that joke), includes as a contributor Zbigniew Jaworowski (Lawrence Solomonâs âice core manâ, a quack who has been debunked into orbit), and your good mate Christopher Monckton. Not exactly an all star list of first rate intellects or scientific credentials. (I canât speak to the others, to be fair.) I am also aware that some claim that Singerâs book, *Unstoppable Global Warming . . .*, has been shredded, but since I have not read either his book or these critiques I would have to take a wait-and-see approach to that. It might have been discussed on the âmedieval warm periodâ thread. You tell me, Craker; I honestly donât know.
While we are often told about the thousands of scientists on whose work the Assessment reports are based, the vast majority of these scientists have no direct influence on the conclusions expressed by the IPCC.
False. Their *research* is the underpinning of the summaries.
Those [reports] are produced by an inner core of scientists, and the SPMs are revised and agreed to, line-by-line, by representatives of member governments. This obviously is not how real scientific research is reviewed and published.
Weâve been through this. The IPCC report is not âresearchâ. Itâs a *research summary*, the essential conclusions of which are *agreed* to by an overwhelming majority of scientists who specialize in climate science and many of whom contributed to the report. If you understand the process of collaboration and co-authorship you would understand that a small number of report writers is a *practicality*, not a cover-up.
The IPCCâs FAR 1990 reported without much analysis claimed that temp changes were âbroadly consistentâ with GH models, it arrived at a climate sensitivity of 1.5 to 4.5C
The IPCCâs SAR 1996, Its SPM contained the memorable conclusion, âthe balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.â The SAR was heavily criticized,
Of course. Some people donât want to believe it.
80
point 2 was supposed to highlight the hypocrisy of Al Gore. We had a prime minister some years back that owned shares in a pig farm, this particular pig farm benefitted from a change in gov policy and the PM was forced to sell his shares or resign. If PM Rudd stood ready to earn squillions from CO2 taxes via personal interests he would be drummed out of office because he would have a conflict of interest. As Al Gore stands to earn squillions from the very threat that he warns us about, people may be excused for thinking he has an ulterior motive. As per point 1 Skip you can disagree if that is your want but it does mean you are right and I am wrong.
Narratives at full throttle: âOne of âyourâ guys is bad. This (somehow) proves Iâm right.â I donât actively agree or disagree. I am indifferent. If Al Gore snorts cocaine while listening to death metal and engaging in sexual congress with barnyard animals it *has no bearing on our disagreement*. This is a total red herring, Craker.
In regards to unintended consequences, if you believe wholeheartedly in the IPCC and its associated apocalyptic scenarios
I donât âbelieveâ in them as certainties, Craker, and neither does the IPCC. They are prospective *threats*--possibilities, risks against which we should prudently hedge, especially since the supposed âcostsâ associated with said hedging are also associated with collateral benefits. Iâve said this again and again; you just ignore me (see below).
\ then maybe you will accept the case for drastic times calls for drastic measures, I on the other hand are not like you.
Set up a straw man and start torching, Craker. Translation of the above: âNow that Iâve established that you believe something ridiculous âwholeheartedlyâ, allow me to contrast my practical minded self with your silliness.â Its extremely important for you to believe that I support cloud seeding (or that my position requires me to, were I only clever enough to see it), isnât it Craker? Keep that narrative cranking, baby. Iâve told you I really donât know enough about it (Iâve only read a couple of articles and they focused on the politics and philosophy of it) and that my proposals for acting on climate change are far simpler (tweak the incentives to reward reduced use and investment in alternativesâbut this is for another thread.)
I have seen the results of poorly planned and thought out actions of well meaning scientific bodies (cane toads etc) I am sure you can share some examples from your country
[and so on about the folly of environmental tinkering].
Granted. But this is the same lame guilt-by-association. And youâre off on a soliloquy launched by nothing but your repeated refusal to accept what I say at face value: *Iâm not supporting proactive environmental manipulation.* In fact, Iâm supporting the reverse.
To wit:
. . . [after listing off several examples of humanâs dicking up the environment through ill considered efforts at conscious manipulation] So we now have a ticking time bomb in our midstâs, unintended consequences Skip.
I agree thatâs both very possible and very bad. And *human carbon emissions* might *also* be one of those, Craker! The only difference between the human activity of raising the CO2 levels in the atmosphere and these failed experiments you mention is that our emissions were never intended for any environmental or other benefit. They were strictly for our convenience. If you can see the folly of unintended consequences for these other programs (which were localized), how is it that AGWâa potential worldwide phenomenonâescapes the same scrutiny for potential damage? Its because of narratives, Craker. You donât *want* to see it (my attribution).
3, Consensus, what is it? Well it is a group of people that agree with each other. Nothing more nothing less, if there is a consensus does this mean we automatically assume they are right? Of course not, science is not done by a show of hands is it. History is littered with incorrect consensus, so lets not confuse scientific fact with appeal to authority ok.
When you travel on aircraft, drive a car, live in a code-approved home, or accept modern medical care, you are taking your chances with a scientific, peer reviewed consensus. And thatâs what Iâm doing, Craker, when I say we need to hedge against risk and act to prevent the potential long term damage of AGW. This is a recurring theme in my experience with debating deniers: Any element of uncertainty (which is unavoidable in science) is interpreted as an excuse for inaction. Your above logic amounts to, âWe canât be sure AGW fears are founded [and I agree we canât, strictly speaking], so we should assume they are *not*. Fire up the Hummer.â
Also you asked for quotes and I gave them, now you say they are no good. Toll says IPCC alarmism is preposterous and a small warming would be OK (less deaths in Germany etc).But this is no good now, now you change the rules,
Wrong. You were claiming that your link proved your outrageous claim that, â"one by one self respecting scientists are turning away from the AGW theory and declaring themselves as sceptics."
I showed simply that it does nothing of the sort. The ham-handed quote of Tol (who does *not* support Inhofeâs position on the AGW position or how policy should handle it) was an example of this. It is you who has changed the goalposts, now changing your claim about the link to it contains experts âwho all spoke poorly of the IPCC.â (whatever exactly that means, and in any event its not the same thing, Craker. Beating me to the punch on the *accusation* of goal moving does not change the fact that it was you who sucked it in closer to yourself when I caught you red-handed "dogma propping" (more on this below.
you ridicule meteorologists in post # 77
Not with regards to meteorology, but I question their relative credibility in commenting on climate issues, yes.
but in post #42 you use them to prop up your own views.
Wrong. I only pointed out the survey results for their field because in my experience deniers lean heavily on sources from that specialty. They are not mentioned to support *my* views, but only to show that on average they do *not* support yours. The 97 percent figure for climate scientists was the money finding.
I do find it hard to follow your train of thought sometimes Skip.
You would have a fun conversation with my wife.
I counted 28 IPCC employed scientists that spoke poorly of the IPCC, 10 from Never A Straight Answer and 4 from NOAA plus a host of other scientists etc who all spoke poorly of the IPCC. No, someone did not use the exact phrase âAGW is a crock of shitâ
Nor had anyone who has studied climate science from that list " turn[ed] away from the AGW theory and declar[ed] themselves as [a] sceptic . . ."
you were looking for, granted but I believe my point is made.
The new or the old one?
By the way there is no such thing as a Climate scientist,
I think weâre getting closer to the key issue here. Convince yourself of this and you can believe (or disbelieve) just about anything, I can imagine. Its like saying there are no âmedical researchersâ, âaerospace engineersâ, âdesign engineersâ, or anything else where we have a vested interest in learning about the biological and physical worlds because, after all, all of them, like climate studies, âcover many fields and there is not one person in the world that could profess to be a master of them all.â
Also you may have got a little confused (my fault) âAlso i would like to add, this link as a demonstration to both you and Eric that the masses are made to accept the AGW propoganda, a statement which you have both have lambasted me for making.âCrakerâ
This was referenced to the link showing Antarctic sea ice. I wanted your thoughts as to why the masses are only told about melting ice and not freezing ice.
I confess not to understand the science of this at a technical level. However, a sophisticated understanding of AGW recognizes that its effects are non-linear. If increased precipitation from AGW causes increases in Antarctic ice, then thatâs the way it is. This is no more impressive than pointing out that some glaciers are increasing their ice mass, because you would not expect such glacial declines to be linear. But save this for another thread; Iâm not your man on this issue, I admit. But your use of this as a silver bullet looks like blatant cherry picking of anything that comforts your narrative.
To finish off (did I cover everything Skip?)
See below.
So in summary, You believe in the IPCC conclusions.
Well, I think we should act on them, yes.
whereas I reject some aspects of it.
Which aspects do you not reject?
You believe in the computer model predictions out to 2100 whereas I reject it due to our lack of understanding of the climatic processes.
I am willing to act on those models to hedge against risk.
You believe and take refuge in the comfort of the consensus
Weâre homing in on the core of this narrative interpretation on which you appear to lean so heavily. I have repeatedly explained in a manner that continues to apparently confound you that I do *not* take comfort in the consensus. It seems very, very difficult, Craker, for you to conceive of someone being convinced of something for reasons other than they *want* it to be true. I have a fairly strong hunch as to why.
I will repeat my real ânarrativeâ for you benefit:
â*Based on the results of a scientific process and its *overwhelming* consensus, we believe that AGW is real, and very possibly dangerous enough to merit actions that are socially and economically tolerable--and undeniably beneficial in other ways.*â
Only one of three things could be going on here, Craker:
(1)Iâm lying about my narrative. Iâm just *pretending* to be worried about long term AGW, and really the thought of AGW destruction and/or socialistic oppression to address it gives me a big, fat Woodrow, and this conditions me to ignore excellent evidence that it is wrong, or
(2)Iâm telling the truth about myself but Iâm *deceived*. Iâm an automaton who just dumbly âaccept[s] the AGW propagandaâ and who âbelieve[s] [my] politicians past and present will to the best of their ability make decisions with [my] best interests at heart regardless of their conflict of interests . . .â Along with the other drones, I do this to the detriment of prosperity, freedom, etc., or
(3)Iâm telling the truth about myselfâAGW and deniersâ apparent obstinacy about it is distressing to me, and thus I have *no reason* to block out information that would relieve me of this fear. As a result, when I reject the likes of Singer, Monckton, etc., it is because I think *theyâre full of shit*, Craker. I would *rather* believe them, but I canât. I have investigated the issue and I know the overwhelming reasons to fear AGW.
I understand that from halfway around the world you canât know for sure, of course, which of these is true. But what makes more sense? Have you done *anything* even approaching what I have done to give the denier side a fair chance? Have you done anything like read three books picked by the other side and explained in detail why they are wrong? (My 46 page essay is at your disposal.) My guess, Craker, is that you have not. My perception is that you troll the net looking for things that you think confirm what you hope is true, regardless of their credibility, as this recent Inhofe debacle shows. Youâre fishing for âproofsââfor confirmations of your narrative. I call the process âdogma proppingâ: âHereâs someone who says Iâm right. Maybe I donât really know what it says, but it proves me right.â And the by the way, this is in purist conformity to experiences Iâve had with other debates with deniers. The last guy once tried to send me a link with the *caveat* that he wasnât even endorsing it. Itâs a concession: âMy proof is somewhereâmaybe here; maybe notâIâm not saying either way. But read it just in case it proves me right.â
Whereas I realize a consensus means nothing when searching for scientific truth.
Then, to put WAGâs point another way: Give me an example of what means âsomethingâ. A key problem you must confront at some point, Craker, is that AGW is either true and dangerous or its not. When deciding whether to act on it, what do we have to go on *other* than the scientific consensus? Youâve got to take your chances with something, and Iâll throw my chips in with the IPCC. You prefer Monckton and Singer, and it looks like you prefer them simply because they say what you want to hear.
You believe your politicians past and present will to the best of their ability make decisions with your best interests at heart regardless of their conflict of interests whereas I reject this notion completely.
Straw man. You have every opportunity to ask me my opinion of the role of government and the potential pitfalls of engaging it (or not) to solve social/political/environmental problems, but youâre not interested in that. You want to *tell* me what I think. Why? It looks like you need to believe what you wrote above because, again *it fits your narrative*.
You believe in the AGW theory and are not prepared to consider any other option regardless of the implications
I just considered another option: The possibility that your link to Ihofeâs list was proof that, â"one by one self respecting scientists are turning away from the AGW theory and declaring themselves as sceptics." You were just blatantly fishing and hopoing at that point. Since you didnât deliver, yes, I am still stuck for now with my trust in the scientific consensus.
whereas I reject the theory of AGW based on a lack of evidence, if such evidence does comes to light then I will reconsider my position.
What evidence would that be for a bloke who says âa consensus means nothing when searching for scientific truthâ? What would it take, Crakerâa lunar billboard with a sign from God? An epiphany a la Homer Simpson? (âSpider pig . . . Spider pig . . . does whatever a spider pig does . . p. )Forty days of fasting and prayer? You tell us youâre unimpressed with a consensus even as you tell us all you need is evidence. If it is true that climate studies âcover many fields and there is not one person in the world that could profess to be a master of them all,â then as laymen we have to rely on secondhand sources in formulating our view. If not a consensus of them, then what? What would it take, Craker?
Skip you can break all this down into a simple Freudian exercise if you want but the above facts will not change for you. I on the other hand not constrained by preconceived beliefs have the ability to change my point of view.
Borderline hilarious. I repeat my questions from above.
The best example that immediately springs to mind is the missing hot spot, the mere fact that the hot spot does not exist clearly falsifies the theory of AGW, if the hot spot suddenly appeared for all to see then I would seriously consider the theory of AGW to be very robust and highly plausible.
I donât know what this issue is but if thereâs a thread on AFTIC point it out to me.
You and all of the dart throwers here do not care that the hotspot is missing, you yawn and wave your hand nonchalantly and then point to Arctic sea ice, sea level rise or show photos of polar bears.
You reject studies that do not conform to your beliefs not by any scientific measure but by simply labeling the author as a nutjob and a liar, thus shielding your belief system from the real world because thatâs where you feel most comfortable.
Or in your case, if the document does not support your claim.
And yes by all means if you ever come to Australia we will have a beer, by the way there is an ITC conference in Las Vegas soon and yes I am trying my hardest to be there, unfortunately itâs the really big bosses turn to go so maybe next time I can make it.
Youâre nowhere near me and I hate Vegas, but have a safe trip and violate a copyright for me.
Skip
Snowman:
Its revealing that you see the debate simply in terms of who can sway the mob to their side. AGW is either true or it is not. Whether the BBC is doing an about-face has nothing to do with it.
As if that were not enough, over the weekend, the Sunday Times, hitherto a climate change cheerleader second only to the Guardian in its enthusiasm for carbon propaganda, devoted a whole section of the newspaper to a major analysis advising people that everything they have been told about global warming is wrong.
Where?
Skip
I can't agree with you, Skip. This is, first and foremost, a political debate. Steadily falling temperatures will soon hole the AGW case below the waterline in any case. But until that happens, our various governments can cause appalling economic damage to the west.
Articles of the sort I mentioned are therefore vital, not peripheral, and there will be many more such over the next few months. Once politicians realize that climate alarmism is giving way to scepticism, their enthusiasm for emission controls and cap and trade legislation will be considerably reduced.
I can't agree with you, Skip. This is, first and foremost, a political debate
Says it all. That you can type that with a straight face just confirms everything--and I mean everything--I've been saying.
Steadily falling temperatures will soon hole the AGW case below the waterline in any case
As you keenly demonstrated with your shrewd take on arctic ice extent data trends?
Articles of the sort I mentioned are therefore vital
If all you care about is swaying public opinion and ignoring the truth. Oh that's right: its first and foremost, a political debate
Once politicians realize that climate alarmism is giving way to scepticism
So much so that 97 percent of climate scientists confirm their agreement with the AGW consensus?
I'm sure most politicians will be as impressed as you are, Snow.
Skip
Hey Skip, do you ever have a sense of futility, as I do, when you type your posts? You know that nothing you say will convince Crakar or me, just as I know that nothing I say will have the slightest impact upon you. I suppose it keeps us amused, if nothing else.
Anyway, as I have said so frequently that I am sure you are tired of hearing it, time will tell who is right. And Skip, the clock is ticking, and the temperatures are falling.
Hey Skip, do you ever have a sense of futility, as I do, when you type your posts?
No. Otherwise I wouldn't bother.
You know that nothing you say will convince Crakar or me
Also a stunningly revealing statement.
just as I know that nothing I say will have the slightest impact upon you.
Anything rooted in science and logically argued has an impact on me.
I suppose it keeps us amused, if nothing else.
Speak for yourself.
Skip
Using my trusty compact Oxford dictionary i looked up the following words
FAITH
⢠noun 1 complete trust or confidence. 2 strong belief in a religion. 3 a system of religious belief.
â ORIGIN Old French feid, from Latin fides.
BELIEF
⢠noun 1 a feeling that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. 2 a firmly held opinion. 3 (belief in) trust or confidence in. 4 religious faith.
â ORIGIN Old English.
RELIGION
NOUN:
1.
a.Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b.A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2.The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3.A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4.A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
consensus
/k nsens ss/
⢠noun general agreement.
â ORIGIN Latin, âagreementâ
Now lets look at the kind of people we face here and the facts of the situation.
Point 1
We are told that increasing CO2 levels cause/are causing the temps to rise, however the geological record shows this to be the opposite. Even if we look at the past 70 years (post 1940) when mans activity is supposed to be most pronounced we find that CO2 has risen for all 70 years but the temps have been either stable or falling for 40 of the 70 years. This would suggest to me that CO2 does not in fact cause the temp to rise but for others this information is of no concern because there is a general agreement amongst some scientists (IPCC) that the opposite is true. This type of behaviour falls into the definition of FAITH , noun 1 and BELIEF, noun 1, 2 and 3.
Point 2
We are shown the results of computer model programmes that predict an apocolyptic future, these programs are based on modelling 16 (yes thats right only 16) parameters, many are considered by the IPCC as having a very low and low level of scientific understanding. Do the models incorporate the ocean cycles? or the atmosphere/ocean interactions? No they dont. There are many more parameters that they do not incorporate, but wait thats not all. We are expected to believe in these computer programmes because the IPCC scientists are in general agreement with them even though they predict a hot spot where no such thing exists. Without a hotspot there is no global warming.
Lets not forget 9 years into a 100 year prediction of CO2 levels the IPCC have got it wrong.
Lets not forget 9 years into a 100 year prediction of temp levels the IPCC have got it wrong.
And yet we are bombarded with stories about how bad it is all going to get based on these very same computer programmes
Refer to the FAITH and BELIEF definitions to judge what nouns should be used.
Point 3
The 3300 Argo bathythermograph buoys deployed throughout the worldâs oceans since late in 2003 have shown a slight cooling of the oceans over the past five years, directly contrary to the official theory that any âglobal warmingâ not showing in the atmosphere would definitely show up in the first 400 fathoms of the worldâs oceans, where at least 80% of any surplus heat would be stored. Source: ARGO project, June 2009.
Point 4
Sea level is scarcely rising: The average rise in sea level over the past 10,000 years was 4 feet/century. During the 20th century it was 8 inches. In the past four years, sea level has scarcely risen at all. As recently as 2001, the IPCC had predicted that sea level might rise as much as 3 ft in the 21st century. However, this maximum was cut by more than one-third to less than 2 feet in the IPCCâs 2007 report. Moerner (2004) says sea level will rise about 8 inches in the 21st century. Mr. Justice Burton, in the UK High Court, bluntly commented on Al Goreâs predicted 20ft sea-level rise as follows: âThe Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view.â A fortiori, James Hansenâs prediction of a 246ft sea-level rise is mere rodomontade. Sea-level rise since the beginning of 2006 has been negligible. Source: University of Colorado, 2009, release 4.
Point 5
The peer-reviewed literature is unanimous in finding that the residence-time of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 7 years. The UNâs climate panel, however, chooses a complex and unsatisfactory definition of residence-time that allows it to pretend that the residence time is in fact 100 years. This is one of many respects in which the climate panel, while claiming to represent the âconsensusâ of scientific opinion, is in fact entirely at odds with the peer-reviewed literature.
Summary,
I could go on but what would be the point. I understand that many of you fall into the two catagories of faith and belief, i will stop short of calling this a religious crusade simply because AGW (the latest version) has only been around for 21 years and therefore is not entrenched in the psyche of the general population like your run of the mill religion. In the end the data shows inconsistencies with the AGW theory.
Now you have a choice you can either run around in ever decreasing circles waving your arms in the air yelling "global warming is real" or you can compare the facts to the predictions.
Snow and Crack,
You have just been utterly destroyed and shown for what you are by an amazingly patient, detailed and carefully reasoned analysis of what lies behind you tripe. And the best you can do is the diversionary drivel of the last few posts? Address Skip's points, you cowards.
Neither of you shows an ability to 'man-up' and admit you don't understand what you're on about; either that or you are so stupid you don't even realise when your arse has been handed to you on a plate 'cause you're too busy salivating at the shit issuing forth....
It can be fun to banter back and forth on here with good-natured ferocity, but seriously, recognise when you have a responsibilty to put up or shut up. I'd recommend the latter before further embarrassment is induced. You've conclusively demonstrated you have not the slightest clue how real-world science works.
What on earth are you talking about, Matt? What about Crakar's detailed five points above? The capacity of the True Believers for reality inversion never fails to astonish me.
snowflake said:
Excrement is still excrement no matter in how much detail you describe it. It doesn't matter whether you are looking at it from 50 yards or sticking your nose in it it is still the same.
You know nothing about science yet you stick your nose into the foulest of excrement and try and tell everyone that it is just a new colour for roses.
You are a pathetic troll and dishonest to boot.
Ian, please, all this 'pond scum, pathetic troll, foulest-of-excrement' stuff is exceedingly tedious.
Why not, just for a change, address Crakar's five points and show us why you disagree?
Now that would be something shocking.
Hi guys.
Coby:
Craker has ignored the issue of narratives, dismissing it as a "Freudian exercise" (I think I know why) and dodged numerous points from my line-by-line response to him with what he thinks are technical diversions. Its extremely telling that he's trying to switch the subject here and that Snowman cheers this effort.
I would love to see all five of Craker's points debated (especially this residence time issue) but in the technical threads.
But I first want to propose that this particular thread be renamed/redirected/replaced with something like "Why do People Believe or Disbelieve AGW?: The "Narratives" of Acceptance and Denial"
Thanks again for your help with the formatting.
Skip
snowflake said:
You are the one being tedious with your repeated nonsense. It is very tedious having to correct you every time you post more of your foul excrement and lies.
Please stop it, this is a science site not a site where any foul mouthed dishonest troll can debase basic science and slander scientists.
I see, Ian. Well, as you are eager to keep this a science site, you will doubtless want to provide a detailed rebuttal of Crakar's five points.
And your rebuttal is....
Don't yet get tired of lying Snowjob?. Point 3 and 4 on crakars list have been rebutted only a month or so ago. You know that, you contributed to the thread.
Are you just incapable of learning?. Does information go in one of yours ears/eyes and straight out the other?.
Skip, snowman likely wants to move the discussion, as he can see that crakar's original points have been solidly refuted. Of course, he won't admit to that.
But refuting crakar's additional 5 points is also easy:
1a. Poor understanding of the science: while we know that in the past initial warming preceded CO2 rise, we also know that greenhouse gases have to be invoked as a positive feedback in order to understand the total temperature increase. We also know that the initial warming started in the Southern hemisphere, and that in the tropics and Northern Hemisphere temperature increases often LAGGED CO2. But being a scientist I will also be honest and note that this there still are only few such studies.
1b. Where's the statistical proof that out of the 70 years, 40 years have seen stable / cooling, and why does this matter? With respect to the latter, try and analyse the CO2 curve from Mauna Loa: you'll find that close to 50% of the time it is stable/going down. And yet, in 50 years it has went up quite a bit...
2a. "Climate models" use a variety of parameters, but also often have different focus areas. They are generally in agreement on the long-term trend, but often differ in local and decadal predictions. It's especially in those latter areas where we still have too limited data.
2b. There's a reason people define climate as a 30-year period. If someone would have taken the 1984-1993 period, he would have claimed 'stable temperatures', too. We're more than 0.3 degrees above that baseline a mere 15 years later.
3. You'll have to be a bit more precise with your reference. I cannot find any evidence that the Argo-team released any data that suggested cooling. This paper shows warming:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008GL036010.shtml
4. Poor understanding of science, or deliberate creation of confusion. Doesn't work on a blog with scientists! Crakar will have to read up on historic sea level variations before he tries this one again. Also, the IPCC explicitely notes it assumes no acceleration of melt or sudden events. Recent literature indicates such catastrophic events may well occur within the next 90 years.
5. I'd love to see that "peer-reviewed literature" that supposedly is almost unanimous about the residence time of CO2 being 7 years. Make a list crakar, and do be so honest to include ALL articles.
5.
Dude, Snowman, come on. Everyone has responded to all of Crakar's points - repeating them doesn't make them true. But I'll debunk them AGAIN. *sigh*
Point 1: This is a basic logical fallacy that reveals skeptics inability to understand non-linearities. As CO2 has increased, temperature has increased as well, though not in a straight line. That temperature goes up and down over a 10-20 year time scale is irrelevant to CO2's impact on temperature. Crakar - respond to this, don't just repeat the original argument.
Point 2: Irrelevant. We don't need models to understand the basic relationship of CO2 to temperature. Basic math is all you need to understand that a major increase in CO2 leads to a major increase in temperatures; models simply predict the magnitude of that increase - whether it's big or really big. Crakar - respond to this, don't just repeat the original argument.
Point 3: Flat out wrong. ARGO data shows ocean heat content to be rising. See here: http://skepticalscience.com/How-we-know-global-warming-is-happening-Par…
Point 4: Straw men. And the 4-feet per century figure is simply wrong - it's 2 feet per century over the last 20,000 years, not 4 feet over the last 10,000. And it's a misleading figure, because it includes the melting of glaciers during the last ice age. The rise in seas levels flattened out roughly 7000 years ago. The predicted 2-feet rise over the next 100 years is thus more in line with the end of an ice age than business as usual. And when the last ice age ended, we didn't have permanent infrastructure built on the coasts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
Point 5: Again, simply made up. Crakar is confusing the residence time of a single CO2 molecule in the atmosphere with the residence time of a given concentration of CO2. I don't understand the technical details, but just because you don't understand something doesn't mean you have the right to question the people that do (the scientists in the IPCC).
In conclusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Got_F%27d_in_the_A
Several addressees, please scroll down until you see your name.
Skip,
I am in the process of addressing your points, dont forget i dont sit here with fingers poised ready to type at a moments notice. I will respond in due course.
Ian "cant see the trees" Forrester,
I suspect you have a cage full of monkeys with type writers out the back writing for you. Most of the time they produce gibberish, this is one of those times i see.
Matt "aussie" Bennett
Still speaking for the overwhelming majority of Australians are we? I dont think so.
DW.....nah got nothing for you mate (no disrespect).
Marco.
We can play the game if you want, let me get back to you on your questions.
In summary, Skip and aussie Matt claim i dodged the issue of his post but did i? All of you missed the point completely. The point of the post was to highlight inconsistencies with the AGW theory that are purposefully overlooked in an effort to maintain the belief and you all did exactly that. Except for Marco who went one step further and tried to justify his beliefs by, 1. Asking me for a reference on SST which i clearly gave (Source: ARGO project, June 2009.)
Then lambasts me for not supplying a reference for point 5.
2, none of you can address the fact that the models are based on only 16 parameters most of which are very poorly understood. Etc, etc, etc.
However i digress i will save this sort of response for Marco, the point is you all responded exactly as i thought you would and as a result i am no reconsidering my opinions on whether this is a religion rather than faith.
In post 124 Marco essentially called me a liar (point 5) in regards to the residency time of man made CO2, the reason why is simple. The IPCC claim a residency time of 100 years which fits in nicely with his apocolyptic view of the future, in fact one can only imagine the grin on a nerdy computer modellers face as he models 100 years of man made CO2 build up in his very own virtual world.
Below is a list of 35 studies looking at the residency time of CO2 going back to 1957. Of the 35 studies, 28 have a residency time of 10 years or less, 5 have a residency time of 10 to 15 years, one has a residency time of 25 years and one has a residency time of 100 years.
Obviously it is impossible to defend the IPCC on their claim which is why none of you will, some will call me names, some will slander the scientists listed below as liars and nutjobs and some will even plumb the depths of stupidity and claim the IPCC "got it right".
Not one of you will stop and think hang on a second if the IPCC got it wrong then that explains why the virtual world of computer modeling got the CO2 rise wrong and ergo the CO2 rise in 2100, then (ergo again, is there a plural?)the virtual world of computer modelling will also get the temps in 2100 wrong as well. And from there the house of cards begins to collapse.
Not one of you will think this as these thoughts betray your faith.
Young & Fairhall, 19686 year residence
Suess & Revelle, 1957 7 year residence
Suess & Lal, 1983 25 year residence
Suess & Druffel, 198312 years
Suess & Bien, 19679 years
Stuiver, 19806 years
Sirgenthaler, 1980, 83 & 896, 8 & 10 years
Seglastad, 19925 years
Rafter & OâBrian, 197012 years
Quay & Stuiver, 19807 years
Peng et al, 1979, 83, 837, 8 & 13 years
Oeschgr et al, 19758 years
Nydal, 19689 years
Murray, 19925 years
Munnich & Roether, 19675 years
Machta, 19723 years
Kratz et al, 19837 years
Keelong, 1973, 796 & 7 years
IPCC, 2007100 years
Ferguson, 19587 years
Delibrias, 19806 years
Craig, 1957, 58 & 639, 12 & 15 years
Broecker et al, 1974, 808 & 8 years
Broecker & Peng, 19748 years
Bolin & Ericksson, 19595 years
Bacastow & Keeling, 19736 years
Arnold & Anderson, 1957 10 years
Ok, Crakar:
*Now* I get it. You mean "residence" time of the *particular CO2 atom.*
But that's based on the various mechanisms of CO2 absorbtion(sp?) not counting *additional* CO2 caused by anthropogenic emissions. But I will hold off as in my view that belongs in a different thread.
Skip
Working late Skip?
No it belongs in this thread because it highlights the lengths people go to to protect their beliefs, you are doing it right now. You will not bring yourself to accept the fact that the IPCC has got this so horrendously wrong thus maintaining your belief system.
By the way its spelt with a p not a b. I get the whole I before E thing back the front all the time so not to worry.
Cheers
Crakar
Crakar, read up on the definitions (! yes, that's plural) of residency time. 5 years would be the residency time of a single CO2 molecule. 50-200 years (some even give longer estimates) is the residency time of the EXCESS CO2 we are pumping into the air. It has to do with equilibria and pushing those equilibria out of equilibrium.
Oh boy that's the first time a science denier copypasta'ed
that list. Not.
IPCC reports an effective residence time of 100 years; it gives the residence time of a CO2 molecule as 5 years. Do you suppose they are contradicting themselves? The longer time refers (conservatively) to how long it takes for a rise in CO2 to drop back down to where it started. This is not the same as the lifetime of a CO2 molecule, which is the same whether or not the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising, falling, or staying the same.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_Residence_Time…
No it belongs in this thread because it highlights the lengths people go to to protect their beliefs, you are doing it right now. You will not bring yourself to accept the fact that the IPCC has got this so horrendously wrong thus maintaining your belief system.
You project harder than a Kodak Carousel.
Crackar,
I don't know who's a bigger embarrassment to our country, you or that dipshit Plimer. Both have proved you don't have the ability to understand quite simple science and this highlights, as Skip so decisively points out, your need to feed the narrative with whatever comes to hand. And damned if it doesn't even come close to fitting with your previously debunked horseshit. Like an elderly star running short on hydrogen and helium, you'll grasp at the trace products of ever-weirder denier confections and fan the flames of your ignorance a little hotter. But like fusing heavy isotopes my man, it takes an aweful lot of energy and hasn't got much of a lifespan. I'm just left wondering whether you'll explode in a supernova of cringing, red-faced embarrassment or fade away in a brown-dwarfian mass of inconsequential mutterings, chased by ever-increasing global temperature trends into some far flung corner of cyberspace.
It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad, but it's glaringly obvious that you don't even understand what Skip's talking about and are equally unaware of the pertinence and timeliness of a thread such as the one he requested. Like Snow doing linear regression, you put your hands on your ears, pretend you didn't just get shown up as an idiot and shout diversionary, off-topic, long-debunked nonsense which further cements your place in the annals of irrelevance. Your 'silence' speaks volumes.
Crak:
Yeah, I don't really have a clock because I'm an ADD insomniac with no real schedule to speak of. (My cats love it though. If I wake up for a couple of hours and then sleep on the couch to avoid waking up the Mrs. they get to bivouac with me for the duration of the night. Wife said they missed me horribly when I was in South Bend)
And yes this whole exchange *indeed* highlights the lengths people go to to protect their beliefs, because Craker, look what you did over the course of just 4 posts:
First, in 80:
Consensus, what is it? Well it is a group of people that agree with each other. Nothing more nothing less, if there is a consensus does this mean we automatically assume they are right? Of course not, science is not done by a show of hands is it. History is littered with incorrect consensus, so lets not confuse scientific fact with appeal to authority ok.
But the moment--and I mean the *moment*--you thought a consensus supported your contention (even though it does not), we got this in 115:
The peer-reviewed literature is unanimous in finding that the residence-time of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 7 years. The UNâs climate panel, however, chooses a complex and unsatisfactory definition of residence-time that allows it to pretend that the residence time is in fact 100 years. This is one of many respects in which the climate panel, while claiming to represent the âconsensusâ of scientific opinion, is in fact entirely at odds with the peer-reviewed literature.
Craker, mate. You have been caught blatantly cherry picking and contradicting yourself. You scoffed at consensus when you realized that it supported AGW; you embraced it when you (wrongly) thought it a trump card for denial. Its moments like these when a man needs to have a moment of clarity and really think about his narratives and how they affect his worldview.
I would also like to ask you a rhetorical question, Crak: Regarding the authors of the peer reviewed studies that you just listed, whom you've implied the rest of us would call "liars and nut jobs" because you mistakenly think we'd be threatened by their findings--what to you think *their* views on the *general* AGW hypothesis are? Do you think they would be more likely to agree with the IPCC--or with you?
Skip
LOL.
I was reviewing posts for my last one and I noticed a major blunder. I can't believe nobody took me to task for referring to CO2 as an "atom". (Lacking hard science training since high school chem is showing. Haha.)
Skip
Hello Skip. I note your reference to insomnia. I don't know if it bothers you or not (maybe you are perfectly happy with things as they are) but if it does get you down sometimes, you might just be interested in my experiences.
For years I had been a very bad sleeper, often managing only an hour or two a night. Then I tried something that made a big difference. It is this: I go for a brisk walk for half an hour or so sometime in the evening before turning in. That's it. It sounds ridiculous but it worked unbelievably well for me. It seems to be something about a bit of light exercise and the way the walk soothes the mind.
Anyway, it's just a thought.
Best wishes.
Snowman
Pity you didn't spend the extra waking hours learning how science works, Snowjob.
Yes, it's the standard denialist "misunderstanding" of what's meant.
Ho-ho Matt. How droll.
Skip - loved the long comment (#110). I reposted it here:
http://akwag.blogspot.com/2009/10/global-warming-skeptic-gets-destroyed…
ali baba - thanks for the link. that's a great explanation.
Crakar - just because *you* don't understand the physics of something doesn't make it wrong.
Snow:
Thanks for the well-intended tip, but nah. At my age I've just learned to live with it, harness it, make the most of it. I've occasionally done some of my best work between 2 and 7 am, so whatever.
WAG:
Well thanks that's flattering; not sure my post was publication caliber but if it does any good, great. Sometimes I think we'd be a lot more efficient at this if we pooled resources and specialized. I think Coby is really busy right now but I'm going to email him back and talk about this.
In one sense it isn't quite fair to Crakar, who, despite his many frustrating tendencies to forget what he said and ignore the points that route him, is at least engaging--however seemingly crazily. He's on every thread throwing out whatever comes to keyboard faster than the speed of thought because he's got about half a dozen of us ganged up on him.
Skip
Hey Wag,
I really like your blog.
Thanks for writing it.
You seem to be someone who, although believing in AGW, wants to obtain all the information.
Have you read the book by Professor Plimer?
If you have, I'm very glad.
If you haven't, then you should.
I trust you won't have the attitude of every other believer on this blog who say they won't read it because they already know it's "fiction"! They've read the reviews!
I am reading it for the second time now, and boy oh boy! If you want citations this is the book for you!
I look forward to reading your response.
Cheers,
Michael
I'm impressed with the patience many are having in debunking the various unsupported and unscientific global warming denial claims. Keep up the good work.
Noteworthy is that Crakar's post #115 appears to be mostly a copy and paste from a Lord Monckton article.
http://www.archive.org/stream/GlobalWarmingScareIsOver/co2_report_july_…
Perhaps I missed something and Crakar is indeed the dubious Lord Monckton, the politician/journalist who once advocated a quarantine for AIDS patients. Else, it's plagiarism.
Be skeptical of the "skeptics". They aren't what they seem.
Wouldn't put too much faith in that one Michael - it might look sort of impressive, but the book isn't worth the paper it's written on. This guy's speaking (quite arrogantly too) way outside his speciality and the school-boy errors he makes highlight this.
See:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09/14/correspondence-with-ian-plim…
He's a fool and it's all the sadder that he taints his countrymen with this embarrassing drivel. Do you understand why writing books and blogs IS NOT the same as debunking a theory through the peer-reviewed literature? None of his ideas are even his own, they've all been debunked quite patiently before and he hasn't published anything of note in this field at all let alone proven AGW wrong.
Hey Matt,
Thanks for your comment.
I subscribe and read regularly the info on Monbiot.com, because I am someone who wants all of the available info on any subject. (ie both sides)
Have you read the book?
Are you only judging it by what Monbiot and various reviews say?
Do yourself a favour, and read it. You can get it at any book shop in Oz. What can it hurt to read it?
(you'll be the first believer on this blog to actually do so)
At least you'll be able to more efficiently de-bunk it.
Why is it that a geologist talking about the whole earth's climate is speaking outside of his field? Why does "geology" only have to mean rocks 'n' stuff?
Skip,
You need to get your eyes checked out, or sleep more. those two posts do not contradict each other. In one i say the consensus is a very small group of IPCC scientists and the second i say the IPCC have ignored many other (34) studies per residence time which only goes to show they have ignored what you might call a consensus.
To all, In post 115 i made 6 points not to debat them technically (we can if you want but in the appropriate thread) the reason why i did this was to watch....well read all you lot fall over yourselves dodging and weaving the bloody obvious in an attempt to prop up your beleifs.
Eg, Marco in response to propping up his belief wants me to provide statistical evidence that from 1940 to 1970 has seen stable or falling temps and the last ten years temps have been basically flat as CO2 has risen, JESUS FUCKEN WEPT Marco.
But credit where credit is due, at least he is trying not like most others here that simply resort to the tried and true method of name calling and the like.
Gotta go will respond to others later.
Cheers
Hi Michael,
I spent a morning in my local Borders bookshop reading the chapters where I had a pretty good idea of the details from reading real scientific papers and it didn't take long to ascertain that Plimer doesn't know what he's talking about. Wouldn't waste my money buying it. And before you pull out the obvious red herring, no, you don't have to read every single bit of denialist literature to be sure that their whole picture (if only they had a coherent one) is utterly wrong. Have you seen a video of Plimer in any interview or TV show? - he's so obviously all bluster and mis-direction that it's painful to watch. Can't answer a straight question. I'm sorry you've been taken in by him.
Did you read between the lines of his exchange with Monbiot? His utter inability to answer SIMPLE questions about his own book is, for his case, devastatingly fatal. His repeated desire to turn it all into the spectacle of a live show-trial speaks volumes about the lack of substance to his writings. I'd bet privately he's pretty embarrassed about some of the stuff he put in the book by now.
Nobody is banned from speaking on any topic as far as I know, let alone limited to their area of specialty. But most scientists, when speaking outside their home turf, are very careful and often at pains to stress the limits of their knowledge. Not our Plimer though. His arrogance is fuelled by his ignorance and if he was like other honest everyday scientists, he would have made contrite apologies by now about many embarrassing errors that experts have pointed to in his 'work'.
He's just a contrarian twit who likes the limelight.
By the way, you forgot to tell me, do you understand the difference between taking down well-established science through the literature vs lazily taking potshots through books and blogs? This point is VERY significant and I'm keen to hear your reaction.
@Crakar, when you claim it was cooling from 1940-1970, did you perhaps, just perhaps, do a bit of cherry-picking, eh?
@michael, it's not that Plimer is a geologist that he is speaking out of his league. It is because he clearly lacks the ability to understand research areas other than his own.
But even the latter may be questioned. For example, he's claimed on numerous occasions that volcanoes can eject more CO2 in a day than humans can in a year. Yet, research shows this to be false: all volcanoes combined eject a mere 0.5-1% of human emissions PER YEAR. Other example: in his book he claimed New Orleans had dropped 1 meter the 3-years prior to Katrina. In reality, the paper he cited came to at most 10 CENTImeter. A geologist who can't even get simple (!) geological facts right.
Just scrolling through the posts trying to play catch up again, heres one, post 125.
WAG and i suppose also Marco, remember this is a thread about narratives etc so we can debate the technical issues in the other threads. Karl Hopper once said that if a theory is unfalsifiable then it does not belong in science. All the points that i raised (and there are others)and you responded to can completely or partially test the AGW theory to see if it is false.
Your responses, whilst incorrect suggest that the theory is unfalsifiable.
For example the AGW theory hinges on increasing levels of CO2 driving the temp up. Therefore for this to be true there should be a correlation between CO2 rise and fall and Temp rise and fall, correct? If this correlation does not exist then does this not prove the theory false?
We know that for the last 70 years (lets not bother with geological history for now) CO2 has risen at a steady? rate. Temps have not, 1940 to 1970 the temps dropped and now temps have been stable. So as we can see there is no correlation between the two is there.
Therefore on this bases the theory has failed the test, now some of you may respond with "aw gee shucks thats just weather" my response would be "thats the fucken point". So if you put your preconcieved beleifs aside for one moment and ask yourself where in the theory (say IPCC litrature) does it allow for temps to drop or stabalise with increasing CO2 levels?
Marco,
Simple question that requires a simple answer, in the period from 1940 to 1970 did the temp
A, Rise
B, Fall
C, stay about the same
Karl Hopper, eh? You're like the energizer bunny of wrong.
Crakar14 (#148),
Why do global warming deniers always think in simplistic binary terms? Your argument would only have merit if the only possible influence on climate, short-term or long-term, is CO2. We also have other greenhouse gases, human-induced aerosols (a stronger cooling influence mid-century), volcanic activity, ENSO (short-term effects), etc.. Correlation is not causation, but the correlation with CO2 is quite good, nonetheless.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-CO2-Temperature-correlation-over-th…
Natural forcings have been flat or negative over the past 50-60 years, which is one of many reasons why we can say that human activities are responsible for most (or all and more) of the observed warming over the past 50-60 years.
While global mean temperature has risen over the last decade, it's not all that unusual for GCM runs to result in flat or cooling temperatures for a decade or more. It's also not unusual for trends higher than model mean estimates to result, as we saw in the 1990s.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-mod…
Too bad Crakar does not post here where one may find a comprehesive set of rebuttals to common "climate skeptic" talking points, such as the one about mid century cooling, or else he'd be educable.
@crakar:
in part(!) of that period the temperature fell.
FOLLOW UP >
You may want to review comments starting at POST 59 >
[Now, I'm not smart enough to gloat, and this is anecdotal at best, but perhaps worthy of comment?]
-------------------------------------------------
Red Weather Warning in TOP SWIP
17th-19th Nov forecast dramatically confirmed in Britain, Ireland, Europe & around world.
-Saturday, November 21st 2009, 6:58 AM EST-
News on 17th-19th Nov TOP Solar Weather Impact Period â Floods & Storms
WeatherActionâs Red Weather Warning in TOP level Solar Weather Impact Period (SWIP) 17th-19th Nov forecast 100 days ahead dramatically confirmed in Britain, Ireland, Europe & around world.
âWhy the Cumbria floods were so devastating and what did not happen are of tremendous importance in the future of forecastingâ â Piers Corbyn
------------------------------------------------
The pdf from the article claims the forecast was made 100 days ahead and re-confirmed mid October.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php
Interesting how there haven't been any posts here since the Climategate emails (google them) came out.
One might think that someone didn't want to hear that the key scientists in this issue have hidden/falsified their data, colluded to shut down dissenting opinion, and gone out of their way to hide their data so that they cannot be proven wrong!
Pretty much what every denier has been saying all along.....
...eyeless ego too it seems.
(hint: check the Recent Posts section)
Ego:
The whole thing is being discussed on another thread.
Is this indicative of denier shrewdness?
Skip
That's not interesting at all.
Well, I for one *am* tired of hearing these slanderous lies.
Slanderous lies? hmmm.
Let's see the emails show comments that adding any additional months to the new averages will smooth the current decline. This must be what they are talking about: (From post 220 on the old blog) "Skip is basically right about what I was saying, and yeah, read the wikipedia page and try the computation for yourself in a spreadsheet if you don't belive me. But first, look at the chart skip linked to. Notice that the trendline doesn't come anywhere near 2007 (or 2008 or 2009). This is because if it did, it would fit the rest of the data poorly. A trend computed for 1979-2007 won't be much steeper than one computed for 1979-2006 even though there was an enormous drop from 2006 to 2007. This is a good thing -- you don't want to read too much into a single year, it could be just a fluke. But two more years with very low ice extents, even if the minimum is a little higher, they make 2007 look like less of a fluke. Each year added moves the trend line a little closer to that year, so a below trend year moves the trend down."
By adding more months to the average, (the hottest on record)the scum that have been perpetrating this hoax attempted to cover the fact that their models DON'T WORK!! Then they trashed all of the unaltered data t try and keep anyone from finding out what they had done! How is that not a FRAUD??!
But you calamatists have no other answer than "but THOSE numbers don't really matter." (Even though they formed the baseline for almost every other model, and helped patch together the Kyoto accords.)
Mindless ego
Climate scientists are very clever people, but I'm pretty sure they haven't invented time travel. I'm going to suggest that - among the other moronic ramblings in your post - it would be extremely difficult for data from 2006/2007 to help patch together the 1997 Kyoto PROTOCOL (not accords).
You might want to study statistics when you get to high school as well (How is grade school going? Graduate from the 4th grade yet?). Then you might understand a little about trend lines and error bars etc.
Oh, and heres a tip for free. Wikipedia is NOT an valid reference for anything. It's a useful tool, but you must then go to the source document (you know what they are right?). Yeah I know - isn't science hard!
I just hope anyone not decided on either side of this issue actually reads Math-less Ego's post and the ones that preceded it.
Skip
This is an interesting and highly readable colour coded commentary of the ClimateGate emails. It reads entertainingly a bit like "Who Moved My Blackberry?"...
http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/
The contents of the emails are pretty disturbing. Many of them are about this Hockey Stick Graph. So this is how the top guys in Climate Science behave? Well I can't wait to read the rebuttal of these emails because at the moment my faith in AGW is disapearing rapidly. Anybody know of a site with a rebuttal of these emails?
It appears someone is plugging his site. Assassinationscience...harvesting just about any and all big conspiracy theories in one.
One thing is for sure, MB is and never was a 'believer' in AGW, or he would easily have found the many rebuttals.
MB
I went to the website you linked to, and read everything - and I mean everything - there.
90% of the emails there are nothing more than general work discussion of no interest to anybody other than the people involved. And I am confused how anyone could find any evidence of conspiracy in any of it. In fact, the emails show quite conclusively that the scientists all accepted anthropogenic climate change based on the evidence they had in front of them. If there were a conspiracy, I would have expected to find some examples (lots actually) where deliberate data manipulation was taking place.
So what exactly do you want us to rebutt? I'm obviously simple, so if you could give me a few examples of obvious egregious behaviour - maybe the worst 5 or so emails - so we can focus the discussion a little better.
The emails demonstrate a clear reluctance to help other scientists to independently verify the published results.
This issue is taken even to the point of intention to delete data files:
"McIntyre and McKitrick have been after the Climatic Research Unit ⦠data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the United Kingdom, I think Iâll delete the file rather than send it to anyone."
It is also taken to the extent of suggesting to delete communications.
So one rebuttal I would like to here is an explanation of why it is correct and proper behaviour to delete data files rather than to hand them over in response to a FOI request, or even just any request. Is there something in the data which needs to be kept secret?
Another one is why did they express a need to delete certain emails? What was the reason for that?
This is not correct and proper behaviour. I would like to hear the rationale defending the behaviour if there is one. Unfortunately I have not found one and nobody here seems very forthcoming thus far.
Marco: "90% of the emails there are nothing more than general work discussion of no interest to anybody other than the people involved.".
Could you tell us what are the 10% of emails which you consider not in that category? Are there any emails that you think are "bad"? Presumably 10% of them. Which ones are the worse top 10 for you?
@MB:
First of all, no data was deleted in connection with any requests. What Phil Jones said is the same as "I'd rather cut my tongue out", it's something you'd never do, but is an expression of frustration.
And that frustration with the way McIntyre (and McKittrick) work is clear from many e-mails: they demand data, and as soon as they get some, McIntyre starts to demand the provider helps them with every little step. And each and every tiny little thing is then blown up to something humongous on a blog, or in a newspaper (McKittrick likes to write opinion pieces with claims of fraud). McKittrick is also known to abuse data, either out of incompetence, or because it fits his pre-desired outcome.
That's NOT how science works. Especially when most data is freely available, McIntyre and McKittrick can easily redo all kinds of data analysis without demanding data from CRU. Remember that 95% of the data in HADCRU is freely available through GHCN. Methods to analyse the data are discussed extensively in the literature. But McIntyre requires others to tell him what to do, and when told, starts to criticise.
Phil Jones has shared data with people who:
a) did novel analysis
b) offered co-publications
c) didn't go screaming "fraud" as soon as they *thought* to have seen something that might not be exactly right, or where there could be multiple opinions(!) on how to look at the data in question.
Regarding the 10% of not-so-innocuous e-mails: most of them are the discussions about the attacks of so-called 'skeptics' on science. They show frustrations uttered in stronger words than most people would use in public. It's like calling your teacher an a$$hole when talking to your friends, but at best call him "a bad teacher" when talking to your mentor.
On some parts I am ambivalent: For example, on the one hand I don't think it is right to get an editor to hold (final) publication of a paper, so your rebuttal can go in the same issue. On the other hand I get pretty fed up with seeing comments to rebuttals which are either irrelevant or sometimes even downright wrong. And don't expect to get a rebuttal to those comments in the journal. I also don't like contacting an author of a paper you are reviewing and discussing that, but I know it happens a lot in many fields. What matters is that the science ultimately is good, even if the reviewer is a good friend of the authors. I can only speak of myself: I have reviewed papers of friends and collaborators, and never treated them differently than papers of others.
Yeah.
Marco kind of stole my thunder MB, but I would add this one comment. I am also a member of the peer review process--not as technically apt as Marco, to be sure--but in the long run that process works. Of *course* its imperfect and has fits and stops, but contrast that with the approach of two mavericks like McIntyre and Mccitrick who think they've reinvented the wheel completely outside that process. They are subject to *no* accountability whatsoever. With access to the internet and with a huge population predisposed to believe their denier bullshit, they can essentially make any claim they want without any threat of peer oversight. This is what irks me about so much of the denier "science". Deniers will believe anyone who tells them in essence what they want to hear.
There are two ways to disseminate scientific results. One way is via peer review, but it is not the only way.
MM are very good researchers. They are knowledgeable, they are diligent, they are hard working and they are honest. If they choose not to go down the peer review path then that is up to them. Their decision does not make them any worse as scientists than those who do. How good they are as scientists depends only on their scientific work, nothing else. It will of course affect their "H citation" scores! But I guess they are searching for scientific truth rather than citation counts and fellowships.
All of their results, as far as I am aware, are presented in a way which is completely repeatable by any other scientists wishing to verify their results. They appear to be incredibly open about their data and methods and no doubt would be willing to help others were assistance requested. That appears to be good science conducted in the spirit of the scientific method.
Skip describes MM as "Mavericks", perhaps because they have chosen to ignore the peer review process in some cases, and claims they are not subject to accountability. But they are accountable because their work is scrutinized in agonizing detail, as all science should be. They cannot "make any claim they want without peer oversight" because everything they say is most certainly being commented on extremely publicly by their "peers".
The language and tone which Skip employs comes across as that of a fanatical, almost religiously so, believer in the thing which he feels is being "denied" by "the deniers", which he believes to be "The Truth". I guess that if he/she is representative of the "scientists" who conduct peer review then it is no wonder that many excellent scientists will be choosing to disseminate their work via other routes.
MB, where on earth did you get the idea that M&M are either "scientists or "researchers"? They are neither. They are gadflies who are actually impeding good science with their odious tactics.
Well, yes, and they've been shot down over and over by real, working, scientists. They deny it, and they support their denial by refusing to play in the reviewed literature, instead they depend on the force of personal assertion which they claim leads to truth that reviewed science can't.
Their demonstrated incompetence makes it unlikely that "help" would be the operative word.
Look, dude, McI's Yamal crap was ... wow, what to say? Blindingly incompetent? Not even wrong? So far off the mark he's lucky to have his dick left?
You choose.
And, of course, they reject that scrutiny, by relying on the blog medium rather than anything accepted in the scientific world.
In other words, they're a step lower than the cold fusion people.
Name one scientist who is doing so.
As Ian points out, M&M aren't scientists. One's a mining engineer/penny stock promoter. The other ... what the hell is McKittrick? Not a scientist.
So, show us a single scientist who is avoiding the established path towards credibility.
Even Lindzen and Spencer and Christy are honest enough to at least push their stuff through the literature.
@MB:
The big advantage of blog science over peer-reviewed science published in scientific journals is that you can easily find yourself a cheering crowd. In most scientific journals you will have a hard time publishing nonsense (although the occasional bad paper does get through), and in most cases reviewers give constructive criticism that allows you to improve your paper. In blog science a LOT of nonsense gets 'published', containing many issues most reviewers would have picked up. In some cases there are knowledgable commenters on the blog who correct nonsense, but often they get snowed under by the cheering crowd. Just look at WUWT, where craploads of nonsense get 'published', with the occasional criticism completely blasted away by the cheering crowd.
Climateaudit is only moderately better than WUWT. There the nonsense is more limited, but the cheering crowd is still there. Their motive is not good science, but arguments that attack mainstream climate science. Which then gets picked up by certain newspapers who use it as 'proof' that climate change is a hoax. Neither McIntyre nor McKittrick need the citations, their career does not depend on that. And they know they have problems getting their flawed analyses published in the literature. Hence their insistence on blog science.
What you are all describing now is a public relations conflict, not science. I won't address all of your points because a lot of them are simply your personal opinions on MM.
The only comment I would make on your responses is that the way that you speak about MM and others does not add to your credibility as a rational group of people - it does not help you in the public relations battle, which like it or not you are engaged in.
You challenge me to "Name one scientist who is doing so", but you have your own definition of "scientist" which I suspect is something like "people who agree with us" or "people who are committed to the peer-review process". So a-priori I cannot give you a single name which you would not reject via your own definition of the word "scientist".
In order to discuss the devotion to truth on both sides, let's discuss Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.
My impression, which may be, and I hope is, incorrect, is that there are two highly polarised camps. AGW and NCV (Natural Climate Variability). AGW mainly disseminate in the peer-review literature and NCV mainly do not. AGW came out in defense of the movie and took the position that there were no factual errors in the movie that were so bad that UK school chidren should not be told them as though they were "true facts". NCV were against it and claimed there were factual errors in the movie and those errors ought not be presented to children as though they were "true facts". The UK High Court eventually ruled on the issue and found that the movie did contain factual errors and that they ought not be presented to children as though they were "true facts". I use "true facts" for want of a better phrase.
This is not meant to be an attack on you, so please do not take it as one. It is a genuine question. Who amongst you guys, made a noise when you realised, as you must have if you watched it, that An Inconvenient Truth contained a few serious factual errors? When, where and how did you protest to try to get those errors corrected?
Which of you objected to those errors being disseminated to UK school children before the UK High Court ruled on the issue?
Let's see, MB has no rebuttal to the facts, and thus tries to shifts the focus.
Of course, also the 9 alleged factual errors were only factual errors when a certain interpretation is taken:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/convenient-untrut…
Let me also note that you can't stay nice about people who willfully (McKittrick) and knowingly (McIntyre) use newspapers and blog science to make FALSE claims about science. It also does not matter whether we are nice to McKittrick and McIntyre. When we're nice, certain people will use that as evidence that their (=MM) criticism is valid.
The language and tone which Skip employs comes across as that of a fanatical, almost religiously so, believer in the thing which he feels is being "denied" by "the deniers", which he believes to be "The Truth".
The classic denier retreat.
"You only believe what you believe because you have a religious commitment to it."
Brother.
MB: go ahead and believe that if you wish. What does it have to do with the question of the credibility of M&M?
As I said before, you are now just stating your personal opinions on MM and I refuse to be dragged into your polemic.
It is entirely irrelevent what data is avalible in the public domain. Not that I agree that 95% of what was requested is, how did you come up with this 95% figure? The relevent fact is that there was a plan discussed to delete data rather than to provide it in response to FOI requests.
Do you guys think that is a plan to do something that is legal, or something that is illegal? Do you think it is correct or incorrect behaviour? Can you blame on lookers for finding it to be suspicious activity?
I note you did not answer: Which of you objected to those errors being disseminated to UK school children before the UK High Court ruled on the issue?
Some of you have identified yourselves as peer reviewers and are suggesting that we the public can trust you and your peer review process as some kind of gate keepers of the truth. Okay, prove it.
I would like to know, which of you objected to those errors (untruths) being disseminated to UK school children before the UK High Court ruled on the issue? When, where and how did you gate keepers of the truth protest to try to get those errors corrected?
"The relevent fact is that there was a plan discussed to delete data rather than to provide it in response to FOI requests." - MB.
Obviously they should have used smilies, just in case their sites were hacked and the contents of their e-mails misconstrued & published on blogs.
Up late, too, MB? Thought I'd take a break from grading and . . . as it turns out, prepping a paper for peer review. Go figure.
AGW came out in defense of the movie and took the position that there were no factual errors in the movie that were so bad that UK school chidren should not be told them as though they were "true facts".
This amalgamation of AGW into a monolithic social movement that "came out in defense of the movie" is a caricature, a straw man, and just plain false, although I don't think you're trying to consciously lie to me.
Some of the very issues the high court took with the film (e.g., the relationship between AGW and near term sea level rise, hurricanes, glacial retreat on kilimanjaro, and drowning polar bears) were issues precisely because many scientists who do *not* dispute the fundamental AGW hypothesis (which the court also *affirmed* by the way) *do* dispute some of *An Inconvenient Truth*'s specific and sensational contentions.
But now, MB, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The court ruled that these nine tangential issues were indeed exaggerations/inaccuracies, but also *affirmed* the film's overall contention that human-emitted CO2 is a major driver of climate change. Were you even aware of that when you cited this case?
It is entirely irrelevent what data is avalible in the public domain.
Unless you're claiming that a "planned" deletion of a copy of data is some sort of crime. Then it means the world. Most of the "deleted data" were deleted *before* FOI requests for them were made.
Can you blame on lookers for finding it to be suspicious activity?
No.
But I can blame onlookers for refusing to read the extensive explanations that have been given that put these so-called "climate-gate" emails in their proper context, and explain what they really do--and don't--mean. Please see the attached link, spotted earlier by one of our regulars, which examines the issue in detail.
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/east-anglia-cru-hacked-emails-12-0…
Some of you have identified yourselves as peer reviewers and are suggesting that we the public can trust you and your peer review process as some kind of gate keepers of the truth. Okay, prove it.
I would like to know, which of you objected to those errors (untruths) being disseminated to UK school children before the UK High Court ruled on the issue? When, where and how did you gate keepers of the truth protest to try to get those errors corrected?
I'm sorry; this is an argument?
I haven't filed formal protests against the Taliban for brainwashing Pakistani and Afghan children in "paradise camps" to become suicide bombers. Nor have I ever sued Archer Daniels Midland for disseminating nutritional disinformation to American school children. There are a lot of good things I could be doing. But like everyone else, I have to prioritize.
MB, your logic amounts to, "Well if you're so and mighty then how come you didn't do this particular Good Thing?"
Because I have never even *seen* the damn movie. I didn't even know until after the UK court's ruling they were even showing it to British kids. I was, am, and probably will always be indifferent to AIT in formulating my views on climate change.
(Incidentally, I have never liked Gore and didn't even want to vote for his ass, and since I lived in Texas in 2000 and Bush had that state locked I voted for Nader.)
The link does not address the issues in detail. Anybody who thinks it does has a warped sense of the phrase "in detail". It took me a whole, long, day to read through John P Costella Ph.D.'s excellent color-coded commentary of the ClimateGate emails whose text consists mainly of the contents of the emails rather than commentary text (read it all here http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/).
On FOI data deletion, Skip says:
"Unless you're claiming that a "planned" deletion of a copy of data is some sort of crime. Then it means the world. Most of the "deleted data" were deleted *before* FOI requests for them were made."
Email from Phil Jones, February 2, 2005:
"and donât leave stuff lying around on anonymous download sitesâyou never know who is trawling them. McIntyre and McKitrick have been after the Climatic Research Unit ⦠data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the United Kingdom, I think Iâll delete the file rather than send it to anyone."
I repeat: Phil Jones apparently wrote, "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the United Kingdom, I think Iâll delete the file rather than send it to anyone."
What do you make of that Skip? "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the United Kingdom, I think Iâll delete the file rather than send it to anyone."
Is it, or is it not, in your opinion, expressing an intention to delete a file rather than send it to anyone in response to a possible FOI request?
There is evidence that subsequent to the 2005 email, emails may have been deleted.
3 December 2008, Phil Jones:
"The inadvertent email I sent last month has led to a Data Protection Act request sent by a certain Canadian, saying that the email maligned his scientific credibility with his peers!
If he pays 10 pounds (which he hasnât yet) I am supposed to go through my emails and he can get anything Iâve written about him. About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very littleâif anything at all. "
I repeat, in 2008 Phil Jones wrote, "About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very littleâif anything at all."
Now, I cannot remember the last time I needed to intentionally delete an email. For me seems a strange thing to need to do. Could it be disk space? Well, on the one hand they are handling huge datasets, but on the other they do not have enough disk space to keep emails. They cannot even archive them to CD's, DVD's etc...? Does not seem likely.
What do you think the reason was to delete those emails Skip?
I hope that one of the major newspapers decides to serialise John P Costella's excellent commentary of the ClimateGate emails so that everyone can read them - it really does read very well ... gripping stuff.
@MB:
1. the 95% figure comes from the UEA.
2. I already pointed you to the facts about AIT and its supposed 9 errors. Are you blind or just unwilling to follow links to anything that might shatter your beliefs?
3. Peer review happens for peer reviewed journals. Peer review is not perfect, nonsense does go through (recently I myself corrected 13 extremely flawed papers in one single journal, I hope the 50+ published in other journals pay attention). However, it is a useful first screen to weed out the vast majority of bad papers.
4. I also pointed out something that is called "figurative language expression". It's something taught in high school. Am I to assume you never made it that far?
When someone says "I'd rather drop dead", is that really that person's wish, or merely an expression out of e.g. frustration? Since even a young child knows it's the second option, please explain why you think this is not what Phil Jones meant.
To "onlookers" it only looks suspicious if they WANT to read something suspicious in it. Which quite nicely fits the deniosphere...
It has been said that:
"Phil Jones has shared data with people who:
a) did novel analysis
b) offered co-publications
c) didn't go screaming "fraud" as soon as they *thought* to have seen something that might not be exactly right, or where there could be multiple opinions(!) on how to look at the data in question."
a) But who decides what is and is not novel analysis? Shouldn't that be the peer review process? How can such an anaylsis take place before the data is released? Should Phil Jones have a veto power over the use of this data? Is that part and parcel of the peer review process?
b) Is Phil Jones the owner of the data or the custodian, or what? The data belongs to the public. It should not only be availible for inspection based on whether or not Phil Jones gets an H-score-raising sweetner.
c) If Phil Jones' analysis stands up to scientific scrutiny and that of those who "scream fraud" does not, then that will come out in the peer review process in which you all have so much faith. In any case, Phil Jones should not be pre-emptively deciding what uses the data can and cannot be put to. If he disagrees with any analyses then he has every means to, and is in a great position to, publish and publicise a rebuttal.
Or do you guys think that Phil Jones should be given these extraordinary powers over publically owned data? No point in coming back and saying that some of the data is proprietry, because you already said that he does share data with people who follow those three rules [none of which stipulates that the user requires special permission from the alledged non-public data owners].
@MB:
Do you archive all e-mails you received and sent? If you do, you are one of very, very few people. Either that, or you hardly receive any e-mails at all. Meaning archiving is hardly an effort at all.
Many people who DO get many e-mails, and people like Phil Jones probably get to 100 a day, quickly (have to) find a way to weed through the many mails they get, and the problems that quantity causes for most mail programmes (take Outlook, for example, which can perhaps handle one year of e-mails). One such system is to move important mails to clearly marked subfolders, and remove chit-chat to a folder that is cleared every now and then (if the mail isn't deleted right away). Others regularly clear their "sent" folder, and only put themselves cc on important mails they send out, which is then archived in the relevant folder.
Why archive all the little things? They take unnecessary data space on 'personal' computers or on other computers that have to be specifically assigned to that task. Burning DVDs means you have to store those somewhere. For what? To stop you from complaining about a big conspiracy?
Also note that large datafiles are simple numbers (and thus really not that big), while my own Outlook archive folder for ONE year of mails (excluding all those I already deleted) easily surpasses 1 GIGAbyte. Multiply that by many years, and then multiply that by a few hundred employees. My relatively small faculty would have to spend a lot of money to provide that storage space for something as laughable as certain people demanding to read every little fart I ever wrote about, and then mis-interpret it as much as possible.
Unless you have evidence otherwise, Phil Jones merely deletes unimportant e-mails. Note, for example, that Phil Jones mentions having deleted a lot of mails TWO months before any request for e-mail correspondence was sent to UEA. Either Jones is a psychic, or he just has the practice of deleting unimportant mails, like the vast majority of sane people getting many hundreds of mails a week.
Another very long post from MB showing poor understanding of the situation:
The data that was demanded was NOT intended for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. It was meant for "blog science". That is: looking at what Jones had done, and then claim "fraud" (Willis Eschenbach), or at least make it sound like deliberate manipulation without directly saying fraud (Steve McIntyre). McIntyre even openly stated he has absolutely no intention to make his own global temperature reconstruction, unless he is being paid to do so.
Yes, Phil Jones is owner of the value-added data. The non-value-added data can be obtained from the original sources, there's no need to bother Phil Jones with that. Jones received funding to make a global temperature reconstruction which is the publically owned product; he did not receive funding to collect and archive data so everyone could use it. That's the job of GHCN. Go there, get the data, do your own analysis. Try and publish it, rather than do Eschenbach's flawed blog science (followed by "fraud!" screams from the WUWT cheering crowd), and see why it wouldn't matter if you used Jones' data or the GHCN data. You *will* get the same results with the published methodology.
@Marco
You are correct that it could have been figurative language. But reading the emails about deleting emails, which were not figerative but imperitive, can give some context to the intention to actually delete things.
"May 29, 2008: email 1212063122
Phil Jones writes to Mike Mann ...
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith regarding the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report? Keith will do likewise. Heâs not in at the momentâminor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I donât have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
...
Mike Mannâs response ...:
Iâ'll contact Gene about this as soon as possible. "
Source: http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/
Clearly there was a real intention to actually delete emails. Why not data too? I agree the data deletion comment taken in isolation could be taken as figurative, but then again, these people are clearly willing (dare I say conspiring :-) ) to delete emails - so it is not a great leap to imagine that data deletion would not be a taboo.
@Marco
It is incredibly easy to archive emails using Outlook. I have worked for large organisations who have no problems whatsoever keeping not only every email but also regular backups of all emails - as they have to do under the regulations they are subjected to.
It is not such a difficult task as you suggest. I am shocked that you think it is. If the CRU are struggling to do this then it raises questions about the IT competence and infrastructure. What were they doing with all that funding?
Of course, if it is true that the CRU does not have the IT infrastructure to archive all emails and Phil Jones was forced by this issue to delete emails, then he cannot be blamed for that.
But then again, some of the ClimateGate emails go back to 1996. So the question is then raised as to how emails are selected for deletion.
The emails where Phil Jones instructs people to delete certain emails, and to which Mann responds that he will do likewise (presumably within a different institution in a different country facing similar archiving issues at the same time?) kind of indicates that not all emails were deleted purely because of archiving issues.
@Marco
In fact on May 29 of 2008, we have Jones, Mann, Casper, Kieth and Gene, five seperate individuals who are being instructed/asked to delete a particular set of emails.
Is this because of difficulties with email archiving? It is simply incredible that you entertain the idea that is. Are you seriously maintaining that position?
I have stored, on my laptop alone, 4-7000 emails per year since 2000. And I'm not trying to change the way you live your life.
Also, when preparing to make a decision or recommendation, I seek as many contrarian opinions as possible, I don't learn much from those with the same view.
@MB:
You ignore the issue once again: why archive all e-mails? There's no incentive to do so (no legal incentive either!), certainly not for universities. I regularly delete loads of irrelevant mails (spam, cake-announcements, announcements of lectures, etc. etc.), but I know there still are plenty of irrelevant mails in all my subfolders. I just don't go through those that much. It isn't necessarily an archiving issue, but something you could describe as "removing noise".
Second, deleting e-mails does not even come close to deleting actual data. The latter is one's lifework, the former is mostly chatter with only the occasional issue of importance, but which is easy to do again.
Third, NONE of us knows the context of Phil Jones' request to delete e-mails related to AR4. Anything that is said about that is pure and utter speculation.
@PaulinMI:
Who cares that you are one of the few people who keeps all his e-mails? Most people don't. They do not hord stuff. They throw things away.
Regarding listening to contrarians: I do so, too, but only to a point. When the contrarian repeatedly fails in sometimes basic science, makes continuous claims of fraud or other types of data manipulation, and continues to hit with his hammer on nails that have long been shown to be screws, he's no longer on my list of "useful countervoices". You learn nothing from such 'contrarians', other than learning to no longer listening to them.
@Marco
You are missing the point actually. We are talking about these particular emails. the order is not to avoid archiving them. Phil Jones asks four other people to delete some specific emails. At no point does he tell them that it needs to be done because of archiving problems.
Do you agree that the order to four other people to delete those particular emails had nothing to do with archiving procedures related to Outlook or disk space?
Care to share with us a single hypothetical situation where that would be appropriate behaviour?
"And I'm not trying to change the way you live your life." .. Er, Phil Jones is supposed to be a scientist doing unbiased scientific investigations. He is not supposed to be trying to change the way I live my life.
@MB:
I'd appreciate if you'd answer my question: why archive each and every single e-mail?
Regarding the AR4 e-mails: anything we'd say would be speculation. Archiving problems appears very unlikely, but that's about it.
Regarding PaulinMI: he's one of the conspiracy-believers, believing Phil Jones wants Paul to change his life. Phil Jones probably doesn't care one tiny bit about Paul. He does care that his unbiased scientific investigations indicates trouble ahead. It is, however, up to others to decide whether Paul needs to change his life.
"I'd appreciate if you'd answer my question: why archive each and every single e-mail?"
1. It's good, professional, practice to maintain a complete record of written communications for both your own use and for the use of your institution. There is no such such as a personal email within an organisation - they all belong to the institution. You should never use your institutional email to send or receive personal correspondence (although a lot of people do).
2. When working in contraversial fields it can be useful to have a complete record with no deletions to avoid questions as to why you have chosen to delete certain emails should you become the subject of a FOI request or other investigation :-)
Whatever your views on whether or not it is good behaviour to delete emails I think you at least appreciate that the 28 December 2008 email in which Phil Jones asks four others to delete certain emails does not look good without explanation, which has not been forthcoming.
I think that Lord Monckten has said that he is going to take legal action concerning the "Hockey Stick"... so perhaps it will come up in trial?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACy5helOldE
@MB:
1. My institute expressly allows personal e-mails, both receiving and sending. It expressly regards the e-mails as personal. Only under special conditions is it allowed to look in my e-mails. And my institute is not unique in that approach.
"It is good, professional practice", humbug. Because we can, we should?
2. This I call an after-rationalisation. Moreover, the content of any and all e-mails are not part of the FOI act (which in the UK is much more recent than many of the CRU e-mails).
3. Show trials...great. I'd love for him to take Mann's hoeckystick to trial, though. He and his followers will be exposed for the liars and distorters that they are. If anyone should be on trial, it's actually Monckton himself.
"I'd love for him to take Mann's hoeckystick to trial".
Well we are in agreement there. Anyway, from what Lord monckton says in the interview something along those lines might happen soon.
"Regarding PaulinMI: he's one of the conspiracy-believers, believing Phil Jones wants Paul to change his life. Phil Jones probably doesn't care one tiny bit about Paul. He does care that his unbiased scientific investigations indicates trouble ahead. It is, however, up to others to decide whether Paul needs to change his life."
Just a wee bit full of ourselves are we?
You see the scientists can advise what's going on, but when it comes to policy it needs to be more than transparent, and that's when "we the people" make our decision, based on the perception of the "presentation".
I've been over this before, and that's where you're losing the game.
"Who cares that you are one of the few people who keeps all his e-mails? Most people don't. They do not hord stuff. They throw things away."
Not the point.
Point, that it is easy. And doesn't require much space.
And I'm not trying to change global policy.
"... and that's where you're losing the game."
And that's where you don't understand science. You act like this is a game. You root for a team and trash talk the other side. It's not a game. It's physical reality. Whether Phil Jones did or didn't delete a few emails does not affect physical reality.
"And that's where you don't understand science. You act like this is a game. You root for a team and trash talk the other side. It's not a game. It's physical reality. Whether Phil Jones did or didn't delete a few emails does not affect physical reality."
You're kidding, right?
(btw "we the people" means everyone, not me or a particular "side")
This is the biggest PR game ever played. (this is not a comment on the accuracy of the science, but of persuasion)
You see, most people are not scientists. Denigrating them won't cut it.
If you don't understand that, you'll never get the cooperation you need.
But then, it's your choice.
@PaulinMI:
Phil Jones isn't trying to change your way of life.
It's funny you seem to have no problem with the obvious smearing campaigns by the Moncktons of this world, and then complain about the insufficient transparancy of the Jones' of this world. Apparently, you like presentations that involve trashing the other side...well, unless that other side is the deniosphere.
"It's funny you seem to have no problem with the obvious smearing campaigns by the Moncktons of this world, and then complain about the insufficient transparancy of the Jones' of this world."
You completely miss my point.
I'll start over.
________________________________
My original comment>
"I have stored, on my laptop alone, 4-7000 emails per year since 2000. And I'm not trying to change the way you live your life.
Also, when preparing to make a decision or recommendation, I seek as many contrarian opinions as possible, I don't learn much from those with the same view.
--------------------------------------
For the posts about emails >
This means it's easy to do, even I can do it and I have no need to prove something.
For the seeking of contrarian points of view >
It's easier to get it right and/or neutralize the opposing side if it's out in the open. And, as the person(s) presenting the case for change have the role of persuader on their shoulders, it's easier if your audience see's this plainly as an open exchange. In this environment, obvious smearing campaigns will be seen for what they are.
Would the believers in The Church of AGW who are awaiting the arrival of their false Saviour, the Carbon Tax, support a debate between believer Al Gore and disbeleiver Lord Monckton?
The two could discuss the holy books, the IPCC reports, and the sacred Hockey Stick, hallowed be both its handle AND its blade! May those who suggest its handle kinks and those who suggest its blade shallows boil in excrement for eternity.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/open_letter_to_go…
[PS. Before you get your knickers in a twist, the above was meant in a light hearted way. Inspired by the over use of phrases such as "Denier", "Denialist" etc... which does bring up slight visions of religeous persecutions :-)]
Seriously though, it would be an interesting debate.
oops... more conflicts of interest of the AGW religeous leaders:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/10/un-ipcc-chief-pachauri-under-fire…
@PaulinMI:
You said "You see, most people are not scientists. Denigrating them won't cut it. If you don't understand that, you'll never get the cooperation you need."
Oddly, you have no problem, and frequently defend and/or repeat, the denigration of scientists by the deniosphere. That is, you cooperate with those that denigrate others. Do we get you back in our playing field if we do not use any derogatory remarks about the deniosphere? I very strongly doubt it, since you already have shown not to care about the presentation (in this case from the deniosphere) containing derogatory remarks.
@PaulinMI:
"It's easier to get it right and/or neutralize the opposing side if it's out in the open. And, as the person(s) presenting the case for change have the role of persuader on their shoulders, it's easier if your audience see's this plainly as an open exchange. In this environment, obvious smearing campaigns will be seen for what they are."
This appears to make sense, but unfortunately life isn't always rational. Creationism actually got a HUGE boost when evolutionists decided to finally openly take them to task. Using simple rhetoric, even smear campaigns were useful in getting attention. Many of the AGW deniers and contrarians live and thrive on attention. People like Monckton (MB, I'll anser you after this one) don't care to be shown wrong time after time. All they need to do is a little bit of spin.
There simply is a large group of human beings whose rationality stops whenever they feel threatened enough. It's the same type of people (not necessary the same people!) that easily fell for the Bush administration's spin on Iraq. People who think "moosleems are eeeevil" were easy cats in the bag, some others required a bit of tying Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein together, and within months a significant proportion of Americans even believed Saddam was responsible for 911 ! The fear of change, that is, having to change one's own behavior, is deeply rooted in many people. Regime change in Iraq was constructed as a way to not have to change the American way of life.
Also look at the open smears published on WUWT, and the cheering crowd loving them. And make no mistake, many of them sincerely believe those smears, but at the same time regularly show the ability to think rationally.
Having to argue "change" in an open debate is *very* easily countered by an apt opponent, and the opponent can easily introduce smears. Just make sure, as the opponent, that you touch on the fears of the audience.
@MB:
It will be a very interesting debate, but only to see how many falsehoods Monckton can throw into his arguments this time around.
Al Gore may make mistakes, but he's willing to admit them (as he has done on multiple occasions). And that's a problem when debating people who don't care about being factually accurate (i.e., Monckton).
@MB:
The interesting thing about Pachauri's supposed conflict of interest is that he would get his money either way. His conflicts of interest balance each other. He has worked for oil companies, who'd like to keep their business (Pachauri would thus have to argue against carbon taxes to make them happy), but also works for organisations that try to reduce CO2 emissions (where he would thus have to argue in favor of carbon taxes).
Ultimately, however, it doesn't matter. Pachauri has little, if any, influence on the scientific IPCC reports.
And that's a problem when debating people who don't care about being factually accurate (i.e., Monckton).
God, its so true.
Has anyone seen the Faux Crakar over at *CO2 Lags . . . Revisited.*? Crakar has resurfaced and insists it isn't he and I can't prove it either way, but the strategy of Just Keep Making/Repeating Assertions No Matter How Inane is the crushing "advantage" that denier propogandists have. They are not answerable to any standard of civility and honesty.
MB:
I have yet to go over the CRU emails at length (I have looked at the supposed "smoking gun" emails and needless to say I was unimpressed; see the discussion on "CO2 Lags . . . Revisited* with Crakar's Doppleganger, Scottar).
So in the interests of fair play I downloaded your link.
Before we go any further with this I want to ask a couple of clarifying questions. In an earlier post, you said the Pew Research link was not sufficiently "detailed" to address this issue.
First question: Did you read the link?
Second Question: Are there particular "details" that I should look for in your link which are relevant to this debate--say *three* in particular--that the Pew Research link should have addressed but didn't? If so what are they?
Just wanted ground rules, thats all.
Skip, it is interesting that you admit to not having read the emails apart from the "headlines" on the one hand, yet chose to post a link claiming that it dealt with them in detail. I did read the link, it took hardly anytime to do so, it was only a few pages and cannot be described as detailed.
I don't have much time right now, but I will answer your request later. In the meantime, these are the emails which we are discussing http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/ .
Fair enough.
I should qualify that it discussed *the matter* in detail.
I await your clarifications.
Marco,
__________________________________________
"Having to argue "change" in an open debate is *very* easily countered by an apt opponent, and the opponent can easily introduce smears. Just make sure, as the opponent, that you touch on the fears of the audience."
So, you recommend, what?
________________________________________________
"That is, you cooperate with those that denigrate others."
How is that?
@skip, cool ... we hope you are actually reading the emails now. I did read the IPCC report (yes, all of it as far as I know), I like to make sure I know the subject area I am commenting on :-)
When you have read the emails and the excellent commentary at http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/ provided by John P. Costella Ph.D. (only Physics though, so what would he know, eh?!), it would be great if you could post a "nothing to see here" or a list of 3 emails that you think are the ones requiring explanation or "context" the most. Having read them, it would be an extraordinary thing to say "nothing to see here" - I think all who read them would agree!
I ask for your list of 3 because I shall also be posting my top 3 as you requested, fair's fair and all that, and it would be great if it turned out that we agreed on the selection.
. . . it would be great if you could post a "nothing to see here" or a list of 3 emails that you think are the ones requiring explanation or "context" the most.
Now hold on just a second here. This sounds like me doing *your* job. To give the game away a little I already *have* looked at much of it, and it requires no explanation whatsoever. Your Costello fellow is seeing things that don't exist, and his alleged expertise in physics isn't going to save him.
My point is to let *you* show *me* the "smoking gun"--the "details" that the Pew Research people missed. That was your point, right--that my source's explanations were devoid of sufficient "detail", and that Costella fleshes out those details? Well, you seem to have handle on this material, since it took you
a whole, long, day to read through John P Costella Ph.D.'s excellent color-coded commentary.
Sure I could show you right off the bat a number that *I* saw that either proved nothing or even *disproved* Costella's contention that the writers are "conspirators" (his phrase). But my fear is you would just say I'm cherry picking. So you tell me what you think the "money" quotes are and I will dutifully look, I promise.
Woah, let's back up here. *I* (to borrow your * emphasis method) am not alleging any kind of conspiracy. Good heavens forbid! Don't you know, there are no conspiracies - ever. No group of two or more people have ever conspired to do anything, never in the whole course of human history.
Costella and others might use that word, but I would not dream of using it - because I know that it is impossible, conspiracies simply do not and have never existed.
Can you clarify your position? Having studied the emails "cherry picked" by Costella, are you saying: "nothing to see here"? Are you doing so on having read the emails for yourself or are you just being a typical nodding dog AGW believer and quoting the party line without actually having studied the evidence four yourself?
This allegation of "cherry picking" in the emails is like saying that unless the majority of emails are "suspect", then none of them are. It is like the police searching through 1000 boxes in your house and only finding drugs in one of them and you claim as a defense that they are "cherry picking" when they only mention that box in court!
A set of emails, just like boxes searched by the police in your house, are a slightly different kind of data to a temperature data series, where "cherry picking" is possible.
MB:
You will learn with these exchanges with me that I tend to drown the forum when I'm really engaged on a particular subject and bandeying like this, so I'm trying to develop the habit of making summary points for our beleaguered and often bored readers/lurkers/contributors.
Summary of my point: Its your job, not mine, to show me where to look for the incriminating evidence. Its unfair to send me on an open-ended goose chase.
Supporting Argument (If you require it):
*I* (to borrow your * emphasis method) am not alleging any kind of conspiracy. Costella and others might use that word, but I would not dream of using it - because I know that it is impossible, conspiracies simply do not and have never existed.
I don't know how well I am succeeding but I am honestly not trying to come across as a dick here. But are asking me to consult a source that does not even agree with your position?
Can you clarify your position? Having studied the emails "cherry picked" by Costella, are you saying: "nothing to see here"?
Nothing *so far*. My reference to "cherry picking" was that *I* don't want to be a accused of it. Your use of the term above suggests you misread my post. (This might be forgivable since you're jockeying back and forth from multiple respondents.) Hence I'm asking you to tell me the "details" that Costella allegedly will provide but which were missed by the Pew Research response.
Are you doing so on having read the emails for yourself or are you just being a typical nodding dog AGW believer and quoting the party line without actually having studied the evidence four yourself?
Thats whats at stake, MB!
Where in this document is "the evidence"? What I've seen is nothing of the sort. Its mostly a bunch of geeks emailing about random bullshit that means nothing relevant to our dispute, and *so far* I've seen nothing that suggests what others (even if not you) are claiming about efforts to "hide the decline" or cover up sinister collusion by "deleting emails". My personal opinion based on what I've seen so far is that your whole, long, day [spent] read[ing] through these emails and Costella's commentary would have been better spent watching college bowl games, or trying to conceive the perfect murder, or counting the crane flies in your shrubbery. This leads directly to your fascinating analogy:
This allegation of "cherry picking" in the emails
I'm not making that allegation--yet.
is like saying that unless the majority of emails are "suspect", then none of them are. It is like the police searching through 1000 boxes in your house and only finding drugs in one of them and you claim as a defense that they are "cherry picking" when they only mention that box in court!
But in your analogy, there *were drugs in that box*. Crucial assumption. In the CRU email case, the very thing at stake id whether *any* of the "boxes" contain *any* "drugs" at all.
My take on your analogy: If the police found a bunch of post-it notes that said, "God, I'd love to roll a fattie the size of a grain silo right now," or, "You're mother's on crack," or "Hey Jack, maybe if you smoked more hash I could *hide the decline* in the maintenance of my cleaning duties." [sorry couldn't resist that].
A zealous cop predisposed to think the suspects are druggies would could see, if he wished, "proof" of previously concealed drug use, when its far more likely a bunch of bachelor roommates just talking shit. (This by the way is something we discuss at length in my field these days: The problem of otherwise competent and sincere law enforcement officials seeing guilt where none exists and railroading the innocent, but I digress.)
A set of emails, just like boxes searched by the police in your house, are a slightly different kind of data to a temperature data series, where "cherry picking" is possible.
Indeed.
A thermometer either reads a particular temperature or it does not. Emails need to be interpreted. And it is through this process of interpretation that people can abuse their intellectual honesty and see (or fail to see, i must grant) what is--is *not*--there.
But to reverse your earlier version of the analogy, MB: What you seem to be asking of me is to prove that every "box" in the house does *not* have "drugs". Every box *I've* checked is clean. Is it really my job to prove that no box is dirty?
Remember my initial query: Where are the "smoking gun" emails? You said there was not enough "detail" in my source's explanation of why the CRU email hack means nothing. You went on to vet this excellent color-coded commentary.
Ok, I think I know what you're saying. So, if I should be concerned that there is proof of some wrongdoing even if it there is no certainty that the majority of emails are "suspect", then where *is* the incriminating *minority*?
You're saying I need to read this to avoid just being a typical nodding dog AGW believer and quoting the party line without actually having studied the evidence four[sic] [my]self?, but you won't tell me what I'm looking for or specifically where in the "house" of interest I should even look. You're trying to convince yourself that unless I investigate every "box", there is a credible possibility of "drugs." Like I said, MB, every box I've seen is clean.
Post 217
I see you have reverted back to the tried and true method of baffling them with long winded bullshit.
Post 209
For the love of God, Skip can you find someone else to be infatuated with? For the last time Scottar is not me, and only a brain dead, jar head like yourself cannot understand this, my patience with you is wearing quite thin . So i ask you once more please stop slandering me and (therefore Scottar) in this way.
I understand that this is your only method of communication with people that dont share your beliefs but you need to try harder OK.
@PaulinMI:
My recommendation is simply to let it be as it already is. People who WANT to be fooled, WILL be fooled by the deniosphere.
My comment on you is because you lend credibility to the deniosphere (or, as you like to call them, "contrarians"), despite the fact that they regularly smear climate scientists.
@MB:
You lend quite some credibility to the conspiracy lover John P. Costella. Yes, he has a PhD in physics. He also has the amazing number of THREE publications in all his life, and all after his PhD. That's the total number I expect from my own PhD students from their PhD research alone. He actually would not have received his PhD from my university!
I'm curious:
1. do you also believe JFK's assassination was a big conspiracy, including deliberate manipulation of the Zapruder film?
2. do you believe Senator Wellstone was murdered?
If not, please tell us why we DO have to believe Costella on climategate.
Note also that Costella clearly shows himself to be an idiot. Take his first example of a supposedly questionable e-mail:
A Russian tries to find ways to maximise the money available for research, rather than have public funding from one country going to the tax collectors in another. Apparently, it's all about the money, Costella claims. My conclusion: Costella is an idiot
Or take his next selected e-mail: Jones refers to Corbyn, who suddenly has become the UK's favorite 'skeptic'. Costella, without knowing the UK context, comes with loads of unsubstantiated 'translations' of the e-mail. My conclusion: Costella is an idiot.
His third and fourth selection is a scientific discussion, focusing on the ability to publish something really specialised, with focus on the ability to get a signal out (and prove that signal). Costella, without any evidence, claims Briffa is only interested when they can sell a "climate change" message. Also, he claims Funkhauser, again without evidence, tried to suppress a "no change" message. (The facts are that Funkhauser could not find any correlations, warmr, cooler, wetter, drier, nothing)
My conclusion: Costella is an idiot.
The first four selected mails already involve distortion, and unsubstantiated speculation! If I were his alma mater, I'd take his PhD back, he clearly hasn't learned academic thinking.
@MB & Paul:
The way I see it is you've just had 10 or 12 YEARS of carefully vetted personal emails released via a hack job intended to smear honest climate scientists (whose work, incidently, you show not the slightest ability to interpret or understand, but that's no crime) and you cannot even point to ONE SINGLE unambiguous instance of where fraud or 'figure-fudging' or data deletion actually took place. Not one.
If global warming was the massive conspiracy you seem to make it out to be, these leaks would be positively LOADED with damaging emails that ruin careers and show a constant back-and-forth chain of collusion outlined in literally thousands of emails. The fact that they do not show anything of the sort is VERY instructive. Get some frigging perspective you twits. There IS, 'nothing to see here'.
Skip . . . my patience with you is wearing quite thin.
What happens when it finally wears through? Will I want to be around to see it?
@Bennet: You ascribe to me things that I did not do or say. Please be more specific, and also I think we can all agree that calling me a "twit" is abusive. We are supposed to be having a civilised discussion but you are being abusive.
Moderator: Is this abuse acceptable/appropriate behaviour?
@Marco + Skip: Why don't you provide an alternative commentary to all of the emails highlighted by Costella. It is duly noted how much you value quantity of "peer reviewed" papers. In your field though, it is quite apparent from the emails how easy it is to obtain peer review publications as long as you hold certain beliefs. It is also apparent how much more difficult it is to do so if you are not a believer. That should apparent to you from either your own experiences as "peer reviewers" or the emails.
I know very little about JFK, I didn't even watch the Costner film all the way through - thought it was a bit boring -, and have never heard of "Senator Wellstone". I will read about him and get back to you if you want to know what I think. I thought we were discussing ClimateGate, Global Warming and the Hockey Stick here though.
Although, a quick search led to evidence that JFK might have beleived in conspiracies:
"For we are opposed, around the world, by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence; in infiltration instead of invasion; on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice; on guerillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations. Its preparations are concealed not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined, its dissenters are silenced, not praised; no expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the cold war, in short, with a wartime discipline no democracy would ever hope to wish to match. ..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeYgLLahHv8
That stupid tin-foil-hat wearing fool :-).
Why don't you provide an alternative commentary to all of the emails highlighted by Costella.
Why?
You've already said you don't claim its a conspiracy, which Costella does. So what *is* in those emails that I should be concerned about? Again back to my point: pick out what you think are the most important three.
I repeat my point. There are dozens of these emails so your admonition amounts to a goose chase.
I have an alternative for you, MB: Go over all of Coby's linked topic points and give me an alternative explanation for all them.
See the point?
@Skip: Sorry mate, I really don't see your point.
Have you read the Costella link?
@MB:
Do you seriously want me to debunk ALL e-mails Costella brings forward? Already the first four were complete nonsense. If anyone you know starts a discussion with four distortions/lies/misconceptions, do you keep on listening? Just so you know: I don't. His other attempts at creating conspiracies (JFK + Wellstone) and linking himself to a wider ring of conspiracy believers (including 911) just shows him not to be trustworthy. He's so bent on finding conspiracies, that everything is twisted to fit in the pattern.
Regarding the JFK speech, you might want to see the context:
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/…
Political warspeak. I actually don't think JFK really believed in a big conspiracy. But he knew how to play on the fears of his constituency.
Regarding peer-reviewed papers: yes, it is easy to get peer-reviewed papers. All you need to do is good and/or interesting science. It does NOT need to conform to the established position. An illustrative example is given here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/first-published-r…
The criticism of Lindzen and Choi is NOT that it contradicts the body of science. The criticism is that it used faulty data analysis. The approach itself was, however, of interest, even though it apparently had already been tried before (with a different result...). The latter is also somewhat worrysome, since it indicates the reviewers weren't aware of that paper, indicating the reviewers may not have been real experts in the area. This, however, can happen.
What the e-mails make clear is that really poor papers can get into journals, and that Editors need to take responsibility for publishing said nonsense. I myself recently had a comment published in which 13 papers in one single journal were condemned to the scrapheap of violating textbook science. In my opinion, the responsible Editor should get a major kick in the behind for not paying attention. However, unlike the issue discussed in the e-mails, I do not think there was a deliberate rigging of the peer review. 'Merely' a bad choice of reviewers, not an apparently deliberate choice of bound-to-be-positive reviewers (as for Soon and Baliunas).
MB, you completely forgot to address my question:
Where are all those thousands of emails that support Costella's conspiracy theory and if you don't share his views why the hell are you using him as a source? So try, if you might, to address Skip's question - give us your best three. We say there's nothing in them, you say there is - ball's firmly in your court.
I do not know anything about conspiracy theories. The JFK speech was just something I came across when trying to understand what you were referring to by tying in "JFK conspiracy". Do not accuse me of believing in conspiracies, I already proclaimed that there never have been, is not, and never will be any kind of conspiracy. I beleive in them so little that I did not even click on your link. I do not care about JFK. Nobody conspires ever, okay?
I certainly do expect you to read through the whole of Costella's stuff before you publicly write it all off. I think this is part of the problem here, you guys are extremely eager to close your eyes, ears and minds. You read the first four bits, get bored and angry because it goes against your belief systems, and then publicly berate the entire document.
Is that good scholarship? When you peer review a paper do you only read the first four paragraphs, make your mind up and then reject/accept? Well, perhaps that is how the state of climate "sceince" ended up like this.
When you have read it all, you might change your opinion. Based on all of it rather than a miniscule amount thereof. But since you won't read it all... well, there you go. Nobody can force you! :-).
Anyway, it is clear that you skip and co are 100% closed and absolutely devoted to your religeous AGW cause. Like an attorney at law, you see it as your position not to discover and disseminate truth, but to argue from one side and against the other. That is abundantly clear from how you have handled Costella.
Anyway, I wish you all luck ... but this discussion is getting too hostile for me :-).
Nobody conspires ever, okay?
Not according to the author of your own source.
I certainly do expect you to read through the whole of Costella's stuff before you publicly write it all off.
MB, I am sorry. You seem like a decent guy up to this point. But this is a *classic* denier stunt. *Classic*. Swamp a disputant with a huge body of material and demand that it all be "dis-proven"--all the more frustrating in this case because I cannot even get you to specify what it supposedly proves.
I think this is part of the problem here, you guys are extremely eager to close your eyes, ears and minds.
Just plain wrong.
I am asking you to more specifically indicate where I should look, to what I should listen, and about what I should ponder. Do you honestly believe that an average person making a decision about AGW should realistically be expected to read that whole bloody thing?
You read the first four bits, get bored and angry because it goes against your belief systems, and then publicly berate the entire document.
Just plain *wrong*.
I read about a dozen of the bits of this source to which you sent me, and was bored and angry precisely because I *did not* find anything that threatened my beliefs. Hence my questions: Where are the "smoking guns"?
Is that good scholarship? When you peer review a paper do you only read the first four paragraphs, make your mind up and then reject/accept?
This is not a "paper" in danger of "publication". It has no literature review developing a theory to be tested , no data, no thesis, no proposed novel theoretical paradigm. Its an editorial, a blog entry. If it were submitted for peer review (where I could not imagine) and I were the reviewer, yes it would be a different story.
Please note this carefully, MB: Thats the *whole point* of peer review. Because none of us can specialize in everything or read everything we have developed this process wherein we trust our colleagues to safeguard publication--as much as possible--from errant findings and claims.
Let me tell you something, MB. You have no *idea* what I do when I peer review an article or the effort I take in explaining my recommendations to the editor and the submitter. Your glib question shows that.
When you have read it all, you might change your opinion.
To *what*?
What are you claiming they *prove*? You've already denied the source's fundamental contention that the authors are "conspirators", so what *are you claiming these emails demonstrate*.
Repeat: What, in *your* view, do these emails prove?
Anyway, it is clear that you skip and co are 100% closed and absolutely devoted to your religeous[sic] AGW cause.
Yeah I knew we'd come full circle eventually.
So are you still claiming you "don't understand" my questions? I wonder. Is that really it? Is it possible that you just don't have good answers?
In any event I've been up all night grading papers and if I come off as pissy please chalk it to that, ok?
@MB:
Nice way of evading the issue...
This isn't peer review, this is pattern recognition. We have here a person who immerses himself in various conspiracy theories, and already the analysis of the first four e-mails show the typical distortions and misrepresentations of such a conspiracy-lunatic. There is absolutely no reason to assume any of his further analyses are to the point. Debunking Costello is giving him an air of credibility. He has absolutely none. Lindzen deserves debunking, he's done some useful stuff (even when often found to be incorrect). Some others deserve debunking because they have the connections to get their nonsense published in widely read media. Costello, on the other hand, deserves to be laughed at and thrown in a corner. And anyone pointing to his analysis as even remotely credible can go and sit in that same corner. Learn to recognise the obvious loony bins, MB. Assassination science is such a loony bin. Costello is a loony bin.
Marco,
How does the deniosphere have credibility, or have it lent to them?
And as to your comment about debunking> At what ratio of correct/incorrect should that process start?
Skip,
Thanks for the "Pew Research" reference. I am going to check it out.
Marco,
_____________________________
@MB & Paul:
The way I see it is you've just had 10 or 12 YEARS of . . .
. . . If global warming was the massive conspiracy . . .
_____________________________
I think you're lumping me in with MB's statements.
I said when I first posted info on this climategate stuff here that there wouldn't be any smoking gun, no scientist is going to comment on fraudulent behavior through an email.
Paul: Let me know if you need the exact link; I don't have it handy.
The D-phere will be credible to me when it can turn substantial portion of the current consensus against them. I need to see people that formerly answered "Yes" and "yes" to first two questions of the the Doran Survey (97 percent of climate scientists agreed that (1) the Earth has warmed since the industrial era and that this is (2) caused in some large part by human behavior) to come out and say, "You know what. We don't think so anymore. Its . . . . cosmic radiation . . .self correcting . . . not nearly as strong as we thought . . ."--or whatever.
And if you are conceding there is no smoking gun in those emails, then answer the question that MB dodged all the way prior to his flight from this debate: What *should* I look for? What *do* they prove?
Skip
@PaulinMI: you're mixing up people, you are referring to a remark by Matt Bennett.
Regarding lending credibility: if you go to 'contrarian' websites and then come in here presenting those as definite proof AGW is a hoax, you are lending them credibility they simply do not deserve (apart from the rhetoric).
Regarding the ratio correct/incorrect: you can't put a hard number on that. You can be wrong by mistake, the error may be minor, or it may be due to the complexity of the area. Those are minor issues, and you'd need quite a few of those before you become a really bad source. When the 'errors' are not by mistake (e.g., the person in question has been corrected before, but still uses his faulty methodology), if the error is enormous and should have been obvious to even an average intelligent person paying attention, or if the error can't be put on being due to frontier science, you rapidly go into my book of untrustworthy sources.
WUWT falls in the latter category, ClimateAudit in-between (but it is rapidly moving towards the latter category these last few months), and several of the people at realclimate in the former (they have made minor mistakes, but I have not seen any deliberate distortions; on ClimateAudit, however...).
Marco, sorry. yes directed to Matt Bennett.
Skip,
"And if you are conceding there is no smoking gun in those emails, then answer the question that MB dodged all the way prior to his flight from this debate: What *should* I look for? What *do* they prove?"
Huh?
I don't understand why this question confuses you guys.
Paul: The context was MB's link to Costella's analysis of the CRU emails. I asked him what the hell he thinks they prove and he never gave a straight answer. He quickly disavowed any "conspiracy" theories. So I wanted clarification.
Since he has vanished and you're what I have left I thought you might pick up the torch and speak for him.
That's all.
Skip,
What confuses me is> Why me? On this point?
Me conceding no smoking gun would be the same as you conceding no smoking gun.
Ok then!
For godsakes . . . what *if anything* do you think these emails prove?
If you think they prove nothing then just say so for the love of God!
Agh!
Skip,
What does one need to do? Every time I've posted on this (and here's from NOV 20 right after I posted the news) I've said it doesn't prove anything.
EASY NOW!
________________________
Skipper,
Whoa, boy!
See the title -
**Heads Up**
Someone sets up CRU**
It's simply a news story linked here for general interest.
Same story is posted with comments on RC.
I didn't write any of that crap.
You get out of it what you will.
Frankly, nothing will come of this. Professionals don't develop conspiracies via emails for chris'sakes.
And scientists know this type of thing can't be faked. It's in the open for all to see. There are independents from all over working on the same data.
Easy now, it's gonna be alright.
Ok sorry . . . thanks for clarifying. I just couldn't figure out what your angle was.
Heh, so the Global Average (GISSTemp) has just been released, and 2009 just beats 1998 while leaving 2005 as the warmest.
It made me think back to a conversation earlier this year ... comments 55 and 58-61 on http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/hockey-stick-is-broken.php
I thought it would take at least until 2010. Does anyone have an email for Snowman?
Dammit don't be celebrating.
This is *bad* news.
It won't convince the cherry picking extremists anyway. Any official data they think proves their point they cite. If not they just call it a conspiracy.
Can't find it on either the Goddard or NASA site. What am I doing wrong?
Skip, there's a post at Realclimate. Here's the pdf anyway:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100115_Temperature2009.pdf
It should be appearing soon on the NASA GISS website.
More Natural Climate Variability. These temperature "records" are not significant, physically or statistically.
Please prove that such "record tempeartures" (cough, cough, look at the y-axis scale) would not have occurred without human CO2 impacts.
"These temperature "records" are not significant, physically or statistically." - MB
Well they seem very physically important to this:
http://www.environment-canada.ca/EnviroZine/images/Issue48/melt_e_l.gif
and this:
http://kwout.com/cutout/s/h2/97/gyj_bor_rou_sha.jpg
@Dappledwater
1. Your first link is 1992 vs 2002. What about between 1998, 2005 and 2009?
2. Are there any areas where ice has thickened or area increases? Or does ice just melt and no more ice ever forms?
3. Is temperature the only factor in ice formation and melting?
4. Global temperature vs local climate are different things. How many points on the surface have temperatures correlated to the global temperature? Which region of the planet has the highest correlation? etc...
Hi MB:
If its no longer the case that this discussion is getting too hostile for you, would you be kind enough, when you have a moment, to pick up where we left off at 228 and 229?
@Skip
If you read all of those emails and you don't think there is anything wrong in them then there is nothing for us to discuss. We just have to accept we have different ethical principles.
If you did not read all of the emails, then your opinion does not count for anything anyway - you cannot discuss something you have not read.
So either way, I guess that we cannot discuss that.
Funny, MB talking about ethical principles while discussing reading stolen personal e-mails. Indeed, we have different ethical principles...
@Marco,
It is bad ethics to ignore them. Strange (not) that you think the opposite!
MB, let me give you an analogy for thinking about those emails. A lot of people (myself included) have seen a lot of TV shows and movies featuring police and prosecutors (think of the "Law and Order" franchise). Think of the number of times where a plot point is a mistake or wrongdoing by one of the "good guys" (like an illegal search, contamination of evidence, etc.) Note how in such cases, the other members of the team are pissed because it means the guilty may go free "on a technicality" as it is often called.
Now, I'll try to be clear. In my analogy, AGW is the actual crime, climate researchers are the cops, and the minor misdeeds in the CRU emails are a possible, though not slam-dunk "technicality". Your obsession with the emails means you're acting like counsel for the defense - urging the judge that your clearly guilty client should be let off on this weak technicality.
AGW is still happening.
@GFW Utter rot. You have all of the characters confused, I won't bother reframing your analogy correctly though.
Yours is the typical CoC response.
Anyway, didn't I already say that there is no point in discussing the emails with the CoC? I already said that it comes down to a difference in ethical principles.
What about my ice questions. I do not know the answers to them and would appreciate to know the CoC doctrine on them.
If you read all of those emails and you don't think there is anything wrong in them then there is nothing for us to discuss. We just have to accept we have different ethical principles.
Which ones? If this is true you would have no problem identifying *three emails* that prove a violation of ethics. And in any event, what "ethics" are we talking about? Data falsification--or just being a jerk?
So either way, I guess that we cannot discuss that.
To employ a recently used phraseology
Utter rot.
You made a claim you now know you cannot substantiate and you're running.
Classic denier stunt. Dump a 62 thousand word document--yes MB, thats how many it is; if you don't believe me copy and paste it onto Word document and look at word count--claim that your "proof" is in there, but you won't say where (you won't even say what it *proves*--only that its not a "conspiracy" . . . something to do with "ethics") and then declare
If you did not read all of the emails, then your opinion does not count for anything anyway - you cannot discuss something you have not read.
Guess what, MB:
You cannot even prove *you* read the emails. You know why? Because you cannot even produce *three* that prove your point--whatever that is.
This is a totally classic denier stunt. Just like Crakar over at "CO2 Lags" declaring that we have to debunk all 30 thousand names on the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine "petition project". Its a justification for intellectual sloth for the denier juxtaposed with simultaneous demand for the AGW believer to perform a Sysiphean goose chase.
No MB, you're dodging.
@Skip: I can point out more than three, but as I have already said, you believers have your minds made up before even reading the emails. So what is the point in keep talking about it with you believers? There is no point because you are not going to change your dogma.
We have different ethics. Where I see extremely poor ethics, you either did not look or you did not see bad ethics. Either way, the CoC has made up its mind. We will just go round in pointless circles. Is that what you want? I can point to emails, and you can say that the email is okay (which you will do regardless of the email's contents because it is your job to defend the CoC viewpoint, not to find the truth)... and I can say that it is not... and we can keep going round, and round, and round...
So I asked you about the ice which is something I do not know anything about. Educate me.
Someone's lying ... and being obvious about it.
No.
I will talk about ice later. You can educate me because I am equally ill-informed.
I don't want to leave this topic.
Skip: I can point out more than three [emails]
Then *just* three will be easy enough, now shouldn't it?
you believers have your minds made up before even reading the emails.
And you're claiming you didn't? I admit my bias going in: I don't believe in conspiracies as a general rule, and I respect the scientific process. But I'm willing to *debate* it. You're strategy:
So what is the point in keep talking about it with you believers?
Then this is your opportunity to expose my/our obstinacy. Its a public forum. I'm just sitting here, taking good time out of my class prep, to give you this golden opportunity to smash an AGW believer with the *money* emails for which I will have *no* adequate answer. Make me look bad in front of everybody, MB. I'd rather not believe in AGW. Talk me out of it, buddy.
We have different ethics.
You have never specified what this means. The closest I've seen to date is
these people are clearly willing (dare I say conspiring :-) ) to delete emails [concerning their exchanges about the IPCC] - so it is not a great leap to imagine that data deletion would not be a taboo.
So they *might* be guilty of planning to delete emails that *might* have "incriminating" statements, so they *might* be guilt of deleting data.
Complete ham-handed speculation. If you're saying there is "no conspiracy" (as you have), then why do you suggest they might be capable of sinister "data deletion"? If you counter that you're not claiming these deletions were "sinister", then why bring it up?
You can't have it both ways. You can't say, "I'm not saying its a conspiracy," and then leave this unspecific speculation that for the emailers "data deletion would not be a taboo."
Their emails about the IPCC report show exactly what I would be thinking were I they: They had no science to *hide*--because they knew what the science *shows*--but knew, from a history of harassment, that any apparent "inconsistency" would be pounced on by non-expert hacks like McIntyre, Monckton, etc.
The negative comments they made about him and others (Lindzen, etc) about desiring to "strangle" some of these clowns reflects the same sentiment I've had to learn to repress whenever someone leaves an asinine post on this blog like, "Hey dumbasses! Guess what its record cold in Pigeon Forge, North Carol-AH-na today! Yeeeeeehaw! Ain't no global warmin', no-how!! Yeeou liberal environmentalist hippie freak sumbitches!"
I repeat: This is a 62k word document. What are you claiming it shows? Where does it show it?
Skip, are a very angry person? That is how you come across at the moment. It is not my intention to "smash an AGW believer" or to "Make [you] look bad in front of everybody". Take a chill pill dude :-).
You are so hostile to me that it is difficult to communicate with you and more widely on this forum. Thank you for writing your take on the emails.
Ice anybody?
Skip, are a very angry person? That is how you come across at the moment.
I admit to being frustrated with your repeated evasions. I have no deep-seated animus, I assure.
It is not my intention to "smash an AGW believer" or to "Make [you] look bad in front of everybody". Take a chill pill dude :-).
Then what *is* your intention?
You are so hostile to me
Another classic denier tactic. Claim personal injury to avoid having to answer a question.
How about the following:
The language and tone which Skip employs comes across as that of a fanatical, almost religiously so, believer in the thing which he feels is being "denied" by "the deniers", which he believes to be "The Truth". I guess that if he/she is representative of the "scientists" who conduct peer review then it is no wonder that many excellent scientists will be choosing to disseminate their work via other routes.
are you just being a typical nodding dog AGW believer
The first quotation was an uninformed insult at my professionalism as well as a misrepresentation of my use of the word "denier", which is just a designation, not a scarlet letter in an of itself. The second was just the exhausted copout that deniers always default to: AGW is religion. But I never *cared* MB, because I know neither of your insinuations is true. What bugs me is that you are blatantly avoiding here.
Why not just say, "Ok. I don't really have any emails from this document that definitively prove anything, so I'll leave it at that and we'll move on."?
that it is difficult to communicate with you and more widely on this forum.
No it would be a piece of cake if you would just answer my direct question:
Please, from your 62k word document, please find three examples of incriminating emails. Your repeated evasions are becoming increasingly telling.
Thank you for writing your take on the emails.
What is this, sarcasm? You first, please.
Ice anybody?
Business as usual--evasion. If you are convinced that
as I have already said, you believers have your minds made up before even reading the emails. So what is the point in keep talking about it with you believers? There is no point because you are not going to change your dogma . . .
Then why would it be any different on ice? As soon as someone makes an argument you can't handle, you will avoid answering, claim to be persecuted when they call you on it, lamenting the 'hostility' of the forum.
You're trying to switch topics because you can't sustain your earlier claims about the emails.
This isn't anger, MB. Its just reality. You're dodging; its obvious.
Does anybody have more information about the ice re. 248?
Extrapolating by eye the ice dissapearance over greenland indicated by the figures for 1992 and 2002, Greenland ought not have any ice on it at all anymore? What is the picture for 2009/2010? Has all the ice dissapeared?
And there we have it.
Skip, you have said your piece. Thank you for your input. When your tantrum is over you are welcome to join the civilised discussion about the greenland ice - which we are all praying has not completely dissapeared as possibly indicated by extrapolating the plots given for 1992 to 2002.
And when your evasion is over I would love to see you produce--as has been requested perhaps a half dozen times now--three emails from your document that you believe prove anything, along with a specification as to what they prove.
Skip: And we all thought that *I* was meant to be the only one obsessed with the emails! But we were *wrong*. Someone else is *too*. Do *you* know anything about the ice *in* Greenland?
I don't give a damn about them, MB, which is precisely why I am pressing you to give me a reason to. But you can't; so you won't. That's the bottom line and we both know it so yes I have pressed this issue too long today.
But go ahead and have the last word. I teach tomorrow. Have fun with your ice discussion.
Thanks for giving me the last word Skip. Here it is: ClimateGate
I would like to call a halt to this back and forth on the email thing. TKO to Skip. That should be clear to the unbiased reader. Can we move on now?
I find this site the best on the Web not only because Coby helps make complex information very accessible, but the discussions on the various threads are very enjoyable and informative.
Now, I started out on this process as deeply skeptical; what might be considered as a true âdenierâ, i.e. a blatant denier of fact, probably based on an intellectual bias that scientists in their ivory towers are always detached from reality, so if they just maybe spent a bit of time outside theyâd see everything was just fine.
I am still somewhat skeptical of some aspects of the theory, but my scepticism/ignorance only extends to the following major topics:
1) If tree-ring proxies show a divergence problem, and ice-core data may be only regionally applied, do we truly have a very strong historic global mean-temperature record? As such, are we fully valid in our claim that the modern period is excessively warm compared to any other period since the last Ice Age? (Please note that Iâm not taking the CO2 impact into account hereâthe point I want to make is this: say, hypothetically, CO2 levels *today* were around pre-industrial levels, but it is still as warm as it is now because of *other* climate-forcing factors, can we definitely say that the current period (1970-onwards) is exceptionally warm compared to any time since the last Ice Age?)
2) How much of the recent warming is due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions: is it most/practically all/not so much? This is ignorance on my part and I ask your help on it.
3) How robust are the analyses of the human/economic impact of *any* temperature rise above the baseline? Is reduction in CO2 the only defensible position, or is there any case for adaptation?
This site has been directly responsible for helping me reach what I consider to be a reasonably secure understanding of the basics of the issue, certainly enough for me to be able to have a feel for the really big political issues being discussed. So if you can help me further by commenting on the bulleted point above, that would be great.
Now, at risk of invoking the ire of some, I find the comments posted by the contrarian Crakar24 most entertaining, not only because some of what he says has the element of truth (until those with more knowledge than me tear most of his arguments apart), but he has a wit that is often lacking in contrarians. So as far as Iâm concerned, long may he post. I know he irks some of you, but the arguments he has raised and the mostly successful and complete debunking of them has helped a lurker like me be educated in a way I never could be if I took on the challenge of researching this topic myself, unassisted.
"@Dappledwater 1. Your first link is 1992 vs 2002. What about between 1998, 2005 and 2009?" - MB.
The pictures were a response to your comment in #246 - "These temperature "records" are not significant, physically or statistically." - MB. Regardless of the obvious statistical relevance, AGW is affecting the Cryosphere in a very dramatic way, hence the pictures. To claim that the warming is not physically significant is absurd, and smacks of desperation.
For an update on ice mass loss from Greenland and Antarctica:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n12/abs/ngeo694.html
"Here we use an extended record of GRACE data spanning the period April 2002 to January 2009 to quantify the rates of Antarctic ice loss. In agreement with an independent earlier assessment4, we estimate a total loss of 190 (+ or -)77 Gt yr-1, with 132(+ or -)26 Gt yr-1 coming from West Antarctica. However, in contrast with previous GRACE estimates, our data suggest that East Antarctica is losing mass, mostly in coastal regions, at a rate of -57(+ or -) 52 Gt yr-1, apparently caused by increased ice loss since the year 2006.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml
"In Greenland, the mass loss increased from 137 Gt/yr in 2002â2003 to 286 Gt/yr in 2007â2009, i.e., an acceleration of â30 ± 11 Gt/yr2 in 2002â2009. In Antarctica the mass loss increased from 104 Gt/yr in 2002â2006 to 246 Gt/yr in 2006â2009, i.e., an acceleration of â26 ± 14 Gt/yr2 in 2002â2009. The observed acceleration in ice sheet mass loss helps reconcile GRACE ice mass estimates obtained for different time periods."
skeptical etc
I would like to start out by saying (as a regular contributor) welcome!
Now to address some of your points.
Firstly, when you speak about scepticism, you have to differentiate true scepticism - which is not accepting everything at face value and requiring evidence and rationality before you accept any claim as true - and denialist scepticism - which is just putting on the blinkers of your own world view and refusing to accept even the most compelling evidence. That isn't scepticism, and that is why we correctly label it as something else, usually in unflattering terms.
With regard to your views on crakar. He may be entertaining, but there are very few kernels of truth in anything he says. He doesn't have any real facts or thoughts of his own - almost everything he posts has been cut and pasted from other denialist websites or newspaper articles, without any attempt to confirm the credibility of the source or even what may have really been claimed. The only real purpose he serves as as a conduit for others to post the evidence behind climate change, which we have done repeatedly and often. That he refuses to accept the evidence speaks volumes for his character.
With regard to your question on 'divergence' etc, I am a well-known critic of the usefulness of tree ring data given the lack of causality and the breakdown in correlation, and I have had exchanges with other people here like dhogoza on the issue. Nonetheless, tree ring data and ice core data are just two proxy data sets for the historical temperature record. There are others, such as coral growth records (eg: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1994/93PA03501.shtml), and speleotherm data (eg: http://hol.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/6/659) which also should be considered. There are others, and you can do a search of Google Scholar for more information if you wish.
All of these things together give a relatively robust account of the historical temperature records. There are obviously error bars in the statistical analyses, but making sense of all of that is what mathematicians do.
However, the question of how warm or otherwise it may have been in the past is an interesting academic exercise, and it can help support the current science on the subject, but that is all it is - interesting. There is no doubt the climate is changing at the moment. The question is, what is causing it? That's the real debate. And of course, there are some (the minority) of climatologists etc who believe that the causes are not anthropogenic, while the vast majority are convinced that it is man-made CO2 and other gases which are the culprits.
You can read all the relevant papers on the issue, and we have provided LOTS of links here, or you can look for explanations from other web-blogs etc. Reading science papers can be hard work, which is why people like crakar never do it. So if you are that way inclined, here is a link to an excellent set of youtube videos produced on the issue which explains the science and controversy very simply for the layman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&feature=related
BUT - as I have said, don't accept things at face value. Even though I believe these are excellent videos, you should still research the claims that are being made and the sources of the information. If you disagree with what he says, say so.
I look forward to future (rational) posts.
SBN,
I dont get many compliments around here so i will take what you say as one if you dont mind.
I will go first in answering your questions then i will put on my flame proof suit and retire to my bunker ensuring the hatch is tightly secured.
1, Agree, we do not.
2, To me this is where most of the debate should be centered unfortunately we often digress into other areas. As far as i am aware there is no empirical evidence that shows water vapour acting as a very strong +ve feed back and it is not through a lack of trying as i have asked people here on numerous occaisions to produce it.
I suggest there is none which is why we constantly have to endure the headlines like "No arctic ice by 2013" or " No himalyan glaciers by 2035", whether true or not these do not count as evidence towards CO2 enforced AGW.
So the debate goes SBN, the only thing that will prove or disprove the theory is time, we all know that so we sit and wait and argue just to keep ourselves entertained.
3, Good question, i'm not sure of the answer. Obviously reducing CO2 will have little effect (duck and weave the peanuts). Adaptation to climate change whether natural or in theory anthropogenic would by far be the simplest and cheapest option. We of course have been doing it for years so it should be no problem. But then thats from my perspective others may say different.
regards
Crakar24
Hey everyone, I've been absent for a while and I hope I'm not posting something that has already been posted, but this article was in The Australian newspaper today.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/climate-science-on-thin-i…
Other Aussie readers may agree or disagree that The Australian is the closest thing we have to "credible journalism".
"Other Aussie readers may agree or disagree that The Australian is the closest thing we have to "credible journalism" - Michael.
Not from what I've read, and a clear example of why one shouldn't expect to gain accurate information on climate science from the mass media. Accuracy is not what they're about.
Look at the headline you linked to for instance, a mistaken claim about the Himalayan glaciers and suddenly all of climate science is suddenly invalidated?. That is a common denialist meme - one mistake here or there and suddenly all the science is undone. Sure. Whatever.
The situation in the Himalayas is indeed precarious as the glacial melt provides water for billions of people in Asia. The is plateau above 4000 meters warming twice as fast as the global average and the signs look ominous.
http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/tibet-glacier-PNAS-09_0…
http://www.wrq.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/surf/publikationen/200…
A major error was made in including such a statement that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035 (an extraordinary claim as far as I'm aware), but that does not alter the fact that serious melting a happening there.
A major error was made in including such a statement that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035 (an extraordinary claim as far as I'm aware), but that does not alter the fact that serious melting a happening there.
Or elsewhere. However, if this allegation is true--that it was based on a partisan group's nonscientific assertion instead of the consensus of peer reviewed understanding as the AR was supposed to be, then yes, Michael, this was a gaffe and the IPCC should own up to it.
But the logic that the denialsphere draws from this (where I've looked) is truly inane:
1. The IPCC contains a projection for Himalayan glacial melt that was unsubstantiated 'alarmism'.
2. Therefore, we don't need to do anything about climate change.
Michael: Do you want me to iterate my questions from earlier?
SBN
In response to
(1) I would argue the question isn't about how warm it is, but how warm is it *getting*, why, and what can/should we do about it? This leads to 2 and 3.
(2) Of course the IPCC AR says its "largely" due to human emissions, and of course we cannot "know" with a system as complex as climate with total certainty, but
(3) These projections are as complex as climate itself. If you want the neo-conservative mantra read *Cool It* by Bjorn Lomborg, although I thought it was extremely misleading and failed to address enormous issues. Lomborg's basic thesis is that economic forecasts suggest we'll be "rich" enough to adapt to the effects of climate change.
I could go into greater detail but we have another thread devoted to this. Its called "Reducing Carbon is too costly" or something like that. Meet you there if you care.
Michael, there is a good discussion of this non-story at Climate Progress:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/18/science-ipcc-melting-ice-himalaya…
Hi Mandas,
Thank you for your detailed response. I hope that I am more in the true skepticism zone than I used to be. The links that are provided by you and others throughout the various threads are indeed very educational and most appreciated. While I am familiar with reading technical and scientific papers/texts, the whole area of climate science is very new to me and it is a bit daunting for me to get my head around the technicalities, which is why the way you guys distil the information is so very helpful. I know that is extremely lazy on my part, but being able to read a précis by you or others, and then to go to the link you provide for further detail makes the topic much more approachable.
I have read most of the introductory-style texts and seen those videos you mention. There seems to be an almost inexhaustible amount of material on the science/politics.
Crakar24 has touched on the second bullet point I raised. Now I presume that nature is not so clever as to have an in-built self-correction facility to neutralise a sudden and âunexpectedâ forcing resulting from what surely all must accept is a rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 resulting from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions? Anyway, Iâm sure this has been debated ad nauseum on this site and others; Iâm certain I read on this site where even Lindzenâs latest attempt to show that feedback is not strong has been discredited in the journals (or soon to be)?
I should do more reading and leave the forum to you guys who are able to debate the issues more thoroughly (both contrarians and adherents).
Skip, thanks for the lead for that other thread. Iâll go there to learn a bit more.
Thanks to all for your feedback. Keep the debate goingâloudly but politely, if possible!
Ooops! I guess I should've spelt out what I thought the newspaper article signified.
To me, it signifies that the AGW "phenomenon" is losing momentum.
The mainstream media, at least in Australia, is beginning to drop it as a story, or even (as shown by this article) speak out against it.
The science and the credibility of that science is beginning to be be seen for what it is.
Another example is that the ABC News website.
Here's a link to the same story, but my point is that the heading "Climate Change: special coverage" was on the main front page of the ABC news website until about a month ago.
It's not there anymore.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/19/2795485.htm
I hope I am being clear.
The momentum is begining to wane, even among decidedly left-wing main stream media. Australia's ABC is the best example we have of that.
By the way, Ian, I thank you for being straight-up and not abusive.
It's refreshing.
it signifies that the AGW "phenomenon" is losing momentum.
I would be more impressed with a sustained global temperature decline. (And please don't quip about the "decline" in tree ring readings. Brother.)
The mainstream media, at least in Australia, is beginning to drop it as a story, or even (as shown by this article) speak out against it.
The science and the credibility of that science is beginning to be be seen for what it is.
Which, for you is what?
The momentum is begining to wane, even among decidedly left-wing main stream media.
How could you measure such a thing, even if anyone thought it relevant to a dispute over the credibility of the science? I study, among other things, media portrayals. Measuring trends in news coverage is a colossal undertaking.
I hope I am being clear.
Not to me unfortunately. Are you saying,
1. AGW is receiving less coverage/less favorable coverage?
2. Its science is being debunked? (If so, then how is that different from what we we assumed you were saying?)
3. Both?
By the way, Michael, would you like me to iterate my questions from before?
Oh, there are all sorts of ways that the excess CO2 might be sequestered over geological timescales. The problem is that this is no comfort over the much shorter timescales more relevant to human civilizations.
There have been a few comments recently about stories in the Australian media, what that supposedly signified and the reliability etc of those sources.
By way of information for non-Australians, the ABC is a public broadcaster owned by the Government (the closest equivalent would be the BBC - but MUCH smaller). It is left of centre in it's leanings.
The Australian Newspaper is the only true national daily newspaper; the others are generally city based (such as the Age in Melbourne or the Sydney Morning Herald etc). It is right wing in it's leanings, but on climate change it has no credibility at all. The editor is a climate change denialist and the editorial and opinion pages continually run denialist stories.
If climate change is not on the front page of all the news sources, its just part of the normal news cycle. There are more interesting things going on at the moment.
Just to clear up a few things Michael touched on.
This is the quote directly cut and paste from AR4
"Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005)."
The full transcript can be found here
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-6-2.html
Essentially the IPCC peer review process came down to this, journalist chats to a scientist by phone, who by his own admission knows very little about glaciers, prints story in magazine, IPCC accepts speculative statements as fact, some scientist gets more grant money.
Now we all know that this does not directly effect CO2 and its role but surely this lack lustre approach by the IPCC must raise concerns, apparently not.
It would also appear much to my astonishment that the peer review process amounts to little more than a spell check as Mandas has already alluded to.
The WG2 reports just don't get the same scrutiny as the WG1 reports. Somebody screwed up and it's a black eye, but it doesn't affect the ongoing reality of global warming. Further discussion of the exact situation in the Himalayas at RC http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-ipcc-is-not-i…
I love how crackhead thinks it's all about glorious bundles of grant money. It's obvious he's never spent any time in academia. Grant money is mostly spent on equipment and poverty-level grad student support. Anyone with any serious interest in making money leaves academics. I'll also point out that making public mistakes is a good way to *not* get grant money. You put in an application, and a reviewer says "Hey, isn't this the bonehead who got X wrong by an order of magnitude ... next!"
Like everone else here, I have read the reports in the media about the so-called scandal regarding the 'incorrect' reporting etc in the IPCC report regarding glaciers in the Himalayas.
Obviously, it would be a cause for concern if people were relying on - what are essentially - blog posts for their information. I have been an ongoing critic of people like crakar for doing it here, and I would be even more concerned if supposedly reputable organisations were doing it as well.
That being said, I am going to ask - notwithstanding the flawed processes - what is actually wrong about the claim? Everything I have read about Himalayan glaciers insists that they are undergoing significant changes, and if current trends continue then many, if not all, are likely to disappear in the short term (by the second half of this century). So it may not be 2035 (although many reports suggest this is a realistic timeframe for many of the smaller glaciers), but it is still is a major problem. Here is a recent study if anyone wants more information:
http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/jan102007/69.pdf
So if anyone wants to use this to claim climate change is a myth, they are a fool. If they want to use it to claim there are problems with the IPCC review process - well, that's fair enough.
And crakar - to claim the peer review process is nothing more than a spell check is to completely misrepresent everything I said. Try reading what I wrote again.
SBN,
Rather than use the words "rapid increase" we should put an actual figure to it, otherwise "rapid increase" essentially means nothing to the reader. For example if we said CO2 levels have increased from 0.0275% to 0.0387% of total atmospheric volume in 259 years then this makes more sense because the reader can now understand what the increase actually is rather than "rapid increase".
No SBN this has not been debated ad nauseum, because there is no empirical evidence to show what feed backs there are or how they work. There are plenty of models around that guess feed backs but that is all. For example a modeller will guess that high cloud cover is a +ve feed back but what about low clouds? Some models only operate under clear skies due to the complexities of WV and clouds.
The assumption is that nature is not so clever but that is only a assumption.
Cheers
Crakar24
crakar
Once again, you should be doing some research on the topic before posting.
Firstly, the issue of cloud feedback HAS been debated ad nauseum. However, you are partially correct in that no definitive conclusions have been reached. That's why studies are ongoing - comparing and adjusting models based on more recent findings. And because we know models are not 100% accurate, we always apply error bars to any prediction (you have probably seen them - the high, medium and low estimates etc).
So, to help you out with your research, here are a few papers you may wish to read (I have only posted links to freely available papers this time, and all these papers are from the past few years). I make no comment on their accuracy, or their findings.
http://www.envsci.rutgers.edu/~broccoli/reprints/Soden_etal_JClim_2004…
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/ChristopherMonckton08-d/AndrewsForste…
http://cfmip.metoffice.com/iq.pdf
http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/2643029/Abbot-Tziperman-2009…
ftp://eos.atmos.washington.edu/pub/breth/papers/in-review/Zhang-Breth-S…
I love the way that Great F*&^%g Wanker tries to justify the wasting of money on what basically amounts to incompetence.
I read every word you said Mandas, however it does appear that at times a spell check is all that is required or do you have an alternative explanation for the "2035" gaffe.
crakar
I think I have been pretty clear in my explanation of the IPCC, peer review and glaciation. But just to be sure, here it is again!!
Peer review is a gross error check, NOT a spell check. There is more involved than that. However, the real review of documents comes after publication and subsequent papers (ie the latest thinking) corrects problems with the original paper. I freely admit, as will every scientist, that just because a paper is published does not make it fact. However, the fact that it is published and open to review and criticism means it is far more valuable for the advancement of thinking than the opinion of a blogger on a website.
The IPCC reports are not peer reviewed documents. They are political 'summaries' of the current thinking of climate change - similar to a literature review.
The fact that information from a website rather than a proper study made it into the report is a cause for concern. It needs to be fixed and the report needs to be reviewed to see if there are any other similar errors which also need to be fixed.
The fact that there is an error in the report does not change the fact that the climate is changing.
There are also question marks over just how 'inaccurate' the 2035 claim is. If you read the actual quote (you posted it at #282 and I will accept your word) it doesn't say they WILL disappear. It says that IF current trends continue, the LIKELIHOOD they MAY disappear is high. It also gives figures for total area by 2035, and these may be reasonable - they agree with the study I provided for you above. This is obviously a discrepancy - you can't have 100% disappearance on one hand and an 80% reduction in total area on the other.
Next??
Mandas if you are not happy with the words "disappear" etc then i suggest you take that up with the IPCC as they are the ones that wrote the crap.
For example, "IF current trends continue" Assumption 1
"the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high" Assumption 2
"if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate." Assumption 3
Combine all three assumptions to make one great big assumption "Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005)."
And all this crappy contradiction from an NGO, even worse from WWF, now this peice of crap made it all the way passed the checks and balances that you claim to be in place and into print, in apparently the worlds leading body on climate change.
In regards to your study on Himalayan glaciers i read some of it (important bits) it all seems quite good but i have a reference to a study that i would like your comment on.
Here is a link now you will have to read the actually study for me of course because i dont have access then let me know what you think.
http://news.discovery.com/earth/himalayas-glaciers-shrink.html Apparently 230 glaciers are bucking the trend.
The guys name is John Shroder of the University of Nebraska-Omaha.
I would be interested in seeing how you torture the theory of AGW into explaning how some glaciers are retreating whilst others are advancing.
@crakar24:
You're quite the spindoctor, aren't you? The article you cite provides an explanation for growing of the glaciers, which in no way involves "colder".
crakar
You obviously don't understand the English language very well if you think that is what I said. Read my post again. I said - quite clearly - that the quote from the IPCC (your quote) was not definitive, and in no way could be construed as such. It said that IF such and such happens, then something else is LIKELY to occur. It doesn't say that something WILL occur, and it doesn't say that it will occur under all circumstances.
How is that not obvious to you? Well, apparently it is obvous because you also say that you understand these are all assumptions. Do you even read what you post yourself?
Thanks dhogaza, you are of course correct.
Crakar24, I admit that me using non-quantitative phraseology is not helping the debate. However, I am sure I have read considered opinions that claim (convincingly I seem to recall) that the CO2 rise in the past 50-60 years could be termed ârapidâ in comparison to the timeline since the last Ice Age.
Again, there seems to be a more convincing body of evidence that any water vapour feedback to the CO2 forcing will be positive, rather than neutral or negative. For the feedback to exactly neutralize the warming we have caused would seem a remarkable trick by Nature. And if the feedback were negative, then couldnât this promote excessive cooling further down the line? And thus the more CO2 the more negative the feedback and the more cooling? Weâd be in a new Ice Age before we knew it! Itâs hard for me to fathom that the feedback to any CO2 rise wouldnât generally be positive; otherwise, how would the Earth ever warm (all solar cycles being equal, obviously)?
My âbeefâ, if I have one, is how positive the feedback to the forcing will be, and whether there are sound arguments made that clearly explain the reduction-versus-adaptation scenarios. It is not possible to get on board the âletâs reduce emissions just in caseâ argument (i.e. precautionary principle) until I know what kind of life that sets up for my kids. Thatâs probably not very far-sighted of me, but Iâd say thatâs where a lot of ordinary people are at in their thinking also. Unfortunately, others on this site have strenuously argued that Lomborg is not a credible resource, which is a pity, because Iâve seen some of his presentations and heâs very accessible.
I donât expect you to get into a âdebateâ with me. I donât know enough about matters to convincingly argue one way or the other. Skip has advised that I check out another thread, so I might just do that.
"I would be interested in seeing how you torture the theory of AGW into explaning how some glaciers are retreating whilst others are advancing." - Crakar.
Shucks Crakar, did you not read your own link?. As Marco has indicated, no torture is necessary, it's explained in your link:
"Surging glaciers are common and do not necessarily mean a glacier is growing in overall size. But the fact that dozens of them have all surged in the same region hints that larger climate forces are at work."
"It looks like it's the Westerlies," Shroder said, referring to strong jets of wind that pour from west to east in a belt around the planet. Though he can't say for certain, the winds appear to be carrying more moisture from the warming Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea eastward."
Ouch!. I note that recent GRACE satellite data is showing the annual rate of ice mass loss from the Himalayan region is running at 47 (+ or - 12 ) gigatonne per year.
"It is not possible to get on board the âletâs reduce emissions just in caseâ argument (i.e. precautionary principle) until I know what kind of life that sets up for my kids." - SkepticalbyNature.
You also have to consider what sort of life your children might encounter under a business as usual scenario. It is likely to be a miserable existence in 40 years time based on our current path.
It's interesting that the "sceptics" believe that there are ideological reasons behind belief in global warming, leading to cognitive bias; just as those who believe in global warming claim the same.
If you look at the debate at this level, then clearly there is no way to decide who is right.
However, at the level of empirical observation, it is clear that there is a super-abundance of research to show a warming trend. The peer-reviewed and published rebuttals of such research are demonstrably poor.
In the face of this, you could continue to press the "sceptic" case that this is based on a sad distortion of the truth. A large group of scientists from different disciplines are all individually blinded enough to make the peer review process useless.
It is not a difficult task to decide who is more likely to be under the sway of self-serving bias and motivated skepticism. A large group of expert advocates arguing from peer-reviewed evidence vs. a group of non-expert advocates pointing out statistical flaws they don't understand...
Just saw this on the IPCC coming clean on this Himalayan glacial melt blunder.
What irks me about this more than anything is that those of us who believe in the scientific process and rational public policy have to be held to this standard of honesty when a mistake is made; our denier counterparts have no such moral restraint and it gives them a huge rhetorical advantage that, in terms of impact on public opinion, at times overwhelms our scientific one.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/01/20/glacier.himalayas.ipcc.erro…
You can ask yourself why the carboniferous was so hot if negative feedbacks prevail, or counterbalance CO2 forcing, given the fact that the earth was measurably fainter back in that warm era ...
I wouldn't bet against 3C for each doubling of CO2. Might be a bit lower, might be a bit higher, but that figure's quite strongly constrained.
We're already committed to substantial adaptation, even if we adopt a plan to limit growth in emissions (despite the best intentions of 350.org, I don't think it's possible, and besides, this extremely aggressive target is still about 1/3 above the pre-industrial age level).
Mandas, You said a bundle with this statement:
"So if anyone wants to use this to claim climate change is a myth, they are a fool. If they want to use it to claim there are problems with the IPCC review process - well, that's fair enough."
But this is just the problem!
Speaking for myself, to re-iterate something I've written here many times, and in an attempt to be clear, I do not think and never have thought that climate change is a myth!
I would hazard a guess that all of the other writers here who speak against AGW would agree with me.
The only myth here is the "human" part.
You wrote that you think it's "fair enough" to claim that there are problems with the IPCC review process.
That is what I've been doing all along!
The world's governments and businesses are formulating environmental and fiscal policy based on the publications by the IPCC. Are they not?
I believe the IPCC is corrupt at the top.
I believe that the "drivers" of Anthropogenic Climate Change stand to make a lot of money out of what they have created.
I believe this is the crux of the issue, and it is the point of view from which I write.
Michael,
Let me get this straight. You agree there is global warming, just not that it's anthropogenic global warming.
You cite the recently discovered mistake in an obscure section of the IPCC AR4 as support for this belief.
Yet the mistake was in projecting an effect of warming, and has nothing to do with attribution of that warming.
Logic fail.
You "believe" the IPCC is corrupt and that "drivers" (does that mean scientists, politicians, or someone else?) of policy to mitigate AGW stand to reap huge profits.
Perhaps you'd care to back up that claim with some evidence? I'd consider it quite likely that a few of the wealthier people who believe the science have indeed invested in green energy companies, but you have the causality wrong. (They've invested because they believe, not "they're trying to make you believe because they've invested".) Further, the vast majority of people working in science and NGO advocacy groups don't have any significant investments. Compare that with the profitability of fossil fuels. Saudi Arabia exports nearly 9 million barrels a day. That's, oh 2.3 trillion dollars a year. I could go look up the stated profits of America's largest oil companies and largest coal companies, but there's little point in the exact figures. The real point is that the numbers are gigantic compared to anybody's investments in wind/solar/etc. That's where the big money interests lie. That's what's funding the denial industry that has apparently mislead you so badly.
michael
It is HUGE stretch to take what I said about the IPCC processes being imperfect, and turning that into it is somehow corrupt.
If you have evidence for that corruption you should present it. And no - the opinion of a denialist blogger somewhere does not represent evidence, despite what others are fond of claiming.
Of course the IPCC processes are imperfect, as is the science of climate change. Anyone who would claim otherwise is a fool. But do not misconstrue that in any way. Imperfect does not mean corrupt - it just means it can be improved on as new information comes to hand. And it is being improved all the time.
Governments around the world are taking the information from the IPCC reports as part of the process to develop policy. To suggest it is the only driver of policy is naive in the extreme. All government policy is driven more by domestic politics than anything else. As skip put it perfectly in post #295, the IPCC has realised its error and has made a correction. If only the denialists would do likewise when they are shown to be in error.
Michael:
Would you like me to repeat my questions from earlier?
SBN, i think we are on the same page on the feed back issue.
Mandas, so it is OK for the IPCC to make assumptions? you berate QBL because he used assumptions so are you now going to berate the IPCC?
Marco, No spinning here mate. Shroeder clearly states that some glaciers have been growing in mass since 1980, the biggest glaciers in the world are holding still or advancing. He explains this by citing the westerly winds etc.
He then goes to say that other glaciers around the world have been growing for decades as well.
He then makes the assumption " But it's not likely to last." because they will all melt at the hand of global warming.
So i am still waiting for Mandas to finish water boarding the theory until it squeals like a pig and tells him what he wants to hear.
DW, i acknowledge that the total area of ice has reduced in recent years, but you must also acknowledge that glaciers retreat and advance all the time. A good example is what the IPCC provide:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-6-2.html
I direct your attention to figure 10.6, this figure shows that the Gangotri Glacier terminus has been retreating since 1780, when you consider global warming did not have any effect until at least 1970-ish then maybe, just maybe something else is/was causing the glacier to retreat. Any thoughts?
crakar
NO NO NO NO NO.
Everyone makes assumptions - there is nothing wrong with that. I did NOT berate Lu for making assumptions - I said his conclusions were based on assumptions. There is a difference.
Still waiting for the apology re the CSIRO
And once again, I will say to craker to DO YOUR F@%*ING RESEARCH!!!!!!
If you researched the issue about Dr Jack Shroder and the Himalayan glaciers, you would discover a couple of ACTUAL quotes from his university website on the subject. Here they are for you (I have done it for you AGAIN!!!!!):
"....The mountain range, which includes K2 (the worldâs second-highest mountain), has received increased amounts of precipitation in recent years and may also be experiencing âglacial surge," which happens when melt water underneath the glacier lubricates the contact ground. Glaciers can then slip forward faster, Shroder said..."
"...We wanted to underscore that our findings do not negate or refute concerns about global warming,â Shroder said..."
So..... Shroder (note the spelling!!) is saying the global warming is happening, and that the glaciers are NOT increasing in mass, but are surging forward because of lubrication from increased precipitation. In other words, they are likely to disappear FASTER!!!!!
Any other, non-researched, moronic, denialist blog cut-and-pastes today crakar?
re 295, I feel for you Skip i really do but you must understand that the appeal to authority is a double edged sword.
If you stand by the excellence of the IPCC you must also stand by its failures unfortunately.
The latest story hitting the blogosphere is that the rail road engineer along with Hasnain have profited by their deception.
Here is how the story unfolds:
IPCC make speculative claims about the glaciers based on Hasnains comments.
Indian Gov rebutts claims in a discussion paper
http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/MoEF%20Discussion%20Pap… (Nov 09)
The rail road engineer retorts here (Jan 10)
http://w.w.w.thaindian.com/newsportal/health/pachauri-calls-indian-govt…
The whole sorry saga can be read here:
http://w.w.w.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece
Note the IPCC approach of deny, deny, deny and then abuse. But letâs now hear from the IPCC an explanation for the rail road engineers initial refusal to even contemplate that this inherently ridiculous claim was wrong. That, I think, is the most telling part of this farce.
Now we turn to funding,
As we know the 2007 AR4 report contained the false claim of 2035 by Hasnain.
After publication of AR4 Hasnain joins TERI as a senior fellow, TERI coincidently is directed by the rail road engineer.
Both the rail road engineer and Hasnain join forces to raise research funds so they can study the Himalayan glaciers, according to the rail road engineer this was justified by the work done by the IPCC.
When initially questioned about the scientific errors the rail road engineer calls such questions "voodoo science" in the days leading up to the announcement of TERI receiving funding on this subject. Earlier the rail road engineer criticized in the harshest terms the claims made by the Indian government that were contrary to those in the IPCC.
The rail road engineer said that such statements were reminiscent of "climate change deniers and school boy science".
Now that the scam has been laid bare for all to see the rail road engineer says he is not responsible for what Hasnain may have said, and Hasnain is saying the IPCC has no business citing his comments.
Funny thing is neither of them raised any of these concerns whilst feeding from the pig trough of global warming.
As i said Skip i feel for you.
My latest post that is in moderation (see skip you need the dot, dot, dot) has a discussion piece about this issue, one which the rail road engineer called "voodoo science" for a very good reason so i will wait for you to read that before responding to 304.
When someone makes an assumption it always ends in a conclusion, you claim QBL made incorrect conclusions based on assumptions, i say the IPCC made assumptions which they then turned into conclusions conclusions. There is no difference here.
What is the CSIRO apology?.......having a look at older posts now....was that in CO2 lags etc? I will have a look there OK.
Re: #302
I am saying that I believe the feedback to be positive but I am sceptical how strong that feedback will be. And by âskepticalâ I mean that I havenât formed a strong opinion because I have a severe information deficit.
I believe the overall feedback effect will be positive (i.e. will tend to further increase the CO2-driven temperature rise) because there is a preponderance of research that indicates so. But I havenât seen anything (yet; happy for others more knowledgeable to point the way) that gives me a credible confidence level for where the final temperature might end up, i.e. will it be 1 Deg C for a doubling of CO2, or 3 Deg C as many suggest (also on this site), or 6 or 10 or whatever. The reason I want to know is so I can understand the political/economic implications of the policy that will eventually be implemented once some figure is given with confidence as being âThe Figureâ that most can reliably agree on. If itâs âonlyâ going to be 1 Deg C or 1.5 Deg C then why drastically reduce emissions when adaptation + progressive reduction might be fiscally much more prudent?
Crakar24, I get the impression you are deeply sceptical that there will be any positive water vapour feedback to a CO2 forcing, or you may even believe the feedback will be negative, hence neutralising the temperature rise of the last few decadesâwhat is your exact position?
I donât think we are not quite on the same page because 1) I think the feedback will be positive (but havenât a clue by how much); 2) I have no reason to believe any of my own opinions, because I am still learning, and thatâs why I want to hear both sides of the argument (very preferably with links to credible sources!)
In summary: I believe the Earth is warming and humans are responsible for at least some of it. Something has to be done: reduce emissions or adapt, or a combination of both. I wish to learn about the respective arguments. The politics and policies are at least as interesting to me as the science is. If anyone can give me a steer, please do (notwithstanding I still havenât gone to the other thread Skip recommended).
SBN
The issue of how much feedback there is has been the subject of ongoing analysis and debate. There are different views, and various predictive climate models use different amounts. You can do a Google Scholar search to find out what the various approaches are. However, that is why the predictions of future climate change are not definitive and offer alternatives - high, medium and low outcomes. I am not sufficiently expert to offer my views on which we should accept.
However, to suggest that we 'adapt' to even the lowest estimates of change is somewhat naive. Even with increases as low as 1-1.5 degrees, there will be significant issues to deal with. Take the issue of coral reefs, which are of critical importance for the ocean ecosystem and the economies of large parts of the world. For example, if the Great Barrier Reef was to be badly affected, as many predict would occur with even a 1.5 degree increase, it would be disasterous for the fishing and tourism industries in Australia. Further, because of habitat destruction many species of wildlife survive in fractured metapopulations, and would be extremely vulnerable to the slightest change in their ecosystem (such as through increased fire regimes). And what will be the overall changes to things like rainfall patterns from even a small temperature increase? Many countries (like mine - Australia) are subject to extreme water stresses now. What would that mean if rainfall were to reduce further?
Another simple example is the effect on some industries. Even a 1-1.5 degree increase would wipe out the ski fields in many parts of the world (yes, a minor matter but some people think it important).
So when you talk about the economic implications of reducing emissions, compare that with the economic implications of doing nothing. I am not an economist, but almost everything I have read suggests it would be far cheaper to do something than to do nothing.
Oh there's so much to say and so little time to say it.
I will reply to you skip, and mandas.
I'm sorry, I'm not able to reply properly now.
I do very much appreciate that this can be a discussion without name-calling and abuse.
Please bear with me...
Exactly.
Indeed, some of the immediate efficiency investments have such fast payback that they can finance next steps ... Don't take it from me or Mandas (non-economists). Take it from the McKinsey Global Institute (research arm of McKinsey Consultants, and they definitely employ economists). One thing I think we can all agree about McKinsey - no one can call them anti-business :-)
http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/29/mckinsey-2008-research-in-review-…
Crakar, are you a serial liar, or simply incapable of understanding plain English? Glaciers in PART of the Himalayas are *surging* according to Shroder. This is NOT the same as *growing*. Some(!) glaciers elsewhere have indeed been growing, but it is not Shroder who says that. The reasons are obvious: increased rain/snowfall. Not cooling.
"I donât think we are not quite on the same page because 1) I think the feedback will be positive (but havenât a clue by how much); 2) I have no reason to believe any of my own opinions, because I am still learning, and thatâs why I want to hear both sides of the argument (very preferably with links to credible sources!)" - SBN
You might want to start here:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
Even a 1-1.5 degree increase would wipe out the ski fields in many parts of the world (yes, a minor matter but some people think it important).
Yes. Like me, thank you very much.
Although let me gleefully point out that the Sierras have been bombed with extraordinary snow--not cold, but snow, mind you--the past few days and it should continue until Saturday. Goddammit I can't wait to get out of this salt mine and hit them slopes . . .
Crakar:
I followed this discussion over glacial "surges". I didn't bother to check either sides' veracity. Mandas and Marco have never dicked with me so I stopped checking their references long ago.
But in your case . . . whom do you think I believed? At some level, Crakar, I actually admire you. But its the same sort of resigned and morbid admiration I have for the Japanese kamikazes that flew into AA flak and fighter cover just for the remotest chance to hit an American carrier. Ballsy, but crazy.
What makes a person cite things incorrectly again . . . and again . . . and again? I would be so *ashamed* of myself if I did just *once* what you've done repeatedly on this forum--cite things that don't prove the point in question.
Again, it is simultaneously fascinating and horrifying.
When i read this statement:
"These are the biggest mid-latitude glaciers in the world," John Shroder of the University of Nebraska-Omaha said. "And all of them are either holding still, or advancing."
I understand it to say all of them are either holding still, or advancing now i may be misinterpreting this and it may actually be saying global warming is causing mid latitude glaciers to melt. If so i humbly apologise.
And to you Skip you are in some strange way one of my heroes, you can take that as a compliment not sarcasm.
Why thanks, man.
Good man on the apology, too.
Crakar, I think the most sophisticated approach to debating global warming (the route I would go if I found carbon reductions, etc. distasteful) would be to look at relative costs of action versus inaction--the Lomborg/Dyson argument, in essence. Trolling around the web for the latest "refutation" just leads to one dead end after the other.
I obviously think I have my answers to this point or I wouldn't be on this forum every day making my case, but it amazes me how little the topic seems to come up--at least here at AFTIC.
Can we just accept that glaciers are disappearing in the Himalayas and move on?
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v856122gp8878261/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6V-4MNYJXY-…
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6V-4HBSH2R-…
http://mdpi.org/sensors/papers/s8053355.pdf
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/agl/2006/00000043/00000001/…
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/2005/00000051/00000175/…
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/2007/00000053/00000183/…
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/2006/00000052/00000179/…
Mandas 307,
If only it were so simple.
Lets fill in a few blanks, firstly the IPCC claim knowledge of 16 forcings, of these 16 (if memory serves) 12 are considered to be of a low or very low level of scientific understanding. In other words there are many assumptions made.
Now with the feed backs to an increase of CO2, the IPCC/modellers list all the feed backs (FB) they can think of, and guess what they are ALL +ve. One model output may vary from the next this is due to the modellers guess at the lapse rate. The lapse rate has something to do with the time it takes for the water vapour (WV) to rise to the required altitude to cause GW.
Therefore the magnitude of the +ve FB from WV will vary but it will always be +ve. In regards to clouds the modellers assume high cloud to be a +ve FB and low cloud to maybe be a -ve FB but luckily the modellers also assume that as the Earth warms there will be less and less low cloud. Some modellers find cloud too hard to guess so they leave it out all together.
As we know rain falls from low cloud (hydrologic cycle)and cools the Earth so we can assume there will be less rain ie Droughts and more WV in the atmosphere.
Now this has been covered before were we all agreed to disagree and moved on.
Some questions that were not answered:
Does the process of accumalation of WV continue until the worlds oceans are suspended above our heads? Or does it fall back to Earth hence cooling it?
If there are no -ve FB to an increase in CO2 then as CO2 rises so must the temp which is why we must reduce CO2 to stop GW.
So here is a scenario for you Mandas and i will be very careful with my words so that it can pass through all the filters here.
Imagine the Earth is in the depths of an ice age and then the Malkovich (sp) cycles begin to warm the Earth. This warming will release WV, CO2 and methane etc. The lag and leads times between WV and CO2 may vary due to differing rates of warming over the planet. As WV/Co2 continue to rise because the temperature is rising because WV/CO2 is rising the WV/CO2 will then take over/control the warming via the GH effect. So far so good?
Now remember the modellers assumption on FB's, what or where is the -ve FB that stops this process?
Re post 314,
Skip why dont you share your thoughts on relative costs with us if you want.
crakar
re #315, read my #307 again
To sum up post 307 i would say that you feel the science of FB and sensitivity is a little fuzzy but yet still clear enough to guess a range of warming.
You then go on to say that 1-1.5C will cause major changes to many, many things.
Yep i have read it twice and come up with the same conclusions, are my conclusions correct?
Nothing to see here. No evidence of wrong doing in any of the emails. Move along please. Everything was above board and proper. No cause for any suspicion whatsoever.
In his statement, Smith said that Holland's request was not dealt with correctly by the university. "The emails which are now public reveal that Mr Holland's requests under the Freedom of Information Act were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation. Section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act makes it an offence for public authorities to act so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information."
But he added that it was now too late to take action because the legislation requires that sanctions are imposed within six months of the offence. "The ICO is gathering evidence from this and other time-barred cases to support the case for a change in the law. It is important to note that the ICO enforces the law as it stands â we do not make it."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/27/uea-hacked-climate-em…
Welcome back, MB.
Missed you.
So we have a statement regarding the technicalities of the law.
In your own words, what does this prove regarding CRU and its alleged abuse of data, etc?
Thought I'd quit?
Skip: You see no wrong doing here, whatsoever, at all?
Like I said before, we have different ideas of ethics. It worries me that you are involved in the peer review process and the shaping of young minds.
You're dodging--again.
There might be all kinds of "wrongdoing", but I repeat my question: In your words, of what relevance is this to the question of CRU's *science*?
Your insult is meaningless; I could show you my annual reviews for the past eight years but your ill-informed opinion of me is just a diversion.
Please answer. This is a really shameful strategy of avoidance, to be frank, MB.
Frank:
"You're dodging--again."
No, I'm not.
"There might be all kinds of "wrongdoing","
oh, so you do admit at least that there are wrongdoings? [although I note that you have trouble with the defintion of wrongdoing and chose to use quotes - it is easy to define for us simple folk, you know, for honest folk.]
"but I repeat my question: "
What! *again*?
"In your words, of what relevance is this to the question of CRU's *science*?"
None at all. The science is settled, the debate is over.
"Your insult is meaningless;"
What insult?
"I could show you my annual reviews for the past eight years"
Please post them. We look forward to reading them.
" but your ill-informed opinion of me is just a diversion."
What opinion? Diversion from what?
"Please answer."
I have already answered all of your questions. What have I not answered?
"This is a really shameful strategy of avoidance,"
What is?
"to be frank,"
I thought you were Skip?
oh, so you do admit at least that there are wrongdoings?
I don't know and do not care unless they involve fraudulent science. You have never clarified whether you think they do because of course you would not be able to justify any of your statements.
although I note that you have trouble with the defintion of wrongdoing and chose to use quotes
- it is easy to define for us simple folk, you know, for honest folk.]
Which is of course just another backhanded insult. Quit pretending you're a wholesome discussant trying to have friendly chat, MB. You've been made and you know it.
What insult?
In case you forgot:
we have different ideas of ethics. It worries me that you are involved in the peer review process and the shaping of young minds.
Please post them. We look forward to reading them.
No, because again it is irrelevant. Your opinion of me is irrelevant, which is course my point, and which of course you already know.
Diversion from what?
Your repeated evasions as to the meaning of the emails, until you say now
"In your words, of what relevance is this to the question of CRU's *science*?"
None at all.
The science is settled, the debate is over.
So you finally admit all this time that this has been just one stupid game for you. Are you honestly happy with yourself at this point? Are you proud of this?
"This is a really shameful strategy of avoidance,"
What is?
"to be frank,"
I thought you were Skip?
Observe how the denier devolves to taunts. This again is classic behavior--at least in my experiences. For the denier of MB's caliber, a jeer is an argument, an evasion a victory, obnoxiousness a virtue.
You are correct sir, we do have very different notions of ethics.
Skip: "You are correct sir, we do have very different notions of ethics."
We might be able to definitely agree on that.
Can you clarify your position on the *ethics* displayed in the ClimateGate emails? Are the CRU undertaking good or bad ethics in your opinion?
My opinion is that they are displaying bad ethics. Do you agree that they are displaying bad ethics?
I have answered this.
I don't know and am indifferent on the issue except as it potentially relates to their pertinence to the question of the *science*. You have admitted their irrelevance on that matter--finally--and that much is commendable, but that you pursued the matter as much as you did in this pointless circus of musical posts does not reflect well on you, in my view.
Skip says "I don't know" when asked his position on the ethics displayed in the emails. Is that evasion or does he really not know his own position on ethics?
Skip asserts that I have "admitted their (the ClimateGate emails) irrelevance on that matter (science)", although I have done no such thing.
I did say:
"None at all. The science is settled, the debate is over."
In response to:
"In your words, of what relevance is this to the question of CRU's *science*?"
Because the Science seems to be settled. As far as I can tell, the empirical evidence demonstrates, empirically, that CO2 increases have not and are not significantly warming the planet despite the claims that it is "basic science" that it should do so.
What is "basic science" is the observational fact that CO2 increases have never lead to significant increased temperatures in the real world.
e.g.
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81583352.html
Okay, let's forget about the ethics questions, the emails etc... because we will not progess on that front. Seriously, we just won't.
What is wrong scientifically with the above video? This is a genuine opportunity to convince me because they put a pretty convincing case that is opposite to your viewpoint.
Another issue with "climate science" is this NH Winter. If so much CO2 has been pumped into the atmosphere and if it is "basic science" that it causes catastrophic warming, then why was/is it so cold? The believers like to say that the current NH cold spell is "weather" not "climate". But during the summer, or if there is a drought anywhere in the world, they are the first to call it "climate" rather than "weather". It has not gone unnoticed! They like to point to current "record high" temperatures in Australia and say "climate change", but at the same time, and with a straight face, they look at record lows in the NH and say "oh, it's just weather".
Is that evasion or does he really not know his own position on ethics?
You may satisfy yourself, if you wish, MB, that I am a degenerate with no ethics whatsoever. What does this have to do with the CRU emails and the science of global warming?
we will not progess[sic] on that front. Seriously, we just won't.
No because you continually use it as a diversionary tactic.
Here is how the exchange went down:
In his statement, Smith said that Holland's request was not dealt with correctly by the university . . .--MB, #322
I then asked in #333:
"In your own words, what does this prove regarding CRU and its alleged abuse of data, etc?"
You dodged in 324, attempting to score a point and avoid having to answer with the lame sniff at how my "ethics" worry you.
I then repeated my question in 325:
"but I repeat my question: In your words, of what relevance is this to the question of CRU's *science*?"
You then, apparently thinking your wit to be biting, called me "Frank" in 326, and finally answered my question:
None at all. The science is settled. The debate is over.
You admitted the emails were irrelevant, and of course now you're trying to change your story. I am sorry but you're an evasion artist, MB. I know you think its cute, but you apparently think mockery and game-playing is an appropriate strategy at a forum designed for serious discussion on a serious issue.
The believers like to say that the current NH cold spell is "weather" not "climate". But during the summer, or if there is a drought anywhere in the world, they are the first to call it "climate" rather than "weather".
Straw man. identify a single AGW scientist who says that.
Name one.
You're not very good with direct questions, MB, so let me repeat the request:
Name a single AGW proponent with scientific training who has made such a claim about hot weather.
Is my request clear? Is there anything I can do to clarify it?
Your video is another goose chase (a lesser version of your claim that all of us have to pore through your 62 thousand word link on the CRU emails). And you can tell by Coleman's headlines that he does not even agree with your position, because he only affirms that cO2 will not cause imminent disaster and that its warming effect has not been "significant". These positions are possible, but they are not considered likely scenarios by most scientists who have better than just a BS IN METEOROLOGY.
Coleman also wastes the viewer's time, spending the first five minutes pontificating, not about the science whatsoever, but the alleged costs of acting on it. The page you sent me at least links the scientific sources that are the basis of Coleman's claims (Lindzen, etc.) but I am already familiar with their arguments and the overall scientific community's assessment of them.
I seriously doubt, MB, that you even understand the key arguments that supposedly underpin your position. Instead of telling me to watch an hour video, the first five minutes of which has no bearing on the scientific dispute, why not tell three key arguments from that you found persuasive.
@MB:
regarding this year's cold winter: ever considered you are not alone on this world? Ask Roy Spencer what the satellites are showing, and he'll tell you that they are running hot, hot, hot (well, he won't use those words). January 2010 is on its way to become the WARMEST January in the UAH satellite record!
Major parts of the Northern Hemisphere are running much warmer than normal. Too bad those are not the regions where most people live (e.g. Greenland, and Northeastern Canada).
MB
Thanks for the laugh with that link to Jonathon Coleman's weather report. You asked what is scientifically wrong with the video, well, here you go:
Firstly, there is no science in the video. He opens by stating that it is not a political video, its about science, then spends the rest of the video talking about political issues such as the EPA, cap and trade, the costs to taxpayers, and the UN treaty etc. He talks about how CO2 supports our 'lifestyle' and how restrictions on CO2 emmissions will reduce that lifestyle. He makes wild statements about how CO2 is supposed to be producing uncontrolled runaway temperature increases - which not one responsible person has EVER claimed. He also says that the greenhouse theory is wrong and discredited. Its not, and no-one with any credibility would suggest that; take CO2 out of the atmosphere and we would all freeze to death. He asserts that because CO2 is a tiny trace gas it can have no effect (oh really, I imagine a similar tiny trace amount of sarin would kill us all instantly, so its not much of an argument).
He then gets onto the one piece of supposed science in the whole video, and it is the whole CO2 lags not leads argument, which has been discredited over and over again by anyone who knows what they are talking about.
Then he introduces 5 scientists, and concludes their input by saying: "if these 5 scientists are right, and I have no reason to believe they aren't, then the whole science of climate change is a lie and everyone else is deliberately manipulating data". If that isn't the most disengenuous piece of crap ever sprouted on television, I don't know what is.
So, he accepts the views of FIVE people because they are supposedly experts, but discounts the views of thousands of experts, because they obviously don't know what they are talking about (or more likely, because they don't agree with HIM). Then to suggest that thousands of scientists acorss dozens of disciplines in dozens of countries are all involved in some sort of mass conspiracy to delude the world for.... (not sure what reason, he didn't explain).... well, that's paranoid delusion of the highest order.
And this is the sort of nonsence on which you base your opinions, and on which you want us to comment?
A 100 micrograms of LSD drives home the same point, but, unlike sarin, the student lives to ponder how mistaken they were ... :)
"...A 100 micrograms of LSD drives home the same point, but, unlike sarin, the student lives to ponder how mistaken they were ... :).."
I think some of these people are on LSD all the time. They certainly seem to be experiencing some pretty strong hallucinations (or is that delusions?).
So to Mandas and Dhogaza to take your point to its logical conclusion any sarin or LSD no matter how small the amount (increase from say zero) would have a detrimental affect, therefore you claim a small amount (increase) in atmospheric CO2 will have a similar detrimental effect.
Therefore any increase in CO2 will harm the life forms that depend on it, so tell me what happens to a plant when it is given more CO2? Also note humans can tolerate a CO2 level of 20,000ppm or 2%. Now when you consider CO2 levels are currently at 0.0385% dont you think your analogy is a little extreme?
Source:
http://www.arguscontrols.com/articles/safe_co2.pdf
Straw man, Crakar.
Its not that CO2 in small amounts "hurts" lifeforms, its that increases in CO2, in the long run, make the planet hotter. Thats what--in the long run--could seriously damage our ecosystem and hurt life.
To be honest, MB and Crakar, this has been one of those exchanges that irks me.
At times I do find it frustrating debating with individuals whose recurrent strategy consists of (1) pondering what might be the stupidest possible thing the other side might be saying, quickly followed by (2) working oneself into the delusional conviction that the other side is in fact saying the stupid thing considered in (1), and then completing the procedure by (3) proudly disseminating a gleeful refutation of said straw man to the world at large.
In my perceptions, deniers default to silver bullet straw men constantlyâand I mean I get it constantly:
âOh! So youâre saying I have to believe everything Al Gore says!â
âSo I suppose you think the hot weather weâve had this season is due to global warming!â
âThe IPCC used a flawed model of Himalayan glacial melt to prove their global warming theory!â
âSounds like youâre saying CO2 is bad for life!â
Etc., ad nauseum . . .
But Iâve come to the depressing conclusion that this is the nature of debate when there are potent ideologies dictating peopleâs convictions.
On a bright note, one way you fellows do help this process is that at least youâre up on the latest denier claims. I donât need to dig it up myself as long as you boys bring it to me, so for that I do salute you.
Lawyer fail.
Thanks for the salute Skip, but in case you did not realise you have a completely different perspective than your fellow alarmists. Lets take a closer look.
Tweedle dee and tweedle dumb claimed that a small increase in CO2 will kill us, the analogy to explain their point was sarin and LSD (see posts 333 &334).
I simply pointed out the obvious flaw in their stupid analogy and as expected the sound of squealing pigs could be heard (posts 337, 338, 339).
You then go on to say increasing CO2 will cause the planet to get hotter as per IPCC policy which is completely different to the piss poor sarin/LSD scenario.
For the record:
âOh! So youâre saying I have to believe everything Al Gore says!â
I dont believe a word of what Gore says.
âSo I suppose you think the hot weather weâve had this season is due to global warming!â
I dont know Skip, its your theory why dont you tell me.
âThe IPCC used a flawed model of Himalayan glacial melt to prove their global warming theory!â
No, the IPCC did not used flawed models they just made the shit up.
âSounds like youâre saying CO2 is bad for life!â
So when tweedle dee and tweedle dumb compare CO2 to sarin and LSD what are they really saying Skip?
The analogy of LSD and sarin was not offered as proof that CO2 increases cause global warming (duh!).
You spin so fast and so hard you actually confuse yourself more than your conversant, crakar.
The analogy, similar to ones I use from time to time, was offered as a counter to the typical argument from incredulity that CO2 is such small component of the atmosphere that it therefore can not do any harm. Got it? It is not that hard to understand, we are trying to disprove a fallacious assertion with such factoids, not prove the greenhouse theory.
To review:
ojection: "CO2 is only 380ppm of the atmosphere, so how can it cause any harm?"
answer: "there are many things that can actually kill at even smaller concentrations than that. Small does not equal unimportant. Learn some science."
crakar
Here's the part where I say do your research - AGAIN!!!!!!
It would have been so easy just to ask me what I meant with my analogy using sarin - but you went off on a tangent and even attempted to rejustify it when your error was pointed out. Coby has hit the nail on the head perfectly - but it was so obvious from my original post that I cannot see how it could be misinterpreted, unless of course you were deliberately trying to misinterprete it.
The video by Coleman stated that CO2 is a trace gas in such small quantities that it could not possible have an effect on anything. I countered by saying that, just because something exists in small quantities does not mean it cannot have a large effect, and I used sarin as an example.
Everyone else seems to have understood the analogy, why can't you?
Oh dont worry Mandas i understood perfectly what you were trying to say, the fact still remains your analogy is stupid.
crakar
So just to confirm. You knew all along that what you were saying was wrong. When you were called out on your error, you dug in and reiterated your position. You resorted to personal attacks (tweedle dumb) to try and intimidate people. And you call a rational analogy adopted by several people to demonstrate the same point as 'stupid'.
Well thanks for finally admitting your debating style. I will just have to accept that you probably use the same style for everything you say here. So in reality, you don't believe any of the nonsense you post here, you just say you do.
You have restored my faith in you. All this time I thought you were simply a moronic denialist who never did his research and couldn't follow simple logic. When all along you were a clever devil's advocate who really accepted anthropogenic climate change as fact, but simply raised hoary old chestnuts like the MWP and other discredited crap to see what we would do.
Silly me.
Nice speech Mandas,
here is why your analogy is stupid.
imagine a terrorist boards a subway train with a vial of sarin, he drops the vial and the vial breaks. Everyone in the vacinity of the terrorist is now dead and if it gets in the airconditioning many more will die.
Now imagine if the terrorist has a vial of CO2 how many poeple will die Mandas?
So in summary a small increase in sarin kills you but a small increase in CO2 does nothing. Therefore it is a stupid analogy.
A better analogy might be the changes in TSI are very small and has no effect on climate, likewise changes in CO2 are very small and have no......wait
Try this one, the changes in cosmic rays are very small and have no effect on climate, likewise the changes in CO2 are very small and....hang on....
I know, i have a computer model that can predict the dow jones index stock prices in 2100, all i need now is to get some suckers, er i mean business partners to invest and we will all be rich in 90 years, likewise we have a computer model that predicts catastrophic climate change in 2100 if CO2 levels are not reduced....yeah thats a good one what do you think Mandas?
So in summary a small increase in sarin kills you but a small increase in CO2 does nothing. Therefore it is a stupid analogy.
I am struggling to find any other way of approaching this mundane and such obvious point.
Sarin nerve case in small amounts can have an effect. Agreed?
Likewise, CO2 in small amounts can have an effect--not *immediate death*--but an effect.
The tired and tortured point is that "minuteness" is not tantamount to "ineffectual"--*whatever* the effect in question is.
You're killing me, Crakar. Just plain killing me.
You're killing me, Crakar. Just plain killing me.
Even taken, I should add, in small doses. You see, Crakar, small amounts can be effectual.
[unwelcomed crap removed - coby]
Broken Hokey Stick? Had to share...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Asto…
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
MB:
Uh . . . how do I break this to you--are you even *remotely* aware of the truth about what Phil Jones really said?
For a full exposition you might want to visit the other "short term trends" thread.
Sometimes its fun to look back over old posts to see what was said months or even years ago, and to see the validity or otherwise of what people predicted or claimed.
The parent thread to this one - "The Hocky Stick is Broken" is an interesting case in point.
Back on 11 September 2009 (post #45), snowman made this fearless prediction:
â....But in another couple of years, three at the most, we will all look back in amazement that anyone ever took climate alarmism seriously....â
How is that working out for you there snowman?
As if that wasn't bad enough, in the very next post (#46), GFW asked snowman this question:
"....So, what condition would convince you that the warming trend will continue?...."
And snowman's response:
"....Very simple, GFW. If temperatures exceed the 1998 level, that would pretty well do it...."
So then snowman, since we know that both 2005 and 2010 were hotter than 1998 (ie the tempatures exceeded the 1998 level), I guess that now means you accept that AGW is proven. Or were you lying then? Or are you just going to change your standards of evidence again, so that nothing will ever be able to score through your ever moving goalposts?
An interesting story today, about Michael Mann and the investigation into his work and conduct by the Office of the Inspector General. The investigation was previously reported - with some glee unbefitting an objective news organisation, by Fox News, here:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/06/climate-gate-michael-mann/
Well, the Inspector General has now concluded their investigation, and the findings are here:
http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/A09120086.pdf
I particularly love these quotes:
"....As a part of our investigation, we again fully reviewed all the reports and documentation the University provided to us, as well as a substantial amount of publically available documentation concerning both the Subject's research and parallel research conducted by his collaborators and other scientists in that particular field of research...."
"....Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct, as defined under the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation, we are closing this investigation with no further action...."
".....Concerning False Claims, 18 U.S.C. §287 and 31 U.S.C. §§3729-33, and False Statements, 18 U.S.C. §1 001, we examined the elements of each suggested offense and have concluded that there is insufficient evidence of violations of any of these statutes to warrant investigation...."
"....Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed...."
Despite the fact that it is now unequivocal - Michael Mann and his 'hockey stick' have been investigated ad nauseum, and even an independent review by the Office of the Inspector General has found no evidence of misconduct or data falsification. I wonder if this will now be reported about on Fox News or on the the deniersphere. Who wants to bet that it won't, and that your average idiotic denier - once again - won't let facts stand in the way of their ideology.