Leo Elshof from Acadia University in Nova Scotia* has written to me asking that I put a comedy disclaimer on the Skeptics Handbook, and otherwise threatens to ridicule me at international conferences and set the media onto me. The email is here and my reply is below. What have our universities sunk too?
Does having a PhD mean anything anymore?
Dear Ms Nova
I am writing to you for some clarification regarding your ‘Sceptics Handbook’ on climate change.
A student of mine stumbled upon your ‘Sceptics Handbook’ on climate change and passed it on to me. Upon my first reading I thought surely this is a spoof, you’re having a good a good joke on the scientific community! I won’t waste your time listing all the scientific and logical deficiencies that riddle this document because I believe that you created ‘The Sceptics Handbook’ as a spoof to test the readers level of scientific literacy.
I told my graduate student that anyone with a bachelor’s degree in science—specialising in microbiology and molecular biology nonetheless, would surely not pretend to challenge the world’s scientific community’s consensus understanding on climate change. I also explained to the student that the author wouldn’t really be so arrogant as to dismiss the work of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific articles by climatologists, glaciologists, paleobotanists, oceanographers, mathematicians etc. I was certain that was simply a misunderstanding, a little spoof gone too far. I told him that the notion that Joanne Nova, a self-proclaimed ‘performer’ and “specialist on anti-aging, genetics and the future of medicine” has identified a blind spot upon which years of hard-won scientific research can now be discounted, is too preposterous to imagine .
[snip discussion of himself speaking soon in Australia…]But more to the point, I would please ask that you confirm asap that your ‘Handbook’ is indeed intended as a spoof and should be interpreted as such. At this point in time this is the only rational conclusion I can reach concerning your work. If this is the case I’ll have a good laugh and only ask that you put a comedy disclaimer somewhere on your website to attest to this fact .
If on the other hand, you tell me that your ‘Sceptics Handbook’ is genuinely intended as an educational ‘guide’ to understanding the so-called climate change ‘debate’, I will have the enormous pleasure of ridiculing the ‘Sceptics Handbook’ in front of an international audience (in your own country) as one of the most egregious pieces of junk science disinformation that I have ever had the misfortune to come across. If this is indeed the case, I will also endeavour to encourage the media to follow up by asking how an author who holds such a distorted misunderstanding of how basic science actually produces knowledge, can also pass themselves off as a science ‘educator’ and ‘communicator’ in any genuine sense of the word to children nonetheless?
I have no doubt that my Aussie education colleagues will appreciate having a good laugh at the banality of their own homespun sources of junk science disinformation and stupidity. This alone promises to be great fun.
Sincerely
Leo Elshof PhD.
—————————————————————————–
Your attempt to intimidate me provided me with a good laugh. Thank you.
Upon first reading your email I thought surely this is a spoof! A man with a PhD in Education would not seriously ridicule a scientific commentary with such poor reasoning, outright threats, and so little evidence?
Referring to my work as variously being “preposterous, banal, stupid, distorted, arrogant, presumptuous, and an egregious piece of junk science information” is all ad hominem. Is that the best scientific argument you can come up with?
Likewise, vague references to ‘thousands of scientists and peer reviewed papers’ and allusions to a consensus are arguments from authority and equally poor.
Leo Elshof’s Logic and Reasoning Scorecard:
11… Ad hominem attacks
3……Argument from authority
2….. Threats
1….. Strawman
0….. Points of evidenceTotal: -17
You appear to have spent more time reading my CV than looking at the science. I’m flattered, but respectfully point out that my qualifications have no influence on the radiosondes, satellites, CSSP graphs or IPCC documents I refer to.
Letters like yours expose the unscientific Pro-AGW tactic of silencing dissent. Good for me. Embarrassing for you. Have you a religious belief in AGW that helps you justify this unscientific behaviour? I sympathize.
I’m delighted you are coming to Australia and want to draw attention to the Skeptics Handbook. I invite you to publicly debate the AGW theory and the importance of teaching scientific reasoning at school.
I am gravely concerned about our children’s future. Without learning to reason I fear they will fall victim to hype, scam, exaggerated threats, and false assurances. Your letter has inspired me to find other ways to help children defend themselves from con-men, poor curricula, and well meaning academics. Does Acadia university have a policy about the role of logical inference in education? I’d be most grateful if you could forward it to me.
Wishing you lots of fun laughing at my expense. But I warn you against trying to impress anyone who understands rhetoric.
You are your own best example of why argument from authority is always fallacious.
Sincerely,
Joanne
BTW: If you had read the Handbook, you’d note I made no claims to having personally found the holes in the popular theory of AGW. Greater minds than mine deserve that credit. 🙂
PS! Please write and confirm immediately that you meant to send this from your home email. Arcadia University would surely prefer not to be associated with an attempt to stifle scientific debate and free speech, nor with a document that does not reflect well on the education of its educational staff.
UPDATE: As of Jan 9, 2009. Still no reply to me from Leo. Perhaps Acadia Uni has no policy on teaching logic and reasoning?
UPDATE: See comment #117 for Leo’s thoughts on this found on DeSmog.
*Correction: Leo is based at Acadia Uni, Nova Scotia, (not Arcadia Uni). Thanks, J.Knight.
COMMENTS HAVE BEEN MOVED BELOW
This post generated so many comments I’ve taken out about 125 comments that focussed on the science of the KEIHL TRENBERTH model and later on latent heat and evaporation, into The Missing Hot spot page (for want of a better more direct post).
You call AGW a religion, he calls your “handbook” a spoof. I think you deserve each other. I have to disagree with his description of the handbook as some especially egregious piece of junk science, though. As you say, you have merely collected some of the standard arguments that can be found on a number of web pages similar to yours. Nothing is new or particulary interesting.
I’m curious about one thing though. You claim “If adding more CO2 to the sky mattered, we would see it in the ice cores…” What is it you’d expect to see that you don’t?
23
What fun!
Joanne – I have a PhD in science from an australian university. Since you seem to have been sensible enough to have not wasted your time on such pursuits, maybe you’d like to purchase mine? Let’s say three bog roles? Nice soft ones please.
Not sure what we’ll do about changing the name, but maybe people will understand if you simply use a nikko pen to cross out my name and replace it with yours? If anyone asks you can simply explain that it is a correction factor.
30
Thomas,
Good to have you back. 🙂
I would like to see evidence that CO2 lead temperatures on any timescale ie: a billion years, a million years, or a thousand years. (And more than once).
In the shortest and longest scales, CO2 doesn’t correlate with temp well, and in the medium, the correlation between temp and CO is the reverse of what I’d find convincing.
If it was repeated it would help quantify climate sensitivity to CO2.
rafnics, thanks for the offer. (Luckily most PhD’s have a better grip on reason than Dr Elshof, eh?)
45
Now you say “you’d like to see” but in your “handbook” you claimed “we would see it in the ice cores”. Those statements are not equivalent! We’d all like to have a perfect analogy to today’s situation in the recent past so we had good historical data for what to expect, but we don’t. That’s why we need models.
To see CO2 lead temperature you first need a source of CO2 that is independent of any climate change. We might have one at the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum, but you’ve repeatedly ignored my reference to this episode before.
40
Jo, you’re not serious that this Assistant Professor sent this condescending e-mail to you from his Acadia University e-mail address? If so what a contemptuous attitude & yes what does it say about the standards of the university?
So who is this Dr. Leo Elshof? He’s an “Assistant Professor” from the Acadia University School of Education in Nova Scotia, Canada.
http://education.acadiau.ca/faculty_templates/l_elshof.html
I was interested in what motivates him. This link may give an indication?
“I have degrees from the University of Toronto (PhD), the University of Waterloo (B.Sc.) McMaster University (MSc) and the University of Western Ontario (B.Ed). I am currently an asst. professor at Acadia University in Wolfville Nova Scotia. I have been involved in climate change education and educational research in the area primarily with science and technological studies teachers. I am trying to get climate change education to be a much more integral component of teacher education and to develop a more critical consciousness of the social justice dimensions of climate change within the teacher education community”.
http://environment.yale.edu/climate/participants-by-domain/
How low can our educational institutions sink? Pity our children & grandchildren; yes this has to be confronted.
I had to laugh regarding this extract from his e-mail to you.
“I also explained to the student that the author wouldn’t really be so arrogant as to dismiss the work of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific articles by climatologists, glaciologists, paleo-botanists, oceanographers, mathematicians etc.”
As if 99.9% of these thousands of the articles could be construed as proof of catastrophic AGW by any rational person. In fact there are precious few peer-reviewed papers (arguably none,) that put forward a fully developed thesis for 2 X CO2 = 3 +/- 1.5C. .
For example Steve McIntyre asked on his blog for an engineering-quality exposition on “how 2.5 deg C is derived from doubled CO2”.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2528
In the blogosphere the link below is as good an answer as Spencer Weart at Realclimate could muster(for some reason the actual Realclimate link has morphed into French!).
http://climatesci.org/2008/09/09/spencer-r-weart-on-the-weblog-real-climate-makes-a-confession/
From Weart.
“Physics is rich in phenomena that are simple in appearance but cannot be calculated in simple terms. Global warming is like that. People may yearn for a short, clear way to predict how much warming we are likely to face. Alas, no such simple calculation exists. The actual temperature rise is an emergent property resulting from interactions among hundreds of factors. People who refuse to acknowledge that complexity should not be surprised when their demands for an easy calculation go unanswered.”
From Roger Pieke Snr.
“Indeed, since Spencer accepts that “The actual temperature rise is an emergent property resulting from interactions among hundreds of factors”, it also follows that we do not know even if the actual temperature will rise, since there are a variety of human cooling climate forcings, including from several of the aerosol effects (see), as well as natural cooling effects including atmospheric circulation changes, decreases in solar irradiance, and volcanic emissions“.
This is a science in terminal decline. You are right; it’s advocates have more in common with religion than science.
33
Hi Joanne,
Didn’t Oscar Wilde say the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.
It will be great publicity and a good way to get the Skeptics Handbook out there, if Dr Elshof does mention it at international conferences.
Who knows – soon you may have to add more academics to the list converts.
22
I see that the man who has a PHD degree could not tell if it was a spoof or real.
LOL!
He could have tried this fantastic idea of providing an actual counterpoint or two in the letter to you.But apparently not.
He was more interested in attacking YOU personally and trash an honest attempt to clarify some debating points.He barraged his poor student with one sided polemics against you.Showing that his teacher is a close minded bigot.
No wonder so many people have some unflattering thoughts about those with PHD degrees who should have known better.To know what a reasonable counterpoint is and that making threats against what you write in a sneering hostile way.
It will remain to see if he follows through on his immature threat.
22
Thomas,
“To see CO2 lead temperature you first need a source of CO2 that is independent of any climate change. ”
Right. Like a massive volcano, or an asteroid strike? There have been quite a few, and they’d release the carbon ‘a bit’ faster than us, eh.
If the evidence is so pathetically weak that we can’t see anything at all, maybe there’s not much effect there?
24
Joanne, if you have a specific example of a carbon spike and what it led to, please let us know. Today all the volcanoes on Earth emit less than a hundredth as much CO2 as we do, so it would have to be one gigantic eruption. I doubt even Yellowstone or a similar supervolcano would emit enough, but feel free to contradict me if you have any reliable source. While I can think of hypothetical scenarios in which an asteroid impact would lead to large CO2 emissions I’m not aware of any real case, but again, feel free to point to one. Real data, not just speculation!
You keep ignoring the example I did give: PETM. Is that because the CO2 spike was followed by global warming so it doesn’t fit your agenda?
22
Thomas,
I’ve already posted examples of carbon spikes that were caused by temperature spikes (the Vostok ice cores) and you can see that it’s not clear that the carbon had any effect.
“You keep ignoring the example I did give: PETM.”
Ah Yes. So far the only evidence you’ve offered was the four letter cryptic, PETM (which is the 55 million year ago Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum for those who aren’t climate-tragics).
“Is that because the CO2 spike was followed by global warming so it doesn’t fit your agenda?”
Insinuate away Thomas. It may be that the PETM doesn’t fit your agenda.
Since temperature leads carbon by hundreds of years, and techniques for getting dates right circa 50 million years ago are thin on the ground, it’s very difficult to figure out what happened back then. Maybe the carbon rose first. Maybe it didn’t.
That uncertainty didn’t stop some authors from just assuming carbon caused the warming. Pagani apparently calculated a high CO2 sensitivity by assuming that all 5 degrees of warming was entirely due to the CO2 and other GHG’s (green house gases) and no other factor, even though they admit they don’t know what caused the CO2 to rise in the first place. (Obviously they have ‘faith’ in CO2.)
On the other hand, the authors of this recent paper calculated the temperatures rose 3000 years before the carbon did. Oops.
And as for volcano’s? Mt St Helens put out about 1 cubic kilometer of material. But the Toba eruption blasted 2800 km3. Today’s volcano’s are teeny tiny hiccups compared to supervolcano’s.
44
Yes Joanne, you’ve mentioned that CO2 levels can rise after a temperature rise. thet isn’t the issue. I’m still waiting for you to come up with a situation where you had a clear carbon spike that didn’t lead to warming since that’s what you’ve claimed. You’ve mentioned volcanoes or asteroids as possible sources, but have made no good argument in favor. Large volcanic eruptions do throw up lots of ash, but I thought we were discussing CO2? There is no CO2 spike anywhere near the size of the current one at the time of the Toba eruption.
I spelled out PETM in #4 so you don’t have to be that “tragic” to figure out the meaning. I’ve also made it clear that I’m aware that PETM might not be a perfect example, for example, I wrote “but our data from that far back is so sparse we can’t conclusively prove what caused what, even if it looks like a pulse of extra CO2 caused rising temperatures and a mass extinction” That Nature papers seems interesting, though, I hadn’t seen it before.
As I’ve also stated, this quick rise of CO2 levels is an unprecedented experiment so unfortunately we don’t have any perfect historical example. You are the one who claims that “If adding more CO2 to the sky mattered, we would see it in the ice cores” A statement you still haven’t justified!
31
Thomas,
I’ve justified things I have said with graphs and commentary: Vostok Ice core graphs, and The Skeptics Handbook..
You want me to give buckets of money to prevent something you can’t provide any evidence for.
I don’t have to prove anything. But I will do a post devoted to ice cores soon, so we can comment there.
34
Joanne, you have NOT justified the statement you made in “the Skeptics Handbook” I’ve been asking about. What is it you’d expect to see that you don’t?
30
See my answer in #3.
34
Thomas seems to think that AGW must be true unless proved false. Hardly a scientific approach.
22
Dear Ms. Nova,
Nicely done! Elshof’s statement ” Challenging the world’s scientific consensus ” is revolting. Since when is science a consensus? I would have thought he’d challenge you to a debate in front of his class displaying his and your findings. Fear of being proved wrong brings out Ad hominem attacks so a debate is out of the question.
AGW people remind me of the people who thought the world was flat. Clearly there is more at work here than meets the eye.
Eric
Charlottesville, Va.
12
your reply to leo left me so satisfied i had to have a cigarette. is it true that lung cancer causes smoking?
12
The most succinct essay on AGW that I have run across yet. I have been a skeptic since the beginning, when I first read that computer models are being misused to extend data 100 years into the future. I do not have a PhD (just an AbD) because I respect the intent of the research degree (couldn’t prove an essential point), but I do know something about computer modeling and statistics. One just doesn’t push interpretations that far from the data. If the models could have predicted the current cool spell(s) they would be much more acceptable from a statistical standpoint.
Ever notice that EDD’s are the only ones who insist on being called ‘Dr.’?
Globally, I do honestly believe that there is a disgraceful agenda afoot.
Sincerely,
OldJoe
12
Joanne,
Thanks for your work, bringing integrity back to climate science and the global warming context. While I’m not considered a scientist, I’ve done my fair share of resource research and technology investigations.
Warmers ignore the likelihood their efforts will net a larger carbon footprint for us consumers (carbon sequester/credit trading produces monetary inflation; poor people burn wood and raw coal). They are not content with allowing real knowledge, application and market dynamics to do their jobs: They want absolute control of it all in the name of their own avarice and ambition. A comedy and tragedy all in one.
12
Logic and reason are taught as part of Philosophy and Religion at Arcadia University. It covers Logic, Ethics, some philosophical Literature, Political thought, plus Greek, Christian and Jewish world-views and a modern perspective.
http://www.arcadia.edu/WorkArea/downloadasset.aspx?id=17210
Although not a religious person myself, I do respect the freedom of others to choose a religion if that’s what suits them. Many great contributions to science have come from the devout. If a piece of scientific work is religiously inspired then that is no criticism of the work, but it is a relevant attribute that should be understood by the reader in order to fully appreciate the work.
11
Jo
he is treating you with contempt because you are presuming to lecture to the world on the science when your understanding of what the claims are is extremely poor. I would suggest you first of all try to understand what is being claimed, and why, then, when you can do so, tell us why it is wrong. At present, all you are doing is telling us why your erroneous understanding of the science is wrong, which is is a pointless waste of time for all involved.
31
Jo, bugs is right, it’s all too complicated for us regular people and we should just accept things on faith 😉
11
“Jo, bugs is right, it’s all too complicated for us regular people and we should just accept things on faith ”
I didn’t say that at all. However, the science as it stands is clearly too complex for Jo to understand to date. Perhaps some more work and research can clear up that problem. Jo is entitled to be sceptical, but it would help if she was arguing the point, not something that no-one has claimed.
[Oh you mean, I should put together my arguments with references into one document and state my case? Perhaps you could read The Skeptics Handbook? (It’s what this intimidating letter was about after all — JN]
40
Granted, some of the science is no doubt too complex for the untrained (although I don’t think we’re in any position to know what Jo does or does not understand); however, the basic issue with AGW is that a theory was postulated and models made to support that theory. Many climate experts agree with the theory, and many climate experts do not agree with the theory. Nevertheless, the next step required to prove the theory is to compare the models’ projections against actual results in the laboratory and/or in nature. Clearly the models have failed to predict any actual climate variation, past or present, with any reasonable degree of accuracy. At this point, if you still have faith in the theory, you need to come up with a significantly better model before claiming that your theory is in any way proven (or even likely enough to justify acting on).
Arguing over this or that little piece of the big picture is just obscuring the point, which is that an alarmist theory (which is undoubtedly worth researching and acting upon if shown to be correct) has not been shown to have any substance and mankind has many more real and pressing concerns on which to expend its limited resources.
By the way, I’m sure you would get near 100% agreement from everyone commenting here that reducing all forms of pollution is a good thing. It’s just the obsession with carbon dioxide that is misguided.
22
“models made to support that theory. ” The models were not made to support the theory.
“Many climate experts agree with the theory, and many climate experts do not agree with the theory. ” That is not supported.
“Clearly the models have failed to predict any actual climate variation, past or present, with any reasonable degree of accuracy”
It has never been claimed the models can predict local climate change with any accuracy, (the grids are too large), or year by year changes.
To judge them on those criteria is to completely miss the point of what they are capable of and what they are useful for.
If “alarmist” theory is shown to be correct, by the time the proof that is being demanded by denialists is available, it will be too late to do anything about the problem. The levels of CO2 will already be to high.
31
Bugs: (referring to #21 and #23)
Perhaps you don’t realize that this intimidatory letter refers to The Skeptics Handbook? You could try reading it.
Then, if you can put a specific example in of what it is that I “don’t understand”, I’ll be all ears.
As it is, I don’t know what you are talking about.
#26
Anyone can state that something is ‘not supported’. That’s lazy. Give us some evidence (whilst keeping in mind that a/ models can not be evidence–they are theoretical, and b/ science is not a democracy -adding up PhD’s is pointless).
Bugs, the models are not predicting anything much with accuracy. What’s the point of a model if it can’t do global climate or local climate?
Do tell. What are they capable of? They aren’t predicting global averages for the current five year period.
You make it sound like we have high standards to proof, but you miss our point. We just want some proof – any evidence. At the moment it all hangs on one hundred year old lab tests and flawed computer models. Forgive me, but the real world atmosphere is so complex that I’m unconvinced. Give me a rock layer, a formanifera, an ice core, a temperature data set (one that isn’t set up next to air conditioners). Anything?! But don’t answer with the words ‘consensus’, ‘IPCC’ or computer model.
44
Reply to George #17
George, instead you could suck on the $30 billion dollars Big Government spent on climate research. Indeed, Big Government has poured so much money into the whole climate related industry, the bureaucrats could have bought Phillip Morris.
Big Government has more influence than Big Tobacco. Keep writing, we look forward to another own-goal.
34
Joanne,
Thanks for having the nerve to stand up to the alarmist fascists. It is they who are expending prodigious amounts of money, time, and energy attempting to convince the rest of us that CO2 is a deadly poison and we must all revert to a horse-and-buggy level of technology in order to prevent ‘climate change’. What utter nonsense.
I would encourage you to continue to fight the good fight! Perhaps you could put together a documentary dvd and set out on a world lecture tour a la Gore. Who knows, you might instigate a backlash from the enviro-idiots which would portray them in the negative light they so richly deserve!
I would love to come hear you speak, if only I could afford to travel to Australia.
12
“The strongest evidence was the ice cores,
but newer more detailed data turned the
theory inside out
Instead of carbon pushing up temperatures, for the
last half a million years temperatures have gone up
before carbon dioxide levels. On average 800 years
before. This totally threw what we thought was
cause-and-effect out the window.
Something else caused the warming.”
You clearly don’t understand what the claim is about ice core evidence. CO2 is associated with warming periods. In previous cases, CO2 was not the forcing, but a feedback, (although IIRC, there were some events were CO2 was a forcing).
CO2 however, by acting as a GHG, is fulfilling the role of a positive feedback. That is, we can see more warming happening due to the presence of CO2, even it was not the primary forcing of the warming. The warming caused by the primary forcing has released CO2, which has further warmed the already present warming phase.
The A in AGW stands for us. For nearly all of the climate record, we weren’t around. So even if we do have evidence of previous climate changes, there is no previous record of us causing warming by releasing large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. So even though there is a climate record that contains times when CO2 is associated with warming, there is no direct correlation to what is happening now. We are digging up gigatons of stored carbon and releasing it into the atmosphere as CO2 in what is in geological time scales, the blink of an eye.
So, yes, something else ’caused’ the warming, that is, was the ‘forcing’ of the warming, but CO2 was present as positive feedback, so it was causing the warming as well, but in a different role, (but using the same physical mechanism, the absorption and release of radiation).
Which is where you appeal to keep it simple fails to an extent. The question can be very simple, but the answer is going to be very complex. That is not the fault of AGW research scientists, that is just the nature of the beast that is being studied. It’s like berating scientists for not explaining quantum physics in a simple way, or string theory. These areas of science are highly complex to just describe, far more complex to defined in terms of mathematical theory. That is apparently why Al Gore skimmed over this topic in his presentation, he had the feeling to explain the fine points ice core record would just end up confusing most people.
““models made to support that theory. ” The models were not made to support the theory.”
The climate models were not made to support AGW theory. The models were made to replicate, as best as possible, the earth’s climate. They were then run with the changes in CO2 that were expected to happen, to see what effects those changes would cause. That is vastly different to creating models “to support the theory”.
21
I have a theory that the Earth will be destroyed in five years by a massive bombardment of giant teapots falling from space. Now, I might be wrong but we had better pour all our resources into deflecting this tragedy just in case it turns out to be true. And by the way, I’d like to see you prove my theory wrong.
On a more serious note, the theory that very small (as a percentage of total CO2, and CO2 is itself only a trace gas in the atmosphere) human induced increases in atmospheric CO2 will have catastrophic impacts on the climate is a real stretch. However, if there is actual evidence that it is true then it is worth acting on. To date no irrefutable evidence has been put forward, current models (which are being relied on for planning purposes) are wildly inaccurate (as even the IPCC notes) and the Earth is actually cooling as CO2 levels rise. At the moment, the risk of catastrophic global warming due to human CO2 emissions has not been shown to be significantly greater than the risk of teapots crashing down from space. On this basis, acting “just in case it’s true” is not justified on any measure.
21
Bugs
Yes I know and while the warming period at the end the ice periods lasts around 5,000 years, for 4,200 years or so the temperature & CO2 moved in unison. Bugs this is all poorly supported conjecture & theory & while the feedback probably had some effect on the warming rate I suspect it was minor compared to the major forcing.
From David Evans:
“Is there any observational evidence in favor of AGW? As of 2003, none at all.
The only supporting evidence for AGW was the old ice core data. The old ice core data, gathered from 1985, showed that in the past half million years, through several global warmings and coolings, the earth’s temperature and atmospheric carbon levels rose and fell in lockstep. AGW was coming into vogue in the 1980s, so it was widely assumed that it was the carbon changes causing the temperature changes.
By the late 1990s ice core techniques had improved. In the old ice cores the data points were a few thousand years apart, but in the new ice core data they were only a few hundred years apart. In the early 1990s, New Scientist magazine anticipated that the higher-resolution data would seal the case for AGW.
But the opposite occurred. By 2003 it had been established to everyone’s satisfaction that temperature changes preceded corresponding carbon changes by an average of 800 years: so temperature changes caused carbon changes – a warmer ocean supports more carbon in the atmosphere, after delays due to mixing. [4] So the ice core data no longer supported AGW. The alarmists failed to effectively notify the public”.
http://clubtroppo.com.au/2008/12/19/david-evans-greenhouse-sceptic-debates-his-views-on-troppo/
And tell me Bugs. What am I to make of a certain suited gentleman who gets up in a lift in front of a huge graph showing temperature correlating with CO2 in the interglacials? What was he trying to convey? Somehow I missed the part where he informed his viewers that CO2 lags temperature by 800 years.
12
“I have a theory that the Earth will be destroyed in five years by a massive bombardment of giant teapots falling from space. Now, I might be wrong but we had better pour all our resources into deflecting this tragedy just in case it turns out to be true. And by the way, I’d like to see you prove my theory wrong.”
I don’t have to, you have provided no evidence for your theory.
[Ha Ha HA! Neither have you SJT. JoNova]
20
“On a more serious note, the theory that very small (as a percentage of total CO2, and CO2 is itself only a trace gas in the atmosphere) human induced increases in atmospheric CO2 will have catastrophic impacts on the climate is a real stretch. However, if there is actual evidence that it is true then it is worth acting on. To date no irrefutable evidence has been put forward, current models (which are being relied on for planning purposes) are wildly inaccurate (as even the IPCC notes) and the Earth is actually cooling as CO2 levels rise. At the moment, the risk of catastrophic global warming due to human CO2 emissions has not been shown to be significantly greater than the risk of teapots crashing down from space. On this basis, acting “just in case it’s true” is not justified on any measure.”
There is significant evidence for a scientific, physical basis for AGW. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we are in the process of doubling it’s concentration in the atmosphere. That is vastly different to your teapots. A greehouse gas warms the earth.
Scientific theories don’t really work on ‘irrefutable’ evidence. We still don’t know exactly how gravity works, but we use it all the time. They are either supported, or disproved. Given the well understood physical basis of how greenhouse gases work, I don’t see AGW being disproved, ever.
The only real debate is over the extent of warming, since, as you have noted, models are not perfect, (and it has never been claimed that they are, and the limitations of the models are openly stated).
Given that we know that AGW is real, and has a well understood physical basis, I think we need to react accordingly.
10
SJT, Bugs: The answer to this is not that complex.
CO2 reliably absorbs certain frequencies of light in the lab, Yes. But as far as we can tell, with every experiment thus far, we can’t find any evidence that it matters in the real world.
There is no observation from rocks, ice-cores, tree-rings, pollen, lake floor sludge, or weather balloons etc et al, that the absorption of a few percentage more beams of light in the atmosphere makes any real difference to the planet where ocean currents, clouds, air turbulence, etc etc ad infinitum, are also all affecting the climate.
There is evidence that plants love the extra fertilizer and grow faster.
If we double CO2 it will still be a mere one fifth of levels that lasted hundreds of millions of years here on earth.
RE ICE CORES: Anyone notice that it’s the AGW believers who are most prone to making giant sweeping unsubstantiated generalizations?
Dear Bugs, switch off the patronization, and READ the Skeptics Handbook.
QUOTE: AGW replies: Even if CO2 doesn’t start the warming trend, it amplifies it.
Skeptics say: Amplification is a lab-theory with no evidence that it matters in the real world.
I not only understand what you wrote, I’m a step ahead.
Show us some evidence that there is any significant ‘amplification’.
This is a flat statement of fact about the motivations of people involved. It’s utterly unknowable. Even discussing this is a waste of binary code. It’s unmeasurable; ‘motivations’ don’t change the weather; and in any case, climate models are theoretical and can never be evidence.
SJT:
That’s exactly why this is a religious belief. C’mon SJT! What if human emissions lifted carbon by 100ppm, and the climate didn’t warm? Would that disprove AGW was significant?
34
“This is a flat statement of fact about the motivations of people involved. It’s utterly unknowable. ”
I was refuting the claim the models were created to support the theory. Thanks for backing me up on that.
[Actually you were trying to argue the models were created to figure out the climate. So I was pointing out how you both are arguing an irrelevant, unknowable point, but sure, if you want to take that as a pat on the back, go ahead… 😉 JoNova]
10
“That’s exactly why this is a religious belief. C’mon SJT! What if human emissions lifted carbon by 100ppm, and the climate didn’t warm? Would that disprove AGW was significant?”
The phsyical basis is well defined and clear, the greenhouse effect is what makes the habitable at present. The only reason it would not warm would be if some other factor turned up to cool the earth. That would not invalidate AGW, it would just override the AGW effect.
“What if?”. What if tea pots did rain down?
“Dear Bugs, switch off the patronization, and READ the Skeptics Handbook.”
I have read some of it, it is wrong, you don’t understand the state of the science. I am quite happy to correct you, but if you really want to talk the talk with some climate scientists, I would suggest you do so. Our own CSIRO has been a leader in this area of research. Until you understand what they are saying, anything you write is a waste of time, as you are not addressing the actual science they are producing.
20
“That’s exactly why this is a religious belief. C’mon SJT! What if human emissions lifted carbon by 100ppm, and the climate didn’t warm? Would that disprove AGW was significant?”
If it happened, I would like to see the updated section on Attribution, to see what was happening and why. There are many forcings on the climate, CO2 at present is the most significant one.
But your example is asking me the equivalent of what if I dropped a ball and it didn’t fall? Do you expect that to happen?
10
Dear bugs,….. Argument by Authority is meaningless. It’s a cheat shortcut. It’s unscientific. The IPCC is a government committee. It proves nothing.
Please stop posting these lazy whitewash unsubstantiated posts. You say, “I am happy to correct you” Sure. So do it. Shooting blanks?
“There are many forcings on the climate, CO2 at present is the most significant one.” Says who? State the evidence, not just your opinion (Here’s your challenge. Can you do it without using the words ‘IPCC’, ‘AR4’, ‘mainstream’, ‘consensus’, or any reference to an institution or an expert?).
Exxxxxxactly. How much tax do you want to suck from the poor to stave off an effect so minor it can’t be measured? (Please give me all your money. It won’t invalidate your bank account, it will just override your spending power.)
Wow. Bugs, do you worry that you believe in this theory so strongly and yet you cannot name a single observation that supports it?
Such devotion.
Such faith.
Pray the weather warms.
34
“Wow. Bugs, do you worry that you believe in this theory so strongly and yet you cannot name a single observation that supports it?”
I know that every morning I wake up, and it’s not an ice age. It’s not an ice age because of the greenhouse effect. I observe this every minute of every day I am awake.
Argument by authority is quite valid in your position, and mine. It’s what you have to do when you don’t have the means of understanding the science. I am quite prepared to admit, I am not a climate scientist. Why don’t you do the the same?
I have to defer to an authority, although I do my best to understand the science. It is the only logical thing to do when you are not an authority yourself. I don’t question what drug is prescribed by a doctor. (Well, I tried a few times. Very quickly I realised, I did not understand the science behind the drug nearly as well as the doctor).
Your demand that I could, by myself, from first principles, recreate climate science as it stands today, is absurd.
10
The fact that AGW enthusiasts don’t recognize sun spots and their correlation to planetary temperatures says a lot about their scientific minds. Talk about missing the obvious. The tide is turning and the more knowledge that is transferred from rational scientists to lay people the more opposition there will be to AGW. Keep up the good work all you scientists.
11
OK. Bugs. Thankyou. Now we are getting somewhere. I can agree with you that sometimes you need to trust the authorities, and that most of the time – thanks to the triumph of western democracy – this is a reasonable tactic.
But that doesn’t change the fact that sometimes authority is flat out wrong – despite good intentions – when we trust authority we do run the risk of being taken advantage of. Science lifted itself out of the dark ages when people stopped assuming that the Pope was an authority on everything, and that the bible held all the answers.
I drop things and I see them fall. But I’m not absolutely 100% certain that the greenhouse effect is doing anything at all. It probably is. I am 99.99% sure it keeps us warmer today, not because an authority told me that, but because the explanation of the greenhouse effect is internally consistent, it makes sense, and I have yet to read anyone who had a good reason to disagree. When it comes to the enhanced greenhouse effect, though, I used to think it made sense. I was worried. Then when I discovered that the science had changed, AND that no one was reporting the new results I became very suspicious. Then I read alternate theories, and saw the endless repetition of ‘argument by authority’ I realized that those who claim there is no evidence are right.
When I also saw that the ‘believers’ stop debate through intimidation and bulling tactics I was convinced the case for AGW must be weak. Otherwise, believers would not feel threatened. They would just point to the evidence.
I will change my mind back if someone can point to observations that support AGW unequivocally. But so far, no one has.
I don’t expect you to argue from first principles in order to post good comments here. But can you see why the decree of a committee can never qualify as scientific evidence?
And, regarding doctors: as I explained previously, I’m trained in medical science, and so, no, I don’t assume my doctors know everything. I respect their opinion, but I search PubMed when I have any reason to doubt. I know it’s not reasonable for everyone to do that, but you should be aware that doctors receive next to no training in nutrition, there are dozens of medical journals, and no one person could read them all. Doctors are human, therefore they are fallible.
I hate to say it, but we all need to think for ourselves.
34
“When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power!” –Alston Chase
“He, who has learned to doubt and to ask questions where the norms forbid it, can never stop the habit. As such, every creative person is building bridges to those masses of people who are tied up helplessly by the pressures of peers and society. His is a step out and above the group. And however strong the creative person is enchained by conventions, he has unshackled himself on his way as a free and autonomous personality. As such, he may have cleared a new path for his group, his society and perhaps humankind in order to transform culture and to create space for other free personalities who want to set new goals.” –Franz Oppenheimer (1864-1943)
Thank you, Joanne, for your bolg and your Skeptics Handbook!! You are right on track! I applaud your tenacity and ability to speak out boldly against those who continue to promote AGW alarmism.
I am a retired Earth Science instructor in California who decided to research and figure out on my own what is really going on regarding AGW and climate change! I have a Master of Science in Education with a specialty in Earth Science and Biology from Syracuse University. I am ashamed that so many “educators” continue to promote “An Inconvenient Truth” without balancing it’s message with the research done by many, many scientists who are true climatologists like Patrick J. Michaels, Robert C. Balling, Jr., and Robert Carter.
What has happened to our sense of teaching inquiry, investigation, and resourcefulness?
“Scientific inquiry refers to the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work. Inquiry also refers to the activities of students in which they develop knowledge and understanding of scientific ideas, as well as an understanding of how scientists study the natural world.” –National Science Education Standards, p. 23.
“The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda.” –Michael Crichton
“One of the many complexities that complicate the task I’ve undertaken is complexity” –Al Gore Sept. 2, 2008
I look forward to reading and interacting on you blog site!
11
“true climatologists like Patrick J. Michaels, Robert C. Balling, Jr., and Robert Carter. ”
Bob Carter is not a climatologist.
Balling seems to be unsure now. From Wikipedia.
“Balling is a declared “global warming skeptic.” However, in Balling and Sen Roy (2005) he writes: “There is substantial evidence that a non-solar control has become dominant in recent decades. The buildup of greenhouse gases and/or some other global-scale feedback, such as widespread changes in atmospheric water vapor, emerge as potential explanations for the recent residual warming found in all latitudinal bands.””
Michaels says “In interviews Michaels has said that he does not contest the basic scientific principles behind greenhouse warming and acknowledges that global mean temperature has increased in recent decades,”
(Also from Wiki).
20
Bug, Ad hominem attacks are easy to make, but “qualifications” prove nothing. Tropospheric temperatures don’t care if someone is a kindy kid or a nobel prize winner. They go up, or they don’t.
Likewise, if a declared “global warming skeptic” completely changes his point of view, it’s interesting but proves zip again. Counting PhD’s on each side of the fence is irrelevant. We should listen to his reason, but as it happens, the quote from him essentially says ‘I think other things than the sun matter lately, like water vapour feedback.’
Wikipedia BTW – is a joke. It’s so good on many topics but is beyond saving on Global Warming. The thought police have an iron grip. Pat Michaels wrote:
And the Michaels quote you made is stating the obvious. I don’t know any skeptics who’d disagree with that.
If you want to judge the alternate views for yourself, I’ve linked sources and good sites here. Check out Climate Audit (for heavy details and discussion. Junk Science is easier for people to understand.
24
“And the Michaels quote you made is stating the obvious. I don’t know any skeptics who’d disagree with that.”
You don’t get around the blogs enough. There are plenty who disagree with the observation that it is warming, that CO2 is a GHG, that there is a GHG effect, that CO2 is increasing, that we are making the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increase.
As to Wiki’s accuracy, I don’t see you disagreeing with the quotes.
20
Bugs, Re Wiki: if the quotes meant something I would bother to check them out. 🙂
If you make vague comments I can hardly give you specific answers. eg: “global mean temperature has increased in recent decades” (Pat Michaels). Starting in the mid 70’s until 2001, there was global warming. Temperatures rose. I’ve yet to see anyone disagree with that. But there is debate now about whether it’s still warming from 2001- 2008. However that is not what you quoted.
And getting back to the thread – Is there any situation, result or condition that would convince you that the AGW theory was irrelevant? Does an ice age while CO2 levels rise, qualify?
14
Dr Chris de Freitas was way ahead of us in 2002! There are many great scientists out there in this big wonderful world who are telling us to be calm, cool and reasonable. There is no devastating threat caused by AGW. The political solutions are far worse than any potential increase of 1 degree C in the next century. Are we advocates for Science or do we have an Agenda?
“Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous?”
BULLETIN OF CANADIAN PETROLEUM GEOLOGY
VOL. 50, NO. 2 (JUNE, 2002), P. 297-327
“Contrary to the IPCC predictions, global temperature has not risen appreciably in the last 20 years. Most surface temperature data free from the influence of surrounding buildings and roads show no warming. Data from satellites support this. Sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age, long before industrialization, but historical records show no acceleration in sea level rise in the twentieth century. Increases in carbon dioxide appear to pose no immediate
danger to the planet. The gas is not a pollutant.” –Dr Chris de Freitas
School of Geography and Environmental Science
University of Auckland,
PB 92019, Auckland
New Zealand
12
Bugs said: “I have to defer to an authority, although I do my best to understand the science.”
———————
Bugs, defering to an authority is not a rational way to assess a theory, particularly when people want to use it to make revolutions (in energy, transportation, agriculture…). After all, astrologists claim their field is science and you don’t defer to the “authority” of astrologists, do you ?
The only scientific authority is reality. A valid scientific theory makes predictions that every layman can test and compare to reality. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know if a rocket “authority” is good or bad, all you need is to check if the rockets are delivered as predicted.
So the first question for you should be “is the AGW theory predictive” ? If yes, provide results and examples to counter its many proven failures.
11
I re-read the letter above by Leo Elshof PhD. His letter makes a mockery of Science Education as I have known it over the past 50 years!
He should be invited to the The 2009 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City to listen to and possibly challenge the leading climate scientists! And then he should take these to heart!
Critical Thinking Evaluating Evidence and Claims
1. GATHER ALL THE INFORMATION YOU CAN
2. BE SURE ALL THE KEY TERMS AND CONCEPTS ARE DEFINED AND THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THESE DEFINITIONS
3. QUESTION HOW THE DATA WERE OBTAINED
» Were the studies well designed and carried out?
» Was there an experimental and control group? Were the two treated identically except for the variable changed in the experimental group?
» Did the investigators repeat their experiments several times and get essentially the same results? If so, what is the estimated error or degree of uncertainty in the results?
» Were the results verified by one or more other investigators?
4. QUESTION THE CONCLUSIONS DERIVED FROM THE DATA
» Do the data support the claims, conclusions and predictions?
» Are other interpretations possible or more reasonable?
» Are the conclusions based on the results of original research by experts in the field involved, or are they conclusions drawn by reporters or scientists in other fields?
5. EXPECT AND TOLERATE UNCERTAINITY. THE MORE COMPLEX THE SYSTEM OR PROCESS, THE GREATER THE DEGREE OF UNCERTAINITY
6. LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE
» How do the results and conclusions fit into the whole system involved?
7. TAKE A POSITION BY EITHER REJECTING OR CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTING THE CLAIMS.
» Reject claims not based on any evidence, based on insufficient evidence, or based on evidence from questionable sources.
» If evidence does not support a claim, reject it and state the conclusion you would draw from the evidence
» If the evidence supports the claims, conditionally accept the claims with the understanding that your support may change if new evidence arises
from a website by Christopher Visco — http://nyearthscienceteacher.com/55.html
Outstanding Earth Science Teacher for the state of New York (2008), National Association of Geoscience Teachers
13
I don’t believe that there is an Arcadia University in Canada, you are likely referring to Acadia University in Nova Scotia, not Arcadia which is in Pennsylvania.
(Trivia – French Canadians moved from Maritime Canada (Acadia) to Southern U.S. Acadians are now known as Cajuns in Louisiana)
10
Some contributors here might be interested in a series of articles about climate change that I have been publishing since April this year.
Start with this one and if still interested trawl through the others:
http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1487
10
Thank you Stephen!! I’m always on the alert for new, to me, sites with fresh insights! I’m trawling with fascination!!!
10
Leo Elshof’s statement on the Acadia website “I am trying to get climate change education to be a much more integral component of teacher education and to develop a more critical consciousness of the social justice dimensions of climate change within the teacher education community” just about sums up everything that’s wrong with education these days. It sounds more like propaganda than education, but dressed up in a mumbo-jumbo language.
12
“And getting back to the thread – Is there any situation, result or condition that would convince you that the AGW theory was irrelevant? Does an ice age while CO2 levels rise, qualify?”
You can have high levels of CO2 and an ice age. CO2 is not the only climate forcing.
10
“Stephen Wilde:
January 4th, 2009 at 7:21 am
Some contributors here might be interested in a series of articles about climate change that I have been publishing since April this year.
Start with this one and if still interested trawl through the others:
http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1487”
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.
GCM’s for years now have incorporated ocean coupling in their calculations.
10
Jo;
If you haven’t already found it, please check out the series of articles at the URL below (at least the English language ones, my foreign language was Fortran!) This guy — Author and Copyright: Dipl.-Ing. Heinz Thieme, Kaarst, Germany — may be on to something. If so, game over.
http://www.geocities.com/
Old Joe
10
SJT stated:
” A greehouse gas warms the earth.”
Actually, a greenhouse gas slows the cooling, it does NOT warm the earth!! The SUN warms the earth. Magnetic fields warm the earth. Tidal effects warm the earth. Cosmic rays warm the earth.
Until you and the rest of the warmers get this simple concept through your heads, we can go no further!!!
By the way, to help you with this, please explain what causes the cooling in the stratosphere in the model runs (besides reduced ozone!!)
That’s right, extra CO2!!!!
Now, we just have to figure out how heat builds up so fast in the troposphere that the radiation of all the extra GG’s can’t move it across the tropopause!!! This is another model FEATURE that has yet to be proven in a reasonable manner. Nothing like betting the farm on arm waving implemented in computer code.
Jo,
are signed copies of your book available??
12
Bugs says:
“GCM’s for years now have incorporated ocean coupling in their calculations.”
Hmmm, and that explains, with the recent cooling, why one of the model groups reran their models with the actual ocean temps initialised and decided that we would be cooling for 5-10 years??
Why couldn’t they project this scenario??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Bugs, they also have finally included sun influence and moved the heavy lifting from CO2 to H2O vapor feedback. Funny thing, but, while getting a little more conservative in 100 year projections or scenarios, they mostly still outperform the real observations in temp increase even though CO2 keeps a climbin’.
Please realise that the modellers DO NOT PREDICT!!! Their model runs are predicated on their settings. IF those settings match real world, THEN they may have some application.
As they still have a few problems, they are only good for research. They are WORST at precipitation and cloud coverage. As this is a HUGE part of climate, they can not POSSIBLY give realistic scenario outputs.
You should think of the computer models as somewhere around DOS 6.1 or Windows 3.1!!!! They have some good ideas and work, but have a loooooooong way to go before being really workable!!
11
Sorry Bugs:
GCM’s have no relation to reality. This is why the IPCC needs to take the average of the GCM’s they thought were resonable to make a projection. If you took each GCM individually they would disprove each other. They are not capable of projecting the past how can we expect them to project the future. For your information Gcm’s need more computing to be able to include ocean atmosphere interaction. Ipcc AR4 and real climate have admitted these limitations.
11
20
You should try keeping with the news. The older models didn’t work in way that could predict short term trends. This new model is supposed to be able to do that better than the old generation, and predict over much shorter time scales. I’ll wait and see how they go.
20
Hi Joanne.
Great blog and I admire your patience with certain bloggers.
Best wishes for a wonderful New Year,
from Copenhagen.
11
I sympathise greatly with Dr Elshof. Joanne’s unfounded beliefs are ludricous. Maybe she should listen to the experts, who actually know what they are talking about, rather than arrogantly claiming she’s got it all worked out, and that the scientists have been fooling with us for over four decades. This reminds me of the Flat Earth Society. It’s a ridiculous thing but you just can’t talk logic with these people.
40
One has to dig a bit to find out what was really going on with the IPCC. Dr. C. R. DE FREITAS, in his 2002 paper mentioned above, gives a very thorough description of the IPCC’s report as it was fashioned and used to promote climate alarmism. Almost all alarmists use these IPCC reports upon which to base their case.
“The dense 300–400 page IPCC Scientific Assessment Reports are generally good compilations of global warming science. But only experts read them. The UN IPCC’s voice to the public, press and policy makers regarding climate science is through summaries; in particular, the brief, politically approved “Summaries for Policymakers” (SPM), which have become notorious for their bias, tendency to overstate problems and penchant for simplifying and dramatizing scientific speculation.
A classic example is the claim in the 1996 IPCC SPM (Houghton et al., 1996, p. 4): “the balance of evidence suggest that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.” The so called “evidence” cited in Chapter 8 of the main report was based on one paper that at the time had not been published in the refereed scientific literature. Moreover, one of the authors of this paper was also the convening lead author of the Chapter 8 that supported the “human influence” claim. A hearing in August 1998 on the subject of global warming before the U.S. House Committee on Small Business, chaired by Republican James Talent, publicized the fact that the 1996 IPCC scientific report (Houghton et al., 1996) was altered to convey the misleading impression to the public that there is a ‘discernible human influence on global climate’ which will lead to catastrophic warming.” –C. R. DE FREITAS
11
Anthropogenic Contribution to the “Greenhouse
Effect,” expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED)
Based on concentrations adjusted for heat retention
characteristics
____________________% of All GHG_% Natural__% Man-made
Water vapor_____________95.000%___94.999%____0.001%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)_____3.618%____3.502%____0.117%
Methane (CH4)____________0.360%____0.294%____0.066%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)______0.950%____0.903%____0.047%
Misc.gases( CFC’s,etc.)__0.072%____0.025%____0.047%
Total___________________100.00%____99.72%____0.280%
Can someone explain how the man-made part of the greenhouse effect is going to destroy the climate?
11
cosmos:
If you are claiming that water vapour accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect, you might want to take a look at this article:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=220
10
cosmos:
Also, please provide a source for your table.
10
David:
Don’t you realize that you can find facts to prove anything you want to prove on RC or in WIKI. I find it amazing all the contradictory information these sites provide. Also please provide a reilable scource other than the 2500 looking for their 15 minutes of fame.
11
david:
I sympathise greatly with Dr Elshof. Joanne’s unfounded beliefs are ludricous. Maybe she should listen to the experts, who actually know what they are talking about, rather than arrogantly claiming she’s got it all worked out, and that the scientists have been fooling with us for over four decades. This reminds me of the Flat Earth Society. It’s a ridiculous thing but you just can’t talk logic with these people.
Hi are you the same David as was noticed at Watts Up With That? What, in your opinion, is the most serious “unfounded belief” of Joanne? What is your evidence – from her material – that it is unfounded? If this is not a logical response to your claim, please show us why – logically.
Glad my icon has a sort of smile.
13
To Mike Davis:
No, I didn’t realise that I could find facts to prove anything I wanted. Maybe this is because RealClimate is, in fact, a reliable source, written by climatologists, who, I am sure, have a far greater knowledge of the subject than you or I.
To Lucy Skywalker:
No, that would be a different David. The most serious unfounded belief of Joanne is that the apparent lack of warming since 2001 constitutes proof that AGW does not exist. Using that method of picking 8-year chunks as evidence of an overall trend I can find many periods of dramatic cooling and warming over the past 150 years, but the point remains that the global average temperature has increased by nearly one degree.
20
And here, if you’re interested, is a good three-part explanation of why Joanne’s booklet is bunkum:
http://www.desmogblog.com/skeptics-handbook-carbon-dioxide-climate-change
http://www.desmogblog.com/debunking-joanne-nova-climate-skeptics-handbook-global-warming-real-and-happening
http://www.desmogblog.com/debunking-joanne-nova-climate-skeptics-handbook-part-3-climate-models-have-it-right
[ Yes, and I will be replying to these mostly inane, irrelevant, and illogical points soon… HERE JoNova]
30
I find it hard to believe that we are making this much fuss over one degree when there are so many other pressing issues out there! AGW has become the scapegoat for all variations in climate. It is a “feel good” mantra that has created a schism that is unprecedented in my 40 years of teaching science. Folks should have learned in their science classes to inquire, question, challenge and share ideas without the vitriol. Expect and tolerate uncertainty! One of the great uncertainties in this whole “dilemma” is the Mann Hockey Stick. Most folks don’t know about the bad science and poor model building wrapped around this issue.
12
David:
ROFLMAO RELIABLE ROFLMAO!
10
David: Second best joke of the year!
10
David is correct that taking the last 8 years to disprove AGW is silly. However, this is the same argument skeptics have been trying to get AGW proponents to realize for the past decade. Attempting to use the last 3 decades (where temp and CO2 basically rose together) to prove AGW is just as silly. Correlation does not equate to causation, especially over such a short period of time (in geological terms). And to infer causation without irrefutable emperical data constitutes scientific fraud.
For laymen, it is instructive to first ask, has the temperature of the planet (as best we can determine) risen more rapidly than in the past or has it become higher than in the past? If the answer to either of these questions is yes, then we have identified an anomaly that should be taken seriously. The answer to both questions, though, is no. Neither the rate of change nor the absolute value is outside of historic norms. This should give us pause to reflect on theories that propose significant changes to the way we live.
David is also correct in pointing out even though CO2 makes up only 3 – 4% of GHGs, that does not correlate to a 3 – 4% effect. CO2 is known to be a more potent GHG. Theoretically, it has been calculated to account for about 20% of any warming. The word theoretically is important, though, because it assumes a linear correlation to any implied warming. CO2’s relationship between atmospheric concentration and temperature, however, is logarithmic. This means that as CO2 concentration increases, its contribution to any warming decreases.
The runaway greenhouse effect, and its attendant advertised catastrophes, is predicated not on rising CO2 levels alone (because CO2 contribution to temperature is self limiting), but on the theory that rising CO2 will induce a larger amount of H2O into the atmosphere in a positive feedback chain reaction. To date, there is no empirical data showing that this theory is valid.
With respect to models, they are valuable tools when they can be proven to reflect reality. It is instructive to note that GCMs used by IPCC were initially referred to as predictive tools. However, as their predictive prowess has waned, the creators of these tools have increasingly referred to them as projections and, today, as scenarios. Skeptical scientists have been warning modelers that their models overstate the sensitivity of the biosphere to CO2 and understate its sensitivity to natural factors. If skeptical scientists are correct and the Sun remains relatively inactive and the oceans remain in their cold mode, then Earth should cool for the next 2 – 3 decades.
Let us be clear, though. No skeptic I know believes that we should burn fossil fuel without accountability. Cleaning the air of noxious and toxic pollutants is imperative (CO2, however, is neither). Alternative energy will be a part of our future and we should embrace it at every legitimate opportunity. However, neither solar nor wind technology, as they stand today, are reliable enough to provide for the base energy needs of the world. And mass producible storage mechanisms to make these sources truly viable are at least a decade away. Ultimately, this debate is about a cap and trade system to decrease atmospheric CO2. Neither the economy nor the voters will tolerate the pain demanded by such a system. Unless AGW proponents can find a less painful solution to CO2 reduction, any legislation that may be enacted will quickly be repealed when the economic realities are felt.
11
“
I agree. Which is why in the Skeptics Handbook I was careful to point out that the current lack of warming only proves the models are wrong.
Since WWII, CO2 levels have risen inexorably, yet we’ve had 30 years of cooling, 25 years of warming and now 7 years of ‘flat’. To be blunt, the correlation is cr…
14
Well, I’m a well-educated Canadian and I have never heard of Acadia University and certainly never heard of the town of Wolfville, where it is apparently based. I also notice that in the man’s summary of his qualifications there are more references to ‘education’ and ‘social justice’ than to science.
I think therefore you can correctly describe this individual as yet another academia-sheltered, government-subsidized hack from a third-tier university who has yet to venture out into the real world, or at least a world where adults outnumber adolescent students.
We have a rather large surplus of these individuals in Canada. If anyone in Australia would like to trade for some koala droppings please let me know.
12
I have a degree in engineering, and didn’t go on to do a PhD, as I thought it stood for “Permanent Head Damage”
Anyway, many of the arguments are too scientisitic, as history provides us with some evidence that the pre 2000 minor warming that the globe has experienced is natural and not terminal. eg Erik the Red, and when he discovered GREENland, could graze sheep and goats. At the same time grapes could be grown in the north of England, and wine made. Neither of these can be done now. It’s not warm enough. The point of this is to indicate the world has been warmer than now. Less than 1000 years ago. And yes it was a global phenomenon, not just limited to the northern hemisphere.
With this in mind, take note of the calamitous claims of the alarmists and others including Mr Krudd, that we will loose the polar bears, the Great Barrier Reef, the Murray-Darling basin, and the people living in the Torres Strait will be flooded out this time, even though when Erik found GREENland, with not as much ice on it then as now, (how much less ice was there elsewhere?) they weren’t. The anthropologists and these people tell us they have been there for thousands of years. The polar bears, the GBR and all other life forms managed to survive as well. Just lucky I guess.
You may wonder what the Holocaust and this episode have in common. How did Hitler get the German people to accept what he was able to do, and commit the heinous crimes he did?
His MO was simple. “Tell them a lie. Make it a big one. Tell them often”
This is what we are being exposed to, aided and abetted by the media.
This whole episode is about nothing more than money, greed, power and one world government.
The Goricle has a patent on a carbon trading scheme through his company Generation Investment Management. Smart business man, but a liar.
Countries and their development are controlled in 2 ways. Control the energy production and the water.
With Kyoto and other treaties that the UN is trying to force upon us, they aim to control energy production.
And take a look at what is happening to the Murray-Darling basement, with all of the authority coming under one body. May be some arguments for better management, but much easier to control.
Global warming, sorry, climate change caused by CO2 is nothing more than a con.
13
“I told my graduate student that anyone with a bachelor’s degree in science—specialising in microbiology and molecular biology nonetheless, would surely not pretend to challenge the world’s scientific community’s consensus understanding on climate change.”
The arrogance encapsulated in that statement is pretty breathtaking, especially when you realize he not only thinks that way, but has no shame in passing this attitude on to one of his students.
I too, when I first read that sentence, really thought for a second “This guy is really funny, what subtlety!” Sadly, reading the rest confirms the fact that he is serious.
I think that Prof Elshof is the one who should be shy of his pompous and dictatorial mindset being exposed to the world, I hope he makes good on his ‘threat’.
Interesting site this, I look forward to reading it more 🙂
13
David
I’m glad to see that in my absence, Steve and Michael have both answered you at some length. Steve tells the science and Michael goes further, he spells out the research he did himself which he then found corroborated with others.
Now the reason I only asked a simple question was because it is the very first, basic, simple questions that need TIME to spell out, to realize the problems with the warmist evidence. Every skeptic has had to take time to investigate some aspect of the science directly, to prove to themselves the real truth of some link in the huge chain of bad science. This is what Michael has done here. I have too. It’s work, but necessary.
“A picture is worth 1000 words” – it was a graph of the last 10 years’ temperature record plotted together with the Mauna Loa CO2 “stairway to heaven” that OPENED THE DOOR A CRACK, raised doubts, and caused me to investigate further, whereupon the evidence challenging the warmist thesis started to tumble in so thick and fast that it was like being caught in a blizzard unprepared.
I realized that I could NOT just take RealClimate’s word for things, still less DeSmogBlog. But it took a lot longer to deconstruct the lot, item by item. I decided to write up the story of my U-turn from (very committed) warmist to skeptic, with all the science, to help others who did not have the time I had to research, who do not know who to believe.
11
Joanne, I apologize in advance for going slightly off-topic.
I’m still waiting for the warmists to acknowledge or deny the obvious motives of their leadership. I recently read that Albert Gore has enjoyed a $100 million (US) windfall from carbon credit trading, and that he bought a 100-ft yacht for his private use. Think it’s a sailboat or an electric? He doesn’t trot around the globe by electric plane, helium blimp or kite.
Warmists are using one of the oldest tricks in the history of man’s ambition; create the perception of a crisis in order to maintain and increase one’s power over the masses. Nero did it, Mayan rulers did it, Hitler did it, etc.
The carbon capture and sequestration programs seek a $6 trillion (US) impact on consumer pocketbooks, from which they will skim a fee for doing little to nothing to earn it. There are two things the global warming/climate change agenda will accomplish; higher costs impacting the poor and large carbon footprints for the poor and some middle-income groups.
11
Another short list of compelling points:
http://www.ianschumacher.com/global_warming.html
It is interesting to me that the believers don’t seem to know what the word ‘sceptical’ means. It means you have doubts, you question. It doesn’t mean you believe the opposite. As the data now stands there is every reason to doubt and very few reasons to believe … Doubting doesn’t mean you are automatically an idiot, it means you have looked at things yourself as best you can and doing so has raised many questions and doubts and so you choose not to blindly believe (which person is the idiot in that scenario, hmmm??).
11
It is interesting to see that Joanne is getting so much publicity, and to see the dishonest tactics employed by Jeremy Jacquot at desmogblog in a vain attempt to discredit her. Like most of the alarmists who attack skeptics, Jacquot first misquotes and misrepresents her argument. He writes:
“I’ll get things started today with her bottom line: that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere does not cause global warming.”
Did Joanne say that? No she didn’t. She did write
“whether adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will make the world much warmer.”
– notice the subtle difference? On page 4 she even wrote
“Carbon dioxide is already doing almost all the warming it can do”
implicitly acknowledging that carbon dioxide does cause some warming.
Jacquot then goes off on an irrelevant tangent by talking about Venus.
I wonder whether he has even read the Skeptic’s Handbook.
These tactics of misquoting, misrepresentation and misdirection are regularly employed by desmogblog, realclimate and even the BBC in their recent ‘climate wars’ show. I look forward to reading Jo’s response.
12
Funny post. You released a document for general consumption (including, one would assume, said ‘international audience’ and ‘media’) and your correspondent apparently emailed you privately, with no ad hominem arguments present at all – unless you consider your handbook to be a human being. You responded by misrepresenting his private email on your public blog, making certain to include his name, his institution, and repeated intimations of improper behavior of a sort to which his institution would object.
Who’s really trying to intimidate who here? lol
I gave Leo 2 days to reply to my private response to him before I posted it on my blog. And even after it was posted I would have considered a request from him for privacy if it came with an apology. Unfortunately for him it’s a bit late now. He still has not replied. As for your accusation that I dragged his institution into it. As I said in the postscript, he wrote the email from his work email address (which I have kept private). – JoNova
12
CMB,
Was Leo Elshof PhD drunk when he contrived his rant?
13
David,
I checked the strident Ms. N’s _Skeptic’s Handbook_ from stem to stern since posting here, and it is undeniably a laughable morass of insults, straw man arguments, baseless accusations, and (to be charitable, probably someone else’s) lies.
Given that easily verifiable fact*, why should I assume he was drunk, or have any interest in your opinion either way? Perhaps you would care to respond to what I wrote instead..?
* So verify it. Any half wit can throw stones. Please lift your standards. Unsubstantiated broad generalizations prove nothing about the target, but imply a lot about the commenter -JoNova.
12
“cmb”,
I know your mind is made up, so I won’t waste your time confusing you with the facts. It is the only appropriate response.
Perhaps those who disregard thousands of years of human instrospection for the sake of the half-empty portion of the global warming glass will reach an epiphany only when what they took for granted yesterday is unaffordable tomorrow.
21
David Walker:
January 7th, 2009 at 5:18 am
“cmb”,
I know your mind is made up, so I won’t waste your time confusing you with the facts. It is the only appropriate response.
– This from the guy who, before ever ‘knowing my mind is made up’, asked me “Was Leo Elshof PhD drunk when he contrived his rant?” =) Not only do you consider yourself a mind reader, you seem to think I’m one too!
http://gagne.homedns.org/~tgagne/contrib/unskilled.html
10
cmb. Can we be talking about the same letter? The way I read it the letter was a crass attempt at intimidation, using the threat of public ridicule as well as the implied threat to damage the authors standing as an educator of young people etc. It was a clumsy ‘recant publicly (on your website) or I will publicly humiliate and embarrass you’ type threat (even though it was delivered in a private email). There was no attempt to deal with the content of the document. Frankly it was arrogant, patronising, smug, superior and condescending. It was argued from an objectionable and lofty stand point. It is an embarrassing letter for the author. I would not want someone who uses these forms of arguments (no matter how right he may or may not be) educating my kids. Ridicule is never a good weapon for an educator to utilise.
it contains all the elements of what is wrong with the discussion on this topic (from both sides) – irrational thought and argument, attacks against the person (yes, they are there. Read it again!). Leo Elshof’s argument from authority and his patronising manner are objectionable and embarrassing both to himself and the institution he represents. He could have chosen another path and simply dealt with the document instead of going straight to threat and intimidation.
In my view the only professional course of action for the author on this site to take was to go public. Slightly off topic but I have been responsible for quite a few PhD’s and other grads during my career and I can say that none of them was right all the time, and none of them had a monopoly on good ideas. Quite often large technical problems were resolved by lab techs or by what Larry condescendingly describes as a ‘bachelors degree’.
Regards,
Pete.
With respect to you cmb my view on this letter is that it was inappropriate. I find it hard to see how anyone could come to another view – unless they were so committed to one side of an argument that they can’t see when logic and reason fly out the window.
12
cmb
LOL! or should I say Troll?
What a load of nonsense your post is – I hope nobody takes it seriously. Full of arrogance.
I like the heading of your link! are you trying to tell us your having a laugh at your self?
The only thing I do know is that I KNOW NOTHING however from a pure plonkers perspective and having taken an interest in both sides of the argument – for the last 20 years, if I was on a jury I would have to vote Co2 NOT GUILTY look at the evidence.
10
Excelent post Pete. HEAR HEAR!
10
Pete:
January 7th, 2009 at 6:09 am
cmb. Can we be talking about the same letter? The way I read it the letter was a crass attempt at intimidation, using the threat of public ridicule as well as the implied threat to damage the authors standing as an educator of young people etc.
– No more than could eventually be expected should the document in question achieve the importance its author hopes for. It is mean-spirited, ridiculous on its face, and deserves exposure as such to the same extent it deserves exposure at all.
I would not want someone who uses these forms of arguments (no matter how right he may or may not be) educating my kids. Ridicule is never a good weapon for an educator to utilise.
– The document our ‘educator’ blog owner produced is brimming with it.
attacks against the person (yes, they are there. Read it again!).
– Perhaps you could point out a couple of those.
I already did. Perhaps you could read my reply to him? If you are really struggling, look for sentences with the word ‘author’, or mentions of my qualifications, my arrogance, banal stupidity… etc. A book doesn’t get a bachelors degree.
Leo Elshof’s argument from authority and his patronising manner are objectionable and embarrassing both to himself and the institution he represents.
– He chose not to involve the institution he ‘represents’.
Wrong. See the PS.
– Ms. N undid that for him, intentionally and publicly, as a means to make him suffer professionally for his temerity in writing her a private message.
No. I would have replied exactly the same way if he’d done it publicly. Indeed, I’m surprised at you, Elshof stated that he wanted to make public his views on me and my writing (to ridicule me). I took him at his word. If you agree with his letter and think my reply is so bad, then presumably I’m helping him. Right?
And her patronising manner in the ‘handbook’ discussed makes Dr. Elshof look like a piker.
p.s How exactly is referring to the literally hundreds and hundreds of studies affirming AGW an ‘argument from authority’ instead of from an assortment of facts..?
He is referring to a nameless unreferenced ‘consensus’. It’s a way of shutting down debate. It’s not just an argument from authority, it’s the laziest, most unsubstantiated kind. It’s his opinion about a bunch of other opinions. An assortment of facts (in the scientific sense, as opposed to the drunken pub sense) would look like this: “CO2 absorbs xyz frequencies; It’s a logarithmic absorption; CO2 is about 390ppm.” It might be a ‘fact’ that you think AGW is ‘proven’, but that doesn’t prove anything about the climate. Some facts matter. Facts about opinions – don’t. – JoNova
12
Plonker:
January 7th, 2009 at 6:39 am
cmb
LOL! or should I say Troll?
What a load of nonsense your post is – I hope nobody takes it seriously. Full of arrogance.
– That does seem to be par for the course on this blog. And in the ‘handbook’. 😉
10
Is there ANY blog with no arrogance or entrenched opinion on either side? I dont think so! however I do think the ‘Debate is over – we know best – now do as we say’ angle is the height of arrogance. That would take some beating!
10
Plonker:
January 7th, 2009 at 7:34 am
Is there ANY blog with no arrogance or entrenched opinion on either side? I dont think so! however I do think the ‘Debate is over – we know best – now do as we say’ angle is the height of arrogance. That would take some beating!
– I should think you could find the same situation in an elementary school math class – and for the same reasons: 1. The debate (the one usually referred to, the existence of AGW) is over. 2. The experts do generally know best. 3. Ignoring the facts is pointless.
Part of the problem here is a misunderstanding of where the holes are in AGW theory these day. There’s no longer any real doubt – and I mean any – that AGW is occurring, that CO2 is largely (not wholly) responsible, and that very expensive problems will occur if we don’t do something. And please do understand – when I say that there’s no doubt, I am not trying to be arrogant, I am trying to relate the actual situation as I have found it through 5 years of research.
cmb can you pass the religion vs science test? – JoNova
Rate of acceleration, time to serious social cost, time to major loss of life – those are the sorts of areas in which there are still room for debate. Not debate between goofs on some smartassed blog, but debate between those with the expertise to bring to the table.
The problem I have with this blog, and the handbook, is the use of long-debunked straw men and outdated research to defraud the readers. If you check, you’ll find that links suppled to readers on this blog even deny the parts of GW theory based on the radiative transfer properties of the CO2 molecule itself. That’s insane, and pretending to have a moral imperative to do so is preposterous.
More unsubstantiated generalizations. Name the sentences. Point to the links. I haven’t said anything of the sort, and what, now you are attacking me for things other people said on other sites?
20
CMB:
Given Dr. Elshof’s apparent self-worth, stature and importance, I would assume he possesses the precepts necessary to avoid sending the letter, unless he was wrongly intoxicated by his own achievements or by perhaps a fifth of Jack Daniel’s Sour Mash. In case of the latter, I would agree some prudence on part of the blog owner may have been necessary. But she’s not a mind reader, and I don’t know if Elshof has apologized and/or requested to remove the letter or thread for the sake of professional courtesy.
Seriously, herein is Ms N’s blog: Do Dr. Elshof the pleasure of giving Ms N an international audience (as if there wasn’t already one) so that we may show the world the “creative” warmist letters we skeptics routinely receive and enjoy. He volunteered to send the letter. Hopefully he’s man enough to take the heat.
In the meantime, perhaps you can entertain us with your thoughts on the financial impacts of the global warming context (that is, how re-directing $6 trillion will save the planet). Better yet, amuse us with your vast knowledge of how, figuratively speaking, climate negatives outway positives and that, whatever the reason, it’s man’s fault.
Inquiring minds want to know. Thanks.
13
David Walker:
January 7th, 2009 at 7:57 am
CMB:
Given Dr. Elshof’s apparent self-worth, stature and importance, I would assume he possesses the precepts necessary to avoid sending the letter, unless he was wrongly intoxicated by his own achievements or by perhaps a fifth of Jack Daniel’s Sour Mash. In case of the latter, I would agree some prudence on part of the blog owner may have been necessary. But she’s not a mind reader, and I don’t know if Elshof has apologized and/or requested to remove the letter or thread for the sake of professional courtesy.
– Why should he? He is behaving as the blog owner behaves. Going by the rules here, he should not have sent the letter – he should have published it publicly.
Seriously, herein is Ms N’s blog: Do Dr. Elshof the pleasure of giving Ms N an international audience (as if there wasn’t already one) so that we may show the world the “creative” warmist letters we skeptics routinely receive and enjoy. He volunteered to send the letter. Hopefully he’s man enough to take the heat.
– If those receiving the denialist demands to fire him read this blog first, there will be no heat. But perhaps Ms. N will grace us with her real name and institution, in the name of fair play..? Her colleagues need a good look at this site. =)
In the meantime, perhaps you can entertain us with your thoughts on the financial impacts of the global warming context (that is, how re-directing $6 trillion will save the planet).
Hell, GWB spent that much in 8 years. yawn
31
All that science stuff makes my head hurt, so I choose to believe the first article in the major media that I read regarding climate change. I think it was in 1979. Dress warm! The Ice Age is coming!
When I can’t find a TIME magazine article to tell me what to think, I fall back on my other crutch. Disregard anything anyone says after they use the term”social justice.”
Dennymack
Humor disclaimer: This may not be funny. I disclaim any pretentions to humor. Or reason.
10
I have replied to cmb inline above for #93, #95, #101, and #105 (some comments are not worth cutting and pasting).
#106 here:
“perhaps Ms. N will grace us with her real name and institution, in the name of fair play..? ”
Dearest anonymous ‘cmb’, I’ve been Joanne Nova for 10 years, on TV, radio, at conferences and as a author. My professional reputation is exposed here to ridicule or reward. So far I have allowed any illogical slanderous comment against me to pass unmoderated*. Could I be any fairer?
And it may be hard to believe for a follow-the-consensus-non-thinker, but I’m not institutionalized. 🙂 Those who like to think for ourselves, like to work for ourselves too.
*I’m fast losing patience with unsubstantiated generalized illogical arguments, and as a courtesy to all the readers who want a higher standard, please provide specific references or examples of your points.
15
Jo and all – here is a link to one article by a person who didn’t follow the consensus (herd) mentality http://www.suppressedscience.net/inertiaofscientificthought.html hope its not too off topic to be posted here. P.
10
Dear Joanne,
Sounds like CMB works for an institution. Only there can one be silenced for critical thinking. Thank you for your patience, wit, and thought provoking material. I for one appreciate your effort.
Does anyone have any thoughts on the North Atlantic Ciculation Pump starting up again? This certainly has more affect on Global temps than CO2. Would love to hear what the experts think.
10
JoNova says: [My comments are below in brackets]
Well, the baseless attacks on me have finally begun in earnest. Luckily, with Joanne’s real name [he’s talking about the same name I cleverly hid in my webaddress, my email address, the Skeptics Handbook and my bio – this is starting to look delusional] it was fairly easy to discover why she has such a problem with Dr. Elshof. He has exposed her paid denialist theatrics for what they are – flummery designed to snare the naive. [Paid – Crickey? So far it adds up to: One free mock ‘lab coat’ from the protest, below].
http://www.desmogblog.com/debunking-joanne-nova-climate-skeptics-handbook-part-3-climate-models-have-it-right
[JoNova says: not brave enough to reply to me directly? ]
It turns out the DeSmogBlog has specific instances of unethical behavior in the _Skeptic’s Handbook_, including unabashed quote-mining of Dr. Joanne Simpson.
[JoNova says: See the full Joanne Simpson comment here Instead of data mining, I’m directly quoting. She IS skeptical. That she says we should still follow Gore’s and the IPCC’s plan doesn’t change that, it merely represents her ‘management’ of the issue which I disagree with. And as I wrote in the Handbook, it’s pointless to get stuck into these dialogues, since the number of PhD’s on either side is irrelevant.]
I’ll be going through the 3-part series later to see what else he’s got. In the meantime, from the comments it would appear that Dr. E shares my belief that the _Skeptic’s Handbook_ was in fact written to delude children:
[JoNova says: The mark of un-scientists – discuss ‘motivations’, which have nothing to do with the climate and are utterly unknowable, unproveable and unscientific to boot.]
“Jeremy
Thanks for an excellent synopsis of the disinformation and misrepresentation of climate science in Joanne Nova’s Skeptics handbook. The cartoons and superficial arguments clearly indicate that Nova’s work is aimed at taking advantage of young people’s scientific naïveté.
[JoNova says: More unscientific speculation on motivations, dragging the debate away from observations and evidence? And un-scientists also don’t bother to research their points. I also use cartoons to explain the gold market, and in speeches at conferences about medical advances. They must be for all the preschool ‘investors’ and the under tens at conferences on aged care. ]
As scientifically poor as Nova’s work is [Note how many actual flaws he can back this up with…], it’s also a useful example for use in the science education classroom to demonstrate how faulty reasoning and uncritical-unscientific thinking can be used as a tool of propaganda.
[JoNova says: HaHaHA! The irony.]
It’s critically important that all teachers take every opportunity to help students understand how scientific language can be used to distort and selectively misrepresent science while promoting an ideology.
[JoNova says: WOW! I actually agree with that sentence.]
However, the misrepresentation may not be limited to talking about climate science, on Fred Singer’s infamous SEPP website http://www.sepp.org/Archive/weekwas/2008/Oct_18_2008.htm
Nova’s work is attributed to a “Joanne Nova, a Ph.D. in meteorology”. A search for her academic work comes up with no scientific publications whatsoever or any other indication that she genuinely possesses this qualification. Nova has also been described as a spokesperson for the “International Climate Science Coalition”, another source of junkscience based in New Zealand. http://climatescienceinternational.org/
[JoNova says: I’ve never claimed to be a PhD or a meteorologist, and indeed when people mixed up simpson and myself I emailled all the blogs to try to correct it. Note: Once again, I’m supposed to be responsible for what other people say on other web sites? ]
Although Nova proclaims to be a “science educator”, in reality she is a theatrical polemicist. Nova was apparently the ‘brain’ behind the goofy climate denier publicity stunt at the Bali 13th annual Conference of the Parties (COP) climate talks. The notorious ‘Heartland Institute’ apparently helped fund her Bali trip. http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=22936 [Actually, I paid for myself to go to Bali, I volunteered to help out, and Heartland graciously offered to cover my airfare after the fact. Once again, the alarmists think that this type of comment is clever ‘research’. It’s a really embarrassing statement about the value of university degrees.]
The website of another Heartland front group called “The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow” http://www.cfact.org/site/view_article.asp?idarticle=1355&idcategory=21 explains:
“The idea for what form this protest would take came from Dr. Joanne Nova of Australia, who suggested showcasing the seven scientists present in the team, along with Lord Monckton, all sporting lab coats and sunglasses and carrying a banner stating their opposition to formulation of a heavy-handed Kyoto 2.”
Nova’s theatrical Bali stunt reflects the simple fact that she apparently doesn’t understand the difference between genuine peer-reviewed science and the denier’s superficial ‘junk’ versions. [No. It demonstrates that I have a basic understanding of how the media works. For less than $200, we got on the news in many non-Western nations, and a spot on a BBC broadcast. It was very successful. And who would mix up a banner protest with a peer reviewed paper? Surely not a PhD…] Her ‘Skeptics Handbook’ is simply the print equivalent of dressing up as stereotypical scientists for the media as she, David Evans, Lord Monckton and her Heartland Institute funded ‘Team Bali’ did. Both are a sham attempting to deceive and misrepresent the truth concerning climate change.
Keep up the great work!
[Thanks!]
Leo Elshof”
BTW, Joanne, I’m neither a “follow-the-consensus-non-thinker” (thanks for the baseless hateful insult*), nor anonymous. I supplied my non-spoofed email address when I began commenting. [HaHAhahaha. Note his definition of, “anonymous”, means giving me a real email address—which I keep private. He’s risking what?—his 5 minutes of fame as an acronym.]
Please don’t lie to us. 😉
[Oh look mum, another unbacked up accusation. “I can throw mud like a five year old”.]
[*I can’t outdo cmb for baseless hateful insults: quote, Ms N is ‘patronising’, ‘strident’ , ‘laughable’, ‘her book is a morass of insults, straw man arguments, baseless accusations, and …lies”. Curious how those who throw the most can’t take it when a tame form of the truth is dished back. Those who can’t criticize the science…waste our time with ad homs. Leo still has not pointed out ONE single scientific point himself. – JN]
**PS: cmb has emailled me with his full name. I don’t see any reason to make it public (not that he asked for it to be kept private). So he is prepared to put his name to his claims. – JN Jan 10.
20
Brad Jensen:
January 7th, 2009 at 10:21 am
“Given that we know that AGW is real, and has a well understood physical basis, I think we need to react accordingly.”
Well, since the temperature is falling, there is no GW, much less AGW.
– Are you claiming there can only be one factor involved in planetary climate? It’s not a completely frivolous question – I see that a lot in other denialist arguments, which often run something like: “Well, you admit the sun plays a role, so are you ready to pardon GHGs?”
In fact, we have just come off a La Nina, reinforced by the PDO, and that accounts for the current cool spell. Meanwhile AGW continues and once unmasked by those temporary influences it will reappear in the temperature record having made up for lost time.
More info on those phenomena and the satellites which image them at http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/ .
10
“In fact, we have just come off a La Nina, reinforced by the PDO, and that accounts for the current cool spell. Meanwhile AGW continues and once unmasked by those temporary influences it will reappear in the temperature record having made up for lost time.”
And there you have the complete case for AGW; even if we have a hundred year ice-age and it starts snowing in Fiji, you had better not go lighting any fires to keep warm (and release CO2) because the moment these other overwhelming climate forces abate, you’re going to fry.
11
“Are you claiming there can only be one factor involved in planetary climate? It’s not a completely frivolous question – I see that a lot in other denialist arguments, which often run something like: “Well, you admit the sun plays a role, so are you ready to pardon GHGs?”
Are you for real? Most so non-AGW supporters clearly indicate that they believe CO2 and other GHGs have an impact; it’s the relative size of the impact that is in question. It’s like saying that New Zealand interest rates impact the world currency values: sure, they’re in the mix, but the effect (compared to the interest rates in major economies)is so small it’s hard to measure.
11
Rob:
January 8th, 2009 at 5:10 am
“In fact, we have just come off a La Nina, reinforced by the PDO, and that accounts for the current cool spell. Meanwhile AGW continues and once unmasked by those temporary influences it will reappear in the temperature record having made up for lost time.”
And there you have the complete case for AGW; even if we have a hundred year ice-age and it starts snowing in Fiji, you had better not go lighting any fires to keep warm (and release CO2) because the moment these other overwhelming climate forces abate, you’re going to fry.
– Made-up crap.
“Are you claiming there can only be one factor involved in planetary climate? It’s not a completely frivolous question – I see that a lot in other denialist arguments, which often run something like: “Well, you admit the sun plays a role, so are you ready to pardon GHGs?”
Are you for real? Most so non-AGW supporters clearly indicate that they believe CO2 and other GHGs have an impact; it’s the relative size of the impact that is in question. It’s like saying that New Zealand interest rates impact the world currency values: sure, they’re in the mix, but the effect (compared to the interest rates in major economies)is so small it’s hard to measure.
– Please do understand, there’s no need to take my word as the sole proof for anything I say. Simply go to the Usenet group alt.global-warming for countless, unending examples of the argument I restated.
Why do denialists think that my saying things that were easily disproven would do me any good? I do not say things because I can’t prove them, I say things because I can prove them. Saves a lot of time later.
10
“Made-up crap.”
No it’s not. Obviously extreme for emphasis and humour; but the fact remains that any AGW Co2 warming is easily overshadowed by other climate forces.
Can’t you see, every time the AGW theory is shown to be drastically overstated, or simply wrong, all the supporters go and concoct some other theory to still get the answer you want. In other words, no amount of theory or evidence will ever have any impact on your fundamental belief.
11
Rob:
January 8th, 2009 at 5:32 am
“Made-up crap.”
No it’s not. Obviously extreme for emphasis and humour; but the fact remains that any AGW Co2 warming is easily overshadowed by other climate forces.
– Temporary overshadowings are, of course, unimportant. Unless you want to claim that my stopping my car for other traffic means I’ll never get home, for instance, or that since the sun sets in the evening there will never be a brighter day, that sort of thing. Appealing to short term cyclic phenomnena to invalidate long term trends is just dumb on its face.
Can’t you see, every time the AGW theory is shown to be drastically overstated, or simply wrong, all the supporters go and concoct some other theory to still get the answer you want. In other words, no amount of theory or evidence will ever have any impact on your fundamental belief.
– More made-up crap.
20
“Appealing to short term cyclic phenomnena to invalidate long term trends is just dumb on its face.”
I agree completely. However, we’re not hanging our hats on short term cyclic phenomena to invalidate a long term trend; the current cooling is just one of many factors that together show that AGW is not significant.
11
Rob:
January 8th, 2009 at 5:53 am
“Appealing to short term cyclic phenomnena to invalidate long term trends is just dumb on its face.”
I agree completely. However, we’re not hanging our hats on short term cyclic phenomena to invalidate a long term trend; the current cooling is just one of many factors that together show that AGW is not significant.
– The United States military, along with many others, begs to differ.
20
I heard a talk by a famous physics professor in Sun Valley, Idaho over 30 years ago. He said it’s pointless trying to argue with people like cmb and bugs. They have completely closed minds. Scientists are supposed to have inquisitive, sceptical minds. With their closed minds, cmb and bugs cannot be scientists. They’re a waste of space and time.
11
Phillip Bratby:
January 8th, 2009 at 7:51 am
I heard a talk by a famous physics professor in Sun Valley, Idaho over 30 years ago. He said it’s pointless trying to argue with people like cmb and bugs. They have completely closed minds. Scientists are supposed to have inquisitive, sceptical minds. With their closed minds, cmb and bugs cannot be scientists. They’re a waste of space and time.
– You have no such evidence where I am concerned and are merely spinning tales to no effect – and lying about me outright in the process – in an effort to make excuses for your poor performance here. It would be pitifully easy to disprove CO2’s role in AGW: invalidation of its absorption characteristics, measurements of its concentration, or isotopically-determined anthopogenesis would suffice. Same with AGW itself: invalidation of enough temperature records, tracking methodologies, you name it.
cmb: It’s good that you have a point of falsification. But all of the points you list could be true and CO2 could still make no difference in the big complicated world of the troposphere. Just because it absorbs light in a lab, DOES not prove it raises the planetary temperature.
Once you can do that, you’ll have done that. Not until, and your failure to do so is not my problem.
In the meantime, Phil, how about you man up, quit with the baseless cowardly insults, and produce some arguments?
BTW, as far as Bugs is concerned, it doesn’t look like any of you have been able to punch a hole in his stuff either. That’s supposed to be his fault? Comedy gold. lol
10
cmb:
Um, most or all of these things have been disproved. Even the IPCC acknowledges that CO2 cannot itself account for runaway global warming; they claim it is the positive feedback resulting from the small increase in warming from CO2 that will have the catastrophic effect. Michael, in his posts above, has demonstrated just some of the reasons why this supposed strong positive feedback is unlikely to eventuate.
Last winter we had the best snowfall in New Zealand that we’ve had in decades. Leaving aside my humanitarian and environmental concerns (which are genuine), as a passionate skier if all the evidence I have seen to date suggested that cutting back on CO2 emissions would improve our ski seasons I would support it 100%. Unfortunately, the evidence to date does not support the hypothesis.
11
Think about this: 30, 300 years is to short of a time period to determine climate patterns. 800k years might show/actually does show a pattern as patterns change with time. It seems that we have aquired a new pattern about 4 or 5 hundred thousand years ago. Any one that belives 30 years show a pattern are not taking glaciation cycles into account and are trying to prove warming when that is only part of the cycle.
10
CMB said:
As usual cmb, you are quick to arrive at ‘complete certainty’ without much research. Cold snaps kill more people than heat waves.
Human health benefits from warmer temperatures.
In temperate regions, human mortality and
morbidity tend to show clear maxima in the winter
and secondary maxima in the summer. While the
secondary maxima are more pronounced in regions
with warmer summer climates, as in the southern
U.S. and southern Europe, even in those regions the
secondary maxima are smaller than the winter
maxima. A warming of even 3ºC in the next 100
years would, on balance, be beneficial to humans
because the reduction of wintertime
mortality/morbidity would be several times larger
than the increase in summertime heat stress-related
mortality/morbidity [Laaidi 2006, Keatinge 2000].
Source: http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/22835.pdf p 36/50
14
cmb:
So, with your open mind, what did you think of the postings of Michael above? Basic physics, feedbacks and evidence. Does any of it make any sense to you? Can you destroy his arguments?
10
cmb:
As for bugs, all he seems to argue is that the current warming must be due to positive feedback from CO2. No evidence there; just an assumption with no physical or evidential basis.
11
On a geological scale, the climate is not stable, but shows huge swings between extremes. Life has flourished, and at various times there have been mass extinctions. On a geological time scale, the current warming is extremely rapid. We have been very fortunate to have had a relatively stable climate, and civilisation has flourished during that stable time.
What do you call stable? A ten degree range over 500 million years sounds good to me. Compare that to the range between Mars and Venus: 500 degrees. Minus 50 or plus 475. That’s extreme.
10
I thought I was arguing that the current warming is due to CO2 as a ‘forcing’, not a ‘feedback’. Feedbacks are due to the release methane, albedo changes, etc.
10
bugs:
Sorry, I must have misinterprted your very complicate statement “CO2 however, by acting as a GHG, is fulfilling the role of a positive feedback. That is, we can see more warming happening due to the presence of CO2, even it was not the primary forcing of the warming. The warming caused by the primary forcing has released CO2, which has further warmed the already present warming phase.”
I thought that statement of yours meant that the CO2 was not the primary forcing, but a feedback.
The physics explained by Michael seems a very clear account of the forcings and feedbacks.
10
It can be a forcing or a feedback, depending on the circumstances.
10
Lets talk about climate on historica time scales. Related to the LGM the LIA was mild cooling and related to the HO the mwp and current peropd would be cold. It is all relative and all cherry picking depending on what point you are trying to make. We need to take an estimated average from the last 4m years to determine where we are currently. If we only take an estimated average since N. america and S. America closed the equitorial exchange between the atlantic and pacific that would be good. Also as I have seen evidence that that event changed long term global climate patterns. To go back much further you are looking at a compleatly different globe. therefore different climate patterens. I realize that the globe is constantly changing. Fast on a geologic scale. Slow from where we stand.
10
Rob:
January 8th, 2009 at 8:24 am
cmb:
Um, most or all of these things have been disproved.
– False.
Even the IPCC acknowledges that CO2 cannot itself account for runaway global warming;
– Who said anything about ‘runaway’? Straw man argument.
they claim it is the positive feedback resulting from the small increase in warming from CO2 that will have the catastrophic effect.
– Not exclusively, they don’t.
Michael, in his posts above, has demonstrated just some of the reasons why this supposed strong positive feedback is unlikely to eventuate.
– No, he hasn’t. He’s written some good posts, but they’re full of ‘maybes, ‘I suspects’ and ‘I don’t knows’, without a cite to any valid research in sight. And there are, as I posted above, multiple positive feedbacks out there.
10
Mike Davis:
January 8th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Think about this: 30, 300 years is to short of a time period to determine climate patterns.
– Um, no. Completely insupportable. The shortest climate pattern I’m aware of is 11 yesrs in length.
800k years might show/actually does show a pattern as patterns change with time. It seems that we have aquired a new pattern about 4 or 5 hundred thousand years ago.
– And another one around 1750-1800AD, concurrent with the popularization of the steam engine. Mine is caused by AGW, and there’s a new study out claiming yours is too (well, circa 8000 years ago), primarily from european deforestation if I remembeer correctly.
Any one that belives 30 years show a pattern are not taking glaciation cycles into account and are trying to prove warming when that is only part of the cycle.
– Total balderdash. You may as well claim that the 24-hour low frequency oscillation from driving to work means you can’t hear your stereo. That having been said, I’m not sure an open-ended rise can be considered a ‘pattern’..? At any rate, the entire science of climatology disagrees with your assessment.
10
129Joanne Nova:
January 8th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
CMB said:
“In fact, we do know with almost complete certainty that it would result in large economic and societal costs, and some, perhaps considerable, loss of life.”
As usual cmb, you are quick to arrive at ‘complete certainty’ without much research.
– A desperate falsehood with no basis in reality.
Cold snaps kill more people than heat waves.
– Utterly irrelevant straw man argument.
Human health benefits from warmer temperatures.
In temperate regions, human mortality and
morbidity tend to show clear maxima in the winter
and secondary maxima in the summer. While the
secondary maxima are more pronounced in regions
with warmer summer climates, as in the southern
U.S. and southern Europe, even in those regions the
secondary maxima are smaller than the winter
maxima. A warming of even 3ºC in the next 100
years would, on balance, be beneficial to humans
because the reduction of wintertime
mortality/morbidity would be several times larger
than the increase in summertime heat stress-related
mortality/morbidity [Laaidi 2006, Keatinge 2000].
Source: http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/22835.pdf p 36/50
The Heartland Institute is a long-debunked paid lying denialist political outfit determined to sell our grandkids down the river for cash. Nothing from it can be considered unbiased or validated. Please don’t insult my intelligence by quoting “science” from free market k00khauses. HI has been telling the most astonishing, despicable lies about this issue for years.
In this case, they ignore all effects from AGW other than direct biological heat effects. Agriculture, population density, economics, coastal infrastructure, the list goes on and on. Useless flummery.
10
138Joanne Nova:
January 8th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Bugs says:
“On a geological time scale, the current warming is extremely rapid”
Nope. As per The Skeptics Handbook: “Last century, temperatures rose about 0.7°C. But around 1700, there was a 2.2°C rise in just 36 years. (As measured by the Central England Temperature record).”
– Unverified single point measurement, invalid for GW discussion. If you have a global rise of similar rate, this would be the time to come out with that.
I’ve also added inline comments to #126 and #132
– Ah, here they are:
cmb: It’s good that you have a point of falsification. But all of the points you list could be true and CO2 could still make no difference in the big complicated world of the troposphere.
– Easy to say, much harder to prove.
Just because it absorbs light in a lab, DOES not prove it raises the planetary temperature.
– But other things do, including heat imaging in China’s Brown Cloud. Straw man argument.
What do you call stable? A ten degree range over 500 million years sounds good to me. Compare that to the range between Mars and Venus: 500 degrees. Minus 50 or plus 475. That’s extreme.
– Ignoring the ten degrees/500MY straw man, and the goofy practice of ‘sounds good to meism’ on a science blog set aside for a moment, using the range between two planets is some serious desperation. Come on now. =)
10
cmb said “The Heartland Institute is a long-debunked paid lying denialist political outfit determined to sell our grandkids down the river for cash. Nothing from it can be considered unbiased or validated. Please don’t insult my intelligence by quoting “science” from free market k00khauses. HI has been telling the most astonishing, despicable lies about this issue for years.”
I think he made a typo or two. It should have read:
“The IPCC is a long-debunked paid lying political outfit determined to sell our grandkids down the river for cash. Nothing from it can be considered unbiased or validated. Please don’t insult my intelligence by quoting “science” from k00khauses. IPCC has been telling the most astonishing, despicable lies about this issue for years.”
10
144Phillip Bratby:
[ snip repetition of Heartland… IPCC mock quote. ]
– k00k-a-d00dle-d0000!
10
The thing that should concern most readers here is that it appears cap-and-trade legislation in the U.S. will NOT pass for at least a few years. The fragile U.S. and world economies will simply not tolerate it. Given the rate at which empirical data is stacking up againt the biosphere’s sensitivity to CO2, that should be enough time to put this con to bed.
10
Bugs: Are you the same Bugs who wrote “An ice age could occur, but that would not disprove the theory of AGW.”?
10
cmb:
Take the blinders off. There has never been open ended climate change on this planet. the CO2 has been higher. The Temp has been higher. The globe has warmed faster. The globe has warmed slower. If you look at the ice core yuo wil see that the globe is cooling towards the next glacial maximum which will be reached in 60 to 90 thousand years. We are currently experiencing a cycle within a cycle ad infinimum. that theory has been per reviewed and not falsified. like some of the theories you are quoting.
10
Steve: ‘The thing that should concern most readers here is that it appears cap-and-trade legislation in the U.S. will NOT pass for at least a few years. The fragile U.S. and world economies will simply not tolerate it. Given the rate at which empirical data is stacking up againt the biosphere’s sensitivity to CO2, that should be enough time to put this con to bed.’
Yes that should provide some hope for US citizens. Unfortunately for us human sacrifices in OZ the real economy will be in full train-wreck mode in under two years
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24884791-7583,00.html and the met offices will likely still be pusshing out stuff like ‘the 20th warmest year on record’.
However the Gordon Gekkoes will be back making hay, and I’m sure everyone will be grateful to Krudd and co for that.
10
The global warming context has nothing to do with the climate. If there are any buffoons in the room, they insist that the pursuit of science is the goal of the warmers. Global warming is about defining who makes money and who pays, by authority rather than reason, through writ of law. That’s the only known fact about the whole scheme.
If you’re an warmer and you cannot or will not acknowledge this known and demonstrated fact, you need to some education or re-orientation.
10
Hi all, cmb found a kind of reply from Leo Elshof on Desmog. It was held for moderation (had more than 3 links) so when I saw it and approved it, it became visible in it’s original position, so you may have missed it.
My thoughts are inline: comment #117
After this I won’t bother pointing out the ad homs and argument by authority on this thread. It’s becoming boringly repetitive; it’s obvious to 99% of readers, but simultaneously invisible to the 1% who just don’t get it.
Every ad hom announces the writer has no real criticism of the science and a poor understanding of logic. Perhaps others can keep pointing these out in the spirit of The Skeptics Handbook, but me, I’ve got bigger fish to fry…
14
Jo:
Actually fried fish is supposedly bad for your health or is it that grilled is better. Anyway I prefer grilled salmon at a fish house in town over there selection of fried. Enjoy your Fish fry. In my time I have raked one or more so called scientists and enginers over the coals for sloppy work and inattention to detail.
11
Mike Davis:
January 9th, 2009 at 9:01 am
“cmb:
Take the blinders off. There has never been open ended climate change on this planet.”
– There is curently open-ended climate change on this planet, by definition.
“the CO2 has been higher. The Temp has been higher. The globe has warmed faster. The globe has warmed slower.”
– Irrelevant, unless you can show a technological seafaring civilization producing >30% of atmospheric CO2 at those times.
“If you look at the ice core yuo wil see that the globe is cooling towards the next glacial maximum which will be reached in 60 to 90 thousand years.”
– You’ll need a cite for that.
“We are currently experiencing a cycle within a cycle ad infinimum. that theory has been per reviewed and not falsified. like some of the theories you are quoting.”
– Anyone can, of course, claim anything on the internet. When you get some valid proof, please get back to me.
10
David Walker:
January 10th, 2009 at 12:24 am
“The global warming context has nothing to do with the climate.”
– A completely insane lie.
“If there are any buffoons in the room, they insist that the pursuit of science is the goal of the warmers.”
– Ad Hominem.
“Global warming is about defining who makes money and who pays, by authority rather than reason, through writ of law.”
– A completely insane lie.
“That’s the only known fact about the whole scheme.”
– A completely insane lie.
If you’re an warmer and you cannot or will not acknowledge this known and demonstrated fact, you need to some education or re-orientation.
– Appeal to authority. When in fact you cannot find one. =)
11
152Joanne Nova:
“Every ad hom announces the writer has no real criticism of the science and a poor understanding of logic.”
– Non Sequitur, Ad Hominem. (Actually, it just means they slipped up and used an Ad Hominem.)
10
152Joanne Nova:
January 10th, 2009 at 1:01 am
(“My thoughts are inline: comment #117”) From those:
[*I can’t outdo cmb for baseless hateful insults: quote, Ms N is ‘patronising’,
– Do you really know what a quote is? That’s an outright falsehood. I said, factually, only that your Handbook work exhibited the patronizing manner:
“And her patronising manner in the ‘handbook’ discussed makes Dr. Elshof look like a piker.”
– …Why? Because ‘Pete’ had just used the same term in the same fashion:
“Leo Elshof’s argument from authority and his patronising manner are objectionable and embarrassing both to himself and the institution he represents.”
‘strident’ , ‘laughable’,
– Another outright falsehood, that’s referring to the Handbook again. See quote below.
‘her book is a morass of insults, straw man arguments, baseless accusations, and …lies”.
– Another outright falsehood, creative editing. The actual quote for these two:
“I checked the strident Ms. N’s _Skeptic’s Handbook_ from stem to stern since posting here, and it is undeniably a laughable morass of insults, straw man arguments, baseless accusations, and (to be charitable, probably someone else’s) lies.”
A far as ‘strident’ is concerned, I rest my case. If you are going to ‘quote’, Joanne, then quote, don’t redirect and call it a quote – that word has a specific meaning.
10
New article from me here which suggests that there may be a significant natural negative reaction to any extra warming or cooling from any source (including human CO2):
http://co2sceptics.com/attachments/database/The%20Unifying%20Theory%20Of%20Earths%20Climate__0__0__1231443918.pdf
10
Stephen Wilde:
January 10th, 2009 at 5:23 am
New article from me here which suggests that there may be a significant natural negative reaction to any extra warming or cooling from any source (including human CO2):
http://co2sceptics.com/attachments/database/The%20Unifying%20Theory%20Of%20Earths%20Climate__0__0__1231443918.pdf
You might want to clean that up a bit, it’s full of made-up stuff with no basis in reality. A few examples:
“a) That despite a historically very active sun there was no solar warming in the latter half of the 20th Century.”
Of course there was. But the lack of an upward trend is easily verified from multiple sources. Here’s one. http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
“b) That despite 30 years of anomalous ocean warmth the oceans were not the cause (but it is accepted that recent ocean cooling is the cause of recent atmospheric cooling).”
The PDO and El Nino are well established cycles that extend way back past the current warming. They can not be the sole cause. And what warms the oceans? 😉
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/287/5461/2225
“c) That the Arctic has only warmed because of AGW and not as a side effect of warmer oceans flowing into the Arctic Circle.”
No one seriously claims this. You made it up.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL025624.shtml
“d) That although warmer oceans release CO2 the observed increase in CO2 is all or mostly our fault.” Not impossible – in fact, proven by isotopic studies. The needed instrumentation is now down to hand-held size. http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS214568+07-Jul-2008+PRN20080707
Further, the oceans are currently operating as a sink, not a source.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_oceancarbon.html
“e) That a warmer surface increases the surface/space temperature differential yet does not give rise to a significant increase in loss of energy to space.”
Everyone who understands the physics knows a warmer surface emits more IR to space. You made this up, no cite necessary.
“f) That models which are abject failures in predicting changes in global temperature trend should be used to inform policy decisions up to 100 years hence.”
Made-up crap.
“g) That the current cooling is weather but the earlier warming was climate.”
Made-up crap.
Anyone can make things up off the top of their heads and post them to the internet, particularly on a denialist lie site like CO2skeptics. And that’s exactly what you’ve done.
10
CMB:
I have read your posts and have not found any valid proof of what you claim. The Hockey in all of its life forms has been falsified. The claim that CO2 causes warming as not been proven by scientific research. There is no verified proof that the climate is going through anything other than natural cycles.JoNova’s writing is more valid than anything you have regurgitated on this site. Go back and tell your false profits to open their eyes. Did the Flavor-aid taste sweet when you drank it.
11
Joanne, hang in there. The politicized global warming alarmists are brutal. I share Kipling’s poem with you as encouragement. Just insert woman and daughter at the end!
IF
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting too,
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream–and not make dreams your master,
If you can think–and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it all on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: “Hold on!”
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings–nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much,
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And–which is more–you’ll be a Man, my son!
–Rudyard Kipling
10
Hi Joanne!
I think you should strictly limit the allowable daily input of those like cmb who look like overtaking this thread. You can do this by snipping him after x lines. This way you
(a) avoid him dominating the whole thread
(b) give everyone a chance to discuss courteously
(c) have more space to do more and better snips of bad language and non-science
(d) would make cmb think carefully about what he posts
(e) create a more cool and courteous space; and finally
(f) everyone can benefit from the useful side of trolls – the challenge and the learning curve of how to talk to the other side.
This way you cannot be accused of what our opposite numbers do, that is, ban totally; you will be able to cope and Michael et al won’t be driven away.
10
Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know (Hardcover)
by Patrick J. Michaels and Robert C. Balling Jr. (Authors) 2009
I just received my copy from Amazon yesterday! Here is the opening quote from the Epigraph:
“We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
— Phil Jones, developer of the United Nations Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change temperature history, in a letter to
Australian climatologist Warrick Hughes, February 21, 2005
10
Larry:
Apropriate wording in that quote. Absolutly proves psedoscience practices. Of course there are other quotes around and even on this site proving the same of the High Priests.
I think that opinion has been proven by observation and compiling data. now it is up to the supporters of AGW to falsify the theory that AGW is psedo science. Using verifiable “facts”
10
When I read posted comments such a # 159.I have to laugh since he is being arrogant about what another person writes that was devoid of condescending material.
You have distorted what Stephen writes about.It is obvious that you are not interested in a meaningful exchange anyway.
A common tactic of an AGW believer.
10
-“I have a degree in engineering, and didn’t go on to do a PhD, as I thought it stood for “Permanent Head Damage”-
I was told it meant “Piled Higher and Deeper”
11
-” Factors that change the equilibrium such as cosmic rays which slightly modulate cloud formation “-
There is some argument that the cosmic ray hypothesis is disproved because measures of the Earth’s albedo don’t show the expected changes. This may or may not be true.
However, even if the cosmic ray hypothesis is completely wrong, it does not invalidate the underlying strong correlation between solar wind levels and global temperature. The correlation is still there.
The argument that the Sun is not the major driver of temperature differences comes from the simple observation that the radiance does not seem to change in any significant way.
However, if the strength of the solar wind does correlate with temperature changes, it could be that the Sun is driving the climate change without changes in radiance.
The cosmic ray hypothesis is that the interaction of the solar wind with the earth’s magnetic field reduces the amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth, which in turn reduces cloud formation. Higher solar wind means fewer clouds, meaning more heat from the sun reaches the Earth’s surface and the global temperature increases.
Lower solar wind levels (such as we have now) mean more clouds are formed reflecting more of the Sun’s energy to space, and we have colder overall temperatures.
The measurements of albedo (reflection of energy into space) suggest that the cosmic ray hypothesis can’t explain the temperature correlation with solar wind.
There still may be one or more other mechanisms that we have not discovered for mediating the temperature change, that depend on solar wind levels.
For example, changes in ozone formation such as the absolute magnitude or the altitude of formation might be changing the greenhouse equation.
Or something completely different may be occurring.
If the measurement of A is correlated with the measurement of B, it suggests one or more relationships between A and B.
It may be that changes in A cause changes in B.
It may be that changes in B cause changes in A.
It may be that an unnoticed or unmeasured factor C causes changes in A and B.
Since 1850, the overall trend of the global temperature has been to increase. We also know that the amount of manmade CO2 in the atmosphere has increased. AGW claims that the increase of CO2 is the major factor causing the increase intemperature.
However, we know from ice core data that there have been far larger, and far faster, swings in global temperature before 1850 (and before manmade CO2). We also know there mave been far larger amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past, without a corresponding rise in temperature. Ice cores also tell us that in the past, CO2 increases have occurred after the warming has started, not before or at the same time.
The case for CO2-mediated AGW is extremely weak. The computer models are incomplete and very inaccurate in predicting global temperatures in the short time we have had them to test against actual temperatures.
The AGW craze resembles the millenial internet stock market bubble more than anything else in recent history.
Politicians rding this bandwagon had better be prepared for the inevitable crash – and backlash of the electorate.
– Brad Jensen
10
Brad:
I liken the AGW movement to the Hindenberg. I expect to see the results any day. It only requires a spark of proper magnitude.
You did not mention that the temperature during HO may have been as much as 5C warmer than today and the Artic was Ice free allowing forrests on the shores surronding it.
10
If the theory of manmade global warming due to CO2 increases from the burning of oil and coal (AGW), is true, what could we do to reduce the amount of CO2 in the air?
There are all sorts of proposal for binding up the CO2 and keeping it out of the atmosphere (carbon sequestration). Many of them require large investments in scrubbers, and injection of the resulting CO2 that is captured, underground.
There is a much simpler solution.
It has been shown that adding iron oxide to seawater significantly increases the growth of algae.
So mount large tanks on the backs of ships and drive back and forth across the oceans spraying them with iron oxide. This would not only eat up a lot of CO2, but increase the fish population.
What would really be fun is to mount the spraying mechanisms on oil tankers and use it on their empty return journeys across the oceans.
Of course, messing with the environment based on unproven assertions has its own risks, but since we don’t have anything like an accurarte model of the climate, we may never know what other things we have fouled up by reducing atmospheric CO2.
– Brad Jensen
10
Brad, you said:
“There are all sorts of proposal for binding up the CO2 and keeping it out of the atmosphere (carbon sequestration). Many of them require large investments in scrubbers, and injection of the resulting CO2 that is captured, underground.”
Isn’t that what it’s really all about, requiring large ad hoc investments (i.e., transfers of wealth) by force of law?
You may not be surprised, but I’m stymied by CO2’s portrayal as a malevolent compound defying the dynamics and phenomena that rule Earth’s pervasive, extremely dynamic and dominant hydrology. HCs and aerosols ultimately break down and are consumed by it. What most likely happens to a CO2 molecule in Earth’s ambient, but very humid, atmosphere when the temperature falls below zero degrees Celsius?
10
The most likely long term prediction for our climate is another ice age, since we seem to be in a cycle of repeated ice ages for at least the last several million years.
However, in the short term, for the next few hundred years, it may get warmer, whether or not the AGW theory of man-made global warming is true.
The concern is that the ice cap of Greenland and other areas in the Arctic might melt and raise the world wide sea levels significantly, flooding coastal areas where lots of people live.
A solution to this would be to build pumping stations on the edge of Antarctica, and pump vast amounts of sea water into the interior, letting it freeze permanently. The ice in Antarctica is already increasing and even with the most outlandish predictions of temperature increase, it will still be far below freezing at the South Pole. There is lots of room for more ice, and apparently no life there.
You could even combine this with my other idea of increasing algae growth to sequester carbon, and strain the algae out of the ocean, ship it to the pumping stations, then pump it along with the seawater to the interior. There it would sit in the deep freeze for millions of years until the poles shift, the Earth flops on it sides, and we all go flying off into space.
(That last part is humor – of course we would not reach escape velocity even in a sudden shift of the poles.)
We can call this the Green Ice Project.
This probably sounds expensive, but it would be far cheaper than what is already being considered.
– Brad Jensen
10
Regrettably, my work in applied engineering has kept me away, and I finally got the chance to skim the comments.
Believer failure to address the only truly demonstrable, observable characteristic of the global warming context (that well-positioned “believers” are using their cause to raid the wallets and sovereignty of the masses by writ of law) speaks for itself.
If you refuse to acknowledge there is a political/financial machine now employed, by the believers, to redistribute or affect $6 trillion, then you need to step out of the debate.
Is it not ironic that the World Bank (one of the biggest AGW pushers) is brimming with “economists” who also happen to be “climate scientists”? How convenient and laughable.
Sadly, believers are killing climate science and reasonable discourse. CMB’s rants are eptimous examples of hijacking the environmental cause.
10
196David Walker:
January 17th, 2009 at 5:58 am
Regrettably, my work in applied engineering has kept me away, and I finally got the chance to skim the comments.
Believer failure to address the only truly demonstrable, observable characteristic of the global warming context (that well-positioned “believers” are using their cause to raid the wallets and sovereignty of the masses by writ of law) speaks for itself.
– No, the Bush administration’s faith-based denial of AGW is a common topic.
If you refuse to acknowledge there is a political/financial machine now employed, by the believers, to redistribute or affect $6 trillion, then you need to step out of the debate.
– What’s to refuse to acknowledge? $14 billion in taxpayer funds, in one year, while the oil companies gifted with it are making record profits? Again, common knowledge, as is the $6 trillion in debt accrued by our last republican administration.
Is it not ironic that the World Bank (one of the biggest AGW pushers) is brimming with “economists” who also happen to be “climate scientists”? How convenient and laughable.
– That you deploy obvious, convenient, and laughable lies like the above? I must concur.
Sadly, believers are killing climate science and reasonable discourse. CMB’s rants are eptimous examples of hijacking the environmental cause.
– Ah, the careful scholarship of the denier camp has once again laid my worldwide conspiracy to defraud all of humanity, involving every scientific organization and national government on the planet, bare! =)
10
cmb:
With all due respect, considering your self-ascribed knowledge of climate science, I just assumed you might also be able to fill us all in on the most definite motives of the top-tier AGW believers at the UN, the World Bank, and camps of Enronesque corporations. As you may be aware, Enron was the primary corporate AGE pusher in the 1990s, and the company dissolved because it was fraught with fraud. I see the same shell games among today’s similarly aligned institutions.
Can you tell us anything about them?
10
cmb:
FYI — By design, I receive no funding for my analysis of the AGW state of affairs. As a result, I have very little time to devote to revealing believer motives, but there all pretty apparent. If you can’t tell us anything about those motives, I will eventually find the time to provide some information.
Just so you know, I am a staunch environmenalist responsible for the prosecution of numerous illegal dumpers, I’ve planted thousands of trees, and I’ve been a sole proponent for common-sense environmental rules in my state of residence. So far, I’ve not lost a single fight for good rules or against bad ones. Meanwhile, the media has been ignorantly critical or conspicuously absent in the aftermaths.
One of my victories included preventing federal invervention in my state’s environmental mobile-source emissions policies, and it took the federal government nine years to implement guidelines consistent with those imposed within my state.
In case you’re not already, be prepared to get an education.
10
David Walker:
January 17th, 2009 at 6:26 am
cmb:
With all due respect, considering your self-ascribed knowledge of climate science, I just assumed you might also be able to fill us all in on the most definite motives of the top-tier AGW believers at the UN, the World Bank, and camps of Enronesque corporations.
– Motives? Doesn’t sound much like science from this end. If you’d like to claim mind-reading abilities, that’s fine with me. Just be sure to balance any statements of how much someone has to gain with AGW advocacy against the trillions of dollars in dirty energy sources the oil and coal companies are now verifiably paying denialists to defend.
As you may be aware, Enron was the primary corporate AGE pusher in the 1990s,
– Really? Cite, please.
10
Don’t tell me there is nothing askew!!!!!
“Here in the West, the so-called ‘war on global warming’ is reminiscent of medieval madness. You can now buy indulgences to offset your carbon guilt. If you fly, you give an extra 10 quid to British Airways; B.A. hands it on to some non-profit carbon offsetting company, which sticks the money in its pocket and goes off for lunch.” -– Alexander Cockburn
Al Gore’s next act: Planet-saving VC
“The recovering politician is teaming with a legendary venture capitalist (John Doerr) and bigtime moneyman (David Blood) to make over the $6 trillion global energy business.
According to Doerr, by 2009 more than a third of Kleiner’s latest fund, which was raised in 2006 and totals $600 million, will be invested in technologies that aim to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. Already Kleiner has invested more than $270 million from various funds in 26 companies that make everything from microbes that scrub old oil wells to electric cars to noncorn ethanol. Twelve of Kleiner’s 22 partners now spend some or all of their time on green investments.
In turn, Doerr, the master networker whose greatest hits include initial investments in Netscape, Amazon, and Google, will join the exclusive advisory board of Generation Investment Management. That’s the $1 billion investment company Gore started three years ago in London with David Blood, the former head of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, to analyze and invest in publicly traded “sustainable” companies.”
http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/11/news/newsmakers/gore_kleiner.fortune/
A Fortune exclusive –Marc Gunther and Adam Lashinsky, Fortune
10
201Larry:
January 17th, 2009 at 8:00 am
Don’t tell me there is nothing askew!!!!!
“Here in the West, the so-called ‘war on global warming’ is reminiscent of medieval madness. You can now buy indulgences to offset your carbon guilt. If you fly, you give an extra 10 quid to British Airways; B.A. hands it on to some non-profit carbon offsetting company, which sticks the money in its pocket and goes off for lunch.” -– Alexander Cockburn
– Denialist rant sans evidence, as per usual.
Al Gore’s next act: Planet-saving VC
“The recovering politician is teaming with a legendary venture capitalist (John Doerr) and bigtime moneyman (David Blood) to make over the $6 trillion global energy business.
– Hardly a wise bet after such a string of successes – if you and your pals are correct. But, of course, the above know what you don’t – the relevant arguments have been over for a decade.
10
Larry,
As cmb knows, the global warming context is about creating the conditions and restrictions that define who makes money (while actually doing nothing) and who pays but gains nothing with their toil — by writ of law.
It’s hilarious, but sad, to see the press comparing the “green” proponents to early industrial pioneers like Henry Ford: Henry didn’t launch his success through Congressional or bureaucratic rules that drove conventional prices through the roof and forced his product on the masses; he amalgamating the ideas of his forebears, then developed and “perfected” production techniques that showed the world how processes could be used to lower prices. Quite the opposite effecte intended by the less than benevolent parties wanting to forceplease the masses with the green agenda.
When I have time I’ll bring the World Bank documentation/discussions together.
10
David Walker:
January 17th, 2009 at 8:17 am
Larry,
As cmb knows, the global warming context is about creating the conditions and restrictions that define who makes money (while actually doing nothing) and who pays but gains nothing with their toil — by writ of law.
– How about providing that Enron cite instead of parroting extreme right wing propaganda?
10
cmb,
Per the news item below, what was Kenneth Lay attempting to buy? What was his motive?
Thanks for your frank opinion.
—
—
January 21, 2002
Enron cash got access to Bush, but not results
By Patrice Hill
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Enron Chairman Kenneth L. Lay was instrumental in persuading President Bush during the 2000 campaign to say global warming is a problem, but the giant energy company later was frustrated in its efforts to get the administration to do anything major to combat it.
Enron’s experience on global warming, which was one of the embattled corporation’s top lobbying priorities, illustrates how big campaign donations can gain business executives access to political power at critical times, but they are no guarantee of action.
During the campaign, Mr. Lay, who with more than $600,000 in contributions to Bush campaigns since 1993 is the president’s top donor, prevailed upon his friend to discuss global warming with Fred Krupp, executive director of Environmental Defense, according to several sources with knowledge of the meeting.
Mr. Krupp and Mr. Lay knew each other from being on the board of the Heinz Center, an environmental think tank, with Alcoa Chairman Paul H. O’Neill, who was soon to become Mr. Bush’s Treasury secretary and a strong advocate for dealing with global warming within the administration.
In the summer of 2000, Mr. Bush had not adopted a position on global warming. Mr. Krupp was pushing a proposal that he considered business-friendly to impose first-ever controls on the emissions of carbon dioxide thought to cause a warming of the Earth’s atmosphere.
The proposal would cap the carbon emissions and three other pollutants produced by power plants, then allow the plants to buy and sell emissions credits to achieve the required reductions in the most economically efficient way.
Enron was an enthusiastic supporter of this “market” approach to cutting carbon emissions. It stood to benefit greatly as an operator of natural gas pipelines, because the carbon cap would force many coal-fired power plants to switch to natural gas, a cleaner-burning fuel with far less carbon emission.
Even more important, Enron hoped to become a major player in the system for trading emissions credits envisioned under the proposal. The energy giant’s revenue increasingly came from its growing trading business, and it was already a major player in the futures markets for such commodities as electricity and gas.
The cap on power plants was a more limited version of the worldwide emissions trading system that Enron had lobbied top Clinton officials to include in the Kyoto global warming treaty rejected by Mr. Bush but championed by his opponent, Al Gore.
Mr. Bush liked the businesslike approach of the proposal, as well as its environmental appeal. Soon after the meeting, he started talking for the first time in the campaign about his concerns about global warming. And when he released his campaign’s energy plan in the fall, it included the carbon-cap proposal.
White House spokeswoman Claire Buchanan said Mr. Bush adopted the proposal because “he believed it was the right policy” at the time, though he later withdrew it. She could not confirm Mr. Krupp’s role in bringing the proposal to Mr. Bush’s attention.
Enron and its environmental allies were ecstatic. Though it was not as ambitious as the Kyoto treaty, they viewed the cap as a practical way of achieving the emissions reductions that would be mandated by the treaty.
Mr. Gore and the Environmental Protection Agency under President Clinton had explored imposing a cap on carbon emissions, using existing authorities under the Clean Air Act. But they never proposed a mandatory cap.
The Kyoto treaty was unpopular in Congress, and lawmakers had barred the EPA from making any backdoor attempts to implement the treaty before the Senate ratified it.
By persuading Mr. Bush to address global warming as a problem and include the carbon cap in his campaign platform, Enron and its environmental allies believed they had bypassed the political obstacles posed by the Kyoto treaty and given new life to carbon controls in Congress.
Indeed, by the time Mr. Bush took office a year ago, proposals to cap carbon were popping up everywhere in Congress. Even the Clinton administration, emboldened by the Bush proposal, had issued an eleventh-hour regulation to cap carbon with other power-plant emissions.
Enron hailed the increasingly friendly climate for carbon controls in a document laying out its lobbying strategy dated January 2001.
“Agreement between industry, regulators and environmental groups” has emerged on the need for controls, said the lobbying documents for the Clean Power Group, partly funded by Enron. “The Bush platform included a commitment to future emissions caps [and] implementation through a cap and trade program.”
Enron judged most of the proposals that had cropped up as not stringent enough, however, because they would not force utilities to retire aging coal-fired plants that spew the most carbon into the air. Those coal plants produce about half the nation’s power, and their retirement would create a huge market for cleaner-energy companies such as Enron.
The lobbying group, which also included Calpine, El Paso, Trigen Energy, NiSource and PG&E National Energy Group, drafted its own carbon-cap plan to force the retirement of more aging coal plants. It said its goal was to win the endorsement of the incoming administration and Republican moderates in Congress.
But Enron was soon to be disappointed. Mr. Bush had not discussed his carbon-cap proposal with conservative supporters, who were enraged that he included it in his campaign platform without consulting them. But the conservatives held their fire until after the election.
Conservative groups such as the Cooler Heads Coalition joined with coal interests and other businesses opposed to carbon controls to put tremendous pressure on Mr. Bush to withdraw the carbon proposal as soon as he took office. The proposal had gained Mr. Bush little support from environmental groups and had become a major liability with his core constituencies.
Conservatives won over a key ally in White House Economic Adviser Lawrence Lindsey, who believed the carbon cap would put a crimp on economic growth and energy development when the nation was enduring a scarcity of fuels.
Within months of taking office, Mr. Bush announced he was dropping the carbon-cap proposal, which he said had been a mistake, and for the same reasons he opposed the Kyoto treaty: It was not good for the U.S. economy.
“When Bush came out and said he wouldn’t do it, Lay was floored,” said one source close to the company. “The lesson from this is that money gets you access, but not results.”
10
cmb,
I’m still waiting for your frank opinion.
In the news article above Kenneth Lay is cited as a very significant campaign contributor and, while there’s no indication Lay contributed to Clinton’s campaign, I’m pretty sure he lubricated there coffers, too. At that time, cooler heads were still in Congress, but things are changing — it’s now apparent we suffer a great number of Congress members who falsely believe wealth is generated and/or mandated by the government. And those of you who do nothing for a living want to use the force of law to transfer wealth away from those of us who actually produce a durable good, all in the name of something we may be many years from understanding.
I’m going to find the first articles I read about the issue, wherein those conflicted members of the World Bank exposed themselves. There are perhaps 50,000 that must be combed, but I will find them.
Give me time.
10
cmb,
Is there any reputable source you can provide that totally refutes my perception, that the global warming context is effectively an “inside job”?
No doubt there is far more evidence of a real financial scandal than there is a problem with the climate. It’s just a matter of time before we can see the tracks those scoundrels make during their efforts to hijack worthy environmental concerns and the world’s economies for the sake of a non-problem.
An inside job would include the formulation and exercise of working groups consisting of government officials, NGO representatives and other self-interested others seeking “green” laws that force consumers to pay, more or less, an international toll for consuming.
If people like Maurice Strong, the late Kenneth Lay, and Albert Gore were as altruistic as they have made themselves appear, they would;
1. Recuse themselves from affecting rules regarding climate change mitigation processes,
2. Recuse themselves from gaining financial rewards from the rules they help draft,
3. Recuse themselves from soliciting information from rulemakers or insiders affecting economic alignment, and/or
4. Align themselves to profit within the constraints of rules in which they had absolutely no hand formulating (as “free” economic machines were intended).
Thanks again for your frank opinion.
10
“You’re spinning us a yarn, said the Fulani shepherd disdainfully.
— Yes, replied the crocodile hunter, but if everyone spins it long enough, it will start to sound like the truth.”
–J. and J. Tharaud. La Randonnee de Samba Diouf, Fayard, Paris, 1927.
I think the AGW alarmism is a very creative way to attempt to transfer wealth. I am ashamed of our “leaders” in Congress who are playing along with this tune.
World Bank says developing nations need $170 bln to mitigate climate change
http://www.chinaview.cn 2008-08-27 21:34:50
LAGOS, Aug. 27 (Xinhua) —
The World Bank on Tuesday at the ongoing Accra Climate Change Talks in Ghana has said a total of 170 billion U.S dollars was required between now and 2030 to enable developing countries mitigate and adapt to the impact of climate change, according to the official News Agency of Nigeria on Wednesday.
Eduardo Dopazo, World Bank fund manager of Carbon Finance Unit told newsmen at the sidelines of the Accra Talks that the private sector was expected to account for 80 percent of the sum.
He said the huge financing gap for developing countries to contain the impact of climate change is beyond current funding under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
According to him, developing countries will also require 85 billion U.S dollars to provide electricity that would cover 100 percent of their citizens by 2030, and that an additional 35 billion U.S dollars per year is require to ensure that the electricity utilize green energy technologies.
Dopazo said within the same period, developing countries will require massive technology transfer, capacity building and technical assistant to manage whatever green technology is adopted.
He said the situation would require that developing countries take commitments under the post Kyoto protocol treaty expected to be ratified at Copenhagen in 2009.
Editor: Wang Hongjiang
10
Larry,
In 2005, the late supply-sider, Jude Wanniski, wrote an interesting critical piece, “A Perfect Fit: Wolfowitz at the World Bank”:
http://www.counterpunch.org/wanniski03172005.html
Wanniski summed the World Bank as a machine that uses the perception or creation of crisis (like warmaking) to provide appropriate financial and political outcomes for the establishment. While reading his piece found at the link, just substitute “defense” and “war” with words like “global warming”, “environment” and “green”, and you’ll get the picture.
Climate Change statements made by World Bank and UN operatives have made it clear they don’t care about the application of scientific processes, or the likelihood that they’re wrong, so long as the effort aligns the world’s economies to work for the World Bank and the UN.
1. Create the perception of a crisis.
2. Proffer a convenient solution.
3. Lobby your solution into writ of law.
4. Profit by writ of law at the expense of the masses.
5. Create the perception of another crisis…
Seems to me the World Bank viewed the end of the Cold War in very selfish fashion, and decided some other crisis warranted creation, and they saw global warming (and later climate change) as the means to maintain status quo.
In my opinion, their machine is brimming with conflicts that should tell wary liberals and conservatives that it’s time for changes at the World Bank or an end to their delving ways.
10
David,
Thank you so much for the reference. I agree with you that this is all about the UN and the creation of a crisis! In the article Wanniski refers to “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” by John Perkins. Have you read the book or met John Perkins? I’ll put it on my reading list. Also, have you read Jude Wanniski’s book “The Way the World Works?”
Somehow the politics of science has become the new “Political Science.”
I understand all of this now but it sure took me a long time to accept it. I have come from a “left” teaching environment to retirement and research on AGW. My eyes are now open!!!!
“That’s why I’m talking to you. You are one of the rare people who can separate your observation from your preconception. You see what is, where most people see what they expect.”
— John Steinbeck. East of Eden, 1952
Finally, this is from the EPA – State of Knowledge
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html
10
Larry,
I know about Perkins and his book but have not read yet.
The AGW context is not a “left” versus “right” issue, but more about “government/NGO avarice, ambition and monopolization” versus “individual liberty, true sovereignty and competitive enterprise”. Perhaps a worldwide power grab?
It’s clear both major US parties are willing to forsake their principles, and the desires of the people, in order to satisfy the whims of their wealthy contributors. The balance of power only shifts how or which specific players sustain access to the public largesse by writ of law.
The west has been heading down this road for a long, long time — especially following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. How else, besides war, can multi-national corporations profit at the behest of a crisis?
10
David: I’m afraid the AGW context is a scientific solution to a problem deemed highly significant by science, versus pseudo science.
I have no problem with solutions to this being about the government v enterprise context… indeed that is the case with everything in politics… in fact it is the political context of politics in general, not just AGW. Of course any major economic development is going to be framed by that debate…
YOu are entitled to your own politics, but not your own scientific facts.
10
David Walker:
January 17th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
“cmb,
Is there any reputable source you can provide that totally refutes my perception, that the global warming context is effectively an “inside job”? ”
– Since there’s no reputable source indicating that it might be, I really don’t need one. Bloviations about single financial institutions and right wing economic rhetoric do not a worldwide anticapitalist conspiracy make. There is simply no real evidence of widespread falsity in AGW theory or of widespread profit motive on the part of investigators being presented here. None.
“No doubt there is far more evidence of a real financial scandal than there is a problem with the climate. It’s just a matter of time before we can see the tracks those scoundrels make during their efforts to hijack worthy environmental concerns and the world’s economies for the sake of a non-problem.”
– Anyone can, of course, claim anything on the internet. You have produced no evidence to support your position.
“An inside job would include the formulation and exercise of working groups consisting of government officials, NGO representatives and other self-interested others seeking “green” laws that force consumers to pay, more or less, an international toll for consuming.”
– Oddly enough, so might an honest appraisial and logical mitigation program.
..”they would;
1. Recuse themselves from affecting rules regarding climate change mitigation processes,
2. Recuse themselves from gaining financial rewards from the rules they help draft,
3. Recuse themselves from soliciting information from rulemakers or insiders affecting economic alignment, and/or
4. Align themselves to profit within the constraints of rules in which they had absolutely no hand formulating (as “free” economic machines were intended).”
There is, of course, no valid reason for them to do so – business is business. Not sure how it works where you are, but in America, one checks consensus reality for investment opportunities and takes them. Certainly none of the coal and oil players in the game are behaving as you suggest – and in fact your suggestions are artificially created to set an impossible (and ridiculous) standard of behavior for people who have nowhere near the influence you think they do in AGW matters.
Essentially this is all one big Ad Hominem. Looking forward to getting off the crazy political bloviations and back to the science.
10
All,
In my years of researching this topic I have learned one thing. No amount of emperical data is going to sway a zealot. He has all the “evidence” he needs to feed his paranoia of future global catastrophe. Attempting to find a forum for meaningful discussion with those like him is, therefore, fruitless. He is, of course, free to comment as he sees fit as this site is not moderated to restrict dissent or insult. My suggestion, though, is to simply ignore these people as they bring no meaningful insight into the debate and distract us from researching and sharing info that helps us understand how the biosphere actually operates.
We should have 3 goals: 1) to educate ourselves with emperical data from unbiased sources, 2) to always engage those on this issue in a civil manner (and to walk away from those who KNOW mankind is at fault), and 3) to make our elected officials aware of the fact that the theory of catastophic global warming is based on flawed computer models, not emperical data. If we do these 3 things, then our position is not based on emotion, we cannot be said to be malevolent, and legislation will never be enacted to damage our society.
Steve, I am changing my moderation practice and removing insults (tho’ it may take a day). Let me know if you see them. Ignore them, and email me. They’ll be erased as soon as I can. You are right, we need to aim for a higher discussion.
10
Steve:
January 21st, 2009 at 3:50 am
“All,
[snip insult ]
He has all the “evidence” he needs to feed his paranoia of future global catastrophe. [snip repetitious quote ]
– Funny, I’ll wager I’ve posted twice the relevant links here you have.
cmb, you have not posted one paper that contains observational evidence that the enhanced greenhouse effect is significant. Don’t take that the wrong way. The IPCC, Real Climate, all the other well funded guys haven’t done that either. It’s a tough call. But please don’t follow this point up further unless you can provide that link.
[snip unnecessary quote]
1. spelled as ’empirical’.
2. Explain to us why ’empirical’ is important. After all, you have to read a gas gauge to know when to refuel your car, yes?
10
Empirical
1. Pertaining to or based on experience.
2. Pertaining to, derived from, or testable by observations made using the physical senses or using instruments which extend the senses.
3. (philosophy of science) Verifiable by means of scientific experimentation.
< href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical">Empirical in Wikipedia
cmb, I’m not quite sure what you mean in point 2. Reading the gas gauge IS empirical evidence about the state of your gas tank. We can argue the toss over how reliable it is.
What is it that you find hard to follow about empirical being ‘by observation’, rather than opinion, guesswork or theory?
12
Joanne Nova:
January 21st, 2009 at 4:23 am
[ snip repeat of comment 216 ]
– Thanks, Joanne, I’m glad to see that is the definition used here. Many folks, especially when in a hurry, tend to misrepresent ’empirical evidence’ as being limited to that collected by the five senses alone. Under your definition above, there is plenty of empirical evidence for AGW and CO2’s role in it.
I guess I’m left wondering why these guys think that’s not the case.
10
“cmb, you have not posted one paper that contains observational evidence that the enhanced greenhouse effect is significant.”
Perhaps it depends on your definition of ‘significant’:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/03/010315075858.htm
“Writing today (March 15, 2001) in the journal Nature (1), researchers in the Department of Physics show that there has been a significant change in the Earth’s greenhouse effect over the last 30 years, a finding which is consistent with concerns over so-called ‘radiative forcing’ of the climate (2).
Previous studies in this area have depended on theoretical simulations because of the lack of data. However the Imperial team reached their conclusions after analysing data collected by two different earth-orbiting spacecraft, in 1970 and 1997.”
(On the other hand, no one has posted one paper that contains observational evidence that it is NOT significant.)
10
MattB,
No doubt there is a great interest among scientists in establishing empirical data regarding global warming issues. However, evident are also the parties interested in exploiting “science” for financial and political gain, those same parties asking government (and the masses) to rush to judgement, even while many of us have requested time to better understand the situations, and try to draw conclusions based upon observations, versus models. As c “ad” m “hominem” b has quietly admitted, there is much work to do to establish cause and effect.
With the advent of carbon capture and sequestration programs, there will be trillions of dollars re-directed, but mostly to the same parties already involved in the energy paradigms for generations.
Perhaps the green movement will reach an epiphany wherein empowerment of the individual and bolstering of real competition, versus compulsory restraint, is the order. Unlike the warmists, I cannot conjure the future based upon models, but can only make predictions based upon real observations. An educated historian will conclude the global warming context is a money and power racket of historical proportions.
Good luck with the science. It’s my hope great things for the masses, and not necessarily for the establishment, emerge to challenge us all to work harder and smarter.
10
I’ve tried to create a climate scenario pulling all the threads together so that it fits observations.
Please see here:
http://co2sceptics.com/attachments/database/Do%20More%20Greenhouse%20Gases%20Raise%20The%20Earths%20Temperature__0__0__1232399431.pdf
The conclusion was surprising to me so if there is a fatal logical or scientific flaw perhaps someone could point it out so that I stop wasting time.
If, however I am right there are substantial implications.
10
RE # 217 “there has been a significant change in the Earth’s greenhouse effect over the last 30 years, a finding which is consistent with concerns over so-called ‘radiative forcing’ of the climate (2).”
Is this evidence of significant warming? No. Why? It’s only a correlation. No one is arguing with either:
BUT, dozens of other factors could have caused this, OR It could be an incidental correlation, OR it could be that temperatures cause a rise in CO2.
Given that temps fell from 1945-1975, and stayed flat from 2001-2008, while CO2 rose, and in ice cores we see little correlation over 500 million years, (except a delayed backward one during the last million years) it appears to be an accidental correlation. Warming correlates better with solar magnetic cycles (which doesn’t prove that solar magnetic is the cause, but does make you wonder why we’d bet on the poorer-non-existent correlation).
Correlation is not necessarily causation.
Like I said. This is a tough job you’ve set yourself. The IPCC supposedly proves the AGW case in Chapter Nine of it’s latest report. So you could go through that. Plenty of people have and no one can find a single piece of observational evidence that CO2 makes much difference at present levels of CO2.
Theoretically CO2 should warm the planet, but it appears all kinds of other factors (especially clouds and rain) are far more powerful. Ergo, the minor warming by CO2 doesn’t appear to matter in the real world. We need an example where CO2 wasn’t swamped by unknown or known other factors and actually heated the planet measurably.
12
222Joanne Nova:
January 21st, 2009 at 3:11 pm
[snip repetition]
– OR it could be dozens of other factors (always a given in climatology), along with a rise in anthropogenic CO2.
[cmb – THAT is my point. We don’t know which factor is was yet. So you agree the only evidence you link too doesn’t prove anything?]
“Given that temps fell from 1945-1975,”
– Sulfate particulates,
[Yes. That’s my point. Other things overwhelm CO2. Everything appears to overwhelm CO2. Ergo, it’s not a major driver.]
“and stayed flat from 2001-2008,”
– That simply did not happen, and no one who has looked honestly claims it has.
[Look ‘honestly’. Here Here Here. Lift your game please. This is lazy posting with generalizations, unsubstantiated.]
[snip more unsubstantiated generalizations]
“(except a delayed backward one during the last million years)”
– In fact we see both leads and lags in the ice core signal.
[Leads – where? What paper?]
“Warming correlates better with solar magnetic cycles (which doesn’t prove that solar magnetic is the cause, but does make you wonder why we’d bet on the poorer-non-existent correlation).”
– In fact, warming does not correlate well with solar magnetic cycles, and does correlate well with CO2 signal.
[The graph Fig 2 says it all. Show me a graph of Co2 and temperature that doesn’t involve fraud, and still has a correlation.]
10
[cmb – THAT is my point. We don’t know which factor is was yet. So you agree the only evidence you link too doesn’t prove anything?]
– That, of course, does not follow.
[Typo: We don’t know which factor ‘it’ was yet. ]
[Yes. That’s my point. Other things overwhelm CO2. Everything appears to overwhelm CO2. Ergo, it’s not a major driver.]
– That also does not follow.
– Thanks, your cites [to graphs] prove my point instantly.
[only to someone who can’t see a flat trend from 2001-2008]
[Leads – where? What paper?]
http://atmoz.org/blog/2007/05/29/2007-grl-paper-claims-co2-leads-temperature-in-4-large-warming-events/
http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0710/2007GL029551/
[The graph Fig 2 says it all. Show me a graph of Co2 and temperature that doesn’t involve fraud, and still has a correlation.]
Fig 2 graph = Henrik Svensmark, already debunked years ago.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm
Graphs without fraud are everywhere:
http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&pwst=1&q=CO2%20vs.%20temperature&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
(A word of caution here – claims of fraud are not proof of fraud.)
10
“Fig 2 graph = Henrik Svensmark, already debunked years ago.”
12
To clarify the significance of evaporation:
If water is warmer than air the latent heat of evaporation comes from the water which cools rapidly.
If water is cooler than air the latent heat of evaporation comes from the air and so is no longer available to warm the water.
If downwelling longwave radiation warms the water surface then any energy added to the water surface is taken away by the latent heat of evaporation.
Evaporation occurs at all temperatures if the air is not saturated because air is less dense than water.
Neither air nor downwelling radiation are able to warm water because the evaporative process always uses the energy supply most readily available and if the water is warmer than the air it is taken from the water and any warming effect negated.
If one cannot warm the oceans one cannot warm the air. If extra heat is put into the air from say extra GHGs it cannot be retained because the air temperature at the surface has to match the SST globally. The mechanism which maintains the equilibrium is the latitudinal position of the weather systems.
Don’t ask me why this is not all obvious to the climate professionals
10
cmb at 218;
The Imperial paper (it’s good to see ones’ old physics department still going strong!) you link to says “significant changes in greenhouse gas emissions from the Earth have caused the change to the planet’s greenhouse effect”. You are right, they don’t say what they consider to be significant or in which direction the changes are. It is obvious that if you change the composition of the greenhouse gases (CO2, methane, ozone and chlorofluorocarbons – and water vapour) you will affect the IR spectrum and fluxes. The question is how significant are the changes to the climate? and the question that the paper poses is what is the the effect on the feedbacks such as from clouds?
10
[Typo: We don’t know which factor ‘it’ was yet. ]
– Straw man argument. There are many factors involved.
[only to someone who can’t see a flat trend from 2001-2008]
– Goalpost-moving. You did not claim a flat trend. You claimed that temps stayed flat. They did not. Further, a ‘flat trend’ of 8 years culminating in a rare climatic event like a La Nina/PDO alignment would be the worst, most irresponsible sort of cherry-picking. At any rate, none of your cites show such a flat trend – the calculations and plots are missing. (I’ll leave researching tobacco denialist Steven Milloy’s record on these issues as an exercise for the reader.)
“HaHahahaha. The link I posted IS svensmark debunking the debunking. Lockwood and Frolich use surface temps, so all they prove is that cosmic rays are not correlated with air conditioners. ”
That sounds a little like an unsubstantiated generalization. What did I miss there? And I didn’t say anything about L&F, nothing at all. Because I don’t need to – they are not Svensmark’s only debunkers.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217075138.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/01/040123001629.htm
Svensmark isn’t debunked because someone said so, he is debunked because cloud formation, which is the mechanism he blames based on the idea that cosmic rays generate them, does not correlate with those cosmic rays. As stated in the first article above, “no studies have proved a correlation between reduced cosmic rays and reduced cloud formation.” Svensmark doesn’t even have correlation, let alone causation.
“The whrc link has five graphs, most don’t apply. One might, but stops at 2001 (when the warming did), and doesn’t correlate well during the 40’s heating or the 1910 cooling. If I adjust the scales I can get any two simple upward trending graphs to look like a match. So what? We’re coming out of a little ice age anyway. ”
– Blatant goalpost moving; I supplied you with exactly what you asked for. And what does “If I adjust the scales I can get any two simple upward trending graphs to look like a match” refer to, anyway? No such graphs are present.
“The images-google link is a lazy post. Lazy Answer = No.”
– More goalpost-moving. And the original lazy answer, to recount correctly, was “Show me a graph of Co2 and temperature that doesn’t involve fraud, and still has a correlation.” I simply proceeded to do so. All you would have to do is pick any graph in that last link and show proven fraud attached to it. For some reason, that has not happened. =)
10
Phillip Bratby:
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:08 am
“cmb at 218;
The Imperial paper (it’s good to see ones’ old physics department still going strong!) you link to says “significant changes in greenhouse gas emissions from the Earth have caused the change to the planet’s greenhouse effect”. You are right, they don’t say what they consider to be significant or in which direction the changes are.”
Not true. From the abstract:
“The evolution of the Earth’s climate has been extensively studied1, 2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3, 4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood5, 6, 7. Changes in the Earth’s greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8, 9, 10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11, 12, 13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate. “
10
cmb at 229:
I couldn’t seen the extract in the link you gave, but you are correct – they also don’t say in the abstract what significant means (tail of a logarithmic effect?) and they also say that they don’t understand the feedbacks. Yet more lack of any evidence for AGW.
10
Phillip Bratby:
January 22nd, 2009 at 7:17 am
cmb at 229:
I couldn’t seen the extract in the link you gave, but you are correct – they also don’t say in the abstract what significant means (tail of a logarithmic effect?) and they also say that they don’t understand the feedbacks. Yet more lack of any evidence for AGW.
– Simply false. You cannot have increased human-generated greenhouse gases in the atmosphere without incurring any AGW, it’s simply physically impossible.
10
The Ice Age is coming!! Everybody panic!!
http://www.wsmv.com/news/18523938/detail.html
No mention of impending doom, versus when birds from warmer climes are spotted in the Arctic.
10
cmb at 231:
I obviously missed out the word significant.
According to AGW alarmists, current cooling is masking the warming, or is warming masking the cooling?
10
233Phillip Bratby:
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:05 am
cmb at 231:
“I obviously missed out the word significant.
According to AGW alarmists, current cooling is masking the warming, or is warming masking the cooling?”
– I’ve tentatively decided to adopt Joanne’s standard, and wait for direct observational evidence that current AGW is insignificant. =)
10
Stephen Wilde:
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:18 am
“To clarify the significance of evaporation:
If water is warmer than air the latent heat of evaporation comes from the water which cools rapidly.
If water is cooler than air the latent heat of evaporation comes from the air and so is no longer available to warm the water.”
– In actuality, heat of vaporization is taken from whatever is in the immediate vicinity. And that does not mean aditional heat is not available.
“If downwelling longwave radiation warms the water surface then any energy added to the water surface is taken away by the latent heat of evaporation.”
– Simply false.
“Evaporation occurs at all temperatures if the air is not saturated because air is less dense than water.
Neither air nor downwelling radiation are able to warm water because the evaporative process always uses the energy supply most readily available and if the water is warmer than the air it is taken from the water and any warming effect negated.”
– Simply false.
“If one cannot warm the oceans one cannot warm the air.”
– Both are currently being warmed.
“If extra heat is put into the air from say extra GHGs it cannot be retained because the air temperature at the surface has to match the SST globally.”
– Simply false.
10
Thanks folks for the information provided. I think that is a sad state of affair that some feel the need to use so called scientific information that has been repeatedly shown to be incorrect and possibly wishful thinking on the part of those people that call themselfs scientists but fail to follow accepted scientific practises. But think that the world sould belive what they say because other do nothings agree with them so they can also make money from the AGW Gravey train. CMB and MattB are either on or want to be on that train that is headed for a cliff!
10
CMB:
I guess it is very easy to say: Simply False. Please explain how GHG’s provide heat. Then we can all reduce our heating bill. But alas I think we are right back to previous statements that you have already stated and debunked so we really do not know how you feel about all of this. I think You stated that natural events hide the warming. So would not natural events also hide the cooling. Do you actually know what is happening around you or what a climate cycle amounts to or does someone have to tell you what to think.
10
Green house gases do not create heat, they only trap radiated heat from the Sun, or that is reradiated from the Earth’s surface. Each type of gas contributes to GHG warming according to its concentration and the specific frequencies it is sensitive to.
In the case of CO2, the increased amount in the atmosphere is one part in ten thousand of the atmosphere, equivalent to one penny out of one hundred dollars.
Even among the part of the atmosphere that is considered to directly add to the green house effect, the amount that represents the CO2 increase is only one part in 500.
Once a green house gas has trapped all the radiant energy available in its frequency bands, you can increase the concentration a dozen times and it will make no difference to the green house effect, unless the source of radiation, ultimately the Sun, increases its radiation.
Beyond the problems created by the miniscule amount of CO2 that we are talking about, is the fact that the Earth’s climate has been continually warming and cooling for millions of years, often at a much higher rate of change, and a larger temperature range, than the small amount seen since 1850. What has caused that change? How have the AGW determined the amount of ‘natural’ (meaning, of unknown cause) change that has occurred since 1850, so that they can honestly assert what part of the heating (or presently, cooling) is attributable to CO2?
Given that the natural variations in the Earth’s climate are far larger than anything even the most rabid AGW modeller has suggested, declaring war on climate change and then fighting that war using an expensive and unproven approach of CO2 reduction seems like barking madness.
10
Brad:
Yes! I agree with that. We have visitors that do not seem to understand science.
10
Mike and Brad,
Based upon professional statements among the UN IPCC member scientists, it’s safe to assume the more we know, the more we know we don’t know. Ironically, the political arm of the global warming movement refuses to acknowledge their personal, singular opinions. Maybe the alarmists among us can cite those personal statements.
Familiar with scientific methods, as a member of the human race and student of history, I find it quite easy to grasp what’s really happening: As with the great majority of man’s “causes”, there is little reason to believe the media-promoted global warming context is salient to science.
If the alarmists really believe the science (religion), they will call for a strict stationary and mobile source carbon emission reduction and limit, as well as an abolition of all carbon credit trading; they will live by their convictions and, by example, lead the way voluntarily; and they accept their likely premature demise smiling at the heavens. That’s how martyrs do it.
Are there any global warming martyrs among us? Hmmmmm? Or do we just have hypocrits?
10
Yes David! We do not know what we do not know but we know that we do not know. Unlike some that think that they know what they can not know!
10
Mike Davis: I agree with you at 239. It’s easy to come along and repeatedly post “simply false”. It is unscientific and doesn’t add anything to the debate.
10
242Phillip Bratby:
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Mike Davis: I agree with you at 239. It’s easy to come along and repeatedly post “simply false”. It is unscientific and doesn’t add anything to the debate.
– You do understand that your statement was simply false, right? You did come back and correct it immediately. How is your error my fault, exactly?
10
David Walker:
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:20 pm
“Mike and Brad,
Here are a few lines from Wikipedia’s “Individual and political action on climate change” entry to illustrate where we really are in the lifetime of this controversy:
[snipped – big bunch of US states all managed by committees who are dutifully following another committee who are doing something to solve a problem that none of them can give empirical evidence for…- all of which proves nothing scientifically.]
– And that’s just the USA. Plenty more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_response. This isn’t to “argue from authority” or make “unsubstantiated generalizations”, it’s simply to show that out in the real world, [snip insult] the battle over CO2-based AGW ended in the mid-90’s.
“they will call for a strict stationary and mobile source carbon emission reduction and limit, as well as an abolition of all carbon credit trading;”
– Thank you – a logical position at last!
“they will live by their convictions and, by example, lead the way voluntarily; and they accept their likely premature demise smiling at the heavens. That’s how martyrs do it. ”
– No premature demise necessary. I’m living proof. =)
10
Mike Davis:
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:04 am
CMB:
I guess it is very easy to say: Simply False. Please explain how GHG’s provide heat.
– I’m sure corrections here will be swift and savage, but to try to put it simply and quickly, GHGs provide an additional feedback loop for infrared radiation that is “attempting” to escape to space. A few resources for the beginner:
Basic rundown of the situation –
http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/greenhouse/Chapter1.htm
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm
Vibrational modes and infrared spectroscopy of GHGs –
http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/intro_ir.html
In-depth principles, see Chapter 4, pages 166-248 –
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateVol1.pdf
10
cmb:
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:29 am
“…Basic rundown of the situation -…
http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/greenhouse/Chapter1.htm…”
A brochure of the EIA(Energy Information Administration), allegedly an independent agency, starts the second section, first paragraph as follows:
“What Effect Do Greenhouse Gases Have on Climate Change?
In computer-based models, rising concentrations of greenhouse gases produce an increase in the average surface temperature of the Earth over time. Rising temperatures may, in turn, produce changes in precipitation patterns, storm severity, and sea level commonly referred to as “climate change(emphasis added).””
This statement cannot be taken as evidence,except as “argument from Authority”, as Ms Nova has posited in this and an important companion post. To base current and future temperatures and policies on the outcome of computer models that have no skill in predicting same seems to me to be the height of folly. (disclosure: my first, and now proud, denial of AGW was the recognition that computer models were being used to do so. I signed that first petition as ‘not-a-climate-scientist’.)
Second reference:
“http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm…”
This is hardly a scientific reference, despite its .edu source It seems to me to be a screed made up of citations to environmental sources and abcnews.com, out of date. A selection of references cited is:
“…3. “Global Warming Campaign.” Sierra Club. http://www.toowarm.org/factsheets/basfact.html (March 12, 1998)
4. “Methane” World Book Encyclopaedia. Volume 7. Friend, 1982, p. 270
5. “Fluorocarbons” World Book Encyclopedia. Volume 13. Hatch, 1982, p. 358
6. “Clinton: We’re Energy Hogs.” ABC News. http://www.abcnews.com/sections/us/global106.html (March 8, 1998)
7. “Global Warming.” United States Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/ (March 8, 1998)
8. “The Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change.” U.S. Department of State http://www.state.gov/www/global/oes/fs_kyoto_climate_980115.html (March 9, 1998) …”
Third reference:
Only a page of instructions on how to view. I don’t have the inclination to load viewers on my Ubuntu machine, although the title sounds like something I really want to find. Update: I find that some of the links open on my machine. They show vibrational modes of GHG molecules, via computer simulations. I hope files I can’t see translate vibrational energy into atmospheric heating.
An excerpt.
“…This page is maintained by
‘name deleted’
Department of Chemistry
X University
USA
Please send any comments, corrections, or suggestions to [email protected].
This page has been accessed 103287 times since 1/5 /96 .
Last Updated 1/5/96 …” I am probably the ….87th.
Fourth reference:
An excerpt,from the preface:
“…When it comes to understanding the why’s and wherefores of climate, there is an infinite amount
one needs to know, but life affords only a finite time in which to learn it; the time available before
one’s fellowship runs out and a PhD thesis must be produced affords still less. Inevitably, the
student who wishes to get launched on significant interdisciplinary problems must begin with a
somewhat hazy sketch of the relevant physics, and fill in the gaps as time goes on. It is a lifelong
process. This book is an attempt to provide the student with a sturdy scaffolding upon which a
deeper understanding may be hung later.
The climate system is made up of building blocks which in themselves are based on el-
ementary physical principles, but which have surprising and profound collective behavior when
allowed to interact on the planetary scale. In this sense, the ”climate game” is rather like the game
of Go, where interesting structure emerges from the interaction of simple rules on a big playing
field, rather than complexity in the rules themselves. This book is intended to provide a rapid
entr ́e into this fascinating universe of problems for the student who is already somewhat literate
e
in physics and mathematics, but who has not had any previous experience with climate problems…”
Question?: Is the author of this apparent text/workbook attempting to draw a parallel between Einstein’s special and general relativity?
I hope this is the synthesis that I have been looking for. And I thank cmb for it. I will attempt to read all 431 .pdf pages of this download, and the book if I am impressed.
Will cease posting until such time that I can provide a review.
Sorry about the length, and the mangling of quoted text, blame it on Abiword?
OldJoe
10
CMB:
If you do not think that ghg provide heat why do you keep sayin that CO2 is warming the planet. We all know that GHG’s provide a buffer that reduces the transfer of incoming and out going warmth. This all depends on time, amount, and events that regulate or block the GHG’s from doing their job. Which they seem to have done a reasonably good job so far as the globe still is livable. So GHG’s are either positive or negative feed backs depending on many factors. with the negative feed backs probably having more control currently or we would be experiencing climate similar to 40my ago or longer.
Question: If you are living proof of how we should live being carbon neutral. Why are you on the internet. Sorry buddy I do not believe in AGW/ACC/CAGW. I do believe in a minimum footpriint and that is how I currently live. I am on the internet by doctors orders. Otherwise I own a tree farm And grow some of my own produce. The rest I purchase from nieghbor farmers. If you can state that you are surronded by 4,000 acers of hardwood forest. Then we might be on equal footing and can discuss natural ways of doing things.
10
CMB: A little light reading for you.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=fc7db6ad-802a-23ad-43d1-2651eb2297d6
10
JoNova:
I have so far failed to answer the question that you asked at the start of the thread: Does PHD mean anything anymore? The answer is: Sure! As we know what BS stands for. PHD would mean Piled Higher and Deaper!
10
OldJoe:
January 23rd, 2009 at 5:39 am
Second reference:
“http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm…”
“This is hardly a scientific reference, despite its .edu source It seems to me to be a screed made up of citations to environmental sources and abcnews.com, out of date. A selection of references cited is:”
(Snipped only for brevity) The question here is, is the source wrong? If it is, please feel free to show that. No one requested ‘scientific’ references per se, so I went for websites that seemed to answer the specific question asked.
“Last Updated 1/5/96 …” I am probably the ….87th.
Fourth reference:
An excerpt,from the preface:
“…When it comes to understanding the why’s and wherefores of climate, there is an infinite amount
one needs to know, but life affords only a finite time in which to learn it; the time available before
one’s fellowship runs out and a PhD thesis must be produced affords still less. Inevitably, the
student who wishes to get launched on significant interdisciplinary problems must begin with a
somewhat hazy sketch of the relevant physics, and fill in the gaps as time goes on. It is a lifelong
process. This book is an attempt to provide the student with a sturdy scaffolding upon which a
deeper understanding may be hung later.
The climate system is made up of building blocks which in themselves are based on el-
ementary physical principles, but which have surprising and profound collective behavior when
allowed to interact on the planetary scale. In this sense, the ”climate game” is rather like the game
of Go, where interesting structure emerges from the interaction of simple rules on a big playing
field, rather than complexity in the rules themselves. This book is intended to provide a rapid
entr ́e into this fascinating universe of problems for the student who is already somewhat literate
e
in physics and mathematics, but who has not had any previous experience with climate problems…”
Question?: Is the author of this apparent text/workbook attempting to draw a parallel between Einstein’s special and general relativity?”
– Can’t see the connection, myself. Hope you like the text, I refer to it when I get time.
10
247Mike Davis:
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:04 pm
“CMB:
If you do not think that ghg provide heat”
– You will probably want to reread my post, if you think I said that.
“We all know that GHG’s provide a buffer that reduces the transfer of incoming and out going warmth.”
– Then you should know that that action will increase the temperature of the atmosphere. To illustrate this basic principle of systems in equilibrium, try this simple experiment. Take a large can and poke a hole in the bottom. Place it under a faucet and adjust the faucet so the can remains partially full, as the inflow and outflow of the can reach, and stay in, equilibrium. Now, partially block the hole in the bottom of the can, just a tiny bit, and readjust the faucet to obtain equilibrium again. Does the water level in the can rise? If not, you are in the physics la-la land occupied by GHG denialists and should pinch yourself in order to wake up. =)
“This all depends on time, amount, and events that regulate or block the GHG’s from doing their job. Which they seem to have done a reasonably good job so far as the globe still is livable.”
So far, we have only increased atmospheric CO2 on the order of 30%. That won’t hold.
“So GHG’s are either positive or negative feed backs depending on many factors.”
Can you find me an example where a GHG acts as a net negative feedback? I’m unaware of any such action.
“with the negative feed backs probably having more control currently or we would be experiencing climate similar to 40my ago or longer.
10
Sorry, I don’t do blogs where my messages are savagely edited while others indulging in the same style of discussion I do, or worse, run free. Have a nice one! -cmb
Thanks cmb. Sorry if you feel victimized, you are right that others have committed similar errors at times. But there’s only one of me, and there’s only person who’s posted over 20 comments which I’ve asked offline and on, repeatedly, not to use insults, or unsubstantiated generalizations. I realize you’re trying to substantiate comments more (thanks), but by now it ought to be clear that argument by authority, and ad hominem attacks don’t qualify.
10
It looks like this thread may be winding down. I would like simply remind my fellow skeptics that there is a time and place to engage alarmists, like cmb. Threads, like this, tend to be visited by those with well-defined positions and develop into little more than verbal slugfests. Since relatively few impressionable people find their way to sites like this (I’m guessing), there is absolutely nothing gained by engaging alarmists (like cmb). For that reason, ignoring them is the best approach. It simply saves time and aggrevation.
On the other hand, if an alarmist is in a PUBLIC forum attended by those whose exposure to climate change is the mainstream media then, yes, by all means, engage. In that forum, it is quite easy to create many skeptics as it is quite easy to show that the alarmist position is tremendously oversimplified and fatally flawed.
It is hard to remain unresponsive when being intimidated by an alarmist. And it is easy to slip into vulgarism on the internet. However, we should pick our battles carefully. If there is nothing to gain, we must do our best to simply ignore the insults. Carpe Diem! (Sieze the day!)
10
“but by now it ought to be clear that argument by authority, and ad hominem attacks don’t qualify.”
This really has become quite laughable.
On your continuing misrepresentation of the logical fallacy “appeal to authority”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
“On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have detailed knowledge of a great many topics, we must often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true, in contrast to claiming that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism”
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
“Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted:
1. The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question. ”
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html
“Exposure:
Since not all arguments from expert opinion are fallacious, some authorities on logic have taken to labelling this fallacy as “appeal to inappropriate or irrelevant or questionable authority”, rather than the traditional name “appeal to authority”. For the same reason, I use the name “appeal to misleading authority” to distinguish fallacious from non-fallacious arguments from authority. ”
On your continuing misrepresentation of the logical fallacy “argument ad hominem”:
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20hominem
“It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. But there are some cases when it is not really a fallacy, such as when one needs to evaluate the truth of factual statements (as opposed to lines of argument or statements of value) made by interested parties. If someone has an incentive to lie about something, then it would be naive to accept his statements about that subject without question. It is also possible to restate many ad hominem arguments so as to redirect them toward ideas rather than people, such as by replacing “My opponents are fascists” with “My opponents’ arguments are fascist.”
http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20110/fallaciesexplained.htm#ad%20hom
“Recognition of the fallacy of attacking the person DOES NOT DENY OR CONFLICT WITH the legitimate need to evaluate the source of information that is put into an argument. Consider these two cases:
“In thinking about Green’s conclusions about human impacts on the Amazon basin, don’t accept Green’s claim that the region has only two million people. Green used an encyclopedia from 1955 that he bought in a junk store.”
“Don’t accept Johnson’s predictions about productivity in her report. I work at the desk next to her and I heard her saying she couldn’t get the research done on time, so she just made up new numbers after looking at last year’s report.”
These responses to Green and Johnson are perfectly appropriate, since they are calling arguments into question by questioning sources of information in the arguments. They are pointing to flaws in the argument by discussing sources of specific premises, not dismissing the whole argument by appeal to facts about Green and Johnson.
Similarly, discussing someone’s trustworthiness or expertise is always relevant if we are evaluating testimony. ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem_fallacy
“On the other hand, where the source taking a position seeks to convince us by a claim of authority, or personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero.[4]
Examples:
“Tobacco company representatives should not be believed when they say smoking doesn’t seriously affect your health, because they’re just defending their own multi-million-dollar financial interests.”
“He’s physically addicted to nicotine. Of course he defends smoking!”
“What do you know about politics? You’re too young to vote!”
Mandy Rice-Davies’s famous testimony, during the Profumo Affair, “Well, he would [say that], wouldn’t he?”, is an example of a valid circumstantial argument. Her point is that since a man in a prominent position, accused of an affair with a callgirl, would deny the claim whether it was true or false, his denial, in itself, carries little evidential weight against the claim of an affair. Note, however, that this argument is valid only insofar as it devalues the denial; it does not bolster the original claim.”
10
> “On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of
> informal logic. Since we cannot have detailed knowledge of a great many
> topics, we must often rely on the judgments of those who do.
Sure, in evaluating the likelihood of the scientific truth of the assertions of the AGW chorale (I get tired of saying cult, although it is more accurate) we can apply the same proportion to ‘expert’ opinions that added CO2 has in the atmosphere: .0001 to 1.
What proves Einstein’s theories as accurate are that his predictions match later physical observations. What proves the climate modelers wrong is that their predictions have been fertilizer.
If every person on the planet including myself believed AGW to be true and the temperature didn’t match the predictions, the theory would be wrong. It doesn’t matter if we all graduated from MIT holding hands and singing Kumbiya!
> There is
> no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an
> authority is true, in contrast to claiming that the authority is
> infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism”
The latter part of this sentence sounds like an argument against the NASA fascist. There might be a better word for someone who incites others to arrest competing researchers for holding contrary opinions. I can’t think of one.
This argument is wonderful for something other than science.
> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
>
> “Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not
> a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to
> provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following
> standards are widely accepted:
> 1. The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in
> question. ”
>
> http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html
So far the AGW ‘experts’ have all discredited themselves by predicting temperature rises when the temperature has fallen. They have demonstrated that they do not have ‘sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.’ They have refused to admit making errors. By the definition given, they are no longer experts.
But in any case, we are talking about scientific facts and theories, which are independent of experts and expertise.
Pouring more money down the AGW rathole is not just a shame, it’s a sin.
> “Exposure:
> Since not all arguments from expert opinion are fallacious,
They are not fallacious, they are inconsequential and distracting.
> some
> authorities on logic have taken to labelling this fallacy as “appeal to
> inappropriate or irrelevant or questionable authority”, rather than the
> traditional name “appeal to authority”. For the same reason, I use the
> name “appeal to misleading authority” to distinguish fallacious from
> non-fallacious arguments from authority. ”
“some authorities on logic” ? this is a humorous post. “some authorities” are used to justify that “some authorities” can be used to justify… wait I need to sit down.
But back to the point. “Experts say” means nothing. “Nature says” means everything. What nature says, scientists learn through accurate observation and the building of theories that accurately predict future observations.
> On your continuing misrepresentation of the logical fallacy “argument
> ad hominem”:
>
> http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20hominem
>
> “It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. But
> there are some cases when it is not really a fallacy, such as when one
> needs to evaluate the truth of factual statements (as opposed to lines
> of argument or statements of value) made by interested parties. If
> someone has an incentive to lie about something, then it would be naive
> to accept his statements about that subject without question. It is
> also possible to restate many ad hominem arguments so as to redirect
> them toward ideas rather than people, such as by replacing “My
> opponents are fascists” with “My opponents’ arguments are fascist.”
>
> http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20110/fallaciesexplained.htm
> #ad%20hom
Well, that one guy at NASA made an argument which was fascist, but he might just be going senile or be a lunatic, or having a reaction to medication, or to the temperature falling. Or maybe he was misquoted and he doesn’t really want to use NASA’s prestige to get other scientists arrested. I don’t know, and while it may be entertaining to speculate on what was going through his mind, or whether he in fact has a fully functioning mind, it isn’t the scientific question at hand.
> “Recognition of the fallacy of attacking the person DOES NOT DENY OR
> CONFLICT WITH the legitimate need to evaluate the source of information
> that is put into an argument. Consider these two cases:
>
> yada yada yada
>
> Similarly, discussing someone’s trustworthiness or expertise is always
> relevant if we are evaluating testimony. ”
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem_fallacy
Again, while all of this is fun, it isn’t really science.
Such arguments are again distractions from the scientific evaluation of truth. The example was given of the Senator from Oklahoma and his climate change skepticism, with the intimation that he was in the pockets of the oil companies and besides Okies believe one conspiracy theory after another.
The oil companies are starting to line up on the AGW side – it raises the price of oil. The Senator in question is from a family in the insurance business. I suspect his interest in the climate change goofery comes from his longtime experience as a private pilot.
I met him once a long time ago when he was the mayor of Tulsa, and we had a disagreement about rezoning property near my house.
But the point is, it doesn’t matter to the underlying scientific truth of the theory that the increase in CO2 has or will cause significant warming of the Earth’s atmosphere.
“look how many people have been chumps. Don’t you want to be a chump too?”
No, I don’t. Thanks for asking
Oh yeah. “I am not a shill for an oil company.” I’m a computer software developer. I don’t own any oil except what’s in my SUV. (We’ll, unless one of the stocks in my 401K mutual funds owns something, I have no idea about that.) And again, AGW cultism raises the price of oil.
– Brad Jensen
-Brad Jensen
10
That post was so nice, I signed it twice.
– Brad Jensen
10
Steve, Brad, and all;
While UN IPCC scientists are hinting there’s a financial aspect to the AGW context that’s much broader, more genuine and perhaps more salient than the science, they haven’t really named names yet, nor have they gone out of their way to link the loudest alarmists to their now obvious legal efforts toward enriching themselves through their common cause.
The key to unraveling the fraud is to hit it where it’s most obvious — the conflicts of interests at this top of the game. The contrivers are the very ones trying to make money from it. The media and others have been more than eager to accuse those involved in similar schemes of conflicts, but they’re quiet this time.
In simplest terms, very few of any of man’s causes are markedly different from any others.
An economist is one who seeks to control financial disposition; a climatologist studies the climate.
It’s laughably hideous, but little wonder there are a bunch of economists at the World Bank and UN who believe we can significantly affect climate and control long-term weather by throwing money their way.
10
Here is a synopsis of an article I read some time ago!
Why the IPCC Should be Disbanded –John McLean; published by SPPI Nov 2007
The common perception of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is one of an impartial organisation that thoroughly reviews the state of climate science and produces reports which are clear, accurate, comprehensive, well substantiated and without bias.
One only needs examine some of its procedural documents, its reports and its dealings with reviewers of the report drafts to discover how wrong this impression is.
The IPCC is not and never has been an organisation that examines all aspects of climate change in a neutral and impartial manner. Its internal procedures reinforce that bias; it makes no attempts to clarify its misleading and ambiguous statements. It is very selective about the material included in its reports; its fundamental claims lack evidence. And most importantly, its actions have skewed the entire field of climate science.
Over the last 20 years and despite its dominance and manipulation of climate science, the IPCC has failed to provide concrete evidence of a significant human influence on climate.
It’s time to call a halt to its activities and here are ten reasons for doing so.
1. The IPCC charter emphasises a human influence on climate, not climate in general
2. Its participants are not impartial towards a possible human influence on climate
3. The IPCC promotes a self-sustaining hypothesis of man-made warming
4. The IPCC’s misuse of the concept of consensus
5. Many IPCC report authors have vested interests
6. The IPCC report authors are often also reviewers
7. IPPC gives a misleading impression of the extent of review and support for its claims
8. IPCC advances a very weak argument for a significant human influence on climate
9. Its primary conclusion was probably pre-determined
10. Ethics and professionalism – How an organisation deals with potential conflicts of interest, its respect for the abilities of its workers, its co-operation with those workers and with external complaints says a lot about the ethics and professionalism of the organisation.
The IPCC’s track record in these matters falls well short of impressive.
SUMMARY
The IPCC is a political lobby group whose members undertake research funded by governments and produce peer-reviewed scientific papers. Then teams of authors, including some of the original researchers, write reports based on those peer-reviewed papers and declare those reports to be an accurate summary of the field.
In normal circumstances there would be howls of protest were authors permitted to review and promulgate their own work, and the summary documents would be automatically rejected on the grounds that the authors had vested interests.
But this is how the IPCC has operated since its inception, in fact since its charter directed it to concentrate on the risks posed by any human influence on climate.
10
Brad,
It’s likely the oil companies have promoted the AGW context for a long, long time. Not only will the price of oil be higher, but “big oil” will also garner carbon credits for altering their emission profiles and participating in carbon capture and sequestration for credit.
Cap-and-trade mandates corporate profits, using money that consumers might otherwise spend on alternative energy in an openly competitive marketplace; it’s money that could go to improving opportunities and liberty for the poor and improving infrastructure. Instead, it will be re-directed to the wallets of the rich.
Rumor is Mary Nichols, the environmental lawyer turned honcho of the California Air Resources Board, is among the folks who contrived the carbon cap-and-trade scheme. She is married to John Daum, another lawyer and one-time lobbyist for Exxon. I haven’t had the opportunity to review their financial portfolio, but I bet it’s as interesting as Al Gore’s. As you may know, Nichols is headed to Washington to work for President Obama.
Did you notice energy prices spiraled upward, for three years, following President Bush’s ethanol mandate announcement? In combination with the housing bubble, it helped bust the American economy.
The oil companies are using the ethanol mandate to build the infrastructure necessary for hydrogen fuel stations. They plan to use ethanol as their carrier and have exploited law to shut alternative (methanol, boron hydride, etc.) out of the market.
The American Way is now about creating the conditions and restrictions defining who makes money while doing nothing to earn it, and who toils to give it to them but gains nothing.
Welcome to serfdom.
10
Brad, Larry, & David: I agree and well said.
The players in the game are getting to numerous to mention and as stated before agreeing with the team ensures future grants for further study.
I read recently that so called major illnesses will never be cured as that would shut down the funding for many people and put many people out of work.
If we shifted our attention to climate. What will be the outcome when realization is reached about natural climate cycles?
We have reached a point that reschers are reserching to find new thing to reserch to create more funding. Now we find we have troubles we never knew we had that need to be reserched. OH! Just like the history of climate science and IPCC!
10
Mike, Brad, Larry, & David,
A lot of what you say may be true, and please don’t be offended as I’m in your corner; however, I think you’re in danger of coming across as “conspiracy theorist nutters” if you push this line too far.
For example: “I read recently that so called major illnesses will never be cured as that would shut down the funding for many people and put many people out of work.”
This is a bit of a stretch.
10
Yes, Rob, to call the AGW context a conspiracy would be wrong. I believe the pushers/aligners are doing what they feel is necessary to succeed/survive, not necessarily as a group with common interests, but a multitude of diverse interests coincidentally intersecting.
Have you attended any environmental meetings or working groups, wherein standard-attainment strategies are discussed or recommended? Per my experience corporate executives, special-interest lobbyists, federal and state officials are the only invitees acting as stakeholders, and the only ones allowed to influence conclusions.
The conclusions have been consistently aligned with the desires/strategies of the stakeholders, despite the obvious conflicts and problems their strategies would ultimately create (e.g., recommending content-based MTBE-laden Federal Phase I gasoline instead of performance-based low-sulfur, low-RVP gasoline; recommending failure-based centralized vehicle I/M testing instead of performance-based vehicle gas-cap testing).
Regrettably, I’ve lost the notes sent by one of California’s Smog Check II architects, but his many missives taught me a lot about how this game is operated. He plainly stated the environmental movement is about creating the conditions and restrictions determining who gets to make money and what amount they’ll be paid — that anyone who thinks otherwise is naive.
Be assured, my conclusions come from the ugly realities facing the common American consumer. I don’t believe the problem’s going to get fixed until it’s too late.
10
> A lot of what you say may be true, and please don’t be offended as I’m
> in your corner; however, I think you’re in danger of coming across as
> “conspiracy theorist nutters” if you push this line too far.
What I want to focus on is the underlying science – or lack of science in this case – in the development of the AGW hypothesis.
Let’s face it, the fruitcake behavior of the NASA spokesman (‘scientists who disagree with me or question my favorite theory should be arrested!’, ‘last month was the warmest in 100 years if you include some of the readings from the month before’ (paraphrased)) has done more to stop the mad rush towards AGW orthodoxy than anything else that has happened except maybe the fact that warming ended ten years ago.
“Sure the temperature is lower, but it is tending up!’ ‘No, really! See this statistical method I applied that adjusts the readings to match my theory!’ ‘And don’t worry, we are going back and revising the raw data as quickly as possible to add further justification for the theory.’
Bad data makes bad theories. Revising good data to match bad data is irrational. The number one factor driving AGW (man made global warming theory) is an excess of chutzpah.
I find it hard to take seriously the arguments of anyone who:
* talks about the IPCC as if it is anything other than a politcal advocacy group for manmade global warming (which it is by its charter)
* treats the ground based data as if it is on par with satellite data
* thinks the opinions of scientists are a form of scientific proof
* talks about the ‘rectification’ of objective data by adjusting it to match the unknown errors in the ground data
* offers the political actions of various entities in embracing AGW as scientific proof
“Everything the government touches turns to -fertilizer-” in the words of the immortal philosopher Richard Starkey. (He used a more succinct word for fertilizer).
Even, alas, science?
-Brad Jensen
– Brad Jensen
10
Thanks, guys, the baseless trash-talk-laden comments since mine prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the reasons given for why my posts were chopped to bits (generalizations, arguments from authority, ad hominem, etc.) simply don’t exist for denialist commenters in any way shape or form.
Just wanted to verify for myself that Joanne had no intention of moderating this discussion fairly. =)
[ cmb, I’ve bothered to give you the courtesy of an offline reply for every edit I’ve made, including my specific reasons why. I don’t have time to moderate every sentence everyone writes. Email me offline with a list of exactly who commits the same errors as you (But notice how fast it becomes an onerous job to cut and paste every line AND explain which law of reasoning it breaks?). If you limited yourself to just one poor post a day I’d probably let it pass, eh?
In any case I allow you to speak, which is more than Tim Lambert does.
Remind me how much you pay me for the right to air unscientific, illogical and insulting views? – JoNova]
10
CMB, thank you for all your opinions.
You may know Albert Gore has apparently just cancelled his meetings with Congress because of all the ice and snow inundating the US Midwest and East Coast. Supposedly, he was going to reveal new data that would inspire us all to make him filthy rich by act of Congress. Per Lord Monckton, “Gore is a busted flush.”
Here’s what Andrew Jackson had to say about folks like Gore:
“Many of our men are not content with equal protection and equal privilege, but have besought us to make them richer by act of Congress.”
–and–
“I believe just laws can make no distinction between rich and poor, and that when men of high standing attempt to trample upon the rights of the weak, they are fittest objects for example and punishment. The great can protect themselves, but the poor and humble require the arm and shield of the law.”
CMB, you and I both know the AGW (climate change) context is about creating the restrictions and conditions that define who makes money while doing little to nothing to earn it (the rich) and who toils to pay but gains little to nothing from the work (everybody else, namely the poor). In my opinion and those of many others, Albert Gore is a racketeer, and he should be treated as such in a court of law. You may not be ready to accept the reality, but it is coming.
Brace yourself.
10
CMB,
I could be crass but, instead, I will simply say that the way you feel you are being treated is nothing compared to what happens to qualified skeptical scientists when attempting to get published in professional journals, the mainstream media, or even in blogs.
It is understandable that seeking a scientific truth creates factions. It is, however, unacceptable that a minority, be it 1% or 49%, should be demonized and marginalized simply because it dares to point out deficiencies and inconsistencies in the majority position.
There are enough unanswered questions and conflicting data that warrant postponment of any legislation that could harm society while an open and fair discussion of this issue is produced. If government does anything, it should be to moderate a debate between qualified AGW proponents and skeptics to establish, as best as possible, what is really known and not known about the operation of the biosphere.
As long as AGW proponents refuse to engage their counterparts in a professional forum, their position will be seen as motivated by politics, not by science, and surely not out of concern for the inhabitants of this planet.
10
Everytime Al Gore plans to speak about global warming the weather turns cold and it snows. You’d think the guy would use his talents for ski resorts or something else more productive than trying to get rich off this AGW scam.
10
[…] to ridicule me at international conferences and set the media onto me. The email is here and my reply is below. What have our universities sunk […]
11
I hear that England is experiencing some of the biggest snow storms in the last 18 years. No doubt we will shortly hear that this is more evidence of AGW 😉
10
Hi there. Great job.
10
COMMENTS HAVE BEEN MOVED
This post generated so many comments I’ve taken out about 125 comments that focused on the science of the KEIHL TRENBERTH model and later on latent heat and evaporation, into :The Missing Hot spot page (for want of a better more direct post).
A few times a comment mentioned something from one of these threads and a thread here. I may have destroyed some of the sense of some comments. Apologies.
11
“Once a green house gas has trapped all the radiant energy available in its frequency bands, you can increase the concentration a dozen times and it will make no difference to the green house effect, unless the source of radiation, ultimately the Sun, increases its radiation.”
Yes, one would expect a rolloff in energy capture as CO2 increases.
I note that you can download the climate modeling code from various places, but the code is huge and highly complex. Somewhere in that lot must be a formula for the various CO2 bands and the capture of radiant energy and I would expect that it could be boiled down to a shortish equation. Enough that we could at least plot CO2 concentration against radiation captured and see the type of rolloff curve.
Has anyone done this?
Seems like an obvious thing to check…
10
> Author: Tel
> Comment:
> “Once a green house gas has trapped all the radiant energy available in
> its frequency bands, you can increase the concentration a dozen times
> and it will make no difference to the green house effect, unless the
> source of radiation, ultimately the Sun, increases its radiation.”
Yes, and the maximum concentration for CO2 is in the 300 to 400 parts per million concentration – which has already been reached, so more CO2 won’t add to the greenhouse gas effect – not that it was doing much in the first place, since there is so little CO2 in the air, and most of the frequency bands covered by CO2 are also covered by water, and there is a LOT more water in the atmosphere.
AGW is not a scientific theory, it is a collection of unproven assertions bundled together as a political manifesto: ‘Das Warming’.
Brad Jensen
10
Brad: Have you got a formula for the curve? Even just the basic shape or a pointer to where someone has done it already?
I’m looking for something that has percentage of infra-red power captured vs CO2 concentration.
Does it roll off gradually or sharply? I would expect some sort of exponential decay (just off a guess), so there would be a key CO2 concentration which is the halfway point (where absorption is half of the maximum possible absorption).
10
As an expatriate Aussie with 3 doctorates (all in atmospheric science), I would like to point out that we all know what BS is. MS is more of the same, PhD is piled higher and deeper, and DSc is deeper and still coming. Seriously, though, one simple fact has made me a skeptic right from the start. As detailed in the “Skeptics Handbook,” increased greenhouse gas warming requires an increase in mid to upper tropospheric temperature in the tropics. All the models show it. However, the MEASURED DATA does not.
As an experimentalist (which I know leaves me open to the accusation that I cannot be expected to understand theory) I prefer measured data to any model.
10
Checking the IP I’d bet CMB is Desmog Blog, Hoggan Public Relations and David Suzuki as part of their 6 person full time dirty tricks group. Who else would have the time to spend so much time doing this?
Meanwhile – Acadian University is a very, very conservative liberal arts university – formerly Atlantic Baptist College, I think. I suspect that they would not want their assistant professors wandering around on the internet and bringing discredit to the serious affairs of education.
10
“Bugs: Are you the same Bugs who wrote “An ice age could occur, but that would not disprove the theory of AGW.”?”
That would be me. The forcings that create an ice age are more powerful than the forcing that CO2 provides. Just because the ice age forcings are stronger does not invalidate CO2 as a forcing, it just means one is more powerful than the other.
10
Which is the heart of the issue. Based on all the evidence I’ve seen, just about every forcing is more powerful than CO2.
In fact, CO2 appears to be such a weak forcing that it’s not worth worrying about. Which is not to say that pollution reducing efforts should diminish (which will probably mean reduced CO2 emissions in the long run anyway). Rather, it means we should not waste vast amounts of resources on a problem that is barely real when there are much more valuable things we could be doing to help the planet and the human race.
10
Rob,
Come on! Get in the game! Even believers can no longer deny the slight of hand played — the news is saturated by the UN’s plans to redirect economies on a global level, for the sake of the unknown. Sad to see so many geniunely concerned shills actually promoting the vested interest they aim to oppose (think World Bank, Pew Trust, etc.). Perhaps mankind is reaching a new level of belligerence.
When “science” can be exploited and, subsequently, the force of law used to suck money all remaining wealth from common folks — to be re-distributed to the establishment — then it’s tantamount you get in line!
Who needs the truth when so much money and power are at stake? Contextually, global warming/climate change is the greatest fraud in modern human history.
10
Are you saying that I should position myself to be the recipient of the wealth redistribution, regardless of the truth of the issue?
Who would do a thing like that? 😉
10
Rob: Al Gore
10
And to think I was disappointed when George W. appeared to steal the 200 election from Big Al.
I don’t know what his scientific advice was, or if he had any in relation to global warming (given his apparent belief in intelligent design, you would have to wonder if he had any interest in science) but George W’s stance on global warming was one thing he was right about in my view.
10
In July 2005 I specifically asked President Bush to ignore the global warming hype Beltway insiders were pushing.
Sadly, he proclaimed the “America’s Addiction to Oil” crisis; just another way to say “Hydrogen will be carried by ethanol, and the oil companies will profit while consumers pay for the infrastructure, not by virtue of the marketplace, but by force of law”.
He proved he is as much a market interventionist as the global warming/climate change shills. And he helped bring us the energy speculation that, in combination with the mortgage flap, sucked money out of the markets.
I’m tired of the manipulators.
10
“Which is the heart of the issue. Based on all the evidence I’ve seen, just about every forcing is more powerful than CO2.
In fact, CO2 appears to be such a weak forcing that it’s not worth worrying about. ”
No other forcings are very active at the moment, CO2 is it.
10
bugs: “No other forcings are very active at the moment, CO2 is it.”
That still doesn’t make it worth spending vast resources fighting an forcing effect that makes little or no difference. Even if the IPCC are right about the forcing effect of CO2, and we spend the billions of dollars required to fully implement Kyoto, it would make almost no difference to the temperature 100 years from now.
So you want us to spend untold resources on fighting a forcing effect that:
a. Is unlikely to be a measurable forcing effect;
b. Even if it is a forcing effect, by your own admission it is weaker than many other forcing effects, so that all our efforts would be quickly overwhelmed by any future change in these other forcing effects; and
c. Even if we implement the very costly CO2 reductions agreed to date (which is proving difficult if not impossible), the IPCC’s own calculations show that it will not significantly change the temperature 100 years from now.
No sensible, reasonably intelligent person would pursue these CO2 emission controls given these circumstances. Therefore, assuming you are sensible and reasonably intelligent, you must have other motivations as alluded to by various posters on this site.
10
Bugs: “No other forcings are very active at the moment, CO2 is it.”
And so says Bugs, omnipresent pseudonym, thou who has considered, studied and knoweth all of the oceanic, astronomic, atmospheric factors that affect our climate.
Shucks Bugs, you could save us a bucket load of money on climate models if you’d just share all the info you ‘know’.
12
If CO2 is the only active forcing, then we’re in great shape. There’s no upward temp trend in the 21st century, so we must have solved the problem.
😀
10
Bugs, What is the scientific basis for your belief that recent CO2 rise is due to anthropogenic emissions?
Did you know that most nascent CO2 is entirely natural? We positively know this because the isotopic mass balance ‘fingerprint’ of the CO2 in our present atmosphere is virtually indistinguishable from known recent carbon sources, meaning that it cannot be, in any significant way, sourced from ancient (fossil) sources.
The definitive test of the hypothesis that nascent CO2 is mostly anthropogenic is something called the ‘isotopic mass balance test’. Several teams of scientists working independently, independently funded, separated by continents and decades of time have conducted such analysis and guess what? Every time anyone does this analysis, it shows that only a small fraction of the CO2 in the present atmosphere is from fossil sources. The most damning study I could find showed only a few % anthropogenic. The Norwegian scientist, Tom Segalstad says it’s about 4%. Remember that even the IPCC will only commit to 21% (in the BODY of their report, the part with the facts, NOT the SFP, the part with all the hand-waving, wherein the ‘all or nearly all’ attribution is alleged), though they present no data to support even this 21% figure. That still leaves 79%, Bugs, that is entirely natural. At some point you are going to have to admit that CO2 would be rising with or without fossil fuel burning, as it was already on the rise before we began serious emissions, circa 1950.
10
Since you seem unsatisfied with Leo Elshof’s (nonexistent) rebuttal of your Skeptic’s Handbook, you should check out a rebuttal that I wrote. I don’t want to post the whole thing here, since I am made uncomfortable by rumors of censorship on your blog.
http://mtgap.wordpress.com/2009/07/18/the-skeptics-handbook/
10
Ah, Mr or Mrs MTGAP, Thanks for posting your link (but not the entirety) of your unsubstantiated unscientific rebuttal that summarized and repeated all the points from illogical people that I’ve rebutted elsewhere.
You think I censored Sceptico? That’s why he has only got eleven looooong responses under that thread? Thousands of words in reply. I see.
I could have censored him because I would prefer comments from people who use Aristotelian logic, instead of rabid lines like (to paraphrase): “Argument by authority is ok because Wikipedia says so”.
This is the startling brain you are defending. Still stuck in stone age reasoning.
Of the 4500 comments on this site to date there are only three people who don’t automatically get the right to post, and I’ve approved almost all the comments of 2 of them, and the third is not blocked, but after 30 comments posted (30!), he’s on ‘hold’ until he shows he’s here for an honest discussion and acknowledges that he asked for a quote (about a graph), and I gave him that graph – which is the last in a long line of him rather rudely demanding things that were provided but never acknowledged. I’m only asking for manners.
I’ve debunked what Jaquot wrote on the the paid up PR firm – DeSmog site http://joannenova.com.au/2009/03/22/desmog-accidentally-vindicates-the-skeptics-handbook/
The only slightly unfinished part of the Sceptico exchange that I did not flatten (yet) was the point about stratospheric cooling – which I plan to do soon.
In short, both ozone, and carbon cause trophospheric cooling. Yes. But it’s impossible to tell how much is due to one vs the other. So it’s hardly a ‘fingerprint’, and it wasn’t the fingerprint of GREENHOUSE gas warming that the CCSP published anyway – the greenhouse fingerprint also included the ‘hot-spot’. http://joannenova.com.au/2008/10/26/the-missing-hotspot/
The knock-out blow for Skeptico’s point is that the theoretical hot-spot itself is due to water vapor, which is projected to cause 2/3rds of the warming, but is entirely absent. In other words 2/3rds of the ‘catastrophic warming’ the IPCC project has been falsified.
I debunked Skeptico here http://joannenova.com.au/2009/02/13/the-skeptic-that-wasnt/
and here http://joannenova.com.au/2009/02/17/emails-with-an-unskeptical-skeptic/.
I debunked Elshof, On, …this thread? Perhaps you’ve read it? And obviously if he’d had a reasonable reply he would have posted it… perhaps he was smart enough to recognize that sometimes silence is better.
The Petition Project has already answered those old critics you dug up. Can you believe that in 30,000 names that there are occasionally real ‘duplicates’, and there are also real people with real names that are like celebrities. It happens. Michael, as in (Michael J Fox) was one of the most popular boys names in the 1960’s. Kent Redwine, has a PhD. The organisers removed the Haliwell one (and I even joked about that in the Handbook.) It would have taken you only ten seconds to check your facts here http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_last_name.php?run=H, and here http://www.petitionproject.org/frequently_asked_questions.php. Thus demonstrating the quality of your thought and your research.
MTGAP – you have old information. The Petition Project redid most of its names again in late 2007. Does no one think it’s amazing that so many volunteer scientists would go to so much trouble to collect 30,000 signatures and verify most of them? (30,000!) It’s an extraordinary grassroots movement against massive government bureaucracy. And as I said in the Handbook, proves nothing scientifically, but a lot about the politics and the unscientific use of a ‘consensus’ that does not exist.
I list the evidence that would constitute a meaningful cause and effect relationship here: http://joannenova.com.au/2008/10/30/what-is-evidence/
You have not provided any.
11
“Which is where you appeal to keep it simple fails to an extent. The question can be very simple, but the answer is going to be very complex.”–Bugs
But you tipped your hand here, Bugs. The answer, according to alarmists is a simple one: it’s the fault of our emissions. Originally, it was skeptics who suggested that the answer is more complex: sun spots, ice-age cycles, El Niño/La Nina, etc. contribute heavily to climate change.
If global warming is indeed mostly our fault, then how can the answer not be simple?
10
I’m just a master electrician who has studied electricity, math, and physics since 1974 and have done electrical work since 1983. I have no advanced degree. But I am cursed with a penchant for logic, math, and science. And a tendency to notice things. For example, you can tell when a politician is leading you on because their lips are moving.
I have a challenge for those who believe in CO2 AGW that I know you cannot answer. In fact, I predict that not one of the AGW supporters will answer this challenge and will, instead, re-direct toward rhetoric, ad hominems, and recitation of the catechism of St. Gore (to borrow loosely from the practice of catholicism, i.e., a faith.)
Prove that CO2, or any gas, inert or otherwise, is able to direct it’s re-emissions in one only one direction, namely the surface of the Earth. Never mind that 95 to 97 percent of absorption and remission with CO2 happens in the first 20 ppm, which is nature’s signal and that increasing amounts have functionally no return. Never mind that CO2 only has three narrow frequency responses in the infrared range, chief among them, 2.5 microns and 15.7 microns, where no heat signature is found to remain in the troposphere. Never mind that Man’s total CO2 contribution to the atmosphere is less than .00113 percent. Never mind that we have had cooling in spite of increased CO2 amounts over those of say circa 1940.
Just show how CO2 has the conscious ability to take any and all IR and direct it only toward the planet’s surface.
(spoiler: it can’t, as proven by Prof. Lindzen of MIT. But go ahead, take a stab at it.
10
we are in the midst of the warmest decade in recorded history [ uk met and world met org ] c02 is leading the temp right now . naturally occurring warming also includes ‘the lag factor ‘. the handbooks anonymous financier was exxon.
20
i see no difference between ms novas opinions and the opinions of creationists. pseudo science. that is easily debunked by the majority scientific consensus. she argues politics not science. provides no data to substantiate her claims. her lack of knowledge in relation to the lag factor just one example. her lack of data showing volcanic c02 spikes another example. i could go on and on. her champions like fred singer believed that nicotine was not addictive, that sunlight has nothing to do with skin cancer. ian plimer another of her ‘great minds ‘ believes that the oceans are warmed by volcanic rock and that malaria is prevailant in cold climates. these people , including ms nova are now celebrities. proving that denying the obvious [ regardless of scientific data ] is both profitable and indeed an industry. the printers of her childrens book have been financed by exxon for years.and exposes her pro fossil fuel agenda. ms nova you are a fraud
20
skeptics feel intimidated when asked to prove their argument and to provide the relevant data. they are intimidated by the truth
10
David Brown,
When you are at war with reality, you WILL lose. There is no exception or free pass. For a time and if there are enough sacrificial victims, you can pretend you are winning. When your victims start objecting or when you have totally consumed them, the pretense of winning can no longer be sustained.
Even this is not a problem for most, if not all, of the pretenders. They don’t really want to win. They simply want you to lose. They will give everything you have as well as their own lives to achieve their goals.
The pretenders do not mean well and never have. Once we understand and accept that, we might have a chance to save ourselves. It should be easy. All we have to do is stay out of their way.
The pretenders WILL destroy themselves. This is especially true if we don’t help them in their pretense. Unfortunately, they can do a lot of damage on the way out.
We can rebuild. They can’t.
00
David, (!) If you have found the entire global data set that the East Anglia Unit have lost, please contact Phil Jones immediately. He’ll be delighted. Please copy me and Steve McIntyre as well OK? That’d be great news.
You have no observational evidence for any of your baseless claims, not for the science, and not for the smears. I didn’t get any money from Exxon and it wouldn’t make the slightest difference if I had. I’m just a commentator. Doesn’t matter what anyone paid me, I can’t change the data from Hadley or NASA.
To fake that, I’d have to work at the East Anglia CRU.
And as it happens I wrote the original Skeptics Handbook entirely pro bono and offered it for free to help save people like you from being ripped off.
Mr Brown, You owe me an apology.
02
ms nova, your links with exxon are obvious .thats why you keep the name of your american sponsor a secret. your comments about the emails are an act of desperation. three 12 year old emails taken out of context do not undermine over 20 years of research done by scientists far more qualified than you. . no where in any email were the words hoax or fraud mentioned . the word ”trick’ is totally ambiguous and ”hide the decline” was about alligning different data analysis techniques . . even if there was internal politics going on in east anglia .so what !.how about the other 3997 emails that were completely above board . east anglia is one of three groups involved in collecting data . perhaps the uk met office and the world met org are also in the conspiracy ? if data collecting cannot be trusted where are you getting your data from ? ‘nowhere would be my guess . you are politicising the issue because you do not have the science .maybe you should check the emails at exxon if want a real conspiracy ?
00
lionel, your surrealist waffle was very poetic. but who the ‘pretenders are is open to interpretation? i am not at war with reality. i am at war with stupidity. i am at war with people making statements without evidence. i am at war with the corrupt criminal energy industry who have a vested interest in hiding the truth. i am at war with junk science . i am at war, but it is not with reality. ‘we can rebuild ‘ rebuild what ? you cannot rebuild anything if the building blocks are destroyed
00
ms nova, greater minds than mine have mountains of evidence.and observations . if science operated the way you say it does it would not progress. we would not have put man on the moon. though you probably dont believe they did ?if science is so corrupt, so dishonest that sort of undermines your so called scientific credentials as well doesnt it ? the ‘term baseless is meaningless, seeing that you cannot prove my claims are baseless. your nonsensical conspiracy theory about a one world government run by evil scientists and ‘socialists ‘. your smears of nasa as well shows your political position. and is not substantiated with evidence. you are not a scientists ahole and you owe all of australia an apology
00
ms nova, you are a commentator with a political bias so if exxon had paid you directly [ instead of indirectly as they did by sponsoring your book ] of course it would make a difference. it would undermine your credibility totally. which it does? ‘ the entire global data set that east anglia has lost ??well thats news to me . and its probably news to them as well ? more conspiracy claptrap. your trust in the energy industry is quite touching as well. such nice people as we all know.?though admittedly they do pay well.
00
Jo, I think David Brown is a troll and should be ignored or deleted.
Whatever you say he’ll just widen his abuse.
There is clearly no attempt to discuss scientific points. Just smear upon smear.
00
just one example of ms nova deleting part of a statement in order to give the impression that a respected scientists, dr simpson had become a skeptic [ quote ] ”since i am no longer affiliated with any organisation, nor receiving any funding. i can speak quite frankly .what should we do as a nation ? decisions have to be made on incomplete information. [ end of quote according to ms nova ‘ ] rest of quote……..” in this case we must act on the recommendations of gore and the ipcc ” i will conclude the quote myself at this point. as the rest of it merely explains what will happen if we do nothing about climate change.. dr simpson does not sound like a skeptic to me ms nova? talk about east anglian e mails. id dearly like to check yours ?
00
i am more than willing to discuss the science with anyone especially you stephen?but it would largely be a waste of time. my abuse as you call is just exposing dishonesty on her part. the criticism is valid. is exposing poor science a smear? i think not. i would suggest people do not listen to me but just research the matter themselves.her book is junk science at its most pernicious and misleading . deleting my comments will only strengthen my argument..if i were you stephen id stop reading childrens books and do some proper investigating
00
ron from texas, i have a question for you . the earth has warmed in the past ,due to increased solar activity, changes in the earths orbit etc. all previous warmings have been explained by natural events.the present warming. and the uk met and the world met show data that makes this the hottest decade in recorded history. even skeptics agree that its warming. seeing the sun is in a low phase at present, and the earths orbit and tilt steady. what is causing the warming ? your claims about the properties of c02 etc seem to be incorrect ? i suspect you have misunderstood what you were taught at electricians school ? certainly if your claims were true about c02 it would be common knowledge in scientific circles and already considered.venus has temperatures of nearly 500 degrees centigrade. its atmosphere is 97 % c02. that seems to contradict your views on the absorption qualities of c02
00
david @ 261: I am more than willing to discuss the science with anyone…
Taking you at your word, lets talk science.
1. Please give the physical evidence that CO2, in the free atmosphere, *TRAPS* heat as is required by the greenhouse gas global warming climate change hypothesis.
2. Then state the physical mechanism by which it happens.
3. Finally, specify the details of the experiment by which others can verify what you say is in fact the case.
Then and only then will you have a credible position. However, if you offer one or more of the following we will know that science is not your concern and that you have a preconceived position to put forward that has no connection to reality that you have made.
1. That experts say so is not physical evidence – hearsay argumentation
2. That the words of the experts were peer reviewed – second hand argument from authority
3. There is a consensus on the matter – argument from popularity
4. That computer simulations yield real world evidence – fallacy of construction
Remember, you are the one holding that the greenhouse gas global warming hypothesis is valid, that CO2 is a primary culprit, and that man’s addition to atmospheric CO2 has the potential of yielding catastrophic results. This means it is you who must prove your case. All we have to do is find the faults in your argument. If we find but ONE critical fault, your argument falls.
Choose your words carefully. They will be massively peer reviewed by myself and others on this list.
00
ron from texas . doctor lindzen uses old data he pretty much out of the loop with recent findings. he also a ‘consultant” for exxon. so i would dismiss him totally. he is also an atmospheric physicist. the atmosphere is but one aspect of climate. he is not qualified to comment on other aspects eg geological, oceans etc. if what you were trying to say is that 20ppm is where most heat is absorbed. that would make anything over that irrelevant. so extreme heat and ice ages would require roughly the same amount of c02. and plants could photosynthesise ate 20ppm. that makes the claim by monkton that more co2 is good for the planet wrong? its wrong anyway. but you have just undermined a fellow skeptics position ?also your definition of science is incorrect. it is not a religion . its is based on criticism, evidence and peer group analysis. religion is based completely on faith..your knowlege of electricals would not be possible without science and the scientific methodology. would you play with live wires if it was based on faith ?
00
lionel firstlyi f co2 did not trap c02. i dare say if the other gases also did not trap c02 the planet would be a snowball. . the heat absorption qualities of c02 are common knowledge. how do you explain warming otherwise ? im sure any scientist will explain the mechanics of c02 absorption to you its purely an academic exercise . if c02 does not absorb heat as you seem to be insinuating how does the planet warm. you are using smoke and mirrors and semantics to cover poor argument. the science is not ‘say so”. it has obviously undergone the typical scientific methodolgy eg experiment, peer group analysis. how else do you arrive at a scientific conclusion, if science was ‘say so ‘ we would know nothing . i prefer to go the experts as they are the most qualified to reach the truth. who would you go too?it is ”you” who are claiming man made c02 is not a problem. it is up to you to prove otherwise, with evidence.that can be analysed by your peers .if you can only criticise without offering tested alternatives. you have nothing to offer
00
lionel. there are no ‘peers in this forum. that seems to indicate a similar level of logic and reason and that is not the case. finding a weakness in any argument does not necessarily prove ones own hypothesus. all arguments in relation to complex issues like climate are not 100% water tight. as there are some things we do not know. in relation to climate id say ‘in all probability/ i would not be so arrogant to assume that i am 100% correct. but certainly faced with the childish conspiracy theories of the deniers, my argument is on a genius level. feel free to put your own opinion to the test. [if you dare ]
00
lionel. in closing, id like to say that even if there is only a 50-50 chance that scientists are right. [ i personally think it much higher than that ] we would be plain retarded not to take action. would you get on a plane if there was 50-50 chance it would crash ? i would not . sure you can play semantics or even find weakness in their argument. but that does not prove your view that manmade c02 is not a problem.and it certainly is no argument for not doing anything. .i can listen to people like you or i can listen to the ‘experts ” call me naive. but i’ll stick with the experts
00
David @ 256, 266, & 277,
I see. You can’t really discuss the science so you want to talk about something else.
1. You say that if CO2 and other gasses did not trap heat the earth would be a snowball.
This is an assertion. Back it up with the scientific evidence I asked for: physical evidence, physical mechanism, and an actual experiment supporting same. Assertions are not any of these things.
2. Trapping heat is not the same as absorbing heat. Especially in the free atmosphere.
The science is that CO2 absorbs photons of light from the sun at certain limited wavelength bands. The energy from the light is either re-radiated or turns into kinetic energy of the CO2 molecule. Any excess of kinetic energy in the CO2 molecule over the neighboring gas molecules is immediately transferred to the less energetic gas molecules. Hence, CO2 does NOT trap heat. It simply passes it along consistent with the second law of thermodynamics: heat moves from hot to cold ie high molecular kinetic energy to low molecular kinetic energy.
3. You ask: “how do you explain warming otherwise?” is the same as saying you can’t think of any other reason so it must be CO2 trapping heat. Clearly you don’t know the explanation for the warming so how can you say what is causing it? So what if you can’t think of any other reason? Isn’t it more likely you simply are not thinking clearly, completely, and correctly enough? Argument from ignorance only proves the ignorance and nothing else. I see no science here. I see only a claim of ignorance on your part.
The science is that only a small portion of the energy from the sun is absorbed by the atmosphere. Much of it is reflected by the clouds. The light hitting the earth is absorbed by the earth and heats it. Since the solid-liquid portion of the earth has thousands of times more heat capacity than the atmosphere, its temperature changes only a small amount. The atmosphere in contact with the solid-liquid portion cannot assume a temperature higher than the solid-liquid portion – again by the second law of thermodynamics.
Now here is where the free atmosphere part enters in. As soon as the layer of the atmosphere next to the solid-liquid portion assumes a temperature higher than the atmosphere above it, it starts to rise (hot air is lighter than cold air – duh). This rising air starts to cool for two reasons. The first is that it is passing its excess energy to adjacent colder gas molecules. The second is that as its rising, the atmospheric pressure reduces thus reducing the temperature of the rising heated gasses. See the gas laws for details of the relationship amoung gas temperature, pressure, and volume.
Now this process of heating, convection, and cooling takes time. Since a gas has an enormously lower heat capacity, each rising layer can take away only a very tiny fraction of the heat contained in the solid-liquid portions of the earth. As a consequence, the earth cools slowly ie. remains warmer than it would if it could dump heat instantly.
The above is NOT semantics. Its basic physics only slightly above high school level physics.
The experiment:
1. Measure how fast rock and water cools while standing in the free atmosphere.
2. Measure how fast rock and water heats when exposed to sunlight.
3, Compute what temperature the rock and water would reach in 12 hours of sunlight.
4. Compute what temperature the rock and water would fall to after 12 hours of darkness.
Report back on your findings.
I think you will find, the atmosphere does not provide the heat. The sun does.
You will also find the temperature of the rock and water will depend upon how fast its heated by the sun and how fast the atmosphere can move the heat away from it. The differences in these rates determine the temperature of the earth and are controlled by the three laws of thermodynamics and the laws of electromagnetic radiation.
There is no greenhouse effect in the free atmosphere. Hence, there is no greenhouse gas that traps heat. Its simply energy transfer by radiation, convection, phase change, and kinetic transfer. The relative heat capacities, the rates of heat transfer, and amount of radiation absorbed by the earth will determine the final temperature of the earth. Winds, ocean circulation, clouds, precipitation, and seasonal changes in the reflectivity of the earth will modulate the radiation from the sun available to be absorbed and the rates of heat transfer.
Finally, I agree with you that you have no peer on this list. A peer is someone of similar experience, education, ability, and demonstrated performance. You have yet to demonstrate that you have achieved our level.
00
you are playing semantics. where is your evidence and data to prove that c02 does not absorb heat to the level that scientific consensus says ?obviously the sun provides the heat but without the greenhouse gases the earth would not absorb it . go to any planet wiithout c02 or methane and see the temp . its cold.you are just using jargon to hide the weakness of your argument [ smoke and mirrors ]i . peer reviewed science has demonstrated ability and performance. have your findings been exposed to peer review ?. what are your sources . where is your data? i think 98% of climate scientists are not ignorant.and would be aware of your technical explanations if they were true.. the fact they do not acknowledge any of what you say, makes that improbable?c02 rises things heat up. that seems to indicate a connection . if it was just the sun which is going through a cool phase. the climate would be correspondingly cooler . that is logical. and that is what you lack . and that is why i do not consider you a peer
00
A weak argument David Browm, nitrogen and oxygen are excellent insulators. The Earth would trap sum of the sun’s heat radiates from the Earth’s surface whether there was any CO2 or not. Co2 might have a small additional impact, but it is not the reason Earth is not a snowball.
00
Oops, “The Earth would trap some of the sun’s heat radiated from the Earth’s surface …”
00
lionel. you are simply using physics to explain how things warm or cool. that does not mean the premise of your argument is correct. ian plimer uses his scientific technical knowledge to conclude that molten rock heats up the ocean, that volcanoes emit more c02 than humans . if c02 is not even a factor in warming why bother mentioning in at all. your ‘peer” lord monkton thinks co2 is very important. and points to co2 levels during the cambrian period as being very significant. you are at odds with virtually all of your peers as well as 98% of all other scientists.. i am sure creationists could use jargon as you do, to justify nonsense/ being able to talk academically about something does not mean your basic premise is correct. you should be able to explain your view in laymans terms and using reason and logic arrive at the truth. what your saying i have much more technical knowledge than you so i am right ? wrong !
00
nitrogen and oxygen may be excellent insulators but are they forcing agents ? water vapour is a very good trapper of heat but it is not a forcing agent
00
i think rob yallop is being ironic lionel. again 98% of climate scientists disagree with you about c02. i think this makes your comments possibly wrong?
00
Your question is not relevant. The Earth would be warm without CO2. CO2 may add to the warming but it is not the main driver.
Forcing is the IPCC’s attempt to explain why CO2 will increase temperature significantly more that it would if nothing else changed. However, the forcing factors unrealistic and have never been proven to work as claimed.
00
lionel, in the scenario where there is no c02 in the atmosphere. would life exist.? i am only interested in an atmosphere that supports life
00
rob, again according to 98% of climate scientists c02 is the main driver of heat. the other gases do not accumulate.
00
the ipcc merely reports what the scientists are saying. therefore it is scientific consensus that says c02 is a forcing agent . again your comment about the ipcc is totally political and not relevant to this discussion
00
david @ 269: obviously the sun provides the heat but without the greenhouse gases the earth would not absorb it
You should have quit when you were only a little bit behind. Now you have demonstrated why the only argument you have is an argument from ignorance.
The Sun provides NO heat. It provides, in part, light energy in the form of a stream of photons of various energy levels. When a photon encounters a molecule or atom, it will be absorbed with an efficiency determined by the absorption spectra of the molecule or atom. The absorbed energy is either immediately re-radiated as a photon or is turned into molecular or atomic kinetic energy (this IS heat). The energy radiated or turned into kinetic energy must equal the energy absorbed. This process happens without regard to the existence or non existence of an atmosphere about the molecule or atom BECAUSE its happening at the atomic level. This is true even if the molecule or atom has very close neighbors as in a solid or liquid.
As an interesting case in point, the sunlit portions of the moon becomes very hot. The dark portions of the moon become very very cold.
Mean surface temperature (day) 107°C
Mean surface temperature (night)-153°C
From: http://www.solarviews.com/eng/moon.htm
The reason is that a day on the moon is equal to an approximate month on the earth. The surface of the moon has a much longer exposure to sunlight and darkness. Hence the much greater range of day and night temperatures. The only way the heat energy can leave the surface is by radiation. That mode of transfer has a much lower rate of transfer of energy than does the convection in an atmosphere. Hence the earth is much cooler in the day and much warmer in the night than the moon. BTW the moon has no atmosphere yet it’s surface gets hot when its in direct sunlight.
I suggest you need to learn some basic physics. Again, the level of physics that is required is only slightly more difficult than high school physics. Otherwise, all you will achieve is a continued demonstration that you are ignorant of even the most basic understanding of the universe.
You don’t have to know everything to know something. However, it’s important to know SOMETHING before you start talking about it as if you actually do know about it.
00
lionel. you have head full of technicalities that are still leading you to to an incorrect conclusion.the ad hominen attack according to novas chart means you are losing the argument.your technical knowledge does not impress as you are using it to cover a poor argument. if you put as much time into analysing the likes of ian plimer im sure you be doing the world a favour . the fact that you probably agree with his poor science does your cause no good either. even a layman can pick holes in his argument light energy, heat does it really matter . the end result is ‘warmth’. [ when absorbed by the green house gases ]. iknow enough [ combined with logic and reason ‘ to deal with you. you are politicised and sprout forth technicalities that have nothing to do with the basic premise of what we are discussing. namely, does manmade c02 change climate. i and 98% of the worlds scientists thing that it does. you , ian plimer jo nova and the energy industry disagree?.according to the majority it is you who are behind ,and by a long way.
00
lionel, you’ll have to excuse my grammatical errors but even good spelling cannot save some arguments
00
lionel basic physics or advanced physics can still lead you down the garden path. my advice to you is to forget physics. concentrate on reason and logic and a non ideological approach to the the issue. for all of your physics you probably believe in the one world government conspiracy. that its all a communist plot. that the oil companies are believable and decent and that all scientists are liars and con men. throw in creationism and a political liking for tony abbot. and you can see for yourself that a degree in physics does not save you from being irrational and even quite silly
00
david @ 282: …forget physics. concentrate on reason and logic.
Interesting. You say physics will lead me down the garden path. I am to use reason without looking at reality. I am to use logic without having validated principles to apply logic to. That is reason without content and logic with nothing to use it on. This is beyond argument from ignorance. It is argument from non-existence.
Forgive me for walking down the garden path. I planted four tomatoes this spring and have harvested well over 100 lbs of tomatoes from them. I used my understanding of chemistry, physics, and plant physiology to guide my preparation of the soil and the subsequent care and feeding of the plants. Incidentally, I also had an ample harvest of lettuce, green beans, bell peppers, and Swiss chard. I think my garden path was lovely and quite productive.
Will your garden path be as productive?
00
OK David Browm, you’ve slandered Fred Singer and myself with baseless smears that are wrong and irrelevant. You assume that a foreign committee of paid-up bureaucrats is honest, and functioning (despite the evidence that shows it’s corrupt). You assume that there are “thousands of scientists”, and you assume that their opinions mean something. All wrong.
You don’t know what evidence is, so you don’t even realize you don’t have any. You can’t name one single paper that shows CO2 causes major warming, or that feedbacks are positive and major.
Until you either A/ apologise and retract your baseless claims, or B/ provide one piece of observational evidence, your comments are being held for moderation indefinitely.
We have higher standards here than baseless smear and stone-age logic. Your appeals to authority are equivalent to bowing to tribal guru’s.
I’d let you keep posting for the mental tennis, except it’s no fun playing tennis with someone who doesn’t think the ball is important.
01
People, here’s the funny thing. After 24 comments of baseless smear, argument from authority and not one piece of evidence, David Browm (or Brown presumably) thinks he’s being “censored” because I asked him to back up what he said or apologize, and he can’t.
Site policy: 1. Preschool level manners. 2. Not breaking laws of logic repeatedly.
That’s what “waiting in moderation” means. I’m waiting for him to retract baseless irrelevant smears – (remember David, it’s you who thinks that oil companies can influence temperature gauges, ice cores or radiosondes, by providing less that 5% of the funding of a group who then contributes something like 0.2% of an upstanding retired scientists total income. Follow your own reasoning, it’s delusional and hypocritical. (Al Gore makes millions, but he’s got “cred”, while an eminent physicist gets less than 0.1% of that, and you smite him for life?) )
The apology you need to make is to me. I’ve done months of work for no pay (nowhere near as much as McIntyre, Watts and Singer tho). Your words are slanderous insults. I know you have no evidence, because there is no evidence to have. Perhaps I’ve got some science wrong, but you aren’t talking about the science, you’re just spreading lies. Worse, whether I’m paid or not is irrelevant. My good intentions prove nothing.
You’ve had 24 comments to prove you have something useful to say, and you were only an apology away from saying more…
David, your Matrix moment of clarity may come if only you try to provide that one paper. Have I looked? I’ve asked professors of climate modelling and they can’t find it either. I’ve read AR4 Chapter Nine. Looks like you haven’t.
The majority of scientists are on our side. The majority of corrupt manipulative crooks are on yours. They lost the evidence.. They lie, hide data and cheat..
We can name 31,000 scientists who agree with us. You can’t.
PS: I just tried to email David Browm 450 peer reviewed papers in a list, but like Rumble, the email bounced.
”… No such user”
Well what a shock. A fake email. Was he brave enough to post his real name or was that fake too?
01
David, thanks for your multitude of insulting insinuating emails, I am especially appreciative that you gave a fake email to this site, so I cannot possibly reply to you offline with the correct facts (which you wouldn’t read anyhow).
You’ve saved me some time.
01
David, your lies are tiresome. You know I can’t email you those 450 papers because you gave a fake email address.
Look here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/15/reference-450-skeptical-peer-reviewed-papers/
Ad hominem attacks won’t tell you whether the planet will warm.
Not only are sceptics working unpaid most of the time, but it doesn’t change the evidence even if they weren’t. Your rabid illogic, false email, and baseless insults do not meet minimum standards here.
02
Browm – you don’t get it do you?
You assume that NASA or the IPCC has got the evidence, but you haven’t looked. I have. That’s why I insist that you find that paper.
If it’s so easy to find and there are hundreds you won’t have any trouble right? Name and explain that paper, then you’ll be able to post again.
The link I posted to Watts Up has 450 papers on it, I have no idea why you can’t see them. Google “450 papers, Watts Up”.
02
Well down Browm. You’ve got my point.
Ad hominem attacks, argument from authority = stone age logic. You qualify. 🙂
It’s like arguing with a baby. You “think” if Fred Singer was paid once by a tobacco company that proves something about the climate.
Keep reading those 450 papers. Remember, we only need one to prove you wrong.
01
Jo,
We lost the late unlamented Marion Morrison only to pick up bugs et al.
I’m a bit suspicious — why did we not see some of these “believers” in past threads who’re now so eager to shoot you down? The Skeptic’s Handbook has been around a long time already. Could there be an organized effort here? Don’t know. They’re still coming out of the woodwork after 280 plus posts.
In any case, the relevant question is, as you have so perfectly put it, “Where is the evidence?”
00
Browm, those 450 papers are peer reviewed and published.
Who is the denier?
01
Just to get away from the Browm (sic) business:
“Science lifted itself out of the dark ages when people stopped assuming that the Pope was an authority on everything, and that the bible held all the answers.”
Dear Joanne,
I think your Sceptics Handbook is a very valuable publication. One of its major strengths relates to the lack of evidence for AGW.
So it is somewhat suprising for someone who is so keen on evidence to come up with the above statement. Can you provide any evidence for either part of the statement. (One part about people believing that the Pope was an authority on everything and one part about the Bible holding all the answers.)
Please be as careful when making statements about religion as you insist people should be when commenting on AGW.
You have been criticised for making statements about science when you are not a scientist. Whether that criticism is justified or not, please could you do a bit more basic research when making comments about religion/science and the history of science.
There’s far too much mumbo-jumbo (cf.references to people believing the world was flat)about what people believed in medieval times without adding to it.
00
Johannes Olde,
Since you criticize is it not incumbent on you to enlighten us as to what the world did believe and what the bible says?
Clearly in the case of Galileo the Pope simply feared loss of power; however he may have tried to make it appear.
But prey tell, what did the rest of the world think and the Bible say that justifies your criticism?
00
Johannes,
Part of what gave rise to America’s religious freedom was the resolve to end the people’s submission to authoritian, religious whims, which had caused widespread and frequent misery in Europe for centuries. Surely you know the great art of the dark and middle ages was controlled by the state and the church (i.e., “the Pope”), hence the reason very little non-religious art exists from these periods. Like the artists, alchemists and those pursuing scientific methods were remanded to passing their findings by the church and other leaders: Some faced the gavels when they strayed into whatever was perceived as evil or “of the devil”. Even as late as Newton, scientists were forced to be very diplomatic and even then could face severe to capital reprimand.
I believe Joanne’s statement about the Bible is quite understandable: It’s become quite clear the Bible is not necessarily concerned about scientific pursuits, but more about revealing the aspects of our ugly human nature, an instruction meant to help us rise above it. The man Jesus was the fulfillment of that of that instruction, yet human nature still prevailed and put him on the cross for daring to lead while serving. There are countless lessons about greed, lust, ambition, fear, etc., in the Bible, but I don’t recall reading instruction on successfully baking a monocrystalline Mercury Cadmium Telluride boule.
Frankly, all of us would do well to cherish the Good Book, what it teaches; then we may better understand how Albert Gore, et al., exploit the ugly side of our human nature, particularly our fear of the unknown, for the sake of power and profit. Had the Popes correctly embraced science and Holy Law, we would no doubt be much more techologically advanced today.
00
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility
The article also explains how the rejection of infallibility was one of the major divisions between Rome and the various Protestant churches. Needless to say, Evangelicals disagree with Papal Infallibility.
http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/papal.htm
00
Yeah, I think the Popes disagree with Evangelical ‘literalism’ too.
Me, I have my own religion, and I don’t consider any of the traditionalists as primarily ‘Christian’ in the sense of following the example of Christ rather than blathering on about him. Of course, they can call each other whatever they like, it is not my business.
Jesus says ‘do this in remembrance of me’ not ‘erect giant edifices of theology and insult and murder each other over it.’ He isn’t referring to one dinner, he talking about his entire life.
The fundamental principle Jesus teaches is be like God because we are children of God. This pretty simple to say, teach, and understand. Scripture is not God, institutions are not God, rituals are not God, traditions are not God.
Forget about angels, demons, damnation, salvation, heaven, hell, and even life or death. Just think about God, and love the world the way God loves the world. Then you will know who you are and what to do with your life, and all of that other stuff will be straw.
My smarter brother calls this ‘The Worldwide Church of Brad’ but I just think of it as common sense.
My advice to most is forget what you have been told about religion, it is not much better than what you have been told about Global Warming.
00
Just out of interest Jo can you explain how
“A scientific agenda for climate policy? (PDF)
(Nature, Volume 372, Issue 6505, pp. 400-402, December 1994)
– Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen”
is a peer reviewed AGW sceptical paper?
I just picked a random one form the 450 – well not random it caught my eye as it was in Nature so I thought it was fairly credible. Wheras it is a commentary piece that I would hardly describe as skeptical.
May need to change to 449 papers.
00
religion must have been formulated b the chimpanzee part of our brain [ frank zappa ] personally i t think it is not that evolved
00
bring back brown. he is the only one who tells the truth
00
mat, the 450 peer reviewed papers sceptics talk about were not accepted by any scientific journal. they were published by vanity press. i checked some of the comments by david brown and found him to be completely correct.jo nova is trying to censor alternative opinion on the subject. disgraceful
00
sceptic,
I’m tiring of having to point this out. But it’s incumbent upon you to present at least one statement or action that Joanne has made or taken that attempts to censor anyone. After all, you made the claim in the first place. Second hand, ‘David Brown said it’, isn’t worth anyone’s time here.
By the way, I’ll take Lionell’s physics over your, “…reason and logic…” any day. Give me what can be proven, not the fruit of the rambling around of someone’s mind. Now if you back it up with proof then it becomes a different matter.
Langley reasoned that he could build an airplane and fly it with “thought” experiments he performed. Two obscure bicycle mechanics from Dayton Ohio who did the necessary experimenting to find out what would work actually did it. Langley just crashed.
00
roy, the fact that you prefer scientific jargon as opposed to logic and reason is the reason your views are incorrect and bordering on a religion. physics without reason and logic to guide it is not science. i suggest you research what the term scientific really means. it is a fact that c02 absorbs heat. the more c02 logically means more heat. we are putting more c02 into the atmosphere that seems to indicate we are contibuting to the problem. you do not need a physics degree to understand that. she took david browns comments off the air. that is censorship. he was the only one to cut through the bs that is the basis for the junk science that id the sceptics handbook. you do not need a degree to figure that out either. your langley anecdote proves nothing. he was probably using physics without logic and reason thats why the plane crashed. he sounds like an idiot.
00
roy, you ask for proof of climate change and yet your main source is a poorly written non peer reviewed book. basically science for dummies. the circumstantial evidence alone indicates climate change and our contribution to it. finger print blood and dna analysis are considered circumstantial when there are no first hand witnesses to a crime. do you dismiss them as well. even if global warming was not happening only a fool would take a risk. but of course it is not your future you are risking is it but the future of coming generations. older conservatives do not care about the future because they have none
00
“older conservatives do not care about the future because they have none”
What an utterly braindead allegation. This is a prime example someone so blinded by his ideology that he is guilty of totally dehumanising a group of people who he perceives to be “the enemy” (in this case “older conservatives”) divesting them of all human traits and emotions like, for instance, the universal compassion and love for one’s children and grandchildren found in all cultures, social strata and political persuasions around the world.
For crying out loud, grow up!
00
“i checked some of the comments by david brown and found him to be completely correct”
Oh dear, oh dear! Judging by your writing I’d say you’re pretty young, sceptic. Have you finished school yet? If not, you need to pay more attention during science class. If you HAVE finished school, your parents need to ask for their school money back …
Here’s another “gem”: “it is a fact that c02 absorbs heat. the more c02 logically means more heat”.
You see, sceptic, this is where your reliance on pure logic falls down. Logic may very well suggest that, but unfortunately for you, physics doesn’t. Re-read the Sceptics Handbook and learn about CO2’s logarithmic absorption curve (it’s on page 8). And strictly speaking, CO2 doesn’t absorb heat, it absorbs light.
00
sceptic,
Thanks for sort of a reply. But I see a lot of Brown’s material here. Hardly looks like censorship. And then…
You just blew your brains all over the internet with that. And then…
I’m trying not to laugh. All matter absorbs heat. The bulk of our atmosphere is nitrogen. Why is the heat absorbed by nitrogen not a problem and CO2 is? Accepting the thing as you demand requires me to throw aside a lifetime of avoiding snake-oil salesmen by understanding the world around me, science, politics, advertizing, all of it. I’ll not make such a leap of faith. I’ve been on a jury in a case where all the evidence was circumstantial. The requirements for conviction were that the evidence not only had to show that the defendant did the crime; but also had to fail to show in any credible way that someone else could have done it. AGW has no evidence supporting it and there are credible alternative explanations.
The Langley illustration is right to the point. Langley was known for performing thought experiments and then writing them up as though he had actually done them. You are right, he was a fool. But not for the reasons you imagine. You should study up on the history of powered flight. It’s instructive.
The Wright brothers actually tested everything they thought would work. They modified their approach according to what they learned. Their first successful powered flight at Kitty Hawk was not their first trip there. They had tested airframe designs there previously and knew when they got there with an engine onboard that they had a high probability of flying. They were such good engineers that they even built their own wind tunnel to test propeller designs. They had none of the credentials of an engineer or scientist in any way, shape or form.
But of Langley? I don’t find any record of his having followed the process dictated by sound science. He crashed accordingly! As designers since then have all recognized, just the problem alone of managing an aircraft in flight that had 4 equal size wings is too complicated. But Langley never performed the experiment to find that out so his design had 4 wings. And Langley was a scientist (supposedly).
I do not find and no one here finds, indeed no one criticizing Joanne Nova
has ever presented, a sound case based in actual experiment, repeatable by anyone who wants to try it, that shows a link between anything going on here on Earth and CO2.
It is your position that requires taking something on faith, not ours. Now just to show you that I’m an honest man I’ll look up or try to look up what the word scientific “really” means. But you in turn had best look up what faith means, as in believing something without proof, without even evidence.
The question, “Where is the evidence?” is still out there waiting for an answer. It remains a millstone around your neck until you can answer it.
00
Mattb: Look, fine, I’ll just cut that claim in half. Whatever. Just “225 scientific papers in support of sceptics then” (since technically, some of those papers were not
biblicallystrictly acceptable according to the standards of the Galactic Union of Global Scientists (that would be GUGS). Only a couple of hundred references may go our way. So do you feel better about AGW then?Can you name ONE empirical paper supporting AGW yet?
In the end, I’m just not a “paper numbers” kind of girl. I just can’t bring myself to care. It doesn’t matter how many A4 papers are held in the AAAS-library, we won’t find out whether the planet will warm by counting them. This is typical of a warmist: when faced with a mass of evidence that goes against them, do they look for the strongest paper and assess it’s reasoning, or do they analyse the character of the journals fergoodnesssake and hope they can find an ad hom that will magically poison the whole list with it’s stain. Can’t smear a man, can try to smear a paper.
I know you can’t help it, it’s a reflex to look for “character” and “reputation”. But do you ponder the pointlessness of it all?
Johannes: When I write science I need evidence. If someone makes a two line observation on religion or history they can’t possibly work by the same standards.
People used to discuss the angels on the point of a needle or things like that.
Richard Baxter, p530 of The Reasons of the Christian Religion, 1667.
It’s not a big stretch to say they would have used the bible as a form of evidence about the natural world. And it’s a safe inference that they would have thought the pope was an authority.
I can’t be as careful. I just can’t do a double blind cross-over study of the bible.
Johannes, sorry if I slip in and out of detailed strict language and into more entertaining styles and you find that off-putting. You are undoubtedly not the only one. But if I did stay literally pedantically exact in every word I would lose half my readers I’m sure and most of my brain.
The comments section is a testing ground for thoughts to be explored. You see the illogical self parody of “analysis” this degenerates into sometimes. It’s not printed in a hard bound ISBN referenced encyclopeadia.
Good example of the quality of blog comments. Those who critize me haven’t done enough research to “click” on the ABOUT page and read about the prizes I got for my science degree. And since my degree or prizes mean nothing for the climate, it’s irrelevant and wrong.
If you have something to add about history and philosophy of science I would be an attentive student. It’s not my specialty, and I’m keen to learn.
“sceptic”: Yes, some of those 450 papers were published by vanity press, these pretender journals have names like “Science”, or “Nature”. That’s vain. They pretend to be scientific, yet they won’t publish corrections and they don’t pick up fraud.
Since they are so easy to get published in (for warmists anyway) why don’t you go write up that mystery paper that everyone is waiting for and give your team something to quote?
Browm is the only one holding back his comments. All he has to do is qualify for preschool manners, and basic logic.
Browm after all, “thinks” that if Fred Singer was paid 0.2% of his yearly wage from Exxon 20 years ago, that proves the world must be warming. Until he admits that an ad hom is not a useful way to figure out the climate, there’s no point in him posting anything here.
02
anne ,actually if you want to be specific c02 absorbs radiation or energy.you need to absorb correct science .and you are showing your age rather more than i to Nova you do not have the logic to understand that singers credibility is undermined by his dealings with the tobacco industry where he showed his dishonesty and lack of ethics by claiming ‘nicotine was not addictive ‘ of course tobacco has nothing to do with warming. i was simply showing he is not to be trusted. ? many adhominem attacks here. thats great and underlines the hypocrisy of your debating style.you now admit the papers were published by vanity press. before you tried to infer they were peer reviewed scientific journals they were published in. more dishonesty. now to Roy .nitrogen is not a forcing agent c02 is . all greenhouse gases absorb radiation [ heat light energy . take your pick ] but they are not forcing agents and are not manmade and thus do not accumulate you do not even understand the basic science behind the climate change water vapour absorbs ”light ” energy. stop playing semantics to cover a flawed argument. but water vapour does not accumulate in the atmosphere and is not a forcing agent as is c02. thats why science is concentrating on c02 emissions duh .Nova would give you a prize for dishonesty. your science is poor. do you still believe volcanoes emit more c02 than man ? do you also believe that the atmosphere has reached ‘saturation point ‘ in relation to c02 absorbtion ? or how about the supposed ”cooling ‘ since 1998. ? you work for the energy industry something you dont openly admit to in this forum. because you know that would undermine your position. another piece of flagrant dishonesty .
00
anne,the ‘logarithmic absorbtion curve ‘ is nonsense. the sceptics handbook has not been scientifically peer reviewed. so its claims have not been verified. also realise that the book [ in the us ] was produced and distributed by the heartland institute. an organisation that receives funding from exxon. the books principal market are schools. obviously the adult market was too hard to crack? it is the gullible older generation that are the main problem. reading a publication aimed at impressionable youngsters is not going to improve your knowledge in the area. i suggest you check out the oss foundation site for proper science. you owe it to future generations.. and roy, if the findings of every major scientific body on the planet cannot convince you of climate change. the mountains of peer reviewed supportive evidence , and the complete lack of alternative answers for the present warming [ that is fact by the way, even admitted by the energy industry ] by deniers. there is no hope for you . you can play semantics and quote from junk science publications all you want. but it makes for a futile and intellectually bereft situation for those of us who are serious about the matter
00
sceptic,
Serious don’t count! Correct do count! You ain’t correct!
00
Suddenly — and thanks to none other than the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University — the term “peer-reviewed” has new meanings, including;
“adulterated”
“compromised”
“massaged”
“exclusive”
“pre-determined”
“prejudiced”
“bigoted”, etc.
I hope the situation changes, but for now virtually any white paper or proposition holds as much value as the data emanating from those so-called “climate experts”.
00
Of course the Bible Christians have a similar concept of biblical infallibility and are constantly quoting bits of scripture at one another, although this has not (yet) reached the levels of formalism that Catholics have achieved. Muslims spend half their life memorizing the Koran so they can show their great knowledge by rote recital.
I don’t have a particular personal oar in the debate of who or what is the highest religious authority — scientific skepticism dictates that real world measurements must always be the highest authority. I was merely showing Johannes Olde some reasonably direct evidence of religious authoritarianism (and no doubt others can find much more evidence, the burning/boiling of heretics for example).
00
david, two ambiguous emails out of the 4000 that were stolen does not undermine the scientific argument. there is a mountain of supportive evidence to support climate change. peer review is still the best way to reach the truth. the words mentionedi in the emails that deniers cling too, are ”trick” and hide the decline” the word trick does not have to mean fraud? hide the decline has nothing to do with hiding a decline in temp, since the temperature has not declined. it had to do with data analysis techniques. talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill? why were not the words ‘fraud ‘ mentioned in the other 3998 emails. east anglia is also just one of several such organisations. the individual scientists involved in the so called ‘scandal’ may have had personal issues or may have been playing internal politics. that does not add up to a conspiracy? if data cannot be depended on what data are ;you ‘ using to back your argument against climate change ? let me guess, NONE’. do you believe that volcanoes emit more c02 than man as well? please explain how the warming is taking place, since all natural explanations eg increased solar activity, a change inthe earths orbit etc are not the reasons? i await with baited breath
00
roy, please explain why i am not correct ? please provide all necessary sources and peer reviewed findings to support your claims. i will also ask you to explain what is causing present warming ?serious does count. no one with any scientific credibility would take ‘you ‘ seriously ‘ that is quite an important point in this debate .
00
roy, please comment on the fact that exxon is involved in jo novas book. and that she has previously worked for the energy industry. does that not undermine her objectivity and credibility?also ,what has the levels of nitrogen in the atmosphere got to do with c02 and its correlation with temp ? what has an anecdote about a man trying to fly a plane, got to do with the climate debate ?i have explained why nitrogen is not a problem compared to c02 and methane . what are your comments on that . why is that incorrect ? sorry to put you under pressure by actually having to explain yourself. but they are the rules
00
Let’s see, why are you incorrect? You do not, cannot or will not answer the necessary question, where is the evidence showing that CO2 is warming or even can warm the planet? You eschewed the quite well known logarithmic curve that accurately represents what CO2 can do per new unit added to the atmosphere. The example of Langley vs. the Wright brothers is very appropriate in that it shows just what happened to a man who operated the way you propose, he crashed; whereas two very unlikely men who did good engineering succeeded (read science, engineers are scientists!).
Now please, you are a basket case as far as real world understanding. I need no peer reviewed sources or any sources; neither do I need to explain Joanne Nova. Your side of this argument makes the claim, but we claim nothing. We just ask for evidence from you that supports your claim. The burden of proof is yours not ours. When you can tell me the evidence (empirical evidence) that links CO2 with significant warming of the Earth I’ll talk to you again. Until then — Good by and have a nice day!
00
Interesting question that has come up about how financial input can influence research results. I better leave the East Anglia team to explain that in their own words.
What Kieth Biffra says to Ed Cook about Michael Mann:
What Ed Cook says in reply:
What Michael Mann says when he discovers that Keith is a bit skeptical:
Now what on earth would $hift the per$pective of an intelligent re$earch $cienti$t so a$ to leave him $trangely unable to objectively evaluate?
00
This one has got to be at least as good as “hide the decline”:
From 1225026120.txt
00
david walker ”any white paper or proposition holds the same value as the data emanating from ‘so called ” climate experts?” thats a plainly stupid comment .. the predictions the climate experts have made are unfortunately coming true . extreme weather is but one prediction they made. flooding, drought are others . the experts you deride are on the ball and evidence is accumulating. not that they need anymore . its obvious to anyone with a brain we are in trouble . i’d rather read the emails from the energy industry to people like fred singer. that would really be a conspiracy
00
the burden of proof as you put it , is on both sides. the warming of the planet is obvious and the data is provided by any number of respected sources eg. the world meteorological org, the uk met org and nasa. how much more evidence do you need? no amount of evidence would convince you as you are ideological and not scientific. you cannot answer even the most basic question on the subject eg, please explain the increase in world temperature? taking e mails or comments out of context proves nothing . the scientific consensus is clear . you have not one iota of evidence to support your claim that present warming is natural. ”you need no peer reviewed sources. ? if you want to put forth an explanation as opposed to just criticising the small areas that can be disputed, because not all is known about the complexities of climate, you do need credible sources. .you have absolutely nothing to offer but silly conspiracy theories. as far as c02 is concerned ever wonder why venus [ our sister planet ] as an atmosphere 97% c02 and temp exceeding 750 degrees. is that just a coincidence ? or must one go to venus to be absolutely sure ?is that just circunmstantial? you are in the same mould as a creationist. they think that by nitpicking evolution that proves that a big man in the sky made the world? nothing could be further from the truth. and that is same lack of logic you have
00
”you claim nothing roy ”?? yes you do. you claim that c02 does not warm the planet, that volcanoes emit more c02 than humans, that the planet is not warming, that the planet has not warmed since 1998, that the hottest day on record was in 1934, that present warming is completely natural, regardless of offering no evidence of how this is taking place? ?you have a lot to say . but it is all incorrect. a strong opinion can be formed by circumstantial evidence. the police use dna evidence, fingerprinting etc to build a rock solid case to find a person guilty of a crime. using your logic all murderers must be innocent as only a tiny percentage were actually seen to committ the murder.scientific opinion on climate change can be circumstantial and yet be extremely convincing. you have neither empirical or circumstantial evidence to support your argument. just a dishonest debating criteria and a silly conspiracy theory that all scientists are frauds. if the case for climate change is even 1% accurate you would have to be an idiot not to address the problem. the planet needs a clean up regardless . and that means getting rid of fossil fuel
00
what does the logartihmic curve show roy? certainly not the conclusions you need to support your argument in relation to c02? its not the curve i question but the interpretation given to it. if its in jo novas book i would certainly question the science of the interpretation. her understanding of climate and the atmosphere is poor at best. her book is full of cliched denier arguments that have already been tackled . its the old mantra keep repeating a lie and sooner or later people will believe it. do have any sources with some credibility?
00
roy, been studying those emails. they show normal personal interaction between a couple of individual scientists. no mention of the word ‘hoax ‘ anywhere. i dare say if anyones emails were hacked into they would come off looking at the very least, imperfect. isaac newton had a similar ‘exposure ‘ with recently discovered private letters. it has done nothing to undermine the laws of gravity. you are clasping at straws if you think 10 year old emails taken out of context, undermine the vast body of work done by climate scientists. the simple facts we need to understand is 1/ c02 is a powerful green house gas and a forcing agent. 2/ mankind has produced enormous amounts of c02 for the lasr two hundred years. it is therefore logical to assume that we are contributing to warming. skeptics provide no other verifiable explanation for the warming? you can play semantics and silly buggers but that is it in a nutshell
00
OK then.
Tel conveniently points out right from the pen of Michael Mann that Mann was disturbed by the lack of warming starting (by the best dating I can find) in 2001. Mann then goes on to announce that he was going to omit certain data from his talk to avoid the embarrassment to his financial support. You should be embarrassed yourself to claim that these emails mean nothing.
Now let us assume for the sake of argument that warming has/is/will occur. I cannot explain that. And my problem is that neither can you or anyone else. No credible (empirical) link has ever been made between any phenomenon on the planet and CO2. Everything else is just chaff thrown up to distract from this one important point.
If you want to argue about volcanic vs. human produced CO2 then produce some numbers and their source. But again, it’s just chaff.
The statement that…
is refuted by the logarithmic curve and the currently known concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. These things are a matter of the physics of the gas itself and remain immutable. CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas at this point and gets weaker on a daily basis. Physical laws are what they are. But then you have no interest in facts, just reason and logic.
You are a man in an empty suit.
THEORY: as CO2 concentration increases the temperature of the planet must also increase.
FACT: CO2 has steadily increased yet the small amount of warming that could be shown (by cherry picking measurement start dates by the way) stopped in 2001. We are in fact now experiencing cooling.
I can’t explain any of that and neither can you. The jump from, “Oops, it’s warming,” to, “CO2 did it!” is the biggest non sequitur in history.
NOTE: if you were to show the necessary evidence and it could stand up under examination I would be in your camp. I’m not a blind man. Reason and logic help you determine what you need to investigate. But then you must do the investigation and either prove or disprove your theory (my Langley vs. Wright brothers illustration). So far the investigation into, “CO2 did it!” has failed to prove that theory.
Now this ends here for me!
00
“sceptic” — you are failing standards of logic reason and manners. This is the only warning you will get. Ad hominem arguments are fallacious, there is no point in letting you comment here if you don’t realize that AND you are not polite. I know you must read websites which call us “deniers”, but unless you can name that paper we deny, then it’s just bully boy namecalling, and just because it’s common doesn’t mean it’s ok. IF you acknowledge that “denier” is a baseless insult, and lift your standards you may continue to post. If you don’t you will be placed in the moderation queue, a place easy to get out of for anyone with preschool manners, but a place from which few rude fans of witchcraft manage to escape.
Unless of course, you are just another version of the fake David Browm again.
02
I am impressed … in a sort of “back-to-front” way … that one little man can put so many logical fallacies in two posts (#320 & 321):
1) “the burden of proof as you put it , is on both sides.”
No it most emphatically isn’t. Your side made a claim without empirical evidence to back it up. You want our money. We are not making any counterclaims, we simply want a reason. Ergo, no burden of proof on us.
2) “ the warming of the planet is obvious and the data is provided by any number of respected sources eg. the world meteorological org, the uk met org and nasa.”
a) subjective claim based on personal experience (have you asked the people in Northern Europe lately?) b) Argument from Authority.
3) “you cannot answer even the most basic question on the subject eg, please explain the increase in world temperature?”
a) See 1); b) Argument from ignorance
4) “ the scientific consensus is clear” – Argument from Authority.
5) “ you have not one iota of evidence to support your claim that present warming is natural. ” – yawn … see 1)
6) “as far as c02 is concerned ever wonder why venus [ our sister planet ] as an atmosphere 97% c02 and temp exceeding 750 degrees. is that just a coincidence ? or must one go to venus to be absolutely sure ?is that just circunmstantial? you are in the same mould as a creationist. they think that by nitpicking evolution that proves that a big man in the sky made the world”
Irrelevant comparisons and deliberate muddying of the issue.
7) ” you claim that c02 does not warm the planet, that volcanoes emit more c02 than humans, that the planet is not warming, that the planet has not warmed since 1998, that the hottest day on record was in 1934, that present warming is completely natural, regardless of offering no evidence of how this is taking place?
(Yawn again) see 1); and Argument from ignorance.
8) “a strong opinion can be formed by circumstantial evidence.” You’re right there, sceptic, and strong opinions they are indeed on the warmist side. That’s about all they have going for them – opinions.
9) “the police use dna evidence, fingerprinting etc to build a rock solid case to find a person guilty of a crime. using your logic all murderers must be innocent as only a tiny percentage were actually seen to committ the murder.” –More irrelevant comparisons, he’s hanging on by his fingernails now.
10) “ you have neither empirical or circumstantial evidence to support your argument.” See 1) (this is getting tedious, I’m nearly finished)
11) “the planet needs a clean up regardless . and that means getting rid of fossil fuel”
Ah, the piece de resistance! Textbook “cornered rat” alarmist last-gasp, knee-jerk, brainwashed ideological drivel. You’re stuffed, sonny, you’ve run out of arguments so you cough up the old “planet is polluted, we need to change our wicked ways anyway” line. Doesn’t hold water here. Try again.
I rest my case. Good night.
00
anne, i do not want your money. and you know nothing about the science of climate change. the cold snap in europe has to do with the fact that that warming creates more water vapour. in the northern hemisphere in winter this adds up to more ice and snow. all of the extremes in climate [ hot, cold wet and dry ] were predicted by climate science . more evidence that circumstantial evidence is totally valid in creating a strong argument temp measurements by nasa are not subjective. they are based on concrete measurements.circumstantial evidence in relation to building a convincing argument is not irrelevant the evidence that smoking causes cancer is completely circumstantial ? you must also believe that volcanoes emit more c02 than man. what really is tedious is your avoidance of answering a straight forward question. do you think the c02 levels on venus effect the temp there ? if not what causes the heat on venus?. thats another question you will no doubt avoid? your parroting of certain terms like ;;argument from authority ‘ to avoid a question is amusing. and means nothing in a debate. who makes up your rules for debate, the scientologists ?. you use meaningless jargon in the exact same way as they do . instead of getting your knickers in a twist just answer the questions. your adhomonem attacks ‘brainwashed, drivel etc mean you lose the argument accoeding to your own rules of debate. your case needs a rest, a very long one
00
roy, you mention that nitrogen is a green house gas in an earlier post. so you are willing to accept that nitrogen is a greenhouse gas or perhaps water vapour but not c02? that is contradictory . ypu play semantics not science. your views about c02 are disputable by virtually every climate scientist on earth. in your opinion the greenhouse effect is pure theory? again apart from being nonsense is also disputed by scientific consensus. even skeptics admit that the planet is warming. they just do not agree that we are contributing to it ? and like you offer no other explanation for it?the correlation between warming and c02 though circumstantial is extremely convincing. again look at venus?we are not experiencing cooling as any number of reliable sources continually repeat. if data on the matter is unreliable. what are you basing your cooling claim on? what is your source. according to the world met this is the warmest decade in recorded history. you keep repeating the same piece of misinformation in the hope it will stick? it wont. the present warming is not small when you consider the time frame. an increase of 1 degree when naturally occurring takes thousands of years . the present rise has taken a hundred years. c02 is an important green house gas and its effect is powerful regardless of the amount of it in the atmosphere. where is the data for your claims. again the scientific consensus disagree with you
00
im sorry jo. my apologies for being so abrupt with the truth. maybe you should say something to your protege ann kitty litter about manners. you have her well programmed in avoidance techniques eg ‘ argument from authority ”etc. unfortunately those rules are not recognised by any debating society on earth. i will finish with a compliment. even though i do not take you seriously on a scientific level. judging by your photo, you are quite cute. i hope that makes up for my earlier aggression?
00
ann kitty litter’s list of empty unqualified .statements. that are a very poor substitute for rational argument. 1/ this is getting tedious im nearly finished. 2/ youre stuffed running out of arguments 3/more irrelevant comparisons. hes hanging on by his fingernails now . 4/opinions is all they have going for them.[ the scientists ] 5/ [ yawn ] 6/ irrelevant comparisons 7 / no burden of proof on us 8/ argument from authority 9 / argument from ignorance . note the complete lack of science in her entire comment. also look at her inability to answer one scientifically valid question. the virtual smorgasboard of political statements. the adhominen attacks. and finally her subjective opinion that the deniers do not really need a rational counter argument, they simply need to undermine the climate change argument. by not providing a rational counter explanation they show their intellectual laxity and indeed their intellectual cowardice in not putting forth an argument for scrutiny . ann the scientists may only have an opinion [ backed by overwhelming circumstantial evidence ] you do not even have an opinion? you are the alarmist. talk of one world government conspiracies, economic collapse if we rid ourselves of fossil fuel. its all a communist plot etc.you can yawn ann. but i do not know why you are tired?. its certainly not from thinking. and by the way my fingernails are extremely long. they will see you off quite easily
00
sceptic: unfortunately those rules are not recognised by any debating society on earth.
This is NOT a debating society. We are discussing and analyzing reported science. In analyzing a proposed scientific argument, the identification of rhetorical fallacies is as important if not more so than the identification of errors of fact or computation.
For the details of 42 fundamental rhetorical fallacies or errors in reasoning see:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
I suggest you check your premises.
00
lionel, all discussion, regardless of content can be interpreted as a debate. trying to reach the truth by reasoned and logical process. thats the rules i go by. many on this forum do not .there is little science going on as far as skeptics go. they themselves admit they do not need a counter argument. of the 42 fundamental fallacies or errors in reasoning they adopt 43. i suggest you check what constitutes logical debate. and then maybe we can have one ?
00
My dear little sceptic, you are precious! In your latest rant you have just confirmed all my points. Thank you! At least you provide some light amusement … And better pull those long claws in before they break 🙂
00
anne kitty litter,again you resort to adhominen attacks to cover your lack of a scientific response. you know nothing of climate science . your ignorance in relation to the present cold snap in europe confirms it . how have i confirmed all your points. you do not actually have any real points, just empty political statements ?im still waiting for those answers to the basic questions 1/ how do you explain present warming ? 2/ do you believe volcanoes emit more c02 than man? and 3/do you think there is a link between smoking and lung cancer, seeing that all evidence for it is only circumstantial ?. you do not have to be too sophisticated in your response. i have deliberately chosen two questions that can be answered with a simple yes or a no. dont keep me waiting. my fingernails are unbreakable by the way. i hope you have unravelled those knickers ?
00
the niskor project is in relation to holocaust denial. though it can be used for anything i assume. being logical and using reason is the most effective tool for reaching the truth. i do not deny the holocaust and i reached that conclusion without reading the niskor project findings. i call it commonsense
00
sceptic,
The fact remains that it is you who holds that man is causing catastrophic global warming by emitting CO2 and must drastically reduce his use of fossil fuels. It is therefore your responsibility to support your claim with proof. To ask us to prove it isn’t so is like asking someone to prove climate change is not caused by green unicorns on Venus.
It is not our responsibility to offer an alternative hypothesis about climate nor to prove anything with respect to the issue. We are not asking that the developed nations give up their sovereignty to the UN and transfer the bulk of their productive wealth to the third world. Our request of you or any proponent of AGW (aka Climate Change) is simply: PROVE IT. So far you have done no such thing nor has anyone else.
Unless and until this is done, we have nothing to discuss.
00
lionel, the evidence for climate change is largely circumstantial. that does not mean it is incorrect. the link between smoking and lung cancer is circumstantial. your argument is ‘my uncle fred smoked 60 fags a day and lived to a 100. so that proves that smoking does not cause cancer . obviously that opinion is not based on reason ? the sciences that involve piecing together the history of the world and the universe are largely circumstantial does that mean geology, paleontology, astronomy are fraudulant ? no . if a scientists says to me ‘ c02 absorbs radiation, and the more c02 in the atmosphere means more heat. i would think that is a logical premise. if a scientists says to me increased heat means increased water vapour in the atmosphere which translates to more rain or snow in some areas. and them more rain amd snow falls. that is quite convincing. when i say to you ok what has caused the climate to react this way and you say ‘ i do not know,” yet still argue the point then i think you are irrational.the circumstantial evidence for climate change is powerful and with no alternative explanation from deniers. thats the view i will accept. we cannot wait around for empirical facts. the risk is too high. your conspiracy theory about a communist plot. because that is whats behind denier attitude. is ridiculous. where is ‘your’ empirical ‘ evidence for that ? if the conspiracy was fact copenhagen would have been a success ?
00
lionel. i am not asking you to ‘prove” anything. i am asking you to explain the present warming by natural means. and you cannot ? because there is no natural explanation the science behind climate change is a little more credible than the science of unicorns on the moon. i think you have just contravened one of the findings of the nizkor project ?
00
sceptic: ….if a scientists says…. …..i would think that is a logical premise….
This is not proof of anything no matter how many times its repeated. Its a hypothetical.
Its no better than “If pigs could fly.”
Scientific proof would be established by the following:
1. A clear statement of what is to be proved
2. A clear statement of the mechanism by which 1 is accomplished
3. A demonstration that the specified mechanism can actually function
4. A demonstration that the mechanism is at work in the specific circumstances
5. A demonstration that the effects are sufficient to cause the specified consequences
6. Do the above in full context of human knowledge
For the AGW hypothesis you would have to take into account the Three Laws of Thermodynamics, the Real Gas Laws, and the fact that the so called global warming is happening in the free atmosphere rather than in an enclosed greenhouse.
Do that or admit you cannot prove your case.
00
sceptic: i think you have just contravened one of the findings of the nizkor project ?
Don’t you know or are you just guessing?
00
sceptic,
The case that smoking causes cancer and other diseases correlates with those diseases several thousand percent. And yes we all know that it’s still impossible to use that knowledge to predict or explain any individual case. So if someone smokes and lives to be 100 it means nothing.
Temperatures here on earth are another matter and they do not correlate with CO2 concentration at all. The following is from my post 324.
Next, you accuse me of saying that nitrogen is a greenhouse gas. Better go back and read what you said that I responded to. You argued (wrongly for the global warming debate) that CO2 absorbs heat. And so it does. So does all matter. Put it in a place where it’s colder than its surroundings and it’ll warm up. If the simple ability to warm or cool is a problem for CO2 in the atmosphere then why is it not a problem for nitrogen? That was my question. You didn’t notice that you weren’t playing in the right ballpark. You should discuss the absorption and radiation spectra of CO2 if you want to be playing the right game.
Finally, that many things are circumstantial is true. The idea of “climate change” is not appealing as one of them. To put it in simple terms — what is shown by the changes you can call to my attention? Only that those things are changing. Kinda amounts to, “Roy is here, so Roy is here.”
In the end you betray yourself by the statement…
This is the real goal of a large segment of the AGW world. Humans are themselves a pollutant of a sort, something to be gotten rid of — except of course, you the enlightened ones who will be allowed so you can ride herd over the few miserable humans who remain. Elimination of fossil fuels is a very good way to do what you want. Remove access to cheap energy from any society and watch people die.
I will disclose the energy companies from which I receive funding: NONE!
I will disclose the vested interests I have in this matter: THAT OF A PRIVATE CITIZEN WITH ENOUGH BRAINS TO REALIZE HE’S BEING SCREWED PLUS EDUCATION AND A LONG CAREER THAT GIVES ME THE TRAINING AND ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND (FORGIVE ME) JUST PLAIN GARBAGE!
I would disclose my sources of information but there are simply too many to list, several should be obvious, and I look at the stuff published by your point of view as well, except for Al Gore, who is so lacking in credibility that I just laugh at him.
NOW WHAT ENVIRONMENTAL AND ACTIVIST GROUPS DO YOU BELONG TO? Turnabout is fair play.
00
“sceptic”: you can no longer post without moderation. Your posts will not appear until you meet basic standards of logic and preschool levels of manners. All you need to do is apologize for using the insulting term “denier” and agree not to use it again, OR provide empirical evidence.
1. We have empirical evidence and AGW has been falsified. The hot spot is missing, there is no expanded layer of water vapor, the models are wrong, some AGW scientists have committed scientific fraud, the ERBE data shows the feedback is negative wiping out 2/3rds of the scary predictions.
2. You don’t even have a circumstantial case. A loose correlation that’s present over 150 years, but absent over 500 million years disproves itself.
2. You can’t name any empirical evidence to support your faith. It’s not science.
We don’t need religious rude zealots here.
02
Sceptic (David Browm?) said @ 327:
How exactly does more water vapour in the atmosphere, if that is even true, cause a cold snap?
00
Sceptic,
Here in the southeastern US, a much cooler winter was predicted because 2009 was a relatively cool and very wet year. The autumn was particularly wet, so those of us who’ve lived here for decades understood, “Look out! It’s gonna get cold!” Sure enough, November and December were quite cold; parts of Lousiana and Texas experienced their earliest snows on record; and it appears January 2010 will be the coldest January, since 1940, for this part of the country. On a contemporary basis, there are some records; but I’m pretty neither the cold nor the warmth we’ve had here are unprecedented: It all falls within the norm. But I’m not sure why it’s so predictable here.
The empirical evidence does, indeed, reveal the climate continues to behave in a normal fashion even as man has increased his numbers and his carbon dioxide emissions during the industrial era. Nothing in the climate record suggests that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide causes a warmer climate. There is no evidence that our atmosphere, bombarded by many times the carbon dioxide as has or will be introduced by man, turn the oceans to acid or caused the number of catastrophes predicted by charlatans like Al Gore, Maurice Strong, et al.
00
Actually Langley’s plane was well designed and flew successfully in its initial configuration, several years after the Wrights first flights.
The basic error that Langley made was in using a catapult to launch his plane – but the Wrights did this too, and persisted in it for years. They used a weight attached to a cable, dropped from a tower, to accelerate their flyer.
If Langley had persisted, he would have beaten the Wrights to the invention of the first airplane.
Glenn Curtis later bought the Langley plane and made it fly, with its original engine. Unfortunately, he later improved the engine and this has been used to clain that the original Langley plane was not capable of flight – which is incorrect. Curtis flew it several times.
There were a number of people working on the problems of flight, and the Wrights took credit for work done by others, and held back the progress of the development of the airplane in the USA so much, that all the fighters and bombers used in World War I were not American.
The US government was so concerned by the rapid progress overseas, that they stepped in and forced the Wrights to cross license their patents with other airplane inventors.
And by the way, Alexander Graham Bell invented the aileron (on the west side of the Atlantic). The Wrights persisted in wing warping for many years.
Langley was the first to invent an airplane that could be successfully flown. The Wrights were the first to successfully fly an airplane.
00
Brad,
So does this imply that if Langley had used a catapult that worked more like the Wright’s, which left their machine on a track until it had airspeed enough to fly, his attempt would have been successful?
I’m well aware that the Wrights wanted to make money on their invention and held it very closely for that reason. I’m not aware that Langley’s design ever flew. I’d be interested in the source (always want to learn). In any case, as I pointed out, there are problems with that 4 wing design. I would not want to ever stall a plane that I could not be confident would go down by the nose.
Wing warping and ailerons do the same thing in different ways and both solve the problem of roll control and steering. You change the angle of attack of the wings by one method and do essentially the same with the other. Engineers will yell at me about the details, but both methods worked. Admittedly, the Wright’s methods could not have been used in more rigid airframes. If anything can be said about the Wrights it’s that they finally turned out to be their own worst enemy.
Thanks much for the info. If you have any source material about Langley please let me know.
Best regards
Roy
00
Actually Curtis just put wheels on the Langley plane and flew it conventionally.
http://www.amazon.com/Glenn-Curtiss-Pioneer-Flight-Roseberry/dp/0815602642/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263247293&sr=8-1
is a good book on Curtiss.
00
Thanks,
The one review on Amazon sums up the Curtis contribution to aviation quite nicely. But I didn’t know he teamed up with Bell. I’m ordering the book.
Roy
00
I’ve been browsing online around 3 hours today, yet I never found any interesting article like yours. It is pretty worth enough for my situation. In my opinion, if all website owners and bloggers made good content whilst you did, the web are going to be a lot more useful than.
01
Leo Elshof is not threatening you. Where do you get that idea? I know him. He is an intelligent man who has always had a true concern for our planet since he was young. He just wants people to know the truth and what we need to do to save our planet.
100