JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Another 10 of the Worst AGW papers: Part 3

Guest post by Cohenite

worst scientific papers of 2010 PNAS
To natural born critics AGW is the gift that keeps giving. It would be cruel to say these papers all exhibit unworldly qualities because that is inevitable if your purpose is to generate a virtual reality with computer modeling. But, as the old saying goes, you have to be cruel to be kind; so some of these papers are speculative and unrealistic; others are eristic and the rest egregious in intent or execution. A scientific theory such as AGW is, like all human endeavours, only as good as its best examples; the following papers, all peer reviewed, represent the best of AGW. The papers are in no particular order, or lack thereof, of merit.

Part I and Part II of The Worst Papers according to Cohenite. Conversely: Ten of the best

1. Expert credibility in climate change

William R. L. Anderegga, James W. Prallb, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider 2010    [Link: PNAS]

Consensus is the last refuge of a scientific debate and it has been a mainstay of every media and political commentator with fairy floss between his ears and a desire for the glory of covering the end of the world or saving it. Fortunately a science theory is like one of those black balloons; it only takes one sharp rebuttal to deflate it. The thesis of this paper is preposterous and antiscientific; pro-AGW papers outnumber anti-AGW papers therefore AGW is true; the paper uses consensus to prove consensus; another AGW perpetual machine.

This paper is not just poor, it’s embarrassing that PNAS would even publish it.

2. On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record

Matthew J. Menne, Claude N. Williams Jr., and Michael A. Palecki,  2010  [PDF: NCDC ]

It’s not exactly plagiarism to use someone else’s concept, it’s not unethical to beat someone to publish, it’s not the end of the world to get the point wrong because you use only a minority of the data, even if it appears to vindicate the official point of view about the efficacy of the land based data. But 3 strikes is still 3 strikes.

Anthony Watts replied here:

  1. Menne uses early incomplete data from 43% of the network. It was not quality controlled, and contained errors both in station identification and rating, and was never intended for analysis. The current dataset, at 87% of the USHCN surveyed, has been quality controlled. The early stations were mostly urban and an analysis of all the stations produces very different results.
  2. NOAA/ NCDC said they wanted to cooperate, but then used the data without permission even after Anthony pointed out why any analysis of the small subset would be useless. This speaks loudly about their intent to score scientific PR points rather than quality science. Then they refused to detail their offer in writing, stopped replying to letters, and actively didn’t invite Anthony to review or comment on their analysis. Scientific rudeness doesn’t tell us anything about the climate, but it does tell us that the people behind the Menne et al paper are not working overly hard to get to the impartial truth.

3. Comment on “Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature” by J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter.

G. Foster, J. D. Annan, P. D. Jones, M. E. Mann, J. Renwick, J. Salinger, G. A. Schmidt, K. E. Trenberth, 2009 [PDF]

Dr Foster and his merry band were decidedly unmerry about McLean et al’s paper. Foster was upset because they thought McLean detrended the temperature trend to prove that CO2 did not produce a trend. That would be silly. What McLean did was to detrend CO2 to establish the natural variation of temperature was dominated by natural things like ENSO with a 7 month lag. This was perfectly reasonable; people do the opposite all the time, which is to detrend ENSO so a supposed CO2 trend can be found. What Foster also missed was the significance of isolating natural variation so that its contribution to trend could be analysed. That is natural variation asymmetry all of which is explained in David Stockwell’s excellent comment on the McLean paper.

4 Insufficient Forcing Uncertainty Underestimates the Risk of High Climate Sensitivity

Katsumasa Tanaka, Thomas Raddatz, Brian C. O’Neill, Christian H. Reick, 2009   [PDF]

Equilibrium sensitivity is one of the big hopes for AGW; it says if things are not bad now they will be. Later on. After a cup of tea and a good lie down. The paper starts well: “Uncertainty in climate sensitivity is a fundamental problem for projections of the future climate.” A welcome admission of uncertainty; but then the rot sets in: “The greater the uncertainty that is considered for radiative forcing, the more difficult it is to rule out high climate sensitivity, although low climate sensitivity (< 2°C) remains unlikely.” This is the precautionary principle; we’re not certain about anything, but we’re certain things are going to be bad.

5 The mid-1970s climate shift in the Pacific and the relative roles of forced versus inherent decadal variability

Gerald A. Meehl, NCAR, Boulder, CO; and A. Hu and B. D. Santer, 2008   [Link]

Some serious speculation takes place in this little effort, alternate universes. Meehl and his heavy hitters claim the 1976 climate shift, which is presented by sceptics as evidence that AGW has no effect on temperature, was in fact delayed by AGW and would have happened much earlier. Forget that the ’76 shift dovetails perfectly with PDO and major oceanographic events; forget that for AGW to prolong the advent of the ’76 shift means that AGW would have prolonged a cooling period; this is a major example of 2 dominant modus operandi coming from the AGW camp. Firstly revising the past to be consistent with AGW theory and removing contradictions like the ’76 climate shift. Secondly, claiming major climatic processes as being changed or ‘possessed’ by AGW.

6 Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect.

Arthur Smith. 2008. [PDF]

Arthur is as smooth as his counterpart, Arthur Daley and a formidable scrapper. Unfortunately, the 2 paradigms of his elegant paper are now more Minder than Arthur The first of Arthur’s paradigms is global average temperature [Tave] used as a metric of the Earth’s energy balance [EEB]. In Arthur Daley’s parlance Tave is now flowers and frolics, done over by a little equation: : (A + B)^4 > A^4 + B^4. This equation simply means that changes in the Tave cannot properly represent how much radiation is leaving the Earth because a change in temperature at a cold region has less radiation effect than a temperature change at a warm region. The second of Arthur’s paradigms looking flimsy is that atmospheric pressure does not contribute to atmospheric temperature. Again, another little equation, (PV – nRT), which says the atmospheric temperature at any height is a function of the local pressure, or vertical mass does the trick [thanks to Williamcq and Leonard] There’s still a greenhouse which sets the emission level at the top of the atmosphere like a star on a Christmas tree but like a Christmas tree, the greenhouse effect is supported by a much bigger tree of factors. Straight on gov!

7 Sea Level Response and Impacts of a 1C to 7C prescribed temperature rise by 2100

Sally Brown, Robert Nicholls, Jason Lowe, Jochen Hinkel [PDF]

Climate sensitivity is a bidding war and Sal’s piece is a typical bit of one upmanship. Forget the IPCC forecast of 3.2C with 2XCO2, the sky is now the limit. Sal’s effort is particularly resonant because it looks at the ocean where Cazanave and Ablain have produced papers showing no steric increase in sea level. So, we’re back to square one: Trenberth’s Croix de Coeur, “where’s the missing heat?”

8 An adaptability limit to climate change due to heat stress

Steven C. Sherwood, and Matthew Huber, 2010 [Link]

Forget Sal’s 7C [‘confirmed’ by a crew from MIT no less], she has been raised by this effort of 12C! The only consolation is that at this level of heating there will be plenty of water from the melting poles to cool us down. This is serious scaremongering and it is good to see the name of Sherwood back in the lights.

(So this assumes the worst models are right.and everything after that might make sense if only it wasn’t based on an assumption known to be false.)

9 Weakening of tropical Pacific atmospheric circulation due to anthropogenic forcing

Gabriel A. Vecchi, Brian J. Soden, Andrew T. Wittenberg, Isaac M. Held, Ants Leetmaa & Matthew J. Harrison, 2006 [PDF]

Vecchi is the past master of seeing AGW in the major climate processes; you name it, El Nino, SAM, AMO, the Walker Circulation and he will find it altered due to AGW. David Stockwell summed up the Vecchi logic as this for global temperature (GT) and Walker Circulation (WC):

H1: Increasing ENSO causes increasing GT
H2: Increasing GHG causes decreasing Walker Circulation AND increasing ENSO causing increasing GT

So, has the Walker Circulation declined? No

10 Comment on Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse EFFECTS within the frame of physics

Joshua B. Halpern, Christopher M. Colose, Chris Ho-Stuart, Joel D. Shore, Arthur P. Smith and Jörg Zimmermann, 2010 [Link]

Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner’s [G&T] original paper falsifying the greenhouse effect caused a lot of ripples. It’s probably best thought of as a composite of ideas which cast doubt on the means to measure a greenhouse effect. But since it queried the prevailing orthodoxy it has received the full treatment, culminating in a formal response from Arthur and some other well known luminaries G&T replied to Arthur’s posse and amidst the heated exchanges was this cutting conclusion from G&T’s response to their tormentors: “They do not even define a greenhouse effect that they wish to defend.” Sometimes the most simple things are NOT best left unsaid. So, Arthur, what is the “greenhouse effect”?

I have left out many other worthy contenders. Of special interest are those papers which have a conclusion that is contrary to AGW but where the ubiquitous disclaimer that AGW is still alive and well is included in the paper. AGW may not be real but its influence is.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 7.8/10 (4 votes cast)
Another 10 of the Worst AGW papers: Part 3, 7.8 out of 10 based on 4 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/2423f8t

148 comments to Another 10 of the Worst AGW papers: Part 3

  • #

    Don’t forget “Early emergence in a butterfly causally linked to anthropogenic warming” by Kearney et al.

    here’s the comment at Biology Letters

    See also…Butterfly study: a case study in confirmation bias

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Thanks MarcH; I’d forgotten about that one; I usually follow Karoly’s antics; the Hendrickx analysis really did the job on the butterflies.

    00

  • #
    Gabe

    Cold snap freezes South America – beaches whitened, some areas experience snow for the first time in living memory!

    BYE BYE TO GLOBAL WARMING!!

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/20/cold-snap-freezes-south-america-beaches-whitened-some-areas-experience-snow-for-the-first-time-in-living-memory/

    00

  • #
    Scott

    Nice Cohenite.

    I was going to suggest to Jo that there have been some brillient postings here by a number of people including yourself and George, that would make a nice little booklet all by themselves.

    Keep up the great work.

    00

  • #
    Gabe

    Why I’ll never take my kids to the Chicago Field Museum………….

    Co2 makes poison ivy grow faster This your future!

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/18/why-ill-never-take-my-kids-to-the-chicago-field-museum/

    00

  • #
    Yes but

    Excellent work by Cohenite – in the one post

    (1) demonstrates the meaning of the term faux sceptic

    (2) what he really is worried about

    (3) and completely explains the reason for earthquakes.

    Of course Cohers thinks “submitted” to GRL = published. Call back when you’re in print (and that’s not in E&E)

    00

  • #
    Scott

    yes butt noticed your not published either, so how can you post or is ok for you but not others?

    00

  • #
    Timdot

    Back orf a bit Guv’! Arfa ain’t all that bad!

    As a big fan of British TV, I LOVED the reference to ‘Arfa Daly’ in point 6. Now, where can we put in a big reference to ‘Tezza’. But please, no references to Ford Cortina’s or Jagwa’s…

    This really is becoming a comedy, of errors, isn’t it?

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Luke, you seem to be off your game and you are more esoteric than usual; as well you have been prattling on about Earthquakes a lot; so I checked and you are quite right; AGW does cause Earthquakes:

    http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Yes But,

    Good to see you’ve discovered a spell checker!

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    To have your skill and patience to denounce this tripe. My concern is that taxpayers actually fund these people and these results. When this is finally over how can any of them be employed ever again unless there is a need for laboratory rats or janitors. Imagine a CV with your greatest achievement being to prove a non-event.

    I see over at Anthony’s is the latest GISTEMP showing a lot of cooling AND nearly half a degree cooler than James Hansens best guess. Could it be SC24? Where is David Archibald?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/21/the-satellites-are-missing/#more-22305

    00

  • #
    Yes but

    Cohers [snip]

    But you know I like to keep you up to date. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL043717.shtml Lordy knows what it means.

    I had to laugh loudly at the latest Wattsstupidwithus pronouncement – que? the check the satellite time series – does it go up and down – a duh – yes it does.

    [snip]

    Coho even you must sigh at these antics.
    ______

    As we do at yours:( –Editor

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Nice compilation, Cohenite! I missed quite a few of these. Thanks for the reading list…I just love good fiction with a nightcap before bed. OT, Luke does seem to be on new meds these day, eh? I hope he’s not self-medicating. That’s a worry.

    00

  • #
    Scott

    I thought it was Luke Butt falling off his chair after taking too many of his meds that caused earthquakes.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Pleasure Wes; luke does seem to be invigorated and has posted something resonant; and indeed resonance is what his interesting paper linked to @12 deals with; resonance is the tendency of a system to oscillate with larger amplitude at some frequencies than at others; that long time period frequencies are influencing climate is just starting to filter through the AGW hive mind; the science of harmonics is beyond me [tone deaf] but the concept is equisitely simple; various wavelengths, in themselves occasionally irregular, can enhance and dampen other bigger and smaller wavelengths; what this means is that the climate sensitivity is frequency dependent not attributable to an isolated factor like CO2 which has predictable and montonic properties; Scafetta has looked at this:

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1005/1005.4639v1.pdf

    00

  • #
    Mark

    What about Harry_read_me.text.

    printf,1,’IMPORTANT NOTE:’
    printf,1,’The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density’
    printf,1,’records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer’
    printf,1,’temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set’
    printf,1,’this “decline” has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and’
    printf,1,’this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring
    printf,1,’density variations, but have been modified to look more like the
    printf,1,’observed temperatures.’

    00

  • #
    wes george

    I noticed that too, Cohenite. The paper Luke cites seems to be an admission that the AGW signal (assuming it exists) is swamped by the natural chaotic amplitude of natural climate variation and therefore is totally insignificant. Citing a paper like this is a new trend among the warmists of late. They are slowly backing off the catastrophic part of the AGW hypothesis while continuing to claim they were right all along. (Save face.) I think it has something to do with the Kubler-Ross model of grieving.

    Luke, because he has left a significant trail of comments at Jen’s could probably be studied in relation to the Kubler-Ross model and this might have implications for other metacognitive developmental models as well.

    I think Luke’s well past the first, second and third stages of, respectively, denial, anger and bargaining. And has now entered the fourth stage: Depression. This would explain the shift in the “Yes But” voice towards existential absurdity that you (Cohenite) noticed earlier. Fortunately, the fifth and final stage of the Kubler-Ross model is acceptance. One can only hope.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Yes but

    Ah Wessy Woo – such a tedious opponent? You see but you do not observe, you observe but you don’t understand. You see it goes to the heart of my old climate statis question
    which you misrepresented. Of course Wes you never bothered to ask me what I thought – did you?

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Yes Wes, we can only hope luke is as proficient at Kubler-Ross as Homer:

    Hibbert: There are five stages. First is denial.
    Homer: No way, because I’m not dying.
    Hibbert: Next comes anger.
    Homer: Why you little…
    Hibbert: After that comes fear.
    Homer: (terrified) What’s after fear? What’s after fear?
    Hibbert: Bargaining.
    Homer: Doc, you’ve got to get me out of this. I’ll make it worth your while.
    Hibbert: And finally, comes acceptance.
    Homer: Well, we’ve all got to go sometime.
    Hibbert: Mr. Simpson, your progress is remarkable!

    00

  • #
    Adolf Balik

    Gabe 18:

    Great! I could suit for Jo to update her debunking of Unskeptical Guide.

    00

  • #
    Wayne, s. Job

    Harmonics indeed, all chaos trends toward harmony. Thus we have a universe that seems incomprehensible, with islands of unimagined beauty called galaxies, with myriads of unrepeating patterns. Truely no two snow flakes are the same, yet each is a work of art. Climate is not all that is chaos, for our solar system beats to a cyclic rhythm bombarded by random forces, many not understood, and still more to discover.
    The geological and ice records tell a story of a cycle of chaos tending to harmony, with periods of beauty and stability, overtaken by chaos and back to stability. The universe is self correcting, as is our third rock from the sun. The soothsayers in the above articles, would have achieved a better outcome using the traditional methods, such as the reading of chicken livers or tea leaves. Better results in the past have been gotten by fasting, meditation and the taking of mind altering substances. I’m actually surprised that non of these so called weather guru’s so far have not called for the sacrifice of virgins. Thus far they have blamed us all, and filled our children with guilt, so it is our wealth and our children that we must sacrifice.
    The failure of prophecy in past civilisations often meant the cutting out of the heart still beating on an altar to propitiate the wrathe of the gods. We have moved on a little since that time, but we all still have a bit of the savage inside us, and these disgraceful opportunists need to come eventually to face the realities of their disgrace. Thus far Jo is doing a good job toward this end.

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Cold snap freezes South America – beaches whitened, some areas experience snow for the first time in living memory!

    An amazing number of Australian news reports have been about the heat wave in North America. We normally never see anything related to the weather on the other side of the world but they have been banging hard on the whole heatwave thing.

    This would explain the shift in the “Yes But” voice towards existential absurdity that you (Cohenite) noticed earlier.

    I must admit that I now find it almost impossible to puzzle out what “Yes But” is talking about. Following suggestive inferences in a lateral thinking kind of way has never been a great skill of mine, and I find cryptic crosswords quite frustratingly impossible as well.

    While on the psychology roll, I ran into this link recently –

    http://www.technofascismblog.com/

    I warn the gentle reader that this guy is over the top and sensationalist, but on the other hand he does deliver some kernel of truth about why many people are dissatisfied with technology in their lives. I see this as a bit more evidence for my thesis that the desire behind AGW belief is a desire to shut down the machine, pull the plug on technology. Green power is intended to fail — that’s the whole idea.

    The weirdest thing is that the punk/anarchist movement are so willing to get into bed with the socialist/central-planners providing that bed happens to be painted green. Both of them must be expecting to outsmart the other at the last possible minute; or they just haven’t stopped to consider what they might be doing.

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Cohenite:

    At #15 you say:

    the science of harmonics is beyond me [tone deaf] but the concept is equisitely simple; various wavelengths, in themselves occasionally irregular, can enhance and dampen other bigger and smaller wavelengths; what this means is that the climate sensitivity is frequency dependent not attributable to an isolated factor like CO2 which has predictable and montonic properties;

    Yes. I have repeatedly pointed out the following.

    The global climate system seems to vary in cycles that are overlayed on each other. The cause(s) of these cycles are not known but some suggest these cycles may relate to solar behaviour.

    Several lines of evidence from history and from archaeology suggest there is an apparent ~900 year oscillation that caused the Roman Warm Period (RWP), then the Dark Age Cool Period (DACP), then the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), then the Little Ice Age (LIA), and the present warm period (PWP).

    And the various estimates of mean global temperature (MGT) each suggest there is an apparent ~60 year cycle that provided cooling from ~1880 to ~1910, then warming to ~1940, then cooling to ~1970, then warming to ~2000, then cooling since.

    If these patterns continue then the ~60 year cycle can be anticipated to revert to a warming phase around 2030, and the ~900 year oscillation can be anticipated to revert to a cooling phase during this century.

    So, if these patterns continue, then either
    (a)
    MGT will revert to rising because these two oscillations will both be in a warming phase around 2030,
    or
    (b)
    MGT will fall back to the levels it had in the DACP and MWP because the ~900 year oscillation has reverted to a cooling phase.

    The observed pattern has been used as justification for assertions that emissions from human activity affected MGT during the twentiet century. But there is no evidence for that.

    Indeed, the fact is that the observed warming during the twentieth century is completely consistent with that recent warming being part of the natural variation which gave us the RWP, the DACP, the MWP, the LIA, and the PWP.

    The null hypothesis is that nothing has changed when nothing is observed to have changed. Observations of fluctuations in climate behaviour indicate that nothing has changed as a result of emissions from human activity.

    Richard

    00

  • #

    Two things are worthy of mention; The first is that the AGW-promoting MSM seems to be taking a more cautious approach from their usual blatant silliness.
    The second that I feel is important is that Yes But appears to beoieve that ad hom attacks are rational discussion. His comments rank up there with “you dissed my Mum!”

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Richard, it has been mentioned on other blogs that the “warmista” are desperate to get something done so that when cooling sets in they can tell the peons “see, our ETS/Cap n Trade worked”.

    These scoundrels are all too aware of events like the PDO which is why, for the first time, some are now predicting cooling to 2015. I’d never heard that from them before; heck, most likely someone is slaving away at a history rewrite now to “prove” they predicted it.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Mark, Easterling et al and Keenlyside et al were 2 pro-AGW papers which predicted some cooling up to 2015; I included them in my prior 2 lists:

    “7. Is the climate warming or cooling?
    David R. Easterling, Michael F. Wehner

    http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/csi/images/GRL2009_ClimateWarming.pdf

    The previous Keenlyside et al effort predicted masking of underlying AGW due to SST driven natural variation. Unfortunately, when the ENSO is removed from temperature trends there is no post 2000 underlying AGW;

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/10/temperature-trends-and-carbon-dioxide-a-note-from-cohenite/

    Easterling and Wehner revisit this trainwreck of an idea to prove that future cooling will still have underlying AGW. Their null hypothesis [NH] really settles the matter. The NH is that there will be an “equal percentage of statistically significant positive and negative trends” [p6]. This is high order virtual reality; the concept of the 100 year flood explains why. Pacific Decadal Oscillation [PDO] climate phases have greater probability of floods during a negative phase during which time [about 30 years] there may be several 1 in 100 year floods. During the positive, El Nino dominated PDO phase there will most likely be no 1 in 100 year flood.

    The same principle applies to temperature. Positive PDOs will have increasing temperature trends and vice-versa for negative PDOs. The paper doesn’t consider ENSO at all apart from an admission that it is not modeled well [p6]. Table 1 shows more positive temperature trends in the 20thC. This was due to positive PDO dominance not, as the paper claims, AGW. Still, it’s a great title.”

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Yes but,

    You have used “onanism” over and over on this blog. Tell me something: is your descent into brutish behavior a recent thing or have you always been that way? Enquiring minds want to know.

    00

  • #

    On Luke: I don’t think “acceptance” is coming.
    There is another path – Denial to Delusion.

    00

  • #

    [...] LINK AKPC_IDS += "3232,";Popularity: unranked [?] (No Ratings Yet)  Loading … [...]

    00

  • #
    Reed Coray

    I’ve partially broken the code. Maybe Joanne’s readers can finish the code breaking. “Yes But” is either

    (a) Joanne using a pen name to make CAGW supporters look silly, or

    (b) One of the proverbial “Shakespeare Monkeys” that transitioned from a typewriter to a computer.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Great job Mr. Cohenite. Thank you for the effort!

    00

  • #
    Yes but

    “Is your descent into brutish behavior a recent thing or have you always been that way?”

    Well Roy – only since having been exposed to the mischief, lies and abuse of sceptics. And mild in terms of what I have been accused of in reverse.
    You see you lot have decided your “opponents” are sub-human and trashed your genuine claim at scepticism by indulgent behaviour with your own lot.
    You’ll accept any old rot from your supporters. Utter paff is fine. Anyone can play – simply publish an idea on the web site and claim it’s science.
    Your defence is that there is a conspiracy to stop you publishing and you have secret inside knowledge that nobody else does.

    Brutish behaviour – nah – go read Eddy’s abuse – I’m just taking the piss. And just morphing what you want me to be.

    Look at Coho’s willful and deceitful misrepresentation of papers 5 and 9 here for example. What revisionist drivel. Meehl’s paper at 5 is incredibly interesting from a very experienced researcher. Not that any of you even noticed them. But what would you expect from a lawyer with a bee in his bonnet. Alas winning legal cases has nothing to do with truth.

    I notice Julia Gillard will be suggesting 150 Australians be selected at random to “be convinced about AGW and the need for action” should she win !
    If they’re not convinced – there is a lack of community support.
    You guys should be very happy with that.
    The probability of them being convinced is low – why as the climate issue is too complex, too science-laden, long time scale for most people to make sense of.
    Your sense of risk depends on your exposure and knowledge of climate events. Your age and date of birth relative to PDO cycle is another.
    Most of us aren’t good at probability for a start.
    And the time scale is another issue – realistically we’re talking decades for trends to emerge from the fog of natural variation.

    So cognitive dissonance and self interest being what it is – a “not sure” vote is assured.

    What would be more informative is to pit an Establishment science A team against a Sceptic B team for a few months. But both sides will have to pick their act up – a much as you will pick them up on things – they will take a meat axe to some of the denialist crap that masquerades for science comment.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Well Roy – only since having been exposed to the mischief, lies and abuse of sceptics. And mild in terms of what I have been accused of in reverse.
    You see you lot have decided your “opponents” are sub-human and trashed your genuine claim at scepticism by indulgent behaviour with your own lot.
    You’ll accept any old rot from your supporters. Utter paff is fine. Anyone can play – simply publish an idea on the web site and claim it’s science.
    Your defence is that there is a conspiracy to stop you publishing and you have secret inside knowledge that nobody else does.

    Brutish behaviour – nah – go read Eddy’s abuse – I’m just taking the piss. And just morphing what you want me to be.

    As I remember it you began with a rather scornful demeanor and it went downhill from there. In any case, you must take up Eddy’s behavior with him, not with me. And your complaint above is just plain dishonest.

    Your references to masturbation are lower than the bottom of the barrel and you are by far the worst potty-mouth to have descended on this blog. And Eddy’s behavior cannot be used to justify yours any more than yours can be used to justify his.

    You aren’t even amusing anymore because all you say is a repeat of what you’ve already said. You have nothing useful to say and use up a ton of words saying it.

    I find you not only totally offensive but also boring and no matter how others decide to treat you (they have that freedom without complaint from me!) I’m not afraid to say what I think. You are an offense to common decency!

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    What would be more informative is to pit an Establishment science A team against a Sceptic B team for a few months. But both sides will have to pick their act up – a much as you will pick them up on things – they will take a meat axe to some of the denialist crap that masquerades for science comment.

    I’d like to see that too. Skeptics have been clamoring for just such debate for literally years. But where is your “A” team? What rock do we have to roll over to find them? What basement do we have to search to find their hiding place?

    It would seem that you don’t have one.

    If we could I’d do it in a big theater with a big audience. We would poll the audience attitude about the subject before the debate and record the result. Then give each side, say 20 minutes to present their case, believers first since they are the ones demanding action and the burden of rebuttal falls on the skeptics. Then poll the audience attitude about the subject again afterward.

    The debate I saw done this way showed a rather surprising reversal of audience opinion toward the skeptical side.

    Are you still sure you want to do such a debate?

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Yes But @33,

    you lot have decided your “opponents” are sub-human

    Yet another implied reference to holocaust denial. “Yes But”, You are an inconsequential waste of space. Your arguments have the maturity of playground politics.

    Stop wasting our electrons and hang out with the other oxygen thieves -or are you not welcome there either? Maybe even RC find you’re a waste of space – and that’s saying something!

    00

  • #
    Ross

    “I notice Julia Gillard will be suggesting 150 Australians be selected at random to “be convinced about AGW and the need for action” should she win !
    If they’re not convinced – there is a lack of community support.”

    Yes But — you must be taking the p…s with this. A PM of Australia cannot be serious about such a stupid suggestion.If she is then Australian politics has sunk very low ( NB I’m not an Aussie ).

    While on politics I note Brown is already flexing his muscles by saying the Greens will force Gillard to drop her modified mining tax proposal and have a much higher tax rate when they get control of the Senate.

    00

  • #

    ‘eristic’ – 1. a person who engages in logical disputes; a controversialist
    2. the art or practice of logical disputation, esp if specious

    I didn’t know a name existed for people like that. I had to make up one of my own for a work colleague (identity concealed).

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    From ABC News:

    A re-elected Labor government would ask a new “citizens’ assembly” for climate change advice, under a key part of the ALP’s new climate change policy set to be launched by Prime Minister Julia Gillard today.

    The ABC understands Ms Gillard will outline plans to set up a committee of scientists to advise the Government on climate change.

    The committee will be paired with a citizens’ assembly, consisting of 100-200 volunteers who will gauge feeling of the community on its attitude towards putting a price on carbon, and feed it back to the Government.

    What chance people such as “Jo” will be invited to join the citizens assembly or that Bob Carter will be invited onto the committee of scientist.

    Just another BS smokescreen.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Acknowledged. I note the publication years and would submit that there has not been much public discussion. Cynicism might suggest that these papers could be “powder” to be kept dry or “covering all bases”.

    Once again, thanks for the info. All grist for the mill.

    .

    00

  • #
    wes george

    “What would be more informative is to pit an Establishment science A team against a Sceptic B team for a few months…”

    What a great idea! Let’s have a National Live ABC TV Climate debate during prime time. It could go on for a 2 hours a night for a week. After all climate change is the great moral morass of our age. It’s too important to play weasel words with any longer. The time to act is now! Let’s settle this debate so we can once and for all get down to saving the planet from something! Before we pass another tipping point!!!

    (sound of crickets)

    What? The unskeptical scientists won’t step forward?? The ABC’s air time is all booked up until 2017?? The Ministry for Climate Fabulation isn’t answering the phone?? . Gillard’s people say maybe but only in the Master Chef time slot…for ten minutes…and with no skeptics present???? Bob Brown says rational debate is unjust discrimination and he won’t tolerate it??

    The only scientists willing to debate AGW are the skeptics. I wonder why?

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Roy Hogue:

    In #35 you suggest a debate of a particular kind.

    I participated in a debate similar to that which you suggest that was held on Wednesday 4 March 2009 at the St Andrews University Debating Society. The motion was, “This House Believes Global Warming is a Global Crisis”.

    However, no members of a pro-AGW ‘A’ Team were willing to take part (to the surprise of the debate’s organisers) and a pro-AGW ‘Z’ Team was assembled.

    The anti-AGW Team expected to win the arguments (all the evidence supports our case) but to lose the vote because the students have been exposed to a lifetime (i.e. their short lifetime) of pro-AGW propaganda.

    In the event, we won both the arguments and the vote.

    My account of the event can be read at
    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2938

    Richard

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    luke@ 33; I have discussed at length with you the Meehl and Vecchi ‘concepts’ [for indeed they are speculative ideas]; Meehl’s is simply beyond the pale, Veechi’s is a tautology expressed thus; CO2 affects climate therefore climate is affected by CO2: if you assume that CO2 is determining climate patterns then the maco-climate patterns ‘must’ have CO2 fingerprints on them; it’s just that in the real world the fingerprints aren’t there, at least by any reasonable standards.

    This morning I listened to Senator Milne opining about the urgency to do something about AGW; she said she had been listening to the scientists who had said this year was the hottest year EVER and that it soon would be too late. She’s right; pro-AGW scientists are saying that and it is scaremongering; unfortunately reasonable papers get caught up in this such as Pinker’s, but Meehl’s and Vecchi’s papers are not reasonable.

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Game changer????

    “She (Gillard) will argue that climate change action will transform the nation so profoundly that it is too important to be left only to politicians, with changes “made and unmade on the oscillations of the political pendulum”.

    Although she will not outline fine details about the Citizens’ Assembly, including its cost or when and how it would meet, the concept appears similar to Mr Rudd’s 2020 summit talkfest, where he invited movers and shakers from across the nation to discuss ideas for the future.

    Critics of that process said it produced little beyond opportunities for Mr Rudd to be photographed with invited celebrities and business leaders.

    However, the Prime Minister’s speech says to be truly representative, the commission’s members will be chosen by “an independent authority” using census data or the electoral roll.

    This should not just be a debate between experts,” the speech says. “It must be a real debate involving many real Australians.

    “It will not convince everybody, and I will not allow our country to be held to ransom by a few people with extreme views that will never be changed.

    “But I want to see a process that directly involves a representative range of ordinary Australians.

    “And if I am wrong, and that group of Australians is not persuaded of the case for change, then that should be a clear warning bell that our community has not been persuaded as deeply as required about the need for transformational change.”

    The Citizens’ Assembly will be able to reference the work of an independent panel of experts — the climate change commission — which will explain climate change science and report on progress in international action.”

    Very interesting…

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/gillard-seeks-new-climate-consensus/story-fn59niix-1225895842020

    00

  • #
    Yes but

    Roy – don’t be such a … errr ummm … “tosser”. Roy – did you complain about Eddy’s behaviour. No – you great big HYPOCRITE !

    I tender Madjak as the next example of “behaviour” – I’ve now just been verballed for holocaust denial. Sheesh !

    And Roy another example for sheer wankery – “Cynicism might suggest that these papers could be “powder” to be kept dry or “covering all bases”.”

    And no Roy – this won’t be a 20 minute debate for posers and show ponies. We’re talking weeks of science review. Who will come – all those science staff who are not media personalities that you have never heard of. Nobody from Greenpeace or WWF. Who will come from the sceptic side – well what a joke eh? Suggest the names ! ROFL.

    Wes – let the scientists off their managerial leashes and you should be very concerned. Put on your flak jacket and fasten your seat belt. Will you be putting yourself up for the sceptic defence side? You’ve never been to a science review have you Wes?

    And Wessy Woo – they’re a dour lot here on blog aren’t they. You appreciate onanistic humour “Why is onanism like climate simulation modelling – Ans: An essentially harmless and pleasurable activity – but not be confused with the real thing” Boom Boom.

    00

  • #
    Yes but

    Wes – the panel is designed to get a “no” or “unsure” answer. You should be very happy.

    00

  • #
    Scott

    Hey look Luke Butt is back dribbling again. are you meds on or off this morning?

    I can only relate Lukes ravings to the propaganda that came out of Germany during the 30′s and 40′s. Dont use any facts just B.S. known as propaganda to drive your agenda.

    Same result people died due to that propaganda at least we have some hope of stopping the same outcome by speaking out against AGW.

    00

  • #
    janama

    We’re talking weeks of science review. Who will come

    what’s with the “we” luke? “who will come?” – shouldn’t that be “who will go?” so you are where they will go? – do you work for Penny Wong Luke?

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    In the event, we won both the arguments and the vote.

    Richard,

    In spite of certain people, the world is full of those who can think for themselves. Isn’t it amazing?

    Roy

    00

  • #
    Alan McIntire

    Thanks, Cohenite! I had seen most of those papers debunked previously at one of the sites linked here,

    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/

    but it was amusing to be reminded of them, especially that ultra- silly “heat stress” paper at number 8.

    Regarding the “best” papers, this one on negative cloud feedback over geological time is one of my favorites:

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282001%29014%3C2976%3APBOTES%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    Possible Bounds on the Earth’s Surface Temperature: From the Perspective of a Conceptual Global-Mean Model*

    Hsien-Wang Ou,

    And I remember reading about negative feedbacks keeping our climate relatively stable in “Scientific American” back in the early 1980s, back when the magazine was both Scientific and American. I finally found the paper the article referred to:

    http://users.unimi.it/paleomag/geo2/Walker+1981.pdf

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Yes but,

    Ask Eddy and he will tell you that I did ask him to change his language.

    In the meantime, don’t be so cocksure of any debate outcome. Your bluster will not influence what others think of what they hear in such a debate.

    See post 42 for an object lesson in humility.

    You still have nothing to say and still spend endless time saying it.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Yes but,

    There have already been literally years of science review and that jury is in. The verdict is that you lose.

    So now you’re afraid of the debate that counts, the public one in which you have to put up or shut up, do or die. So you’ll dodge that, hide from it and make any flimsy excuse for your failure to meet the challenge.

    For someone who talks so big you sure are a small performer.

    00

  • #

    Yes but:
    July 23rd, 2010 at 6:02 am

    Brutish behaviour – nah – go read Eddy’s abuse – I’m just taking the piss. And just morphing what you want me to be.

    Just taking the “piss”? I just thought you were a sadomasochist who was too poor to pay for the abuse so you come here expecting to get it for free! I hope you read this before you pass out on your keyboard. Maybe you should try alcoholics anonymous? Perhaps there is a twelve step program for trolls?

    Every time you post you embarrass the pro AGW team and you convert more people to the skeptics side. I have mixed emotions on the matter. Sure, you need help but then again you do a great amount of good for the skeptic’s cause via your incoherent ramblings. It’s analogous to watching you go off a cliff in my brand new 4X4 pick up truck. I really would feel bad about the truck. ;)

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Yes But,

    Stop playing the innocent martyr, you fool.

    From a thread a couple of days ago said:

    ooooo Mummy – they called me a denialist

    I then show this link which not only proves his command of the english language is poor, but also that the word is automatically referring to holocaust denial as this link clearly demonstrates.

    Obviously you didn’t get the message, maybe your comprehension skills were lacking?

    And now today he spouts some more callous implications:

    you lot have decided your “opponents” are sub-human

    So “yes but”, your continued attempts to belittle and cheapen the suffering and death of over 6 million people by the Nazis during WW2 to try and make some sort of pathetic point shows how much contempt you have for their suffering and persecution.

    Indeed, to me it shows how ignorant you are of history and how little respect you have for the victims of war and persecution.

    Your behavior disgusts me, as I am sure it does others and as such you should be left on the fringe to prattle your useless incoherent mantras elsewhere.

    Thank you and have a nice day!

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Alan @ 50, thanks for that cloud paper link.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    The latest Gillard random 150 (I see some comedy coming, being half of the 300) is a classic example of policy on the run.

    The cynic in me hardly believes these names will be random… what if an outspoken AGW type or critic came out of the draw? No doubt they would have to redraw. Then what evidemnce are they going to be exposed to, and framed by whom? Nothing useful could possibly come out of such an exercise.

    The only way they could make this sillier would be to “”Big Brother” the whole 150… vote them out week after week and the winner determines the policy… seriously.

    Abbott (who must be due at 6PR… I walk past it in the morning and minders were out there & a camera crew) needs to take direct action on climate policy. In this way he can show himself to be a leader rather than a wishy-washy waffler.

    The irony is, that despite all the failings of the past year, and the threat of completely new ones, I don’t think the libs can unseat Labor. Big Ears in the budgies is just too unpopular.

    00

  • #
    John Watt

    Gillard clearly believes the message of these ten misleading papers and will bring out some scientific glitterati to impress that belief on 150 randomly selected Australians. Then she will use this impressed belief as some form of persuasion to introduce a carbon price. She also suggested that coastal Queenslanders will need to give Noah a job if we don’t adopt her beliefs.

    Sounds like an invitation to put Carter,Plimer, Monckton,Svensmark,Watts,Nicol and Co in front of a similar congregation and see who does the better job of explaining the usefulness of a carbon price.

    00

  • #
    spangled drongo

    cohers

    Great stuff, and thanks for pulling Luke’s butt off Jennifer’s blog.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I see a bit of sanity has stayed the US climate bill:

    http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/7633811/us-climate-and-energy-bill-delayed/

    Perhaps this is the political leverage required to put a halt to the insanity Labor would wish us to pursue.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Got to laugh .. there is early consensus on the Gillard 150 at the SMH (not exactly known as being a hotbed of skeptics):

    http://www.smh.com.au/polls/federal-election/climate-policy-citizens-assembly/20100723-10nea.html#poll

    6654 votes in when I looked and exactly 90% said the policy was a load of “hot air.” I guess she is contributing to the problem…

    00

  • #
    wes george

    One of luke’s favorite tactics is to pretend that every post is his first. Thus he barrels in stoned one day calling everyone a dirty stinking whatever. The next thread when he gets a less than pleasant reception. It’s — AH HAH! See I knew it. You people don’t want a fair and rational debate all you want to do is insult innocent little me, bearer of the holy orthodox truth….

    This is a reoccurring theme in the climate debate. It’s similar to the claim that the skeptics aren’t serious because they rarely publish peer review papers. Of course, we’re all suppose to pretend that we don’t all know that the purlioned CRU emails discuss tactics to keep papers that don’t support the AGW hypothesis out of the journals.

    Maybe it’s just garden variety hypocrisy….but it’s so common among the unskeptical…. My favorite illustration of the idiotic hypocrisy of the unskeptics was when Al Gore, James Hansen and Clive Hamilton all wrote or spoke words calling for “civil disobedience” in the name of direct action on climate change. Then only weeks later their sanctimonious call to arms was answered by the courageous unknown climate hero who liberated the CRU emails!

    ROTFL. It still slays me just to remember it today ;-)

    Gosh, it was hilarious to watch the unskeptics (including Luke) trip over themselves calling for a International manhunt to capture the Climategate hacker/mass murderer who had violated the sacred privacy of institutional listservs. So much for civil disobedience. Clive even went on to write articles about how life threatening it is to be a climate scientist today!

    Luke, far from being an anomaly is a robust example of climate unskeptics everywhere.

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Hi, Spangles ;-) Long time no see! Your icon looks just like you.

    00

  • #

    Julia Gillard’s 150 citizens thing is just another consensus that has no influence on warming or not. I don’t care if they are convinced or not, it has no bearing on the facts – if the world is really warming uncontrollably and we are in danger, then the evidence would easily point to that, we would all be able to clearly understand it and there would be very little debate on the matter.

    As it doesn’t (yet – this may possibly change, it may not) and debate is still very much alive, then the only thing we can do is more science to find out.

    Precautionary principal actions born from a lack of understanding and high uncertainty are very misguided, even negligent.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    The poll is cruising to 8000 votes and still 90% think Joolya’s consensus of the 150 is rubbish.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    The piece I read made it sound like the 150 would not be used to decide science, but to gauge public opinion based on a sample who are then presented will all sides of the debate. These kind of citizens jury are interesting and useful, but personally I hope they don;t get used to actually decide policy ahh well.

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Got to laugh .. there is early consensus on the Gillard 150 at the SMH (not exactly known as being a hotbed of skeptics):
    http://www.smh.com.au/polls/federal-election/climate-policy-citizens-assembly/20100723-10nea.html#poll
    6654 votes in when I looked and exactly 90% said the policy was a load of “hot air.” I guess she is contributing to the problem…

    Bulldust, is it any wonder the AGW faith-based choir are skeptical of what amount to a public inquiry? It’s early days with Julia Gillard’s new approach to actually staging a transparent climate forum of some kind.

    Nevertheless, it seems that it will be difficult to rig sufficiently to silence the skeptical scientists and public. Any half way fair and open public debate will absolutely demolish the unskeptical AGW camp. This could be the final death knell….simply bring all the hidden facts (by the media and taxpayer funded ABC) out into the light of day and let the public rationally compare the arguments side by side and then decide for themselves!

    The late Steven Schneider argued that allowing the skeptics a voice on climate policy was…

    It is completely inappropriate, if there’s an announcement of the new cancer drug for pediatric leukemia [with] a panel of three doctors from various hospitals, to then give equal time to the president of the herbalist society, who says that modern medicine is a crock. They wouldn’t even put that person on the air…

    http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/20/stephen-schneider/

    This is the unskeptical consensus’ false rationale behind allowing the ABC to not report on Climategate or anything else skeptical of the orthodoxy. If Julia really does allow an open public debate in a national forum, it will be a game changer. Actually, it will also be a game changer if she doesn’t allow a fair debate, because then everyone will know that it’s really about an Orwellian indoctrination towards collectivism, afterward which comes the suspension one by one of our civil liberties, all for the good cause of saving mother earth, mind you.

    Like Luke said a rational expose of the facts surrounding the AGW debate won’t convince the public that we need to “transform our society” by transferring more power over our lives to Canberra.

    The light of reasoned rational debate is the greatest fear of the unskeptics.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “The late Steven Schneider argued that “… didn;t he also argue that normal people were not in a position to judge… and wasn;t that opinion slammed in the skeptical blogosphere… thus I await the joyous cheers in support of Gillard’s new proposal.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Bulldust @57,

    From Senator Kerry comes the typical complaint:

    “What you’re seeing is classic special interest resistance,” Kerry said at a town hall meeting earlier on Thursday. He urged his supporters not to get discouraged but to take part in a grass-roots effort to drum up support.

    Translated:

    These bozos don’t know what’s good for them. We do and they better knuckle under before we let loose our attack dogs on them.

    If arrogance was fatal the whole political left would soon be six feet under. What is he but another special interest?

    00

  • #
    Yes but

    More abuse from faux sceptics. Roy I rest my case.

    It’s surprising that you lot find yourselves alone locked in your echo chambers back-slapping each other and knifing the odd interloper.

    If you were any good – you’d get organised and ask for the full science review with CSIRO and BoM with independent (if such a person(s) exist) umpire to adjudicate.
    You’d spruce yourselves up and start to look serious. You’d be bagging bullshit arguments from your own side.
    You’d be also interested in the opinions of your opponents and reasons they believe what they do.

    All you’re doing is being towed around in the wake of the mainstream science. You’re not making policy – you’re just reacting.

    Really you’re just a rabble. A veritable lynch mob in fact. Why aren’t you any better?

    _____
    If you want to be treated politely, all you have to is be polite. — Editor

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Yes, but, but, but….

    CSIRO and BoM and independent in the same breath? CSIRO and BoM are not stupid, and they know where their funding comes from. I would not accuse them of outright lies, but they certainly wordsmith their documents to support the Government’s policy stance. I have personally demonstrated that a few times regarding BoM’s climate assessment reports. Go have a look at the slanted perception they portray when talking about Australia’s rainfall, for instance.

    They know not to anger their political masters.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Bulldust

    Roy @ 68:

    I think we all intrinsically understand the problem with the political system. Politicians are merely the end result of what it takes to get to the top of the political heap in their respective countries. Invariably that involves a lot of shady backroom deals, vested interests, lobby group influence, etc… This is why I liked the Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy approach… the best possible leader is teh person who least wants the position. how true, but how unfortunately unpractical.

    The main advantage of the political system in Australia is that the terms are short compared to the USA. We can toss the idiots after 3 years if they screw up… assuming their parties and backroom powerbrokers don’t get to them first, as in Rudd’s case.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Oh and I forgot… CSIRO appointed a new Chairman or Managing Diecctor… I forget the title of the top job. Turns out he is a former MacQuarie banker with no science background… not suss at all /whistle.

    00

  • #
    Steve Smith

    Hi Jo;

    On another topic I read your comment

    “I’m aware of criticisms of Lindzen and Choi, but I’ve seen the update for 2010, and the results still suggest feedback is negative.”

    Can you provide a link for this update?

    Thanks

    Steve

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    I’d have to add the 1987 Hansen, Lebedeff paper justifying the use of homogenization.

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1987/Hansen_Lebedeff.html

    This was the origin of those plots where the color change was at -0.5C to make any warming look larger. The paper also mostly ignored ocean temperature data and is where the use of island data to represent 1000 km of ocean originated.

    Another candidate is the 1988 Schlesinger paper (first published as a DOE report in 1985 and reviewed by MacCracken), which introduced the idea that sensitivity, gain and related concepts should be expressed in units of degrees per watt/m^2 instead of the dimensionless power ratios they should be (Sorry, no link, but if you ask, I’ll send a copy). This paper propagated a mistake Hansen made in this earlier paper, which also ranks up there,

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1984/Hansen_etal_1.html

    Here, Hansen sets the open loop climate gain to 1, without explanation, and mixes up gain and feedback, leading to unitless quantifications of sensitivity, which were too large numerically to make sense, compared to the similarly measured sensitivity to solar power. The Schlesinger paper starts here and then hides this error deeper by wrapping them with meaningless units of gain/sensitivity that misappropriated the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship as the source of the climate systems gain, thus obscuring the numbers based on unit open loop gain, which otherwise would have presented problems.

    George

    00

  • #
    Yes but

    More excuses. No way forward. Coho – Blog bilge doesn’t wash – sorry. It’s all just partisan paff. You as a lawyer should know that !

    00

  • #
    hunter

    So Luke morphs into Yes butt?
    [snip]
    Keep up the good work, Luke.
    You could not lead more people to questioning AGW if you were paid to do it.

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    This from ben cubby at the sydney morning herald

    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/labors-green-deal-more-spin-than-substance-20100723-10npb.html

    A word with two meanings has been installed at the heart of Labor’s new approach to climate change.

    The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, will strive to “establish a community consensus for action” via “citizens’ assemblies” before moving to establish a price on carbon – which is widely seen as the most efficient way to bring greenhouse gas emissions under control.

    “Consensus” can refer either to majority opinion or a complete, harmonious unanimity of views.

    With the former already in existence and the latter considered impossible, it is hard to see the new plan as much more than a public relations exercise designed to head off new versions of the opposition’s “great, big, new tax on everything” campaign.

    An informed public debate on climate change is unlikely to be won by climate sceptics, but the waters would probably be muddied further – in a field that is already flooded with misinformation and shameless lobbying.

    With misleading prose like that, do you think ben and yes butt could be related, the misinformation certainly exist and the lobbying is shameless but they won’t tell joe citizen its all coming from the banks, NGO’s and green power producers.

    00

  • #
    Williamcg

    Cohenite,

    Good work for a layman. I guess that’s why common sense rather than incoherence predominates.

    By the way, thanks for the honorable mention.

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    If you were any good – you’d get organised and ask for the full science review with CSIRO and BoM with independent (if such a person(s) exist) umpire to adjudicate.

    After the evasion and dissembling by Wong’s science advisers to Fielding’s questions this would seem to be a pointless exercise.

    You’d spruce yourselves up and start to look serious. You’d be bagging bullshit arguments from your own side.

    This is at odds with your comments in an earlier thread you were critical of skeptics because of their disparate range of views.

    You’d be also interested in the opinions of your opponents and reasons they believe what they do.

    Given the politicization of climate science and the influence of the environmental, renewable energy and carbon trading lobbies how objective would these opinions be? Whose opinion should we seek, CAGW apologists, AGW proponents, WWF, Greenpeace, our Government.

    Really you’re just a rabble. A veritable lynch mob in fact. Why aren’t you any better?

    Judging from the angst in the CAGW camp in recent times it’s amazing how effective we are for a rabble or perhaps it’s just the weather.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Steve Smith

    Thanks janama:

    00

  • #
  • #

    Yes but:
    July 23rd, 2010 at 12:50 pm

    A veritable lynch mob in fact.

    If there is a figurative rope of intellectual reality around your neck of nonsense it was placed there by you, Luke. We the People have merely witnessed your cerebral suicide.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    George @ 75; I just had a look at Hansen’s homogenisation paper where -0.5C is shown as yellow; great tactic! But then Hansen has always been a master tactician.

    WilliamCG; how is the debate with Arthur and the new guy, Mark going?

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Look, there is plenty of reason to be skeptical of Gillard’s citizen consensus forum.

    But she is likely going to win the election and the Greens may hold the balance of power. So, if the two parties wish, they can do a carbon tax/ETS without coalition support. Given that scenario it seems that her call for a citizens assemble to study the available data is the best opening ever in Australia to have the skeptical positions see the light of day outside the Internet. This must be why the enviros hate the idea, it reeks of rational and highly public, on-the-record, scrutiny of the science involved. Sure, there is the risk of deceit, black-listing, orthodox indoctrination and a media cover up…so how is that different than what we already accept as the default state of our national dialog on climate?

    But the pathway to an ETS will be set out by the Citizens Assembly, made up of 150 people selected from the census or the electoral roll.

    The voluntary assembly, which will sit for 12 months, will examine the evidence on climate change, the case for action and a market-based approach to reducing pollution.

    The assembly’s role would not be as final arbiter or judge of consensus but to indicate the progress of community consensus.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/critics-accuse-julia-gillard-of-a-failure-of-leadership-on-climate-change/story-fn59niix-1225896154729

    If those words actually mean a rational examination of all the facts involved, then I’m sure the greens must be terrified. The gig is up.

    00

  • #
  • #
    janama

    wow – go Jennifer. :)

    00

  • #
    Jennifer Marohasy

    Great to see the series continuing here! Well done Cohenite… again.

    00

  • #
    Gabe

    This the the BS and utter CRAP that Gillard is trying to FOOL Australians into voting for the communist labor government!

    She must think Australians have the mentality and IQ of ants!!

    Gillard hands our future to some people she picked off the street:-

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gillard_hands_our_future_to_some_people_she_picked_off_the_street/

    DON’T LET JOOLYA FOOLYA IN 2010!!!

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Have just posted the following at Australian Climate Madness, in response to greens will introduce a carbon tax.

    To repeat a thought I expressed on 2sm in the early hours of Thursday morning,

    The coalition may be better off targeting the greens leading up to the election, than to target labor. If you can damage the green vote enough, you weaken labors chances of re-election.

    Run adverts on themes like struggling to afford electricity, it will only get worse if you vote green.

    Struggling to afford fresh produce, it will only get worse as green laws restrict farmers ability to produce.

    Enjoy fishing, enjoy it now before the greens introduce more marine parks.

    I’m interested if others agree on this approach.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Gabe #90.

    Unfortunately, Gabe, that could be an insult to ants. 25% still voted Labor at the Penrith by-election. Really, how bad does a government have to get before these cretins change their minds.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Bob, The Climate Sceptics will be running ads targeting the Greens and AGW generally; the ads will pull no punches; keep an eye out for them and vote The Climate Sceptics in the Senate;

    http://landshape.org/news/

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Cohenite:

    Bit disappointing to think that someone has to do the Coalitions work for them. Wonder if it’s a Blackadder “cunning plan”?

    I just don’t understand why the Libs/Nats seem so afraid of taking the Greens full on. Their whole platform is social poison just begging for exposure. Is the Coalition afraid of offending the teeny-boppers who don’t yet have the brains to know what side their bread is buttered on?

    00

  • #
    Williamcg

    Cohenite,

    WilliamCG; how is the debate with Arthur and the new guy, Mark going?

    Arthur is still trying to misdirect the readers by making psuedo-scientific statements (which Leonard is handling well). Mark is missing the basic thermodynamics underlying the whole discussion.

    What did you think of the latest Miskolczi paper you linked? So much for the AGW optical depth argument. Amazing how empirical observations trump faulty hypotheses every time. (I didn’t realize it was available online. Are the rest of the papers in the new E&E issue also available online?)

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    The main advantage of the political system in Australia is that the terms are short compared to the USA. We can toss the idiots after 3 years if they screw up… assuming their parties and backroom powerbrokers don’t get to them first, as in Rudd’s case.

    Bulldust,

    I don’t want to get into discussing the relative merits of our two different systems except to say that here all spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives. And with very good purpose in mind, the terms of representatives were made short, only two years so that we could throw out the rascals rather quickly and thereby hope to keep control over the purse in the people’s hands. The left is having a spending spree with their control of the House and they’re desperate to hold onto it for exactly that reason.

    The 2010 and 2012 elections will be a lot of fun to watch.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Williamcg; the thing about Miskolczi is, despite some flights of [very interesting] fancy [like his use of Kirchoff's Law], his basic thesis is grounded in pretty much irrefutable empirical fact; that, I guess, is why he has not been rebutted in a peer reviewed journal despite the blog gauntlet he has faced and other opprobrium; I don’t think E&E stuff is generally available, there was just a lot of interest in Miskolczi. Cheers.

    00

  • #
    Yes but

    Coho – your first advert http://landshape.org/news/?page_id=1261 is a disgrace – cherry plucked – half the data – half the story – not up to date.
    Only the [most wonderful] would run something as [beautiful] as that. Hurry on the royal commission.

    But anyway I encourage you to run them – increases the green vote further and further polarises the debate. You’ve already got the scared pensioners (more thanks to the Watts pensioner scaring tour of Oz), talk back radio devotees, rednecks, Andrew Bolt fans, [snip], and sundry retired geologists and economists. But you always had them anyway. To make any further ground you’d have to demonstrate some integrity.

    And get Jo to do your voice-overs for heavens sake. The “voice” on the advert sounds drugged or like Wes.

    The resistance here stands by to match all comers.
    http://www.brisbane.foe.org.au/aggregator/sources/14 So many anarchists !

    00

  • #
    wes george

    The really ironic thing about Luke is that the cherry-picking, denialist, even hateful ignorance he claims represents the skeptical camp are a psychological projection of Luke’s own personality characteristics that he has exhibited abundantly in his comments. What’s shocking is not that Luke calls skeptics Klu Kluxers and rednecks, but that his own behavior represents bigotry. Most pathetic is the fact that Luke is consciously unaware that he drawing attention to this fact by accusing us of what only he practices.

    This kind of subconscious projection of one’s own shortcomings represents a deeply held sense of self-loathing. By outwardly projecting his self-loathing onto an external target, Luke imagines he can then “slay the dragon.” Thus Luke’s challenge: “The resistance here stands to match all comers.” In Luke’s world he’s the Omega Man in a first person shooter and we are all zoombies representing his failures and all his self doubts. “Bring it on!!!” screams Luke. But no one hears him in his in his dark little room lit only by the light of his computer monitor…

    May God help him.

    00

  • #
    Curt

    Yes but: Of the many trolls who’ve blighted our shores, you take the prize for most-obnoxious-not-banned, though I suspect this won’t continue. Apparently you believe yourself better than vast groups of people including rednecks, Andrew Bolt fans, old age pensioners, talk radio listeners, and retired geologists and economists. Yet, your presentations and language suggest someone of no culture, class, manners, or breeding, and of dubious intelligence.

    I believe the Universe has very interesting ways of flooring the pompous and self-absorbed. And karma always wins in the end. Instead of sticking your head in a hornets’ nest to see what can happen, you might want to rethink your strategy. Every hateful, insulting, demeaning remark you’ve made to and about others is already in cosmic circulation, headed back to the point of origin (i.e., you), so don’t be surprised at some future date finding yourself on the receiving end of ridicule and scorn, or mortified from unintentionally hurting someone close to you by slamming a group that he or she–unbeknownst to you–belongs to.

    Your behavior here is worse than that of a petulant teenager striking back at authority figures. Those you are attacking have no power–and seek no power–over you. Nobody here is trying to change laws to control your life, but a great many of those on your side are. They want to control our lives AND yours for a belief they cannot prove or even argue logically, but whose adoption makes them feel special, superior, and enlightened. This is a characteristic of True Religionists of all flavors, gossips, rumor-mongers, and busybodies of every variety, and the fuel behind every tyrant and tyranny in the history of the World.

    Water seeks its own level. You have taken the side of the orthodox, the unoriginal, the powerful, the conforming, the spoiled, the mean-spirited, the vicious, the poison-tongued, the proud, the arrogant, the pretentious, the uber-vainglorious, the censoring, the conniving, the outrageously dishonest, the manipulative, the obsessed, the fanatical, the Machiavellian, and the shameless.

    And it shows.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    luke@98; those ads were used in the last campaign; there will be 2 new ads for this campaign; I think they may stir up some interest. One will be placed on the website soon; the other next week.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Curt @100,

    Well said! And very sad that it must be said.

    00

  • #
    Curt

    Thanks Roy. I rarely post comments, but this “Yes but” needs a few slaps.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Curt:

    A rebuttal as articulate, detailed and accurate as yours could not be ignored.

    Perhaps you could make more frequent comments? You seem like someone with much to contribute.

    Roy

    00

  • #

    I hope you are not all too disappointed but Luke/YesBut’s in the sin-bin. I’m sure he’ll howl censorship, and I’m sure he won’t mention that he has had 89 comments to debunk everything that matters, but hasn’t managed to name a paper we deny, or a flaw that matters.
    Basic standard here: people who can self-edit.

    00

  • #

    @ Jo Nova

    You are the most tolerant person I know. I tried to find one post by Luke/Yes but that was civil in tone but I could not. I hope he gets some help before it is too late.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I tried to find one post by Luke/Yes but that was civil in tone but I could not.

    Eddy,

    That says it all! He was the worst of the worst. It’s clear that he was here for the sheer delight in being as nasty as he could be and picking a fight with anyone who would fight. His fight was a lashing out in desperation. While the humanitarian side of me hates to see someone in that position, I’ve little sympathy for them and learned long ago not to take up a burden about something I can’t do anything about. We’re well quit of him and I’ll rejoice in that and let the rest go into the hole where history throws its failures.

    You put up a good fight against him!

    I’ve noticed — and no doubt you have as well — that the viciousness of attacks against JN has increased. I take that to mean that Joanne is being very effective against them. Otherwise, why bother? It’s a bit like the vitriol directed at Sarah Palin. Clearly she threatens the radical left’s world view. They may say otherwise but do they ever go after someone they don’t perceive as a threat? I think that’s what’s happening to Jo also.

    I hope you were not offended by my referring him to you when he asked if I’d ever asked you to moderate your own language. I knew I had him in a vice on that one because he couldn’t withstand the answer if he did as I suggested and he was at least bright enough to realize that.

    Keep up the fight. I think we’re slowly winning but it’s going to take a long time to finish it off.

    Roy

    00

  • #
    wes george

    I’ve been debating Luke since 2007 over at Jennifer’s blog. He’s always been a troll with a bad mouth.

    Once he wanted Rudd to declare war on Japan over whaling and proceeded to rant in such a racially vilifying and violent fashion that Jennifer had to delete his comments. Luke has often argued for Green authoritarian control of Australia and the suspension of basic civil liberties, such as property and free speech rights. Luke believes that capitalist democracy can never achieve the level of control needed to “save the planet” from a climate catastrophe. He has advocated a control economy, zero-growth, even de-development. Luke supports “saving the planet” by any means, including violent revolution. I dare him to deny any of this. That’s the beauty of cyberspace, Luke’s comments are on the record.

    Luke is the naked face of far-left Green millenarianism that the suits like Bob Brown like to keep hidden behind the curtain…until their time comes.

    Nevertheless in the old days – before the work of Steve McIntrye, et al, when one assumed the science was more or less fair even while suspecting a culture of confirmation bias – Luke truly and passionately believed in CAGW. He made a good sparing partner, scored points, raised issues and sometimes kept debate honest. But as time moved on and the CAGW logical fallacies, errors and then outright fraud and deceit became bleeding obvious, Luke became increasingly more dissolute and lost interest in rational debate.

    Unlike most CAGW trolls Luke truly understand that CAGW is at best a falsified hypothesis and at worse a cynical rape of science by a collectivist zeitgeist hell bent upon devolving society to a Green dark age dystopia. He knows his only argument now is that he hates the way the world is, he hates those who are happy with their lives and most of all he hates reason, the source of all his woes.

    How many thousand of Lukes are out there?

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Excellent post, Wes. Luke would have been in the forefront of Lenin’s Cheka. I believe he sees himself as a latter day Felix Dzerzhinsky.

    What I find disturbing is the widespread opinion that the atrocities of the past “can’t happen here”. A brief perusal of Green policy tells me it can.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Wes,

    He’s a great tragedy. And there are indeed a lot more of him out there. Today’s easy communication enables them more than it does us I’m afraid, because we aren’t so willing to be as ruthless.

    Thanks for the insight on him. But I’m still not very sympathetic. Somewhere along the line he made a decision that he knew better than everyone else. And from there on he was lost.

    Roy

    00

  • #
  • #
    Curt

    Roy Hogue said . . .

    “Curt:

    “A rebuttal as articulate, detailed and accurate as yours could not be ignored.

    “Perhaps you could make more frequent comments? You seem like someone with much to contribute.”

    That’s very kind of you. Mostly I stay in the wings and observe, often in disbelief at rude people like “Yes but.” Incidentally, for the information of Jo Nova readers, he (she?) is now posting under the name “I love sceptics – they are nice.”

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    spangled drongo,

    Thanks for the comic relief. It’s a perfect end to an otherwise slow day. I do wish I’d had the foresight to keep a list of all the bad things caused by George Bush and the good things he prevented during just two terms as president. He must a been one busy fella!

    This stuff is classic.

    We were told that we would have this totally sustainable power already had not…and we would again have had it had not George Bush under the influence of Big Coal, Big Oil and Big God knows what scuppered research in the US.

    Hey, wait a minute. Aren’t you green sustainable types supposed to be so smart? How come it is that you let George Bush cheat you out of what he owed you?

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Curt,

    I’m not surprised about Yes but. He’s a very messed up individual. I wonder why anyone will tolerate him.

    00

  • #
    Curt

    Hi Roy,

    I think they tolerate him because they embody tolerance: the opposite of what one finds in the world of AGW True Believers. Being skeptical doesn’t mean one is not willing to hear someone out.

    I used to be a believer (lowercase) till I started asking questions True Believers (uppercase) could not answer. How come, for instance, the bay on which I live hasn’t gone up even a fraction of an inch in my entire lifetime (it’s actually lower now than it was in the 1940s). Or how come our Florida summers are no hotter now then when I was a teenager (they are actually slightly cooler)? And how come the Warmists keep altering the temperature readings, when nobody altered them before? How can one compare a “corrected” temperature in 2010 to an uncorrected one in 1960? And when someone does “correct” earlier temperatures, how come they are always “corrected” down, while later temperatures are always “corrected” up?

    When Warmists claim Hurricane Katrina was an anomaly that destroyed New Orleans, I really get annoyed. Katrina was a low grade hurricane when it hit New Orleans, and did almost no damage. In fact, the day after, television reporters were walking the streets, crowing about how lucky New Orleans had been. Then a huge barge left stupidly in a canal by some dufus banged into a levy wall and broke it, causing the flooding that did all the damage. Katrina wasn’t guilty; people (including the Governor, Mayor, and the crooks on the levy board) were. And yet Al Gore and tens of thousands of AGW believers point to the flooding and cry “This is the result of global warming!” which they know is not true.

    Note that I did not say “tens of thousands of other AGW believers” because I am also skeptical of Gore’s alleged AGW convictions. If he believed what he said, would he be zipping around in limos and private jets spewing carbon by the ton, living in an energy-gulping palace, or buying multiple, multi-million dollar salt waterfront properties? Only if he were a sociopath with no conscience regarding his own carbon footprint, and a crook setting up insurance companies to eat future losses on his submerged waterfront real estate. Given a choice between (A) a cunning non-believer spreading falsehoods and fear for his own fame and fortune, and (B) an evil True Believer destroying the planet (via carbon “pollution”) for his own fame and fortune, I prefer to choose neutral “skepticism,” leaving others (or history) to unmask him. But, the fact that thousands of AGW activists adore him, though these are the only two alternatives, tells me that their cause is not based on conscience or consistent principles.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Curt,

    You’re right in the end. Some degree of tolerance is the best policy unless they become destructive. I’ve noticed him already on another thread under his new identity. He’s much subdued at present but still contrarian as usual.

    On the rest of what you said I’ve been reading this most of the morning. If you haven’t seen it it’s well worth reading. It delivers a scathing indictment of the US Government, the IPCC and the UN, etc., all with Monkton’s usual clarity, completeness and polite firmness.

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/questions_from_select_committee.pdf

    00

  • #
    BobC

    I find it interesting how “Yes but” (and other trolls – but he exemplifies it) try continually to use ridicule in place of logical argument. This is one tactic (among many) recommended by Saul Alinsky in his “Rules for Radicals”:

    “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”

    Saul had the problem of trying to sell a pig in a poke: The philosophy of Collectivism (in its many incarnations – Communism, Socialism, etc.) — is a philosophy that history has long shown leads to tyranny, poverty, and ultimately democide.

    Any halfway intelligent, objective observers who are willing and able to do a minimal amount of due diligence can see this for themselves, so argument on the facts was out of the question. Anyone dedicated to imposing this catastrophe on Mankind, therefore, had to find other ways of promoting it and especially “arguing” down those who opposed it – who, if left unchallenged, would convince many of the bankruptcy of Saul’s philosophy.

    The connection with the campaign to sell the world on the danger of “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming” is fairly direct — CAGW looks, to Alinsky’s acolytes, like the perfect hammer with which to force their philosophy on the world: It appeals to the power-hungry in government, who are promised more power, and it can be used to frighten the population into surrendering their freedoms to ensure their survival.

    Since CAGW has essentially NO facts that actually support it, however, this campaign requires near total control of the channels of information and vigorous suppression of anyone who objects. Hence, the appearance of “Yes but” and his fellow trolls in this (and other) forums where facts are discussed — trying, rather pathetically, to apply Alinsky’s techniques to educated laypeople, scientists, and engineers who have spent lifetimes learning to recognize and deal with facts about the world.

    What Alinsky and his followers have never realized is that the world they live in — where it is possible, for example, to write an essay that can be read by thousands world-wide in minutes — was not created by people like themselves, who consider ridicule the “most potent” argument — but by people who recognized and responded to reality. A world created by Alinsky’s followers would be one in which we would all be politically correct (or else!), but would still live in caves.

    The world created by the realists is escaping the Collectivists’ control, even as it creates the greatest improvement in Human life since we evolved, and the would-be masters of mankind are flopping and flipping like beached fish, unable to understand why the master’s techniques aren’t working anymore.

    00

  • #
    Well who'd know

    The sceptics definition of trolls – anyone who disagrees with them.
    Wes George and BobC can write reams of fanciful twaddle, quote mine and fabricate with impunity.

    Yet Jo reckons she runs an evidence based blog? Pfft !
    There has been no discussion of the topic here. A pretentious try-on from a pretentious Cohenite libelling people he’s never met.
    Jo’s blog – a censorious, back slapping echo chamber. Hardly a Nova – more like a communist party-line black hole. “Self-edit” policy what a joke – doesn’t apply to sceptics

    [So if you know any AGW fan who can politely discuss evidence, send em our way... but I'm putting first time commenters who throw insults with no substantiation straight into the sin-bin, until they show they have something worth saying. "Weeding" - JN]

    00

  • #
    Curt

    Thanks Roy.

    00

  • #

    Yes, BobC, ridicule is especially noxious when it is unsubstantiated. I’m so tired of the bluster and bluff that I’m pulling commenters into moderation who mock and scorn without having a real point to back it up.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I really AM going to have to watch my tongue!

    00

  • #
    BobC

    MattB:
    July 27th, 2010 at 6:34 pm

    I really AM going to have to watch my tongue!

    Jo tolerates a good deal of off-topic essaying, and even mocking and ridicule when used for humor or backed up with a logical point for justification. (You have attempted this technique on me in past posts — I, however, have very little invested in what others think of me, so I generally respond to ridicule with logical arguments. Eventually people get tired of using an impotent weapon.)

    The really tiresome posts are like the one by “Well who’d know” above: He (perhaps an Alinsky acolyte) apparently believes that ridicule is all that he needs, and doesn’t even bother to pretend presenting a real argument or even minimal evidence of his accusations.

    Keep salting your barbs with an occasional argument, and you don’t have to worry about getting banned :-)
    (Getting them thrown back at you in innovative ways — not that’s a different risk.)

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Well who’d know:
    July 27th, 2010 at 7:12 am

    The sceptics definition of trolls – anyone who disagrees with them.

    Actually Wwk; you’re a pretty good example of a troll: Someone who is disagreeable, calls names, and can’t seem to find even a single logical argument to use.

    Be honest for a moment (if you can): What would a blog be like if everyone was like you?

    (Oh wait — that is kind of what some of the more rabid AGW sites are like.)

    You can disagree with everyone here and get along fine if you just realize the rules are different: You get banned at AGW sites for bringing up logical arguments (some of them, anyway) — here you get banned if you don’t.

    00

  • #

    Oh, as to the existence of a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere, Ben Herrman and Roger Pielke Sr. have put their name on the blacklist as believers. Roy Spencer is also a believer. It is interesting to watch folk try and salvage their reputations.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Eli, I have previously suggested that this site gave some discussion to that issue, given that a number of locals are of an entirely different view.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    125, 126

    There is a small difference between saying there is a “greenhouse effect” and quantifying all the variables pertaining to said effect isn’t there?

    About all those predictions, got any updates?

    Warmists are such shallow thinkers……

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Eli@ 125; even Miskolczi agrees there is a greenhouse effect.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    No but others here don’t – if the article gets posted here I promise not to post and just leave it to skeptics to duke it out.

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    MattB,

    Most skeptics agree that there is a greenhouse effect, that man is adding CO2 to the atmosphere and that the climate changes. The issue is not whether or not any of these are true, but whether or not the small intrinsic effect from doubling CO2 is amplified by massive amounts of positive feedback and if so, why isn’t an equivalent amount of incremental solar power similarily amplified. And no Matt, it isn’t the feedback as feedback mechanisms can’t differentiate between power coming from the Sun and power coming from the atmosphere.

    Why is it that warmists tend to focus on silly points, rather than on substance? Is it because there is no substance behind CAGW beliefs or because there are no answers the many problems and paradoxes inherent in a belief in CAGW? Maybe it’s just the use of ridicule as a first line of defense used by warmists, which usually means you have nothing better.

    George

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Of course MOST skeptics agree with that … but some of the most vocal/scientific here clearly do not. I’m just saying as a bystander it would be good to watch – and not from a cynical laughing way, but come on lets have Cohenite, yourself, Richard, Brian, Louis put it all out there. So many skeptical arguments blatantly contradict each other, a blind eye can’t be turned forever.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    MattB; your suggestion that sceptics duke it out amongst themselves to resolve contradictions in the sceptic’s position is disingenuous; to explain why you should look at this:

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2962929.htm#comments

    The author blithely goes on about sceptics misrepresenting their ‘product’ and being able to be sued for this misrepresentation. This is nonsense because it is not the sceptics who have the ‘product’; it is the alarmists; it is their theory and it is beholden to them to have the evidence and the consistency to justify it. I often come across this reversal of proof from alarmists about who should prove what; the AGW proponents are the ones who have to prove their theory; the sceptics can play devil’s advocate and it is irrelevant that that devil’s advocacy should be inconsistent [at least in the alarmist's eyes; I make no concessions about inconsistencies whatsoever.]

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Don’t be so sensitive Cohenite. Take it as strategic advice… take Jo’s advice… if you want to bring down an empire with good arguments, don’t bombard them with a pile of old cobblers as well because they will parade them around as proof you’ve got nothing. I know some here love him but Monckton is a great example… that Abraham’s thing. 446 points and it is so easy to find absurd ones who cares if there are some good ones in there because most will give up assuming it is all rubbish after the first couple.

    Anyway, a discussion on points of disagreement on the skeptical side would be good value. If you are prepared to gloss over errors in the effort to put up a good fight then you end up being those you oppose.

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    After reading German meteorologist Dr Wolfgang Thüne’s notes on the fairy tale of Greenhouse Earth I’d also suggest that those who consider CO2 to produce significant warming go a lay down in their back yard under a clear winter sky and bask in the back-radiation provided by CO2.

    Maybe that exercise will realign their perception with reality.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Anyway, if a court of law decides that a person has deliberately lied about the science (from either side) don’t you think they should be liable. Plenty of skeptics want to sue Mann/Hansen/whoever.

    It is no different to a warmist scientist sitting next to a WWF executive. If the scientist hears the WWF guy blatantly exaggerating the science he should say so.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Wow bernd who’d-a-thunk it AGW disproved by going outside on a clear night… hmm sounds too good to be true. (no I’ve not read the article – nein spreken ze deutch)

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    MattB, I’ll have something to say about the legalities in a little while; watch this space.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    MattB @133:

    Anyway, a discussion on points of disagreement on the skeptical side would be good value. If you are prepared to gloss over errors in the effort to put up a good fight then you end up being those you oppose.

    Are you really admitting that you now think that there are errors in the AGW hypothesis?

    Perhaps hanging around Jo’s blog is doing you some good :-)

    Seriously, though — the incredible imbalance in what (I think) you are trying to suggest is astonishing:

    On the one hand, you have a group of people (the “Warmists”) who, on the basis of a hypothesis for which there is essentially no empirical evidence (that hasn’t been tainted by manipulation) and which has no demonstrated predictive skill who, nevertheless, insist on massive changes in the world economy and serious loss of personal and political freedom — said changes rather likely to cause 100s of millions of premature deaths (mostly in the 3rd world — just look at the carnage caused by banning DDT; that will be just a blip in comparison).

    On the other hand you have people (the “Skeptics”) who think that this is not such a good idea, and we should have some actual evidence before setting off on such a radical course change.

    You seem to think that the “Warmists” should be given free rein to do whatever and the “Skeptics” ignored, just because not all the Skeptics arguments are consistent?

    Through the looking glass, indeed!

    00

  • #
    John Westman

    After reviewing many of the comments on this site, I am very impressed. Post after post shows a refreshing sceptical view, loaded with commonsense and pragmatism.

    There are really only one or two, whose contributions fall well below the standards set by “Eddie Aruda”, “cohenite”, “BobC”,”Co2isnotevil”, and many others. Those one or two see the low ratings achieved by their posts but haven’t not figured out(perhaps they can’t?) that they are not of value. Although they do provide light entertainment.

    But if we go back to the basics, we find that the world’s temperature data are so corrupted, that we really do not know what has happened in the last 100 years. It may well prove that the real temperature increase lies somewhere between zero and negligible, because of the UHI effect and tampering.

    If commonsense was evident, even the warmists/alarmist would agree that the temperature records need to be examined in a dispassionate way.

    AGW “science” stands on very wobbly foundations!

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Bob I’m suggesting there are errors in pretty much any scientific endeavour on the planet. When it comes to AGW I don’t think that there are the wildly inconsistent theories that you see on the skeptical side… unless of course you went to a warmist blog and took every posters views as though they represented actual science (which of course they don’t). Read and understand… I’m not saying skeptics “should” be ignored, but if multiple lines of argument are put forward that are wildly contradictory then they WILL be ignored.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    MattB:
    July 29th, 2010 at 10:21 am

    Bob I’m suggesting there are errors in pretty much any scientific endeavour on the planet. When it comes to AGW I don’t think that there are the wildly inconsistent theories that you see on the skeptical side…

    I agree — they (the warmists) promote pretty much the same theory (kind of like a cult). The only problem is that the “theory” (should be called a hypothesis) has no empirical support (I’m talking about the hypothesis that CO2 causes catastrophic warming, not that the Earth has warmed, somewhat). They claim to be able to predict a (probably chaotic) system, but can show no actual evidence of this.

    There is a lot we don’t know about weather and climate. Competing hypotheses and theories are normal in an embryonic science. Lock-step agreement is not.

    CAGW is a cult. Do you think the Moonies are right, just because they all say the same thing?

    00

  • #
    MattB

    We are going in circles here Bob. I could argue that there are lots of random cult like organisations all of whom argue obscure beliefs in the face of normal culture and society.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    MattB:
    July 29th, 2010 at 11:23 am

    We are going in circles here Bob. I could argue that there are lots of random cult like organisations all of whom argue obscure beliefs in the face of normal culture and society.

    One big difference between all those “random cult like organisations” and the cabal behind CAGW is that the others don’t have any serious chance to grasp the reins of power and make us all bend to their will.

    I don’t know if you are in the USA but, if you are, perhaps you remember the hysteria among the Left about the supposed plans G.W.Bush had to install a “Theocracy” in the US and make everyone subservient to the Religious Right? Of course, that was just a fantasy of the Left — the push to install CAGW as the excuse for a massive increase in government power and taxation is real, and they actually have a chance of succeeding. Most of the Left hasn’t figured out the consequences yet (Denis Rancourt is a rare exception).

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Anyway, MattB: The real point isn’t that CAGW proponents sound and act cult-like — the real point is that they can’t muster any real evidence for their position.

    Again, I’m talking about evidence that CO2 is — or will be — the cause of catastrophic warming. The existence of warming does not prove their point. The world’s glaciers started retreating in 1820, well before Mankind released any significant amount of CO2, yet the warmists don’t hesitate to use glacier retreat as if it proved their case. The case for CAGW is not just incomplete — it hasn’t even been honestly attempted.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    MattB: (@131)
    July 28th, 2010 at 6:00 pm

    Of course MOST skeptics agree with that … but some of the most vocal/scientific here clearly do not. I’m just saying as a bystander it would be good to watch – and not from a cynical laughing way, but come on lets have Cohenite, yourself, Richard, Brian, Louis put it all out there. So many skeptical arguments blatantly contradict each other, a blind eye can’t be turned forever.

    What’s got you stuck in this rut, MattB, is that you still think that consensus somehow is related to truth.

    (I know, I know — you didn’t use the word “consensus” — but you were thinking it :-) )

    Multiple hypotheses and theories are normal in science — the only thing that can sort them out is experimentation and facts. This should be the real job of climate scientists, but most of them have been co-opted by the easy money available for telling politicians what they want to hear (pretty much as Eisenhower predicted).

    00

  • #
    Jay Alt

    Scientists and honest science presenters would ask – where are all the papers that question, disprove and refute AGW?

    So where are they? An extensive and comprehensive list follows:
    .
    .
    .

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Jay,

    Show me the papers that prove anything more than a 1.1C rise in surface temperature will result from doubling CO2. It’s up to your side to prove the hypothesis, not the other side to disprove it. That being said, there are many, many tests which invalidate CAGW and the best science estimate of the effect from doubling CO2 is about 0.6C +/- 0.3C.

    This arises from 3.7 W/m^2 of incremental atmospheric absorption, where the atmosphere radiates half of this to the surface and half into space, resulting in a net 1.9 W/m^2 of incremental power directed at the surface. The steady state surface temperature increase required to sustain an additional 1.9 W/m^2 of emission, starting from an average ST of 287K, is approximate 0.4C. The measured climate system gain, relative to incremental solar power incident on the surface is approximately 1.6, meaning that 1 W/m^2 of incremental incident surface power results in 1.6 W/m^2 of incremental surface radiated power. This gain arises from 2 sources. One is atmospheric absorption squeezing the transparent window in the atmosphere such that if one watt is getting through to the surface, in order for 1 watt to leave the planet, the surface emitted power must be larger by the net amount absorbed by the atmosphere. The other is clouds, which similarly block even more surface power, but also modulate the power leaving the planet as the cloud percentage weighted fraction of surface power filtered by the clear sky atmosphere and colder cloud power, similarly filtered by the atmosphere between cloud tops and space. Given the required planet wide emitted power corresponding to 255K, the power emitted by the surface is hotter, while power emitted by clouds is colder and the fraction of clouds sets the ratio of cold to hot in order to achieve 255K. Clouds are the vernier control on the energy balance and quickly adapt to any local energy imbalances.

    A first order sanity check for the measured gain, given that the clear sky atmosphere absorbs approximately 55% of surface emitted power (per HITRAN based 3-d armospheric simulations) is easily performed. For 55% absorption, 27.5% leaves the planet. The required surface power increase is 1/(1-.275) which is equal to 1.38. Clouds absorb on average of about 85% of surface power (per ISCCP satellite data), where about half escapes, corresponding to a surface gain of 1/(1-.425) = 1.74. The Earth is 66% covered in clouds, so the weighted average is .333*1.38 + .667*1.74 = 1.62. I should also point out that the measured gain can be calculated from ISCCP satellite data in more than one way and that the post feedback gain integrated over a year which includes the effects of water vapor feedback, feedback from the ebb and flow of surface snow/ice and all other feedbacks, known and unknown.

    Given a gain of 1.6 and forcing of 1.9 W/m^2, the post feedback, incremental surface power will be about 3 W/m^2. Starting from an average ST of 279K, this corresponds to a surface temperature increase of about 0.6C, thus setting the center of the expected range. The uncertainty of +/- 0.3C is significantly larger than the actual uncertainty in the data, which would otherwise set the uncertainty to less than +/- 0.2C.

    George

    00

  • #

    [...] September 2008 [1].  I added to this list in April 2009 [2].  There was more by me published at Jo’s  AGW ‘science’ has fallen over a cliff.  Now I’m adding another ten papers to the worst [...]

    00