It is rare to see a skeptic from the left, and it is an interesting perspective. On skeptic sites, you tend to see left/green/warmist amalgamated, but one could be a hard-line environmentalist and reject the ‘global warming’ scare as a green herring, which tends to lead us away from addressing real environmental issues. Still, we have to ask, what is it about green-left ideology which makes people so easy to fool?

Report this

10

OK so you completely ignore my detailed criticism of Rutan’s graph and sidestep the issue by citing a different one.

I thought the issue was whether data showed Hansen’s model to be right or wrong – I didn’t realize that this was a personal vendetta against Burt Rutan. I suggest you take it up with him.

Report this

00

“Currently, Scenario B over predicts the trends that occurred. But, given weather variability, a super-El Nino might get us back on the Scenario B track.”

That’s the “proof” that Hansen’s models are right? That, if the weather cooperates, the contra-factual Scenario B might track future temperatures?

That is really underwhelming.

As I remember, the possibilities of super El-Ninos were not included in the scenario assumptions, so the chance occurrence of one (should it happen) cannot be considered as a vindication of Hansen.

To recap Hansen’s scenarios:
Scenario A: Exponential CO2 growth and no El Chichon-size volcanic event.
Scenario B: Linear CO2 growth and one El Chichon-size event.

Actual Events: Exponential CO2 growth and Pinatubo (plus one very large El Nino).

This would put the expected (by Hansen’s model) track between A and B, but arguably closer to A due to the partial correction of the 1998 El Nino for Pinatubo (1991).

If scenario B was tracking (without the help of a chance super El-Nino event), which it is not, it would, at best, be evidence that CO2 plays a smaller role than Hansen assumed in his model.

The fact that even B is not tracking suggests that CO2 plays a much smaller role than Hansen’s model assigns it.

There is no logical way that any of this can be considered evidence for the correctness of Hansen’s model.

Report this

10

You say of Hansen that he

…has a plan for delivering improved conditions to those currently in poverty, who lets face it have been failed by the current system.

If so the leopard must indeed have changed his spots. It is well to his credit as has been pointed out — at least if he sticks to it. My problem, being sharp enough to note that he’s been caught in numerous lies, is that I haven’t any confidence in anything he says. I’m not from Missouri (known as the “show me” state) but I’ll have to see it before I give it any credit.

As for this

…who lets face it have been failed by the current system.

The cold hard fact is that you are in this world on your own. If you act foolishly, whether from ignorance, tradition or even lack of ability to do any better, the consequences always follow. Systems always fail people. Period!

If money — which is always the proposed solution, take from those who have and give to those who have not — could change anything the world would be a quite different place today. Since World War II the United States has given more money in foreign aid than I know how to count but it changed nothing except to enrich those who could divert it to their own use. It was wasted! We pay to this day, 25% of the UN annual budget only to find the UN wanting to destroy us. So can we finally stop this madness?

I can’t remember anyone ever giving me a mandate to save the world and I keep wondering why western governments have taken it upon themselves to be the world’s charity ward. It simply can’t work. My God, the UN sends relief workers to Africa and they rape the children they’re supposed to help. Can anyone have any confidence in this? The UN, that great bastion of help for the world is instead, everyone’s enemy.

Now lest you jump all over me for being the cold cruel Grinch who not only stole Christmas but food out of the mouths of children — I am not! I’m simply an advocate of reality.

Yes, let’s feed those who now can’t feed themselves, provide the medical care and other things. But you have to put control of those things in the hands of the people because their governments, like mine here, simply will not actually care and neither will the UN. The UN now prefers to spend its resources fighting climate change and ignoring death by starvation and disease in Africa.

But that’s only half the equation. You must teach them to be — simply put — better competitors in this world. The Chinese recognized this and are eating our lunch. Why can we be so blind as to blame systems for what systems by their very nature always do? China has become a ruthless competitor while we sit back and apologize for our very existence. We don’t need anyone to put a curse on us. We do it ourselves. And we’re trying very hard to put that curse on the rest of the world.

The workable solution is much harder. You have to stop grandstanding. You have to stop worrying about who gets credit for what. You have to invest yourself; go there not just with your money but physical presence to teach and mentor. It will take a long time to get anywhere. It needs several generations before the improvement is well established and self sustaining. And you’ll without a doubt have to fend off hostile governments while you do it because the power to help themselves has to reside in the people and governments don’t like that! This is a very high hurdle to jump over.

Matt, it’s of no use to blame systems for failing people. Systems always fail people. While we here in the U.S. have enacted “healthcare reform”, in Canada they’re beginning to realize that their much vaunted system is failing them and are looking at reforms. And there are other good object lessons all around you that show I’m essentially right. You can see them, Matt, but are you willing to believe them?

Report this

10

Bob,

“Maybe you’ll find this graph a little easier to read. Data is sourced, goes back to 1900, and is all on the same scale (zeroed at 1900).” -

OK so you completely ignore my detailed criticism of Rutan’s graph and sidestep the issue by citing a different one. Fair enough -

Yes these graphs and the accompanying discussion seem more reasonable. I’m not sure why you are saying “is all on the same scale (zeroed at 1900).”. Did you really mean to say that Lucia has attempted to match the baselines or zero points for the temperature anomalies ?

“Conclusion: Same as Rutan — Hansen’s “predictions” are crap.” -

Wrong. Lucia’s graphs back up my assertion that Rutan’s graph is a complete fabrication. Just do “the ordinary eyeball test” as Lucia suggests. LUCIA’S 12 MONTH AVERAGE BLEND LINE SHOWS A +0.3 C FOR 1988-2006

Lucia does not say that Hansen’s predictions are crap.

He draws his own graphs from the data and presents them as a comparison to Hansen’s. He even qualifies his own graphs, saying – “Currently, Scenario B over predicts the trends that occurred. But, given weather variability, a super-El Nino might get us back on the Scenario B track.”. He also goes on (also in the comment thread and on a linked page) to discuss the problem of baselines and forcings.

““B” tracked reasonably well up to 2000, but has been diverging rapidly from measurements since and is now ~ +0.3 up, so it looks like a “miss” to me.” -

Using Lucia’s “ordinary eyeball test” I’d say it tracks reasonably well up to nearer 2005. Although Lucia uses the word “currently” to describe his observations of over prediction. Both Hansen’s and Lucia’s lines are 12 monthly averages. As I said before a running mean of a minimum of 5-10 years is needed to show a trend. So the accuracy (in terms of the trend) of anything past 2005, or even earlier is not really known. Lucia alludes to this in his point number 2.

“The main thrust of our argument has been Rutan’s graph.” – “B.S.”

I didn’t mean this to become a point of contention. Maybe I could have phrased it better. Yes we started off discussing the engineer/scientist overlap. Then you cited Rutan’s presentation as an example of a engineers take on climate change. What was I supposed to do ? Ignore it ? We have then spent the majority of our argument discussing the graph on page 33 (that I happened to choose for discussion). That was all I meant. I don’t understand why that is “B.S.”.

A 30 second search will bring up any number of out of context quotes. This is the longest version I can find -

“What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group’s conclusion is ‘no’. The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

Gibson, Donald. Environmentalism: ideology and power. pg. 95 (on google books)

Still out of context. But you can see that your 2 separate quotes are from the same original quote. From what I can gather the quote is actually from a interview with a journalist where Strong is musing on the plot for a novel. The above quote representing a hypothetical moral dilema in a possible future.

So yet another fail on the out of context sound bite front.

Report this

00

Actually, since scenario “C” was “exponential CO2 growth and no large volcanic event” and “B” was “linear growth and one large volcanic event”, and the actual facts are “exponential CO2 growth and one large volcanic event”, one would assume that Hansen’s prediction is really somewhere between “B” and “C”.

I meant to say:

Actually, since scenario “A” was “exponential CO2 growth and no large volcanic event” and “B” was “linear growth and one large volcanic event”, and the actual facts are “exponential CO2 growth and one large volcanic event”, one would assume that Hansen’s prediction is really somewhere between “B” and “A”.

Report this

10

Maybe you’ll find this graph a little easier to read. Data is sourced, goes back to 1900, and is all on the same scale (zeroed at 1900). (This took about 5 seconds to find.)

Conclusion: Same as Rutan — Hansen’s “predictions” are crap. Scare tactics for the uninformed.

Scenario “C” is reasonably close, but that scenario assumed no growth in CO2 after 2000, which is contra-factual. So, maybe we can conclude that Hansen’s model is “correct” as long as we add the assumption that CO2 has no effect on climate. I might buy that. (Of course, any model can be “corrected” by adding enough post hoc assumptions.)

Actually, since scenario “C” was “exponential CO2 growth and no large volcanic event” and “B” was “linear growth and one large volcanic event”, and the actual facts are “exponential CO2 growth and one large volcanic event”, one would assume that Hansen’s prediction is really somewhere between “B” and “C”. “B” tracked reasonably well up to 2000, but has been diverging rapidly from measurements since and is now ~ +0.3 up, so it looks like a “miss” to me.

The main thrust of our argument has been Rutan’s graph.

B.S. I didn’t even mention Rutan’s graph. I mentioned Rutan’s presentation in a parenthetical aside. You’re the one who made a big deal about it (and you still don’t seem to be able to read it: The “strange shape” at the end of the satellite data is called, um… DATA — you know, where the line goes where the data points are. I realize the AGW community doesn’t like the satellite data, but tough — it is what it is. It’s up to the models to explain the data — changing the data to fit the model, which seems to be prevalent among climate scientists isn’t really kosher.)

The data in Rutan’s graph can be found in about 1000 other places easily (like the link above) — it always says the same thing: Hansen’s model has no predictive skill. Neither does any other climate model, for reasons I went on at length about and you are silent about.

So, address a main point: Exhibit a climate model that has demonstrated predictive skill at time scales > 5 years that is distinguishable from chance. (Find a model that can explain the LIA and MWP, if you really are into snipe hunts.)

Tell me why we should take any action whatsoever on the basis of models with no demonstrated predictive skill (especially since the justification for action is what the models “predict” 50-100 years hence)? If this makes sense to you, please enlighten the rest of us that are laboring along with merely normal logic and reason.

What ? Another second hand “quote” from Maurice Strong – “to shut down industrial civilization”. Maybe you could provide a source and the context for that quote ?

Again (after about 30 seconds of searching):

Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Devel-opment (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, in June 1992, set the stage for the political fight: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.”(R. Kremer, 1998. /painstorm, April, pp. 28-32 )

In the words of Maurice Strong, Founder of the UN Eco-summits and Undersecretary General of the UN: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring [that] about?” —as quoted in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism (Washington, D. C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2007), p. 6.

If you don’t like these, find your own — I’m not your research department. If you can’t do your own research, where do your opinions come from?

In the future, I am taking the view that your inability to verify (or falsify) what I say is not something requiring an answer from me.

Report this

10

Hi,

“OK, so ignore Rutan’s trend lines and look at the actual data:” -

OK the individual numbers you quote are roughly correct as extracted from Rutan’s graph. BUT temperatures vary a lot year to year so extracting individual years for comparison can be misleading so a 5 or 10 year running mean would seem reasonable. Also you are NOT COMPARING LIKE WITH LIKE. It’s all to do with ZERO POINTS. When I used the words mangled, crassly, shifted and exaggerates in my earlier post to describe Rutan’s graphs – I MEANT IT.

The problem here is multi fold -

In the left hand graph Rutan has superimposed satellite temperature measurements directly over Hansen’s model predictions with all lines referring to the same x and y scales.

All 5 lines have been very crudely traced, but lets ignore that and assume that IN ISOLATION each line has roughly the CORRECT SHAPE i.e. if you looked at the original graphs they were taken from, you would recognise their shapes.

The satellite temperature measurements line ends in 2009 with a temperature anomaly of +0.4 C (I’ll ignore the strange shape Rutan has given it at the end). That’s 0.4 C above zero.

Rutan doesn’t appear to specify a ZERO POINT. Looking at his graph the satellite temperature line seems to be heading towards a zero point of around 1960. Now Ruttan has failed to cite his sources here but if you look at global temperature anomaly graphs they will usually be zeroed to around the 1951-1980 mean, or the low to mid 1980′s, it varies.

In effect Rutan has moved the zero point back around 25 years and made the line shallower.

So ON HIS GRAPH, 1985 is ~ +0.3 C. 2009 is ~ +0.4 C. This gives a upward trend of +0.1 C over 19 years. THIS IS COMPLETELY WRONG. The actual trend over those 19 years is ~ +0.4 C. An ANOMOLY OF +0.4 C if 1985 were the zero point.

Now lets look at the model scenario lines -

An initial cursory glance (comparing Rutan’s lines with Hansons original graph) appears to confirm their validity. Rutan has converged them with the satellite measurements around the mid 1980′s with a temperature anomaly of ~ +0.2C. That figure agrees with Hanson’s graph.

Then as you say – for 2009 – scenario A reads ~ +1 C, and scenario C reads ~ +0.85 C. Now, Hanson has individual yearly data points. On his graph scenario A reads ~ +1.1 C, scenario B reads ~ +0.85 C, and scenario C reads ~ + 0.65 C. But as I said before there can be a lot of variation year to year. So taking a 5 or 10 year running mean this is going to smooth the lines out.

Looking at these figures I am guessing that – “OK, so ignore Rutan’s trend lines and look at the actual data:”, means you read the 2009 points from Rutan’s graph ?

There are a few things wrong here -

These individual points/figures fail to take into account DIFFERENT ZERO POINTS on the original graphs. You also quote these figures, apparently oblivious to what they are anomalous to.

You choose an individual years data (2009) that cannot be incorporated into a running average because the data for the years ahead is not yet available.

Lines B and C on Rutan’s graph seem to be WRONG for 2009 by approx +0.2 C.

Rutan’s Y axis is stretched out 1.5 times compared with Hansons. This makes the scenario lines steeper. As I said earlier he has also made the satellite lines shallower. Thus exaggerating any divergence.

Notice how Rutan has OMITTED PRE 1980 data so as not to reveal his DECEPTION.

A direct comparison between the data (if you can call it that) shown on Rutin’s graph cannot be made. He has TWISTED the observed lines away from the model projection lines, and combined 2 graphs with DIFFERENT ZERO POINTS.

RUTAN’S GRAPHS ARE COMPLETE RUBBISH.

Look at Hansen’s original graph in the 1988 paper. Look at the same graph revisited in 2006 – WHERE HE HAS USED THE 1951-1980 MEAN AS A ZERO POINT AND USED THE SAME ZERO POINT FOR OBSERVED DATA.

(Please note that projected forcings start in 1984 but this is not the same as the 1951-1980 mean)

NOTICE HOW THE OBSERVED LINES CORRELATE WELL WITH LINES B AND C.

Also think about the fact that these are yearly data points that need to be given AT LEAST a 5-10 year running mean to make any sense.

You continue to compare with line A. Completely ignoring what I said about line A – NOT INCLUDING the downward forcing of a volcanic eruption (which happened and is included in lines B and C), INCLUDING EXTRA forcings for CFC’s. Therefore a direct comparison is not possible unless scenario A is redrawn at a lower level. I repeat that Hanson specified scenario B as being the most likely outcome.

So the rest of what you say regarding Rutan’s graph is meaningless.

“Do you have much experience reading graphs? (Or perhaps you think we don’t?)” -

I am beginning to wonder.

BobC: July 31st, 2010 at 1:15 am -

What ? Another second hand “quote” from Maurice Strong – “to shut down industrial civilization”. Maybe you could provide a source and the context for that quote ?

There then follows a half hearted, semi retraction of your previous comment, followed by accusations of “idiot” and “evil” that completely cancel out the half hearted non apology.

I am flummoxed.

BobC: July 31st, 2010 at 1:24 am

This was in response to Mark D.: July 30th, 2010 at 1:47 pm. I did say that there will be different political opinions on this one.

BobC: July 31st, 2010 at 1:56 am

What ? Rutan’s graph is rubbish, as I explain in more detail above.

I can’t be bothered to trawl through any more of his presentation. I’ve just given myself a headache trying to make sense of his clever little deceptions on page 33.

“talking about cherry-picking: I’ve pretty much come straight back at your points, Quentin; while you’ve cherry-picked mine and ducked the main ones. Try responding to some of my main points, for once.” -

The main thrust of our argument has been Rutan’s graph. I believe I have responded to all the points you made on that. Just taking 1 example – As I mentioned above you completely failed to respond to my points about forcings in scenario A.

“The emotionally laden (and logically anemic) arguments you have been using so far won’t get much traction here.” -

This comment, together with the cherry picking comment above, is a typical displacement argument of “pinning your own tail on someone else’s donkey”.

Report this

01

MattB:
July 30th, 2010 at 5:27 pm

James Hansen, for a start, is a proponent of nuclear power particularly 4th generation nuclear IFRs… he is one of the only guys in the debate who actually has a plan for delivering improved conditions to those currently in poverty, who lets face it have been failed by the current system.

How very interesting … It appears that J. Hanson’s plan (nuclear power) is the same plan that realists tried to put forward 40 years ago and were shot down by environmentalists. (You were considering the environmentalists’ callousness as “part of the current system” were you not? They are responsible for a lot, including the 30M+ children who have needlessly died of malaria in Africa over the last 40 years, for example.)

By all means let’s give Hanson credit — for coming around to the solution 40 years late.

(When environmentalists try to tell me how dangerous nuclear power is, I reply that yes, that is why France is a radioactive wasteland where no one can live.)

Seriously; It is to Hanson’s credit that he cares what happens to the World’s poor. It remains to be seen if this slip into empathy will estrange him from the environmental movement.

Report this

00

Anyway, scroll through the entire presentation — Quentin’s characterization of it as “just a propaganda pamphlet” is about as disconnected from reality as it is possible to get.

Talking about cherry-picking: I’ve pretty much come straight back at your points, Quentin; while you’ve cherry-picked mine and ducked the main ones. Try responding to some of my main points, for once. Or, if you really want to make a splash, try taking on anything in “The Skeptic’s Handbook”.

Heck, go for the main point: Show us the evidence that CO2 is (or ever has been) responsible for other than a trivial amount of warming.

If you could really do this, you could convert everyone here. The emotionally laden (and logically anemic) arguments you have been using so far won’t get much traction here.

Report this

10