You’d expect a professor to have done the basic research.
Naomi Oreskes
Naomi Oreskes is famous (of sorts) for the book: Merchants of Doubt — it seeds doubts about skeptics by saying that skeptic’s “seed doubts” about climate change.
The skeptics seed doubts by questioning the evidence and pointing to contrary results (isn’t this known as “discussion”?). Oreskes seeds doubts by digging through biographies, analyzing indirect payments of minor amounts, hunting through unrelated topics and tenuous associations from 20 year old contracts.
The hypocrisy of saying that skeptics attack the messenger is lost on Oreskes who specializes in … attacking the messengers.
Oreskes’ work is based on a logical fallacy, inept research, and incompetent reasoning.
What is remarkable is that so many “intellectuals” or journalists can’t or won’t see through her thin rhetoric.
- Oreskes can name virtually no significant funding for skeptics. Skeptics are almost all unpaid volunteers, working out of professional and patriotic duty, appalled by the illogical, anti-science sentiments of people like Oreskes.
- The enormous “vested interests” are well over a thousand to one in favor of alarmism as measured by funding, yet Oreskes has not even considered them. The largest proactive skeptical organization (Heartland) has a budget that is one hundredth of Greenpeace and WWF’s combined. Funding for alarmist research since 1990 is at least $79 billion, and probably a lot higher. Funding for skeptical research is so small, no one can add it up. The oil giants like Shell and BP mostly support alarmism and carbon markets. The global carbon market was worth $176 bn in 2011, about the same as the global wheat trade, and the renewables investments added up to $243 bn in 2010. These are very large amounts of vested interest. Since Oreskes is blind to the real money in the debate we can only assume she is an activist rather than a historian.
- She resorts to twenty year old documents about tobacco funding to smear by association because she has so little real evidence of actual funding or misbehavior of skeptics. As it happens, Fred Singer was never directly paid by a tobacco company, has never doubted that smoking causes cancer, but corrected a scientific error in a paper on passive smoking. He deserves thanks. Oreskes owes him an apology.
- Skeptics far outrank believers in both numbers and in scientific kudos. They have won real Nobel Prizes in physics, the climate scientists Oreskes quotes have won “Peace Prizes”. Skeptics can name 31,500 scientists including 9,000 PhD’s and hundreds of professors. The IPCC can name 62 people who reviewed the critical chapter nine of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, some of them reviewing their own work. Alarmists don’t try to counter the Petition Project with a petition of their own because, even with all their supporters on the scientific gravy train, they don’t stand a chance of coming up with a number large enough to prop up their claims that 97% of scientists agree.
- Oreskes claims “deniers” attack the messenger, which on it’s face is true, except that she is the one who denies the evidence and attacks the messenger. She is the Queen of Smear and The Merchant of Doubt herself. Virtually no one has done more to smear opponents in this debate than she has. She refers to them continuously as “Deniers” — though she cannot name any evidence they deny, she has dug mindlessly into the paltry funding, biographies, or association and connections with topics that are totally unrelated to our atmosphere. Skeptics keep asking for evidence. It’s been 30 months since I asked, and no one can provide THAT mystery paper that supports the catastrophic claims.
- Oreskes keeps stating that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and increases the temperature of the planet, but almost all the leading skeptics agree with it. Why does she keep stating it, as if it is a point of contention? She wants the audience to believe that this is what the debate is about, while the skeptics agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes warming — but dispute the feedbacks asserted by models (which account for two thirds of the forecast increase in temperatures), but which is completely absent in the observations. Is Oreskes ignorant and incompetent in assessing the real scientific debate or is she deliberately deceiving her audience? Only she knows.
When she says those in denial reject “the scientific evidence”, she mistakenly believes that “evidence” about climate change is an internet poll of government funded researchers. It’s an anti-science position akin to witchcraft. Tens of thousands of real scientists, including men who walked on the moon, and Nobel Prize winners of physics, know that evidence for climate change comes from thermometers, ice cores, satellites and fossils. Real scientists can quote 1,100 peer reviewed papers that support their skepticism. Naomi Oreskes can quote no real evidence that supports her catastrophic pet hypothesis. Instead she thinks computer simulations produce “observations” and scientist’s opinions are worth measuring and quoting.
Oreskes’ event at Curtin in Perth on Thursday is advertised with the following:
Professor Naomi Oreskes will host a discussion where she will outline the political and ideological roots of climate change denial, showing the linkages between neo-liberalism – the revival of classical commitments to laissez-faire economics – and the rejection of the scientific evidence of man-made climate change. Professor Oreskes will show how those who are committed to laissez faire reject the scientific evidence, and attack the scientific messenger. And she will suggest that the way forward is to focus on solutions, particularly solutions that minimize government interventions in the market-place.
Since skeptics don’t deny any scientific evidence, her theories about neoliberalism collapse in a hole, doomed by an error cascade that starts with her first phrase. Here’s an alternate hypothesis: Scientists reject man-made global warming because it’s wrong (it lacks empirical support), not because of their political beliefs. The models she claims are working fail on global, regional, and local scales, they fail on short term forecasts, get core assumptions wrong and can’t explain long term historic climate movements either.
The question she ought be researching is why those of a collectivist, big-government nature are so blind to the mountain of evidence staring them in the face. Could it be that a scientific theory that suggests we need a larger, more regulatory and powerful government involvement appeals to exactly the same people who dislike individual responsibility and real free markets? Those who call for “free market” solutions to climate change are the ones who don’t understand what a free market is. In a real free market, governments don’t set the price, create an artificial demand, determine the supply and tweak the rules to get the outcome they want, picking the “winners” in the energy game.
She is in denial about what science is, what evidence is, about the mass movement of whistleblowing scientists storming across the web, and about the vested interests.
The hypocrisy is blatant. Why is UWA supporting her as a 2012 UWA Institute of Advanced Studies Professor-at-Large? Who is paying for her to come, and why are UWA standards so low that they continue to support her smear campaign?
The first and only thing you need to know about Oreskes is that she does not understand what science is. Although she’s called a science historian, whenever she refers to “The Science” or “The Evidence” she is not referring to science as understood by Faraday, Einstein, Bohr or Fleming. Where they hold empirical evidence and the data to be the ultimate decider, Oreskes thinks science is done by voting, and only an anointed subclass of scientists is allowed to cast their opinion.
Naomi Oreskes is speaking at UWA today. UWA needs to justify how much taxpayers money they contribute to propagating something that is so clearly not science, but not even competent research. In years to come, UWA and Scripps will be embarrassed that their science faculties should promote something so unscientific.
Other days when JoNova explained what Naomi Oreskes was up to:
- Now we are not even allowed to doubt?
- Oreskes, Readfearn: Got no evidence? Throw different names. Skeptics are paranoid ideologues afraid of reds under the bed.
- Oreskes’ clumsy, venomous smear campaign: busted (actually, this is Fred Singers work).
Is she coming to the East coast?
Like Sydney.
10
Oreskes was on the East coast in May 2011 and interviewed by the ABC; an account of that atrocity is here.
10
Hey, thanks to folks like Naomi & her global warming, we are currently having the best snowfall in some years here on a certain part of Eastern Australia.
Walkin’ in a Winter Wonderland!
00
“Global warming can cause weather on both ends of the extreme; hot and cold” Lisa Simpson
“Melbourne’s cold weather today (currently 9 degrees) is caused by global warming” Sonny
00
Where is my invitation to this discussion from one of my alma maters? Oh I see the University’s ‘hosts’ are Professors of Psychology Stephan Lewandowsky and Carmen Lawrence. Well they certainly do have a roaming brief since they are from the University of WA and from Psychology not any Earth science. But I guess that just shows how post normal (modern) science has become about advocacy, not about science.
10
Given Lawrence’s nickname is Carmen of Amnesia for her part in one of the most corrupt periods in West Australian political history, the presence of Lawrence on any debate involving political spin, the ALP and millions of dollars of funding is curiously comforting to those who cried corruption and drive her from WA government. If there is a question mark over anything, the presence of Carmen of Amnesia will generally send rational thinking people to the opposite of her endorsements.
00
Good to see a direct attack on Oreskes. I’ve heard her speak, a very unpleasant experience. From the little I know of her (she is too uninteresting to delve further) she seems to be another scientific illiterate. But she’ll be in good company there with Lewandowsky and Lawrence.
Is it too much to hope that interesting questions will be allowed from the floor? Probably.
00
On the issue of Climate Change– and perhaps uniquely on this issue — we are told: “The debate is over! There will be no more learning, no more discussion, no more questions. Not only will no debate be tolerated, but anyone who dares to ask such questions will be slandered and viciously attacked. Now, as someone who believes that part of being human is to learn something new every day, I respond: “How dare you tell me there will be no more learning?” The establishment that maintains the Climate Change story on life support admits that there is no direct proof that the action of human beings will heat the globe catastrophically, only a “scientific consensus” that such is the case.
And what of this “consensus”? The climate change lobby insists that a “consensus” of opinion is, in and of itself, convincing evidence. But what kind of evidence is this? In some countries, a scientist who denies that man is causing catastrophic climate change might be attacked, vilified, lose his funding, his job, and his reputation in the scientific community.
In other words, in the main stream media we generally only hear of scientists from one side because scientists from the other side have been strong-armed into silence. This is governmental coercion of the worst kind, and on a worldwide scale no less. One kind of scientists is encouraged, the other kind if warned that his words might lead to loss of his livelihood. Some great victory for the climate change lobby. The game has been fixed!
Let people speak! If for no one else, I demand this for my own sake. I want to know what is really happening with the worlds climate and why and yet how can I if those who might have research results that are not mainstream are implicitly told: “Speak only the official line, or suffer the consequences.” I insist on my human right to learn.
There are those who say, “Okay, so maybe the Climate Change is a bit exaggerated, but do we really want to destabilize society by openly talking about all this, possibly encouraging hostility against scientists and delaying environmental action ?” This raises an important philosophical question: Do you believe mankind to be so inherently stupid that people must be lied to in order to make them behave? If so, then the lies you tell them are only a small bandage to cover up a much greater evil: Lack of confidence in mankind’s ability to handle the truth. And if you truly believe that people cannot handle the truth, but instead need a “Big Brother” to handle it for them, then surely our current system of “democracy” is the most dangerous thing on earth.
Of course, I understand that people can be stupid, but I also believe in the human ability to learn, and to grow with each new piece of knowledge. Rather than censor information that we subjectively perceive to be “dangerous,” we should teach our children to think critically, to remain open-minded, and to look for truth rather than cling to emotionally appealing falsehoods.
And that is just about all we can do: teach our children and hope for the best, realizing that people cannot be programmed like robots. Eighty years of failed Communism should have taught us that. To use the power of the state to force men to be what the state defines as “good” creates a world far more hellish than the one that is supposedly being prevented. I would rather live in a world where people are free to be stupid than one in which “goodness” is enforced at gun point.
Keep in mind also that truth, objective truth, does not need threats and intimidation to prevail. We climate skeptics are often likened to those who said that the earth was flat. But just the reverse is true: It is the other side that acts like a Holy Inquisition, institutionalizing one viewpoint and punishing heretics. Remember: We only accepted that the earth is round after the debate was opened. And since then, the round-earth adherents have not needed false news laws, hate crimes laws, and libel or slander laws to protect the truthfulness of their view. Likewise, all we ask is that the climate change story either stand or fall according to the evidence — or lack of it.
While we climate skeptics sit on a wealth of wonderfully heretical information, can we get it out to the general public? Can we “mainstream” climate skepticism before it’s too late?
It is a testament to the strength of climate skeptic research, scholarship, and tenacity that all the alarmist influence in the world has not erased this movement. Despite the best efforts of our most clever and determined adversaries, climate sceptic blogs, books and news columns are still read.
But how much progress are we really making in getting our message to the public? Unfortunately, we’ve been making only tiny, pussycat steps. The time has come, indeed has never been better, to take climate skepticism to the rest of the world. I am sure that we will eventually succeed in getting out our message. Information can be suppressed for just so long.
10
Nicely done Sonny
Now that “Global Warming” has been squared away you can turn your daily learning experiences towards that other big mystery that seems to trouble you so much.
KK 🙂
00
Thanks KK,
But I doubt we will ever truly get to the bottom of the great mystery of who we are, where we come from and why we are here. We can start by questioning everything we are told as irrefutable fact and always maintain an open mind and a sense of inquiry. We should resist those who tell us otherwise.
00
Hi Sonny
I agree with your statement:
“But I doubt we will ever truly get to the bottom of the great mystery of who we are, where we come from and why we are here.”
That’s a big one , but it is comforting to know that we do have at least part of that mystery covered.
HOW we arrived at this place and time Physically is one of the wonders of science and we have a very good outline through
Evolutionary processes which are now well understood.
As to WHY we are here and the mysteries of Intelligent Design that really is a question for the philosophers.
KK 🙂
00
We remember? Do you remember? Considering the last major society to believe in a flat earth was the Chinese up until 1648, you must have a very long memory and the compounding interest on your savings account must be awesome by now.
The Bible talked about the Earth being a flat circle. That’s poor form considering that an ancient Greek philosopher, 360 years before the Bible had been written, had used measurements of the sunlight hitting the bottom of a deep well to conclude that the Earth was a sphere, with a fairly good estimate of the radius. The Chinese were very late to the party. Even the muslims sent a wooden globe map of the world to the Chinese in 1267 as a bit of a subtle hint, but it didn’t appeal to them yet as they still had woks in their heads. (They were Geosphericalism Deniers.)
As to there being a debate, amongst Europeans only the uneducated landlubbers would have thought of the world being flat, if they even thought about it at all. Doesn’t sound like much of a debate.
Basically it is difficult to tell if the Flat Earth analogy is appropriate without documentary evidence of how scholarly opinion was shifted from flat to round. Beyond that point the analogy backfires because the intelligentsia would probably have dictated the newly received wisdom to anyone rich enough and interested enough to listen.
Even Galileo’s heliocentricism versus the Vatican’s geocentricism is a poor analogy because there are more clues in everyday life that the earth is round than there are clues that the Earth orbits the Sun. Without telescopes and prolonged recording, how would anyone have known. By contrast, the historical record showing late 20th century warming was not unusual in either rate or magnitude is bountiful. There does not seem to have been any other pseudoscientific delusion massive enough to be analogous to Global Warming.
Which means… Global Warming is UNPRECEDENTED. haha
10
Well I notice the Aussie Gov still believes in an Earth centred solar system. But what else would you expect when Gillard and her union cronies are in charge?
See: Compute Sunrise, Sunset and Twilight Times. (Geoscience Australia).
http://www.ga.gov.au/geodesy/astro/sunrise.jsp
00
But that is all it takes.
In all totalitarian regimes (with exception of those destroyed by war), the eventual collapse has been through quiet and anonymous cartoons, graffiti, parables, etc.
The Arab Spring, though very messy in its culmination, started in that way, and the indications were there in the street society, long before the first rock, or petrol bomb, was thrown.
This blog, and others, are just another medium for the cartoons and parables to get out.
The fact that the Australian Government is looking for ways to regulate the internet is, in and of itself, evidence that the mechanisms of this current Government are totalitarian at their core.
10
Believe me our Wannabe Slave Masters are well aware of that as the quote at the end of this comment shows. Global Warming, Environmentalism and Redistribution of Wealth were chosen as the rally cries to lend ” legitimacy” to a complete revamping of our social and economic systems.
If you do the reading you find the Central Bankers were the guys who packed up Trotsky put him aboard the S. S. Kristianiafjord and shipped him, their gold and his revolutionaries from Canada to Russia. Meanwhile The European Central Bankers packed up Lenin with more gold and put him on a sealed railway car and shipped him across Europe. Both along with Stalin met in Petrograd and started a revolution that replaced the new democratic republic with a communist Soviet state.
Meanwhile in Europe another banker experiment was tried. This was the Fabian run European Union. Instead of a bloody revolution, treaties were used to slowly move power and control from the nation states into the hands of an unelected bureaucracy. This worked much better and the USSR experiment was abandoned. Note how quickly the Soviet Union just sort of fell apart and we now have Al Gore, the former US vice-president is battling with Mikhail Gorbachev, the former Russian president, over the rights to operate a ‘green’ domain name.
Since the EU form for “Global Governance” was decided on we have the duplication of the EU in the World Trade Organization. Pascal Lamy, Director General of the WTO, is working diligently on coming up with a method to convince the “Great Unwashed” to “Buy-in” and therefore give “Global Governance” legitimacy.
They learned from the Soviet Union and China a sullen serf class produces little or nothing. The EU with its “illusion of freedom” worked much better. However as David Rockefeller stated while speaking at the Business Council for the United Nations, on September 14, 1994
They know their time is running out. The secrecy and dirty deals are coming to light and more and more people are Following the Money
Here is Pascal Lamy’s latest try in the New York Times, and it sounds like good news for us as he desperately tries to shore up the crumbling EU. This is where we will actually see our win against CAGW. Not in the Scientific News but in the financial section because it has ALWAYS been about MONEY.
Pascal Lamy, get your sticky fingers OFF Abraham Lincoln!
00
Ahh- Gnaomi Oreskes- the fearless slayer of straw men.
Like you, level gaze, I have heard her speak and it is indeed an unpleasant and frustrating experience. She is seriously deluded.
10
Hi Gnome.
I can’t beat that but I have heard David Suzuki speak after being lured into one of his talks about “The Environment”.
I nearly threw up.
Such an arrogant, conceited, scientifically illiterate twit.
The worst aspect was that we paid to get in.
One of my most shameful moments.
KK
00
I shouldn’t worry too much about Oreskes having any influence in this debate.
Everyone is fed up with the incessant Left/Green whining, holier-than-thou moralising, and sneering vilification of anyone who doesn’t bow down to their demands — traits which make up almost their entire repertoire.
Their support is tanking in political circles everywhere, which seems to have coincided with a noticeable ramping-up of their shrill ranting over the past few months, ever since Fakegate.
Oreskes will be enthusiastically received, no doubt, but only by the kind of people who already share her hatred of, and rage at, human development.
20
Thanks Sonny for your precise of the state of play regarding the Global Warming scare or the current fallback position of Climate Change etc.
Hope you don’t mind if I borrow some of your lines.
I particularly like your human rights idea, basically I insist on my human right to learn, as in hear both sides of the science.
RexAlan
10
Great quote from Naomi Oreskes:
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/22/opinion/la-oe-oreskes-judging-climate-change-20120122
20
Hi Sonny, It was instructive to read that article in the LA Times and realise just how consistently skewed Oreskes’ way of thinking really is! Yes ‘screwed’ would have been a better word!
She equates Climate Scientists to a courtroom jury and claims that the world’s climate scientists decided a long time ago that the case against CO2 had been proven beyond reasonable doubt. But her analogy falls down badly because in the real world you cant have members of the prosecution sitting on the jury! You can’t have members of the jury with access to the evidence and the ability to adjust it!
Somehow it seems Oreskes missed the ‘Logic’ component of the critical thinking course at University yet now she is a University Professor being invited all around the world to spread her crazy way of thinking to our poor impressionable young students. And she is cheered on by the likes of Lewandowsky and Lawrence who are teaching our students at UWA about psychology. It makes me feel ill to think how low our educational system has slumped.
20
Absolutely. Here we see the famous alarmist tactic of using analogy instead of evidence.
How innapropriate to compare the climate debate to that of a courtroom trial! A criminal trial requires evidence that a crime has been commited. Eg a body. Since catastrophic climate change has yet to occur there is no figurative murder victim.
And climate scientists would be expert witnesses not jurers! Furthermore there would be lawyers and experts available to both the prosecution and the defense. Oreskes denies the existence of actual scientists who are skeptical of the prosecutions position. In her simple mind it is the good and noble scientists vs the evil corrupt think tanks and industries.
Of course in a real trial the members of the jury should be members of the public who are unaffiliated and not legally trained (lawyers can’t be juror). What more they are to arrive at their conclusion without undue external pressure and influence. (eg from a “Scientist General)
Not only does Oreskes misunderstand the scientific method she misconstrues fundamental principals of the justice system.
20
Oreskes transparent use of a court room analogy deliberately serves to foster the implication that those disagreeing with the jury have a certain criminal odour about them – think Nuremberg here. Those disagreeing with her thesis therefore, are only a short imaginative step away from ‘denialism’. She appears as a lightweight who will not last long in the glare of science, her psuedo-academic rhetoric sliding into activist political stridency, where she is likely most comfortable. Her Warholian moment will be just that.
00
I’m afraid the “glare of science” is dominated by climate scientists. And the book is so flattering to them that they love to believe it.
00
OMG. Sonny? Thanks for that quote of hers. She’ll lose masses of people right there. She’ll even lose some warmists with that one.
10
I don’t know, it’s of the same Ilk as “the debate is over”.
Some people are happy to be relieved of the burden of having to think for themselves.
So much easier to trust in the pronouncements of authority figures while guzzling down kool-aid.
00
I disagree. Those wanting to control what other people think don’t usually let them know that’s what’s happening. Instead it’s hidden inside emotion.
Her statement “Many Americans cling to the idea that it is reasonable to maintain an open mind. It isn’t, at least not to the scientists who study the matter,” is too honest about what they are up to, to be comfortable. Even the warmist of the warm don’t like to be told what to do or what to think. They believe they have made their own (emotionally triggered) decisions on the matter.
I think this statement of Naomi’s might be one of the better shots in the foot of “scientific” manipulation! 🙂
00
“Many Americans cling to the idea that it is reasonable to maintain an open mind. It isn’t, at least not to scientists who study the matter.”
No delusions of grandeur in that quote, just an unabashed god complex.
10
OUch! And she actually said that? And they wonder why skeptics will not go away.
00
ACK,
I just ate and you have me read that piece of drivel from our Wannabe Slave Masters?
I still can not believe people are so stupid as to WANT to become slaves or serfs but that is what the current repackaging of “Socialism” as “Sustainability” is.
Good Grief folks the idea has flopped every time it was tried all the way back to America’s First Thanksgiving in the seventeenth century!
The quotes in the article are from Colony Governor William Bradford’s diary yet as American school students we NEVER EVER see word one of what that good man wrote about the actual economic situation surrounding Thanksgiving, one of the four major USA holidays. (Presidents day, Memorial day, 4th of July and Thanksgiving)
00
1. 1981: Hansen et. al. claim net GHG warming [‘flat Earth’] = 33 K when you must take off ~4 km x 6 K/km lapse rate, for any gas: predicted warming x3.7 too high.
2, GISS model assumes Earth emits IR like a black body in a vacuum. This falsely exaggerates IR warming by ~x5, offset in hind-casting by exaggerated cloud albedo. Despite no physical mechanism, it’s assumed all this energy is directly thermalised in the lower atmosphere. Temperature difference, sunlit to cloudy, creates imaginary positive feedback but average temperature correct.
3. 1988: supported by Enron and Gore whose interests are profiting from carbon trading, on a hot July day, Hansen presents apocalyptic predictions to Congress.
4. From mid 1990s, GISS etc. systematically adjust past temperatures and remove inconvenient stations to pretend climate has warmed at near double the real rate.
5. 1997: proved [CO2] follows temperature at end of ice ages. Fallacious Mann hockey stick created with the aid of CRU to pretend the MWP did not exist.
6. 2004, AR4 looming, NASA switches Twomey’s physics he warned didn’t work for thicker clouds, with fake ‘surface reflection’ physics to claim AIE hides most AGW.
7: 2011: Hansen and Sato claim AIE has increased to offset all AGW.
8. 2012: HADCRUT4 claims warming continuing but it’s Arctic data: Icelandic government writes GISS claiming it removed 1 K from past Reykjavik temperatures.
Anyone notice a pattern developing? How about you Oreskes [who studied at my alma mater]?
00
Hi TON; yes Hansen’s 1981 paper was later elaborated by Smith who confirmed the figure of 33C due to ghgs.
G&T, in their 2nd paper, dismiss this contention without, as far as I can see, demolishing any of the relevant thermodynamic laws.
What is your take on G&T?
00
Yes, a very good paper. The 33 K is completely wrong.
FYI in my latest work I have concluded, but the detailed radiation physics is not complete, that the real GHE is from the reduction of emissivity at the Earth’s surface of the IR bands thus causing an average reduction of emissivity hence temperature rise.
The complexity here is that the parallel process to radiation, the adsorption and desorption of gas molecules in the IR emitting sites, is not well understood so I am not certain that convection rises as well as IR radiation in the ‘atmospheric window’.
However, be assured, there is no possible CO2-AGW and the GHE is from the Earth’s temperature being forced to rise by GHE’s in self-absorption mode causing the average emissivity to decrease.
Incidentally clouds absorb band IR and redistribute it in the atmospheric window thus damping the system still further.
00
I look forward to your work seeing the light of day TON.
00
Jo, I’m a long ways from Perth so I won’t be going to hear her. However, I suppose John brookes (he’s near Perth right) is going and will report here with fresh news.
It sounds like Ms. O. will be hammering home her
brilliantlamelast-ditch analysis that this whole denier thing is the fault of old conservative white men. Maybe she has suggestions on how to deal withusthem.Anyway, I’m looking forward to a recharged John Brookes. (he’s been a bit weary sounding lately).
What do you say J.B. ?
00
I saw her last year Mark D. She gave a convincing and entertaining talk. However I doubt she’ll have much new to say, so I won’t be there.
00
I agree. How can you have much new to say when you are an open advocate of closed mindedness on the subject of climate science?
00
Did she use a soothing monotone voice together with a swinging pocket watch?
10
I don’t doubt that she was convincing and entertaining. She is persuasive for all the wrong reasons.
10
I’ll bet her audiences are shrinking! 🙂
00
Yes John, the weak minded are easily influenced and impressed.
00
No wonder Malcolm T wanted to be President of Australia and when that fell through he decided to settle for Prime Minister, but that
fell through there was always the Golden Parachute and perhaps even the main event.
The Carbon Trading Market where banking commissions globally would be about #300,000,000 per year.
The member for Goldman Sachs wanted a carbon Tax, ETS or whatever, anything that the bank could get commissions from.
KK
00
With all due respect you can’t seriously think this:
“Skeptics far outrank believers in both numbers and in scientific kudos. They have won real Nobel Prizes in physics, the climate scientists Orsekes quotes have won “Peace Prizes”. Skeptics can name 31,500 scientists including 9,000 PhD’s and hundreds of professors. The IPCC can name 62 people who reviewed the critical chapter nine of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, some of them reviewing their own work. Alarmists don’t try to counter the Petition Project with a petition of their own because, even with all their supporters on the scientific gravy train, they don’t stand a chance of coming up with a number large enough to prop up their claims that 97% of scientists agree.”
I mean all the academies of science? Ok ok some skeptics have nobel prizes… but let’s get serious the above is such an absurd argument it is staggering that you even try and make it.
00
Not only a ridiculous argument, but weird too. More “skeptics” – a consensus even? More “scientific kudos” – argument from authority anyone?
Actually no one could ever accuse “skeptics” of a consensus. The number of mutually inconsistent arguments would not allow it.
00
Really? The essence of the skeptic argument is quite clear and directly apposite to the alarmist argument:
We don’t believe on the evidence that humans are causing catastrophic global warming / climate change.
00
Hi John
There appears to be a consensus that your comment and the one above you are.. ” tainted” ?
KK 🙂
00
Yes, Matt – lets add up all the academies. Do! Let’s guess 50 associations with committees of 8 (I’m being generous) that means if we assume there were no dissenters, no rolled over people or apathetic people, and no double counted IPCC authors on those committees that the IPCC can add 400 scientists to its tally. 400!
So you will protest, but which association asked for a vote from the members?
If any did, which also allowed full and open debate beforehand? Answer: None.
Answer: Be staggered Matt. Alarmism struggles on with only a few score b-grade activists in the roles that matter (cushioned by billions of dollars of vested interests as onlookers and squads of dutiful well meaning parrots). All the rest of the “IPCC thousands” have never looked at an attribution study, never disassembled a model, never taken part in a real debate.
10
Damn it Jo, why is it you can say something in three lines which takes me thirty three to say!
00
Here is surprising confirmation that there can be no CO2-AGW except in the driest of deserts. The Gold Standard of atmospheric IR physics, the USAF’s MODTRAN programme, which effectively computes emissivity as a function of composition, shows there is no change of emissivity with change of [CO2] at 10% RH or more: http://notrickszone.com/2012/08/07/epic-warmist-fail-modtran-doubling-co2-will-do-nothing-to-increase-long-wave-radiation-from-sky/
This illustrates that with gas mixtures, particularly with other asymmetrical gases, the physical parameters may change compared with simpler mixtures. Be aware that Gosselin believes in ‘back radiation’. However, it’s incorrect physics in that it cannot do thermodynamic work. Instead, its purpose is to reduce IR emissivity in GHG IR bands at the Earth’s surface thus causing its temperature to rise, the real GHE.
Therefore, Hansen’s claim of runaway atmospheric warming from increasing CO2 in which Oreskes apparently believes, is baseless. Furthermore, it seems he and his colleagues, hence the IPCC models, have assumed CO2 acts independently in the mixture when it cannot. This is yet more de facto evidence this pseudo-science was constructed to deceive otherwise the models, supposedly based on the same physics as MODTRAN, would have no CO2-AGW over most of the Earth.
00
Is the USAF still using MODTRAN? Well, I guess if it ain’t broke, why replace it? Do you happen to know the current version number? Just for personal interest.
00
Check with Gosselin.
The dry air CO2-emissivity data are separately available in Hottell charts, and show the same form as in the Gosselin report. Using these data I have concluded there can be no CO2-AGW because the rel GHE is from the self-absorbing GHEs switching off IR emission sites at the earth’s surface.
The maths will take some time but the mechanism is that you can consider the IR emission sites as turning off self-absorption in the gas, thus increasig its emissivity and Prevost Exchange.
This physics is also being looked at by others.
The surprising bit is the water RH effect.
00
Rereke; have some fun here.
00
Yes Jo, even when they polled over ten thousand (10,257) hard core scientists, they had to juggled and manipulate the study until they got their 97-98% that is 75 out of 77.
References:
About that overwhelming 97-98% number of scientists that say there is a climate consensus…
What else did the ‘97% of scientists’ say?
OH, and do not forget 59 Additional Scientists Join Senate Report…More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
So from that it looks like you are over stating the case for the warmists by a factor of ten. Quite generous of you.
00
MattB, you are unfortunately correct in stating that just about every one of the world’s Academies of Science gave their support to the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW). All of them did so without putting it to a vote of their members. They also did so in solidarity with their Climate Science colleagues because they were horrified to see the bad press and the lack of respect some climate scientists were being treated with. Most of the scientists involved in the Boards which ran those academies had enough scientific knowledge to understand the basics that greenhouse gases had the ability to warm the earth. They certainly did not have enough understanding of the science to understand the arguments about feedback mechanisms and what evidence if any existed to support the predictions made by the climate models produced by the IPCC and described in the Summary for Policy Makers. However they naively believed that just like in their own field of science, climate science would diligently apply the scientific method, record empirical data, write up research papers, and have them fairly peer reviewed and published in the relevant journals. They naively thought that the IPCC was a collaborative effort of principled scientists who were all after the same goal, the truth about climate science.
So it was that naivety, and perhaps as some suggest, also the not inconsequential political favours and funding which came with offering that very public support of CAGW which moved them to make those very public statements of support. Of course before the very public support by the Academies, there had only been a trickle of climate scepticism leaking through the cracks. Only a few Climate scientists daring to stick their head up and point out the errors, the fudges. Many of those scientists were the older ones who didn’t have the rest of the lives careers to worry about, who’s financial futures were secure. Others clearly stayed quiet, even when Michael Mann and the cabal of climate scientists tried to pretend the medieval warm period had never happened and current temperatures were unprecedented just so they and Al Gore and the IPCC could use a scary graph to ‘prove’ CO2 ‘must’ be driving up current temperatures.
But then Climategate happened and the science academies I am sure would have all wished that they had not issued their ringing endorsements. Some members of the Royal Society even forced a re-write which actually acknowledge uncertainties about what was causing climate change. Other academies have since kept a pretty low profile though warmists still love to claim their support.
Worst still, the CAGW theory which says increasing human GHG emissions will lead to ever increasing global temperatures has been falsified because no matter how many times past temperature station data was adjusted and homogenised, current temperatures would not co-operate with that theory. Since 1998 the global average temperature has not continued to rise at ever increasing rates, as predicted, in fact temperatures have basically stabilised – something totally unpredicted by CAGW. So the CAGW theory has been falsified.
So even if we use Oreskes’ analogy of a courtroom where the scientists are the jurists and should have convicted CO2 years ago, she is still screwed. You see the defence could have come along and asked for the case to be re-opened on the basis of new evidence. Apart from all the Climategate material calling into question just about all the previously submitted evidence, the fact that temperature rise has stalled since 1998 has sunk CAGW theory, the jury has to find the defendant not guilty and the judge must dismiss all charges.
In addition the judge should order members of the prosecution and some jury members to be held to be charged with tampering with the evidence. In due course, the Science Academies will change their Boards, hopefully publish an apology and pledge never to lose sight of objectivity again.
10
Jaymez said:
So the world’s acadamies of science are not qualified to give informed opinions on science. Looks like everybody will just have to listen to you.
00
Well you certainly show your ignorance.
Most scientists will not venture an opinion in another field. Science is now so segregated that on two separate occasions I, as a lowly chemistry student, made Discoveries because I had a solid background in chemistry and physics and was taking some “Fun” courses in geology including independent research.
As others have mentioned many “scientists” have very little in the way of training in chemistry, physics, math or especially in statistics depending on the field.
Heck Dr. Phil Jones was complaining he had to wait for a Grade student because he could not run an Excel program!
CRU’s Dr. Phil Jones, world renowned climatologist, can’t even plot a trend in Excel
00
No scientific academy has ever granted their members a free vote before supporting AGW. The Geological Society of Australia produced a pro-AGW statement despite protests from their membership.
00
I have this strange mental image of Mesdames Oreskes, Carmen Lawrence and a few others like Joan Kirner, Kristina Keneally, Julia Gillard and Anna Bligh, hunched under a poncho, telling scary stories by torchlight like girl guides. Many have in common that they held or hold offices of respect, were voted out (or will be)in a landslide and did a deficit job on their economies. But I’ll rely on the evidence rather than make an ad hom.
I rather liked Dame Margaret Thatcher.
00
Nice image Geoff. Maggie would not have been invited under the poncho, and nor would she have wanted to be there.
00
I truly don’t understand the thumbs down on that one John, I think you got it right.
00
Sonny.That was an awesome,cogent rant. Thank you!
One of the problems that we all have, is that the western worlds’ media is (I believe) [snip – No. – Jo]. This means that virtually all of our information is given to us with agenda attached. (Commonly called propaganda). And this overwhelming control not only allows the “elite” to lie to, intimidate and distract us, but also allows them to totally blank out information they don’t want us to know. An obvious example is the immense bias in the whole global warming/climate change/soon to morph into sustainable development conspiracy against mankind.(As in Agenda 21).
As we know, they are teaching their agenda to our children in our schools. Their goals are long term. And we need to guard and guide our children against the corrupt aspects of the education system that they are being subjected to.
We need to teach our children to BE SKEPTICAL! Not just of the climate bollocks, but of everything they and we are told. If I can teach my kids (and anyone who will listen) just one thing, it is, be a SKEPTIC. And to read Jo’s blog! Teach them to say… Can you prove that?
Joanne Nova, Thank you so much for your brilliant work and for the community of humorous and intelligent commenters your blog attracts.
Jeff.
00
[Yep. Fair point. His is snipped – Jo]
00
[Snip. Too off topic — Jo]
00
Holy cow! I agree completely with John Brookes!
Did anyone sense the tremors in the Force?
I shall note this in my diary……..
00
Jeff,
There is also the independent blogosphere, which generally contains all sides and every aspect of every discussion. We should teach our children to no not be afraid of the confusion this presents, but rather to think for themselves and look at the quality of the supportable evidence produced by one side or the other. This is where the scepticism comes in. It doesn’t matter how much evidence exists in support of a theory, it only takes one piece of counter evidence to negate it. If we train our kids to have tentative acceptance of a proposition, but to actively search for counter evidence, then we will have achieved something to be proud of.
00
As Einstein said;
‘No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.‘
00
Jo, It’s not enough to state its common ground amongst sceptics and warmist that CO2 causes warming, its that it has a diminishing return as it increases AND that the man-made component has no significant impact – regardless of feedbacks.
00
WTF? If feedbacks are strongly positive, the man-made component will have a significant impact. If they are small or negative, they won’t. To say that we’ll have no significant feedback regardless is just mind numbingly dumb.
00
If something has no effect in the first place, then feedbacks don’t matter.
00
John,
have you heard of the well respected field of science called ‘physics’ ?
C02 in its trace gas ‘physical’ form simply doesn’t perform in that manner.
00
WTF?
World Trade Fair ?
Feedbacks is not a scientific term.
It is an engineering term at best which warmers believe relates to a loop involving CO2 and H2O.
Where simple observation shows what happens, any attempt to claim a positive feedback is ludicrous.
Nature does this, we have ALL observed it, yes, even the Climate Scientists.
1. It rains. Earth gets damp.
2. It’s cool.
3. Clouds disappear (they are now puddles on the ground.
4. Sun can now get through to warm air adjacent to ground and evaporate water.
5. Water rises under convection and forms clouds.
6. The more clouds, the colder it gets.
7. It rains … and so on.
Now if extra CO2 raised the temperature (it really has BA effect) then in theory more water would evaporate to form more clouds which makes it cooler. This is NOT a dangerous situation John.
and so on …
Dear John,
Dear Will,
Dear Tim :
This is what engineers call a self limiting system.
It contains an automatic damper that limits the initial effect.
If the contrary was the case and there was an open ended loop we would now all be incinerated by the spiraling temperatures with all the oceans evaporated.
Oh my golly gosh!
What a catastrophe for warmers. No dangerous feedback!
KK 🙂
00
The CO2 “Feedback” is this
1. CO2 absorbs energy radiated from the earth (Grey body radiation) Graph
2. Some of the radiation absorbed by CO2 is bounced back at the earth.
3. This radiation is reabsorbed by the earth. Since 70% of the earths surface is covered by water the “extra” energy from Mankind released CO2 causes more evaporation and this extra water vapor therefore triples the temperature response to the increase in CO2.
Unfortunately for John this falls flat on its face. The biggest fail is the amount of water in the atmosphere (Relative Humidity – RH) has FALLEN since 1948. GRAPH.
The second fail is the physics of the oceans. It is high energy visible and ultraviolet that is absorbed by the ocean not low level energy from the infrared section of the spectrum.
Graph 1
Graph 2
And even if you count what ever amount of energy is contributed by CO2 reemission it is dwarfed by the energy and variability from the suns UV
NASA Graph
[Legend from above graph]
In other words the actual DATA does not support the sun is constant and therefore CO2 (multiplied by RH) is the “Control Knob” of climate.
00
I think the point is Macha that most warmists think skeptics deny that CO2 has any warming capacity. I doubt most warmist understand the warming capacity of CO2 sufficiently to tack on that extra information, you’ll just confuse them.
00
impact, not feedback. Now I’m mindnumbingly dumb…
00
Yes. You are. Just like every other warmist.
00
So I used to be mindnumbingly dumb?
Cheers ExWarmist.
00
I thought that was your permanent condition.
I am not sure what your motivation is in continually sniping on this block. You show no sign of being able to understand science or even what science is about. Nor do you appear to have ever accepted anything contrary to your belief, even when it could be easily verified.
If you had ever searched for past climate data you would know that your belief that “CO2 is evil” flies in the face of common sense. You don’t know the first thing about feedbacks, and what happens.
Even ignorant as you are, I would still have expected a normal person to have experienced some small doubt and tested their prejudice against easily available facts.
On the other hand if your motivation is an adolescent desire to irritate, then you can count another bite. If you are, as you claim, at a University then I can only hope that the authorities make sure they don’t let you out of the cage.
00
It took me a while to realise that John Brookes sees himself in the role of Court Fool. Such a fool exists to prevent the monarch from getting too enamoured of their own importance, and to prevent the courtiers from becoming too sanctimonious. He plays that role very well.
In some ways, the long standing visitors here have reinforced that role in the way they interact with him. He is seen as annoying but necessary, but he serves a purpose. You might notice that he is treated differently to the trolls that visit from time to time. He has earned that privilege.
00
I though he was here as comic relief.. 🙂
00
Perceptive, Rereke. I think you guys are often wrong, but sometimes you have valid points, and interesting points of view. I try and keep you a little honest, while occasionally learning stuff myself.
00
Is this an admission that you are here as a paid spy for the government?
00
I view Brookes’s behaviour as analogous to that of a jackal (albeit not as attractive an animal), an opportunistic predator who stalks and harasses the rational herbivores (CO2 is undeniably good folks, makes the grass grow) in the hope of taking down, or at least taking a chunk out of, the weakest and most vulnerable members of the herd. The fact that JB repeatedly cops well-directed kicks and headbutts does not deter him; he is motivated by the primitive joy of the chase that his predatory genes dictate, and no logical argument will dissuade him from the hunt.
He clearly has unlimited time to devote to his predation, and would waste away if denied his sport. Only severe environmental change (the necessary decimation of his mates the hyenas, whose numbers have grown too large and upset the ecological balance) at the next election will convince JB to slink away in defeat, in search of more vulnerable prey.
00
There is a third motivation I have run into on other blogs and that is the person is paid.
If someone seems completely brain dead no matter what evidence is shown, chances are another factor besides logic is involved and that factor is usually $$$$ or a believe in a higher moral directive. Ends justify means and all that.
00
If I was paid, gai, I’d have been sacked a long time ago!
00
Finally, you said something Truthful!
00
Very well written.
Never liked the lady, and I think her arrogance shines so bright that we all can see right through her.
00
JB. Can you give us your spin on the various(highlighted on this site) raw data “adjustments” and why “adjusting” raw data is such a good thing?
00
Read about it yourself. The big correction in the US has to do with time of observation, because there has been a trend to resetting thermometers in the morning rather than at night. There are many other reasons for adjustments, including changing the location of thermometers, and changing the type of shelter.
The corrections are done because they have to be. If you didn’t do the corrections, then the surface temperature record would not match the satellite temperature record. And that would be weird.
00
I thought that made the adjustments to artificially create a century long warming trend. It would be really weird if the temperature record did not match the political and economic agenda.
Oh man the truth hurts!
00
You forgot to link a propaganda site.
So that’s an excuse for a one-time adjustment. What is the excuse for making dozens of adjustments? (Especially, when you realize that there would be no temperature trend in the latter half of the 20th century without the “adjustments”.)
One thing that Time of Observation Bias (TOB) doesn’t effect is all-time record highs and lows (except maybe to shift the record by one day). This is interesting to look at, given the recent claims by the warmists that “extreme” weather events are becoming more common.
The great majority of Tmax records in the 970 USHCN weather stations with at least 80 years of continuous records occured in the 1930s. Likewise, the great majority of Tmin records occured in the 1920s.
When it comes to all time temperature records per state (in the US), 24 high records (and 9 low records) were set in the 1930s — since 2000 there has been 1 high record and 4 lows (And this during the so-called “hottest decade in history”).
Extreme temperature events (like extreme droughts) have long predated any significant Human industrial emissions, and have, as the data show, no correlation to CO2 emissions whatsoever.
00
I think when it comes to temperature records you are talking about the US. The 1930’s certainly were exceptional in the US. A repeat of that decade would be pretty tough.
00
Thank you for that JB. You words are damnation of CAGW.
Next you might checkout statistical correlations between unadjusted temperature and CO2 levels.
00
Ms Oreskes has previous for being caught out in smearing & lying – even before a US Senate Committee.
The UK Sunday Times was forced to correct an article based on one of her papers.
All the details are linked here:-
http://www.nicolasnierenberg.com/
——————————————–
It is a long read but links appear safe – mod
00
What, like John Christy or Lord what’s his face?
00
Without highlighting by who and when Christy & Lord what’s his face were caught out in smearing & lying, that post is even low for you John.
00
should read that post is
evenlow, even for you John.00
Naomi Oreskes: living proof that you don’t have to be intelligent to be an intellectual…
00
No, it’s enough to just go along with the cosy, like minded, left thinking, set, that dominate certain parts of our universities , reinforcing each other’s fallacious thinking and self satisfied moralising.
10
That is true, but you do have to be erudite.
A lot of people confuse erudition with educational breadth, intellectual depth, cognitive ability and philosophical excellence. But that is not so. I am living proof of my own hypothesis.
00
Wisdom beyond all of our years
(and funnier than hell!)
******************
OT but the anniversary of the bombing of Nagasaki is Aug. 9th
Some of us wouldn’t be here except for this bombing.
My 86 year old father was on a troop transport heading for the Philippines. Prior to the bombing he as were most troops, of the mind that they wouldn’t be coming home.
I’m happy about the bombings.
00
Why was your father on a troop transport at the age of 86?
Just curious …
00
I thought most erudite folks would have been able to work out the math. 🙂
When my 86 year old father was 19 years of age,………
The bigger point being that he is still with us rather than being imbedded in some Pacific island.
00
The point I was making was that being erudite, like Ms Oreskes, does not imply any degree of intelligence at all, especially when it comes to mathematics. Math has so few words as to be almost meaningless.
But, as it happens, I had very little trouble with the math.
I was cunning enough to use an advanced and highly sophisticated computer model to calculate that your father was probably nineteen at the time (with error bars of plus or minus one). So it was not the mathematics that concerned me.
It was the way that you tortured the English language into submission that received my focus. I was, and am, surprised that your father is still with you, and has not previously succumbed to your verbal inexactitude.
But all in all I am glad your father is still with you. I lost mine a few years ago. Very careless of me, I know. I wish I had kept him closer.
Don’t make my mistake.
00
Yes torturing English is a specialty.
Like right there I should have added [of mine] to make a grammatically correct sentence. However it is easier to type when you leave a few words out AND it is easier to defend a mistake when you leave options open for others to assume. For example if you read it as though I really do torture English (men and women equally) then I could say silly, of course I don’t do that. And it wouldn’t be a lie. (torturers do worry about morals you know).
I’ve always thought the queen used too many words in nearly every sentence. I go with the principal that if you SHOULD be able to understand it, the sentence is complete. Notwithstanding assumptions for reader IQ and/or interest in word gaminess.
No, father isn’t with me but I haven’t lost him either and it would be impossible for him to be with us. I suspect you could find him near to my mother, neither of us have lost her.
I try to stay out of error bars, I find the regulars too tough. If you grill them properly it helps and here we are right back at torturing English.
Enough of this witty repartee?
Enough of this witty repartee!
00
So are several elderly Japanese I’ve talked to about it. They were ready to follow standing orders and defend the beaches with pitchforks, baseball bats and, mostly, their dead bodies. Such was Japanese society then that they never considered disobeying, even though they were civilians and knew it would be hopeless.
One described the immense relief he felt (and kept secret) when he heard the Emperor announce the surrender.
It’s been credibly estimated that millions of Japanese lives were spared.
00
I sure don’t doubt that BobC.
Thanks for the link too. Some interesting stats there.
00
Rereke
🙂
00
Jo, fantastic piece, as usual. You take no prisoners and get straight to the facts of the matter.
When are you going to write a book on all of this – I’ll bet you’ll find a huge audience in this age of Kindle downloads, etc. I’ll put my advance order in now.
Meantime, thanks for continuing to write about the CAGW scam with such dedication to well-sourced factual reporting. You set an example in climate reporting that shames the vast majority of MSM commentators.
00
Thanks Phil. The book? I am. I must. There is a plan… I will reveal more soon. Merci! Jo
00
That’s fantastic news, Jo! Really glad to hear it. I’m sure I speak for the vast majority here when I say I can’t wait to see what you’ve got cooking! Yay!
00
My thoughts exactly . Cann’t wait ! Especially to read all about what went on in Bali, when 12 ‘Apostles’ went out among the 12,000 to really save the world.
00
Thanks for taking on Oreskes. I wrote a series of blog posts about the book in Norwegian and I’m trying to do something in English. The book has many interesting flaws.
Absolutely, but it’s even worse. Of the four “bad guys” that recur in the book, only one (Seitz) actually worked for the tobacco companies, and what he did for them was to direct funding for research that Oreskes and Conway admit was valid. They don’t even suggest a connection between the two remaining “bad guys” (Jastrow and Nierenberg) and tobacco.
Another really deceptive aspect is the way they have used strong terms like “disinformation” and even “fraud”. These words hardly occur in the main historical narrative, giving it an air of factual, judicious, exaggeration-free reporting. But then, in the summary chapters at the end, they use the label “disinformation” as if they had already documented it in most of the cases. At that point, the casual reader has no chance to remember that they never actually discussed what cases, if any, could be seen as deliberate disinformation rather than simple disagreement with their alleged consensus.
And as a general point, they have not provided evidence that their historical account of the climate change issue (mostly events up to 1996) is relevant to the current situation.
00
Compare the weakness of the tobacco connection with the book’s subtitle: “How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming”. And this, from the book’s description on Amazon:
00
She could be very subtle as it is now the alarmists who are the deniers. Perhaps she is trying to cover her back. On second thoughts I don’t think there are signs of that.
00
What is a Professor of Science Studies anyway ?
I thought ‘studies’ was what was used to refer to something that wasn’t a science, such is in eg Media Studies, or African Studies. Of course many types of studies nowadays seem to have pretentions to being scientific. .You know the ones, that have to put Science after the subject name, just to convince themselves, as in eg Social, Political, Sports etc.
So would Sience Studies be like studying about Science without being a scientist, or even for that matter without being Scientific necessarily ?
00
Joe, its an excuse to get on a Gov (taxpayer funded gravey train).
00
It is some one who hasn’t taken anymore math chemistry, physics… than any other history major.
In the USA many history majors only take (1) ONE high school course in general science. Pathetic.
00
I find it quite odd that on her wiki page it states,
“Oreskes worked on scientific methods, in particular model validation”
Yet she obviously has little or no understanding of scientific method,
and she still believes in a whole series of UN-validated models.
DOH !!!
00
Perhaps she looks at a model and says, “Yes, that’s a model.”
See? Model validation is easy, when you know how. 🙂
00
She’s good at talking about how it should be done, and then she does the opposite.
00
Yep,
that always happens when you base arguments on political rhetoric.
It is based on proving a ‘side’ which as Jo points out has zero to do with ‘science’.
The whole point is moot because science by its very nature can’t take ‘sides’.
The Oreskes of the world think ‘scientists’ are science.
Ummmm NOPE!
They are just people who study science and can be just as fallible and subject to undue influence as anyone else.
That’s why she completely contradicts her own argument by her own argument 🙂
00
That’s a quote from the book. And I think summarizes what Oreskes and Conway are doing. But they have ways of hiding it.
And yes, it is “quite odd”.
00
What ? You mean like modelling hockey sticks ?
00
Naomi Oreskes is a propaganda merchant and a hypocrite.
00
[snip. we can be classier -Jo]
00
[snip… about snipped -Jo]
00
LYou will have all heard of and/or logged onto RealClimate from time to time. If like me you have posted to this b;log you will ahve found it unwilling to enter into civilised discussion on climate change. This seems to be the style of warmists as is discussed here. Not sure how many will have read the critique in the New York Times of the paper by Head warmist James Hansen which published comments form climate scientists dissenting from his views. I asked RealClimate if they would comment on this but needless to say my comment wasn’t published Warmists don’t like and won’t answer questions that are not entirely supportive of and acquiescent to their views on climate change
00
RealClimate can be intimidating, because some of the people there really know there stuff.
00
Yes they are excellent propagandists
00
At least they’ve got you fooled. How, exactly, do you determine that they “really know there[sic] stuff”?
They aren’t very tolerant of anyone who can actually engage them on a technical level, who won’t accept the “consensus” and their authority.
00
Good point BobC. How can you tell if other people know stuff or don’t?
You can usually tell if someone knows less than you. Because they’ll say something you know to be wrong, or say something that indicates they don’t know what they are talking about. But what if they know more than you? I have no easy answer. Do you?
00
My gosh, John! If I didn’t know better, I’d think you were trying to get an actual discussion going.
Might as well give it a shot — I have been wrong before!
I know the problem you are talking about. I’ve played chess my whole life — I’m solidly average. When I see two people playing and I can’t tell why they are doing what they’re doing, there are two possibilities:
1) They are novices and can’t see what I see.
2) They are masters and can see much more than I see.
Assuming I want to resolve this, there are several ways:
a) I can watch the game all the way through. It may become evident by then whether they are (tactically) far-sighted or near-sighted.
b) I can ask someone I know to be a master to give me their opinion on the player’s talents.
c) I can challenge one (or both) of them to a game afterwards. Their talent level relative to mine will become clear fairly quickly.
d) I can watch how they play with other people. If an opponent makes the moves I would make and gets clobbered, they are better than I. If the opponent clobbers them, I am the better player.
All these techniques fall under the label of due diligence — standard methods of how to figure things out.
So, how do you figure out who’s right in climate science?
Well, Jo has a post on this subject — it’s a good place to start.
Because “Climate Science” isn’t a narrow discipline, but covers a wide range of other physical sciences, its practitioners are never expert in all its facets. There are always narrow-focus experts who know more (sometimes much more) about specific topics such as Computer Modeling, Fluid Dynamics, Radiative Transfer, Statistics, etc. When one of these “outside” experts claims that Climate Scientists have gotten something wrong that is within their (the outside expert’s) domain — then proceeds to prove it, it behooves one to pay attention.
An example is the mathematical critiques of Michael Mann’s “Hockey Stick” paper. Statistical experts claimed Mann misused statistical methods — then showed that his results were implicit in the algorithm he used, irrespective of the data (even if the “data” were random numbers).
This extends to non-technical methods as well. The reason I was going on about Burt Rutan’s “Engineer’s Critique of Global Warming Science” is that he makes it crystal clear that the potential consequences have to inform your actions — you can’t build an airplane (or a spaceship, in Rutan’s case) just because you think it might work, or other people agree with you that it will work. (Some) engineers deal with dangerous consequences all the time, and there is a special kind of due diligence that must be applied to dangerous actions.
When one of these engineers sees scientists blithely proposing extremely risky actions on the basis of unverified computer models and peer-reviewed (but not audited) literature, you know they don’t know what they are doing, and someone with real experience and knowledge needs to intervene.
A classic way to evaluate scientific theories is by their predictive skill. If a theory makes a firm prediction that fails, that is strong evidence that something is wrong with it. If proponents of a theory keep shifting the goal posts and avoiding crucial, falsifible predictions, then they are admitting that they don’t think their theory can cut it.
I could go on — but this would become an article. I’ve spent a lifetime trying to learn how to discover the truth about (often trivial) things that, nevertheless, mattered to some project I was doing. When I was wrong, the World wouldn’t let me continue on in blissful ignorance, as my projects would fail. When I see a bunch of scientists who want to be treated as experts, but avoid being judged on results (by dodging the hard task of verification), I see a bunch of people who probably don’t know what they’re doing.
10
actually agree with you on this one. I get the ‘know-nothing’ type SO freaking much, where I post my arguments…
00
John Brookes:
You left off the “all” at the end of your last sentence.
When I was looking into Global Warming I read Real Climate until I got to an article there so faulty that I didn’t go back to the site again. It wasn’t directly about climate change except trying to “prove” that the Medieval Warm Periods hadn’t happened.
It denied known facts, or omitted them if they were too inconvenient, and falsified others. It seemed to me to have been written with the deliberate intention to deceive. The very charge made by their opponents. 30 minutes on Google would have enabled any curious reader wanting to know more on the subject to debunk it.
I wonder how many others Real Climate has turned into ‘skeptics’.
10
Yep, Real Climate -> Climate Audit -> WUWT -> Joanne Nova.
00
Hi Graeme 3
My path to Global Warming came about by a sea route .
I knew from geology that the oceans had been about one and a half metres higher between 7,000 and 5,000 years ago.
This of course, means that they had “dropped” in geologically recent time and this presented a serious contrast to the “stable
unchanging” picture of nature being put out by the media.
Unraveling the “Claims” of AGWers and now Climate Scientists has been like going back in time scientifically to the days when the highest levels of society followed Madam Blahvatsky.
Climate Change is the new cause celebre.
KK 🙂
10
BTW, RealClimate has stated that the science is not settled, thereby contradicting Oreskes.
00
Too many typos. Sorry but I’m jack of the pompous attitude and evasive tactics of warmists blogs such asRealClimate
00
Murry Salby will give a talk on A PAC at 9 am this morning.
Watch online here. http://www.a-pac.tv/ Probably repeated later, also on Foxtel chn 648.
Conroy at present yapping on about the NBN.
00
Slowly but inexorably, the pfennig is dropping in the German media.
http://notrickszone.com/2012/08/08/richard-muller-is-a-fake-german-der-spiegel-magazine-writes/
Yeah, alright. Eurocent. But if things keep going as they are in Euroland, deutschmarks and pfennigs may well be back before too long.
00
A search on Google for [Oreskes climate] shows me that the first sceptic site is on page 6 of the results. That is just not good enough, and readers can help a lot here. Go through the Google results and click on any site that you agree with. Do not click on any of the others, or they will move up in the search results.
As a hint, I have clicked on joannenova, WUWT, tomnelson. Do that every day!
00
Good tip Jamam !
I must admit I do like that everyday anywa.
It’s my lazy way (read ‘efficient’) to get to the best & latest breaking what’s happening on the climate & global financial scamming machine.
Search Google for ‘jonova’, the one-stop shop for everything climate, then everything follows from there. Will that do it ?
00
To be of real use you need to have sites such as joannenova, bishophill, WUWT, climateaudit, tomnelson, junkscience, australianclimatemadness, stevengoddard as the RESULT of a Google search, so don’t search for those names (because you know where they are already!)
Search for keywords such as [Oreskes climate] and [97% scientists] and [98% scientists] and any other keywords for climate items in the news. Then click on the above sites in the results. Don’t use quote signs or brackets.
It would be nice to have at least one sceptical site on the first page of a climate search, so that the general public can read an alternative to the garbage that is in most of the search results.
00
Well done people! junkscience and tomnelson have reached page 1 of the search results. I suspect that G**gle is trying to exclude joannenova and WUWT from any search results. They have a proven history of fiddling their search results, because they are one the The Team.
10
Are you sure you aren’t a troll jaymam?
00
According to Norwegian folklore, trolls tend to have three heads (or maybe nine). So if you’re not sure, the first step is to count how many you have.
00
Jayman, it’s my understanding that google rewards the links into this page, and hte keywords on this page, not the clicks on searches? I think posting links to skeptical pages on websites may help – though usually comment links are “nofollow”. (Emailing skeptical pages around should help to trigger more links in)
I try to do good links to as many other skeptical sites as I can (when appropriate). If you see one I missed, please let me know and I’ll add it.
Using social media helps too.
J
10
It seems logical that a search result that lots of people click on would move to the front page. I am sure that I have seen that happen many times.
When searching for [Oreskes climate] this article has moved from search result #63 to #12 after only one day.
In a search just for the word Oreskes, this article is result #101. I’ll see what I can do to improve that!
P.S. the spelling of Orsekes appears to be wrong, and unfortunately I have posted that misspelling elsewhere.
00
G process the clicks and use those to ‘adjust’ the rankings for the terms used in the search – they have been doing this from day one, its core to how their system works. Think of it as adjusting the strength of association between keywords and sites on the basis of proven interest across a continuous sample of users.
00
Jo,
I think you should turn up to the lecture.
You wouldn’t need to do or say anything – just your attendance alone would send them batty – fearful that you MIGHT say or do something that would set the cat among the pigeons so to speak (ie ask a question they CAN’T answer).
Would love to be a fly on the wall and see Lawrence’s face when she saw you Jo.
“Keep your friends close and your enemies closer” (Sun-tzu Chinese general & military strategist (~400 BC))
Cheers,
00
That would be a feat of endurance, sitting through an hour of such mind-numbing drivel. Some training in mystic meditation beforehand might be helpful.
00
Snoring might make a real point.
10
We have an ongoing battle with warmists in the UK (James Delingpole is almost the JoNova over here). In rely to a post today I said this;
Oh joy. Even if the warmists were right and underestimated the coming temperature increase to the point that the Earth caught fire, I would still stand there, crisping up nicely, and shout to world;
“We may have been wrong on this but we always had the best jokes.”
00
who cares whether businesses fail, when u r travelling the world giving lectures on the CAGW scam:
9 Aug: ABC Rural: Lisa Herbert: Teys responds to carbon tax
Teys Australia says it will be hit hard. It operates six beef processing facilities across NSW, QLD and SA, and beef cattle feedlots in NSW and QLD…
Teys Group Environmental Manager Charles Hollingworth told beef producers at a recent carbon tax forum in Armidale, in the first 12 months of the tax’s implementation, the $23 per tonne impost will cost the Rockhampton operation about $880 000, increasing 2.5% annually until 2015 when the fixed price period ends.
Teys’ Beenleigh plant faces a carbon tax bill of $580 000 in the first year.
The tax’s indirect costs
But it’s the indirect impact of the carbon tax that will really cost the business. Teys predicts its energy costs will increase by $3.5 million in the first year, reaching an extraordinary $16 million by 2015…
Who pays?
With all these added costs that Teys is facing, who will end up paying for it? Will beef producers ultimately foot the bill? Or will consumers?
Teys says neither. Because its competitors don’t have the same tax, Teys says it doesn’t have the ability to pass the tax on.
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/nsw/content/2012/08/s3563785.htm?site=newengland
8 Aug: ABC: Cattle producers face carbon costs
A north coast abattoir says its costs will increase by at least half a million dollars due to the carbon tax, even though its emissions are well below the government threshold…
The carbon tax is levied on operations which emit 25 thousand tonnes or more.
But the co-op’s chief executive, Simon Stahl, says he expects power costs to rise dramatically.
“All the flow-on costs… the power stations obviously have direct emissions and they will pass those charges on and they have notified us that our power prices will be going up as a direct result of the carbon tax by about half a million dollars a year,” he said.
“And the problem for our industry is that we export 70 per cent of our products, so we are one of those businesses that can’t pass it on to the end consumer…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-08/cattle-producers-carbon/4184858
00
we make the rules, so we can distort the market as much as we like:
8 Aug: Reuters: Barbara Lewis: Counting the carbon cost of the EU’s woods
Additional reporting by Stephanie Ebbs, editing by William Hardy
The woody core of EU climate strategy, biomass, has won its place because the bloc deems it carbon neutral, an assumption that hides fatal flaws in its credentials, critics say.
Increasingly, the EU relies on biomass – covering anything from olive stones to old blackcurrant bushes – to generate heat and power.
For the purposes of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, biomass used as fuel is counted as carbon neutral…
National renewable energy action plans drawn up by EU states show around 50 percent of green fuel will come from biomass.
Officially, the EU is meeting its carbon cutting and renewable goals. The first danger is that shipping wood pellets and then burning them adds to, rather than lowers emissions.
“The point to remember is that the smoke that directly comes out of the chimney burning biomass pollutes the same as the emissions from coal,” Robbie Blake, biofuels campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said.
Another consequence, the wood industry says, is that the demand for wood pellets is distorting the market.
The European Panel Federation, which represents makers of wood board, says costs for its raw materials have been driven up, while use of wood for biomass is subsidised under policies to encourage renewables…
Whether treating furniture as a carbon store can help to save the planet is a moot point if it is shipped from countries where it is not accounted for at the point of harvesting.
Beyond the EU rules, the United Nations’ Kyoto framework does not cover all nations. The United States never ratified the 1997 Kyoto pact, while Canada and Russia have said they will not set new Kyoto targets.
These countries are likely to be the leading suppliers of wood, especially Russia, home to a fifth of all forests.
“One way or another, an awful lot of emissions from forests look like being completely overlooked,” John Lanchbery, principal climate change advisor for the Royal Society for the Protection of the Birds, said…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/08/eu-wood-idUSL6E8IRJNR20120808
00
Oreskes,say,high on obtuse and abuse,
low on appliance of real data science.
Hmm … a dramatic Oreskean Trilogy of mis-attribution, apocalyptic prediction and abuse of the sceptic opposition.
00
Jo. I’ll guarantee Oreskes does not mention any of this big money which IMHO, along with the desire for increased UN control of everything and everyone (global governance), is what has been behind the whole pseudo-scientific financial scam from the start!
Remember this man and his admissions before Cancun?
Ottmar Edenhofer is a German economist currently co-chair of Working group III of the IPCC and was a lead author for the Fourth Assessment Report. In an interview with Germany’s NZZ Online on 14/11/10 he admitted the goal of Climate Policy is to transfer wealth from the West to the Third World.
(EDENHOFER): “Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War…………..But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
And how many people have even heard of the United Nations Environmental Programme Finance Initiative
“UNEP FI at the World Climate Summit 2010”
“From the 4-5 December 2010 the UNEP Finance Initiative and partners, including the World Bank, the UN Global Compact, the Carbon Disclosure Project and many others, will come together to launch the inaugural World Climate Summit at The Ritz-Carlton, Cancun, Mexico.
WCS will be running in parallel to COP16, and is a new initiative dedicated to helping governments, businesses and financiers accelerate solutions to climate change. As a founding partner of the WCS, UNEP FI will be co-hosting sessions to discuss key issues raised by its members and explore ways forward and the conference’s main focal point on finance, investment and insurance, the UNEP Finance Initiative is supported by a large coalition of financial institutions and investors, both UNEP FI Signatories as well as numerous climate change networks such as IIGCC, IGCC, INCR, the PRI, ClimateWise and FELABAN.
http://www.unepfi.org/events/2010/cancun/index.html
And this:
Cancún a ‘beacon of hope’ for climate deal : By Fiona Harvey, Environment Correspondent
“A global agreement on climate change moved a step closer over the weekend as governments ended the UN Cancún talks with a series of accords on key elements of an overarching deal. A “green fund” that will distribute money to help poor countries cope with climate change, a mechanism for international co-operation on low-carbon technology, and a way to help developing nations preserve their forests all emerged from the two weeks of negotiations in the Mexican resort of Cancún.
Ole Beier Sorensen, chairman of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change which represents investors holding $6,000bn in funds, said the deal “promises to put the international climate process back on track”. Mr Sorensen said: “It is an important step on the road towards a global deal and reassures investors that countries are committed to developing a low-carbon economy.”
He added that governments must work with the private sector closely. “The lion’s share of the investments necessary must come from private sources, so a continued public-private dialogue is critical to ensuring the policy environment supports investment in low-carbon technologies.”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ec28be44-061e-11e0-976b-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz230A0aMHa
Whilst we may win the skirmishes on the science do we and the rest of the world really have any hope against those in the organisations who have trillions of dollars invested in ensuring the scam continues and in addition, have governments round the world providing billions in funding to all those who will help in perpetuating the scam?
00
Oreskes has also been funded by Big Oil. A quick Google yielded her CV:
http://sciencestudies.ucsd.edu/_files/people/N%20Oreskes%20updated%20CV%20June%202011.pdf
Between 1992 and 1993 Chevron of Ireland funded her to do some geological dating work. This is amusing, but the real tell-tale is that the vast majority of her research money (and we are talking millions of dollars – see current grant from NSF worth over $3 million) came from the National Science Foundation, which is a Government organisation:
http://www.nsf.gov/
Hardly surprising therefore that her views align with that of the NSF. But were I to suggest that her views are tainted by the source of her funding I would be stooping to her level of debate, no?
00
Wow ! Oeskes has been seriously beaten with [snip. not nice] … but that is no excuse to fabricate facts.
00
Streetcred,
I’ve seen some of your posts on other blogs.
A grossly sexist and offensive comment from a mental giant such as yourself, comes as no surprise.
I’d guess it only took you an hour or so to come up with that little gem: you must be so proud.
00
I have been snipped before too streetcred… take it as a compliment 🙂
I believe she looks a lot like the Mona Lisa (except with curly hair)…
Bland, Dull and looking at nothing!!
PS. Bongo Billy… get a life.
00
Heads up people: Michael Mann just got virtual column inches at the ABC:
http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2012/08/08/3562596.htm
He is bloviating about Hansen’s latest paper and how the signs and portents (and chicken entrails) all point to the CAGWers being right! Time to raise a few ClimateGate quotes methinks.
00
Bulldust goes on the attack – bet this doesn’t get posted:
00
Comments page disappeared a few moments ago. Maybe a browsing problem for me but I saw them about 30 minutes ago (1230 EST)
00
Showing for me … might have been a temporary blip. My comments aren’t up, but no surprises there.
00
not wanting to space the real posts in this thread too much… Bulldust there are only a small number of “09 Aug” posts and none since early morning. Slack of them not to have someone attending to a day old article’s comments but I suspect it is not just you. I’ve seen posts appear in bursts on this site and comments to close quite randomly. It is better to not have comments at all than to have poor moderation.
00
they are back was them not me… but nothing posted from bulldust
00
Starting to have fun at this thread…
00
Bulldust,
There’s also this link here re CO2 throughout history.
Very enlightening – they certainly WON’T like this one either.
Have just posted this over at Mann’s blog.
“Mr Mann
If CO2 is oh so bad please explain this then (from a scientific viewpoint of course)
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
Note for info – I also take screen dumps and post them over at Jo Nova’s blog as well. (Just like Bulldust).”
Cheers,
00
BTW Bulldust – you have got 8 posts up over there now.
Cheers,
00
Woot! Slow day yesterday…
00
Have you noticed how online polls and comments at Their ABC nearly always follow a pattern almost exactly the opposite to other online sites?
00
The ABC attracts the “right-thinking” types. They feel safe there. I also suspect the ABC mods go very lightly on comments that demonstrate the “right kind of thinking” regardless of how feral they are. This is not unlike Real Climate and (un)SkepticalScience, which are blatantly biased. These groups feel it is quite acceptable to pound garbage like Al Gore’s tragically inaccurate Truth film and Oreskes baseless ad hom manual down peoples’ throats. Then they get all haughty when you rightly acuse them of being what they are … baseless pieces of drivel.
There is no reasoning with those types. The best approach is to play them with a “straight bat”, to borrow from cricket parlance, and let them rant. Your sensible comments versus the feral ranting should sway any reasonable reader. The reader that still follows camp CAGW after seeing their barely literate name calling is not going to be swayed in any case … they are lost causes.
00
Bulldust,
It was posted when I visted at 2:15pm, time stamped 11:40:36am, (including the disclaimer: NOTE to ABC mods: This will be copied elsewhere, because I know what you’re like. Bias will be outted.), so looks some gremlins may be infecting the site, judging by some of the comments above.
It will be interesting to follow up to see how long it lasts.
00
Yeah amazingly when I post the warning to the mods the posts get up. Last week I put 3 or 4 on another thread with no such warning and they never appeared.
00
Perhaps they are dim enough to think the warning is actually a complement. Remember these people can only read at the speed of a finger.
00
Bulldust did you read all the posts to that thread there are quite a few people over there putting the skeptics side of the argument and yes comments do seem to go missing from time to time but whether it is bias or just the shear volume of moderation that has to be done is the question.You only have to look at the Bolt blog to see what a lack of moderation can do to a blog thats why I don’t bother over there anymore.Bit of a pity really.
00
I was rather struck by the “neoliberal” neologism. She appears to be labeling skeptics as libertarians, while attempting use the “liberal” element as a smear. I suspect that before long you’ll be seeing her attempting to coopt “conservative” for new usage as well.
00
I just think that shows how confused she actually is.
Being libertarian is not the same as being liberal. The words are similar, but the philosophy is different.
00
Astute observation Duster. If the CAGW crowd can paint their world view as being “conservative” they can further vilify dissenters. It’s all very “1984” – double-speak.
00
I wonder what Oreskes’ thoughts would be on what could be described as “the law of unintended consequences” that has resulted from the efforts of her esteemed heroes to stop or stall “climate change” or whatever the current “euphemism de jour” is? Have a look at the latest example from what is proving to be a heaven for scammers and bureaucrats!
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/09/world/asia/incentive-to-slow-climate-change-drives-output-of-harmful-gases.html?
00
I met Naomi Oreskes when I was working as a geologist in the early 1980’s at WMC. (I’m still one, she’s not). She wasn’t there long and my memories are somewhat rusty but what I do remember is that she’s smart, savvy, connected and can talk well and persuasively. None of which counts in the long run if you ignore evidence, are loose with the truth and start out with pre-determined conclusions. Nevertherless, she should not be underestimated as an opponent.
The analogy that interests me is when CAGW skeptics (“deniers” if you prefer) are compared to holocaust deniers or cigarette/cancer deniers. This is classic smear by association with bad people, a tactic which only fools the slow and thick. It doesn’t hold water at any level and I find it rather insulting.
One could also draw similarities between the pro-CAGW lobby and Lysenko or perhaps the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages when it burned people at the stake for various astronomical offences, but again such analogies tend to fall over upon inspection.
What we do need in the CC debate is a paradigm shift but, folks, don’t kid yourselves that it’s going to happen soon. The history of science suggests we’ve still got a long way to go, particularly while formidable opponents like Naomi Oreskes get free kicks on the ABC or at esteemed institutions like UWA. (Not my alma mater)
00
[…] Jo Nova Share this:PrintEmailMoreStumbleUponTwitterFacebookDiggRedditLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. This entry was posted in Climate Change, Junk scientists and tagged activist propaganda, climate fraud, climate hysteria, shameless activists. Bookmark the permalink. ← Peter C Glover: Worstall, Carbon Tax and Floating Polar Bear Syndrome […]
00
Oreskes neglects to mention that Al Gore made his initial money from tobacco farming and investing in Occidental Petroleum. She also fails to mention that Rajendra Pachauri has been employed in the fossil fuel industry for over 40 years (he is still a director of an oil exploration company he founded).
00
Don’t forget the that the WTF, I mean the WWF, was sponsored by Shell. http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/04/11/the-wwfs-vast-pool-of-oil-money/
00
I didn’t know that about Pachauri, BTW. Do you have a link documenting it?
It’s hard to understand that the environmentalists still haven’t figured out what a PR disaster he is.
01
Google is your friend
00
Neville
August 9, 2012 at 8:32 am · Reply
Murry Salby will give a talk on A PAC at 9 am this morning.
Caught his excellent presentation last night on the APAC channel, same venue Sydney Institute as his 2011 talk. Now this current talk is one that Oreskes hopefully will get to see as it, really throws down the gauntlet on the C02 issue and the graphics used, highlight the deceptive conclusions of C02 and temperature tracking. Conclusions based on a failed product of models, they have no relationship at all with actual observational evidence.
Hopefully someone will get this video presentation up on Utube ASAP as it sure beats the feeble efforts of the likes Lewandowsky and his fellow travellers. Professor SALBY’s measured comments on the how and why the IPCC did exactly what was required of them. Their political mission was to confirm enahanced anthopological effect (so they did as they were paid to do) is excellent, as is his scientific support of freedom of speech as an essential tool to achieve true scientific endeavour and truth. Observations trump modelled theories.
Can’t wait for the video release, need to watch it again and again and share it to best effect. I liked his reaction to a questions on the carbon tax too.
00
Thousands of scientists* supporting your side must be a typo. Better correct that one.
* Specific to Climate Study disciplines.
Rather there are thousands of Scientist specific to Climate disciplines that dispute most claims of anti-warmists. That’s we get our consensus from. Call it what you like – I defer to the real science – not the mash-mellow kind.
I know I’ve literally read hundreds of papers from Climate Specific scientists.
Ah…..but they got them their snouts in the $$$$ troughs yer see here. After all them their scientists are all part of this giant government global conspiracy. was it U.N. Agenda 666.
Go on list them. No I don’t want biological scientists – I want you to list ONLY the RELEVANT qualified.
No I don’t want those pathetic questionable surveys of every “man and his dog” degrees.
Always as usual shooting the messengers of truth.
_______
Ross J.
00
Well there is your problem.
On the other hand, I’ve read literally thousands of papers from climate specific scientists, so you should believe me.
Do you mean literally shooting the messenger or have I missed some good old red-neck partying?
00
Ross James
You are literally “as thick as a brick”!!
Jo has pointed to the Petition Project which names 30.000 + scientists (over 9,000 with PHDs) and also named Nobel laureates – and what do you do – that’s right – you come here nit picking.
How about this?
YOU provide the names (as Jo has) of the 97% of the world’s scientists that agree with YOU. (won’t take you long – you KNOW the truth)
Oh – the beautiful irony is fantastic!!!!
Waiting, waiting, waiting.
Cheers,
00
Sanderson et al. (2009)
Colman & Power (2009)
Gregory & Webb (2008)
Dufresne & Bony (2008)
Forster & Gregory (2006)
Bony et al. (2006)
Soden & Held (2006)
Gregory et al. (2004)
Larson & Hartmann (2003)
Cess et al. (1990)
Cacuci & Hall (1984)
Kellogg (1983)
Coakley (1977)
Cess (1976)
Attanasio (2012)
Attanasio et al. (2012)
Kodra et al. (2010)
Smirnov & Mokhov (2009)
Moon (2008)
Verdes (2005)
Stern & Kaufmann (1999)
Tol & De Vos (1998)
Thomson (1997)
Sun & Wong (1996)
Keeling et al. (1995)
Kuo et al. (1990)
Siegenthaler et al. (2005)
Retallack (2002)
Mudelsee (2001)
Cuffey & Vimeux (2001)
Monnin et al. (2001)
Stauffer et al. (1998)
Jevrejeva et al. (2009)
Stone et al. (2007)
Pierce et al. (2006)
The International Ad Hoc Detection and Attribution Group Study (2005)
Meehl et al. (2004)
Jones et al. (2003)
Karl & Trenberth (2003)
Just a sample. Hundreds and hundreds more papers are available proving AGW is valid infact many confer dangerous to the AGW science as consequence of their findings (DAGW).
I make no apology as I centred on the claim about the thousands of scientists which has to be a typo error or bad judgement. THEY ARE NOT climate atmospheric experts – this would drop to under 3%. Therefore the claim of disfranchised >30,000 scientists is misleading as it consists of “dogs” breakfast degrees. The claimed >30,000 does not hold water at all. Besides I challenge anyone here to prove to me there exists climate change specific scientists who disagree with this consensus touching even 5% of ANY given quantum.
Yes – now your list pretty please.
______
Ross J.
00
Faith based argument from consensus is invalid.
00
You say you’ve read and understood these papers and you have them?
Well ok, lets have one of them then.
Lets see, Sanderson et al 2009 is about fish stocks and invasive species. Forget that one.
Colman & Power 2009. Hmmm, both Colman and Power have lots of papers (with the BoM) but I can’t seem to find a Colman & Power 2009. Forget that one too.
Gregory and Webb 2008. They’re familiar, do you have that paper Ross? lets have a link to it. The WHOLE paper (which I presume you’ve read and understood) not just the abstract. Tell us in your own words what this paper is about and what conclusions it draws.
00
Hi Baa H
Don’t embarrass him.
He’s on a religious mission and isn’t it enough that he “believes” in the cause.
KK 🙂
00
Ross’s quoted paper, although not quite as old as me seems to be reasonably sensible in that it says;
“climate models being used do not simulate ENSO very faithfully, if at all.”.
Please Ross Could you explain what that last point means?
KK
Waiting
Waiting.
00
Baa
Try this paper on Temperature Attribution:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442%281998%29011%3C0563%3ADCSITS%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Warning: Heavy confirming maths calcs. See how you fare.
_______
Ross J.
00
Cop out Ross as I suspected.
I asked you to link to the Gregory & Webb paper, which you included in your list as one of the hundreds of papers you have read and understood.
Sending me on a fishing expedition, (hoping) the heavy maths might stump me is a red herring on your part.
I’m happy to get to the North and Stevens out dated paper as soon as you respond directly to my request at #58
Lets have it Ross, the papers behind a paywall. I want to know if you bought a copy and read it. I want proof. If you can’t/won’t provide it, I call you a liar and a fraud not worth spending any time on and I’d recommend the mods bin you permanently.
Your integrity is at stake Ross. RESPOND TO #58 NOW
00
Ross
I had a quick look at that paper and it suffers from the usual modeling “skills” (or is it lack of) of the investigators.
They list their pet factors for analysis and put everything else in the “Black Box”.
Unfortunately there are things in the black box which must be used in the analysis and so a distorted “result” occurs.
Models can only be used in parallel with a real world measurable situation and that is not the case in the paper quoted.
Engineers use models in complex systems precisely because they are complex: That is the whole point of models.
Where the effect of varying one or two inputs to the system must be explored it is common practice with models to lump “all the other”
stuff” together as a relatively constant but unknown quantity and refer to it as “The Black Box”.
By varying CO2 and assuming the Black Box is a constant we have only to look at the effect more CO2 has on temperature.
Normally in modeling there has to be a rational link between the cause (CO2) and the effect (temp change).
In this case basic physics tells us there is no quantitative link between CO2 levels and temperature so I am absolutely gobsmacked
that anyone would be stupid enough to do modeling on that scenario and put their scientific credibility on the line.
Running a model does not give the “idea” (can’t really call the “ideas’ in that paper a hypothesis) any scientific validity.
Only science can do that.
KK
00
Wrong Baa seriously about Anderson – fail for you.
http://people.oregonstate.edu/~shellk/sandersonetal2009.pdf
Climate feedbacks determined using radiative kernels in a multi-thousand member ensemble of AOGCMs.
Ross J.
[the author name is Sanderson. Fail for you] ED
00
(Does this mean this is your STRONGEST paper to discuss as requested by Jo at post 67 where I partially quote:
Ross, if we are going to discuss one, you pick one first OK? Pick the strongest paper you can, and we’ll look at it. Remember we want evidence of CAGW, not just that man-made emissions might theoretically have a minor impact but that the models assumptions and forecasts of 3.3C or thereabouts are right.) CTS
ED…I meant SANDERSON. Obviously warmists papers are not read here by some.
Fail – I posted the paper as requested.
Ross J.
00
Ross, if we are going to discuss one, you pick one first OK? Pick the strongest paper you can, and we’ll look at it. Remember we want evidence of CAGW, not just that man-made emissions might theoretically have a minor impact but that the models assumptions and forecasts of 3.3C or thereabouts are right.
Since I’m sure you’d never just toss names onto a list and you’ve read all those papers, it won’t be difficult to name your top pick. Right?
00
Just curious Ross, which one of those disproves the Null Hypothesis?
Care to point to that one?
00
That’s we get our consensus from.
… bwahahahahahahaaaa..ROTFLMFAO !!
You are a joke Mr James.
How can we respect anything thing you say, when you cannot even say it correctly!
By the way.. is not 31,5000 scientists a consensus?
Waiting…
00
whoops 31,500…
lest Ross thinks i am a liar!
00
.
Ross James
Let’s leave off playing who’s dad is bigger on either side, and get down to basics.
I, me, myself, personally and alone in the universe observe the following data:
CAGW “theory” claims atmospheric CO2 UP = global temperature UP.
On that basis CAGW “theory” claims increased atmospheric CO2 causes global warming.
Observation shows CO2 UP = global temperature UP, and DOWN, and UP and DOWN . . .
Observation therefore PROVES no correlation between increased atmospheric CO2 and global warming.
Therefore simple observation establishes CAGW “theory” falsified.
Now, Ross James, it’s pointless you producing a whole heap of people to tell me I’m wrong, just as it’s pointless other people here producing a whole heap of people who agree with me.
Stated above are the OBSERVATIONS, not people’s opinions.
Instead of forever trying to win the debate by claiming a “consensus” (whether it exists or not), show me where my personal OBSERVATION of the data is wrong.
10
yep, all this cagw stuff is based on that 20-30 year window in which CO2 and temperature may have actually climbed at the same time. A tiny pinprick in the real scheme of time
measurements show that CO2 concentration went up,
temperature?? so much manipulated data, we will never be sure.
Man calculated temperature rise… almost certainly, when we KNOW that those pushing the cagw agenda are the ones doing the calculations.
CO2 made temperature rise.. almost certainly NOT !
00
Very nicely put Andy.
Short but it really says a lot
KK 🙂
00
I’m sure Ross doesn’t mean these messengers:
However he calls them: “a few rogues worldwide”
Ross James, how many rogues does it take to disprove a hypothesis?
00
Well, lets see what’s involved in “Climate Study disciplines”:
Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC, has a degree in mechanical engineering from the Indian Railways Institute. Oh, and he’s also a “Special Class Railway Apprentice”, so we can probably safely assume he knows a lot about railroads.
James Hansen has degrees in astronomy and physics.
Of course, this isn’t counting the numerious sociologists, environmentalists, graduate student interns and just plain politicians that the IPCC counts among their “consensus of 2500 scientists”.
In fact, the definition of “climate study discipline” is so broad (according to the IPCC and you), that the majority of the 31,000+ scientists who have claimed that CAGW has no sound basis, by joining the Petition Project, are more qualified than many of the IPCC’s “scientists”. Some (the Nobel laurates in physical science) are more qualified than any in the IPCC’s “consensus”.
Really Ross? After all this time, all you are left with is the fallacious argument from authority?
How about referencing just one of those “hundreds of papers” you have read that shows CO2 has caused even measurable warming — or the one that gives evidence of positive feedbacks?
Not holding my breath.
00
Hi BobC
With qualifications like that James Hansen is obviously missing a vital ingredient that is required in this problem.
No engineering perspective. But that isn’t the full picture.
Even engineering perspective is not really essential to cracking this lie as so many people have shown.
On this blog alone we have accountants, meteorologists, physicists, doctors and handymen, builders, laborers, men and women who show
that they have “got it” and know with some certainty that they do really understand “Global Warming”.
All you need is the capacity to investigate with tenacity and sift through material until you get to something you understand in the mass of material that is “out there” on the net and in the media.
The only difference between these people and Hansen, Flannery and Garnaut, and so on, is that the latter aren’t trying to find the answer.
They want to HIDE IT.
KK 🙂
00
An engineering perspective is certainly called for when the “solutions” endanger the global economy and hence millions of lives.
Burt Rutan, CEO of Scaled Composites and the builder of SpaceShip one, has an interesting paper titled “An Engineer’s Critique of Global Warming Science”.
As he says in the preface:
Not likely he will be offered a job at NCAR or the CRU — would be dangerous to their funding.
00
Dare me to swamp you with papers? Come on bring it on Bob – you would be drowned.
And while I’m at it we are allow me to declare ALL those refutations of Carter, Spencer, Christy and Linzden.
You prove nothin’ – only your word – prove to me the > 30,000 in the negative is not in reality a dogs breakfast of irrelevant degrees. You can’t – why because that fake > 30,000 petition cannot be seriously validated at all. It was never independently audited / reviewed and validated. That’s not good quantum science is it?
Now where are thousands of scientists (climate specific) who disagree with consensus (97%)?
Right wing scientists and fundamentalist Christian scientists agree with AGW and some as a consequence of the evidence declare it will get dangerous for humanity.
No obfuscation please. This is one sacred cow that will indeed be slain.
_______
Ross J.
00
Do your best. Try, however, to find ones that actually support the assumptions of AGW, using real data, rather than just accepting them at the get-go or confusing model outputs with real world data. Re-read (or just read?) Burt Rutan’s article again to get a feel for what I’m talking about.
The point of my previous post was to get you to declare what are “relevant degrees”. Then we could go through the Petition Project list and see how many were relevant by your standards. Apparently you are not capable of defining that. If a degree in railroad engineering is relevant, then there is a fairly low bar for relevancy.
Does this mean you have given up on obfuscation as a tactic? We eagerly await your direct response to the various questions that have been put to you.
00
Ross,
I would be interested to know:
1. What is the relevant research qualification for a Climate Scientist?
2. When was that qualification first bestowed?
3. How many of the current “climate scientists” hold that qualification, and where and when did they receive it?
4. How many universities have a chair in Climate Science?
00
“How many universities have a chair in Climate Science?”
And if they do, is it just a propaganda chair rather than a real science chair.?
(Like , maybe in a humanities/social science/law department.)
00
Me too!
00
(Only one comment was withheld and you know why too therefore stop complaining about it and please try answering some questions put to you such as post 47.7) CTS
I will certainly post hundreds of those and quals – but only if with held posts – you cannot see at present get lifted off moderation. I got temporally put in moderation by the powers here.
Faced with moderation on top of moderation there is nothing more I can do for you. Confronted with alternatives it allows exposure your not going to get here.
————————————————-
[Snipped – off topic – Mod]
______
Ross J.
00
What the hell is that Ross? It does explain a few things though……..
00
Wow you guys are mighty hard on anti-semantics theory……..
Although, since Rereke gave me such a hard time about torturing English, I suppose you’d be wary of anti-semantics too.
00
Hey Mark,
Don’t use me as an excuse, I just asked, what I thought was a simple question ,,, 🙂
00
I was not asking for a list of people. We are told that only “Climate Scientists” are qualified to have an opinion on climate science, but since in my research I can find nobody with a higher degree in that discipline, I wondered how many there were.
I have found several articles by astrophysicists, and a few epidemiologists, and one or two chemists, none of whom are real climate scientists, by definition,
So I wondered how big the actual pool of climate scientists actually was.
So if we forget about the, “where and when did they receive it” part of my question, the rest is just totals. Which should be easy for you to answer, without worrying about identifying individuals.
So could you please help my research by just giving me an answer.
00
Well, a friend of mine, Richard Keen, has a PhD in Climatology from the Univ of Colorado. Surely he has a relevant degree?
What he thinks of AGW can be seen here.
Let’s see Ross try to argue that a degree in climatology isn’t relevant.
00
Another issue in the rarefied at atmosphere of “Climate Science” is Peers.
Where would they get enough peers for a Peer review if non of them have a PhD?
It would seem that all “peers” are not equal, especially in “Climate Science”.
KK 🙂
00
Gossip and Fear: misguided Climate Conspiracist Oreskes the Queen of Smear abandons social science research methodology for the Erich von Däniken approach. Of course scientists, anthropologists, archaelologists, historians and those with even a modicum of common sense only had to undertake a little research to conclude that von Däniken’s claims were based on an initially illogical premise which von Däniken then sought to confirm with fraudulent or fabricated pseudoscientific evidence. Oreskes writing if of a higher level, would be worthy of the attention of the Barkun-ites.
00
In “The Role of Quantitative Models in Science” – http://classes.soe.ucsc.edu/ams290/Fall2008/Oreskes%202003.pdf – Oreskes had this to say:
“Why should we think that the role of models in prediction is obvious? Simply because people do something does not make its value obvious; humans do many worthless and even damaging things. To answer the question of the utility of models for prediction, it may help to step back and think about the role of prediction in science in general. When we do so, we find that our conventional understanding of prediction in science doesn’t work for quantitative models of complex natural systems precisely because they are complex. The very factors that lead us to modeling—the desire to integrate and synthesize large amounts of data in order to understand the interplay of various influences in a system—mitigate against accurate quantitative prediction.
Moreover, successful prediction in science is much less common than most of us think. It has generally been limited to short-duration, repetitive systems, characterized by small numbers of measurable variables. Even then, success has typically been achieved only after adjustments were made based on earlier failed predictions. Predictive success in science, as in other areas of life, usually ends up being a matter of learning from past mistakes.”
And in “Evaluation (not Validation) of Quantitative Models” – http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/users/brooks/public_html/feda/papers/Oreskes2.pdf she identifies deception:
Why did the world modelers make what is in retrospect such an obvious mistake? One reason is revealed by the post hoc comments of Aurelio Peccei, one of the founders of the Club of Rome. The goal of the world model, Peccei explained in 1977, was to “put a message across,” to build a vehicle to move the hearts and minds of men (59,21). The answer was predetermined by the belief systems of the modelers. They believed that natural resources were being taxed beyond the earth’s capacity and their goal was to alert people to this state of affairs. The result was established before the model was ever built. In their sequel, Beyond the Limits, Meadows et al. (60) explicitly state that their goal is not to pose questions about economic systems, not to use their model in a question-driven framework, but to demonstrate the necessity of social change. “The ideas of limits, sustainability [and] sufficiency,” they write, “are guides to a new world.” (60)
21. Shakley S. Trust in models? The mediating and transformative role of computer models in environmental discourse. In: International Handbook of Environmental Sociology (Redclift M, Woodgate G, eds). (Forthcoming). Cheltnham, UK: Edward Elgar, 1997; 237-260.
59. Peccei A. The Human Quality. Oxford:Pergamon Press, 1977.
60. Meadows DH, Meadows DL, Randers J. Beyond the Limits: Confronting Global Collapse, Envisioning a Sustainable Future. White River Junction, VT:Chelsea Green Publishing Company, 1992.
and so there is no misunderstanding that what she is exposing is not science but at best, noble cause corruption, she continues:
One need not engage in an argument for or against social change to see the problem with this kind of approach if applied in a regulatory framework. The purpose of scientific work is not to demonstrate the need for social change (no matter how needed such change may be) but to answer questions about the natural world. The purpose of modeling is to pose and delineate the range of likely answers to “What if?” questions. The purpose of lead models should not be to demonstrate how bad lead ingestion is or how good U.S. EPA standards are but to try to find out what is most likely to happen if given standards are applied. The language of validation undermines this goal. It presupposes an affirmative result and implies that the model is on track. To outsiders, it raises the specter that the answer was pre-established.
So it seems like she had a change of heart as climate science got media and political attention.
00
…said she soothingly.
00
Nicely done – I agree, the implications from juxtaposing these two disjoint statements is that she is back peddling in the most gracious way she can.
You wouldn’t like to give us the dates for these papers, would you? The timing in such matters is so important.
00
Ms. Orekes
Says of modeling:
“conventional understanding of prediction in science doesn’t work for quantitative models of complex natural systems precisely because they are complex.”
And in saying that she exposes her ignorance of the essential purpose of models in the real world.
Engineers use models in complex systems precisely because they are complex: That is the whole point of models.
Where the effect of varying one or two inputs to the system must be explored it is common practice with models to lump “all the other”
stuff” together as a relatively constant but unknown quantity and refer to it as “The Black Box”.
By varying CO2 and assuming the Black Box is a constant we have only to look at the effect more CO2 has on temperature.
Normally in modeling there has to be a rational link between the cause (CO2) and the effect (temp change).
In this case basic physics tells us there is no quantitative link between CO2 levels and temperature so I am absolutely gobsmacked
that anyone would be stupid enough to do modeling on that scenario and put their scientific credibility on the line.
But then, this has never been about science; this is the politics and philosophy of envy.
KK 🙂
10
…Said she soothingly.
00
[…] Nova had a relevant statement on a recent post of hers. In it she stated, “Those who call for “free market” solutions to climate change are […]
00
Professor Naomi Oreskes will host a discussion where she will outline the political and ideological roots of climate change denial, showing the linkages between neo-liberalism – the revival of classical commitments to laissez-faire economics – and the rejection of the scientific evidence of man-made climate change.
This is her third change. Her first American-style analogy was Cold Warriors wrongly accusing lefties of being Commies. But Many of them were, and people know this. That failed, she made the “well funded” conspiracies of tobacco scientists. That failed badly, since the analogy would obviously fit the warmist scientists. So now she takes the “neo-liberal” line of analysis, which will appeal to …?
My fave line:
“And she will suggest that the way forward is to focus on solutions, particularly solutions that minimize government interventions in the market-place.”
This is great! She will argue against minimalist government ideology by proposing a minimized government intervention!!! I would pay a little money to see her pimp out for cap and trade. Funny, most of her audience will think they have a permanent carbon tax, not a trick to evolve into cap and trade.
00
“political and ideological roots of climate change denial”.
She conveniently forgot the logical, observational, I.e scientific roots of climate change denial,
I’m not politically or ideologically affiliated to any movement except the unrelenting search for truth an resistance to government sponsored deception.
00
Jo, Another brilliant summary of the failings of the alarmist case. My admiration for your work knows no bounds.
00
Oreskes, Hansen, Muller, Manne and Manne is not a law firm. It is the names of some of the people working to get President Obama reelected. The Dark Lord has his weather wraiths doing his dirty work for him. He has a habit of using surrogates (e.g. the EPA) to carry his water so that he can keep his robes clean.
One reelection to bring them all and in the darkness bind them! In the land of Gaia where the shadow lies!
If he is reelected he will have the ring and middle earth as we know it is lost!
00
Careful ed… seeing conspiracies everywhere is a terrible hobbit to get in to.
00
Careful Matt… blindly believing and fearlessly following will take you over the same cliff as your green heroes!
00
seriously 5 thumbs down for an opportunistic HOBBIT joke! terrible audience.
[A belated thumbs up. I did laugh out loud without the need to abbreviate] ED
00
Before joining JoNova I used to “Know my Place”, but not any more. Knowledge really can be power, I hope!?.
00
Knowledge indeed is power. However Faith is more powerful because it is not confined to the limitations of knowledge, indeed it is most strongly formed in the absence of knowledge.
That is why so much money is spent promoting certain viewpoints while supressing others in order to promote belief and faith in the absence of knowledge.
I recently read a good description of the difference between faith, belief and knowledge in Websters dictionary.
Faith: “the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another”.
Belief: “the assent of the mind to the truth of a proposition or alleged fact, on the grounds of evidence”
Knowledge: “the clear and certain perception of that which exists, or of truth and fact”.
We know see that the fundamental argument for CAGW: That a “consensus” of experts have all agreed is primarily a faith based approach. The propogandists win the majority of people over on this idea alone. The secondary approach is to bolster belief in CAGW through manipulating or inventing “evidence”. This approach is designed to create believers out of those who are not ready to take a leap of faith but are convinced by false “evidence”.
Unfortunately there is a large class of “believers” who have fallen prey to false evidence and deception because they lack to requisite training, intellect and skepticism to dig deeper.
Conversely there are believers on the skeptics side who have equally formed beliefs, however this time is is formed on the real evidence – that which the alarmists and government scientists have failed to supress and manipulate or skeptic scientists have brought to light.
The last class of people are those with direct “knowledge”. For example we have knowledge of predictions made by the alarmists in the past that have failed to come to fruition. We have knowledge of the facts that are not contested by either side which highlight the implausibility of CAGW. We have knowledge of what we can directly sense and experience such as the failure of temperatures or sea levels to rise to any significant degree in the past decade or so. We have knowlege of the fact that people want our money in the form of taxes and higher utility bills based on the climate change scam. Then there are those with knowledge of the manipulation of evidence because they are directly responsible for it or they have directly witnessed it.
00
In summary, a “consensus” is a faith based propaganda tool and as such has no place in scientific discourse.
00
“Belief: “the assent of the mind to the truth of a proposition or alleged fact, on the grounds of evidence””
Oh great so it is ok to believe in AGW again?
00
You can believe in what you like Mattb.
Free country and all that.
Proving it is your problem.
C02 is a trace gas in our atmosphere.
The known facts about its physical properties make your belief hard to prove.
You’re missing the evidence.
00
read the dictionary definition provided.
00
Oz, just as the Colonies, have freedom of religion. So you are free to “believe” in anything you want, even nouveau religions.
And I doubt you ever gave up your religion and stopped believing.
00
Jo, what a stitch up.
Your points 1-3 disputing links to funding and vested interest are a red herring, Oreskes makes it very clear that:
“We never found any evidence that Fred Seitz, Bill Nierenberg, Robert Jastrow did any of this for personal monetary gain. Rather, what we really see is that it’s ideological … a set of beliefs that are focused on the value of deregulation and releasing the so-called magic of the marketplace. (source: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/naomi-oreskes—merchants-of-doubt/3012690)
Your point 4: “Skeptics can name 31,500 scientists” which strangely includes veterinarians, doctors and engineers. A quick count of heads of those professions gives over 3 million active in the U.S, so that petitions gives a whopping 1% consensus. You can always find 1% with a contrarian nature on any topic. The Flat Earth Society would consider themselves skeptics.
What makes Oreskes work so interesting is it shows the same small group of people have continuously contrarian ideas on topics that counter their world view… something we are all guilty of. It shows the common sense result that , in areas that we are not expert, our ideology plays a huge part in deciding what evidence is trustworthy, and what is not. Confirmation bias is particularly strong in areas that act over long periods of time (just look at U.S. Christians and Evolution). Bringing us back to the issue, we should rely on the scientific method, not on our gut feelings.
00
It’s not at all “very clear” from the book. Nor does it seem to be clear to most readers of the book. Your point about confirmation bias is fine, but Oreskes is so unbalanced it makes the book an excellent example of confirmation bias in action.
00
Thanks, Dagfinn, for a reasoned response. I looked flipped through the introduction to Merchants of Doubt, and couldn’t immediately find a quote like the one from the radio.
00
More of that AWU Wilson Gillard rat dirt from Alan Jones and Michael Smith yesterday. How many more labor MPs are involved in similar scandals I wonder?
http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=13864
00
I have chosen a specific paper on temperature trends globally.
The reasoning behind this are manifold:
1) incorporates references to manifold studies and
2) proves that global temps are not tapering off as claimed
3) highlights indirectly the inadequacy of Anthony’s article/paper
4) references in bucket loads other climatologists that you can drill into for yourself and investigate
5) gives evidence of the warming signals over a century
6) gives one insight in how scientific consensus works indirectly.
7) distinctive regional earth temperature trends acknowledged
Herein is the paper in full PDF:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/HadCRUT4_accepted.pdf
Remember: It does not matter what you think of Muller and BEST. He used an entirely different method using RAW data and came up with the SAME warming signal.
Quantifying uncertainties in global and regional temperature change using an ensemble of observational estimates: the HadCRUT4 data set
Colin P. Morice1, John J. Kennedy1, Nick A. Rayner1 and Phil D. Jones2,3
Northern/southern hemispheric trends are 0.08/0.07 degC/decade over 1901 to 2010 and 0.24/0.10 degC/decade over 1979 to 2010
Aha….do you notice those temperature trends between the two hemispheres?
I have many more papers also on attribution, actual climate historical evolutionary of the science over the century and direct physics of AGW science.
There is no killer one off paper that satisfies all directions all skeptics as they go in very diverse directions. It is manifold concensus based on a highly divergent overwhelming body of science endeavour and investigation. Anything IMHO that implies some sort of conspiracy of fudged science is unacceptable based on this body of witnesses before the courts of the sceptical movement, partially the extreme anti-warmists – it is without foundation.
Please no Gish Galloping. Jumping from one hot issue of skepticism to another and another. This should not be interpreted as obfuscation on my part.
I am a converted anti-warmist from the early decade BTW..
Skepticism rests on what is unknown at present. This is holes in the knowledge and lack of data in specific areas.
The body of evidence points one way – the science estimates 90% certainty. WE are headed for more Global Warming. This global warming will remain unabated over the next four centuries as estimates from the present status of CO2. Temperatures will continue to climb and not level off. The uncertainty is what we do about it over that time bringing some sort of stability back the globes climate is now placed at some 400 years from now progressive over the those centuries. If AGW becomes DAGW – the genocide of earth’s population is too horrendous to even contemplate.
_______
Ross J.
[Ross, except for the last paragraph this is a pretty good post. I don’t necessarily agree but you made your point. The fearmongering in the last paragraph is not going to garner approvals though. You have models to lean on and you want people imagining genocide. Tisk tisk tisk] ED
00
Ross says:
Which early decade Ross?
It’s 2012 so was it last month?
Or was it in the decade that WAS warming?
Just curious……
Naw, I find it nearly impossible to believe you were once a skeptic. I think you are just saying that for propaganda value.
00
Funny you should mention genocide Ross. It was my understanding that the major factor determining human emissions is our population. Therefore a genocide would be the best possible thing to prevent catastrophic global warming (which would cause a genocide itself)
Hmmm… Let’s hope that the global government being setup (see Agenda 21 or Agenda “666” as you call it) does not have depopulation in the order of BILLIONS of people planned for the world.
00
The main answer to the 400 years argument is that there are already ways of removing CO2 from the atmosphere. It is debatable, but not impossible, that this is no more expensive per ton of CO2 than current carbon capture technologies. At worst, if the IPCC assumptions about CO2 are correct, reversing the warming process will be expensive but not impossible. Also, even in 2100, there will be technologies in existence that we are currently unable to imagine. More likely, it will be easy and cheap.
00
I should add, easy and cheap relatively speaking, given the magnitude of the task.
01
Hold on Dagfinn,
There has been negligible warming for over a decade. What’s more the members of Jo Nova are keenly aware that much of the warming on the thermometer record is “manmade” through fraudulent “adjustments” of the data. Do you actually think that the objective of climate change policy is Co2 reduction for environmental reasons? If so I suggest you scour through old posts here and re-educate yourself. This bloody climate change scam is about polices economics and misanthropic ideology.
00
Sonny,
I’m aware that there has been negligible warming for over a decade. I also don’t think the climate models do a good job of explaining that OR the warming in the first half of the 20th century. As to how much of the adjustment is manmade, I think the jury is still out on that. The driving forces behind climate policy are complex. Certainly there are many people who genuinely believe that it’s necessary to “save the planet”. And clearly there are many who support it for other reasons. I’m not sure how relevant the motives are.
None of that was my point. I’m just saying that even if the alarmist projections of CO2-based global warming were to turn out to be correct, it’s ridiculous to worry about what will happen in 400 years.
00
Well, congratulations on picking a specific paper. Now, if you could list what educational preparation qualifies as “climate science specific”, we could make some progress.
You won’t do that, however, as whatever degrees you choose, we would be able to show that a great many of the scientists in the Global Warming Petition Project out-qualified most of your “climate scientists”.
*********************
But, back to the paper:
Given that you were asked to identify a paper that supplied real (not model) evidence that the AGW hypothesis is true — that is, Human emissions were responsible for a significant increase in World Temperature — it is strange that you choose a paper that simply describes the construction of a World Temperature dataset. “CO2” or “carbon dioxide” (or even “carbon”) are not mentioned once in the 58 page paper. Nothing whatsoever in this paper even discusses the impact of CO2 on climate, much less supplies evidence for it.
There seems to be a logical problem here, Ross: The fact (if it is a fact) that the world is warming is not proof (or even evidence, really) that Humans caused it — or that undersea volcanos caused it, or space aliens.
So, major fail — you get an “F” on this task.
***************
But, since you brought it up, how well does this paper do at constructing a World Temperature dataset?
Nothing spectatular, or even noteworthy. They admit, for example, that they don’t even consider individual station siting (page 13) — instead they rely on studies that
“…indicate no statistically significant effect of urbanization on regionally averaged temperatures.”
None of the studies referenced, however, actually rate stations by ground-based, objective criteria.
The only study that has actually rated stations by objective, ground-based criteria (e.g., NOAA’s station siting standards) is Anthony Watt’s, which is based on the information collected over a number of years by the Surface Station project.
Watt’s results, based on freely available data that was incompetently left out of your linked paper, shows that, in the US, 1/2 of the claimed temperature increase in the 20th century is “created” by incorrect analysis.
(Or, perhaps it was deliberately left out, given the “usual suspects” writing this paper and the record they have left in the ClimateGate emails of their “flexible” scientific ethics).
The apparent fact that you think that this paper is “proof” of AGW goes a long way towards explaining why you believe as you do. It doesn’t, however, increase your credibility — only your reputation for credulity.
00
Baa,
Was this the paper you were wanting to peruse?
Tropospheric Adjustment Induces a Cloud Component in CO2 Forcing
JONATHAN GREGORY
Walker Institute for Climate System Research, Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, and Hadley Centre,
Met Office, Exeter, United Kingdom
MARK WEBB
Hadley Centre, Met Office, Exeter, United Kingdom
(Manuscript received 22 December 2006, in final form 1 May 2007)
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2007JCLI1834.1
____________
Ross J.
00
Well done Ross, it took you just 17 hours to find the paper.
You’ve still not explained why that paper is in your list.
So now tell me Ross, what empirical evidence has the Gregory & Webb paper presented to convince you of AGW.
00
Good grief! “Experiments” are carried out by running models, and the results are considered “data” that is then assumed to be “evidence”. Nowhere in the paper is the concept of validation via real world data even considered.
When we ask for proof of positive feedbacks, Ross, we’re talking about observations in the real world — not “observations” of models that don’t even attempt to model clouds and water vapor by first principles, but use heuristic parameters adjusted to get the desired results.
I’m beginning to think you can’t understand the difference.
00
Baa,
It is relative to your understanding and my understanding on how water vapour and humidity affects the sensitivity of CO2 forcing over time.
The paper is also supportive of Hansen’s calculations on the forcing of CO2.
There is one glaring fault I see in this paper:
The non-dimensional albedo and cloud feedbacks are increased by the ratio ?T /˜? 194 T = 1.77. Our climate responses, computed as a simple difference between two climate states, do not distinguish between cloud responses that scale with the temperature response and those that
scale with the instantaneous CO2 concentration (Gregory and Webb 2008)
There are pipeline CO2 forcings yet to always work its way through the climate system. So far there absolutely no evidence as what I can from the literature of a leveling off of warming as suggested by skeptics.
To cite a whole collection of peer reviewed literature on clouds and humidity are rare in this debate. Herein is your chance to see just how comprehensive the studies are on this subject and taken into account by Climate Scientists.
Using Relative Humidity as a State Variable in Climate Feedback Analysis
Isaac M. Held Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory/NOAA, Princeton NJ
Karen M. Shell College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University
Cloud Feedback and humidity certainly add a level of uncertainty as to the extent of positive feedbacks, however it does not require me to negate the certainty of CO2 forcing and causing greater climbs in global temperature as claimed by skeptics. Water vapour is after all a well known feedback in climate. In that feedback loop it becomes a greenhouse effect further potentially enhancing global warming – not cooling or neutralising it as an out right provable claim by skeptics.
REFERENCES on this excellent paper cross to further research being carried on the important of cloud feedbacks and humidity.
Bony, S., et al., 2006: How well do we understand and evaluate climate change feedback
processes? J. Climate, 19, 3445–3482.
Collins, W. D., P. J. Rasch, B. A. Boville, J. J. Hack, J. R. McCaa, D. L. Williamson,
and B. P. Briegleb, 2006: The formulation and atmospheric simulation of the Community
Atmospheric Model Version 3 (CAM3). J. Climate, 19, 2144–2161.
Colman, R., 2003: A comparison of climate feedbacks in general circulation models. Clim.
Dyn., 20, 865–873.
Colman, R. and B. J. McAveney, 2011: On tropospheric adjustment to forcing and climate
feedbacks. Clim. Dyn., 36, 1649–1658.
Gregory, J. M. and M. J. Webb, 2008: Tropospheric adjustment induces a cloud component
in CO2 forcing. J. Climate, 21, 58–71.
Hansen, J. E., A. Lacis, D. Rind, G. Russel, P. Stone, I. Fung, and R. Ruedy, 1984: Climate
sensitivity: analysis of feedback mechanisms. Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity,
J. E. Hansen and T. Takahashi, Eds., American Geophysical Union, 130–163.
Ingram, W., 2010: A very simple model for the water vapor feedback on climate change.
Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc, 136, 30–40.
Ingram, W., 2012: A new way of quantifying gcm water vapour feedback. 254 Clim. Dyn., 37,
255 in press.
Manabe, S. and R. T. Wetherald, 1980: On the distribution of climate change resulting from
an increase in co2 content of the atmosphere. J. Atmos. Sci., 37, 99–118.
Pierrehumbert, R. T., H. Brogniez, and R. Roca, 2007: On the relative humidity of the
atmosphere. The Global Circulation of the Atmosphere, T. Schneider and A. H. Sobel,
Eds., Princeton University Press, 143–185.
Roe, G., 2009: Feedbacks, timescales, and seeing red. Annu. Rev. Earth and Planet. Sci.,
37, 93–115.
Sanderson, B., K. Shell, andW. Ingram, 2010: Climate feedbacks determined using radiative
kernels in a multi-thousand member ensemble of AOGCMs. Climate Dynamics, 35, 1219–
Shell, K. M., J. T. Kiehl, and C. A. Shields, 2008: Using the radiative kernel technique to
calculate climate feedbacks in NCAR’s Community Atmospheric Model. J. Climate, 21,
2269–2282.
Sherwood, S. C., W. C. Ingram, Y. Yushima, M. Satoh, M. Roberts, P. L. Vidale, and P. A.
O’Gorman, 2010a: Relative humidity changes in a warmer climate. J. Geophys. Res, 115,
2269–2282.
Sherwood, S. C., R. Roca, T. M. Weckwerth, and N. G. Andronova, 2010b: Tropospheric
water vapor, convection, and climate. Rev. Geophys, 48, doi:10.
Simpson, G. C., 1928: Some studies of terrestrial radiation. Mem. 274 R. Meteorol. Soc., 2,
69–95.
Soden, B. J. and I. M. Held, 2006: An assessment of climate feedbacks in coupled ocean277
atmosphere models. J. Climate, 19, 3354–3360.
Soden, B. J., I. M. Held, R. Colman, K. M. Shell, J. T. Kiehl, and C. A. Shields, 2008:
Quantifying climate feedbacks using radiative kernels. J. Climate, 21, 3504–3520.
Soden, B. J., D. L. Jackson, and V. Ramaswamy, 2005: The radiative signature of upper
tropospheric moistening. Science, 310, 841–844.
Wetherald, R. T. and S. Manabe, 1988: Cloud feedback processes in a general circulation
model. J. Atmos. Sci., 45, 1397–1415.
Zhang, M. H., J. J. Hack, J. T. Kiehl, and R. D. Cess, 1994: Diagnostic study of climate
feedback processes in atmospheric general circulation models. J. Geophys.
Water vapour and humidity impacts on global warming are fully covered in the literature.
________
Ross J.
00
Ross firstly please do not list dozens of papers without links expecting me to chase after them. That takes time which you presume I have or am willing to devote in order to have a discussion with you.
The discussion we’re having currently is about the question I asked you at #59.1, i.e. “So now tell me Ross, what empirical evidence has the Gregory & Webb paper presented to convince you of AGW.”
Gregory and Webb is a study of CLIMATE MODELS. It is not a study of empirical evidence, and you know how we feel here on this blog about models.
Models are only as good as the info input by the modellers. Cloud feedbacks, are the least understood and most complicated subject of climate. Therefore model studies can only be that – studies – not evidence.
Look at the subject this way Ross. When something is so complicated and not well understood, it is best to step back and take a fresh simple look at it, viz..
We all know cloud cover COOLS during daytime.
We all know cloud cover REDUCES COOLING during night time.
The key is, is the daytime cooling more, about the same or less than the reduced cooling at night time.
Empirical evidence shows that cloud cover reduces insolation by 160Wm2
Empirical evidence also shows cloud cover increases DLWR by 70Wm2
The difference of 90Wm2 dwarfs the supposed warming by doubling Co2 of 3.7Wm2. CLOUDS HELP CREATE OUR CLIMATES
Empirical evidence shows that cloudless deserts are always warmer than cloudy regions at the same lattitudes.
Empirical evidence shows that dry air exhibits higher highs and lower lows than air containing water vapour, i.e. more extremes.
So, until a solid empirical paper comes along that shows we shouldn’t believe our lying eyes and we should dismiss our everyday experiences, we have to accept that clouds help cool the planet.
The Gregory & Webb paper is a well put together ACADEMIC CURIOSITY but it should not be cited as evidence of AGW
00
Tell you what, Ross: Why don’t YOU go through these papers and tell us which ones are based on real data, instead of just being model results? I don’t have the time to go through your “dog’s breakfast” of junk model papers, looking for the pearl in the slops.
For your reference (and to give an example of what we mean) here is a paper using actual observations to show evidence of negative feedback via cloud behavior. The author is an atmospheric physicist and professor of Meteorology at MIT, so maybe he meets your (still unstated) criteria for “climate science specific” knowledge and education.
So, find us a paper that shows (by actual observations of the real world any evidence of positive feedback. Just dropping a truckload of “processed horse feed” doesn’t cut it.
00
The alarmists don’t like Lindzens work Bob. Maybe they’d prefer the work of NOAA researchers doing science via actual observations and measurements from ships (not on computers in offices).
Observations of stratocumulus clouds and their effect on the eastern Pacific surface heat budget along 20°S
Simon P. de Szoeke, Sandra Yuter, David Mechem, Chris W. Fairall, Casey Burleyson, and Paquita Zuidema
The link I provided is to the pre-publication draft paper (the only one available free. The peer reviewed accepted paper is HERE)
There is yet another study based on observations and real measurements.
The Radiation Budget of the West African Sahel and its Controls: A Perspective from Observations and Global Climate Models
Mark A. Miller, Virendra P. Ghate, and Robert K. Zahn
Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, NJ USA
Again the link is to the pre-publication draft of the peer reviewed accepted paper found behind a paywall HERE
Perhaps Ross can comment on these papers and tell us if he accepts peer reviewed published papers (especially one from the NOAA) or if he doesn’t, why he doesn’t.
Of course, if he accepts these papers, he must also accept that clouds are a net negative feedback, meaning that the catastrophy in CAGW is no longer valid.
00
Thanks for the links, Baa.
Here is yet another study of actual measured data — in this case 14 years of highly accurate measurements of downwelling IR over the US Great Plains. The overall trend was decreasing, even as CO2 increased.
In particular, the clear sky data decreased over the 14 year measurement period. The authors attribute this to decreasing water vapor. Regardless of the reason, this experiment is clear evidence that there is no net positive feedback acting on the concentration of CO2.
One begins to notice a trend:
1) Theoretical papers and papers based on computer models always show net positive feedbacks operating w.r.t. temperature changes and CO2 in the atmosphere.
2) Actual measurements and observations always show net negative feedbacks operating w.r.t. temperature changes.
And;
3) Warmists always ignore real data in favor of models and theories.
00
Benny Peiser was originally a very vocal critic of Oreskes research paper but withdrew his criticism of it in March 2006.
Has anyone sought out Benny for his current position with respect to Oreskes work?
And, has anyone asked Benny for his reasons on changing his mind about her research paper?
His answers could complement Jo’s demolition of Oreskes and add another dimension to it.
00
George,
There is no evidence that Benny fully retracted from his position.
This is what I keep finding in website after another with NO source provided that shows the existence of the “letter”.
Here is the actual 2006 LETTER that clearly shows that while he made some retraction he still sticks by his over all position that Dr. Oreskes is wrong about her Unanimous claims.
Now you can see why they made it hard for anyone to find the actual letters source because it is plain the warmists have cherry picked his comments.He made only a partial retraction and still maintains his position that Oreskes is wrong on the main point.
Here is the part warmists avoid quoting that is from the same 2006 letter:
He he the warmist dishonesty continue where Oreskes left off on this subject.
Meanwhile you used a warmist fanatic website as your source for the claims that Benny Peiser made his retraction note how Lambert writes about Peiser that is misleading because Benny was making a partial retraction of a minor problem while he make it clear that he is still stands by his main statement that Dr. Oreskes fails to prove the UNANIMOUS CONSENSUS claim she made from day one.
Since then there have been others who have expanded on Dr. Oreskes paper to show she has no credible case to work with:
LINK
Let’s face it that DR.Oreskes was never correct from day one and that Benny Peiser made only a partial retraction of his position but still maintains that she is in error of her main claim.
10
[…] så spelar det ingen roll hur ofta eller hur noggrant den bevisats vara genomfalsk. (Se t.ex. här, här, och […]
00