JoNova

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


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

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



Stephan is back: climate, cancer, what’s the difference?

Stephan Lewandowsky is back, reminding us why argument-by-distant-unrelated-topic is a quick way to get confused.

Should we spend money trying to change the weather? Spin the wheel: Did smoking cause cancer? “Yes!” Was that money well spent? “Yes!” Is climate sensitivity 3.3C! “Yes” . The heck, it must be, because some different scientists were right about a different topic, in a different subject, in a another era. Look at how similar the problems are?  No one was sure if any particular lung cancer was due to smoking, just “like” no one will ever know if Sandy was caused by your SUV. Climate starts with “C” and so does Cancer. Spooky eh?

The answer to planetary dynamics comes from tactical analysis of PR strategies by people who oppose The Consensus. Why do we even bother with satellite measurements, cloud microphysics or ARGO buoys?

No atmospheric evidence will convince Lewandowsky, he’s  looking for code words in the commentariat.

The tobacco industry claims that smoking does not cause cancer, preferring instead to think of medical science as an “oligopolistic cartel” that “manufactures alleged evidence” linking smoking to cancer.

Climate deniers likewise accuse climate science of being “riddled with corruption” and of manipulating or misrepresenting “real-world scientific observations.”

Both claims smell of desperation and appear laughable to anyone who has only the slightest acquaintance with how scientific research is conducted.

“Slightest acquaintance” with research? Stephen, research starts with numbers, and the only numbers you have are polls. We have real numbers.

Can someone pop over to the ABC and ask for our money back? An editor somewhere thought this was worth publishing?

 

 

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.7/10 (58 votes cast)
Stephan is back: climate, cancer, what's the difference?, 8.7 out of 10 based on 58 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/crsgd67

60 comments to Stephan is back: climate, cancer, what’s the difference?

  • #

    Lew really does lead with his face.

    Pointman


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    Jo;
    I am getting bored with this publicity hound. (My apologies to dogs, which are smarter; indeed your last post of rubber duckies, suggests a more appropriate comparison).

    To help us keep track would you use headings like Loonie Lewie Part 1 etc. (back numbered to the start of this prat attack).

    When the list reaches a milestone, say 10, an iced cake with appropriate writing, say, “to the Uni of Wacky Academics”, sent to the University Vice Chancellor (or the Staff Club?) would be an appropriate indication of the regard in which he is held. I am sure your readers would contribute to this cause.


    Report this

    120

    • #
      michael hart

      He seems a bit like Richard Muller and James Hansen in that some of his statements suggest he really just doesn’t care what he says, or what his peers may think (never mind what the rest of us think). Come to think of it, I wonder if he really has any peers right now. It’s not a position I would enjoy.

      nb spelling typo? “Stephan” becomes “Stephen” in the article


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Robert

    Erm… Have to excuse me, been very busy lately. He’s back? Hadn’t realized he’d gone anywhere, seems every time he comes up it’s just to tell us he’s got some regurgitation of whatever he was going on about the last time.

    Have to agree with Graeme, I suspect he’s just after the media attention at this point.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Graeme No.3 #2, Robert #3

    I agree that he is tedious and inane and possibly insane to boot.

    But Let us not forget that he, and others of his ilk, have influence over how young people think and how they apply what cognitive skills they may have.

    He does not only write this tripe, he will spout this tripe to any and all students who turn up, at least partially sober, and manage to stay awake throughout his lectures. Perhaps those students are there because it is easy credits, or perhaps they have a genuine interest in the subject, or perhaps his lecture theatre is closer to the cafeteria, who knows.

    But students will turn up, and they will listen, and they will learn.

    And what they will learn is that logic and reliance on measurable facts and repeatable experiments are not central to science. In fact in Lewandowsky’s world, logic, based on argument by progression, trumps all of the above. Fiction trumps fact in his world, and that is what he is teaching the next generation of “thinking people”,

    Yes he is a boring fart. But one in a position of influence, that he is abusing either because of a private agenda, or because he is on a mission for a sponsor.

    We either let him get away with it, or we provide a counter punch every time he does or says something inane in public.

    As Pointman says, he leads with his face. And it does present an obvious target.


    Report this

    180

    • #

      “And what they will learn is that logic and reliance on measurable facts and repeatable experiments are not central to science.” – very true in the case of climate science.

      Your future depends on the assessment and therefore the grades, of a bunch of securely tenured crustaceans, who’ve invested their whole life and reputation on a certain interpretation of the world, so any revolutionary theories you might be harbouring that they’re all wrong, you’d be well advised to keep to yourself.

      http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/11/02/why-hasnt-there-been-a-real-debate-on-climate-science/

      Pointman


      Report this

      70

    • #
      Robert

      very well put Rereke,

      Robert


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Rereke Whakaaro says;
      I agree that he is tedious and inane and possibly insane to boot.

      Yes, but he has tenure. How do you get at him? He will see all attacks from sceptics as confirming his (self appointed) position as Champion of the Consensus. My idea was to let his professorial colleagues know that his lunacy was degrading their public standing. When he starts copping criticism from them, and has to respond to suggestions that he would be more welcome at a University somewhere else, then he won’t have as much time for drivelling in public.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Bob Malloy

      Let us not forget that he, and others of his ilk, have influence over how young people think and how they apply what cognitive skills they may have.

      From the Johnny Cash song what is truth:

      the ones that you’re calling wild
      Are going to be the leaders in a little while
      This old world’s wakin’ to a new born day
      And I solemnly swear that it’ll be their way
      You better help the voice of youth find
      “What is truth/”

      “And I solemnly swear that it’ll be their way”
      With the high representation of the likes of Lewandowsky in the higher education institutions of the wetern world, how do we better help the voice of youth find “What is truth?


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Well said Rereke.

      One thing that you miss out is Prof Lewandowsky’s specialist area of psychology. His research is on the pernicious impact of misinformation, even after it is been rebutted. He has looked at crazy conspiracy theories, and their influence. He knows full well that such conspiracy theories take root when people are denied access to alternative sources of information, or have belief systems reliant on the truth of untenable hypotheses.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pattoh

    You would have to wonder if he actually teaches students.

    It would be interesting to know how any students fared in their academic time if they even hinted that they didn’t fall into lockstep with the mantra of somebody like this.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    So that we don’t get too discouraged about the state of our universities;

    it is important to remember that Stephan is NOT a product of Australian Universities,

    he is an Accretion.

    Like an unwanted virus he arrived here by passenger jet from the US and somehow got through the screening

    process at Customs before spreading his infection through the CAGW Movement.

    America has a great education system but there is also a parallel universe where some not-so-great

    Universities are able to function, Stephan is from one of the latter.

    KK


    Report this

    40

  • #
    pat

    lewandowsky is just doing his “job”.

    like hansen with his dice, who says if u r PERCEPTIVE, u will have come to recognise the truth of CAGW a decade or more ago, and will understand the need to put an ever-rising price on carbon dioxide:

    VIDEO: 16 Aug: James Hansen on climate change
    Hot, dry or flooded
    HOT summers, wildfires and drought are anomalies no longer. They are the visible products of climate change, and more can be expected, says James Hansen. One solution may appeal to conservatives…
    http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/08/james-hansen-climate-change

    the free-market Economist! not that i would vote for either:

    3 Nov: The Economist: Our American endorsement
    America could do better than Barack Obama; sadly, Mitt Romney does not fit the bill
    Mr Obama came into office promising to end “our chronic avoidance of tough decisions” on reforming its finances—and then retreated fast, as he did on climate change and on immigration…
    This newspaper yearns for the more tolerant conservatism of Ronald Reagan, where “small government” meant keeping the state out of people’s bedrooms as well as out of their businesses. Mr Romney shows no sign of wanting to revive it…
    And for all his shortcomings, Mr Obama has dragged America’s economy back from the brink of disaster, and has made a decent fist of foreign policy. So this newspaper would stick with the devil it knows, and re-elect him.
    http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21565623-america-could-do-better-barack-obama-sadly-mitt-romney-does-not-fit-bill-which-one

    Wikipedia: The Economist
    “The publication belongs to The Economist Group, half of which owned by Pearson PLC via Financial Times. A group of independent shareholders, including many members of the staff and the Rothschild banking family of England, owns the rest.”…
    It targets highly educated readers and claims an audience containing many influential executives and policy-makers…
    Editorial anonymity
    Articles often take a definite editorial stance and almost never carry a byline…
    The editors say this is necessary because “collective voice and personality matter more than the identities of individual journalists” and reflects “a collaborative effort…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      lewandowsky is just doing his “job”.

      like hansen with his dice, who says if u r PERCEPTIVE, u will have come to recognise the truth of CAGW a decade or more ago, and will understand the need to put an ever-rising price on carbon dioxide:

      So let’s start with Hansen — a price of about $1000/breath should put the quietus on him in short order.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    elva

    The conclusions that Sandy was made worse by climate change have already started to surface. Ignored will be the 1938 hurricane that hit the same area with more force (cat 3) and over 300 dead. That plus the numerous, regular big hits just like it since the 1600s.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      LevelGaze

      Just heard Scary Steffen on ABC radio.
      Sandy due to Global Warming: rising oceans, warmer water, wetter air, melting poles, worse storm surges etc. etc. etc. New York geographically doomed….

      Quite put me off my corn flakes.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Winston

      Sandy was actually made worse by making landfall right on high tide and with a full moon.

      But of course, we scientists all know that a full moon is a sign of rising atmospheric CO2 from mankind’s fossil fuel emissions (that’s why it appears so “full”), while high tides are caused by rapid glacier melt which are indirectly caused by man’s evil use of air-conditioning. So, it is most definitely anthropogenic. The Science is most definitely settled, no correspondence entered into. Only those entirely devoid of logic or “denier” shills in the pay of Big Oil could possibly deny the validity of this contention of man’s impact on climate any longer.*

      *This is a paid service announcement brought to you by BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, and General Electric, partners in screwing you over royally bringing you a brighter, cleaner, carbon-free future! Cue impossibly beautiful, impeccably groomed, multi-ethnic family laughing and frolicking in lush, green fields under brilliantly clear blue skies, with swirling strains of lilting classical music rising to a crescendo. Zoom in to focus on their beaming smiles, their perfectly aligned and gleaming white teeth and their airbrushed complexions, as the turn slowly to face the camera without a trace of recognition in the eyes. Fade to black.


      Report this

      102

  • #
    AndyG55

    hmm.. I read that thread heading as

    “Stephan is back: Like a cancer, what’s the difference?”


    Report this

    90

  • #
    MadJak

    The only cancer I see around this topic is the wanton hyperbole rent seeking exaggerations from our very own climate “commission”.

    Honestly, I find this rent seeking crap from mr england abhorrently disgusting – just as I view anyone who attempts to leverage off disasters to garner attention to themselves or their cause. The fact that anyone would try and exploit a disaster where people have died for their own vanity is both immoral and vulgar.

    Please can someone come in and nail this rent seeking lobby group to the wall and make all who benefit from it line up for some food stamps please? A complete excision followed by a massive and aggressive round of Chemo and Radiotherapy is in order here with the public service.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    manalive

    The trite lung cancer/climate change™ analogy is a false analogy — it’s childish reasoning.
    Lung cancer, the type most commonly associated with cigarette smoking, was virtually unknown prior to the habit – there is at least a strong correlation.

    “We are living with climate change™ … It is happening now”

    Too right professor, we always have and always will.

    “Nearly all weather events now have a contribution from climate change™ and it is up to us to manage and reduce that risk with mitigative action”

    You can equally argue that climate change™ has attenuated “weather events” i.e. made them less forceful that they would otherwise be — there is no evidence for either contention.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Slightly O/T, but it is interesting that as the reporting rate for Lung Cancer increased, the reporting rate for other respiratory declined.

      Were people dying of different deceases, or was there a shift in diagnosis, and if the latter, was the shift due to more accuracy, or more publicity?

      It is an epidemiologists dream come true. If you avoid considering individual cases, you can make the numbers sing.

      There have always been fatalities in bad storms, but those storms were originally caused by “the wrath of the gods”, then it was a judgement by “the One God” upon the sinners, then it was “extreme weather”, and now it is “climate change”. Is it really due to some identifiable difference between “extreme weather” and “climate change”, or is it because of publicity?

      Government funding tends to follow what wins votes, and the number of votes is driven by public opinion, and public opinion tends to follow publicity (at least to a point, and for a time). It is not rocket science.


      Report this

      80

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Great graph and agree with comments with 2 provisos;

      1. Cigarette smoking was the result of mass production, starting in the 1880′s, yet by 1910 cigarettes were known in the UK as “coffin nails”.

      2. There was a prejudice against the word “cancer” which caused many doctors to “spare the feelings” of survivors. I know of one case such even in the 1950′s.


      Report this

      10

    • #
      lmwd

      Yes, but I’m thinking the tide has turned…at least in some mainstream media.

      It seems not all are so willing to uncritically swallow the alarmism whole-heartedly anymore. Below are some extracts from Graham Lloyd in today’s Australian. I suspect that the rest of the media will eventually have to follow suit because in contrast to sensible commentary, their OTT, false alarmism is too evident and will be seen for what it is. Credibility will be on the line.

      AUSTRALIA’S Climate Commission has misrepresented data from the leading US meteorological bureau to highlight a link between climate change and the severity of Superstorm Sandy which this week crippled New York.

      In a statement on the disaster that hit North America on Monday, the federal government-sponsored Climate Commission said “all the evidence suggests that climate change exacerbated the severity of Hurricane Sandy”.

      However, senior NOAA climate scientist Martin Hoerling said the higher sea-surface temperatures quoted by the Climate Commission were not significant in relation to Sandy.

      Dr Hoerling said Sandy was not unprecedented.

      He said a storm surge at New York in 1821 was greater than that of Sandy. However, like the Climate Commission, he said rising sea levels could exacerbate the damage from big storms.

      Even if Hoerling is still trying to claim rising sea levels as being potentially a factor, this sort of article by Lloyd does mark a departure point from previous climate scaremongering, with the blatant climate doomerism being toned down and at least some acknowledgement of other equal storms historically.

      http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate-link-to-sandy-invalid/story-fn59niix-1226509504684

      Last week Lloyd also published a piece in The Weekend Australian talking about the Medieval Warm Period, The Roman Warm Period as being warmer than today and about The Little Ice Age. I suspect the alarmists will be spewing!


      Report this

      20

      • #
        lmwd

        Oops, my comment above was in reply to Madjak at #10.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          MadJak

          It’s a start, but lets see how Hoerling copes over the coming years and months as his pinko media mates all come out and start to denigrading him/her.

          With the amount of fluff and crying wolf on this topic it wouldn’t surprise me if the public ends up completely ignoring scientists when something real and provable is occurring.

          And that is really my main concern – it always has. Each time “scientists” cry wolf like this -they don’t just undermine their own credibility but they undermine the credibility of science generally. The Media who push these lines publicly do just as much damage.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      elva

      ““We are living with climate change™ … It is happening now”

      Agree. The Nazca Indians who lived in the Nazca region of Peru lived a plentiful life from about 4000BC to about 300AD. They drew those long lines and large animals in the dirt that seemed to be only visible from the air. Anyway, by about 300AD the climate had become increasingly dry and no longer could sustain plentiful crops. The people migrated further east toward higher ground. At the time there were no meteorologists blaming CO2 for their demise. Instead, I’m sure their witch doctors or gods copped some blame.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Chris M

    Totally unrepentant, as expected. A good idea not to give him any more oxygen, Jo? He is only speaking in a left-wing echo chamber.

    As a corollary, I can’t for the life of me understand the fascination some Lib/Nat pollies have for appearing on shows like the 7.30 Report (particularly in the days of Red Kerry) and Turny Jurnes’s travesty (whatever it’s called), only to get beaten about the head every time. Best I think to boycott the ABC entirely, and leave it to the luvvies to construct their own version of self-congratulatory reality there. Until actual reality overtakes them next year.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    janama

    Will Steffen was in ABC Radio AM this morning explaining how Sandy was a direct result of climate change!!


    Report this

    30

  • #
    bobl

    Perhaps Lewandowski is a direct result of climate change?

    The ***University of Western Australia*** must be really proud of the Nutty professor’s loud certainty of the CAGW speculative hypothesis in spite of all the evidence suggesting the hypothesis is wrong. I think I’ll do a Psychology degree and study “Why climate change proponents persist in the belief of CAGW in spite of the clear illogic of the Hypothesis”

    UWA – Your path to the dark ages…


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Sonny

    Lewandowskie is the human embodiment of the corruption of science.

    He should be prosecuted for crimes against science.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Tel

      Science has survived this long against worse challenges.

      Remember that Lewandowsky is an expert on human brains not planetary atmospheres, ask yourself what his job really is and I think you will find he is pretty good at it. Imagine if his government superiors sacked him right now over this issue — that would be tantamount to admitting the skeptics were right all along! Egats, can’t allow that to happen. Lewandowsky’s job is safer now than ever.

      It would be kind of sad and inefficient to have to be doing science amongst a barrage of secrecy, lies, doubletalk and trickery… rather than the honesty and openness that has benefited science in the past. Either way, we are still doing science. What works, is what works on the day.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Leo G

    Lew claims the authority of anyone who has ONLY the slightest acquaintance with how scientific research is conducted.
    That’s what he’s about, really- a confidence trickster.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Allen Ford

      Lew reminds me of Joolya warding off pertinent questions in Parliament about her inglorious past, by bluster and studiously avoiding relevant answers.

      They are two identical peas from the same philosophical pod.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    handjive

    To paraphrase a classic comment:

    Q. What could Lewandowsky bring to a meeting of ‘climate scientists’?
    A. The coffee.

    Lewandowsky is what is known as a ‘useful idiot’.

    Keep up the good work, Lew.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Manfred

    The correlation of smoking with lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a dose dependent association that sees an increase in risk associated with increasing exposure. Of this there is no doubt. However, this is quite distinct from the statement that ‘smoking kills’, the analogy being that lighting up is much the same as walking outside and shooting yourself in the head. The latter is a marketing or behaviour modifying statement, designed to scare, intimidate and change behaviour. The trouble is that it is inconsistent with reality, as everyone knows, and smokers know in particular. Smokers light-up and don’t fall-over (well, not necessarily immediately). In fact, Auntie Gertrude lived to 91, smoked all her life and slipped down her stairs, and died as a result. This will be attributed as a smoking related death, which it is not. As an aside, this leads to a distortion of the statistics and engenders an increasingly unreliable under-reporting bias, also seen in alcohol consumption. Medical questionnaires now often ask ‘Have you ever smoked?’ – presuambly including the stolen gasper behind the shed at school. An affirmative answer becomes another smoking related death.
    In a conversation with a member of the NZ National Health Committee, when confronted with the above discussion conceded that it was correct, but that they had ‘won that one’, namely the ‘smoking kills’ marketing mantra.

    ‘Global warming’, morphed into the political safety of the non-specific term, ‘climate change’. Rapidly expanding far beyond the CO2/warmist babble into a unifying philosophy that imposes a suffocating bureaucratic embrace. Non-specific climate change is causally associated to a very specific, always negative, all encompassing, anthropogenic impact. Leading to the logical fallacy reductio ad absurdum that is, all weather events, and notably the more extreme are the result of anthropogenic influence. Analysis of the record quickly shows this to be a nonsense – but the reality is that the chattering classes live beyond fact, in a settled realm of a unfalsifiable belief. On the other hand, to the few remaining in possession of their sanity, the word ‘anthropogenic’ is little more than an early warning sign of a blame centered polemic on climate.

    The persistently bizarre antics of University of Western Australia, Professorial Research Fellow Stephan Lewandowsky who appears to many to be as daft as a mad hatter off meds, serves only to confuse, as Jo so rightly points out. One might be forgiven for thinking that Lew’s strange world seems to be populated by a confusing array of yelling coloured dots that demand to be joined together as a picturesque post modern art form having nothing to do with science and much to do with aberrant psychology.

    University of Western Australia, Professorial Research Fellow Stephan Lewandowsky’s comment

    Both claims smell of desperation and appear laughable to anyone who has only the slightest acquaintance with how scientific research is conducted.

    …his own recent ‘scientific’ endeavours rather appear to safely exclude him from many things it seems, including laughter.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Belfast

    The core of his argument is the fallacy of false equivalence. It is easily spotted and enables a quick assessment of worth.
    But the statement, “And what they will learn is that logic and reliance on measurable facts and repeatable experiments are not central to science.” is unparalleled rubbish. The stupidest person I know would never have come up with a statement like that.
    Jo, though it is painful, print what he says. His students will come to read his destruction here, and shudder when he enters the room.


    Report this

    51

  • #
    Tel

    Not that I expect Stephan Lewandowsky to get the subtlety of it, but the actual question on cancer was over whether the guy next to you are the train station having a smoke will cause you to get cancer.

    It is in some ways a similar question to global warming because:
    * Any effects that do happen are slow and difficult to measure.
    * Plenty of other factors can cause warming/cancer so all measurements are soaked in statistical noise.
    * It requires very large sample sizes to measure this tiny effect amongst the noise.
    * The samples we have are from a wide variety of sources with inconsistent processing, and in some cases questionable providence.

    This is a fundamental problem in measurement theory and applied statistics. My subjective judgement is that Anthony Watts is more skilled in this area than Stephan Lewandowsky.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    u.k.(us)

    When someone suggests I am “oligopolistic”, it might seem to be a common courtesy to provide a link that defines the word.
    I mean, this is all about the children of the unwashed masses, right ?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I thought everybody knew what that meant.

      It is the way Commodity Traders count when they are in private, “Monopoly, Duopoly, Oligopoly”.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Doug Cotton

     

    Decide for yourself if it’s “riddled with corruption” .. try these home experiments:-

    Home experiment No.1

    A plastic bowl in a 750 watt microwave oven is not heated by the high intensity radiation (photons if you like) whereas the same bowl in front of a 750 watt electric radiator is heated by a similar intensity of radiation. So the bowl “detects” the frequency difference. Many seem to think that would not be possible and that all photons are the same and all cause warming. The frequency of the microwaves is less than that of the spontaneous radiation emitted by the bowl itself at room temperature. But the frequency of the radiation from the electric radiator is greater. That’s all that matters. That is a simple demonstration of how a surface “pseudo scatters” radiation which has lower frequency than its own emissions, and is not warmed by such radiation. This is the whole point of Prof Claes Johnson’s “Computational Blackbody Radiation” paper. So I have provided at least one example of empirical evidence which is not in conflict with what he has said. There has never been any empirical evidence to disprove what he said, and never will be. I have explained more in the first five sections of my paper.

    Home experiment No.2

    Check the outside temperature just before, and then soon after low clouds roll in. Why is it warmer when there are low clouds? Water vapour radiates with many more spectral lines than carbon dioxide, so its radiation is more effective per molecule in slowing the rate of radiative cooling of the Earth’s surface. It is also much more prolific in the atmosphere, so its overall effect on this slowing is probably of the order of at least 100 times the effect of carbon dioxide. Hence it is not at all surprising that low cloud cover slows radiative cooling quite noticeably and, while it is present in that particular location, the rate of cooling by non-radiative processes cannot accelerate fast enough to compensate. But that is a local weather event, not climate. Over the whole Earth and over a lengthy period there will be compensation. In any event, what is being compensated for is almost entirely due to water vapour, with carbon dioxide having less than 1% of the effect on that mere 14% of all heat transferred from the surface which enters the atmosphere by way of radiation.
     


    Report this

    00

  • #
    D J Cotton

    Decide for yourself …

    Home experiment No.1

    A plastic bowl in a 750 watt microwave oven is not heated by the high intensity radiation (photons if you like) whereas the same bowl in front of a 750 watt electric radiator is heated by a similar intensity of radiation. So the bowl “detects” the frequency difference. Many seem to think that would not be possible and that all photons are the same and all cause warming. The frequency of the microwaves is less than that of the spontaneous radiation emitted by the bowl itself at room temperature. But the frequency of the radiation from the electric radiator is greater. That’s all that matters. That is a simple demonstration of how a surface “pseudo scatters” radiation which has lower frequency than its own emissions, and is not warmed by such radiation. This is the whole point of Prof Claes Johnson’s “Computational Blackbody Radiation” paper. So I have provided at least one example of empirical evidence which is not in conflict with what he has said. There has never been any empirical evidence to disprove what he said, and never will be. I have explained more in the first five sections of my paper.

    Home experiment No.2

    Check the outside temperature just before, and then soon after low clouds roll in. Why is it warmer when there are low clouds? Water vapour radiates with many more spectral lines than carbon dioxide, so its radiation is more effective per molecule in slowing the rate of radiative cooling of the Earth’s surface. It is also much more prolific in the atmosphere, so its overall effect on this slowing is probably of the order of at least 100 times the effect of carbon dioxide. Hence it is not at all surprising that low cloud cover slows radiative cooling quite noticeably and, while it is present in that particular location, the rate of cooling by non-radiative processes cannot accelerate fast enough to compensate. But that is a local weather event, not climate. Over the whole Earth and over a lengthy period there will be compensation. In any event, what is being compensated for is almost entirely due to water vapour, with carbon dioxide having less than 1% of the effect on that mere 14% of all heat transferred from the surface which enters the atmosphere by way of radiation.


    Report this

    21

  • #
    pat

    witty follow-up on John Hayes, the Conservative Energy Minister in the UK, who got into trouble with his Lib-Dem wind-loving senior, Energy Secretary Ed Davey, for giving anti-turbine interviews to the press, which included quotes from a speech he wasn’t allowed to give at the RenewablesUK 5,000-subsidy-seeking-participants-lovefest in glasgow this week. David Cameron, to his credit, backed Hayes to the extent of saying a debate was needed, and the public, judging from local press in the UK, were mightily impressed. naturally, read it all and enjoy a good laugh:

    2 Nov: Daily Mail: Quentin Letts: Hayes sprang to the despatch box with all the bounce of Basil Brush
    As many a field marshal (and mother-in-law) knows when in trouble – attack brazenly! This was the approach taken yesterday by Energy Minister John Hayes.
    Mr Hayes is the feisty fellow who this week gave bien-pensant liberals an attack of the vapours by saying he did not think much of wind farms. His comments were taken to mean that no more wind farm projects will be built.
    His pronouncements, in an interview with the Daily Mail, caused such intakes of breath in London’s Left-wing Islington district that flags outside King’s Cross railway terminus were almost sucked off their moorings…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2226517/Energy-Minister-John-Hayes-sprang-despatch-box-bounce-Basil-Brush.html?ito=feeds-newsxml


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    in truth, the delegates list for RenewablesUK is almost as funny! u will be scrolling for a while to get through it:

    RenewablesUK: Delegates List
    http://www.renewable-uk.com/events/annual-conference/pdfs/ACE2012%20Delegate%20list.pdf


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Lewandowsky is a remarkably uneducated and ignorant hack. If he wants to pontificate on the history and philosophy of science, it behoves him to study the topic first. On the other hand, portions of academia have always been filled with experts out of their depth. It’s a shame, because most academics are smart, rational and intelligent people.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      I disagree. Lewandowsky is not ignorant. His specialist area is looking at how misinformation can affect opinions even after that misinformation has been rebutted. The fact that he knowingly promotes extreme opinions as the only ones available and fails to publicly acknowledge even the possibility that alternative viewpoints might have some validity, goes far beyond excusing his ignorance. Lewandowsky knows exactly the impact of his falsities. He knows that if people were able to compare and contrast climate dogma with rebuttals, fellow believers would feel betrayed and never trust the word of climate scientist again.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    DaveA

    Lew Lew Lew, I’ve got some grant money
    Lew Lew Lew, you’ve got some too
    Lew Lew Lew, let’s get together
    I know what we can do, Lew Lew.


    Report this

    10

  • #

    Lewandowsky has a lot to say about the overwhelming evidence for smoking causing lung cancer, but in substance has just this to say about the impending catastrophic global warming.

    Trends such as the tripling of the number of weather-related natural disasters during the last 30 years or the inexorable rise in sea levels. Climate scientists predicted those trends long ago. And they are virtually certain that those trends would not have occurred without us pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.

    There are 3 parts to this.
    First, the economic analysis of natural disasters is Lewandowsky’s own. He ignores completely the opinions of Roger Pielke Jr, an expert in the field, with many peer reviewed studies on the subject. Pielke Jnr has shown there is nothing exceptional in the normalised cost of Hurricane Sandy. Furthermore, a 2009 report showed that New York is vulnerable to hurricanes, and the shape of the coastline makes it particularly vulnerable to storm surges.
    Second, the sea level rise is a trivial issue. From the University of Colorado graph, it is clear that sea levels are rising at a steady rate of 31cm a century.
    Third, he claims the predictions of unnamed “experts” have been fulfilled. A balanced analysis would point out that the CO2 levels have risen faster than predicted, but temperatures have not.
    Last week I posted a proposal for analysing the costly impacts of global warming. Using the “equation”, I would suggest Lewandowsky overstates both the Magnitude and Likelihood that Sandy was caused by global warming. He misperceives the change in frequency (1/t). Furthermore, given than he has a track record in the highly biased use of statistics in his own field, and his deliberate lack of balance, the Weighting attached to anything he says should be negative. That is, like to newspapers of the Soviet Union, if Lewandowsky claims something, we should read between the lines see what he does not say. However, unlike the Soviet Union we are still able to look for alternative opinions.

    I have reposted, with a full set of links, at my own blog.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Angry

    An insight into how these Leftists minds work……

    http://jonjayray.110mb.com/psychlef.html


    Report this

    01

  • #

    I’ve thought again about the nickname I assigned to “Skip” Lewandowsky:

    Skip: A large, resonant container, usually filled with rubbish … and expensive to hire.

    But, it could be inappropriate because it doesn’t look like he’ll be taken away any time soon. :-(


    Report this

    20