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

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Consensus Police: 101 “motivated” reasons not to be a skeptic

Skeptics are often accused of being ideologically motivated to find reasons to “deny” the threat posed by man-made Global Disruptification (or whatever it is now called). Which begs the question of what ideology motivated Jo-the-former-Green, along with all the other former believers, to convert. It certainly wasn’t the money (we know from first hand experience). Could it be that damn truth-seeking ideology?

Judith Curry points out that “motivated reasoning” also applies to believers (to which I would add, yes, double-yes, and more-so — follow that money). When grants, careers, junkets, book sales, and offers to sit on golden-commissions are on the line, it doesn’t take much motivated reasoning to find excuses to believe your work is “science” even as you ignore opportunities to follow data that doesn’t quite fit, or delay publications of inconvenient graphs, while you double check, triple check, and invite like-minded colleagues to help find reasons the graphs are not important.

Some scientists are so motivated that they call opposing scientists petty names, and toss allusions they must be “funded” by vested interests, even as they ignore the billions of vested interests funding the name-callers. Meanwhile, all the silent so-called scientists in the tea-rooms that let the one-sided insults go unopposed are complicit in the steady corruption of a once noble profession.

This is about the power of the tea-rooms of research — the places where scientists test out their ideas, not just to see if it holds water scientifically, but to see how the cultural climate will receive it. Who wants to be vilified? Step right up “Denier”.

There are many ways human foibles can slow scientific progress and keep zombie science alive. When research turns up results that will have a negative effect on your colleague’s careers (as well as your own), why would a scientist treat it exactly the same way as the opposite results? Some scientists rise above and overcome the peer pressure, but it takes a special kind of moral fiber to go against the crowd.

Curry discusses the conflict between a scientist’s loyalty to their colleagues and their institution, their loyalty to the public, and the loyalty to the endless quest for understanding. She talks about how scientists ask whether they should release awkward results, and is amazed that most other scientists not only think it’s a reasonable question but say “No” because ” it would only provide fodder for the skeptics”. She describes how she has been ostracized, and how even sympathetic colleagues stay silent, and are deterred from speaking because of her experience.

I have been told examples in Australia of outright intimidation of skeptical scientists by colleagues in senior and very influential roles. I have the names, dates and details. I keep them strictly confidential to protect careers. Please email me if you have a story, or post an invitation in comments, and I’ll be in touch. It is worth sharing your experience. Even anonymized, these details help decision makers understand how corrupt institutional science is. I will not publish anything without express permission.

It can be a lonely place being a scientist. All credit to Judith Curry for rising above — despite the price. May she be rewarded in the long run.

Some selected paragraphs from Scientists and motivated reasoning:

Were [these] just hardworking scientists doing their best to address the impossible expectations of the policy makers?  Well, many of them were.  However, at the heart of the IPCC is a cadre of scientists whose careers have been made by the IPCC.  These scientists have used the IPCC to jump the normal meritocracy process by which scientists achieve influence over the politics of science and policy.  Not only has this brought some relatively unknown, inexperienced  and possibly dubious people into positions of influence, but these people become vested in protecting the IPCC, which has become central to their own career and legitimizes playing power politics with their expertise.

The red carpet and rewards are rolled out for those with fewer scruples. It includes not just scientists, but organizations and journals:

When I refer to the IPCC dogma, it is the religious importance that the IPCC holds for this cadre of scientists; they will tolerate no dissent, and seek to trample and discredit anyone who challenges the IPCC.  Some are mid to late career middle ranking scientists who have done ok in terms of the academic meritocracy. Others were still graduate students when they were appointed as lead authors for the IPCC. These scientists  have used to IPCC to gain a seat at the “big tables” where they can play power politics with the collective expertise of the IPCC, to obtain personal publicity, and to advance their careers.  This advancement of their careers is done with the complicity of the professional societies and the institutions that fund science.  Eager for the publicity,  high impact journals such as Nature, Science, and PNAS frequently publish sensational but dubious papers that support the climate alarm narrative.

The meme will turn against the apostate even more than the always-skeptic — it has too, in order to dissuade  others that leaving the meme:

This issue was made very explicit by the title of the Scientific American article entitled Climate Heretic:  Judith Curry turns against her Colleagues.  Of all the issues raised by Climategate and the points I had been trying to make about overconfidence and uncertainty, transparency, engaging with skeptics, etc., the main issue of interest in all this was construed as me turning against my colleagues?  It was hard for me to understand this at first, but then I realized that by talking about uncertainty and engaging with skeptics that I was following the playbook according to the merchants of doubt meme.  So talking about topics that I regarded as efforts that were needed to rebuild the credibility of climate science was regarded by my ‘colleagues’ as damaging to the consensus.

Early on in my statements about Climategate, I became aware that my statements were looked upon very unfavorably by some scientists, particularly those that were vocal advocates of the IPCC and UNFCCC policies. As an example, Peter Webster related a conversation at a professional meeting in 2010 with a young scientist who said something like: ‘You know, Judy is REALLY unpopular among the scientists at lab.  I’m not sure, but I think she might be right.  I can say that to you but of course I wouldn’t dare say that at the lab.’

I soon realized that by doing this, I was pretty much destroying any chance I might have had for further recognition/awards by professional societies such as the AGU…

Many who are skeptical stay silent:

Last June, I encountered at a meeting an elected official of one of the major professional societies, who was not unsympathetic to my positions.  He asked me:  ”I have wondered what possessed you to break loose from the mainstream opinions of the community, with potentially adverse professional consequences.”…

My ‘ostracism’ from the IPCC advocacy ’tribe’ has been noted by other scientists that are quietly sympathetic to my position.

Scientists are human and subject to peer group pressure too:

What is at issue here is a conflict between the micro ethics of individual responsibility for responsible conduct of research and larger ethical issues associated with the well-being of the public and the environment.  Most such examples are related to suppression of evidence including  attempting to stifle skeptical research (particularly its publication and dissemination to the public); the Climategate emails provide abundant examples of this.

On scientists who justify withholding “awkward” results from publication:

In my view this comment exemplifies a problematic attitude not only in climate science but in the social sciences as well. The good cause which allegedly motivates much of the research puts the researcher in a special position. It allows them to dispense with essential standards of professional conduct. It is perhaps not remarkable that we see a ‘leading figure’ in the philosophy of science defend questionable practices which have been modelled (not by accident I suppose) after the famous climategate affair.

The risks for the credibility of science (no matter which branch or discipline) are clear. Anyone who comes across such commentary will take this as confirmation that science can be twisted according to the will of scientists (or elites); that science is constructed (in the vulgar sense of being ‘made up’ and ‘fake’); and that scientists preserve the prerogative of making judgements which data are for public consumption and which are not.

The full post: Scientists and motivated reasoning

There is no such thing as an uncorruptible human institution.

 

H/t Climate Depot and Tom Nelson

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.4/10 (97 votes cast)
Consensus Police: 101 "motivated" reasons not to be a skeptic, 9.4 out of 10 based on 97 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/kmyc6gr

299 comments to Consensus Police: 101 “motivated” reasons not to be a skeptic

  • #
    Peter Miller

    Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

    The corruption of climate science by personal vested interests, namely: grant addiction, career prospects and employment considerations. Peer pressure to conform your thoughts to the rigid doctrine of the Global Warming cult and the IPCC outweighs all other considerations.

    There is an old expression: “In cess pits, the big lumps always rise to the top” and so it is with climate science.

    I recently employed an Australian consultant, who was a brilliant geologist, but the stories he had to tell about his personal experiences in climate computer modelling for an august Australian research institute would make your hair curl.

    I don’t know how many times I have said this, but ask almost any geologist in the private sector (this is a group of individuals with no vested interests in climate science promotion, but who actually understand what natural climate cycles are all about) and you will find alarmists and CAGW believers there to be as rare as rocking horse poo.


    Report this

    681

  • #
    blackadderthe4th

    ‘There are many ways human foibles can slow scientific progress and keep zombie science alive’, surely you mean ‘climate zombies’.

    AGU, Richard Alley, climate zombies and warming has stopped!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5sxBSa6Tck


    Report this

    169

    • #
      Heywood

      * Y a w n *

      More spam from BlackDouchebagthe4th. This particular diatribe has been posted many many times.

      Mods
      – Why is this idiot continuously allowed to peddle his own YouTube channel ad nauseum?? It is pure self promotion.


      Report this

      481

      • #
        blackadderthe4th

        ‘ This particular diatribe has been posted many many times.’ well if climate zombies are repeatedly woken up, they have to be put to sleep again! Without any mercy, otherwise the walking brain dead will be taken seriously!

        ‘allowed to peddle his own YouTube channel’, sounds like you can’t handle the truth. Well go and make some of your own and let us see your results, what’s stopping you? Instead of bleating on and on, do something constructive!


        Report this

        167

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          ‘walking brain dead’? I don’t think I would go so far in describing you; there’s no evidence you can walk.


          Report this

          350

        • #
          AndyG55

          Seriously ???

          From the 10 seconds I once bothered to watch, your work is truly shoddy !!

          FFS, go and get some lessons or something if you want to continue with your little nonsense videos.


          Report this

          281

        • #
          Heywood

          “Well go and make some of your own and let us see your results”

          No thanks, I’m not an egotistical w**** who creates a YouTube channels and spams blogs with them. Maybe you and Richard can make some home movies. [snip]


          Report this

          272

        • #
          Bob Cormack

          @ blackbladderthe4th:

          Gosh, people won’t just take your insulting diatribes as gospel and quit questioning junk science? What’s the world coming to (for a would-be solipsist, anyway)?

          Perhaps the problem is your style; uncivil, insulting, and having contempt for the intelligence of your audience. (Who is your audience, anyway — must not be very large if you have to peddle your crap here.)

          Most people who are skeptical of the extreme claims made by those promoting the unproven hypothesis of Anthropogenic global warming, are well aware that the world has been in a general warming trend (glaciers melting, sea levels rising, and all that) since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1800. Unfortunately for the Catastrophic AGW hypothesis, this warming trend started more than 100 years too soon to be due to human CO2 emissions, and is historically nothing special.

          On the other hand, many people I’ve talked to who believe in the kind of junk science you peddle have been completely ignorant of the LIA, the MWP, the Roman Warm Period, the Holocene Optimum, or any actual knowledge of the Earth’s history of “climate change”, even though they think they “believe” in “climate change” and I don’t.
          These appear to be the real zombies (and, probably, your only audience).


          Report this

          390

          • #
            blackadderthe4th

            ‘having contempt for the intelligence of your audience.’ why not! When they take pride in ignoring the bleeding obvious! And are actually proud that they will not examine any evidence I place before them.

            You post up scores of timewasting videos that you may not have even watched yourself and declare that readers here (who post links to papers instead) are in denial. You are a parody in action. -Jo

            ‘unproven hypothesis of Anthropogenic global warming’, how come? There is over 500 million years of evidence that co2 has had an influence on the climate! As here

            Evidence that CO2 is a GHG and heating up the planet!

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbUnp0QDaRo

            These youtube-links disguise the fact that you can’t make an argument with words, and certainly not with data. You present no evidence in text here at all. – Jo

            ‘the end of the Little Ice Age around 1800′ I wish you people would agree when this happened, because it’s like a moving feast!
            Red herring.-Jo

            ‘and is historically nothing special’ oh yes it is, co2 levels haven’t been this high in some like 2.5 million years.
            Current CO2 is lower than most of the last 500 million years.-Jo

            ‘or any actual knowledge of the Earth’s history of ‘climate change’, like yourself I would suggest. Because there are many factors that can be involved with global climate change, however the only factor in force now is man made co2.

            The “only factor is CO2″ eh — which is why all the climate models based on CO2 can’t predict the climate?-Jo

            ‘and I don’t’ perhaps that is because of pure obtuseness, lack of knowledge, blind to uncomfortable truths or as Sen. Inhofe says,’there is still a god up there’ {there isn’t actually}, meaning he’ll look after the climate, yeah right.

            Irrelevant. Conjecture. A religious atheist. (How can you “know”?) Lift your standards BA- Jo


            Report this

            024

            • #
              Scott

              Ha Ha Owned

              Well done Jo


              Report this

              170

            • #
              blackadderthe4th

              FAO JO

              ‘You post up scores of timewasting {???} videos that you MAY NOT HAVE EVEN WATCHED yourself and declare that readers here (who post links to papers instead) are in denial. You are a parody in action. -Jo’

              I assure you I have watched all te videos I post, several times! To suggest I haven’t seen them myself is crass, seen as most, but not all, have been edited from the original by myself.

              ‘Current CO2 is lower than most of the last 500 million years.-Jo’ OK, but that does not mean it is at it’s highest level for some 2.5 million years. And anyhow in those 500 million years it can be seen that temperature and co2 are, more or less, in lock step with each other. In other words when co2 goes up temperature goes up and when co2 goes down temperature goes down.

              ‘The “only factor is CO2″ eh — which is why all the climate models based on CO2 can’t predict the climate?-Jo’ yes that is the only FORCING action in play at the moment, but that doe not mean other factors can have a minor influence, but the graph keeps going up over all.

              ‘(who post links to papers instead)’ which I view and have found in most cases if you read past the headlines that usually very weak concerning the topic in question. In fact if the full text is read to the bottom line, the chances are it says the opposite to what is being claimed.

              ‘These youtube-links disguise the fact that you can’t make an argument with words, and certainly not with data. You present no evidence in text here at all. – Jo’

              Well I would only be repeating what is said in the video 99.99999999999999999999999% of the time, so people are free to evidence for them selves and can refer to the original as there should/will be a link in the description! ‘You present no evidence in text here at all’, no I don’t think that’s true, OK a small amount only.

              ‘IRRELEVANT, Conjecture. A religious atheist. (How can you “know”?) Lift your standards BA- Jo’

              Well not really, as Sen. Inhofe claims there is a god up there taking care of us! ‘(How can you “know”?)’ well basically years of life experience, how can you possibly know otherwise!


              Report this

              012

              • #

                If you have watched all your youtubes, you can explain them in text right? So do it.

                No one comes to a debate saying “I’ll use my 3 minutes to tell you which 2 hours of videos you have to watch to find my arguments”.


                Report this

                140

              • #
                Mark Hladik

                Since CO2 levels and atmospheric temperatures are, as you put it, ” … more or less in lockstep … ” then you should have no trouble at all providing the correlation coefficient, as I have asked.

                Also, my apologies for not knowing that the website, www DOT globalwarmingart DOT com is back up and running. A couple of years ago it became a topic of discussion amongst several commentators here, that the site had disappeared. I was just a few days away from recommending to JoNova’s and Anthony’s regulars, that we should archive much or all of their data, due to the possibility that they would wake up to the fact that most of their data contradicts the AGW/CAGW hypothesis.

                Just recently, the website apparently went active again, and so the “Phanerozoic Temperature Record” and “Phanerozoic Carbon Dioxide” graphs are back. They are in two separate galleries, easy to find, and run digitizing and correlation programs on them. Specifically, use the Berner & Kothavala curve, since it has passed “peer review” and is cited in the literature more than any other curve (to my knowledge).

                Please let me know the correlation software you use, so that I can cross-check it with mine. It is possible that mine has a bug it in, so some confirmation would help.

                I await your results,

                Mark H.

                P.S. To everyone else: Since we wouldn’t want to lose such a resource again, please consider archiving whatever you can from globalwarmingart.com ASAP.


                Report this

                10

            • #
              AndyG55

              “pure obtuseness, lack of knowledge, blind to uncomfortable truths ”

              hey, good self analysis. Well done.


              Report this

              40

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I don’t bother watching videos, for a number of reasons:

        1. I generally don’t have the time. I can skim what somebody has typed, and then decide whether or not to read the whole text carefully. I cannot do that with a video, I am forced to watch the whole thing, or none of it. Faced with that decision, “none of it” becomes the default.

        2. Videos can be “enhanced”, in various ways, such as putting people in the frame, who were never physically there. The movie “Forest Gump” demonstrated that beautifully, when Tom Hanks is shown, on the White House Rose Garden patio, standing behind President Nixon. Techniques have gotten better since then, and are available to the amateur film maker. So they cease to have any credence in any debate, let alone a scientific debate. In some (most?) countries, videos are not accepted as evidence, unless a secure chain of custody can be established. YouTube is not a secure chain of custody.

        3. Videos, are accessed by a link. Anything on the web that is accessed by a link can be changed, post hoc, to say something different, and thereby make any comments to it look like the gibbering of an idiot. Therefore, anything I rely on for my professional opinion, that is accessed by a link, is copied onto my servers, and encrypted with the original date-time-stamp, so I have some evidence of later changes. I don’t have the time or disk space to waste, on doing that for comments on a blog.


        Report this

        140

        • #
          blackadderthe4th

          ’1. I generally don’t have the time. I can skim what somebody has typed, and then decide whether or not to read the whole text carefully. I cannot do that with a video,’ oh yes you can! Seen as most of my productions are short, with a reference link to the original, which is obviously longer and goes into more deppth on the subject!

          ’2. Videos can be “enhanced”, in various ways, such as putting people in the frame, who were never physically there. The movie “Forest Gump’ what are you talking about? Well seen as you are proud to declare you haven’t seen any of my vids, I can assure there is no Forest Gump in them!

          ’3. Videos, are accessed by a link. Anything on the web that is accessed by a link can be changed, post hoc, to say something different’, this is just classic cop out! To think somebody would be bothered to hack into some YT vids and alter its message, is not worthy on consideration! ROFL!

          PS ‘I don’t bother watching ‘your’ videos, for a number of reasons’ The biggest one being you can’t handle the truth!


          Report this

          011

          • #

            A boor turns up to a book club insisting everyone must ABSOLUTELY listen to his musak “I made it myself”. The host tells him he is welcome to stay if he wants to talk, but people are here for a discussion. The boor protests that his song is about a book!!! The host says No thanks. Mr Chump calls the host a philistine who can’t handle the truth and heads to the stereo… the book club cancels his membership.

            When I post videos (which is not that common) I describe them in enough detail so that readers can discuss the topic without seeing the video. You need to do the same.

            If you have trouble writing, you should have a youtube channel. This is a blog. OK?


            Report this

            100

            • #
              blackadderthe4th

              ‘I describe them in enough detail so that readers can discuss the topic without seeing the video’ a bit of an oxymoron or what? A pointless exercise.

              There’s a blockbuster on at the movies, but I’ll tell you the end so you don’t have to go an watch it! Just think of all the time you are saving by not seeing The Titanic sink. And never ever watch ‘Life Of Brian’, because it is so blasphemous, just take my word for it and it’s not even funny!


              Report this

              17

              • #

                Oh. You think making an argument in text is “pointless” on a blog?

                So why comment? (Do you want to discuss things here or just advertise things here?)

                Explaining Richard Alleys scientific argument is like giving away the plot on a work of fiction, eh?
                This is not a line of reasoning you probably want to take further.

                BA – I didn’t think this would be so hard for you. I was even going to allow you to keep posting links to your youtube as long as you explained enough so that commenters could discuss your arguments without having to bore themselves stupid following your slow-mo dull vids, but now I really do suspect you don’t understand the arguments in the vids (actually given your last response, I’m not sure you understand the rhetorical concept known as “arguments”).

                PS: This is a science blog, not a movie review site. Geddit?


                Report this

                70

              • #
                blackadderthe4th

                FAO JO

                ‘You are free to post text here to make a case. If readers here have to watch the youtube to understand what your argument is you are on the wrong site.’ I think not! Have you not heard the phrase, ‘a picture paints a thousand words’, how many words will be painted by a short YT vid? Quite a lot! Because you can see the points being made by the revelevant person.

                ‘If you can’t attract a healthy discussion on your youtube channel’, been there, done that, got the ‘T’ shirt! But they are too easy to debunk and I need a challenge. Some tougher nut to crack! I was hoping for some science, be it basic, responses, but the best I can expect from here is some ‘science’!

                ‘I was feeling inclined to let you keep posting advertising {????} links to your site (if you could learn to comment properly)’ well what you actually mean is that, you can’t offer any valid information or evidence in support of your position and therefore you have made various excuses, rules, deflections and run away from the uncomfortable truths.

                ’273 comments so far and yet you whinge’, because all you do is avoid the bleeding obvious and maintain your anti-science position! This is obviously by your dismissal of R Alley and his work at the AGU and other such sources! Who do you rely on by the way?


                Report this

                04

              • #

                BA4 – you were hoping for a science discussion? So put some science in your comments instead of video links.

                I didn’t dismiss Alley. Was he in your last video? I didn’t watch your other ones either. I just don’t watch much on slowtube.
                Your whole reasoning is anti-science. Why do I need to hear “The relevant person” make the argument? How does an atmospheric condition become more real if it’s made by one person rather than another. Are you just admitting you can’t explain it?

                Yes, a video does paint a lot of words (but words are cheap) — too many: “ums”‘ “ahhs”, “can you pass the water”, “is that in focus for you”? Drone drone. Those of us who can read get our info faster from text. Less words is better.

                No one posts 2000 word comments except you.

                > Who do you rely on by the way?

                Me.


                Report this

                50

              • #
                Richard

                You’ve been posting these YouTube videos for over 3 years now (I’m CHIPSTERO7) and aside from the fact they are not proper scientific arguments, they’ve been refuted ad nauseam by other posters already. You’ve shown me that video of Richard Alley before and he dosen’t present any actual evidence as far as I can see. The essential thrust of Alley’s argument is that the geological record is almost shouting at us that CO2 is the predominate cause of the changes in the global surface temperature. However all that Alley’s talk actually presents is putative evidence of a correlation, not a cause. And as has been pointed out to you before, a correlation cannot and does not prove a cause. It can only prove a coincidence. To think that a correlation by itself can provide us with evidence of CO2′s power to drive global temperature is self-deception, surely. The correlation could equally mean that temperature regulates CO2, as the time-lag would appear to suggest. You’re not composing posts for structually-limited YouTube captions anymore where citing videos is acceptable, you’re on a forum, and a certain level of effort is expected when submitting a post. Come on BA4, raise your game, old friend.


                Report this

                50

              • #
                blackadderthe4th

                ‘> Who do you rely on by the way?

                Me.’. well self promotion is no promotion at all! Unless it is backed up with qualifications, expertise, experience and valid research! And I suspect it’s not, or am I wrong?
                [I think for myself. What do you do? Follow the herd? - Jo ]

                ‘(but words are cheap)’, so why are you demanding text posts??? Hoist by your own petard methinks!

                ‘I didn’t watch your other ones either’, but you should watch this one, I’m sure the content will be of interest!

                [Snip slowtube link. Get the point BA. Give us an explanation of the scientific point you wish us to discuss. - Jo]

                @richard ‘as the time-lag would appear to suggest’ well the 800 lag between temperature and co2 rise is perfectly explained by the fact, when the Earth is in a glacier period and a trigger event occurs, say the Earth’s orbit changes and heats up the planet. It takes time for the co2 to be released from the soils and sea, etc. It then takes over from orbital forcing and becomes the forcing factor! However it is not the only factor.


                Report this

                04

              • #
                Bob Cormack

                You’re wasting your time, Jo — BA4 is obviously incapable of constructing a logical argument based on data. He is even, obviously, unaware of why ‘argument from authority’ is a logical fallacy (or, probably, even what a logical fallacy is).

                Belief in authority is the beginning and end of his mental capacity — (Hence his query “who do you rely on”).

                No wonder he is so easily taken in by scam videos.


                Report this

                30

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            He wont get the analogy Jo. I don’t think he does metaphor.

            I actually suspect that he cannot read any faster than his finger moves, which is why he likes moving pictures, they allow him to absorb “the message” with little or no effort, bypassing the recognition and comprehension stages. He is a victim of post-normal education. Frightening, isn’t it.

            I wonder if he has ever seen the movie, “1984″? I would bet next months’ paycheck that he has never read the book.


            Report this

            70

            • #
              blackadderthe4th

              ‘I would bet next months’ paycheck that he has never read the book’. I’ll take that paycheck. And one for each Animal Farm, Wigan Pier, Down and Out in Paris and London etc, etc!


              Report this

              05

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Fine, but only for 1984, because that was the wager.

                I will deposit my next pay check at the Taipai branch of the Hong Kong and Shanghi bank, in an account under your name, once you have sent me the account details.

                And, not that I don’t trust your word, but before I do that, could you please give us a list the differences between the original book, and the original full length movie?


                Report this

                40

              • #
                John Brookes

                I’ve read 1984! Can I have the money?


                Report this

                03

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Sure. See you in Taipei next Wednesday, 10.00am at that little macan stall on the corner of San No street and Toan Aw Road

                I will be carrying a rolled umbrella and a copy of The Times.


                Report this

                30

          • #

            Richard, thanks for watching it and giving us the synopsis. Ally’s argument that paleo records can show CO2 is having an effect is dreadfully weak. We don’t have the resolution 100m years ago to assess it, but we know thanks to Henry’s law that a warmer world will raise CO2 levels. Hence if there was no correlation between Temp and CO2 it would be extraordinary. To point to an entirely predictable correlation and pretend it proves something else, shows how weak their case is.

            Brookes – good to see you are still around. You seemed to have disappeared?


            Report this

            30

    • #
      MemoryVault

      .
      1941 to 1976 = 34 years of cooling = a temporary statistical blip. Now stopped.
      1976 to 1998 = 22 years of warming = proof of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. Now stopped
      1998 to 2013 = 15 years of nothing = a temporary statistical blip. Continuing, or maybe cooling now.

      .
      Yeah, right.


      Report this

      540

    • #
      Rastuz

      Haha.

      Looked at the link. It is your own you tube channel!

      I agree with the grumpy cat. It’s just self promotion.

      Looks like the video is just some idiot pushing an agenda. I got about 10 seconds in and didn’t bother going any further. I’ll avoid the links in future.


      Report this

      400

    • #
      handjive

      Do try to keep up with your “settled science” BA4.

      It’s the volcanoes that are causing the pause now.

      Separating Science From Spin on the Global-Warming ‘Pause’


      Report this

      160

      • #
        blackadderthe4th

        ‘It’s the volcanoes that are causing the pause now’, from your link:- ‘The IPCC report attributes this hiatus to SHORT-TERM factors’.

        But generally, its not a factor, worthy of consideration!


        Report this

        234

        • #
          handjive

          Let’s put it another way:

          Now, a leaked version of the upcoming UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report highlighted in the media suggests that the global body’s “climate scientists” are struggling hard to publicly explain the lack of warming they predicted with such confidence.
          Among the possible explanations offered by the UN’s supposed experts: “ash from volcanoes,” a “decline in heat from the sun,” or more heat being “absorbed by the deep oceans,” according to news reports.”

          BA4, either your youtube Alley is wrong about his “breathless” warming, or, the UN experts like David Gutzler, an earth- and planetary-sciences professor at the University of New Mexico who contributed to the IPCC report, is wrong when he says, “There has been a slowdown or hiatus in the rate of change of global temperature in the 21st century, and that’s real.”

          Comprende, cowboy?

          Once again, for the slow ones amongst us, this is leaked from the upcoming UN-IPCC AR5 report.


          Report this

          250

        • #
          blackadderthe4th

          ‘this is leaked from the upcoming UN-IPCC AR5 report’ well we’ll see what the report says when it’s released!

          By the what what ever happened to ClimategateIII? Any ideas?


          Report this

          234

          • #
            Bob Cormack

            blackadderthe4th
            August 22, 2013 at 11:19 pm · Reply

            By the what what ever happened to ClimategateIII? Any ideas?

            The Climategates are a contributing reason why only zombies (and those with vested interests) constitute your audience.


            Report this

            221

            • #
              blackadderthe4th

              ‘The Climategates’ have all been debunked and shown up as a failed attempt to produce more disinformation for the anti-science brigade!

              CGII debunked!

              http://www.youtube.com [search] ED

              PS WHAT has happened to CGIII.

              —————————–

              Blackadder, If it was debunked, that’s news to me. Explain why. We use text on this site, so make your argument with text. I’m not watching a 5 minute video only find out you don’t know what you are talking about. – Jo


              Report this

              317

              • #
                blackadderthe4th

                ‘Blackadder, If it was debunked, THAT’S NEWS NEWS TO ME. We use text on this site {is that the law?}, so make your argument with text {I’d rather use what tool I find most useful}. I’m not watching a 5 minute video only find out you don’t know what you are talking about. – Jo’

                ‘Explain why’ well it seems you haven’t watched the link I’ve posted, not very enlightened approach is it! ‘you don’t know what you are talking about’ And seen as I have no input into this one at all, just goes to prove that ASSUME makes an ass of ‘u’ me!

                PS do you know what’s happened to ClimategateIII, a couple of months ago it was going to bring the AGW scam down, but the silence is deafening!


                Report this

                09

              • #

                Go on… Youtube is “enlightened”? Pull the other one…

                If you want to debate on slowtube, go do it. We use text. It’s faster.


                Report this

                70

              • #

                As Jo suggests BA4 put your typing fingers to use and put any evidence, if you can find any, as a link or in comment but don’t expect us to take your magical mystery tour on Youtube.


                Report this

                70

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            All three are being compiled into a book, as I understand it.

            That should blow the lid of the whole scam when the he said, she said, is laid bare.

            Perhaps you could get the film rights?


            Report this

            130

            • #
              blackadderthe4th

              ‘That should blow the lid of the whole scam’ hardly seen as the previous two have been been consigned to the rubbish bin! What valid impression have they made, other than a few minor points? Nothing of any consequence!


              Report this

              09

              • #
                Scott

                sounds like your describing your u-tube videos


                Report this

                80

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                What valid impression have they made, other than a few minor points? Nothing of any consequence!

                Ah, the, “Move along folks, nothing to see here”, defence.

                The first two releases of material were about the fiddling of data and graph presentation to present a “better” story. So it was all of the interesting bits, from a scientific perspective.

                The release of the rest of the material, allows it all to be placed into sequence, forming a time-line (or story-board, to you “movie directors”).

                The investigators will be able to see who said what, and when, and to whom. They will see who was involved in key decisions, and the reasons those decisions were made. They will be able to find out who the external influencers were, and why. In short, it will show the rest of us the motivations behind what went on, under the covers, in the UAE.

                This is classical intelligence analysis, and it has brought U.S. Presidents down in the past (Watergate-Nixon). That is why it is referred to as “Climategate”, didn’t you get the memo?


                Report this

                80

              • #
                blackadderthe4th

                ‘Ah, the, “Move along folks, nothing to see here”, defence’ if the cap fits, wear it!


                Report this

                16

              • #
                Bob Cormack

                blackadderthe4th
                August 25, 2013 at 6:53 am
                ‘Ah, the, “Move along folks, nothing to see here”, defence’ if the cap fits, wear it!

                Ah, BA … This is the complete opposite of Rereke’s argument. Now, I’m starting to doubt your intelligence as well as your logical ability.


                Report this

                20

        • #
          handjive

          P.S. BA4, it’s only a “hiatus,” short term or long term, when it starts rising again.

          Unlike the co2, which is rising relentlessly, passing deadly tipping points of 400ppm.
          Or was that 450? I’ll check with Bill McKibben over at 350.org
          .
          Don’t be the last one holding the flag, BA4. It’s over.


          Report this

          310

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Is that you ? Wow you have an amazingly annoying voice.


      Report this

      50

    • #

      I will save people the pain of listening to Richard Alley’s voice. He looks at GISSTEMP data to show that there have been lots of short-term pauses in global warming in Alley’s lifetime. The implication is that this pause is no different. Problems with this arguement.
      1. GISSTEMP data was originally constructed by (and until recently maintained by) James Hansen, the father of global warming. It has always been the dataset that most strongly supports the global warming hypothesis and has been continually been updated in a direction more strongly verifies that hypothesis.
      2. Alley does not mention that the pause of 15+ years is many times longer than say the pause in the 1980s.
      3. Alley does not relate temperature to human CO2 emissions. If he did, he would have to admit that the start of the pause was accompanied by a huge acceleration in CO2 emissions that accompanied unprecedented levels of global growth in 1999-2008.
      4. Alley does not go back before 1957. On other data sets, he would have to explain why the period 1913-1945 has a similar rise in temperatures, when the rate of CO2 rise was very much smaller.

      Even if Alley had provided a convincing case for the pause being insignificant, it matters not one jot to the subject of this posting – that those who question the dogma you support are intolerant towards those who think for themselves. What is more, if there was a convincing case for a prospective, non-trivial and negative impact of climate change on human beings and/or this planet, then the consensus you support would be loudly proclaiming that case instead of discriminating against non-believers.


      Report this

      60

  • #
    Ian

    star comment
    Times have changed immensely Jo. Here’s a true story. In the 1980s I sent a paper to Acta Endocrinologica about the effect of prolactin on a steroid binding protein. During the peer review process I had doubts about some of the experimental data (I was using liver cells in culture) so I asked for it to be withdrawn. It was, although subsequently I found the data was kosher. In those days peer review really was quite stringent. Now, as far as one can tell, peer review in Climate Science it seems that any paper agreeing with the propositus that climate change is caused by humans is readily accepted while papers suggesting it may not be have a much more difficult progress. One of the statements, well mantras really, that I find particularly obnoxious is “the science is settled”. This was a prime reason for my joining the ranks of the sceptics as the science is very rarely settled. I certainly hope that Judith Curry at some future date, not too far off I sincerely trust, will have her views and stance vindicated by her so called “colleagues”. Oh just as a bit of a bonus I’ve been banned from SkS for intransigence. Funny that the warmists blogs are so sensitive to criticism. This sensitivity permeates the entire warmist philosophy from august institutions such as Nature and Science down to inconsequential blogs such as SkS. I wonder what they are scared of


    Report this

    600

    • #
      cohenite

      Absolutely correct; the peer review of AGW and AGW science generally has been corrupted by Noble Cause Corruption.

      The effects of NCC go beyond the massive waste and missed opportunities to invest in real energy directions but also taint all science.

      For too long areas of learning and research outside of AGW have tolerated the blight of AGW science and as a result all science will lose standing and respect.


      Report this

      302

  • #
    Robbo_Perth

    Three comments to this beautiful post.
    star comment

    1. Unfortunately, at the postdoc level, our chances of landing
    a fellowship or a long-term job generally depend not on how many
    original new ideas we have, but on how well we can apply the consensus
    model to the data, no matter how many free parameters we have
    to introduce or how much we have to stretch the model.
    In other words, as Thomas Kuhn pointed out, our daily job
    (unless we feel really brave or foolish) is to solve problems
    with the consensus model, not to test the model.
    If you do astronomy at Cambridge, your job is to find
    relativistically-broadened iron lines in every active galaxy,
    as favoured by the boss, not question whether there are good alternative
    models. If you are at Harvard, your job is to show that every faint
    black hole is in the advective state. It’s a cottage industry. You can
    go against the flow but then you may not be chosen to give talks
    at conferences and forget about getting a recommendation letter
    for your next job application.

    2. There are actually two ways to become REALLY unpopular with colleagues.
    One is what Judith says, go against their favourite science model.
    The other (very strong in academia) is to show an insufficient
    commitment (in coffee-break chat, outreach talks, twitter and fb posts,
    etc) for fashionable leftist causes (eg, welfare rights for lesbian Muslim
    asylum seekers, provided they are vaccinated). Criticising the climate science
    consensus is a double whammy, you get scientifically and politically
    unpopular in one go.

    3. Also unfortunately, many scientists feel they are smarter than average,
    therefore they have a duty to impose their consensus onto the taxpayers.
    Scientist may debate with themselves, but not in front of the public.
    Their duty to the public is to give them a single scary story and force
    them to “act”. No need for the public to think. They wouldn’t be able to,
    anyway, because their minds are brainwashed by Bolt & Murdoch.


    Report this

    500

    • #
      Bob Cormack

      Great post Robbo — matches my experience with academia to a “T”.

      A great impediment to overturning an established theory in science is that so many other scientists’ work depends on it. Hence you meet massive resistance by even suggesting a crucial test of “accepted” science.

      Engineers do more honest science than most scientists, since stuff either works or it doesn’t — you can’t fool Mother Nature, and you can’t be a successful engineer by building stuff that doesn’t work.

      On the other hand, you can be a successful scientist by simply getting your peers to agree with you. Generally, the best way to do that is to not demonstrate that they are wrong.


      Report this

      320

      • #
        AndyG55

        “Engineers do more honest science than most scientists,”

        Thanks Bob..

        Sorry Robbo, I happen to be both a Scientist and an Engineer, and I get a bit tired of people lumping all academics as one :-( .. we aren’t.

        On the other hand, it does annoy me to see fellow scientists and engineers being BOUGHT into the agenda without due diligence.

        Thankfully the climate change research grants are slowly drying up.


        Report this

        121

      • #
        DavidH

        I wonder how it was that the global cooling consensus of past years was changed around. Surely the tiny number of global warming dissenters were vilified, hounded, branded as “cooling deniers”. Yet (as warmists would say) they heroically fought on and won the day. So, consensus was wrong and challengeable then but right and unchallengeable now?


        Report this

        80

        • #
          Bob Cormack

          DavidH

          August 23, 2013 at 8:44 am · Reply

          So, consensus was wrong and challengeable then but right and unchallengeable now?

          Lots more money and careers at stake now (after government injection of $80B into the field), hence lots more people with vested interests to resist change.


          Report this

          70

  • #
    Dave

    “outright intimidation of skeptical scientists by colleagues in senior and very influential roles”

    This is the problem, WE put the system there by voting to give these creeps of influential government leaders the power to pressure science. And the other thing is, it’s not skeptical research, it’s science.

    People power and our values will have a big influence in this as I am finding out in the main populace. The average Dave, Joe Blog, Collie and Sam, all want to be able to believe they are being told the truth, not a one sided financially influenced agenda.


    Report this

    181

    • #

      IMO if the Climatologists practiced real science they would welcome any and all theories which either help prove or disprove the conclusions they have arrived at.

      However this lot just seem to be on the train wreck hoping for greater funding and more Kudos.

      If all the evidence we Skeptics have accrued to date is any indication these guys are corrupt beyond belief. They don’t fall into the category above. They treat Skeptical Scientists with rejection, disdain, and Ostricization. Proof in itself that they do not practice the scientific method.

      There are many hard working and diligent scientists working in their fields that are premised on the existence of AGW and are so because they believe there could be ramifications. This is the problem, Science is not a Consensus or a Belief system and if the original premise is wrong so is all the subsequent hypotheses.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    Truthseeker

    The separation of church and state has been one of the foundations of successful societies. Do not let the contemplation of the hereafter get in the way of dealing with the here and now.

    I think the paradigm we need now is to separate state and science. Do not let the politics of power get in the way of discovering the universe around us.


    Report this

    241

    • #
      Macha

      I think state and science was separated, until someone decided to link employment tenure to grants with predetermined objectives. Thus the scientist was less inclinded to let the data lead them to the answer.


      Report this

      100

    • #
      Mark D.

      Do not let the politics of power get in the way of discovering the universe around us.

      That would be good. The problem being human nature and especially with regard to corruption and greed.


      Report this

      90

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I agree to a point, Truthseeker.

      But we need to demarcate between Pure Science, Applied Science, and Engineering.

      The so-called “climate scientists,” are not actually doing any real original research. They are trying to apply the research of others, in ways that they may not understand, to acquire data that is then used to calculate results, using engineering tools with limitations that they certainly don’t appreciate.

      They present the output of the models as “proof” of the theory du jour, but no engineer would accept the output of models as representing reality, and I actually don’t know any engineers who do.

      The model of an electronic circuit is not the electronic circuit. You can calculate all of the parameters, but you still need to build a prototype to validate the model output.

      There is no prototype of the climate system, therefore the use of models is not applicable, because they can never be validated.


      Report this

      160

  • #
    MemoryVault

    .
    Judith Curry is a catastrophic anthropogenic warmist alarmist with brains.
    She and her husband (“partner”) run a business advising businesses of the “effects of climate change”.
    That’s on top of her well-paid university positions, lecturing about “climate change”.

    To give her her due, Ms Curry at least had the good sense, when climategate broke, to realise perhaps in aligning herself solely with the IPCC, she was perhaps flogging a dead horse. That was when she decided to try and have a foot in both camps. She has been straddling the barbed wired fence ever since.

    Her first attempt, what she referred to at the time as an “attempt to establish a dialogue between the science and we deniers” (yes, that’s how she phrased it), was via a guest post article at WUWT. It was not received all that favourably.

    So, she had another go, also at WUWT, along the lines of “bridging the gap between science and we deniers”. That went down equally well. She wrote a third article for WUWT along the same lines that I never bothered reading. I didn’t bother reading it because Willis Eschenbach wrote a reply that bitch-slapped her so hard she at least learned not to refer to us as “deniers”.

    Nonetheless, her thinking has not changed. She continues to straddle the fence, leaning heavily on post-modern science teachings and philosophy. The fact that she has been ostracised from the CAGW fraternity only proves how tribal they are, it in no way lends Ms Curry any credibility amongst thinking skeptics.

    .
    Sorry Jo. Forgiveness is the Lord’s prerogative. I’m a bloke. I’m in the business of justice when I can get it, and vengeance when I can’t. In Ms Curry’s case, I’ll settle for whichever I can get.


    Report this

    280

    • #
      Tel

      There’s nothing wrong with having a foot in both camps, if it were real science it wouldn’t even be about “camps” it would be collecting data from all available sources.


      Report this

      230

    • #
      Turnedoutnice

      She’s learning. A year ago her stance was to lean on Ray Pierrehumbert of ‘the Team’ for the physic, but he is pushing incorrect physics, very cleverly.

      Recently I and other s have been working on her and on Spencer. My last posting on ClimateEtc was about my laterst work ahowing that CO2 is the working fluid of the heat engine that keeps mean surface temperature near constant in a range so there is no significant CO2-AGW, climate sensitivity < 0.1 K.

      Her response suggested she had heard of the work by another route.


      Report this

      100

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      She has been straddling the barbed wired fence ever since.

      When do we get to turn the electric on? Click … click … click …


      Report this

      30

    • #
      john robertson

      Judith Currie has come a long way in a short time.
      Her value is the reaction of “the team”(IPCC trademark) to her questions, their behaviour has been so foul, that only the wilfully blind can fail to recognize CAGW as a religion.
      Their treatment of heretics is naturally far less rational than their treatment of unbelievers.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      markx

      In reply to Memory Vault.

      Judith Curry’s stance is obviously (in my opinion) the correct one.

      We have here a science with a reasonable theory (CAGW) which has been put forward and is under (somewhat constrained) discussion. And now the process of extensive data collection and further review has really just begun.

      It is not a matter of taking sides, or of deciding to be in one camp or the other. It is a matter of examining the available evidence, and, for some of us, assessing the way in which data and evidence is presented.

      In my case, the strident alarmism on sea level rise, exaggeration of the significance and meaning of climate occurrences and the demonization of dissenters has put me firmly in the luke warming camp. But, I fully accept there is at least some possibility the alarmists may be correct, at least to some degree.

      However, Judith Curry’s position of trying to dispassionately assess the data from a central position is both incredibly valuable to us all (both sides of the debate) and incredibly difficult.

      Is it possible that MV, with his clearcut black and white views, is a politician?


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Richard111

    To convert me from sceptic to supporter of AGW simply show me scientific proof that ‘greenhouse gases’ trap heat. I will be happy to follow explanations down to quantum levels.
    p.s. don’t refer to a ‘model’. Current accepted laws of science only.


    Report this

    211

    • #
      blackadderthe4th

      ‘‘To convert me…greenhouse gases’ trap heat’

      ‘I will be happy to follow explanations down to quantum levels’, no need, SEE positive proof that heat is absorbed by GHG co2 with your own eyes.

      http://www.youtube.com [search] ED

      ‘To convert me from sceptic to supporter of AGW’, welcome to The Church Of AGW, we greet all conversions with a song in our hearts and a prayer on our lips. The prodigal son returns.


      Report this

      139

      • #
        Scott

        nobody of any distinction has coverted from sceptic to warmist only warmist to sceptic and growing.

        There have been cases of warmists pretending to be sceptic and converting but their prior publications and statements have caught them out.


        Report this

        200

      • #
        AndyG55

        I haven’t looked, but I’m assuming this is one of little exercises to fool the scientifically illiterate.

        I remember seeing one ages ago where they release compressed CO2 into a jar and blocked an infra-red signal.

        Well guess what.. ANY gas released from compression will be colder than the air around it, so of course it absorbs energy as it equilibriates.

        Propane, oxygen, acetylene, even basic compressed air, will come out colder than the storage temperature. Basic science.

        I mean….. DOH !!! Only a total simpleton would be fooled by that little exercise.


        Report this

        220

        • #
          blackadderthe4th

          ‘I haven’t looked’, but can describe it nearly perfect! Which was done by that fake Dr Stewart, he has come out in favour of fracking within the last month or so, so we can’t trust him on that then!


          Report this

          032

          • #
            AndyG55

            Bell jar used, CO2 pumped in through the top. This has been about for several years, was fake then, is fake now.

            Only show about 10 seconds, before the CO2 warms up.


            Report this

            130

        • #
          Heywood

          “Only a total simpleton would be fooled by that little exercise.”

          Which is why Blackstoolsamplethe4th loves his little videos.


          Report this

          190

        • #
          markx

          AndyG55, the CO2 in a jar ‘experiment’ was a really badly setup exercise.

          But there is not a doubt the world that C02 absorbs certain wavelengths in the infrared band.

          If you don’t like climate scientists you can find it discussed as an issue which complicates spectrophotometry.

          Whether that translated to warming of this complex system full of positive and negative feedbacks is the real point of the whole discussion.


          Report this

          20

      • #

        Hmmm. Interesting dictionary you have there in which “trapping” is the same as “absorbing”. Apparently, when CO2 absorbs heat, the heat is trapped and can never ever come out. There must be a huge amount of really full CO2 out there.

        Wait! You have solved the problem of the missing heat. It is inside all of the CO2 we have dumped into the atmosphere. Maybe we need to dump still more CO2 so we can trap all the excess heat that is causing all the Global Warming. By your theory, we should burn a lot more more coal, oil, and natural gas. Using carbon neutral alternative energy would absolutely be the wrong thing to do.

        I am glad that is solved. We can go back to making abundant cheap energy, dump those ugly windmills and solar energy plants, and get on with growing our technological civilization the way we before before the CAGW scare.

        Its burn baby burn because that is the way to keep things cool.


        Report this

        230

      • #
        Heywood

        “welcome to The Church Of AGW”

        At least you got that right. It is a religion. Now on your knees. Oh, that’s what Dick Alley says to you isn’t it?


        Report this

        140

      • #
        Bob Cormack

        blackadderthe4th
        August 22, 2013 at 9:46 pm · Reply

        SEE positive proof that heat is absorbed by GHG co2 with your own eyes.

        It would be better if you would use your brain instead of just falling for a con job. If you look at the absorption spectrum for CO2, you will see that it has several fairly narrow absorption bands in the range where the candle flame is bright (1-5 microns). CO2 is opaque at these specific wavelengths.
        So, the only way the camera image of the flame can be blocked by CO2 is by having a narrow wavelength filter over the camera lens to limit its view to one of those narrow bands.

        The narrator says that this ‘proves’ that “the CO2 is absorbing the heat from the candle flame”. All it really proves is that CO2 is opaque to the narrow band of IR that the camera’s sensitivity is artificially limited to. To determine if the energy in the opaque band is actually being absorbed (and not just scattered) you could set up a second camera watching the tube from the side (assuming the tube material was transparent at that wavelength) and monitor the temperature of the gas inside.

        Of course, that would be an actual experiment, which might just end up giving the wrong answer or, at least, convincing the audience that the interaction of the atmosphere with radiation is a complicated problem.

        What the link actually is, is a magic trick to fool the gullible — among whom you obviously belong.


        Report this

        170

        • #
          AndyG55

          And of course if CO2 does absorb infrared from a flame, it will absorb the INCOMING solar energy, making the Earth colder. ;-)

          Iirc , the version I saw used a light bulb (as heat source) and sensor inside a bell jar, and they forced cold CO2 between the bulb and the sensor and pretended the CO2 was absorbing the infrared output.

          This sounds like a variation.


          Report this

          71

          • #
            blackadderthe4th

            ‘it will absorb the INCOMING solar energy, making the Earth colder’ no it wont! Because the incoming energy is UV not the same as out going IR! Therefore invisible to UV! Rookie mistake.


            Report this

            418

            • #
              crakar24

              Thats it BlackStoolSampleX4,

              The incoming energy you are concerned about is in the visable spectrum ie visable light not UV a majority of which interacts with O3 high up in the ATM.

              Talk about rookie mistakes you are the simplest of simpletons


              Report this

              141

              • #
                blackadderthe4th

                ‘not UV a majority’ so why does all the sun blockers on the market advertise their UV rating? I mean there are not a lot of sun worshipers high up in the ATM.


                Report this

                07

            • #
              AndyG55

              So, no infra-red in the suns energy… I’ll remember that. !!


              Report this

              60

            • #
              AndyG55

              oh, let me guess, you think the Sun’s infra-red output has no heating effect… is that what you are saying ???


              Report this

              60

            • #
              AndyG55

              And just because your education is so sadly lacking, here is a very simple diagram for you.

              http://windowfilmonline.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/070308-1720-infraredrej2.jpg

              Approx half of the INCOMING spectrum is infrared, which you say is blocked by CO2.

              DOH !!!


              Report this

              50

              • #
                blackadderthe4th

                ‘here is a very simple diagram for you’, in your own words please! Don’t you know? I mean Jo wont be too happy unless it is. I don’t have the time to spend hours reading your links, just to find out you don’t know what you’re talking about!


                Report this

                09

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                That is interesting.

                So you are saying that you can passively sit and watch a movie, and just absorb the images and sounds, and the propaganda message story-line they present, but you can’t read words and form the images in your own mind; and you are also saying that you are unable to look at an image, that does not move, and interpret what it means.

                What a sorry existence you must have.


                Report this

                90

              • #
                AndyG55

                Ah, the poor leaky bladder is totally unable to interpret for himself..

                Has to have someone tell him what its all about.

                One day, a stray original thought may just enter his feeble mind. but don’t expect it any time soon.

                He has to finish junior high first. How many times have you repeated first year now ???


                Report this

                40

      • #
        Richard111

        Patent that! You will soon be a above a Gore level millionaire.
        In fact you will be saving the world! If it can turn out a candle it will in time turn out the sun. We are doomed unless the word gets out.


        Report this

        90

  • #
    Tel

    Curry discusses the conflict between a scientist’s loyalty to their colleagues and their institution, their loyalty to the public, and the loyalty to the endless quest for understanding. She talks about how scientists ask whether they should release awkward results, and is amazed that most other scientists not only think it’s a reasonable question but say “No” because ” it would only provide fodder for the skeptics”. She describes how she has been ostracizehd, and how even sympathetic colleagues stay silent, and are deterred from speaking because of her experience.

    Judith Cury went to a lot of effort to stay a moderate for many years and attempt to engage and reconcile both sides of the debate. The problem with throwing away the middle ground is that your island of supporters shrinks to just a rump of hard core extremists. This is a sign of people who no longer believe they can no longer persuade the majority, so the wagons are in a circle and the objective now is to slow the inevitable.

    I think it would be very difficult to use force to make someone like Cury against her sense of reason and truth, even if someone did succeed in shutting her up, there would be others like her. Using force instead of persuasion telegraphs that you have lost the intellectual debate.

    It’s over then.


    Report this

    160

    • #
      MemoryVault

      Tel,

      I could rip this post of yours to shreds, simply by quoting from Ms Curry herself. Ditto for Jo’s original article. I’m not going to, simply out of the respect I have for both of you, built up over a significant period of time. So I will not be commenting on this thread again.

      .
      I just hope you and Jo take the time to fully research Ms Curry, her writings pre, during, and post Climategate. That’s my piece, and I’ll leave it that.


      Report this

      90

      • #

        Settle down MV. :-) Yes I remember the Eschenbach response. As far as I know, she doesn’t use “denier” anymore. So she’s well ahead of 97% of climate scientists… I used to think CAGW was real once, you could dig out a quote (with effort). I’ve changed my mind. So has Curry. Is that bad?

        She could have chosen to look the other way, to keep peace in the tea-room, and ignore better data and better arguments. She didn’t and for that I’m grateful.

        That she is ostracized by some alarmists now is evidence that she is not helping “the church” anymore. The world would be a better place with more scientists behaved like Curry.


        Report this

        321

        • #
          Greg House

          Joanne Nova August 23, 2013 at 1:31 am
          “I used to think CAGW was real once, you could dig out a quote (with effort). I’ve changed my mind.”

          But you are still a proponent of the AGW, right? “Global warming”, “greenhouse effect”…

          There is one thing I do not understand. Why do the so called “skeptics” use such an ambiguous term instead of calling themselves more precisely “skeptical AGW proponents”?


          Report this

          42

        • #
          John in France

          Jo,
          Unless I’m mistaken, the “denier” issue with Judith Curry has long been put to rest. But that’s not really at issue, is it? I don’t think she has really changed her mind on the essentials and that is what some of the commenters here have been pointing out. Her purely political fence-sitter stance (if you’ll excuse the mixed metaphor :) ) is a lot more subtle than the Cook/Lew strategy, but pernicious strategy it is and has nothing to do with science.
          I have to say I’m the one who gave you the thumbs-down, a thing I’ve never done before and hope I’ll never feel obliged to do again. Like MV I have problems with your article and I would be glad if he came back to tear it to shreds. He’d certainly make a better job of it than I could. And I would certainly have no less respect for all you achieve, Jo. As for Ms. Curry, it’s another matter because I have never been taken in by her antics, they remind me too much of the “nice policeman” in an interrogation.


          Report this

          21

        • #

          Isn’t it strange how for many people the act of changing your mind is tantamount to the worst sin imaginable, an act of treason almost. Unfortunately I suspect for most long held convictions are about as indelible as a tattoo and the herd instinct is strong. Coming here is a breath of fresh air.


          Report this

          30

  • #
    handjive

    A short pause for an important public announcement.

    August 20, 2013 marked Earth Overshoot day – the estimated date when the people on Earth have used up the planet’s annual supply of renewable natural resources and reached its carbon-absorbing capacity.”
    .
    Hope ya feel dirty for missin’ that one!


    Report this

    80

  • #
    pat

    once Hunt claims he accepts the “Consensus”, it’s all downhill with the so-called remedies & ABC bias, etc. TonyfromOz might like to comment on Butler’s claim that, in the first 12 months of the carbon tax “Renewable energy increased its share of the national electricity market by 25 per cent”:

    22 Aug: ABC 7.30 Report: VIDEO: The hot topic of climate change
    Climate Change Minister, Mark Butler, and his shadow, Greg Hunt, go head to head on the hot topic of global warming
    LEIGH SALES: I’d like to start by hopefully establishing some points of agreement, just a very basic question. Are you still committed to unconditionally cutting greenhouse gas emissions by at least five per cent below 2000 levels by 2020? Is it a core promise? Greg Hunt first.
    GREG HUNT: Yes…
    LEIGH SALES: OK. Greg Hunt, do you agree that you would rely on an independent body to establish that?
    GREG HUNT: Well we actually use what the Government has historically used, which is the Treasury and the bureaucrats within the bureaucracy. Very clear. We have no dispute over the numbers, the figures, the targets, the science…
    http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3831873.htm

    the following was all over the CAGW websites naturally:

    1 Aug: NYT Op-Ed: A Republican Case for Climate Action
    By WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS, LEE M. THOMAS, WILLIAM K. REILLY and CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN
    We served Republican presidents, but we have a message that transcends political affiliation: the United States must move now on substantive steps to curb climate change, at home and internationally.
    There is no longer any credible scientific debate about the basic facts: our world continues to warm, with the last decade the hottest in modern records, and the deep ocean warming faster than the earth’s atmosphere. Sea level is rising. Arctic Sea ice is melting years faster than projected.
    The costs of inaction are undeniable…
    A market-based approach, like a carbon tax, would be the best path to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, but that is unachievable in the current political gridlock in Washington. Dealing with this political reality, President Obama’s June climate action plan lays out achievable actions that would deliver real progress. He will use his executive powers to require reductions in the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the nation’s power plants and spur increased investment in clean energy technology, which is inarguably the path we must follow to ensure a strong economy along with a livable climate…
    The only uncertainty about our warming world is how bad the changes will get, and how soon. What is most clear is that there is no time to waste.
    The writers are former administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency: William D. Ruckelshaus, from its founding in 1970 to 1973, and again from 1983 to 1985; Lee M. Thomas, from 1985 to 1989; William K. Reilly, from 1989 to 1993; and Christine Todd Whitman, from 2001 to 2003.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/opinion/a-republican-case-for-climate-action.html?_r=0


    Report this

    10

  • #
    realist

    I noted the Freudian slip in the Nobel Cause heading in Judith Curry’s essay linked by Jo, perhaps it was tongue in cheek reference to Gore, Obama, and wannabe Mann “Laureates” et al, whereas her theme was about noble, or honourable.

    The theme of morality in science begs the question: what is science to the average person in the street who look to figures of “authority”, speaking with authority, incorrectly assuming they are all being truthful? This has changed over decades past. In my early days in science, the issue never arose. It was either science, as in adherence to the methodology, principles and the practice, or it was politics, activism and a dogma of religious fervour. Now it encompasses a distinct blend of the latter, so determining where science ends and political activism begins is difficult for most to determine. And now they have divisions to contend with, e.g. alarmists amd naysayers. Wherein does the often-times elusive truth hide?

    Often it lies in the future, we just don’t have enough certainty right now, to know. And isn’t that in itself, a clear distinction between science and alarmism pushed to promote a political cause? Admission of doubt reflects the ethical and moral imperative Judith Curry alludes to. In science we employ statistical method as a tool to validate the level of uncertainty in our observation and measurement. This sets it apart from politics, which is structured on argument of an urgency to act, unsupported by a clear validation of evidence. It’s all about “trust us”. Whereas the ethics and principles of science, coupled with the morality of reporting findings says, “evaluate the veracity and stated uncertainties of the evidence for yourself”. Then make your judgment.

    In the past it boiled down to an imperative of protecting your personal honour and professional integrity, not just as a scientist, but what we would consider as adherence to both the professional and social standards of the time. That was in the days when you could leave your car keys in the ignition while you went shopping and never considered a need to lock the door to the house. Our word was our bond. Our character was our personal responsibility, which was judged by others to be either honourable and ethical, and therefore acceptable, or not.

    I suggest the trend away from this previous standard of scientific endeavour is coupled with the comensurate drift into the gradual invasion and imposition of Leftie indoctrination and political correctness into the broader society. This, together with a lessening of standards in science at secondary school and University level, opened the door for a gradual change in societal understanding of what consitutes “science”. Social, political and other “science” also diluted the broad understanding of the discipline. Many now think consensus is a legitimate determinant and validation of scientific fact.

    I suggest there is now a distinct lack of discipline and personal honour in science, more of a free for all, aided and abetted by the dubious practice of “follow the money trail”. Whose view does one trust, or reject as fraudulent? Political and corruption motivated inducement provide a shortcut to “fame and fortune”, and a process of selecting out those with what we might term as having a “lack of moral fibre”. A result we see manifested in a large part of “climate science”. I believe in universal truths; one being the truth will eventually find it’s way out into the open, just as cream in fresh milk will always rise to the top. These days it’s not always easy to tell who is telling the truth just by looking for metaphorical cream on the cat’s whiskers.


    Report this

    80

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      realist, would you say there has always been a place for trust or faith in scientists by the public? Someone has to interpret the state of the art and the body of evidence and answer questions for people who lack the skills to evaluate the evidence themselves. Surely at that interface between science practitioners and knowledge consumers there has always been the issue of who to trust?
      I don’t think a person’s individuality and foibles are erased the day they get their PhD or BSc. Money and power seeking out people who say what they want to hear can’t be a new phenomenon.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Bob Cormack

      Dwight Eisenhower saw this coming, back in 1960, as a probable result of government taking over the funding of science.

      Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.


      Report this

      130

    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      Realist,
      There have been cycles of activism like this before. They are worth treading, because where they describe the way the end game went, they give some guidance on what to look for in current times.
      First, it is important that different disciplines of science have evolved to different standards. I personally deplore much climate work because the standard of science is so low. So, please keep this in mind if you have time to study these -

      “The Apocalyptics” by Edith Efron (1984) ISBN 0-671-41743-6. Very similar to AGW. Deals with the assertion, adopted by much of The Establishment, that human made chemicals would produce an epidemic of cancers in the general population. The epidemic has not been observed up to 2013. The value of this book is twofold. It uses only references to non-industry sources, relying on verbatim, referenced quotes by scientists and policy makers, who end up drowning in their own words and misbeliefs. The end game is marked by the drift of strong believers to the other side. Prominent was Dr Bruce Ames, of the Ames test fame.

      The anti-nuclear activism period does not have an equally fine, single reference. “The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear” by Dr Petr Beckman (1985) could be singled out. The opposition to peaceful nuclear power has large disappeared among scientists, but lingers with policy makers. despite the almost impeccable performance of nuclear over many decades, in cost, safety, absence of errors in main initial assumptions, of future design, etc. The final turn of the worm here will be continuation of high performance until there is little more to argue about.

      There are more examples for another time.


      Report this

      50

  • #
    Macha

    Are there any CAGW believers out there that DO NOT accept the diminishing return effect of increasing CO2 and its absorbing capacity? Maybe blatadditt4 has a u tube.?


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    I appreciate the contributions here from ‘realist’ and ‘Robbo_Perth’ as they sound like they have the inside info – the view from the trenches, so to speak.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Bruce

    Nothing will change until the politics of AGW hysteria change and politicians begin to pull the plug on the free-loaders, lurk-merchants and the mindless preaching establishment.

    Things are changing slowly in the right direction, however.

    But there is still a lot of manure to clean out of the Augean stable.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Manfred

    Even anonymized, these details help decision makers understand how corrupt institutional science is.

    This is by no means certain. Decision makers exemplify intellectual inertia, brought about by galactic amounts of self-interest.

    We may indeed be hearing the music slow, and we may indeed be seeing the number of chairs decline, but the dance still goes on.

    MSM, bureaucrats, scientists and politicians to a person do not want to be left standing when the music stops. Whether the institutional science is presently corrupt or not (rhetorical), the policies and mind-set were established on far less substance a decade ago!

    The main way in which this gigantic sandcastle will implode will be when people are sufficiently motivated by self-interest to change. Whether out of pecuniary necessity, tribal group think identity or simply to avoid being called a moron, self interest is the key.

    The scientists are shifting. Next the pollies followed closely by the MSM. The sheeple go wherever. The bureaucrats fester in resentful silence.


    Report this

    80

  • #

    I have been told examples in Australia of outright intimidation of skeptical scientists …

    star comment
    It has also spilled over into other areas of course, eg technical professions, primary/secondary teaching?
    In my field (town planning, building design) it has occurred. I had more than one person a few years back trying to intimidate me. But they only tried it once.
    More recently, I have had someone trying to put people off employing my services because I’m one of those “climate deniers” or something similar. As is so typical of the meme, it has had “unintended consequences”. People ask me to do stuff BECAUSE of the put-down, not in spite of it. An encouraging sign.
    Not sure who the person is, but I notice some rather frantic changes in the LinkedIn profiles of one or two suspects. Stuff being dropped, new “skills” being claimed. Looks like things are not going too well.


    Report this

    200

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Martin well said, and not wanting to steal your thunder but I too have been placed in the “climate denier/bad ass” category in areas of my profession, admittedly my case was against 4 trade union thugs who misjudged their target horribly and the results were less subtle than most but the support from many areas afterwards was quite surprising.
      It sounds like you follow my motto of “Walk tall and carry a big stick” well done sir. :)


      Report this

      50

  • #
    JCR

    star comment
    Published examples of intimidation (as opposed to the ones Jo is rightfully keeping confidential) are included in Garth Paltridge’s “The Climate Caper”. It’s a good and not difficult read. More generally, Henry Bauer argues in “Dogmatism in Science and Medicine” that this dynamic is working much more widely in science than is imagined. He points out that competition for funding is cutthroat, and anyone affecting the gravy train (say, by suggesting to politicians that anthropogenic greenhouse gasses aren’t really having that much effect on the climate, after all)is going to be dealt with severely. It’s just that AGW is the politically fashionable (therefore more widely known to the public generally) than most of the others.
    —-
    Thanks for the reminder of The Climate Caper. – Jo


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Jim Stewart

    For me, it’s the hope, that is warmed and sustained by courageous people like Nova and Curry, that is important. The hope that this modern madness will be finally be tempered enough that the political class will leave us room to, again, generate enough wealth that we can improve our today’s standard of living – whilst leaving the tools available to the next generations so that they can address whatever their time brings in the way of threats or challenges. History has proven that only economic good health can lead us to improving the environment, our health & longevity, knowledge, technology application and many other freedoms.


    Report this

    80

  • #

    Should not climatology be classified as “Authoritarian Science“?
    After all, is not the view that we should listen to and not question, those with authority, like in a nineteenth century school? Climatology is dominated by a small elite of highly opinionated and domineering people, who are intolerant of alternative perspectives. Like with much of political authoritarianism, supporters base their superiority on demeaning opponents.


    Report this

    60

    • #

      “Authoritarian science?”

      No. It’s not science. But I guess that “zombie science” uses the misnomer too. I’m guilty too.

      Perhaps un-science.


      Report this

      70

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        Perhaps magic


        Report this

        40

      • #

        The better technical term is likely “anti-science”.


        Report this

        50

      • #
        Joe V.

        I’ve had colleagues refuse positions of authority because they enjoyed the arguing, winning on the merits of the argument alone and valued being told when they got it wrong, too much, whereas authority might rob them of that honesty in others.


        Report this

        70

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Nonscience – what you get when there is not science


        Report this

        60

      • #

        Isn’t it a Philosophy Jo ??


        Report this

        40

      • #

        I hope you don’t mind, but I take issue with your point. The term “science” has many meanings, which can be debated. Most of the scientific societies are vocally in support of climatology. They can claim to be backed by thousands of professors and post-doctoral scientists in a huge number of fields. Who are you Joanne Nova, or I (a slightly manic beancounter) to dispute that collective view of science? You will not convert people who hold onto to this view.

        Calling the consensus view “authoritarian science” captures what is actually practiced. In many ways it parallels political authoritarianism. Most particularly, authoritarianism is usually based on some superior insight into the true nature of things only accessible to those with special insight. The “divine right of kings” and Marxian “working class consciousness” are two examples from politics. Like in politics, that basis is left undefined and is never allowed to be questioned by the group. It clearly breaks down if you define what the body of theory and knowledge “climate change” entails. My short definition is

        Future generations will inherit a planet climatically less tolerant of sustaining life unless immediate and drastic policies are implemented to severely curtail the growth in greenhouse emissions.

        This is what we, the uninitiated, are meant to be unqualified to comment upon. It is only the prediction about catastrophe that is truly “Climate Science”. This is an applied science with a number of interrelated sub-specialisms. Each part draws on one or more hypotheses or conjectures, that not only need to be true, but necessarily need to have a certain magnitude to substantiate the catastrophic part. Yet although each part is necessary, it is only the totality that is sufficient to substantiate the catastrophe. To extract the faint signals from current data requires sophisticated modelling techniques to forecast ahead, that rely upon a number of assumptions and a number of subjective decisions. There are no clear guidelines and they are never clearly stated, so even an expert peer reviewer has to partly rely on the author(s) having made the optimal decisions. More relevant is that no one person can state, on the basis of their own expertise, that we are headed for a climate catastrophe. Any opinion is mostly reliant upon the opinion of others. Most relevant though is putting all the components together. There are no agreed independent measures for looking at the relative magnitude and significance of projected events; the likelihood of these events; the quality of the evidence; the creation of effective policies to mitigate for the projected catastrophe; the political issues of getting policies enacted; nor the capabilities required to enable net positive policy outcomes. These require the understanding of economics and beancounting, not of climate science.

        As a final point, if there are a number of interrelated hypotheses that are each necessary but far from sufficient to justify policy, then it is far easier, as an expert on one part, to reject the totality of the climate catastrophism than to support it.


        Report this

        30

        • #

          Manic, I don’t mind you debating this at all. Who am I? Nobody and nothing. This is about what science is: call me naive, isn’t it a philosophy where the aim is to seek the truth?

          Human authorities may share this aim, but have other potentially conflicting and overriding aims. The only authority in science is the data…

          Authority-science is an oxymoron. I think zombie-science is too (but I use it with that intent).

          An authority is by definition a political construct – not a scientific one.

          I do understand where you are coming from. Fair point. With some audiences your term would be useful.

          But I am aiming high here. The behaviour of many science societies and “scientists” is so unscientific they do not deserve to use the term “science”. It is time they were called on it.


          Report this

          60

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      As I keep having to remind my boss, authority is a poor substitute for being right.


      Report this

      90

    • #
      Joe V.

      Should not climatology be classified as “Authoritarian Science“?

      Climatology belongs with the other ‘ologies, that despite their undoubted learning seem to be based on a lot of guess work, eg. archieology, paleontology and not forgetting that ‘ology of ‘ologies, astrology.

      Ology’s may be fine for trying to understand the past, but shouldn’t be relied on for any predictive qualities.


      Report this

      70

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Leaving Meteorology to one side, in what way is Climatology different to Climate Science?

        Is Climatology the research of the climate system, and Climate Science the applied science of trying to predict what changes are going to occur five or ten or twenty years from whenever …?

        Or are Climatologists now an extinct species?

        And if there is no difference, what was the political reason to create a new name that included the suffix “Science”? Was there some doubt that Climatology was not a science at all.


        Report this

        40

        • #
          Joe V.

          I think you’ve nailed it.
          Climatology or Climate ‘Science’ have little more predictive capability than a seance.
          Even meteorology is based on a study of past patterns to try and anticipate very short term extensions to a present situation.

          Now if Climate Seance had adopted Solar Physics into its repertoire then it might have something going for it, but lots of now soon to be superannuated spotty youths running models on their ‘X-Box 360s’ aren’t cutting it.


          Report this

          30

          • #
            Joe V.

            (With apologies to the many serious Climate Scientists who haven’t allowed themselves to become sidetracked by the modellers , whose failure has to be blamed on CO2.)


            Report this

            30

    • #
      Michael the Dark Angel

      :-) Arguing with colleagues or with reason can be invigorating.
      Arguing with authority is just exhausting and rarely seems worth the few chinks of light that might get through the darkness.


      Report this

      90

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        The trick of arguing with authority, is to give a person with “the authority” the impression that you have more authority than they do, which is why you are informing them … whatever.

        Once you figure out how bureaucrats think, and use that knowledge to your advantage, the easier it becomes.


        Report this

        30

        • #
          Michael the Dark Angel

          That can be the interesting bit. Getting their appointed authority to recognise when your knowledgeable authority knows what it’s talking about.


          Report this

          40

  • #
    manalive

    Curry’s criticism of the fence-sitters, the conflicted, the venal, the cowardly, is far too mild.
    What she describes is downright corruption which has cost hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of wasted dollars.
    Corruption ought to be punished in the courts.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Brill

    OT, but still relevent. Today’s Brisbane Courier Mail has an article about 2 reports into the car manufacturing industry in Australia. Both done by the same company and released about the same time. Each commissioned and paid for by 2 different organisations. Each report came to a different conclusion. Proof positive that whoever pays gets the results they want.


    Report this

    110

    • #

      It wasn’t us taxpayers who footed the bill for both was it ??


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Brill

        No. One was commissioned by the car manufacturers (Ford,Holden & Toyota). Which found that the loss of the car industry would cost the economy heaps more than the cost of the subsidies. I can’t remember exactly who commissioned the other, some big organisation with ‘Business’ in its name (sorry no longer have the paper. This report found that the subsidies should stop as their cost/benefit was the exact opposite. I think the business report was released a few days before the car report was to be released, so the car manufacturers held on to their’s and made a few adjustments.


        Report this

        10

  • #
    realist

    As an analogy, consider light spectra, ranging in frequency from the invisible to the visible and back to the invisible. We can’t alter the physics, merely develop instruments with which to detect, observe and measure. Often facts and truth are invisible until we make an effort to investigate more closely. Then consider wildlife, a biological spectrum, with an example in Africa ranging from large herds following the group instinct (e.g. wildebeest), to structured groups (e.g. a pride of lion) to individuals (e.g. leopards). Group-dependent to independent, but all are functioning in an inter-dependent predator-prey relationships. All is not as it seems. Much is invisible until investigated closely. Sounds much like a modern society!

    Much is the same with Homo sapiens. Most respond to the herd instinct following what ‘authority’ tells them when and how high to jump. Think of ‘mainstream’ society, malleable, easily manipulated via ‘popular opinion’. Some form or join tribes, clans, specific belief system and/or social and political constructs where they feel accepted and ‘safe’, but can behave apart from the ‘plebs’ in mainstream (which they are just a sub-set of). But they have to conform with a proscribed viewpoint to be accepted. Think ‘Green’, climate ‘science’, or any multitude of construct where notoriety and often the coupled attraction of undeserved financial reward are ego boosting factors high on the hierarchy of needs above principle or professionalism, let alone science.

    Then we have independent thinkers, content and free in their chosen ‘isolation’, able to view the world warts and all, often having unique first hand site experience and understanding while others merely have opinions. This can be both humbling and powerful and develops a keen ‘sense of place’ in an often dangerous and un-predictable environments one is in, particularly when working in isolated coasts and diving on one’s own, day and night. At times hazards included unlawful activities suddenly encountered, potentially more life threatening than natural ones like tiger sharks. But often it’s the only way to get the job done, and also aim to make sure you can come home to your children (and then write up all your reports!).

    We have the contemporary examples of Jo Nova, Steve Watts, Andrew McIntyre and countless others also finding their way to get the job done, to investigate and bring truth to the light of discovery for others. At times this requires an ability to ‘live dangerously’, where many of life’s securities and professional standing get pushed to the edge. But why choose to be hiding in the mob eating someone else’s dust or being told how to behave politically correct when you can have an independent view?

    Functioning alone can develop a sharp awareness of survival lines; sometimes it’s better to leave it for a day than be recycled today. Or take the issue head on, sure of where the truth and your own capability lies. Sometimes it’s also realising that while you are right, you simply can’t win every fight, so it’s then a question of what are you prepared to let go now in order to stay in the fight and win another issue? Think like a leopard; picking the wrong fight could mean you might not survive for another day.

    I recall an occasion where my own minister, in a heavy duty semi-public meeting, unwisely chose to lay waste to myself and what I was doing in a clumsy and ill-prepared attempt at point scoring with the audience. I responded in kind by spelling out his pedigree in no uncertain terms, while others cringed thinking I will surely get the sack. After a ‘pregnant pause’, his political mate endorsed my retort, pointing out that I was right, much to the chagrin of the now boxed-in minister, which was then followed by others. That occasion just needed someone confidant of their ground to speak the truth to counter blatant lies and politicised innuendo, irrespective of a potentially negative outcome on one’s own employment, professional standing and financial security.

    The outcome? He was principled enough to later admit he was wrong and had been given the wrong advice. He then learnt the truth and became a supportive advocate, not an adversary (it was also to his political advantage to do so). Everyone ended up a winner and not the least, the major project came to fruition. I’d rather be a leopard any day than a wildebeest plodding along in someone else’s dust somewhere in line to end up eaten by a motley bunch of lion’s hiding in Green camouflage.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    pat

    23 Aug: Business Spectator: Mathew Nelson: Carbon policy limbo must end
    Mathew Nelson is Ernst & Young’s climate change and sustainability leader.
    The incoming government must act decisively to implement a carbon policy that protects existing commitments as well as supporting long-term investments that reduce carbon emissions…
    This uncertainty is damaging, especially in the electricity sector, as businesses require a level of certainty to plan and invest for the future…
    As a matter of urgency, the incoming government will need to clarify the new carbon rules for business…
    The Opposition has stated a full repeal of the Carbon Pricing Mechanism is one of the first actions it will initiate if elected…
    Should the Opposition come into power and repeal the CPM and implement the Direct Action Plan, it needs to leverage what businesses have already done as part of responding to existing legislation and any investments that result in carbon abatement.
    Businesses should now be re-visiting or considering new renewable or energy efficiency projects, which have the potential to generate abatement that can be subsequently sold to the government – this includes small businesses and those who do not have obligations under existing carbon schemes (as there will be an opportunity for non-impacted businesses to ‘opt-in’)…
    China has also become the largest investor in renewable energy and its incoming president has proposed other measures to reduce emissions and pollution such as putting a cap on coal consumption by 2015. This is in addition to existing emissions trading schemes already in place in the EU, New Zealand and California…
    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/8/23/policy-politics/carbon-policy-limbo-must-end

    Mathew, California is such a great example to follow!

    21 Aug: Newsmax: Thomson Reuters: California Carbon Permits Sell at Auction for Less than Expected
    The four auctions have raised nearly $396 million for the state so far, money Governor Jerry Brown has said will be loaned to the California legislature to plug gaps in the state budget.
    The money is supposed to be repaid in the future into a state-run account to further reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
    The state’s three largest utility companies, Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric, have so far raised more than $626 million from sale of allowances consigned to them by the state.
    They are required to use the revenue to protect ratepayers from higher energy bills.
    http://www.newsmax.com/US/california-carbon-permits-sell/2013/08/21/id/521627


    Report this

    01

  • #
    pat

    22 Aug: RenewEconomy: Giles Parkinson: Origin Energy gets taste of changing electricity markets
    The other big factor cited by Origin is the continuing penetration of solar PV and what it calls “subdued demand” as residential customers “continue to closely monitor” energy usage…
    Indeed, managing director Grant King did not seem to think that solar PV represents that much of a threat to his business, despite recent suggestions from the likes of WA energy Minister Mike Nahan that the industry is “struggling with the phenomena of solar PV”…
    As King noted himself: “Discounting has cost us a lot of money. Because of discounting, our margins are compressed …. they are not sustainable going forward.”
    Indeed, the mass movement of customers is one of the biggest headaches for the utilities. King said “It’s a great time to be a customer” given the size of the discounts on offer (although it should be noted that in some states these are subsidised by others).
    King, however, is more frustrated with the slow pace of deregulation. He estimates that regulatory decisions in Queensland – which prevent the company passing on wholesale price changes – cost the company at least $100 million in the past year…
    Still, Origin is aware of the prevailing trends that can impact its business. In its own list of risks to the business, it cites: “Reductions in energy demand including from prevailing consumer sentiment, technological advancement, mandatory minimum appliance performance standards, and other factors, can reduce the company’s revenues and adversely affect the Company’s future financial performance.”
    Two of those “other factors” are the renewable energy target and carbon pricing. King continues to question the government’s renewable energy and carbon pricing strategies on the basis of the cost to consumer.
    He was, once again, critical of the state government’s feed-in tariffs, saying they had placed a big burden on those who could not afford them – renters and low income owners – and said the cost of the large-scale renewable energy target till had not been recognised. He wants another review of the RET to “do the job” that it didn’t do in 2012 – which King says is to properly analyse the impact on consumers. (The Climate Change Authority found minimal impact. Other studies have shown that reversing the RET may increase costs).
    “(I expect) we will get clarity in respect of carbon and green issues,” he said of the election result.
    ***In response to a question about the mooted rescussiation of the “contracts for closures” program – where some coal generators could be paid to exit the market in response to the overcapacity cited by AGL Energy and AEMO – King said it was more likely that the Coalition’s Direct Action policy would force early closures of coal capacity rather than the current government’s carbon price.
    “Under Coalition policy, emission reduction needs to occur in Australia, so you’d have to say that it’s more likely to see closure of carbon intensive capacity under coalition than the (current) government (policy).”…
    http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/origin-energy-gets-taste-of-changing-electricity-markets-33466


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    22 Aug: CleanTechnica: From RenewEconomy: 100% Of New Australian Power Plants Are Wind Or Solar
    The rapidly changing nature of Australia’s coal-fired electricity grid has been highlighted by a new report from the Australian Energy Market Operator, which reports that all new electricity generation proposals received in the last 12 months have been either for large scale wind farms or solar facilities…
    ***Indeed, AEMO confirmed that there was no need for any new thermal (fossil fuel) generation in Australia to be built for at least another decade – the one exception being under its medium growth rate scenario in Queensland, and for some modest requirements in other states in the high growth scenario.
    It said this was because of the increase in rooftop solar PV, the reduction in demand caused by the consumer response to rising electricity prices, and the development of large-scale renewables under the Renewable Energy Target.
    This fits with the recent assessment by AGL Energy that some 9,000MW of baseload generation was surplus to requirements because of reduced demand. That is equivalent to nearly one third of the entire baseload capacity within the NEM…
    http://cleantechnica.com/2013/08/22/100-of-new-australian-power-plants-are-wind-or-solar/


    Report this

    01

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      And how much ‘renewable’ electricity projects would be in the pipeline if there were no subsidies?

      The fastest and most certain ways of cutting CO2 emissions in the electricity business are those TonyfromOz has documented; i.e. up-grading our coal fired stations to modern technology and Closed Cycle Gas Turbines stations, once our natural gas supply (which includes fracking) is sorted out.

      The only ‘renewable’ source that is continuous and unvarying that I can see is Blackbladder the 4TH up-stream of an anaerobic digester (methane from bullshit). He could watch his own videos at the same time.


      Report this

      30

      • #

        According to Alan Jones and his research, obtained from some government authority which I will try and find. Confirms there is enough already discovered gas in Australia to last l83 years at current consumption rates.


        Report this

        10

  • #
    pat

    LOL:

    23 Aug: The Conversation: If the polls are right the older generations will further endanger the younger
    by Brad Farrant, Adjunct Research Fellow in Early Childhood Development at University of Western Australia
    One of the few big policy differences between the parties is their response to climate change. Climate change is the biggest global health threat to the young people of today and tomorrow.
    The Coalition’s Direct Action plan is a dud. As Malcolm Turnbull put it – the “Liberal Party is currently led by people whose conviction on climate change is that it is “crap” and you don’t need to do anything about it. Any policy that is announced will simply be a con, an environmental figleaf to cover a determination to do nothing.”…
    Even though you wouldn’t know it from the media coverage, the Direct Action plan has been criticised by experts ever since it was announced with 85% of economists saying that it is not sound economic policy and few believing it will actually work…
    http://theconversation.com/if-the-polls-are-right-the-older-generations-will-further-endanger-the-younger-17412


    Report this

    12

  • #
    pat

    for Origin Energy’s boss who can’t afford the “discounting”:

    19 Aug: Courier Mail: Hefty power costs ‘hurting cane farmers’
    AUSTRALIA’S peak body for sugar cane growers says soaring electricity and fuel costs are eroding the industry’s international competitiveness.
    Canegrowers is calling on state and federal governments to take action to reduce production costs to prevent cane farmers from being forced off the land.
    An energy forum held in Brisbane on Monday heard that the doubling of power prices in the past seven years has hurt farmers, and any further hikes would put them out of business…
    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/breaking-news/hefty-power-costs-hurting-cane-farmers/story-fnihsfrf-1226700040257

    Beveridge is thinking Smart Meters! why not rip off the poor some more Beveridge:

    23 Aug: Herald Sun: John Beveridge: Consumer power may not always translate to cheaper energy bills
    (Post GFC) Not only did people start to pay off their debts and start saving more money, they also took a long, hard look at costs and started trying to pare back on controllable ones such as electricity, gas and water…
    These falling consumption patterns are having a big effect at the top end, though, with Origin Energy chief executive Grant King yesterday pointing to energy-wise consumers as a genuine force for change…
    Now before you start taking up a collection to help out the ailing power companies, a couple of things are worth noting.
    Firstly, Origin and the other big players such as AGL are looking to wind back the widespread discounting within the industry as existing contracts which run through to 2014 start to expire and they are eagerly anticipating the lifting of regulatory restraints on prices in Queensland and NSW…
    Gas, long seen as the cheapest form of household energy, is going through a revolution as massive gas export terminals are being constructed in Gladstone, Queensland to send coal seam gas abroad.
    Unlike the existing gas export hubs in Western Australia, these LNG trains are connected to pipeline grids and will be competing for supply with existing domestic gas customers, which will inevitably lead to domestic gas prices rising further to meet world prices.
    Already some big industrial gas users are asking for some gas to be reserved for domestic use.
    Given the role of gas in generating a rising chunk of baseload electricity and particularly peaking power plants to meet sudden load increases on hot days when the air conditioners get switched on, this is a shift that will send more shockwaves to consumers through their power bills.
    ***One reaction could be an acceleration in the use of peak and off-peak interval pricing through smart meters – a change that will see consumers kept on their toes about how and when they use power.
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/in-the-black/consumer-power-may-not-always-translate-to-cheaper-energy-bills/story-fni0d787-1226702427475


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Michael P

    Pat claims that

    China has also become the largest investor in renewable energy

    Does that mean that they sell “renewable energy”whether that’s tech,in the form of solar panels and such,or actually energy and whether they actually use it themselves? As I have run into 1 person that claimed that China was going “85% solar”on another page,and when I asked for proof of this fact,none was forthcoming.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Bob Malloy

      From Forbes July 2009

      The world’s largest producer of carbon emissions has been doubling its wind power capacity every year since 2006; it was the world’s second-largest buyer of wind turbines in 2008. Yet, about 30% of its wind power assets are not in use–much of that not even connected to the transmission grid–a result of Chinese power companies turning to wind as the cheapest, easiest way to satisfy on paper government requirements to boost renewable energy capacity. Whether the massive new building push will be any more efficient is an open question, given that much of it is slated for out of the way places, mainly in the north, making it uneconomical to build the lengthy extensions to China’s grid that would be required to transmit the power to distant population centers.

      While the rapid growth in China’s wind power capacity looks impressive on paper, it is less so in reality. China’s total electricity production capacity reached 792.4 gW at the end of 2008; the 12 gW of wind capacity accounted for about 1.5% of that. However, in terms of actual power production, wind turbines generated 13 million megawatt-hours of electricity last year, only about 0.4% of China’s total energy supply, based on Citigroup data.

      Maybe it’s got better since 2009, somehow I doubt it.

      http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/20/china-wind-power-business-energy-china.html


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    O/T Another new way to milk the co2 cow.

    http://www.nbnnews.com.au/index.php/2013/08/23/pollution-solution/

    A pilot program is underway in the Hunter, which has the potential to revolutionise the way heavily polluting industries operate around the world.

    The venture is looking at ways of turning carbon emissions into building products.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    RoHa

    This whole thing is an assault on rationality, since it denies the rationality of those who disagree. When we accuse people of motivated reasoning, we say
    “My beliefs are rational. They are based on evidence and logic. Your beliefs are irrational. They stem from wishful thinking/bribery/your crazy right-wing ideology.”

    And then we will recommend re-education camps, or at least “sensitivity training”.

    (E.g.:http://upressonline.com/2013/08/letter-to-the-editor-fau-students-for-justice-in-palestine-statement/, http://www.adl.org/education-outreach/anti-bias-education/c/campus-of-difference.html)

    Now, for those of us who are always right (and, as far as I can tell, that is just me) this is probably going to be harmless. But for the rest (that’s you) it has serious implications. (Not the least of which is that you will end up in one of the re-education camps I run, and those include hours of drill on the correct use of commas.)

    When you deny the rationality of those with whom you disagree, and reject their beliefs on that basis, you are being irrational. A belief may be true even if the grounds on which it is held are insufficient to justify it.

    But also, you are reducing the possibility of refining or correcting your own ideas. If you class those who disagree with you as irrational bigots, victims of peer pressure, etc., you tend to discount their arguments, and thus you lose a test for your own arguments.

    And finally, as has been pointed out above, the accusation of motivated reasoning can usually be directed equally well against you. The result is hostile camps, all of whom believe that the other camps are full of people who are irrational, moronic, and probably evil. There is no possibility of rational debate between such camps. And so we have lost humanity and morality. Instead of knowledge and learning, we end up with party politics.


    Report this

    22

  • #

    Look people. The time for arguing on the basis of science is over. We sceptics won this argument a log time ago.
    The time for action has arrived. The action to which I refer? It has to be prosecution of the fraudsters. We need to unite against these liars.


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Ace

      Peter…I like the folk here.Much more than some other sceptic gangs, and I’ve been saying the same as in your first two sentences til Ive become a boring pessimistic noise. However, your remendy costs a lost of money. A LOT! There are much simpler things to hand that cost nothing. And thats simply about the way the issue is approached. It boils down to “psychological warfare”. its not even “climate science”:.

      Asshats like Michael aint ever going to be saved until those around him are and then their type subtly adapt their thoughts over time to conform with the crowd…which is all they ever do. No point arguing with them. The folk who need to be communicated with are everybody who are NOT engaged in this debate.

      The strategy is actually very simple. It involves going to forums and chat rooms that are about everything EXCEPT climate, science or scepticism. Eg, ones about sport, cars, celebrities. Then casually, incidentally makinbg comments that presuppose a sceptical position of the reader, as though that can be taken for granted, without ever raising the topic directly.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Michael the Alarmist's Friend

      CAGW was but a vehicle. The fraud sets have already moved onto something else. It’s only the useful idiots remain peddling the CAGW bicycle, with its flat tyre.


      Report this

      60

      • #
        Ace

        M-T-A-Friend ………..HOWEVER.they are still screwing us for billions. So until that changes (and I dont see it happening foreseably) I am still going to freeze every winter. No, its still a battle that hasnt even begun.


        Report this

        40

        • #
          Michael the Alarmist's Friend

          You can still get a long way on a flat tyre, but its ultimately doomed to extinction for those without the wits to get on another bike.


          Report this

          50

          • #
            Ace

            Owning the entire narrative, the media and all political parties by your analogy is more like they have a massive monster truck with 12 ft variable pressure tyres able to roll over anything. Its the sceptics who have an old bike, two flat tyres and no pump.


            Report this

            20

  • #
    Michael P

    But when Politicians are peddling this garbage,how exactly do you do this,as they are protected as I understand this,under parliamentary privilege.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Sunray

    Thank you Jo, the next time I begin to doubt myself, I will remember this strong lady.


    Report this

    31

  • #
    Michael the Realist

    Some scientists are so motivated that they call opposing scientists petty names, and toss allusions they must be “funded” by vested interests, even as they ignore the billions of vested interests funding the name-callers.

    Lol, basically this is what the whole article is doing to the real, actual, practising and publishing climate scientists out in the field and the virtually 100% of internationally recognised scientific organisations on every continent and about the science that has less than 3% disagreement with AGW.

    Really, this is of all the fake skeptic arguments, the weakest, it is not sustainable under the weight of the huge amount of agreement over such a huge space of time over science that has been understood for 50+ years.

    “The list contains scientific organizations around the world that acknowledge the global impact of rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities. While many more organizations could likely be added, the list is limited to those that have either issued a singular statement of their own or signed in agreement to a collective statement regarding the anthropogenic impact of rising emissions on global climate and the global biosphere.
    All statements have been issued since 2001.
    At present, there are 171 organizations on the list that span all continents outside of Antarctica.”
    http://scentofpine.org/consensus/


    Report this

    04

    • #
      Richard

      Skeptics don’t deny AGW (apart from perhaps the Sky Dragon Slayers). They accept it the last time I checked, so I have no idea why you are still playing this card. It’s a question of magnitude, and given we’ve seen no significant global warming for 17 years now, the warming effect of CO2 appears to be somewhat trivial.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Michael the Realist

        It’s a question of magnitude, and given we’ve seen no significant global warming for 17 years now

        See post below this. That is incorrect cherry picking ignoring the science, natural factors and other places warming occurs.


        Report this

        06

        • #
          Heywood

          Nobody cares about your opinion. Fact is that for about 15 years, temps have been relatively flat. Even the UK Met have a report about it.


          Report this

          40

          • #
            Michael the Realist

            Fact is that for about 15 years

            Fact is fact, the 2001 to 2010 decade is the hottest on the instrumental record over land and ocean, globally and on both hemispheres. Truly global warming and despite predominantly cooling ENSO and solar conditions. Hotter than the previous decade with its predominantly warming ENSO conditions.

            I know you cannot answer why that is the case and so you have to unscientifically cherry pick from a specific year and represent it out of context, ignoring the long term trend and ignoring natural factors to make a point. I understand your frustrations.

            “A decade is the minimum possible timeframe for meaningful assessments of climate change,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “WMO’s report shows that global warming was significant from 1971 to 2010 and that the decadal rate of increase between 1991-2000 and 2001-2010 was unprecedented. Rising concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are changing our climate, with far reaching implications for our environment and our oceans, which are absorbing both carbon dioxide and heat.”
            “Natural climate variability, caused in part by interactions between our atmosphere and oceans – as evidenced by El Niño and La Niña events – means that some years are cooler than others. On an annual basis, the global temperature curve is not a smooth one. On a long-term basis the underlying trend is clearly in an upward direction, more so in recent times” said Mr Jarraud.
            http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/images/clip_image002_006.gif
            http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html


            Report this

            07

            • #
              MemoryVault

              .
              Pretty much every “climate scientist” of note is currently out looking for the “missing” atmospheric heat. It wasn’t in the tropical tropospheric flop spot, where the IPCC said it would be. Even Hansen and Trenberth have given up on the “ocean deeps” theory, since it contravenes the Second Law. Now Trenberth is postulating that it “moves around”, and is “very elusive”.
              You know, a bit like Zorro:

              “They seek it here,
              They seek it there,
              They seek that hotspot everywhere.”

              .
              Anyways, since you, oh Michael of the alkaline acid, have spent the last week demonstrating just how much more knowledgeable you are about all things “climate” than just about any other living person (or dead, for that matter) on the planet, I thought you might consider spending five minutes of your priceless time explaining to us, Hansen, Trenberth, and the other climate scientists, just “where” their “missing” heat is.

              It will save an awful lot of research dollars.


              Report this

              50

              • #
                Michael

                Pretty much every “climate scientist” of note is currently out looking for the “missing” atmospheric heat.

                Been proven over and over, and not one person has been able to answer my question to date, (though I have not gone through all my emails yet). See the following post. You guys are all bluster and no science, nothing is missing, you just think science is a cherry picked portion of a graph, out of context, without science and without taking all factors and data into account.

                http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/consensus-police-101-tea-room-reasons-not-to-be-a-skeptic/#comment-1310619

                As to your Trenberth claims, he has answered it multiple times and on top of that no second law has been broken. You do not understand science.

                “Fast forward 25 years, and Trenberth still sees changes in ocean temperature as key to understanding the ups and downs of global climate. That includes the current plateau in global temperature.

                Trenberth says, in fact, the planet has continued to warm during this time — but the heat has been flowing into the oceans, which have a vast capacity to absorb it.”
                http://www.npr.org/2013/08/23/214198814/the-consensus-view-kevin-trenberths-take-on-climate-change

                since it contravenes the Second Law.

                Please expalin the second law and how it has been broken.


                Report this

                03

              • #
                MemoryVault

                .
                Your first link is to a description of the ENSO effecr which is a RESULT of heating and cooling, not an explanation of the “missing heat”.

                The second link connects to a page quoting Trenberth, which states:

                Trenberth says, in fact, the planet has continued to warm during this time — but the heat has been flowing into the oceans, which have a vast capacity to absorb it.

                Now I want you to actually think before answering, OH Micheal of the Proton Absorbing Acid.

                1) – CAGW is based on the claim that man is generating additional CO2 which is heating the ATMOSPHERE. There is not, and never has been, any clain that humans are DIRECTLY heating the oceans – until now, apparently.

                2) – For CAGW generated heat (energy) to be “missing” from the atmosphere, where it is alleged it was generated, it has to going “somewhere”. The claim by Trenberth above (and by others), is that it is “flowing” INTO the oceans.

                Note well, Surrealist, the claim ISN’T that heat (energy) is being “trapped” in the oceans, nor prevented from leaving the oceans, nor indeed even being slowed down from leaving the ocean, by a warmer atmosphere.

                The claim is that heat (energy) GENERATED (by humans) IN the atmosphere, is being transferred TO the oceans. The claim is that there is NET transfer of energy FROM the atmosphere, TO the ocean.

                3) – However the known, observed, and MEASURED NET transfer of energy is FROM the ocean, TO the atmosphere. It is known as The Water Cycle (pretty pictures here). Evaporation, clouds and precipitation are the OBSERVED results of the NET energy transfer FROM the oceans, TO the atmosphere.

                4) – The Second Law of Thermodynamics dictates that the NET flow of energy can only be in one direction. We KNOW from observation and measurement which way that flow is.

                Ergo, the claim that there is a NET flow of energy FROM the atmosphere, TO the ocean (ocean cooling the atmosphere) as claimed by Trenberth, Flannery, Karoly and others, is pure bunk, falsified by both direct observation and measurement, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.


                Report this

                60

              • #
                farmerbraun

                “Now I want you to actually think before answering, OH Micheal of the Proton Absorbing Acid.”

                Your optimism clearly knows no bounds.


                Report this

                40

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                Fristly the second law applies to a closed system. The planet is not a closed system so it does not apply. Secondly you are assuming that heat can only transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere, this is clearly wrong. You are saying that the ocean can only get colder, eventually all frozen I presume.

                There are 3 forms of heat transfer, conduction, convection and radiation. All occur in our planetary system. If the atmosphere above the water is warmer then heat at the surface will be transferred down. Also the ocean will be heated by radiation by the sun and if the atmosphere above it is warmer than it would have been, then this will slow down the loss of heat, in some circumstances this will translate to ocean heating as it will absorb suns energy faster than it will lose it at the surface.

                Also energy moves around the system through ocean and atmospheric currents around the planet at its surface and also through the different layers of the ocean and atmosphere, moving energy around the system, causing cooling and warming in different directions at different times at different places.

                So your very simple kitchen science explanation of heat always transferring from the ocean to the atmosphere is incorrect and your use of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is ridiculous and does not apply. Maybe a bing images search is not your best source for scientific advancement. Try an actual physics educational site, look up 2nd law and heat transfer.

                Care to try again?


                Report this

                05

              • #
                MemoryVault

                Fristly the second law applies to a closed system. The planet is not a closed system so it does not apply.

                FAIL. The Four Laws of Thermodynamics apply to ALL transfers of heat energy between any number of systems. In fact, that’s what the Zeroth Law is all about.

                Secondly you are assuming that heat can only transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere, this is clearly wrong.

                FAIL. I said NET transfer of heat energy can only be one way. Actual transfers can be any which way but loose, but the NET transfer HAS to be one way or the other.

                You are saying that the ocean can only get colder, eventually all frozen I presume.

                FAIL. I said the NET transfer of energy can only be FROM the ocean, TO the atmosphere. That in no way precludes the ocean being warmer, or cooler, from time to time.

                There are 3 forms of heat transfer, conduction, convection and radiation. All occur in our planetary system.

                IRRELEVANT, and, not disputed. Mind you, since the “planetary system” is not a “closed system”, it would be interesting to know how YOU believe this works – obviously outside the Four Laws of Thermodynamics, since – according to you, they don’t apply in open systems.

                If the atmosphere above the water is warmer then heat at the surface will be transferred down.

                A theoretically possible LOCALISED transfer. However, for Trenberth’s “missing heat” to be “flowing into the oceans”, there must be a NET, GLOBAL transfer of heat energy FROM the atmosphere, TO the oceans. WE KNOW this is not happening, as demonstrated by observed, measured evaporation, clouds and precipitation, which demonstrates a NET, GLOBAL transfer of heat energy FROM the oceans TO the atmosphere.

                Also the ocean will be heated by radiation by the sun

                IRRELEVANT. Of course it will. THAT is how the ocean gets heated in the first place. It then LOSES that heat to the atmosphere.

                and if the atmosphere above it is warmer than it would have been, then this will slow down the loss of heat, in some circumstances this will translate to ocean heating as it will absorb suns energy faster than it will lose it at the surface.

                IRRELEVANT. For God’s sake try responding to what the rest of us actually write, rather than what you have liked us to write. Here is what I stated:

                Note well, Surrealist, the claim ISN’T that heat (energy) is being “trapped” in the oceans, nor prevented from leaving the oceans, nor indeed even being slowed down from leaving the ocean, by a warmer atmosphere.

                The claim is that heat (energy) GENERATED (by humans) IN the atmosphere, is being transferred TO the oceans. The claim is that there is NET transfer of energy FROM the atmosphere, TO the ocean.

                Also energy moves around the system through ocean and atmospheric currents around the planet at its surface and also through the different layers of the ocean and atmosphere, moving energy around the system, causing cooling and warming in different directions at different times at different places.

                IRRELEVANT. What is happening with atmospheric currents and oceanic currents, was never even discussed, let alone disputed. The dispute is really this simple:

                What IS disputed can be summed up thus:

                I say, observation says, measured data says, history says, evaporation says, cloud formation says, precipitation says, every science textbook on the planet says, the NET flow of energy is FROM the sun, TO the oceans, TO the atmosphere, TO space.

                Conversely, Trenberth says, Flannery says, Karoly says, and some pompous little git who doesn’t even know the difference between an acid and an alkaline solution says currently the NET flow of energy is FROM the atmosphere, TO the oceans, and alleged human caused atmospheric heating is currently warming the oceans.

                Care to try again?


                Report this

                50

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                and some pompous little git who doesn’t even know the difference between an acid and an alkaline solution says currently the NET flow of energy is FROM the atmosphere,

                You really are a nasty piece of work. I suspect your masquerading word games as science again as most of what you term as irrelevant are the most relevant, but if so, real skeptics should see past that.

                “The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium—the state of maximum entropy.” wikipedia

                So the planetary climate system in regards to energy is not isolated, even though you don’t seem to know which. Also you said it broke the SECOND LAW, although all of a sudden you are bringing all the laws into it, and then agreeing it is not a closed system, therefore second law not applies.

                falsified by both direct observation and measurement, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

                …then next post…

                since the “planetary system” is not a “closed system”

                Basically energy comes into the system from the sun (outside the planet), and heats the surface of the ocean, the land and components of the atmosphere as well. So initial energy transfer is by radiation. Conduction and convection then move that energy throughout the system until it eventually leaves through radiation. If there is an imbalance in the amount of energy in to energy out then the global temp changes. Currently this has been measured as more energy in, than energy out due to an enhanced greenhouse effect, so temp rises to push the energy out and find balance.

                So the ocean warms, currents and cycles move that energy within the ocean and transfer it to the atmosphere. If the atmosphere is warmer at the time energy will move into the ocean through the surface etc. If the global atmosphere temp has risen then the rate at which the ocean loses heat will be reduced and since the sun keeps warming it up regardless its overall temperature can rise. Again cycles can move that energy into the deeper ocean so that the deeper ocean temp can rise. Obviously energy is always leaving the whole system in the form of radiation just as it is always gaining energy through radiation form the sun. Play as many word games as you like, but if the energy coming in is more than the energy going out, then temps will rise on land, atmosphere and ocean.

                Seriously you should grow up.


                Report this

                01

              • #
                Joe V.

                … it [the missing heat] “moves around”, and is “very elusive”.
                You know, a bit like Zorro:

                LOL :-)

                Do you mean like the Dark Energy or Dark Matter, in Astrophysics, that which must be postulated to exist to save the theory, that doesn’t entirely accord with observations.
                .
                Wait a minute, didn’t we start with warming which could only be explained by postulating not just CO2 but amplifying feedbacks on CO2 as the cause.
                Now that we have all this CO2 without the heat to match that theory we have to postulate more heat. ‘Dark Heat’ anyone ?
                Try pulling the other one (the one that’s likely to get into Government and keep the gravy train rolling).


                Report this

                30

            • #
              Heywood

              Reaching into the bucket of pre prepared quotes again?

              Is the WMO paying you by the quote?

              You know, the more you repeat it, the less we care.

              Actually you have strengthened my resolve to oppose catastrophism however I can.


              Report this

              70

  • #
    Michael the Realist

    Meanwhile nobody has been able to answer my question yet…

    Look at the following graph.
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/

    Notice the predominantly strong el ninos of the 1991 to 2000 decade, especially your utterly predictable and non scientific selection of the cherry picked year of 1998.
    Now look at the 2001 to 2010 decade of predominantly neutral to weak el nino and strong la ninas. Now the global data set GISS has 2005 and 2010 as equal hottest years, can you see how much lower 2010 el nino is to your cherry picked year. Now have a try at some common sense and logic and think about that for a bit.
    Now look at the entire record of instrumental temperature data.
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

    Do you see the strong upward trend in the data for about the last 100 years, despite numerous ups and downs and pauses due to natural variations and cycles. That is real science, not cherry picking to suit your confirmation bias and then basing your whole conclusion on that cherry picked piece of a graph without any science or context and without looking at all the data, or basing your whole rejection around model projections, which are only there to get an idea of the likely direction. Due to the strong natural cooling influences it is likely that the temps will go through another spurt as it always has in the last 100 years and catch up to the model. It has been there before.

    This is basing the whole lot on atmospheric temperature alone and has destroyed your whole story, not counting all the other signs of a warming climate by AGW such as ocean warming, melting arctic, global ice volume falling etc.

    A climate is not based on cherry picking years, it is complicated with many natural and anthropogenic forcings in both directions, generally you should make comparisons on at least decadel time scales.
    So explain away, Why is the 2001 to 2010 decade with its predominantly cooling natural factors hotter than the previous decade with its predominantly warming natural factors? Add to the natural factors that the current solar cycle is the lowest for a hundred years.

    “The world experienced unprecedented high-impact climate extremes during the 2001-2010 decade, which was the warmest since the start of modern measurements in 1850 and continued an extended period of pronounced global warming.
    Precipitation and floods: The 2001-2010 decade was the second wettest since 1901. Globally, 2010 was the wettest year since the start of instrumental records.
    Most parts of the globe had above-normal precipitation during the decade. The eastern USA, northern and eastern Canada, and many parts of Europe and central Asia were particularly wet.
    According to the WMO survey, floods were the most frequently experienced extreme events over the course of the decade. Eastern Europe was particularly affected in 2001 and 2005, India in 2005, Africa in 2008, Asia (notably Pakistan, where 2 000 people died and 20 million were affected) in 2010, and Australia, also in 2010.”
    http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html


    Report this

    08

    • #
      Brian G Valentine

      When will you just shut up, you offensive loser.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Dr. Michael's Best Man

      Michael, you forget the strong downward revisionist trend that’s applied successively to the earlier years. Your doctored data of course looks so plausible, but anything inferred from it is at least as shakey as the data itself.


      Report this

      130

    • #
      Debbie

      Good grief!
      blah blah blah blah….straight from that raggy old alarmist handbook gain!
      It’s just BOOOOORRRRRRIIIIIINNNNNGGGGG Michael.
      Move on Michael…..it’s now 2013….the trend…. Michael…..the trend……..is FLAT and has been FOR LONGER THAN A DECADE!!!!!
      I also note that you are now conflating weather with climate because the authors of your handbook think they have come up with a brilliant concept called “EXTREME WEATHER DUE TO CLIMATE CHANGE”hahahahahahahaha!!!!


      Report this

      60

      • #
        Michael the Realist

        So you can’t answer the question, or do you not understand the argument I put forward? Which one is it? Because you obviously still don’t get it. Let me put it another way for you and see if you get it.

        Again look at the following graph.

        http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

        Now let me explain it to the nth degree.
        # The long term trend over the whole period is obviously up.
        # The long term trend has pauses and dips due to natural variations but the trend is unchanged.
        # The current period is at the top of the trend.
        # 2001 to 2010 is the hottest decade on the record despite a preponderance of natural cooling trends. (globally, ocean, land and both hemispheres)
        # Hotter than the previous decade of 1991 to 2000 with its preponderance of natural warming events.
        # Every decade bar one has been hotter than the previous decade since 1901.

        Please explain why the above is true if not AGW with proof.

        State of the climate 2012
        http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/state-climate-2012-highlights


        Report this

        07

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          That GISS Graph is really quite interesting. I have a few questions …

          I notice that there is one datum point per year. Where is that temperature taken?

          I also notice that the accuracy is to tenths of a degree. What equipment is being used to record to that accuracy?

          Finally, I notice that there are only three error bars shown for a range of measurements spanning 130 years, why so few?


          Report this

          40

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            … sounds of cicada at dusk … I thought he wouldn’t have the bottle.

            The answer he can’t, or doesn’t want to, give, is that the graph he has been banging on about, is no more than an artefact of computer modelling.

            Every temperature reading from every source in the world for a year, is by one means or another, smashed together to give a single “indicative temperature” for that year.

            And, miracle of miracles, that smashing together can be done to an accuracy of one hundredth of one degree. The actual shape of the curve is most probably due to various “adjustments” and “corrections” applied to the model, to make it better align with “reality”.

            The three error bars, that get narrower over time, show that they model is actually converging to a single point. If left to run long enough, it would either come out with a single value, or create an overflow error as it approached “infinity.”

            The graph in interesting because it shows that the models still don’t work – but we knew that anyway.


            Report this

            30

            • #
              Heywood

              G’day Rereke,

              “sounds of cicada at dusk”

              That’s because he has fallen foul of Jo and is enjoying a stint in moderation. (See post #41)


              Report this

              30

    • #
      AndyG55

      oops, someone left the needle on the LP. !! click, click, click, click, click , click….. ad infinitum.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Ace

      No Michael…its YOU who cannot answer the question, why should I suffer for the benefit of YOUR children…now you admitted you have such progeny and YOUR grand-childsren. Everything you say on here asmounts to “me me me me me….” . By your own admission, it is YOU who have committed the eco sin of having hildsren. Why should everyone else pay for YOUR decision and YOUR lifestyle?

      Come on, Im very pissed about this, you, your attitude and your head being shoved so far up your arse.


      Report this

      50

      • #
        Michael the Realist

        why should I suffer for the benefit of YOUR children…

        I didn’t say anything about the children. That was not my question. I will simplify and ask you the same question in the same way I put it to Debbie and see if you can stick to the point.

        Again look at the following graph.
        http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

        Look at the following graph of ENSO
        http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/

        Now let me explain it to the nth degree.
        # The long term trend over the whole period is obviously up.
        # The long term trend has pauses and dips due to natural variations but the trend is unchanged.
        # The current period is at the top of the trend.
        # 2001 to 2010 is the hottest decade on the record despite a preponderance of natural cooling trends. (globally, ocean, land and both hemispheres)
        # Hotter than the previous decade of 1991 to 2000 with its preponderance of natural warming events.
        # Every decade bar one has been hotter than the previous decade since 1901.

        Please explain why the above is true if not AGW with proof.

        State of the climate 2012
        http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/state-climate-2012-highlights


        Report this

        06

        • #
          AndyG55

          “# 2001 to 2010 is the hottest decade on the record despite a preponderance of natural cooling trends. (globally, ocean, land and both hemispheres)
          # Hotter than the previous decade of 1991 to 2000 with its preponderance of natural warming events.”

          I wish you would stop with this irrelevant nonsense.

          Yes that has been some warming (about 1/4 of what giss says).

          So yes it is marginally warmer now than it was 20-30 years ago.

          And guess what.. when you climb a small hill, you are at the top.

          But then you go back down again.

          There is LOT of buffering in the system, so yes, the lack of warming forcings is taking a while to bite.

          But it is starting to… more’s the pity.

          A lot of the cooler NH countries are in for a tough time over the next several decades, particularly those that have destroyed their energy supply systems by their over -indulgence in wind and solar inefficiencies. Cold is NOT your friend.


          Report this

          41

          • #
            Michael the Realist

            Nice try Andy, but massive fail. Your own scientists and the data do not back you up.

            Firstly from a paper by John McLean, Chris De Frietas and Bob Carter the effect of ENSO is about 7 months ahead of the event. This is from a paper that was predicting that 2011 was going to be the coolest year since 1956 due to the preponderence of la nina conditions. How did they do with that? I will give you a hint, 2011 was at the time the hottest la nina affected year on record (until 2012). So does this mean that your own scientists cannot explain the lack of cooling?
            http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7349

            In fact the whole of the latter part of last century was mostly ElNino

            So then lets look at the available ENSO data. I don’t know about you, but from my eyeball it looks like more la nina than el nino except for the decade with your cherry picked year, which was then still cooler than the next decade (2001 to 2010).
            http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/

            There is ABSOLUTELY NO SIGN of any effect from the increasing CO2 levels

            Except that during a period of predominantly cooling la ninas we have had a massive amount of warming over a geologically small time scale with no other explanation except what real scientists have been telling us, AGW.

            Ignore the massively adjusted giss temp record..

            So sad, reverting to the conspiracy theory, even though satelite trends are virtually identical to GISS.
            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1978/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1978/trend/plot/rss/from:1978/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1978/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1978/trend/plot/uah/from:1978/trend

            Would you like to give it another try?


            Report this

            05

    • #
      Michael the Realist

      Dr. Michael’s Best Man

      Mod: Considering that I was asked to change my name to not conflict with another poster, which I did without issue. I have always been reasonable, polite and understanding. I really am not sure why such bad behaviour of such that I am continuously subjected to is acceptable? I suppose if they had a valid argument or answer they would use it and so have to resort to insults and name calling to feel like they have accomplished anything. I do feel though if I resorted to the same behaviour I would be told to change my behaviour.


      Report this

      08

      • #
        Heywood

        Hey, if you don’t like it, f**k off back to SkS. Maybe the cartoonist will give you a cuddle and a tissue.

        You came to this blog and carpet bombed nearly every thread with your oft repeated pre prepared links and carry on like an arrogant c**k and expect everyone to just roll over and agree with everything you say.

        People here disagree with your point of view, whether you like it or not and they are entitled to do so. This is something you can’t accept so like a typical activist you keep on and on and on with your activist script.

        The fact is, we don’t give a shit about your opinions, and whilst you continue to repeat them ad nauseum, we will continue to try and waste your time and call you for what you are.

        Time to dry your eyes princess.


        Report this

        61

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          Hey, if you don’t like it, f**k off back to SkS. Maybe the cartoonist will give you a cuddle and a tissue.

          Thats pretty low. creating an ad hominem attack on sks when I haven’t even used them on this whole post, or even the majority of the time. In fact only once or twice in the whole time posting. Is your argument that weak you are just looking at anyone to insult? Shame on you.

          Do you remember when you said…
          “You have quoted SkS (an opinion blog) before as evidence of your argument, and expected everyone to read it. You claim that SkS links to peer reviewed research, so it is acceptable.

          Bruce links to Hockeyshtick (another opinion blog) and you claim that it is mere opinion, and not “an actual scientific or reliable source for science information”, even though, like SkS, it links to peer reviewed research.

          Can’t see the bias or hypocrisy there though can you…”

          Oh yeah, I can see the bias and the hypocrisy now.


          Report this

          16

          • #
            Heywood

            John Cook. Is he or is he not a cartoonist?

            Keep sooking tissue boy.


            Report this

            40

            • #
              Michael the Realist

              John Cook. Is he or is he not a cartoonist?

              Maybe, I don’t know for sure, fairly irrelevant. Obviously since he runs sks as mainly a non profit educational website he does need to make a living.

              Point was, you did not need to bring him up at all, besides one post about 2 weeks ago, I don’t use it in posts, due to ad hominem attacks like this. So even though you guys mainly use opinion blog references and expect us to read them, you will hypocritically not accept them yourself. And as you have just shown, you will shamefully throw in an ad hominem attack as an argument (when you do not have a real one) even when the site or man was not used to be attacked.

              are you not embarrassed by that?

              Considering what Jo wrote above, she should have stern words with you.
              “Some scientists are so motivated that they call opposing scientists petty names, and toss allusions they must be “funded” by vested interests, even as they ignore the billions of vested interests funding the name-callers. Meanwhile, all the silent so-called scientists in the tea-rooms that let the one-sided insults go unopposed are complicit in the steady corruption of a once noble profession.”


              Report this

              07

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                Actually that quote would apply to all the name twisting and name calling I have been subjected to lately. Hmmm, would seem self awareness is not very strong here…


                Report this

                18

              • #
                Heywood

                As I said. If you don’t like it? Bugger off to SkS with your fellow warmists.


                Report this

                61

              • #
                Алл абоут Мичаел

                Could Michael’s self awareness really have missed, how many Michaels might really exist, on all sides of argument (that doesn’t exist), or is he just …. miffed ?

                —–
                REPLY: WE keep track as much as we can. There were two separate Michaels. We asked the newer arrival to pick a new name and he did (“The realist”). Please use just one yourself. Thanks. – Jo


                Report this

                90

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Hmmm, I might change my name, by deed poll, to Michael TM.

        Then I could sue every other Michael in the world, for infringement of my trade mark.


        Report this

        30

    • #
      AndyG55

      Ignore the massively adjusted giss temp record.. real warming was probably about 1/4 of that.

      The real and slight warming in the real global temps as shown by the satellite record, can be traced to this ElNino events you highlight, in 1980 and particularly the one in 1998.

      In fact the whole of the latter part of last century was mostly ElNino, so yes, there was some slight warming, as one would expect.

      Since 1998 the enso index has remained about 50-50, so no extra heat, and the previous heat is starting to dissipate. The global temp is starting to decline, just as continued nearly balanced enso would dictate.

      There is ABSOLUTELY NO SIGN of any effect from the increasing CO2 levels. NONE, NADA….. ZIP !!!

      Hopefully the cooling will be gradual, but with the sun’s sleepiness, and continued neutral enso, it is quite likely that there could be a much quicker dropping of global temperatures.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Michael the Realist

        Reprint of answer from your similar response above. Please only answer once, to much repetition.

        Firstly from a paper by John McLean, Chris De Frietas and Bob Carter the effect of ENSO is about 7 months ahead of the event. This is from a paper that was predicting that 2011 was going to be the coolest year since 1956 due to the preponderence of la nina conditions. How did they do with that? I will give you a hint, 2011 was at the time the hottest la nina affected year on record (until 2012). So does this mean that your own scientists cannot explain the lack of cooling?
        http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7349

        In fact the whole of the latter part of last century was mostly ElNino

        So then lets look at the available ENSO data. I don’t know about you, but from my eyeball it looks like more la nina than el nino except for the decade with your cherry picked year, which was then still cooler than the next decade (2001 to 2010).
        http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/

        There is ABSOLUTELY NO SIGN of any effect from the increasing CO2 levels

        Except that during a period of predominantly cooling la ninas we have had a massive amount of warming over a geologically small time scale with no other explanation except what real scientists have been telling us, AGW.

        Ignore the massively adjusted giss temp record..

        So sad, reverting to the conspiracy theory, even though satelite trends are virtually identical to GISS.
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1978/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1978/trend/plot/rss/from:1978/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1978/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1978/trend/plot/uah/from:1978/trend

        Would you like to give it another try?


        Report this

        16

        • #
          AndyG55

          “with no other explanation except”

          Hansen and giss adjustments..


          Report this

          31

        • #
          AndyG55

          “even though satelite trends are virtually identical to GISS.

          Since 1979.. anything from GISS before 1998 is JUNK.

          Satellites show VERY LITTLE WARNING from 1979 to 1998, the a step change approx. 1998… and NO WARNMING SINCE THEN !!


          Report this

          41

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          Firstly your statement about a lack of cooling is false from 1 Jan 2001 onwards, which you have been told before but you routinely ignore it.

          Secondly that’s an interesting El Nino chart there, Michael. If we can take the number of red pixels versus blue pixels in that MEI chart over any time period as representing the effects of El Nino versus La Nina, it shows very few discrepancies. The discrepancy can be measured with the selected area histogram tool in a graphics program such as The GIMP. There is about a 5…10 percentage point error on the following measurements:
          In the years 1990 to 1999 inclusive there was 200% more El Nino than La Nina.
          In the years 2000 to 2009 inclusive there was 30% more El Nino than La Nina.
          In years 1987 to 1999 inclusive there was 173% more El Nino than La Nina.
          In years 2000 to 2012 inclusive there was 10% more La Nina than El Nino.
          In years 1993 thru 2002 inclusive there was 137% more El Nino than La Nina.
          In years 2003 thru 2012 inclusive there was 3% more La Nina than El Nino.
          In the last 10 years there was 12% more La Nina than El Nino.
          In 62 years 1950 thru 2011 inclusive there was 4% more El Nino than La Nina.

          Your statement about the whole chart “it looks like more la nina than el nino” indicates a limitation of your eyeball or brain. Not only was there no significant difference between El Nino and La Nina effects over this whole period but the minor discrepancy was the opposite of how it seemed to your eyeball.

          Thirdly you are only showing your ignorance of ENSO by stating “during a period of predominantly cooling la ninas we have had a massive amount of warming.”
          La Ninas are NOT cooling events. La Ninas are a name given to the condition of the ENSO index being negative, but they represent the normal situation of the ocean. El Nino events are a real heating event, and it is normal for something that’s been heated to then cool down. In all cases a La Nina condition does not cool the ocean by the same amount that it warmed during the El Nino, consistent with the understanding that la Ninas do not have a cooling effect, the cooling is simply due to the cessation of the heating influence. You would not expect any extra cooling from more La Ninas.

          Thus the lack of El Ninos over the last 10 years contributes to the lack of warming, ALONG WITH the downturn in solar activiy since 2007 AND the 62 year ocean cycle going into a descending mode since 2002.

          > “with no other explanation except what real scientists have been telling us, AGW.
          You have been given the explanation, supported by proxy and observational and laboratory evidence from real scientists.
          Michael, you have been given the explanation before, by myself and by others.
          You are not a realist. You are the denier now.


          Report this

          60

          • #
            Michael the Realist

            Andrew, firstly from my understanding, ENSO is a cycle, which means that overall there is no cooling or warming effect. No energy has been created here in either direction it is just being moved around the ocean and atmosphere. If this is incorrect please provide some scientific proof.

            Therefore over the 50 year period in question you would get no overall warming or cooling from ENSO. So basically the .5 degree rise in temps are not found there.

            Secondly your other excuses do not pan out and do not come from scientific sources. As your Michael Mann paper that you gave previously put forward concluded (I think it was you, one of your side), the warming cannot be attributed to your 62 year ocean cycle.

            Also taking into account the last 130 years in temps, which would take into account 2 full cycles you have a .7 degree rise in temperature. Again this is a cycle, so none of the warming can be attributed to it.
            http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

            You provide barely credible unproven hypothesis from non scientific sources for you cosmic ray claims, which have been conclusively discredited by the IPCC and other actual scientific sources and has been heading in the wrong direction according to the actual data, and the solar cycles are currently low. So I have a firm proven theory, AGW, that fits the science, the data and the observations and explains why the 2001 to 2010 decade was the hottest on the instrumental record and you have a pile of cards that have fallen in a heap.

            Care to try again?


            Report this

            05

            • #
              MemoryVault

              So I have a firm proven theory, AGW, that fits the science, the data and the observations and explains why the 2001 to 2010 decade was the hottest on the instrumental record and you have a pile of cards that have fallen in a heap.

              No, Protonic Hydroxide, what you have is a hypothesis, represented by no end of computer models, ALL of which have failed dismally predict anything even vaguely approaching reality.

              Here is a graph comparing the reality of measured observations (the green circles and blue squares), to the ever-diverging fantasy-land of your “firm, proven theory”, as represented by the spaghetti collection of coloured lines.

              As can be quite clearly seen: reality won, your “theory” lost. Big time.


              Report this

              30

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                Oh yes the old cherry picked non global mid troposphere tropical temperature. massive embarrasing fail that proves your cherry picking credentails.

                Also as I have repeatedly rpoven actual data and observations when taken into account with measurable natural variations confirm the warming and AGW and have not been able to be explained away here. In fact as predicted by a lot of your own scientists (Mcclean, watts, goddard, carter, frietas) the temperatures should have cooled and the arctic ice should have recovered years ago due to natural variations. It is a travesty that they cannot (and you) explain this lack of cooling. A model is a projection under certain scenarios, it is not reality and is subject to unforseen variations, lack of computing power etc. I have based all my determinations on reality (hence my name), based on the science, the data and observations. If you have to fall back on false model comparisons to prove you are right then you have clearly lost and are clearly wrong. Reality trumps excuses.


                Report this

                05

    • #
      Heywood

      Meanwhile nobody has been able to answer my question yet…

      Meanwhile, Michael the Arrogant Activist has been able to answer my question either. You know the one. In degrees Celsius please.


      Report this

      40

      • #
      • #
        Michael the Realist

        Meanwhile, Michael the Arrogant Activist has been able to answer my question either

        Firstly, I assume you meant me and not the other Michael that I politely changed my name for at the request of JO, and shown respect and restraint on this blog.

        Secondly it has been answered many many times, if the moderator is going to remove my comments when I repeat myself (due to posters repeating the same questions over and over) it should apply to everybody.


        Report this

        14

        • #
          Heywood

          What was the answer in degrees celsius then?

          You didn’t answer shit. You just avoided and posted cut and padted your usual diaribe.

          And you are the only Arrogant Activist Michael on this blog.


          Report this

          31

          • #
            Michael the Realist

            You just avoided and posted cut and padted your usual diaribe.

            The answer is not going to change because you repeat the question ad nauseum. Obviously I don’t accept the premise. I don’t know, I don’t control the climate, I am merely trying to stop our polluting and changing of the composition of the atmosphere to levels not seen for millions of years because the science says the consequences will be bad for us, and actual data and observations are confirming that assessment. What part of that don’t you get?

            I think it was Albert Einstein who said
            “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”


            Report this

            25

            • #
              Heywood

              Answer this then. How much would an increase of .0038 degrees celsius of warming change the climate?


              Report this

              40

            • #
              AndyG55

              “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over”

              Then WHY keep doing it !!!

              click, click, click.. you are the sound of a broken record


              Report this

              31

            • #
              AndyG55

              How about we wait, say, 2 years and then see what’s happened.

              The Global satellite temp will have dropped.

              The current guy at Giss will not have been able to rationalise any further trend adjustments.. he is already looking like a goose.

              And you will be saying that CO2 is causing cooling.

              Panic, panic…. moron.


              Report this

              41

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                How about we wait, say, 2 years and then see what’s happened.

                We have already had claims from skeptics that failed, how long do we have to wait, or how often can you be wrong before you accept the science? How do these scientists explain the lack of cooling from there predictions of the atmospheric temps and Arctic ice?

                “It is likely that 2011 will be the coolest year since 1956, or even earlier, says the lead author of a peer-reviewed paper published in 2009:
                Our ENSO – temperature paper of 2009 and the aftermath by John McLean
                “The paper, by John McLean, Professor Chris de Freitas and Professor Bob Carter, showed that the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), a measure of El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) conditions, is a very good indicator of average global atmospheric temperatures approximately seven months ahead, except when volcanic eruptions cause short-term cooling.”
                http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7349

                “Steven Goddard writes below that he agrees with the prediction I made in late 2009 that we’d see another 500,000 km2 of Arctic sea ice recovery in 2010. The Arctic Oscillation seems to be negative again, and according to NSIDC, this figures greatly in making thicker ice thus lowering summer losses. – Anthony”
                http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/09/prediction-arctic-ice-will-continue-to-recover-this-summer/


                Report this

                03

            • #

              It might seem strange to some that the warmists arrogate terms.
              First it was “science”. But when traditional science was based on conjectures that despite being vulnerable to falsification, were not falsified by the evidence, their science was on agreement and belief.
              Then it was “skeptic”. But whilst dictionaries defined the word as someone not convinced, the warmists termed it as someone who assesses all the evidence and, as a result, fallen into line with the consensus.
              Now it is “climate realist”. The doubters wanted to contrast it with the actual evidence, and include the natural variants in climate. The warmists have no compunction about taking on this term, as the only realities they know are of climate models and the opinion of others. For those who have been brought up on soap operas and latterly “reality TV” this is not a significant step. But for those who know that computer games and the goggle-box are not the real world, this is another delusion.
              Changing language, so words mean the opposite of what is originally intended, is not new. George Orwell caricatured it in “Animal Farm” and “1984″.


              Report this

              40

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                Manic, I am a realist that focusses on the data, observations and the science only. So my posts are generally concerned with actual facts. I have posted my reasoning on the so called pause and what has been happening and nobody to date has been able to successfully refute it using actual accepted science and data. Feel free to have a look and try yourself.

                A true skeptic is somebody who looks at all the data, science and observations and makes rational and logical determinations on that, and not cherry picking portions that fit your bias and ignoring the long term trend, other data and information and natural variations.

                http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/consensus-police-101-tea-room-reasons-not-to-be-a-skeptic/#comment-1310569


                Report this

                03

              • #
                MemoryVault

                I have posted my reasoning on the so called pause and what has been happening and nobody to date has been able to successfully refute it using actual accepted science and data.

                That would be the Trenberth school of science and data, where energy “flows” from a cooler atmosphere into a warmer ocean.

                Feel free to have a look and try yourself.

                Try this.


                Report this

                30

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                That would be the Trenberth school of science and data, where energy “flows” from a cooler atmosphere into a warmer ocean.

                Massive fail. Please prove that the atmosphere is cooler than the ocean.


                Report this

                05

              • #
                MemoryVault

                Massive fail. Please prove that the atmosphere is cooler than the ocean.

                A sane person does not expend energy “proving” that which is self-evident from observation. No one here is going to bother “proving” that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Especially not to the resident Village Idiot.

                The observed, measured, NET energy transfer is FROM the sun, TO the oceans, FROM the oceans, TO the atmosphere, and FROM the atmosphere, back into space. This is known as the Water Cycle, and is taught to primary school children (pretty pictures here).

                This cycle has been known and understood long enough to be referenced in The Book of Job, written circa 1000 BC. If it were otherwise (if there was a NET loss of energy FROM atmosphere TO the oceans), the oceans would simply go on heating until such times as the process reversed itself. Until that point was reached, there would be no evaporation, no clouds, and no precipitation.

                However there IS evaporation, there IS cloud formation, and there IS precipitation, so the NET flow of energy is FROM the oceans, TO the atmosphere. Since the Second Law of Thermodynamics requires that energy flows FROM a “warmer” body (greater heat energy content), TO a “cooler” body (lesser heat energy content), then the atmosphere is observably a “cooler” (less heat energy content) body than the ocean (greater heat energy content).

                Ergo, Trenberth’s “missing heat” is not “flowing into the oceans”. It remains “missing”. And the reason it is “missing” is because it never existed in the first place.

                .
                CAGW “theory” is a load of crock. There IS no “positive feedback” to multiply the effect of CO2 on water vapour, and there IS no onging correlation between CO2 and atmospheric temperature.

                The world stopped warming a decade and a half ago, and is probably now cooling. Get used to it.


                Report this

                50

              • #

                Hi Michael,

                Love having you trolling this blog. It makes me (and no doubt others) realise that we skeptics are up against. You complain that people are not able to refute your proof of AGW. I have had a perusal and done a couple of postings.

                First, your so-called proof is lacking something. It has data on the alleged effect (C20th warming), but no data on the alleged cause – human greenhouse gas emissions. I have helped you out, and graphed global CO2 emissions estimates with a temperature series since 1900. You will never believe this, but the two data sets do seem to correlate. But only for 25 years max. The rest of the period they bare no relationship. Looking back at up to 2000 years of temperature proxy data I can see fluctuations in temperature larger than the C20th period, when human emissions were tiny.
                http://manicbeancounter.com/2013/08/26/was-the-twentieth-century-warming-mostly-due-to-human-emissions/

                Second is your nonsense, copied from elsewhere, trying to cover up the 15 years or more pause in global warming. I have done a little exercise, which a high school student could replicate on Excel, to show the why this is spin.
                http://manicbeancounter.com/2013/08/26/showing-warming-when-it-has-stopped/

                Now onto your definition of a skeptic.

                A true skeptic is somebody who looks at all the data, science and observations and makes rational and logical determinations on that…

                I suggest that you use a dictionary, instead of John Cook. As I found last year, John Cook disagrees with a consensus of the world’s leading experts.


                Report this

                10

    • #

      Michael, we’ve answered the point in other ways many times. For starters, even if it is still warming, that doesn’t prove anything about the cause. Worse, the warming started 100 years before industrialization. The trend was the same in the 1870s as the 1980s. These points show that it’s likely CO2 has marginal effect. (UPDATE: I see Richard at 38.1 has answered this even better than I have. Thank you Richard).

      Then everyone, climate scientists, expert modelers, skeptics all pretty much agree now that there has been a long flat trend that is not explained by models. And we’ve discussed this to death as well.

      Your claims of cherry picking are as weak as. Start the year before or the year after. Even the 11 year flatness from 2001 – 2012 is a climate model bomb.
      you cling to the delusional belief that scientists are 90% certain while their models are 95% wrong.

      No wonder commenters here are irritable.


      Report this

      50

      • #
        Michael the Realist

        Start the year before or the year after

        Still cherry picking, which is why I use the decadel temperature trends as specified by the WMO. This evens out yearly variations and a lot of the longer term natural variations.

        Also I note that the new IPCC report has them now at 95% certain that they are right.

        Models are models, merely projections of cetain scenarios, they are not what the science is based on.

        The long flat trend is explained by natural variations, movement of energy into the oceans and the record melting of the Arctic. It is still the warmest on the record.

        I cannot see how you get warming starting before CO2 kicking in. Thye majority of the warming starts after 1900 from all of the reconstructions and temp sets I can find.

        This is analagous to when we had the big dip in sea level in 2011. Skeptics were saying it was all over, final nail in the coffin, models are all wrong etc etc. All the same things they say about temps. But the sea levels rose with vengeance and are now above trend, and a new paper shows that it was natural variation.
        http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2013_rel5/sl_ns_global.png
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50834/abstract

        As has happened in the past I am 95% certain that the temps will go through a splurge and catch up, just as it has done in the previous dips and pauses.


        Report this

        01

        • #

          See my reply posted to your later comment and this post: http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/climate-models-cannot-explain-why-global-warming-has-slowed/

          Forgive us Michael, it’s hard to take you seriously. Your response is based on multiple logical fallacies and an inadequate knowledge of climate.

          1. The IPCC is a committee. Not empirical evidence. They have no scientific basis for saying 95%. Try and find how they did that calculation. Hand waving.
          2. It’s nice (but uninformed) that you say that the science is “not based on models”. I could quote 200 papers that suggest otherwise. (See IPCC AR4 Chapter 8 and 9) What you can’t do is quote me empirical evidence that supports the climate sensitivity they suggest.
          3. The long flat trend IS explained by natural variations, the problem is that the models don’t know what they are. Therefore the models are missing THAT important dominant factor and that’s why they failed to predict the pause. See my posts on ARGO. No there is no sign of accelleration. The warming we see is not enough – 60% of their predicted warming is missing. AND the data has huge uncertainty bars. Then there is the just-so convenience of them not predicting this would happen and not being able to explain why air that isn’t warming at 10km up (where the GHG effect is strongest) will pass on that non-heat to water 2km below the surface. It’s babble.
          4. Warmest on record means nothing. Records are short. It was as warm 1000 years ago, warmer 7000 years ago, warmer 130,000 years ago and warmer for 80% of the last 500 million years. You are cherry picking.
          5. You may “feel” 95% sure. So?

          These are mostly pretty basic points. Forgive me, but Michael we are way ahead of you.


          Report this

          30

    • #
      Brian G Valentine

      Michael, I know who you are! The repeated use of phrases you have used in the past elsewhere under your authentic name gave you away.

      Sadly, other references you have made to this blog would make anyone surprised that you would visit here at all. Thus your use of your pseudonym.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Mark

    OK, I think I get it. Draw a line from the end of the last ice age and we have an endless warming trend.

    Hmmm….Then again, maybe not. The globe came out of the last ice age and rather rapidly at that. Did it all by itself without a coal-fired power station in sight for around twelve thousand years. I also note that each warm peak from that transition has been lower than its predecessor.

    Sea levels might be rising by miniscule amounts but the tide is well and truly going out for the noisy bedwetters like Michael. People are going to vote to keep their jobs and keep warm in winter whether he likes it or not.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Michael the Realist

    The globe came out of the last ice age and rather rapidly at that. Did it all by itself without a coal-fired power station

    Yes the planet is quite clever like that, it has its own natural processes as well. I think the one you are referring to is an orbital cycle with help from CO2. Your point is?

    Please explain the logic behind the argument that natural processes automatically prevent man from doing anything. I look around the world and see forests replaced by cities, dams stopping rivers, man made lakes were there were not one before, polluted atmosphere and smog from factories and cars, polluted oceans, rivers and lakes, farm land with crops that did not exist before, mountains disappearing for the iron contained in them, holes in the ground for the wealth they contain that were not there before etc etc (could go on for awhile).

    Now how the hell did all that happen? I do not remember seeing any of them in the documentaries of the planet before man, where did they come from? Is it magic?


    Report this

    07

    • #
      Richard

      “Please explain the logic behind the argument that natural processes automatically prevent man from doing anything”.

      We are not suggesting that humanity is not creating any environmental problems. That is not what we sceptics are arguing. We are saying is that AGW has been exaggerated and that the warming from atmospheric CO2 is relatively small, all things considered. In fact, there is no anthropogenic signature in the homogenised global surface temperature record and the temperatures have experienced are not outside of the norm in any way. The IPCC’s HADCRUT data appears to contradict the CAGW-hypothesis. In a 2010 BBC interview Phil Jones was asked “Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?” He says ‘yes’ and lists the trends. They are as follows (together with the supposed increase in atmospheric CO2):

      1860-1880 / 21 / 0.163 / Yes / [4.5 ppmv]

      1910-1940 / 31 / 0.150 / Yes / [10.7 ppmv]

      1975-1998 / 24 / 0.166 / Yes / [35.4 ppmv]

      1975-2009 / 35 / 0.161 / Yes / [58.9 ppmv]

      As you can see above, the warming that occurred from 1860-1880 was virtually identical to the warming that occurred from 1975-1998, and yet, they coincided with dramatically different increases in atmospheric CO2 (a total difference of about 30ppmv). If the CAGW-hypothesis was correct, then the temperature should have accelerated. But it did not. The point here is, the temperatures we have experienced are well-within long-tern natural variation and there is no hint of an anthropogenic signature. This is a clear demonstration of global warming on the same scale as that claimed by CAGW-advocates for today being caused by natural factors alone. This implies that the natural factors which caused the temperature increase from 1860-1880 could also be operative today and must be eliminated from the present situation before it can be claimed that modern global warming is man-made.

      In fact, the late 20th century warming can be explained by natural agencies. Ryan Eastman and Stephan Warren 2012 found a reduction in cloud cover of 1.56% over 39 years, enough to increase Earth’s radiative equilibrium temperature by 3.4W/sq.m. Furthermore Pinker et al 2005 found a satellite-measured global-brightening of 1.92W/sq.m between 1983-2001 from cloud cover.


      Report this

      50

      • #
      • #
        Michael the Realist

        This is a clear demonstration of global warming on the same scale as that claimed by CAGW-advocates for today being caused by natural factors alone.

        Except that the natural factors have been examined and have been shown to not be able to explain the warming. I do not disagree there are natural factors involved from when the planet began and indeed (since man has only been here in a blink of an eye) been the dominant determinant. But we do have the knowledge and measurement capability to determine what most of them are and how much and they cannot explain the warming.

        Pinkers paper was misinterpreted by Monkton and she has expalined that it was correctly interpreted by the IPCC. Her work did not just rely on cloud cover but on clouds, water vapor and aerosols which have conflicting effects.
        ‘The CO2 “radiative forcing” value that Mr. Christopher Monckton is quoting refers to the impact on the Earth’s Radiative balance as described above. The numbers that we quote in our paper represent the change in surface SW due to changes in the atmosphere (clouds, water vapor, aerosols). These two numbers cannot be compared at their face value.’
        http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/wp-content/blogs.dir/443/files/2012/04/i-ce97c40417bd4cb981b507c4faad66e9-monckton.pdf

        I could not get to the detail of the Eastman paper but I did not see in the abstract anything about the forcing you mention. They said a small decline in tropical cloud cover due to shifts in the jetstream.

        So basically again nothing explains the warming of the previous 50 years except AGW considering that solar has been flat or falling and ENSO evens out and has been low for over a decade. This indicates that we should have been cooling as John Mcclean predicted in his own paper but instead the 2001 to 2010 decade has been the hottest on the record, globally, over ocean, land and in both hemispheres, which makes it truly global and is an obvious fingerprint of AGW.


        Report this

        05

        • #
          MemoryVault

          So basically again nothing explains the warming of the previous 50 years except AGW

          Of course it couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the Grand Solar Maximum that started around 1900 (about the same time as the allegedly CAGW “warming” coincidentally).

          That would be the Same Grand Solar Maximum that ended around 2000 (about the same time as the allegedly CAGW “warming” ended, coincidentally).

          And that 100 years of perfectly natural warming couldn’t possibly have heated the oceans, accumulating heat energy, and causing the oceans to outgas CO2, could it?

          And the “pause” from 2003 to now that pretty-much everybody acknowledges except pH-challenged Michael couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the oceans giving up that accumulated to the atmosphere and keeping it relatively warm, a process that has now ended, as evidenced by the cooling atmosphere. That would be too simple.


          Report this

          50

  • #
    Mark

    Yes the planet is quite clever like that, it has its own natural processes as well. I think the one you are referring to is an orbital cycle with help from CO2. Your point is?

    Well, you just made it again yourself, you dope. Natural forces, the vast majority of which we know next to bugger-all about. And your point was?

    As for the rest of your deranged rant. I’m still waiting for you to inform us when you relocate yourself and your family to the nearest cave. Let’s all see how long you last without a grid hookup.

    You don’t like the world which has made it possible for you to post your rants here so why not just bugger off into your precious wilderness and live with the snakes and bugs. Isn’t that what your ilk are supposed to do – lead by example?


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Michael the Realist

      Natural forces, the vast majority of which we know next to bugger-all about.

      Actually we know quite a lot, which is why I could answer your question as to how we got out of an ice age without man. Just because you don’t know does not mean that science doesn’t.

      And your point was?

      That man can make changes to the planet even though nature can make changes to. One does not negate the other, faulty logic. Sad that you didn’t get it.


      Report this

      06

    • #
      Michael the Realist

      You don’t like the world which has made it possible for you to post your rants

      I love the world, technology and humanity, which is why I want us to transition to a sustainable renewable future where the consequences of our actions do not ruin it for those after us. That way we can all enjoy long, productive and happy futures.


      Report this

      07

      • #
        Heywood

        You pay for it then di $#head.


        Report this

        40

      • #
        AndyG55

        “I love the world,”

        But HATE mankind , progress and prosperity..

        slimo !!


        Report this

        30

      • #
        The Activist Formerly Known as

        I want us to transition to a sustainable renewable future

        Don’t we all, but some of us just cant accept we’ve already have done.. Your presumption that we haven’t and choice of language betrays your attachment to the process and an enduring need to see us being bossed about by ever higher and heavier authorities.
        Your faith in human nature is disappointing.


        Report this

        60

        • #
          Ace

          “I want us to transition to a sustainable renewable future ”

          Then why the kids you citd…if you buy your Eco crap, then the onus is on YOU to set the xample…so again, WHY did you have children?

          DO you own a car?
          So WHy?
          Do you have central heatiung?
          So WHY?
          Do you take foreign holidays or domestic air travel?
          So WHY?
          ………………WHY if you are by YOUR criteria the fecking Carbon-Sinner…WHY should I and others pay for YOUR lifestyl?

          Michal, you are a scummy low blind and mindlss HYPOCRITE.


          Report this

          50

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          your attachment to the process and an enduring need to see us being bossed about by ever higher and heavier authorities.

          I think it is your lack of faith in human nature that is disappointing.

          ACE, please read with understanding. I love people, technology and life. I do not want anybody to miss out on anything, especially my kids and grandchildren. That is the whole point, for us to transition to a renewable and sustainable way of doing things so that everyone can meet their potentials and ambitions, now and in the future. Your attempt at a personal attack does not disprove AGW or what we need to do as inhabitants of this planet.


          Report this

          07

          • #
            The Activist Formerly Known as

            I think it is your lack of faith in human nature that is disappointing.

            Human nature doesn’t trouble me. It is what it is.
            Authority not being matched by competence is what’s dangerous.
            What passes for education now, majoring on emotion but short on history, logic or reasoning is allowing too many undereducated in the important positions .


            Report this

            20

      • #
        AndyG55

        And you STILL haven’t answered the question..

        “Which climate trough do you swill from?”

        You obvious ARE NOT a scientist if any kind, your actually scientific knowledge is close to zero, so I can only guess you are a paid lackey of some sort.


        Report this

        50

      • #
        Ace

        …which is why you CHOSE to have children…the biggest sin against Eco mores anyone can commit…so WHY should I …no kids, no heating, no air conditioning, dont drive and only fly for work…WHY should I have to pay your f**** Green taxes for the sake of YOUR children and grand-children. [Snip]


        Report this

        40

      • #
        Mark

        Actually we know quite a lot…

        Yeh! That says it all, doesn’t it. You only think you know ‘quite a lot’ and when you exclude the bits that are too problematical and confronting for you, you actually ‘know’ bugger-all.

        which is why I want us to transition to a sustainable renewable future where the consequences of our actions do not ruin it for those after us…

        Oh how lovely for you as you frolic through the garden down towards where the fairies are. You have the the true mentality of a Stalinist or Nazi. I don’t give a fig for what you want and nor would 90% of the population. Read up about Spain before you further pollute this blog with your irrational ravings.

        How’s that cave relocation going, Michael?


        Report this

        40

  • #
    Michael the Realist

    From Jo above…

    Some scientists are so motivated that they call opposing scientists petty names, and toss allusions they must be “funded” by vested interests, even as they ignore the billions of vested interests funding the name-callers.

    Then we have what you guys do to people that are presenting the actual science and trying to have a calm rational discussion…

    “Oh how lovely for you as you frolic through the garden down towards where the fairies are. You have the the true mentality of a Stalinist or Nazi. I don’t give a fig for what you want and nor would 90% of the population. Read up about Spain before you further pollute this blog with your irrational ravings.

    How’s that cave relocation going, Michael?”

    “…which is why you CHOSE to have children…the biggest sin against Eco mores anyone can commit”

    ““Which climate trough do you swill from?”

    You obvious ARE NOT a scientist if any kind, your actually scientific knowledge is close to zero, so I can only guess you are a paid lackey of some sort.”

    “Michal, you are a scummy low blind and mindlss HYPOCRITE.”

    So which one of us are living up to Jos ideals?


    Report this

    07

  • #

    Michael, congratulations. Through delusional or dishonest techniques you get honest commenters angry.

    You post logical fallacies you don’t acknowledge. Either you are incapable of understanding why argument from authority is not scientific evidence, or being dishonest in repeating it.

    You raise points that commenters respond too. They explain why you are wrong (see e.g. Heywood). You ignore them, and repost the same material every couple of weeks. It’s a war of attrition. No wonder they are sick of it.

    You’ve posted this paragraph 7 times now. (Thanks to Heywood for the tip).

    “The list contains scientific organizations around the world that acknowledge the global impact of rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities. While many more organizations could likely be added, the list is limited to those that have either issued a singular statement of their own or signed in agreement to a collective statement regarding the anthropogenic impact of rising emissions on global climate and the global biosphere.
    All statements have been issued since 2001.
    At present, there are 171 organizations on the list that span all continents outside of Antarctica.”
    http://scentofpine.org/consensus/

    Clearly this is not an honest discussion where commenters develop and grow arguments. It takes no brain nor effort to repost the same material. But it will make commenters angry. We’ve discussed the consensus over and over on this blog.

    All your comments are now moderated. If you give me your real email, and start posting honestly (that’s where you respond to arguments, and either acknowledge you are wrong, or explain why you are not). You can’t keep reposting logical fallacies.

    You still haven’t provided a working email address. You are now on the moderated list until you do. I sent an email yesterday, you’ve posted 12 comments today but not replied. Obviously your email is a fake. This is the third time I’ve emailed while you posted multiple comments but did not “check” your email.

    Your superficial manners are all politeness, but there is nothing polite about ignoring responses, and repeating a message the crowd has discussed many times before you turned up. There is nothing polite about robotic conversations.

    If you had evidence the models were right, and feedbacks were large and positive you would just provide it eh? But you hide behind anonymity, and use logical fallacies with bad manners instead in order to provoke angry responses that you can pretend to wave like a victory flag?


    Report this

    100

    • #
      Michael the Realist

      Jo several things.
      Firstly I have emailed you back several times, you have even replied to me. Not sure why you are taking this tack, it seems dishonest. Maybe because nobody can answer my scientific questions …

      [That's dishonest. You've posted 697 comments, yet pretend we try to censor you, and remain deluded that we haven't answered your questions. You ignore my point that the issue is about using an email you check. - Jo]

      …you are using this to phase me out and block me and make it look like it was games on my part. I cannot think of any other reason.

      [You apparently only check "email" when something is up with moderation. Three chances. You make excuses about the delay (24 hours) to reply, but post a dozen comments in the meantime. I was OK about ignoring that, but the comment thread becomes about Michael-the-realist and comment moderation. That's why you giving us your Real Email is a condition of commenting. That's the one you check in the same time frame as you post comments. - Jo]

      I replied Aug 15th at 10:27 … [snip irrelevant. Diluting threads with admin. Yes you replied eventually. You don't check this email normally. - Jo ]

      Why the games? Will this even be posted?

      It shouldn’t be, it’s full of boring administrivia. – Jo


      Report this

      16

    • #
      Michael the Realist

      I also do not ignore responses. I hope you can appreciate that I work for a living and so by the time I get back on it is hard to work out whom has replied to whom and when. So keeping up is a huge issue. THere is one of me and I get attacked by 10+ of you guys. If someone would pay me then I could devote full time to this but I doubt that will happen. I reply to as many as possible.
      I’m unpaid too. Do your research before you comment. – Jo

      As to repetition, the main arguments from skeptics revolve around 3 areas.
      1. There is no consensus, or there is a global conspriracy

      [Dishonest or ignorant. This is not remotely a "main" argument. On this site almost everyone agree there is a consensus among climate scientists -- the issue is that it's meaningless. You pretend I talk about a conspiracy. Our main point is the empirical evidence. - jo

      The post above with the list of scientific organisations puts those claims to bed. It is not feasable to maintain those views when organisations as far apart as China, US, Russia, Mexico, Peru, France, Canada, India, Nigeria, Nicaragua, Japan, Turkey etc, just to name a few all agree in the science of AGW.

      [Consensus proves nothing about the atmosphere. It can be bought (with say $100 bn in science grants) or bullied or a genuine mistake from groupthink. Scientific consensus has been wrong many times before. Name which of these agencies actually surveyed it's members? Ans None, apart from 2 or 3 surveys on tightly defined and annointed "climate scientists". The other statements come from 6 - 8 activists in a committee in each group, are meaningless and have been protested by thousands of members of the major groups. I have covered all this over and over, you don't respect us enough to read my site before arriving here to lecture us repeatedly on a topic we know better than you. - Jo]

      2.The models are wrong
      I avoid the models completely in discussions as I want to stick to the actual data and observations. The models are useful, and have been really accurate in many areas, because you cannot put the planet in a test tube, isolate variables and see what happens. But as I have pointed out many times, they are still just projections based on ceratin scenarios and reality is always going to be slightly different due to natural variations that are not completely predictable (like ENSO), lack of computing power and accuracy due to grid sizes, and the parameters like how much CO2 or aerosols emitted being different to that entered. The science is not based on the models, it is based on the physics, data and observations, and I make my points on those basis.

      [The models are broken and even alarmists admit that now. They have not been accurate about anything that matters. This is blather you can't back up. Read my "new Here" post. We agree with alarmists on physics, but not on feedbacks, you've been misled and are waging the wrong war. - Jo]

      3. Warming stopped 16 years ago, or there is a pause etc.
      This is answered by the fact that it is a dynamic system with natural and anthropogenic forcings and that even though there are many dips and pauses in the long term record the trend is up. I prove that the 2001 to 2010 decade was the hottest on record globally, over ocean, land and both hemispheres, and that every decade bar 1 in a hundred years has been hotter than the previous one. Using years in such a complicated system is deception becasue it has to many natural cycles to make judgements that way. I show the ENSO charts to prove that the current 13 years have been mainly la nina, but temperatures have not fallen and the period is still hotter than the decade with predominantly el ninos. I show skeptic scientists who have predicted cooling due to natural factors, but this has not occurred. This proves warming is occurring as it has overpowered natural factors. This has not been able to be explained away by your readers using any properly scientifically accepted theories and data. Is this why you are blocking me.

      [Since I've published over 700 of your comments, will you apologize for dishonestly suggesting I am blocking you? _Jo]
      [As as for the "pause" read my last comment again. Even if is still warming in the long term trend, the models are broken and the 300 years of warming does not correlate to CO2.- Jo]

      As to the repetition, I would say that 90% of your posters postings are based around those 3 themes so the repetition is all here.

      [You start and amplify these themes by posting 700 comments on exactly these points. That's why commenters get so angry. You drive threads off topic and into these inane repetitious channels. Jo]

      Obviously since I am using accepted sceince…

      [You don't know what science is. Logical fallacies are not "Science". - Jo]

      …and data my answers are not going to change. The posters will repeatedly not accept my answers and keep posting the same questions over and over and over again (Heywood especially but many others) Why are they not being moderated? If I have answered a question but asked it again how should I respond?

      [Stop taking the threads off topic and repeating errors and you won't get caught in the same loops. - Jo]

      So I have valid answers to all queries that clearly point to a consensus

      [Which means nothing in science... -Jo]

      and clearly answers why there is a pause,

      [Trenberth, Jones and Mann don't know why there is a pause, if you do, you should write to them, quick, they need you! -Jo]

      using previous periods is not proof of anything unless you can put forward measurements to show that natural factors were not the cause. Currently natural factors are not the cause, they can be measured and determined. That being the case, to promote delay and to not accept the science, for what I can presume are only ideological reasons, is not the right thing to do. There is more than enough evidence for concern and to justify action, until the science and the data start pointing the other way. The consequences are to severe.

      Obviously being moderated this might not (likely) be posted, but I hope you actually read it and think about it. My only motivation is my kids and they do not deserve the short shrift they are getting in regards to the future planet we are leaving them.

      [Your kids deserve better science - we're happy to help them have a future with less corruption, better reasoning, and based on evidence - Jo]


      Report this

      08

      • #

        Let’s get this straight. One point at a time (I will not approve other comments until this is resolved). You say I’m delaying things because of my ideology.

        This is why I’m a skeptic: The Evidence

        Explain how it’s an “ideological position” (with quotes from that article) or admit you were wrong to say that.


        Report this

        110

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          My Answer to the pause is basically that it is a global climate with many dips and pauses but with an undeniable long term trend that is up. The most likely natural variation for the current pause is ENSO and it is likely there is will be a sharp increase as ENSO turns around. Why is that not liely or unreasonable? My post was.

          Look at the following graph
          http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
          Notice the predominantly strong el ninos of the 1991 to 2000 decade.
          Now look at the 2001 to 2010 decade of predominantly neutral to weak el nino and strong la ninas. Now the global data set GISS has 2005 and 2010 as equal hottest years, can you see how much lower 2010 el nino is to your cherry picked year.

          Now look at the entire record of instrumental temperature data.
          http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

          Do you see the strong upward trend in the data for about the last 100 years, despite numerous ups and downs and pauses due to natural variations and cycles. Due to the strong natural cooling influences it is likely that the temps will go through another spurt as it always has in the last 100 years and catch up to the model. It has been there before.

          Where am I wrong in this? Mt understanding of research from McLean and others is that ENSO has a 7 month delay in effect.
          —-
          REPLY: Honest, this is desperately underinformed stuff Michael. Seriously. Please don’t waste my time with comments you have not thought through. How does the existence of a long term trend change a debate on a trend from 1996-2012? Nothing that happened in 1912 could affect data from the last 16 years. And if it does warm in 2014, that won’t affect the trend from 1996-2012. Try to be more disciplined. Please.


          Report this

          03

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          Michael, I don’t want to moderate you or block you. I want you to learn what our basic position is so you can argue at a level commenters will enjoy. I want debate, and I want people to point out where we might be wrong, but repeating logical fallacies is too basic a level. Perhaps I should write an FAQ? _Jo
          ———————————————————————–

          You still haven’t provided a working email address. You are now on the moderated list until you do

          I have not been dishonest about questioning my blocking.

          You’ve posted 700 comments repeating the same points many times. You have not been blocked. It’s dishonest to say you have.

          I have been told that my address is false as I have not responded but I have responded many times, and you have replied. I work, check when I can, the replies come into the hundreds, I will scroll through trying to pick up which ones applied to me. It is easy to miss individual ones, your email does not come in special, it just looks like it is from the list.

          Yes you work to but most of your posters do your work for you, I have many more responses to answer personally than you do.
          Wow. That is some delusional framework you are creating there. Or perhaps you don’t read my posts? -Jo

          My query above has been unable to be successfully answered with any firm science.

          What query? I suspect there is no answer anyone could give you… – Jo

          That is why they get angry, they cannot answer it. It is based on actual data and observations, not models. I attempt to be as polite as possible and I try to answer as much as possible, repetition comes from them asking me the same questions over and over and making the same complaints. Do you find Heywoods million questions on how much in deg c Australias emissions reductions will reduce temps? I don’t, it is not about one country or minute temps it is about global responsibility and consequences, thats what everybody is resonding to. Do you find blackadder throwing in vikings, without any references as an argument that disproves AGW? What about all the personal questions about why I have kids and drive a car? You say my questions are irrelevent to the science, do you ever question supporters?

          [Yes I do. I send emails to commenters privately. Theirs works. They respond before they write another 14 comments. - Jo]

          I am not sure what you are after now. Do you want me to go through point by point on your evidence list? Do you want it done on this thread or that one? Can you answer clearly where my logic above is wrong and prove it so that I can be secure in my childrens future?

          Read your emails before you write comments asking for answers I have sent you.
          PS No I don’t want to tutor you on any thread.
          Argument from authority is a logical fallacy known for 2300 years. It isn’t evidence about the climate.

          Jo


          Report this

          05

          • #
            Heywood

            “Do you find Heywoods million questions on how much in deg c Australias emissions reductions will reduce temps?”

            I don’t care how much you whinge, it is a valid question that requires an answer, or at least an estimate. You advocate a policy which costs $1.34+ Trillion dollars between now and 2050, but can’t even quantify what you get for that spend apart from the possible reduction of some emissions.


            Report this

            40

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          Explain how it’s an “ideological position” (with quotes from that article) or admit you were wrong to say that.

          Sure, I was wrong. You have a lot of science there. I think most of it is more down to interpretation and I believe the evidence and the science supports AGW. Nobody has been able to answer adequately my response to the pause. That is annoying me, to me the anger seems to be more designed to evade the question than any real justification for it. Only one poster has come up with any scientific argument, but it does not pan out in actual science as explained.

          It is also annoying me that many other posters are allowed to get away with very repetitive arguments that they post over and over but my answers, which do not change, are not. It is also annoying that I do try and stick to scientific arguments but I get irrelevant questions about my kids and how I run my life and judgements from people that don’t know me. I also get annoyed that I try to stay polite but right of the bat posters are openly hostile and pepper every post with insults and name twisting. Even though I was nice enough to change my name at admin request and stay consistent to avoid confusion.

          I like consistency, I am not getting it.


          Report this

          05

          • #

            Thanks. A small step forward. As soon as the big-oil cheque or government grant comes, I will employ moderators and we can provide the consistency we would all prefer. Some comments are less than ideal. I try to snip baseless insults, but don’t get them all. I have blocked at least three skeptics for being too repetitive.

            I would also like it if I could send you emails you could respond to in real time as do most of the other commenters.

            I’m not sure why you find “the pause” so gripping. Even if it were still warming, we know the models are broken (see the Hotspot and ARGO).

            While you feel no one has answered it, a week ago I put up a whole post on a peer reviewed paper by Hans Von Storch who not only agrees there was a pause but explains that the pause indicates that the models are 98% assured to be broken. This rather backs my theory that there is nothing anyone can say that will satisfy you. Von Storch is an IPCC author.
            You may claim the commenters have not converted you, but really, if an IPCC author can’t convince you, then who could?

            You can understand that commenters would feel angry when they do respond to you and you dismiss them for naive generic reasons like “because AGW is a theory that works” when I’ve posted hundreds of posts showing how it doesn’t. You don’t appear to know anything about the hotspot. There is a lot in my Index. See my post on IPCC Fifth report and their discussion of it.

            You assume that skeptics are running from an argument they can’t answer, when the truth is more likely they can’t be bothered, and expect you would never reconsider your position. But contrary to that, I see Manicbeancounter has gone to rather a lot of trouble.


            Report this

            40

            • #

              Jo, thanks for the compliment.
              The reason for pursuing this is not to debate against somebody who is unlikely to be persuaded, but because it can raise surprising points. By trying to understand a contrary point of view, you can get better understanding. Michael tried to rebut my contention of C20th warming being nothing special, by pointing to the Pages2K temperature reconstructions, that will underpin the forthcoming AR5 report. As Steve McIntyre pointed out in April, it contains a zombie version of the Gergis reconstruction for Australasia much discussed here in June last year.
              It pointed to an interesting paradox. In Europe and the Arctic, the proxies showed most of the C20th warming pre-1950, with little thereafter. But the zombie Gergis reconstruction has a big uptick post 1950, mostly due to the coral proxies. From the thermometers I believe that the further North you go in the Northern Hemisphere, the greater the C20th warming. Whereas in Australasia, particularly in the tropics, the warming was less than the global average. Also I believe what differentiates HADCRUT4 from HADCRUT3 is the way the later data set models this pattern into the Arctic Ocean. It is the sort of anomaly that should really excite empirical scientists.
              I have references in a comment here.


              Report this

              30

      • #
        Heywood the Novarian

        ” keep posting the same questions over and over and over again (Heywood especially but many others) “

        Mainly because you never answered the question. You didn’t even attempt to. I suppose it would be a little embarrassing to admit we are going to spend $1.34 Trillion by 2050 to offset a whole 0.0038 degrees C of warming by 2100.

        “Australia’s policy would knock 0.0038 degrees off the global temperature rise by 2100. Jones’s best estimate is that in those circumstances, global temperatures would rise by 4.7674 degrees. If Australia also did nothing, the temperature rise would be 4.7712 degrees.”

        Doctor Roger Jones of Victoria University (Convening Lead Author (CLA) on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Working Group II Fourth Assessment Report)


        Report this

        100

      • #
        Mark Hladik

        Since it is back up and running, M. t. R., look at the website www (dot) globalwarmingart (dot) com, and check out a few of the charts.

        Your claim, that the beginning of the 21st Century is warmer than it has ever been, is a complete non-starter for me. A quick glance at either “65 million years of climate CHANGE” or “Five Million Years of Climate CHANGE” will show you that the Holocene is about the coolest it has been in quite a long time. The Holocene, with all of its variations, is just a pause in the on-going Pleistocene Glacial Epoch.

        A little more hunting around (won’t take long), and you can find “Phanerozoic Carbon Dioxide” and “Phanerozoic Temperatures”. You’re the next person I have challenged to run a cross-correlation on the two time series (just R, and not R^2). Report your coefficient either on this thread, or to Jo, who will pass it along to me (since she has a valid e-mail address on me).

        Best Regards to all,

        Mark H.


        Report this

        30

  • #

    [...] There has been no statistically significant warming for at least 15 years. Yet some people, like commentator “Michael the Realist”, who is currently trolling Joanne Nova’s blog, are claiming otherwise. His full claims are as follows [...]


    Report this

    30

  • #

    [...] information with an open mind. This referred to Michael’s definition of “skeptic” here and my follow-up here. The definition he used [...]


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Anton

    “There is no joy in axing jobs of workers, albeit ones who should never have been employed in the first place.”

    Really? Watch my reaction… most of them have never had a proper wealth-creating job in their lives. Feel sorry for their dependants though.


    Report this

    00