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



New Lewandowsky study finds Uncertainty Monster under his bed, will cost billions

Get ready. Nowhere and nothing is safe. The Uncertainty Monster is here and it wants to raid your national finances.

In another stroke of tax-funded-insight, Stephan Lewandowsky has scientifically shown that the less we know, the more we should spend. This could be the perpetual-fountain-of-grants for scientists who discover Uncertainty. Sadly this is bad news for scientists who find something real instead.

Gone are the days when policy-makers try to do cost-benefit analysis on the factors we know and can measure. In a brave new world The Uncertainty Monster arrives in Monte Carlo and eats the Discount Rate. Common sense dissolves in a naked singularity, then Climatic Change publishes what’s left.

It’s not clear what effect this news will have on national climate science research budgets. Lewandowsky notes in Part I that: “…it is independent of the presumed magnitude of climate sensitivity.” This will come as a relief to modern climate scientists who have been actively failing to pin down climate sensitivity for nearly four decades. Now we know that it doesn’t matter what climate sensitivity is,  the answer is “money”.

Some critics warn that political leaders might use this new research as a reason to cancel all BOM and CSIRO climate funding. After all, it follows that better research that reduces uncertainty may also reduce the need for urgent action. Anyone who cares about the climate would surely not tolerate the risk.

Potentially The Uncertainty Monster implies that a disaster that is highly uncertain, but very unlikely, like, say, a Martian invasion, requires more urgent action than a disaster that is 99% likely but quite certain, like, say, national bankruptcy. It follows that accurate numbers are pointless, and the field of inquiry known as mathematics may be canceled too.

This new scientific philosophy will be a boon for researchers of asteroids and aliens — since their Uncertainty Monsters are potentially as large as The Universe, it follows that the budget should match. There are rumors Congress is now looking at aliens and asteroids anew, and will allocate 100% of the US national budget to both.

In other news the journal Climatic Change, formerly a peer reviewed journal, has announced it is remaking itself as a satirical outlet. The editor said: “There are so few true parody journals, and seriously, most real science is dry.  Naturally, don’t take anything we publish seriously again.”

Scientists unmask the climate uncertainty monster

Date: April 4, 2014
Source:University of Bristol
Summary:Increasing uncertainty in the climate system compels a greater urgency for climate change mitigation, according to new research. Scientists have shown that as uncertainty in the temperature increase expected with a doubling of carbon dioxide from pre-industrial levels rises, so do the economic damages of increased climate change. Greater uncertainty also increases the likelihood of exceeding ‘safe’ temperature limits and the probability of failing to reach mitigation targets. The authors highlight this with the case of future sea level, as larger uncertainty in sea level rise requires greater precautionary action to manage flood risk.

Scientific uncertainty has been described as a ‘monster’ that prevents understanding and delays mitigative action in response to climate change. New research by Professor Stephan Lewandowsky of the University of Bristol, and international colleagues, shows that uncertainty should make us more rather than less concerned about climate change.

In two companion papers, published today in Climatic Change, the researchers investigated the mathematics of uncertainty in the climate system and showed that increased scientific uncertainty necessitates even greater action to mitigate climate change.

The scientists used an ordinal approach — a range of mathematical methods that address the question: ‘What would the consequences be if uncertainty is even greater than we think it is?’

They show that as uncertainty in the temperature increase expected with a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels rises, so do the economic damages of increased climate change. Greater uncertainty also increases the likelihood of exceeding ‘safe’ temperature limits and the probability of failing to reach mitigation targets. The authors highlight this with the case of future sea level, as larger uncertainty in sea level rise requires greater precautionary action to manage flood risk.

Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, Chair in Cognitive Psychology and member of the Cabot Institute at the University of Bristol, said: “We can understand the implications of uncertainty, and in the case of the climate system, it is very clear that greater uncertainty will make things even worse. This means that we can never say that there is too much uncertainty for us to act. If you appeal to uncertainty to make a policy decision the legitimate conclusion is to increase the urgency of mitigation.”

Co-author, Dr James Risbey of Australia’s CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, said: “Some point to uncertainty as a way to minimize the climate change problem, when in fact it means that the problem is more likely to be worse than expected in the absence of that uncertainty. This result is robust to a range of assumptions and shows that uncertainty does not excuse inaction.”

These new findings challenge the frequent public misinterpretation of uncertainty as a reason to delay action. Arguing against mitigation by appealing to uncertainty is therefore misplaced: any appeal to uncertainty should provoke a greater, rather than weaker, concern about climate change than in the absence of uncertainty.

[Science Daily]

References

Stephan Lewandowsky, James S. Risbey, Michael Smithson, Ben R. Newell, John Hunter. Scientific uncertainty and climate change: Part I. Uncertainty and unabated emissions. Climatic Change, 2014; DOI: 10.1007/s10584-014-1082-7Stephan Lewandowsky, James S. Risbey, Michael Smithson, Ben R. Newell. Scientific uncertainty and climate change: Part II. Uncertainty and mitigation. Climatic Change, 2014; DOI: 10.1007/s10584-014-1083-6

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (92 votes cast)
New Lewandowsky study finds Uncertainty Monster under his bed, will cost billions, 9.3 out of 10 based on 92 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/p97s62f

204 comments to New Lewandowsky study finds Uncertainty Monster under his bed, will cost billions

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    The paper was obviously published three days too late.


    Report this

    300

  • #
    JohnRMcD

    I was about to suggest that you could not make this stuff up; then I realised that someone already had …


    Report this

    450

    • #
      Robert JM

      Its an episode of south park!


      Report this

      170

      • #
        Bill Johnston

        No, its CSIRO – this is what they do all day; they certainly need lots of money in order to study and pay to have papers published about how uncertainly useless they are; or should that be certainly un-useless. Hard concept.


        Report this

        20

    • #
      TimiBoy

      The only thing that needs mitigating is Lewandowsky. He is currently a font of UNmitigated bullstein.


      Report this

      91

    • #
      Colin Henderson

      I am very uncertain about these unknown unknowns.


      Report this

      90

      • #
        Truthseeker

        Just to make this clear for everyone, there are things we know we know, things that we know we don’t know, things that we don’t know we know and things we don’t know that we don’t know. We know Lewandowsky is [snip], what we don’t know is the gullibility of politicians to pay any credence to what he says.


        Report this

        160

        • #
          cohenite

          Exactly but despite all this uncertainty we’re certain things are going to get worse.

          This meme that uncertainty means things are going to get worse is not new with paper number 4 previously taking the cake for this stupidity:

          http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/another-10-of-the-worst-agw-papers-part-3/

          The paper says:

          The greater the uncertainty that is considered for radiative forcing, the more difficult it is to rule out high climate sensitivity, although low climate sensitivity (< 2°C) remains unlikely

          So here it is: AGW advocates including Lewandowsky, who now takes the cake for putting money values on uncertainty, don’t know what is going to happen but whatever is going to happen is going to make things worse.

          I’ve always wondered about subjective Bayesian analysis, if that is what Lewandowsky and his cohorts are doing, and this nonsense about uncertainty increasing certainty certainly vindicates that doubt.


          Report this

          90

          • #
            Bulldust

            I am pretty certain that uncertainty certainly doesn’t mean what they think it means.

            Apologies to Princess Bride…


            Report this

            60

            • #
              Bulldust

              I should clarify. I have spent a fair bit of time dabbling in stats both in college and outside in the real world. There’s some pretty twisted terms I am familiar with (heteroscedasticity anyone?) but I am certainly no stats expert.

              In my semi-layman’s terms I would say increasing uncertainty simply means you don’t really know what the outcome will be. It certainly doesn’t mean that the variance (a known value) has increased, which is what they imply in the arguments above.

              Variance measures the spread of potential outcomes above and below the expected (mean) outcome, while uncertainty does not. If they were stating variance was the reason for potentially worse outcomes I would have to agree (assuming the variance was known with a reasonable degree of certainty). But that isn’t what they are saying … they are saying teh uncertainty is high, or in other words, they don’t know what the outcomes will be. Hence the entire argument certainly degrades to the Precautionary Principle, which we know is fallcious.

              I certainly think I should stop before I start sounding like Sir Humphrey Appleby…


              Report this

              80

    • #
      Jon

      The focus of this paper is to “act now”, even if we do not know the problem or magnitude. The lesser we know the more we should act?

      http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Infinite_Improbability_Drive

      Could this be the basis for the infinite improbability drive?

      Or is this just the proof that what they really want and is dreaming off are just the “fruits” of political international action on a imaginary improbable problem?


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Jon

        “Then, one day, a student who had been left to sweep up after a particularly unsuccessful party found himself reasoning in this way: If, he thought to himself, such a machine is a virtual impossibility, it must have finite improbability. So all I have to do in order to make one is to work out how exactly improbable it is, feed that figure into the finite improbability generator, give it a fresh cup of really hot tea… and turn it on!

        He did this and was rather startled when he managed to create the long sought after golden Infinite Improbability generator. He was even more startled when just after he was awarded the Galactic Institute’s Prize for Extreme Cleverness he was lynched by a rampaging mob of respectable physicists who had realized that one thing they couldn’t stand was a smart-ass.”


        Report this

        60

  • #
    Yonniestone

    I am a bit uncertain of how much psychobabble crap these leeches can come up with, seriously anyone in an official position either politically or academically that accepts this insanity at this stage should be struck off to never be employed in their field again.

    [snip] the green leeches have bled us dry so name, shame and sack the lot of them then let’s move on to actually doing something useful to improve life on this planet.


    Report this

    342

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I am a bit uncertain of how much psychobabble …

      How uncertain are you? I mean, if you are very uncertain then the level of psychobabble is probably sufficient.

      But it you are only mildly uncertain, then we will need to get additional funding to increase the psychobabble to multiply the degree of uncertainty surrounding the amount of psychobabble.

      It is quiet easy really, once you get the hang of it.


      Report this

      430

    • #
      JohnM

      It sounds like just a rewording of the “precautionary principle”, which basically says even though we don’t know much about it we’re going to take action in case it hurts something. It’s the “catch-all” of the environment movement, which seems to think that the environment never changes and should never change.

      When I saw the words “Chair in Cognitive Psychology” I immediately thought that a word was missing – Commode.


      Report this

      60

    • #
      Allen Ford

      One thing I am very certain about is that they have been telling us for zonks that the science is settled. That being the case, how can they now say that they are uncertain?

      Are they now certain that the science is unsettled, or uncertain that the science is settled?

      This is all very unsettling!


      Report this

      70

      • #
        Gregg

        “Uncerteling”? Surely this if is a new field of scientific endeavour – pushing back the boundaries of knowledge, expanding spheres of ignorance, and all that – it should have its own lexicon and jargon?


        Report this

        20

  • #
    TdeF

    “We can understand the implications of uncertainty, and in the case of the climate system, it is very clear that greater uncertainty will make things even worse. This means that we can never say that there is too much uncertainty for us to act. If you appeal to uncertainty to make a policy decision the legitimate conclusion is to increase the urgency of mitigation.”

    So if uncertain, make stupid decisions faster? Then the more uncertain you are of the conclusion, the more imperative there is to act quickly?

    With profound philosophy like this, who needs the Three Stooges? Is this serious or is Lewandowsky really trying to make a fool of himself? If so, he is eminently successful.


    Report this

    440

    • #
      Ursus Augustus

      With greatest respect TdeF, when speaking of Lewandowsky and making a fool of himself one does not use the future or present tense as his foolish eminence is already well and truly established.

      That said, this latest bit of drivel is useful perhaps in that it outs his co-authors as either [snip or snip], IMHO, and it is always good to have the goss on these [snip] early rather than late.


      Report this

      173

    • #
      the Griss

      The Three Stooges….

      re-cast as Steph, Jimmie and Cookie.

      and nearly as slap-stick as the original :-)


      Report this

      92

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      ” it is very clear that greater uncertainty will make things even worse.” It could well be that it could make things even better. It’s uncertain you see. Who’d expect logic from Lew?


      Report this

      200

      • #
        Ian

        Agreed! Why does the uncertainty of temperatures (and sea levels) remaining stable or even falling not increase. This side of te coin is completely ignored by the authors presumably as it does not fit their narrative


        Report this

        140

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Ian you miss the point.

          We only think that there is some uncertainty regarding whether the weather is remaining stable in its instability, or not. But we cannot know for certain, so there remains uncertainty about the instability in our degree of uncertainty. Not only do we have Recursive Fury ™, we might also have Recursive Uncertainty ™, except that we cannot be sure for certain.

          I hope that makes things clearer?


          Report this

          120

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        I guess Lewandowsky has now answered Schrödinger’s cat paradox. The cat is dead.


        Report this

        40

    • #

      A completely liberal/leftist ideology creates these things (terms as used in US). In the eyes of the Left, “the seriousness of the charge” is what counts, not the actual guilt or innocence. The degree of uncertainty counts because you can frighten and manipulate based on whoever created the greatest fear with the least evidence. It’s all about emotion, bullying and lying to get one’s way and winning at any cost. It’s not about truth or science or anything resembling a noble cause. It’s selfish, mean and short-sighted. And it sells for while–until people get tired of running to save the little boy from the non-existent wolf. Fortunately, the invisible/non-existent wolf is wearing thin for most.


      Report this

      160

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    ” Stephan Lewandowsky has scientifically shown …” Adverb does not agree with subject.


    Report this

    130

    • #

      The whole article is tagged “Satire” for a reason. ;- )


      Report this

      240

      • #
        Kevin Lohse

        I’d never have guessed…..:)


        Report this

        60

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        Tag it as “Precautionary Principle” and move on.
        All the old PP counter-arguments apply.


        Report this

        50

        • #
          Robert JM

          The Precautionary principle is “Do not act without knowing the risks and consequences!”
          It is often confused with the idiot principle which is “act without thinking of the risks and consequence!”


          Report this

          190

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            That’s far too sensible, Robert. In the climate debate The Precautionary Principle refers to the IPCC’s definition, this part in particular:
            “… Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason to postpone such measures…”
            i.e. throw money at the problem anyway.


            Report this

            90

            • #
              Robert JM

              Yes, it proves you should not drive to work because you could die in a car accident.
              Never mind the essential things in life like eating!
              Better yet, never swallow anything in case you choke!
              Did I mention that precautionary principle and idiot principle were easily confused! :)


              Report this

              151

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        Who can tell these days? … [snip] that any totally irrational behavior is believable.


        Report this

        30

      • #
        Mindert Eiting

        Do you mean, Jo, that the AGW management has installed on several places of the earth notorious charlatans who should as super-trolls suck up all the time and energy of the leading klimate skeptics? Too conspirational?


        Report this

        40

        • #

          You don’t have to install trolls. They volunteer to post idiotic statements on blogs. True believers are like that–it’s what faith-based is very handy for. They believe, they evangelize and they will give anything for the cause. No conspiracy required. Just a bunch of sheeple who would rather follow than think. As for sucking up all the time, answering trolls takes far less time than a person who believes and can articulate their belief and the science. It take less time than researching new ideas. Nothing trolls do is new or original so no real challenge there.


          Report this

          40

  • #
    Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia

    Lewandowsky has had to destroy rational thought in order to save it.


    Report this

    190

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      What a package.

      Just getting past the name was hard, I had to read it 3 times, but the message did not disappoint either.

      KK :)


      Report this

      40

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        I didn’t know the origin of that phrase and had to look it up.
        It works on several levels.
        • The Utopian Socialist Agrarians were never under any direct threat from Climatnam, but they invaded anyway.
        • The Skeptic Cong have occupied Rational Thought and are dug in too heavily.
        • Some of the Utopian Socialist Agrarian soldiers have been conscripted to defend values in Climatnam that they don’t even have back home in Leftism (analogy… “civil rights for blacks” : “a plan for prosperity of future generations”).
        • The Skeptic Cong will eventually win while the Utopian Socialist Agrarians retreat into a hollow moral victory (“we were right to be worried”).


        Report this

        40

  • #
    Ursus Augustus

    Lewandowsky himself of course is the uncertainty monster speaking psychologically. This [snip] keeps coming up with the most bizarre contortions of thought to confect some new weapon in his [snip] jihad. In his little mind it must seem like he invents shock and awe all over again and lets it loose on the evil denier empire. The only real uncertainty is that no sane person could predict what he will conjure up next but one thing is for certain, it will be utterly ludicrous and utterly irrelevent to the actual science that explains the actual climate.


    Report this

    82

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    This is going to be one of those gifts that just keeps on giving.

    And, it is about now, that the University of Bristol discovers that the University of Western Australia forgot to include a Return Card.


    Report this

    220

  • #

    I really love this part:

    “In the remainder of this article we show that greater uncertainty about climate change implies a greater probability of adverse consequences.”

    So why are we wasting money on any scientific research? If we do not study anything, our uncertainty is obviously absolute (I’d call it ignorance), so anything we choose to believe must be 100% certain.

    HUH?!?!?


    Report this

    120

  • #
    diogenese2

    Jo, I hope you haven’t invested $80 of your “oil money” in purchasing more “Lew paper”. Read the last paragraph again.
    It clearly states the hypothesis that “concern” should be inversely proportional to “certainty” and the expression of concern, expenditure, in accordance. Therefore, as the science is settled, the uncertainty is Zero, as should be expenditure on “mitigation”.
    Lew et al have produced the best argument for “adaption” I could have thought of. Give him credit for his meteorological skills.
    “you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows”
    (Bob Dylan – Subterranean Homesick Blues)


    Report this

    50

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    There is little uncertainty amongst real scientists about the ongoing fraud that is Man Made Global Warming.

    The great driver of temperatures on Earth has always been the Sun and its proximity to Earth on cycles of various levels from the 24 hours to seasonal to 100,000 years.

    This understanding shows us that the big problem for Earth is not Global Warming but the reverse.

    At the moment we are in a very short warm interglacial time slot which may not last more than another few thousand years – if we are lucky.

    What will happen when say New York is once again under an ice sheet nearly a mile thick m (that’s 1500 metres for youngsters).

    Not really the sort of info that professor Lewandowsky would look at.

    KK

    Haven’t read this yet but may be interesting.

    http://www.personal.kent.edu/~jortiz/paleoceanography/broecker.pdf


    Report this

    80

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Having read the attached Broecker document it does point to the massive past influence of planetary orbital mechanics

      in producing alternating glaciations and the shorter, warmer interglacials which we are currently in.

      Despite the obvious strength of these effects he still gives a hat tip to the possibility that man made CO2 “could” prologue

      the current interglacial or even over-ride the next glaciation (fat chance).

      Maybe his funding depends on mentioning CAGW.

      KK


      Report this

      20

  • #
    ian hilliar

    Is that the ‘Sandra’ Cabot Institute ,at the University of Bristol? [snip]


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Peter Miller

    As a scientist, I will provide a detailed and considered response:

    Complete utter crap, only possible from a quasi-government bureaucrat determined to perpetuate and increase the already huge waste of financial resources spent on researching supposed ‘climate change.’

    Lots of real scientists read this blog, could I have a few peer review this comment


    Report this

    310

  • #
    llew Jones

    The only uncertainty is about the very real possibility that human CO2 emissions are in fact not feeding into the increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2. If in fact natural warming has been occurring since the IR then the increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2 is very likely a consequence of those natural factors.

    The fact that in the period of the most intense increase in fossil fuel emissions since the IR there has been no significant increase in global temperature, in those last 16 to 17 years of high emissions, is a powerful indicator that increasing CO2 levels in Earth’s atmosphere has run out of steam as a temperature driver. If in fact it ever has been such a driver post the IR.

    Which substantiates the claim that the only uncertainty is in the ability of our fossil fuel emissions to drive global temperature increases.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Robert JM

      Look up henry’s law.
      The partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere is controlled by the temp of the ocean. The bulk of the oceans is at 4 deg C resulting in 2% of CO2 in the atmosphere and 98%. For humans to double the CO2 in the system would take about 5000 years at our present rate of emission.

      It then becomes apparent that the rate of exchange between atmosphere and ocean determines if Humans can have a significant impact on CO2 levels.
      All the physicals studies show that turnover is about 10% per year (Rain systems are extremely effective at stripping CO2 from the atmosphere.) This means humans can only be responsible for about 20% of the increase which is why the alarmists made up some BS with their computer models that said Human CO2 hangs around for thousands of years.

      The increase is instead caused by the warming of the oceans that alters the partial pressure ratios between the atmosphere and ocean.
      What is interesting is the 800 year lag between temp and CO2, presumable from the compartmentalisation of the deep ocean with the THC transferring the temp effect 800 years into the future.
      You can probable thank the medieval warm period for the present upturn in plant food!


      Report this

      100

      • #
        Robert JM

        Sorry for the terrible spelling, I swear I hit preview rather than post!


        Report this

        40

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Nice outline.

        Warmers also do not like to have mentioned that terribly inconvenient process of Carbon Sequestration associated with plant growth.

        Like many chemical reactions, photosynthesis will only go as fast as the available ingredients allow.

        Additional CO2 allows upgrading of the rate of growth, which many papers have shown produces a corresponding adaptation of plant material mass within 7 years max. In plain English, the extra CO2, whether from man or volcanoes, is “neutralised” by natural processes well known to all school children.

        KK


        Report this

        50

  • #
    Hamburger_au

    I’m not sure, but I think Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, Chair in Cognitive Psychology and member of the Cabot Institute at the University of Bristol, meant to say : “We are uncertain of the implications of uncertainty, and in the case of the climate system, it is very uncertain if greater uncertainty will make things even more uncertain. I am uncertain if there is too much uncertainty for us to act. If you appeal to uncertainty to make a policy decision, I am uncertain if the legitimate conclusion is uncertain as to whether there will be an increase, or decrease, in the urgency of mitigation.”


    Report this

    90

  • #
    Jonathan Cook

    At risk of being accused of Conspiracy Ideation, Lewandowsky’s paper makes total sense if you consider that he might be a fellow traveller of the Pastafarian religion.

    Scientists have wasted decades and millions of research dollars. What Lewandowsky appears to recognise, is that every time scientists make a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. Thus it follows, that it is rational to embrace uncertainty and only uncertainty. Well done Stephan.

    More on Pastafarianims and the Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster here>>> http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Turtle of WA

    Time to start building those death-rays Delingpole talks about. You never know what could come out of the sky.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Rogueelement451

    Well just for a change The Guardian UK are not printing my responses to the ludicrous paper from Lewandowsky , pointing out the total logical failure of this piece of garbage science. I asked if He would like to do a similar piece on marital infidelity, since a large number of marriages end because of infidelity, at what point should I call the lawyers in? Well of course the natural reaction would be to await some sort of proof ,but that’s not good enough for the warmista ballerinas. Nope ,soon as you got that ring on her finger ,call the lawyers ,better to be safe than sorry eh?
    I realise it is a stupid analogy but it is only equally as stupid as the piece of junk printed in the Guardian.


    Report this

    140

  • #
    handjive

    I have a theory that the The Uncertainty Monster looks like a large jumping shark!


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Robert JM

    Not even Dilbert can make sense of this stuff!
    Hitch hikers guide to the galaxy on the other hand……


    Report this

    70

  • #
    diogenese2

    In passing – The Cabot Institute, Motto “Living with Environmental Uncertainty”, is named after a 15th century venetian John Cabot (anglicised name) commissioned by Henry VII in 1497 to explore NE America. He made 3 voyages from
    Bristol , the second discovering Newfoundland. The third expedition disappeared without trace up in the frozen north, the first of many over time, a tradition most recently honoured by Chris Turney.
    This seems an appropriate last academic resting place for Professor Lew.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    vic g gallus

    The scientists used an ordinal approach — a range of mathematical methods that address the question: ‘What would the consequences be if uncertainty is even greater than we think it is?’

    ƒ(µ)kt=iƒ(1,k)∩0ω


    Report this

    190

  • #
    thingadonta

    Comical Ali would have been taking notes of this.


    Report this

    30

  • #

    It does not read like satire here: http://esciencenews.com/articles/2014/04/05/scientists.unmask.climate.uncertainty.monster

    nor here: http://www.tgdaily.com/general-science-brief/91941-scientists-unmask-the-climate-uncertainty-monster

    If this is supposed to be satire, it’s not being understood. It may well be a test to see how stupid reporters and others are, but it’s failing at satire.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Winston

      Sheri,

      I think we have all grossly underestimated Prof Lew. It would appear that he is currently conducting a brilliantly constructed series of discrete trials to prove conclusively that alarmists are suffering from the most widespread and deeply held example of mass hysteria and delusion in global history.

      This takes the form of producing ever more illogical, ill-conceived and convoluted intellectual contortions that render logic and critical thinking skills not only superfluous, but utterly irrelevant. Eventually, these trials will take on the realm of fantasy and magic realism, with perhaps even elements of pagan mysticism and alchemy, yet the faithful will adhere no matter how preposterous, no matter how nonsensical or fantastic his “research” becomes.

      He will thereby prove conclusively that scientists are completely willing to abandon every pretension they ever had to objectivity, rationality and the scientific method in favour of blind faith and religious zeal, and for the comfort and security of acceptance by the group even when they are at the polar opposite of the truth.

      The Nobel Prize will be his to receive, having been able to demonstrate such a ground-breaking and unexpected finding in the area of cognitive behaviour research. Quite an achievement, and clever of him to disguise his true intent by hiding among the herd and observing and recording their behaviour like a modern day Dian Fossey.


      Report this

      90

      • #

        Winston–We could hope. :)


        Report this

        20

      • #
        ROM

        Winston
        April 8, 2014 at 12:15 am

        He will thereby prove conclusively that scientists are completely willing to abandon every pretension they ever had to objectivity, rationality and the scientific method in favour of blind faith and religious zeal, and for the comfort and security of acceptance by the group even when they are at the polar opposite of the truth.

        Lets take a more serious look at Lewendowsky’s attempts at what most would laughingly, sarcastically and scathingly call his attempts at “science”.

        1 / First up is that Lewendowsky’s attempts at some version of what he designates as science is merely an extreme, far out on the fringes, example of what regularly turns up at various times in most science disciplines.

        2 / The creation of the science watching, predominately lay person run blog sphere exemplified by JoNova , WUWT, NTZ the GWPF and numerous other science based blogs is now opening up science of every type and discipline to the public view and science consequently is having very large amounts of very dirty, sometimes nasty, sometimes just plain pathetic, formerly well hidden trash science exposed very publicly and openly for public perusal and judgement.
        A situation where science disciplines of every type have never really had to suffer this highly revealing public exposure of their faults, in-competencies and plain corruption, deliberate or inadvertent, of their science ever before.

        3 / The longer term consequences of this opening up to public exposure of science and the naked bigotry and biases plus plain stupidity of the likes of Lewendowsky’s contributions does a great deal to increase public disquiet, already on the rise, about the real motives and perhaps the absence of hard evidence to back the claimed science behind a lot of the public pronouncements of the supposed successes of science.

        4 / With the increasing volumes of highly self laudatory science announcements of new science and research successes all accompanied by some highly self laudatory personal profiles, much of science seems to be now taking on the same facets of gross publicity seeking as the publicity hungry new car salesman propaganda.
        Like any new model car propaganda, in much of today’s science publicity, much is promised for the money.
        Little and sometimes nothing is ultimately delivered despite the tax payer’s lavish funding

        The whole end result is that science and scientists are reluctantly and in many cases screamingly being brought down off their former very high profile positions on the prominent public pedestals that the science of the past was elevated too through it’s efforts unlike those of most of today’s science, to advance mankind’s well being , health and civilisation.

        Today science particularly climate and environmental science is increasingly being seen as a destructive force intent on winding back the advances of the past and making life harder, drearier , far less healthy, more deadly and far more miserable and restricted for all the citizens of the planet
        Western climate and environmental science are seemingly intent on destroying much of the advances in health, energy availability and civilisation generally that the world’s scientists of past decades have managed to achieve for our species.

        The spill over to this into all of the other science disciplines bodes ill for the future of much of today’s science. Unfortunately those other science disciplines seemingly are so isolated in their discipline’s ivory towered silos and so immersed in themselves that they have failed to contemplate the consequences in the public’s eyes if they allow climate and environmental science to continue on in their former corrupt and destructive of advances, modes of operation.

        Rather than a rewrite I will post a part of a post I entered on WUWT this morning in the Kilimanjaro headline post

        [quoted from my WUWT post ]

        “The true legacy of corrupt climate science is the very marked reduction in public respect for all of science and the suspicions by the public that many scientists across all disciplines are far from dedicated and pure in spirit scientists and are in science purely for the money and the prestige.

        And the unpredicted and surprising creation of a very large internet based science lay person run blogsphere dedicated to going over science of every type with a fine tooth comb looking for both the strengths and the weaknesses in particular of any science based claims across all of science’s disciplines.
        As the global warming debacle slowly dies those interested science blogging lay persons will switch their interests to other science disciplines and for many of those other science disciplines the exposure to the public and often forensic type examinations of the blog sphere will be traumatic and deeply disturbing to the status quo and most unwelcome but they will have to adapt or be revamped in a new modus operandi or it will be done for them and harshly.

        Science has a serious future shock awaiting it and will probably be changed forever as it now starts to come under a constant questioning surveillance from the science orientated sections of the lay person run blog sphere.
        Never again will science be allowed to operate in it’s own exclusive closed ivory tower isolated academic circles remote from and completely contemptuous of those little people down there who pay the increasingly onerous bills that science presents and which much of science has become convinced that it is science’s rights to have access to as much of the public wealth as it demands.

        As is said; “He who has the gold makes the Rules,”
        In this case it is the public and it’s tax money which science of every type now relies almost totally on for it’s very existence and that public is becoming increasingly disillusioned with the science of the recent past.”

        [ end ]

        All this thanks to today’s quite regular examples of sheer malevolence directed against specific skeptical groups and targets posted as supposed scientific papers by those who like Lewendowsky, call themselves scientists.


        Report this

        40

  • #
  • #
    Doubting Rich

    star comment
    They did, however, answer one question.

    “What do you get if you ask a psychologist to do difficult mathematics?”


    Report this

    200

  • #

    Now I am totally uncertain as to the state of the article, the “reality” thereof, which links have been linked to and which have not, but in the spirit of Lew’s work, the more uncertain I am, the more I must link and question and take action in whatever direction I am facing. This is sooooo confusing and uncertain. Wait, I feel another link or two coming on! :)


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Tim

    Did I get this right? Under the title of ‘Precautionary Action’, they can justify any amount of taxpayer money for any possible, highly unlikely, future catastrophic scenario that any wacky ‘futurist’ can invent for personal gain.

    Wonderful.I’ve got one. How about a paper on: ‘Atmospheric Geo engineering and the danger it poses to global populations in the advent of an Ice Age’. (I will have my solicitors get in touch regarding the grant.)


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Tim Hammond

    star comment
    The temperature increase and the consequent economic damage do not change no mater what the uncertainty is – they will be what they will be regardless of what we know or don’t know because they are controlled by various physical laws.

    And is he saying that as we approach certainty, does the temperature rise approach zero?

    Has this actually been published?


    Report this

    140

  • #
    Fox from Melbourne

    Lets see.
    A/ The less it happens the more we need to spend on it. Or you don’t get what you pay for approach.
    B/ The slower it happens the more urgently we need to address it. Or the fools rush in approach.
    C/ If its not happening the more we need to do to prepare for it and spend on preparing for it. Or the Alice in wonderland approach
    D/If we can’t screw you one way we’ll screw you the other way approach. Or your damned if you do and your damned if your don’t approach.

    Well looks like Lewandowsky and Co’s have all their imagery base’s covered this time. Sounds like if we aren’t certain about their (Lewandowsky and Co’s) sanity the more we must do and the sooner we need to do it to protected them from themselves and to protect us from them. After all the less we know about their sanity the more we need to do about it. Isn’t that the very point of Lewandowsky’s and Co’s new paper? Isn’t it?


    Report this

    90

  • #
    Robert of Ottawa

    We should pay more to know less!


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Robert of Ottawa

    Now, if the Australian government was very certain that global warming was a hoax, then it would not need to spend any money on it. Is this the meaning?


    Report this

    30

    • #

      Maybe? But aren’t they certain it is not a hoax and they still spend money? Perhaps reading Lew will motivate them to stop spending? (What does Lew’s study say about consensus? If there’s consensus, then there’s certainty and we should do less because we are more certain. Oh, profound on his part. Now, let’s see if it can be sold to the AGW crowd.)


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Tim

      The government must retain the significant number of voters who have swallowed the CAGW hook. They need to play the ‘concerned green global citizens’ game to keep these sheeple’s votes. It’s a ploy.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Backslider

    I’m not sure if I should cross the road…. QUICK, RUN!!!…………..SPLAT!!!!


    Report this

    60

  • #
    RoyFOMR

    The year is 1939 and the dark clouds of war threaten the future of our planet. 97% of western politicians support the school of Axis Appeasement and spend enormous amounts of public money on War Mitigation measures.
    Defensive structures are demolished at enormous expense so as not to antagonize certain foreign powers, large tracts of arable land are transferred to the growing of decorative flowers that are transported in endless ‘Peace in our time’ convoys to Berlin and Tokyo.
    The world cannot possibly endure another Great War for it would surely lead to the demise of our very existence. No expense can be spared, no effort can be untried and no dissent will be allowed.
    There are those who pretend there is another way and openly state that Appeasement must be balanced by Adaptation in case our best efforts at peace should fail.
    Luckily, for us all, these war-mongering, anti-peace contrarians are a tiny minority of aged and cantankerous individuals who see conspiracy everywhere.
    Mr W.S.Churchill is one of the most notorious of these policy-deniers and will not be judged well by posterity.
    He, and his ilk, should be shunned by polite society and his opinions, he has no facts, must be silenced in public.


    Report this

    50

    • #
      diogenese2

      nice parody but actually from 1938 to 1939 UK defence expenditure rose 68% to £642m .Chamberlains “scrap of paper” bought time before the inevitable. “Appeasement”, like “mitigation”, was always going to fail, however it placated the strong pacifist movement who were not far wrong.
      WW2 nearly did “lead to the demise of our very existence”. However “peace” DID fail and only those who could adapt (and see it coming) survived. I only did because the 3rd V1 flying bomb to reach London (June 1944)landed next door. Bad luck Adolf missed by 10 metres!
      The beauty of “adaption” means the “annexe 1″ nations can promise the third world any support needed in any “climate change” event. This will be the deal in Paris 2015.


      Report this

      40

      • #
        Kevin Lohse

        Hi. Ref, “adaptation”. I’m not certain I want the likely government at Paris 2015 to be handing a blank cheque to people who don’t actually like us very much. A little more circumspection would be nice.


        Report this

        30

      • #
        RoyFOMR

        Thanks for the acknowledgement of parody, Diogenese2, I hesitated for ages before making that post.
        But, I do feel that, however inexpertly I put it, I needed to make the point about how similar the circumstances of the pre-war are to todays opinions about AGW.
        I was slightly miffed that you corrected me about my misunderstandings of the financial situation in 1939 but I think I’ll recover and be a better person for being pulled up for my mistake.
        As for that miss by a V1 can I just add my words.
        Wow. Just Wow.
        Thank you, Sir.


        Report this

        20

        • #
          diogenese2

          you weren’t far out, the trauma of WW1 spawned a deep pacifism which “denied” reality. It probably lead to the fall of France. Set about 1934 your parody is pretty pointed. The French DID spend a fortune on a useless defence line. Military development in the UK WAS allowed to stall. These WERE Churchills “wilderness years”. By 1941 the war was over (with some bother in north Africa), the UK had survived and Hitler looked east instead.


          Report this

          10

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            diogenese2

            British Military spending picked up from 1933. By 1938 it had increased so much that the Treasury was worried about the outflow.

            The difficulty for the British is that they spent a lot of the funds building a vast bureaucracy. The Navy had definite plans which were slightly wrong. Unfortunately there had been disagreement with the Air Force for 18 years over naval air power, leading to many Admirals thinking planes were no threats. They also underestimated the submarine threat. All in all they were the best prepared and most professional service.

            The Army was starved of funds until 1938. There was huge in-fighting by various groups about control e.g. the artillery insisted on their own design 4 wheel drive vehicles. The anti-aircraft people would never allow their 3.7 inch guns to be used as anti-tank weapons, something the Germans could not understand. The first 25 pounders were WW1 18 pounders bored out and wire wrapped. They never got a suitable tank into service until the end of the war.

            The Air Force spent money like water building all sorts of planes which you’ve never heard of which obstructing those that were worthwhile. It seems that they outspent the Luftwaffe. They tried to cancel the Spitfire twice. The Hurricane was built in defiance of their order. Neither the Lancaster nor the Halifax were official, they wanted the Stirling, the Botha and the Albemarle. The Mosquito certainly wasn’t welcomed until it proved so much better than anything officialdom could come up with. The Swordfish remained in service until 1945 despite it being obsolete in 1936, but there was nothing better despite several attempts.

            SO when people assume that a very large Government Department, or a number of them, are the way to “solve” a problem I become very sceptical.


            Report this

            20

  • #
    Craig Loehle

    There is a term for people who become more anxious and fearful of things they can’t prove won’t happen: paranoia. The normal person discounts unlikely events because life is too busy even if you only deal with the probable things. I have known people who would not leave their house because of anxiety attacks that something bad might happen, and of course you can not prove to them that something bad won’t happen because it MIGHT indeed happen. This type of logic is paralyzing. It reminds me of the joke in the Woody Allen movie where the mom takes her 11 yr old son to the shrink because he is depressed, and the kid says what is the point of doing homework, because in 4 billion years the sun will burn out.


    Report this

    40

    • #

      Paranoia is the belief people are out to get you. What you are describing is an anxiety disorder–agoraphobia probably. Peope with OCD will behave that way to. Yes, it is paralyzing. Most people do not get to this level, but if the media and science continue to pummel people with irrational studies about things that may or may not happen (may is now “proof” in science–it means it will, not that there is any doubt, or at least that is what you are supposed to hear) people will start reacting to the “threats” in much the same way. For people with the anxiety disorder, if they can learn that bad things don’t happen when they go out or don’t follow their OCD routine, they can begin heal. For the rest of us, some strong education in proper risk assessment and scientific methods would go a long way.


      Report this

      40

      • #
        Backslider

        Paranoia is the belief people are out to get you.

        Better break out the Glocks and RPGs huh?


        Report this

        10

        • #

          Don’t own a Glock (don’t like them) and don’t own an RPG–too much paperwork. Guess I could break out the firehose an fend ‘em off.


          Report this

          20

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          No, no. If you are serious about being paranoid, you gotta go with the Heckler & Koch HK416 A5-11. Owning a weapon like that, has the effect of making everybody around you just as paranoid as you are, thereby redefining “normal”, and resolving your problem.

          I have been paying close attention to Lew’s methods, and have learnt a thing or two.


          Report this

          70

          • #

            I guess I’m not serious enough about being paranoid. Not much for rifles–though as a weapon designed to make everyone around me paranoid the Heckler & Koch HK416 A5-11 an excellent choice. Probably not where I live, but I can see it working elsewhere. (We’re all armed fringe lunatics according to Backslider.)

            You do learn fast! Not everyone would have picked that up as quickly as you did!


            Report this

            20

            • #
              Backslider

              We’re all armed fringe lunatics according to Backslider.

              I never said that at all.

              So, what is your weapon of choice Sheri?


              Report this

              10

              • #

                Previous thread: “I think not Sheri. You would be classed by the mainstream as a fringe lunatic.” “you are on the fringe of society” “It’s about the fact that you are a fringe dwelling extremist.”
                Technically, you only said fringe of society and fringe dwelling extremist, while using the mainstream as the ones who would call me a “fringe lunatic”.

                Your question on what my weapon of choice is and comment about breaking out RPGs and Glocks indicate you believe I am armed.

                I cannot tell you what my choice of arms is–otherwise it would not be a surprise.


                Report this

                21

              • #
                Backslider

                Yes, but that is not “we’re all”, is it?


                Report this

                10

              • #

                “We’re all” applies to my neighborhood and friends who hold the same values. So yeah, folllowing “Not in my neighborhood”, it is we’re all. Now, I have a life a better things to do than endlessl yanswer an idiot that can’t speak English, read or produce a cogent argument. So have a nice, idiotic life and bother someone else with your endless stupidity, nit picking etc. You are not that important. IN fact, I don’t care at all what you write–it’s without thought. So, poor, sad, thought-free troll, goodbye.


                Report this

                11

        • #
          Gregg

          Just because you’re not paranoid, it doesn’t mean that we’re not all out to get you. ;)


          Report this

          20

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        Sheri, I realise that you don’t live in Nevada, but what can you tell us about Cliven Bundy and his son Ryan? What is the BLM?
        How accurate is this? Or is it over exaggeration?


        Report this

        00

        • #

          The BLM is the Bureau of Land Management.
          Like a lot of other things coming up now, people who have been at odds with the government for years “suddenly” are “under attack”. Same thing came up a few weeks back with a family in Wyoming that ignored an EPA notice to stop building a pond and restore the land to it’s original state. This was on going for 2 years and NOW they decide to get upset and call the media. This is a 20 year thing–and mostly a guy trying to “stand up to the government” while actually it appears he just wants his way and is ignoring the law. Also, range “wars” are an ongoing problem and always will be.
          It is interesting to note that President Bush, not Obama as most would think, expanded the “First Amendment Zones”. My guess is to be able to concentrate people in areas where they could be managed after the 9/11 bombings. There have been some court tests and the zones are controversial.
          As for the second article, I would say it’s an exaggeration. Yes, all the restaurants and office supply stores have shut down many stores, Buffet moved businesses overseas (I would note Congress won’t interrogate him like they did Apple for moving things offshore to avoid taxes–he donates too much money to Obama and liberals) but this is true virtually all the time. Listing the closings makes it look worse. I check a website that lists closings frequently and they really haven’t changed. The “everything Obama and the feds say is a lie” is pretty much accurate. Numbers are made up, they want unemployment pay extended again, but then claim the recession is over. You can’t believe anything. How angry are people? About like they usually are, though there is a very uncivil tone right now in the US. Roy H. would probably disagree with me on that part–he might agree with the article. How much farther the Feds go in trying to take over will matter. It’s hard to say. We have an election in November and if the Republicans don’t win the House and Senate, it could get a bit ugly.
          One last note: The “snipers” taking positions. While some claims were made that the Bundy’s were not armed, I find it unlikely that ranchers are out checking the herd without a rifle or shotgun. It sounds like over-reacting, but this guy has refused to recognize the government as having legal authority over him and he’s out in the middle of nowhere being confronted. I don’t consider it unreasonable.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Rod Stuart

            Thanks Sheri
            I knew you would have rational view of the situation.
            I never heard of Hannity, but since you mentioned the name I watched a segment on Fox News today.
            The reaction of the Feds in Nevada in this case seems to me to be ‘way over the top with the number of armed agents involved. It smacks of A21, although , as you say, perhaps it is just a rancher annoyed that he has been getting away with something for twenty years.
            Still, I find it alarming that the NOAA required 96 armed agents. Are they planning to fight “climate change” with an arsenal?


            Report this

            00

            • #

              Not necessarily defending the BLM, but confronting a guy that does not recognize the authority of the government generally requires a lot of armed people. The reason laws work is most people respect them. If being a federal agent is deemed to make you the enemy, you go in armed. I’d do the same thing. (Also, those huge errors in judgement at Ruby Ridge Idaho and Waco toned down their tendancy to shoot people. A good thing.)

              A couple of things on the armed agents of NOAA. First, are they actually proficient with the weapons, or are they just carrying and hoping to intimidate? I don’t know, but law enforcement officers are often not very good with guns. Tongue-in-cheeck response would be they fear the “d*’s” and think some individuals will come after them. If the government has started to fear its citizenry, a sign they are definitely not governing “for the people”, they would start handing out guns to all federal employees. I’m not saying that’s happening, but it’s possible. On the up side, there are over 300 million registered weapons in the citizenry and who know how many that are not registered. 96 armed agents is really not that scary. (Interesting side note to gun owners: Ammo for .22 caliber weapons is now in short supply. Why? I have no idea…..)


              Report this

              00

        • #

          My explanation is in moderation! It’s hard to explain certain aspects of life in the USA without landing in moderation. It will show up, I’m sure!


          Report this

          00

        • #

          I heard today that Mr. Bundy will be on Shaun Hannity tonight. Apparently Mr. Bundy is good at getting attention and Hannity will sucker for any story about the government picking on the little guy. (I do like Hannity in most things, but he is very quick to jump to conclusions on some things.)


          Report this

          00

  • #
    janama

    Surely the time has come to cease giving this stupid man the limelight and attention he obviously craves. Let’s just ignore him and hope he goes away.


    Report this

    40

  • #

    Given that the earth is more likely to be cooling rather than warming for the next several hundred years and that the uncertainty lies in the timing and amount of the coming cooling-following Lewandowsky’s mad logic we should simultaneously be taking action to mitigate both being fried and frozen. To people of normal intelligence this is obviously batty and Lewandowsky and co should be gently led away by people in white coats to some quiet spot where they can babble away at each other in peace.
    However we should note that this seeming lunatic policy is already the actual policy of the UK government which is subsidizing windmills to theoretically reduce CO2 while at the same time giving favoured industries energy cost rebates to enable them to produce more CO2.
    For 20 years or so the inmates have been in charge of the asylum and the British people in general seem not to notice or care.


    Report this

    70

    • #

      For an estimate of the timing and extent of the coming cooling using the 60 and 1000 year quasi- periodicities in the temperature data and the neutron count and 10Be data as the best proxy for solar “activity” see
      http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com


      Report this

      40

      • #
        Robert JM

        We should have another couple hundred years of warming to go on the 1Ky cycle if you take the little Ice age as the bottom. We are about to get the cool phase of the 60 year PDO and 180 year solar though.


        Report this

        20

    • #
      ROM

      DR Norman Page
      April 8, 2014 at 1:54 am ·

      Re windmills and even my eyes popped a bit at this but it seems that in even in the heart of the catastrophic global warming belief in Europe, for wind and solar the “End is Nigh”.

      Financial Post

      Lawrence Solomon: North America slow to reverse renewables projects, but its turn will come soon

      Europe taught us to spare no expense in supporting wind and solar projects, the better to help the planet survive. Now Europe is teaching us how to tear down those same projects, the better to help ratepayers, and politicians, survive.
      UK Prime Minister “David Cameron wants to go into the next election pledging to ‘rid’ the countryside of onshore wind farms,” the London Telegraph announced this week. He intends “to toughen planning laws and tear up subsidy rules to make current turbines financially unviable – allowing the government to ‘eradicate’ turbines,” the goal being to “encourage developers to start ‘dismantling’ turbines built in recent years.”

      Cameron will have no shortage of methods in taking down the now-unpopular wind turbines — in recent years countries throughout Europe, realizing that renewables delivered none of their environmental promises, have been systematically cutting their losses by ditching their renewable commitments. Here’s Spain, unilaterally rewriting renewable energy contracts to save its treasury. And France, slashing by 20% the “guaranteed” rate offered solar producers. And Belgium, where producers saw their revenues slashed by as much as 79%. And Italy and others, which clawed back through taxes the gross profits that renewables companies large and small were raking in at the expense of average citizens and the economy as a whole.

      North America has been slow in systematically recognizing the damage wrought by renewable megaprojects but its turn will come soon enough, possibly among the 30 U.S. states with onerous renewable mandates, possibly among the Canadian provinces. No citizenry would more benefit from reversing the wind and solar gravy train than Ontario’s: Its developers have received up to 20 times the market rate of power, leading to a tripling of power rates and a gutting of the province’s industrial base, and helping to turn Ontario into a have-not province.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    Ron C.

    All psychologists know that the best defense is to accuse your opponent of being defnsive.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Ron C.

    Sorry, spelling.

    All psychologists know that the best defense is to accuse your opponent of being defensive.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Manfred

    The Lewandowsky-Risbey Law of Uncertainty (synonym: Lews Law).

    This means that we can never say that there is too much uncertainty for us to act…….

    ….when in fact it means that the problem is more likely to be worse than expected in the absence of that uncertainty.

    Lews Law confabulates around the precautionary principle elevating ignorance to new heights.

    Bristol University should exercise Lews Law to prevent catastrophic damage to its institutional reputation.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    timothy sorenson

    It seems to me a symmetric, or dual argument can be used paralleling his topic that would show that increases uncertainity will cause increased profits from ….


    Report this

    10

  • #
    timothy sorenson

    I suspect these guys are using some modified form of expected value.
    On the 95% confidence interval they average their associated cost curve. Ignoring the rest.
    Now with a larger confidence interval they put exorbitant values on the high end of the interval
    and low values on the other end. If those average to more than the original estimate on the original
    95% confidence interval then “things are worse when we know less conclusion” is forced by the choice
    of the cost curve.

    E.F. They claim 5 foot rise is within the large uncertainty range, they then put a multi-trillion dollar cost for that and hence the expected value is over the range of uncertainty is massively higher now.

    I won’t pay to read it buy I would be willing to bet that is the basis of their analysis when I finally get to see the paper.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Stuart Elliot

    So Dr. Lew, how much do we have to spend on grants and subsidies before we can be confident the weather will be nice?

    Does the amount already spent figure in to the calculations?


    Report this

    30

  • #
    markx

    More evidence that Lewandowsky should never be allowed near a stats package.

    Talk about stating the bleeding obvious; of course greater uncertainty means there is some chance your outcome may be worse (or better) than the outcomes predicted from a narrower band of uncertainty, given the same mean. How you calculate meaningful differences in economic outcomes from that point is a whole other issue.

    Lew shares with Mann that inestimable skill of writing densely packed, seemingly articulate, but actually extremely impenetrable obtuse prose. And goes by the motto “Never use a hundred words when a thousand will suffice”.

    Sometimes it even kind of looks like science at a quick glance.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Fred Allen

    Lololololololol! Story at 10: “97% of climate scientists are increasingly uncertain of the outcome of global warming, but they know it’s going to be BAD! There’s nothing wrong with the science of global warming. It’s the projections that the professional climatologists are uncertain about, but whether it’s +9C by the end of the century, or -9C by the end of the century doesn’t matter. Global warming is a fact.”

    Another goal post in the process of being moved. In other words, Lew and his rabble know something’s happening to the climate and they know it’s going to be bad. They need to buy more time for the fingerprint of CO2 to become apparent. Bwaahahahaha! When do the recriminatory court cases begin to change these alarmists with public (purse) intoxication?


    Report this

    30

  • #
  • #

    The way to really understand someone’s argument, it to see it from their perspective.

    The Real Lewandowskyesque argument.
    1. Catastrophic climate change is a fundamental truth.
    2. This is caused by the depraved free market system.
    3. Climate mitigation policies will inevitably create a new socialist/environmentalist Scientocratic dictatorship.

    The task of climate science is to reveal that truth to the world. Any proclamations that throw doubt on the fundamental truth are a priori false. Any person who doubts the fundamental truth is a denier of that truth. This might be due to being are blinded by false ideologies, be delusional conspiracy theorists, or paid to lie by vested interests.
    Failure to assess that truth with any accuracy, mean that adaptation to the consequences of unmitigated climate change will be greater than if they could be. It does not detract from the fundamental truth one iota.

    Anyone got a better explanation for Lewandowsky’s “scientific” work? In normal science, failure of theories to correspond to the observed outcomes means that the theory is wrong. In Lewandowsky’s world it observed reality that is wrong, or the people’s faulty perceptions.


    Report this

    90

    • #
      Peter Miller

      Be comforted by the fact that Lew has a bunch of students who are the sons and daughters of the internet and thus access the internet every day and the analyses and opinions expressed on it.

      Lew has to stand up in front of these young agile minds, knowing that he knows that they know he is trying to teach them complete and utter crap.

      Imagine pontificating in front of a bunch of students, who mostly have contempt for you and everything you say you stand for. Not a good thought.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    pat

    hmmm!

    4 April:NewsInEnglishNorway: Critics attack oil fund plans
    Finance Minister Siv Jensen’s plans to change the management of the country’s huge sovereign wealth fund, announced on Friday, quickly met a torrent of criticism. Critics argued that disbanding the ethical council would reduce independence and transparency, and that the new plan does nothing to safeguard human rights or encourage more environmentally investments…
    The government outlined plans on Friday to disband an ethics committee advising on responsible investments, saying ethical decision making would be stronger and more effective if handled by the one unit…
    Some claimed the changes may consolidate too much power with the central bank, while others bemoan the absence of firm plans to diversify the fund’s investments away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy.

    ***Jensen’s own sister, Nina Jensen, who heads the environmental organization WWF in Norway, claimed the government had completely “broken its promise” last month of using the Oil Fund as a means of trying to help halt climate change…

    UN warned against moves…
    Virginia Gomes from the United Nations (UN) Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was among those who remained unconvinced. “I see no reason to close down the ethics council,” she told news bureau NTB. “It is the ethics council that will ensure awareness of human rights violations. What advantage would the state have from this?”
    Gomes said reduced openness could lead to less debate over the fund and the human rights aspects of the investments. “You could then experience a lack of trust from the public,” she warned. “I therefore see no reason for Norway to go down this path.”…

    Calls for greener investments
    The environmental movement said it would hold the government to making the oil fund greener, with more investment in renewable energy and sustainable companies, and more projects in poor countries.
    Various organizations called for a separate mandate for renewable energy investment, more funds into infrastructure facilitating production and distribution of green energy, and an expert group to review the fund’s investments in coal, gas and oil.
    The head of the World Wildlife Fund’s international climate and energy arm, Samantha Smith, said the Norwegian oil fund should follow Denmark’s lead. Renewable energy infrastructure makes up more than five percent of Denmark’s portfolio. “The oil fund is the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund,” she told Dagsavisen. “It can set a standard for others. The world currently invests more than 1,000 billion dollars in new coal, oil and gas projects, on top of the existing infrastructure. Only a quarter of that sum is invested in renewable energy.”
    Norway’s sovereign wealth fund investments include stock, bonds and real estate across more than 8,000 companies in 82 countries. Its market value has made it the biggest sovereign wealth fund in the world.
    http://www.newsinenglish.no/2014/04/04/critics-attack-oil-fund-plans/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neville

    Coalition now ahead in latest Newspoll. Bill Shorten continues to sink.
    But wait until the R/Comm into his AWU and Martin Ferguson’s and other revalations.

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


    Report this

    20

    • #
      DT

      At Michael Smith News website a radio discussion with Bob Kernohan about his meeting with a Royal Commission QC and others regarding the involvement of now Leader of the Opposition Bill Shorten in the AWU slush fund matter that Victoria Police are also investigating regarding the involvement of former PM Gillard, her ex boyfriend Wilson and his former mate Blewitt who has become a police witness.

      The end days of the corrupt union movement and players?


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Hamburger_au

    It seems to me that the uncertainty that the professor talks about is caused by his assumption that climate models are accurate and that, because they are able to predict the temperature changes less and less, the temperature is unpredictable …..if he left the models out of the picture and relied on empirical evidence the temperatures each year become more and more predictable as trends and patterns develop ….

    Aldo he places high regard in the notion that uncertainty is something that needs to be dealt with as though uncertainty was a problem – we live each day of our lives with uncertainty – the fundamental uncertainty of our own continuing existence for example


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Hot under the collar

    I always suspected from the results that Lewandowsky must be smoking some very strong weed when doing his ‘research’, he must have been watching “Monsters Inc” at the same time during this one.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    NINE EPISODES!!!!!!!!!!!!! OH NOOOOOOO:

    CBS: Face the Nation Transcripts April 6, 2014: … Friedman, Cullen
    (SCROLL DOWN – PAGE 2) BOB SCHIEFFER: We’ll be back in one minute to talk about one of the most serious problems facing the world today, climate change…
    The unusual seems to be the norm these days with the weather, which bring us to the best-selling author of Hot, Flat, and Crowded, our friend, New York Timescolumnist Tom Friedman and Heidi Cullen, who is the chief climatologist at Climate Central. And they are here today because they’re both involved in our partner Showtime’s new documentary on climate change. It is called Years of Living Dangerously. Tom, this is a multipart series. You take part in one of the episodes. What’s the bottom line here? What did you all find out?
    THOMAS FRIEDMAN: Well, Bob, it’s actually a nine part series. And people can watch the first one tomorrow, actually, on YouTube, YearsOfLivingDangerously.com, get it for free. For me, it’s been really the most remarkable documentary project I’ve ever been involved with. I’m looking at the environmental and climate stresses in the Middle East.
    So I actually go to Syria and show how the drought in Syria is connected to the revolution. Get to go to Yemen, look at the first city in the world that may run out of water. And then Egypt to look how climate stresses were involved in the revolution there. Participating in the series, you know, we have Arnold Schwarzenegger, Matt Damon, Harrison Ford, Don Cheadle, Mark Bittman. Lesley Stahl from CBS. Remarkable group of people. The whole idea is to bring this home to personal stories. And it does amazingly effectively…
    HEIDI CULLEN: Well, you know, I think the series meshes very nicely with the I.P.C.C. reports, which have just come out. They basically show conclusively that climate change is very real. We’re experiencing it right now. And that it is manmade, that is primarily caused by the burning of fossil fuels, oil, coal, natural gas. And we’re already feeling the pain from it, right?…
    BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, help me with this. For example, the recent storms we’ve had, the thing that hit New Jersey, with Sandy and all of that. Is that the cause of global warming, the cause of climate change?…
    THOMAS FRIEDMAN: Let me put it in personal terms. So your son or daughter has a disease. And you go to a hundred doctors. 97% of them, 97 of a 100 say, “This is the cause and this is the cure.” And 3% say, “This is the cause. This is the cure.” That’s what it is on the climate science. 97% of experts say this. 3% say that. And conservatives are saying, “I’m gonna go with the 3%.” That’s not conservative. That’s Trotskyite radical, okay? That you would go with the 3% not the 97%.
    To pick up on something that Heidi said, I actually don’t like to use the term “global warming.” Because that sounds so cuddly. To a Minnesota, Bob, that sounds like golf in February. I much prefer the term “global wierding”, okay? …
    HEIDI CULLEN: We need to really move towards making this a nonpartisan issue here in the States. And there’s a great scene, actually, in the Years project, where Bob Inglas, former Republican congressman fro South Carolina, sits down with Michael Grimm, a Republican from Staten Island, where I grew up. Grimm has been dealing with the awful impacts of Sandy. And Inglas says to him, “You know what? I’m Republican. And I believe in climate change. You’ve just been through a terrible experience, where you’ve seen your community ravaged by, in part, climate change. Maybe it’s time to rethink this. You know, the Chinese certainly didn’t treat this as a partisan issue.” And I think that’s really the direction that we need to move in….
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-the-nation-transcripts-april-6-2014-pfeiffer-mccaul-friedman-cullen/


    Report this

    00

    • #

      I had to turn my TV off to avoid throwing a brick. How these people lie day after day after day is beyond me. No ethics or humanity whatsoever.

      That idiot example of a doctor again–if you had ulcers, 99% of doctors said stress caused them and made you eat really bland, tasteless food. Then, suddenly, one brave guy stood up and swallowed a bacteria culture and dang it all, the 99% we not right. Then there was the “take hormones after menopause” and “thalidmide is great for morning sickness” etc. There’s the people who go in for a physical, pass with flying colors and die the next day. If 97% of doctors said we needed to go back to blood letting because it was effective and the models say it will work for sure, or at least 95% certainty, are you going for bloodletting? Or, as I have asked others, if your oncologist says 97% of oncologists have looked at this model and it’s been peer-reviewed, would you eat daisies and marigolds for a year to cure your cancer?


      Report this

      50

  • #
    hunter

    Since it is uncertain if Dr. Lewandowsky is schizophrenic, so he must not only be medicated heavily, he needs shock therapy as well, just because it is uncertain. And if the uncertainty lingers much longer, a lobotomy must be considered.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Dave N

    Brace yourselves for fellow alarmists (Cook at the front of the line) actually attempting to defend Lew’s position. It might actually be good in a way, as it may be the final nail in their respective coffins.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    BilB

    I’m pleased that you have highlighted this issue, Jo.

    You should shut this website down immediately and stop creating uncertainty.

    “Jo Nova” is, potentially, costing us all billions of dollars.

    At a time when the world needs certainty in the face of a Global Threat websites such as this which are based on intentionally misreadings of the scientific information can only be seen as maliciously constructed to create confusion probably to protect some perception of a vested interest.
    [Gosh. I am one of the moderators here, and I had no idea we were so influential. Billions of dollars, you say? Wow! Plus, there is a Global Threat (with capital letters and everything), fancy that. And what is more, there are these mysterious vested interests, that need to be protected. This is seriously delusional stuff. -Fly]


    Report this

    09

    • #

      So tell me Bilb, with so many billions and the future of life on Earth depending on it, why do you keep the evidence secret? I’ve been asking since Jan 2010…

      PS: “maliciously”? “vested interest”? Since you can’t win a free and fair debate you have to chuck the hate bomb. You are going to be so embarrassed when you find out I’m right, and I’m doing this for all the right reasons.


      Report this

      100

      • #
        Heywood

        Seriously Jo, I don’t know how you remain so patient with BilB. He is clearly just a climate activist and enviro-loon and has little interest in actually contributing to discussion. Perhaps we should name him ‘The Magpie’ because he sits back sharpening his beak, swoops in with an inane comment and buggers of back to his perch until his opponent turns their back again.


        Report this

        30

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          Perhaps it’s the same reason that samples of Bubonic Plague and Anthrax are kept under lock and key instead of being completely destroyed.
          We can learn from it.


          Report this

          50

        • #
          Truthseeker

          Heywood,

          With your magpie analogy you forget all of the sh!t that BilB leaves behind …


          Report this

          20

        • #
          Rod Stuart

          Joanne tries very hard to rehabilitate trolls. She might yet bring Bilb around.
          Unfortunately, I suspect it is a lost cause, as he seems just as dense as MTR.
          On another note, I had a peek at MTR’s blog a while ago and she may have made an impact.
          At one time he had a statement explaining “Why I know I’m right”.
          Now he has a little caveat that he might be wrong after all.
          Perhaps Jo planted some doubt in his little mind?


          Report this

          10

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          … I don’t know how you remain so patient with BilB

          Me neither, except that he obviously keeps the moderators amused.


          Report this

          10

      • #
        BilB

        Jo, I would be only too pleased for you to be right. I would desperately like to be wrong and eat humble pie for a very long time, as that prospect is infinitely better than the alternative. Consider the reverse from your perspective, I doubt that a humble pie diet would satisfy your critics.


        Report this

        07

        • #

          Bilb, I could change my conclusions at a moments notice, and I wouldn’t even need to eat humble pie.

          If evidence finally arrives which supports the theory of man-made climate change I will change my mind (again), and bear no shame, not even remotely for calling it according to the best evidence available to me at the time.

          Why you hide the evidence still beats me.


          Report this

          70

          • #
            BilB

            Jo, it is you who are hiding the evidence. I put up a number of very definitive links with reference to average temperatures, ocean temperatures, the not missing “hot spot”, etc, and you did not release them. That is your choice not mine.


            Report this

            06

            • #

              BilB, I have gone out of my way to release anything that was reasonable. I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to. Feel free to post again. It would be really big news if you have found something.

              But I suspect you’ve posted generic big IPCC refs that you think are “big news” (and which I’ve already linked to and discussed myself).


              Report this

              30

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          BilB, You are asking Jo to prove a negative, which is a logical fallacy.

          Jo, and several others, have been asking for the raw data and evidence for a long time now, in accord with a long-established scientific process. But for some reason, that only they know, the climate change fraternity have refused to release the raw data and evidence it to anybody. Instead, they only provide pre-processed intermediary data, and without any description on how it was preprocessed – something they call “adjustments” – and a definitive conclusion without any falsification criteria being mentioned.

          This is not the way that science is normally done in other disciplines, and so it casts a shadow of distrust over the whole process.

          If people can’t be honest in providing what is being asked for, most rational people would question why, and rightly so.

          It is not for Jo to show they are wrong. It is for the climate change fraternity to demonstrate that their conclusions are correct, and consistent, beyond all reasonable doubt. They can only do that by releasing their material for formal and informal review.

          If they do that, then their findings will be generally accepted, at least for a time, until somebody smarter than they, can come up with, and demonstrate, a better explanation.


          Report this

          20

          • #

            Excellent, Rereke. It is very depressing that climate science has so damaged the discipline that was science that skeptics are forced to constantly explain how the scientific method works and what proving a negative is. Thirty years ago, had a student been foolish enough to write a paper and then demand the professor prove the paper was wrong, his academic future would have been very dim. Now, by demanding the impossible, the con men of climate change use smoke and mirrors to hide their errors and convince people that “science has changed” or “you don’t understand the scientific method”. Of course, if you ask them to prove ghosts don’t exist, usually they huff off because their argument now works against them. The same result occurs substituting UFOs, unicorns, anything. It really is sad what these individuals have done to science in the name of fear and money-grubbing.


            Report this

            20

    • #
      James Bradley

      Bilb,

      “I’m pleased that you have highlighted this issue, Jo.

      You should shut this website down immediately and stop creating uncertainty.”

      If that happened you would have no platform at all and no further reason to exist.


      Report this

      10

    • #
      hunter

      Please tell me BilB is doing a parody of an ignorant eco-fascist twit.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      markx

      Apparently Bilby skipped his stats classes as well (Out the back smoking with Lew, were we?)

      Uncertainty in the context discussed has a certain statistical meaning. It is pretty hard to ‘create’.

      Or were you just trying to be funny? Apologies if that’s the case. :-)


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Pete of Perth

    The movie will be a cracker. Hope Carbon Kate lands the title role.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    I have harboured a theory for about forty years of which I am now dead certain. About that long ago I was reading about the Club of Rome, Budapest, Barcelona etc. and the Council on Foreign Relations and someone suggested that if it were the case that a cabal of bankers and the Illuminati are going to complete the creation of a one world government, then the only rational choice would be to join them and make hay while the sun still shines.

    My theory is that people such as Karoly, Cook, English, Lewandowsky, McKibbin, etc. have done exactly that. Now Lew’s new improbability drive, proves beyond any doubt that this is mathematically true.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    pat

    7 April: NYT Dot Earth: Andrew C. Revkin: Showtime Series Aims to Engage Sleepy Public on Global Warming With Celebrity Guides
    Early in 2011, two longtime 60 Minutes producers, David Gelber and Joel Bach, met with me to describe their ambitious plan to create a television series on global warming that, they hoped, would break through the enduring public apathy and haze of disinformation surrounding the subject. I wished them luck, while warning that the scale and complexity of the problem would make it hard to be both engaging and accurate.
    The first of nine episodes of the resulting series, “Years of Living Dangerously,” will run on Showtime Sunday night but can be seen on YouTube now (noted via Joe Romm, who is one of two chief science advisers on the production, the other being Heidi Cullen):..
    It remains to be seen whether the series draws a substantial and sustained audience, but the Showtime team, at least in episode one, deserves plaudits …
    Footnote | * Another Times columnist, Mark Bittman, is among those appearing in later episodes.
    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/07/showtime-series-aims-to-engage-sleepy-public-on-climate-change-with-celebrity-guides/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    7 April: Guardian: Nafeez Ahmed: Leaked IPCC climate plan to worsen global warming – ecologists
    Critics say bioenergy, carbon capture, among draft report’s ‘false solutions’ to sustain business as usual economics
    A British environmental organisation that has reviewed the draft of a forthcoming UN IPCC report on mitigating climate change has questioned many of the document’s recommendations as deeply flawed.
    Dr Rachel Smolker, co-director of Biofuelwatch, said that the report’s embrace of “largely untested” and “very risky” technologies like bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration (BECCS), will “exacerbate” climate change, agricultural problems, water scarcity, soil erosion and energy challenges, “rather than improving them.”…
    Dr Smolker, a behavioural ecologist and biofuels expert, said that the alarming impacts of climate change identified by the IPCC’s Working Groups 1 and 2 would “worsen” as a consequence of such “false solutions” which have been increasingly criticised in the scientific literature…
    Currently, just under 40% of US corn production is dedicated to ethanol although it provides just “a pittance of transport energy.” The large areas of land required for meaningful bioenergy production means it would simultaneously undermine food production while contributing to “escalating food prices.” Although the IPCC proposes bioenergy as the solution to renewable energy, “it can never provide more than a tiny fraction towards the current and projected growth in demand for energy.” …
    Dr Smolker of Biofuelwatch, in contrast, said that the IPCC’s central emphasis on biofuels with carbon capture is a “dangerous distraction” from the task of “deeply altering our entire relationship to energy consumption.” She highlighted an unwillingness to recognise the “fundamental link between ‘endless growth economics’ and ecological destruction.” …ETC ETC ETC
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/apr/07/ipcc-un-climate-change-mitigation-wg3-worsen-geoengineering


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    ***”Limiting reports to 1,000 pages or fewer”? fewer by 1,000 would be nice:

    7 April: Scientific American: Climatewire: Do U.N. Climate Change Reports Need to Change?
    After the latest round of IPCC climate reports, some scientists are calling for a more streamlined process.
    On Friday, David Griggs, a professor and director of the Monash Sustainability Institute at Australia’s Monash University, who has been involved in the last three IPCC reports, was the latest to weigh in with a proposal for reconfiguring the IPCC.
    The comment, published in the journal Nature, addresses the burden the IPCC places on scientists, who volunteer their time, and the frequency of the reports.
    Griggs argues for publishing shorter, less frequent reports, every 10 years, pointing out that the past three science reports from Working Group I have lengthened from 410 pages to 881 pages to 1,535 pages with the report released late last year.
    ***”Limiting reports to 1,000 pages or fewer would save time, reduce workloads and make the reports more readable and focused,” he writes.
    In between, the panel could release brief, targeted reports addressing “fast-moving areas of science,” Griggs writes.
    On that idea, Griggs appears to have widespread support from others in the community…
    Would compensation help?
    Like Griggs, Trenberth sees scientist burnout as a problem.
    But while Griggs suggests paying scientists as a way to compensate them for the effort, UCS’s Frumhoff does not see that as a solution.
    “I don’t think compensation will matter. There won’t be enough compensation to truly compensate for the time. There just won’t. People won’t do this for the money, nor should they,” Frumhoff said…
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-un-climate-change-reports-need-to-change/


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Bulldust

    O/T but great to see the rare pro-fossil fuels article to slip into the ABC Drum:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-08/pearson-coal-the-answer-to-energy-poverty/5371462

    Watch the ferals shout and scream for coal-fired electricity to be banned from under-developed countries, resulting in needless deaths due to indoor wood fires for heat, light and cooking.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    pat

    6 April: UK Telegraph: The game is up for climate change believers
    Charles Moore reviews The Age of Global Warming by Rupert Darwall (Quartet)
    The theory of global warming is a gigantic weather forecast for a century or more. However interesting the scientific inquiries involved, therefore, it can have almost no value as a prediction. Yet it is as a prediction that global warming (or, as we are now ordered to call it in the face of a stubbornly parky 21st century, “global weirding”) has captured the political and bureaucratic elites. All the action plans, taxes, green levies, protocols and carbon-emitting flights to massive summit meetings, after all, are not because of what its supporters call “The Science” …
    ***(SEE NEXT LINK)Some of the utterances of the warmists are preposterously specific…
    Like most of those on both sides of the debate, Rupert Darwall is not a scientist. He is a wonderfully lucid historian of intellectual and political movements, which is just the job to explain what has been inflicted on us over the past 30 years or so in the name of saving the planet…
    The final push, brilliantly described here by Darwall, was the Copenhagen Summit of 2009. Before it, a desperate Gordon Brown warned of “50 days to avoid catastrophe”, but the “catastrophe” came all the same. The warmists’ idea was that the global fight against carbon emissions would work only if the whole world signed up to it. Despite being ordered to by President Obama, who had just collected his Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, the developing countries refused. The Left-wing dream that what used to be called the Third World would finally be emancipated from Western power had come true. The developing countries were perfectly happy for the West to have “the green crap”, but not to have it themselves. The Western goody-goodies were hoist by their own petard…
    Scientists, Rupert Darwall complains, have been too ready to embrace the “subjectivity” of the future, and too often have a “cultural aversion to learning from the past”. If they read this tremendous book they will see those lessons set out with painful clarity.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/non_fictionreviews/10748667/The-game-is-up-for-climate-change-believers.html
    (Charles Moore has been editor of The Spectator (1984-90), the Sunday Telegraph (1992-5) and The Daily Telegraph (1995-2003). He is the authorised biographer of Margaret Thatcher and continues to write for The Spectator and The Daily Telegraph.)

    Rebecca gets specific:

    7 April: UK Guardian: Rebecca Solnit: Call climate change what it is: violence
    Social unrest and famine, superstorms and droughts. Places, species and human beings – none will be spared. Welcome to Occupy Earth
    So if we want to talk about violence and climate change – and we are talking about it, after last week’s horrifying report from the world’s top climate scientists – then let’s talk about climate change as violence. Rather than worrying about whether ordinary human beings will react turbulently to the destruction of the very means of their survival, let’s worry about that destruction – and their survival. Of course water failure, crop failure, flooding and more will lead to mass migration and climate refugees – they already have – and this will lead to conflict. Those conflicts are being set in motion now…
    In every arena, we need to look at industrial-scale and systemic violence, not just the hands-on violence of the less powerful. When it comes to climate change, this is particularly true. Exxon has decided to bet that we can’t make the corporation keep its reserves in the ground, and the company is reassuring its investors that it will continue to profit off the rapid, violent and intentional destruction of the Earth…
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/07/climate-change-violence-occupy-earth
    (Rebecca Solnit is a writer and cultural historian whose work has appeared in Harper’s, TomDispatch, The Nation and other publications. She is the author of numerous books about art, landscape, public and collective life, ecology, politics, hope, meandering, reverie and memory.)


    Report this

    20

  • #
    pat

    ***CAGW in a nutshell:

    8 April: Guardian: Kari Mathieson: Defining moments in climate change: hope and crisis in Copenhagen
    From ‘Hopenhagen’ to ‘suicide pact’ for developing nations, Cop 15 has gone down as a failure in international cooperation
    Michele de Nevers, was attached to the World Bank delegation. She says the lack of an overarching agreement made setting a carbon price impossible. “Whether it was a high price or a low price didn’t matter as much as the fact that there would be an agreement on what the reduction of emissions was going to be … which would make all of these carbon markets for climate finance kick in functionally.”
    ***De Nevers says the $100bn per year pledged for developing countries would have been “very easy to reach” had the world had a functioning carbon market…
    Editors note: What are the conferences, speeches, reports, partnerships or rifts that have defined the climate change movement? Email Holly Young to contribute to our new series on defining movements – holly.young@theguardian.com
    http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2014/apr/07/copenhagen-climate-change-paris-talks


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    AUDIO: 7 April: Radio Australia: Climate change optimism after Cartagena Dialogue in Majuro
    The Cartagena Dialogue climate talks have wrapped up in Majuro, with optimism that world leaders will work together towards new climate objectives in lieu of the UN Climate Summit in New York this September.
    Holding talks in a place like Marshall Islands allows delegates to see for themselves the damaging effects of rising sea levels.
    Editor of the Marshall Islands Journal Giff Johnson says this in-person contact has been key to changing attitudes to climate change.
    Presenter: Richard Ewart
    Speaker: Giff Johnson, editor of the Marshall Islands Journal.
    http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/radio/program/pacific-beat/climate-change-optimism-after-cartagena-dialogue-in-majuro/1291452

    7 April: Guardian: Patrick Barkham: Endangered butterfly defies climate change with new diet and habitat
    Quino checkerspot, native to Mexico and California, shifts to higher altitude and chooses new species of plant for laying eggs
    Its rapid adaption offers hope that other insects and species may be able to adapt unexpectedly quickly to climate change…
    Several other butterfly species have been changing habitat or diet to cope with a changing climate but the quino checkerspot is the first butterfly known to science to change both so rapidly.
    Many environmentalists fear that climate change is happening too quickly for species to adapt but, according to Parmesan, this surprising example shows that some apparently doomed species may be more resilient than we imagine…
    But the international symposium also heard strong scientific evidence that climate change will create more losers than winners because unspoilt habitat is so fragmented, preventing many butterflies, moths and other insects from moving to more suitable places. Tom Oliver of the Centre for Hydrology and Ecology told the symposium that scientific modelling predicted a number of UK butterfly extinctions by the middle of this century.
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/07/endangered-butterfly-species-defies-climate-change-quino-checkerspot


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    the CAGW jokes keep rolling (or whatever they do in the digital age) off the press today:

    7 April: Washington Post Blog: Erik Wemple: Study: Fox News botches climate-change coverage
    The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has put together an awful pie chart for Fox News:…
    Even more pointedly, it cited “The Five” co-host Greg Gutfeld for alleging that there’d been a “pause in global warming over 15 years now.” Indeed there’s been a slowdown in the rate of warming dating back to 1998, but the UCS report faults Gutfeld and others on Fox News’s air for having “omitted references to long-term trends in rising temperatures and [failing to] discuss other markers of climate change, such as rising seas or melting glaciers (NASA 2013; Nuccitelli 2013).”…
    “Although Fox discussed climate change most often, the tone of its coverage was disproportionately dismissive,” says the study by four professors, two from George Mason University, the others from Yale and American University. They wrote, “Fox broadcasts were more likely to include statements that challenged the scientific agreement on climate change, undermined the reality of climate change, and questioned its human causes.”…
    Writes Gutfeld about that assessment of Fox News’s coverage: “Yikes! Fox challenged, undermined and questioned! To the gallows! That quote, right there, shows you that tolerance is not deemed necessary if you reformat the game board so anyone who questions the basic assumptions is disqualified from playing.”
    Expect the results of the UCS thing to get some rotation today on “The Five,” particularly since it more or less applauds the other networks (CNN, 70 percent accurate; MSNBC, 92 percent accurate) in their coverage of the topic area…
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/04/07/study-fox-news-botches-climate-change-coverage/


    Report this

    10

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      the tone of its coverage was disproportionately dismissive

      That is called good journalism. But leftists are unfamiliar with that idea.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    pat

    7 April: WSJ: Paul H. Tice: How Climate Change Conquered the American Campus
    The top-paying job for grads last year: petroleum engineer, at $97,000. Yet most colleges seem oddly uninterested.
    Here is a college quiz. While many parts of the U.S. economy struggle to recover from the Great Recession of 2008-09, one domestic industry is experiencing a technology-driven expansion in which American innovations have led to countless new company startups, a surge in hiring and some of the highest-paying entry-level jobs for graduating college seniors.
    How are the nation’s universities responding so students might prepare for a promising career in this growing and intellectually challenging field? By largely ignoring it. Why? Because the industry is oil and gas.
    This fact may surprise the casual campus observer, since almost every U.S. college these days seems to have an energy research institute. Most of these energy think-tanks, however, are run by academic advocates of theories about global warming and man-made climate change, most of whom view energy through green-colored lenses…
    For some of these programs, the agenda is obvious and stated in bold print over the door. Names such as the Yale Climate & Energy Institute and the Princeton Center for Energy and the Environment make clear that the study of energy needs to be chaperoned and monitored. The labeling is less obvious for others, but the result is the same. Visit the websites of the neutrally named Cornell Energy Institute, MIT Energy Initiative and Penn Center for Energy Innovation, and you would think you were looking at algore.com…
    My alma mater, Columbia University, recently launched its own Center on Global Energy Policy, with the mission to “improve the quality of energy policy and energy dialogue through objective, balanced and understandable analysis.” The center is headed by Jason Bordoff, former senior director for energy and climate change on the staff of the National Security Council in the Obama administration, who is on record calling for carbon caps and immediate government action to drive down greenhouse-gas emissions. So much for balance…
    More troubling is how this ideological bias filters into the college curriculum, both through the content of introductory natural science courses required of all students and the choice of majors and specialty electives offered by technical undergraduate schools…
    (Mr. Tice works in investment management and is a former Wall Street energy-research analyst.)
    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304441304579481200046204022?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304441304579481200046204022.html


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    semantics will kill CAGW:

    7 April: Thomson Reuters Foundation: Megan Rowling: Has climate change adaptation lost its way?
    What do these efforts have in common, beyond targeting the rising impacts of climate change? According to researchers writing in the U.S. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) two years ago, they are all examples of what is called “transformational adaptation”…
    “Transformational adaptation” is needed when the familiar approach of “doing slightly more of what is already being done to deal with natural variation in climate and with extreme events” just isn’t enough to address larger climate risks and vulnerabilities, the experts wrote in the PNAS article.
    In recent days, the word “transform” has been flying around in climate circles. The summary of the new report on climate impacts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) notes: “Transformations in economic, social, technological, and political decisions and actions can enable climate-resilient pathways.” I’ll come back to that in a bit…
    The head of the U.N. climate secretariat, Christiana Figueres, described the IPCC report as “a tale of two futures – one of inaction and degradation of our environment, our economies, and our social fabric. The other (aims) to seize the moment and the opportunities for managing climate change risks and making transformational change that catalyses more adaptive and resilient societies where new technologies and ways of living open the door to a myriad of health, prosperity and job-generating benefits.”
    U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon also chimed in, calling for “transformative collective action to reduce emissions rapidly enough to limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, and to strengthen resilience to the many climate impacts that are already occurring or are bound to happen”.
    What does all this talk about transformation mean?…
    LOSING ITS SPUNK
    “Adaptation was always meant to be transformational but it somehow lost its edge; it lost its spunk and it became just another term for development,” she tells me.
    When aid agencies, the United Nations and other multilateral institutions got their hands on adaptation a decade or more ago, they started shaping it into something that would be palatable to their staff and their funders. “The revolutionary part of it – that we have to really make a huge change – has fallen out of the way,” laments Schipper (Lisa Schipper, an adaptation expert and associate with the Stockholm Environmnent Institute)…
    In that case, and given the stark warnings about what will happen if we don’t cut greenhouse gas emissions harder and faster, it’s probably a good thing that the concept of “transformational adaptation” is worming its way off the pages of academic journals and into the real world.
    Still, it didn’t get a particularly warm reception when it cropped up in the draft summary of the IPCC report, presented to policy makers for approval in Yokohama, Japan, at the end of last month.
    Saleemul Huq, an IPCC coordinating leader author who was there, describes it as “one of the more debatable issues”. Governments weren’t familiar with it, and haggled over its definition, says the director of the Bangladesh-based International Centre for Climate Change and Development.
    In the end, the phrase didn’t survive in the final version of the summary, partly due to opposition from some South American nations. Not only that, a new sentence about transformations helping societies become more resilient to climate change was qualified by an additional line: “At the national level, transformation is considered most effective when it reflects a country’s own visions and approaches to achieving sustainable development in accordance with their national circumstances and priorities.”…
    Whatever that might mean in practice, it certainly reflects a level of political discomfort with the idea of “transformational adaptation”. “I think the concern is that there might be some kind of requirement for countries to change in a certain way,” says SEI’s Schipper. “They don’t want to have any kind of formula imposed on them for how they have to transform.”
    ‘A BIT TOO FLUFFY’
    “(Transformational adaptation) comes across as a bit too fluffy, a bit too idealistic, hippy-like … but it signals that we may need bigger shifts and we should practically think about those bigger shifts and include them in our range of options,” says Maarten van Aalst, director of the Red Cross/Red Crescent Climate Centre and an IPCC lead author.
    Aalst says that in his view, transformational adaptation is not about striving for some kind of “Let’s all be happy” green utopia. It includes practical things such as a fledgling Red Cross mechanism to deliver upfront aid money before a disaster happens, based on weather forecasts and early warning indicators like river poles that measure rising waters in Togo…
    Despite the general rhetoric that climate adaptation is advancing, Schipper fears it’s going nowhere fast.
    “We’ve got our wheels in the sand and we’re spinning out all these new phrases and new concepts and ideas and new policy documents, but I don’t know if we are actually progressing,” she sighs…
    http://www.trust.org/item/20140407082859-tus25/?source=hpblogs

    re the writer:

    (from Guardian profile: Megan Rowling is a journalist for the humanitarian news website Reuters AlertNet, covering aid and climate change issues. She has worked as a freelance reporter in Britain, France and Japan for Reuters, the BBC and various newspapers, as well as in communications for the British Red Cross. She has a Masters degree in development management)


    Report this

    10

  • #

    What a joke – if you have no information, your tail end risk stretches to infinity. Better order in the garlic, in case there are vampires about.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Alexander K

    My old Psych prof used to chuckle that ‘Psychotics create castles in the air and psychologists collect the rent!’


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Peter Bobroff

    Co-author Michael Smithson has a blog, “ignorance and uncertainty”,
    http://ignoranceanduncertainty.wordpress.com/

    He is:
    Professor
    Deputy Director
    Graduate Program Convenor

    at:
    Research School of Psychology
    ANU College of Medicine, Biology & Environment


    Report this

    01

  • #
    Bulldust

    For all those championing Clive Palmer (which I assume is very few readers here), this is an illuminating stat:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/optional-voting-for-parttime-clive-palmer/story-fn59niix-1226877289991#
    (use Google if paywalled)

    He has missed voting on all but three of the divisions out of 21 since being eligible for Parliament. Nice job representing the electorate mate….

    Of the independents and minor party members, next worst was Katter (missing only 7 of 21) and best was Wilkie missing only one. Say what you like about Wilkie but he is the genuine article.

    I have been warning people about the cut of his jib, but it seems to fall on deaf ears. I imagine he will get bored quickly and not bother running next time and just ‘manage’ his senators from outside Parliament.


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      I voted for Clive, on the principle that Labour and Greens hated him so much. And I wanted to hurt them as much as possible myself. At least I succeed in my aimed objective. What Clive does now, I never cared about.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    NoFixedAddress

    It really is time that we addressed what we are prepared to pay Universities to research and teach.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    ***Henbury a flop, but Ms Kiely is given plenty of space to claim otherwise, as the final word in this article; in fact, given abc has reported most of this previously, it would seem the only purpose of this piece is to promote carbon farming!

    7 April: ABC: Carbon farming a flop at Henbury Station
    Even proponents of carbon farming say the experiment with the station nearly dragged down the entire industry, writes Cathy Pryor…
    Tracey Hayes, acting CEO of the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association, says she will be pleased to see the property returned to its original pastoral use. According to Ms Hayes, the industry was disappointed that it had not been consulted by the government when it decided to push for the property to be used for conservation purposes. She said there was also ‘a lot of head scratching’ over $9 million of taxpayers money had been used to fund the purchase.
    Ms Hayes says she wasn’t surprised the property is now being marketed as a cattle station. She said destocking the property has seen losses of $4 million to $5 million in the region as well as flow on social impacts on a local community that was heavily reliant on the station’s operation…
    ***Louisa Kiely, principal of Carbon Farmers of Australia, an organisation that has been advising farmers about the potential of carbon farming since 2006, remains hopeful that whoever buys Henbury Station could still utilise carbon sequestration techniques as well as run cattle on the property. She believes Henbury Station was a badly thought out experiment that was ‘totally perplexing’ but it should not be held up as a failure for carbon farming overall.
    Ms Kiely says that when the Henbury Station plan was devised in 2011, there were no effective carbon farming methodologies and no way to claim carbon credits.
    She says the controversy nearly destroyed the fledgling carbon farming industry: ‘If I can put it very bluntly, we are very lucky it didn’t stall things for a very long time.’
    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bushtelegraph/carbon-farming-a-flop-at-henbury-station/5368014


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    is sanity returning?

    8 April: Australian: Matt Chambers: BHP seeks approval for largest underground coal mine
    BHP Billiton is planning to build what would be the nation’s biggest underground coal mine near Gunnedah in the fertile Liverpool Plains region of northern New South Wales.
    The miner has submitted documents to the Federal Environment Department revealing plans for its Caroona underground mine saying it could export 10 million tonnes per year of high quality thermal coal with production starting as early as 2021.
    BHP said the mine, which is facing significant community opposition, would run for 30 years and employ up to 400 people operating it…
    At peak construction, 600 workers would employed.
    The documents kickstart the environmental approval process for the mine, which is yet to be approved by the company or governments.
    Opposition to the mine has been around its impact on the region’s water.
    BHP said the mine plan showed the mining would not affect the region’s agricultural activity.
    “The preliminary environmental studies undertaken for the Gateway submission indicate that the proposed underground mine will not impact the alluvial irrigation aquifers essential for agricultural production in the area,” BHP’s NSW thermal coal asset president Peter Sharpe said.
    The documents say construction of the first stage would take three years…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/bhp-seeks-approval-for-largest-underground-coal-mine/story-e6frg9df-1226877986419


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    graphicconception

    I can’t really see why you are all complaining. It’s obvious:

    The less certain you are that the crowded theatre is going up in smoke the greater the need to shout: “Fire!”

    /sarc, just in case …


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Can I get away with wishing the “monster” would eat Lewandowsky? ;-)

    Is there no end?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Skiphil

    Not only does the Lewandowsky et al. approach to “uncertainty” (his most recent two papers) give them carte blanche to spend trillions of dollars in re-shaping the world to their preferences, but they have previously announced that they aim at …. “Shaping” …. “Tomorrow’s” …. “World” …. (that is the very title of their blog):

    http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/

    So what skeptic could possibly be sufficiently grandiose in “conspiracy ideation” to deal with people who have already announced their explicit intentions to (re-)shape the entire world?? Lewandowsky et al. have interfered to widely influence the very circumstances they purport to study objectively and scientifically.

    [the following cross-posted with Climate Audit]:

    A general point that I have not seen emphasized (I may have missed it): Lewandowsky et al. intervened pervasively in the materials of their “research” by first founding this blog with the grandiose title “Shaping Tomorrow’s World”…. They announce that they intend to shape (re-shape) the world, then pretending that they had not provoked the very critical responses they pretend to “study”….

    Merely that title, never mind the many vitriolic and alarm-oriented screeds which they published there before and during their so-called research, propounds their comprehensive goal of…..

    “shaping” …… “tomorrow’s” ……. “WORLD”

    So first Lewandowsky, Cook, Skeptical Science moderators, et al. issue declarations of their intent to “shape” the very “world” in which we all live.

    Then they attempt a study which is supposed to be scientific analyzing critical responses to their own grandiose pomposity.

    Talk about injecting themselves and their ideas into their own subject of study, and then pretending to “research” the critical responses.


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Skiphil

      Another perspective on grandiose plans for “Shaping Tomorrow’s World” –

      a different example, related to my previous comment above:

      Karl Marx famously said, ““The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.”

      (“Theses on Feuerbach”)

      These words are even inscribed on his gravestone.

      Now suppose that Marx or any of his followers had started railing against anyone who objected to their plan to “change” the world by publishing pseudo-scientific “research” in psychology journals etc. (well had such existed at that time…during most of the 19th century psychology was still treated pretty much as un-empirical philosophy)

      Suppose such Marxist psychologists had raged that anyone who objected to their grandiose plans to “change” the world must be in the grip of “conspiracist ideation” with delusions about “nefarious intent” … “unreflexive counterfactual thinking” …. “must be wrong” …. “nihilistic skepticism” …. “nothing by accident” …. “Kevin Judd [UWA], Puppet Master, etc.

      My oh my, such Marxian psychologists would have a field day giving pseudo-psychological explanations for every form of intellectual and scientific criticism of their plans. After all, what reasonable sane person could possibly dare to question grandiose plans to “change” or “shape” our entire world??


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Peter

    The (press) release in the Science Daily of 17 sentences contains the word “uncertainty” 21 times. I guess they want to make sure that we all get the message that they are certain about the uncertainty. But… wasn’t the science on climate change supposed to be “settled”? Did I miss some memo?


    Report this

    30

  • #

    So, it’s Lewandowsky’s fault. He should not be permitted to harbor monsters under his bed.

    I say charge him, extradite him and prosecute him,

    Restitution is in order.

    That much is settled science — that’s for sure!


    Report this

    10

  • #
    David S

    What I find strange about this principal is that if one assumes uncertainty then we don’t know if the world will warm ,or cool or stay the same. The insurance one takes to cater for an uncertain outcome where the outcomes require totally opposite reactions potentially will make things worse. What if Co2 was the only thing that prevents us from all freezing to death then to reduce those emissions may in fact be exactly the wrong thing to do. I don’t know why climate uncertainty automatically equates to catastrophic warming . It can just as easily be catastrophic cooling.
    I think I’d rather take my chances and self insure.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Bert Walker

    Thank you prof. Lewandowsky for perfectly illustrating the fallacy: argumentum ad ignorantiam.


    Report this

    00