If psychologists want to be taken seriously, and want psychology to be called “a science”, they need to elect a director who knows what science is.
Executive Director: Professor Lyn Littlefield OAM FAPS
The Climate Study group in Australia published a half page advert in The Australian last week – Psychology and Climate Alarm: how fear and anxiety trump evidence. In reply, Prof Lyn Littlefield, Executive Director of the Australian Psychology Society wrote a letter to The Australian protesting — claiming that the Climate Study Group are the ones suffering from the confirmation bias they accuse climate scientists of.
“The advertisement, ‘Psychology and the New Climate Storm’ misuses psychology-based arguments to add credibility to myths and misinformation about climate change. In doing so, the authors illustrate aptly the very error bias (confirmation bias) they are erroneously attributing to the climate science community.”
It’s the “the pot calling the kettle black”, exclaims Littlefield. But since her arguments are entirely fallacies, this is the kettle calling the pot calling the kettle black. The Climate Study Group mentioned many scientific observations, and in reply Lyn Littlefield can’t find an error in any of them, she can only cite “the consensus”. So instead of using a thermometer to measure the temperature, she wants to use keyword studies in abstracts of publications, and pronouncements of sub-committees of scientific associations. Hey, it’s not like consensuses have been wrong before, or grants committees, journal editors, and scientists could possibly have any personal motivations, training deficits, or biases, right? But who would expect a psychologist to spot those…
Littlefield seems to think that scientists are robots. She talks of “vested interests” of the skeptics, but is blind to the 3500:1 ratio of funding for climate “belief”. Then she accuses skeptics of cherry picking and bias. It’s projection, projection all the way down.
The world cooled for 37 years while CO2 rose. Does that matter? No, says Lyn, the Royal Society was founded in 1662. Welcome to a conversation with a blind believer. Seriously, the good scientific psychologists need to speak up lest the fawning confused believers in their profession stay glued to the public mouth-piece. (Lucky Jose Duarte has spoken, and Littlefield should read his blog. Where are the other good psychs?)
Littlefield wants to talk “fallacies”, so let’s take her “jumping to conclusions” fallacy and raise it. Those who jump to assume long reports from human committees are “facts” are falling for the fallacy known as “argument from authority”. Real scientists look at the data — which is exactly what the Climate Study Group did.
The danger of believing press releases — there is a reason “argument from authority” is a fallacy
Littlefield seems to think that if an association issues a statement it’s an accurate reflection of the members, but these societies almost never survey their members. Those of us who understand the psychology of groups know that most associations speak on behalf of the six most motivated volunteers who signed up for the sub-committee on Climate Thingys. (You’d think, maybe, a psychologist might know that?) It’s just another reason the scientific method does not include “opinions of associations”. We have almost no evidence of what the members opinions are because no one asked them, and it wouldn’t matter anyway because it’s not evidence about the climate. (Perhaps we should start a new society to supplant the Royal Society for people like Littlefield — maybe the Royal Gossip or the Royal Opinion?)
Lucky Professor Littlefield, director of The Australian Psychology Society, does not assess surveys for a living, eh?
Surveys show there is no consensus among scientists
For the record if Littlefield did some (any) research before writing to newspapers, she’d know there are a few surveys of scientists but they pretty much all have devastating news for naive fans of a “consensus”. Empirical data shows only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, that 52% of meteorologists think natural causes are more important and only 43% of climate scientists (fergoodnesssake) agree with the biblical certainty expressed in the IPCC. Clearly skeptics outnumber believers, but as a scientist, I’d never use that to defend my views. It all comes back to real evidence instead — observations from stuff like satellites, sediments, ice cores and boreholes.
Define “climate science denial” — is that where psychologists deny the empirical evidence?
Littlefield understands that the work “empirical” is a good word to use to sound scientific. If only she knew about empirical climate data, instead of empirical data of online-anonymous-surveys. One sort of data matters:
There is a growing body of empirical research into the psychology of climate science denial, and a number of these characteristics are on display in the Climate Study Group’s advertisement.
The Climate Study Group can back up their statements with empirical data, which unequivocally shows that the models are wrong, the hot spot didn’t appear (even according to the IPCC), the surface stopped warming when it shouldn’t have, and the warming started long before it was supposed too (1680 versus 1900). Logically the “climate science deniers” are the ones who think 28 million weather balloons don’t matter, but ten anonymous responses in a survey of unskeptical sites do.
A real discussion we need to have is about the pathetic state of psychology
Are the successful scientists and corporate directors misusing psychology, or is it the psychologists misusing psychology?
There are questions the Australian Psychology Society really need to answer. “Climate denier” is an abusive form of namecalling; does it have a place in university psychology? It defies any literal definition; no one denies we have a climate and no one denies the climate changes. There don’t appear to be any people who fit the definition. Even PhD students of psychology (like John Cook) are being encouraged to use it. Does accurate English matter in psychology?
Does Littlefield think it’s OK for psychologists to generate derogatory media headlines based on three anonymous responses? Does she think it’s useful to survey sites that are hostile to skeptics to find out what skeptics think? (Would she survey Jews in order to understand what Palestinians feel?) Is it acceptable to claim that 78,000 skeptics saw a link to a survey on a site run by a co-author that never hosted the link? Does the APS care about truth, or does the ends justify the means?
These kinds of “climate” psychology studies start from the “consensus” fallacy (despite the empirical evidence that the consensus does not exist) . Do they serve the taxpayer, or is it just a way of improving propaganda in order to bilk the public for more big-government funds?
There’s a unspoken potential vested interest here. Corporates, miners, and skeptics don’t funnel much money on the climate issue to research psychologists because they know how pointless it is. Big-government however seems happy to fund psychologists who use the money to promote their own personal political (big-government) beliefs. Does psychology suffer from its own “confirmation bias”? Aren’t “climate” psychologists just government-funded activists in the Climate Change Scare Machine?
The evidence Littlefield either denies or is ignorant of is that the climate models depend on assumptions about feedbacks that observations have long proven to be false.
The models not only fail on global decadal scales, but on regional, local, short term, [1] [2], polar[3], and upper tropospheric scales[4] [5] too. They fail on humidity[6], rainfall[7], drought [8] and they fail on clouds [9]. The hot spot is missing, the major feedbacks are not amplifying the effect of CO2 as assumed.
–see the scientific references for those.
The consensus that doesn’t exist, depends on models that don’t work. Can anyone spot a problem?
Background info: See more posts about the missing hot spot, find out how models get the core assumptions wrong,
“The consensus that doesn’t exist, depends on models that don’t work. Can anyone spot a problem?” The problem is that despite the unstinting efforts of the haters of humanity and global collectivist authoritarians, there are still far too many heretics who cleave to the data and refuse to BELIEVE. Now go wash your mouth out with soap and water.
532
I saw precisely the same kind of irrational psychologically driven response when I worked in a heavily unionised company. Whenever one union perceived that the “other group” was doing “it’s work”, all hell would let lose, accusations would fly tempers reach boiling point and those “agrieved” would not listen to rational argument.
And it’s the same with “climate”. Academics have wrongly claimed this as “their area”. Therefore, any other group that dares to express a view on the climate is a trespasser and like many group primates, the academics then instinctively club together to throw shit at the perceived transgressors (us).
So, this “consensus” is not scientific but psychological – it is a group identity of those who believe they “own” climate as an issue.
But they don’t. So hard cheese all the academics – because they can huff and puff but they cannot own the climate.
523
It’s like predicting the climate with ink-blot cards. Glorified tarot card readers. Dream interpreters – and bad ones at that. Just how “knowledgeable and distinguished” do these people expect us to see them now, when, without batting a scientific eyelid, they fall back on a “consensus” that never existed and nothing else?
Their supposed “PHD”‘s need to be struck off the record.
393
Its like reading the entrails of capitalist scum.
211
/SARC
Really?
30
It’s up there with Astrology.
71
John, the Psychology industry is very much like the Climate Change industry. An incestuous group who, having reached the end of their field, earn their ongoing bread and butter not so much by producing anything useful, but by holding people’s attention.
41
It’s well known the psychology and psychiatry professions had roots within the occult beliefs. Then recently they have changed some deviant behaviour and labelled it ” normal”.
I’d challenge them to apply “physician he’s they self” before being licences to mess with the rest of society……
01
Rotten autocorrect….
Should be :
“physician, heal thyself”
00
Psycho logic.
20
It was interesting that you bring up primate psychology. The general intelligence we humans imagine that we have is just a thin overlay over a collection of compartmentalized, modal cognitive competencies.
In primitive animals, the left hand literally does not know or care what the right hand is doing, so to speak – the different departments work together independently of each other, and this mostly just works because it fits the problem domain. By contrast, in humans a general self awareness unifies these modes, or at least gives the workable illusion of doing so.
Our closest relative, the chimpanzee is noted for its Machiavellian social intelligence which is put to use in intense competition employing every subterfuge, manipulative or coercive trick available. Despite its subtlety, this is still primitive, instinctive cognition. Chimps are also known to use tools to solve novel problems, which is arguably more objective thinking. What chimps don’t do is to bring these modalities together. Unlike humans, no chimp has ever attempted to climb the hierarchy by using technology to amass wealth and status, or to ornament itself in order to intimidate and impress its fellows.
In certain people, and in certain walks of life, this Chimpiavellian mode of cognition predominates. It may even use objective, intellectual thought to serve its own ends while remaining predominant. Sometimes it works in parallel with another competency, such as highly developed numeracy, while remaining the predominant, core mind-frame of that particular individual.
From what I have seen, the climate debate is largely between Chimpiavellian and objective thinkers, which is largely why we seem to be talking past each other. They ignore arguments and evidence, we ignore politicking and emotional manipulation.
Yeah, I know that comparing people to monkeys may be worse than calling them ‘deniers’, but I think it is true, and at this stage, I just don’t care about their tender feeelings.
00
The claim of AGW is that more CO2 acts as a blanket reducing Earth’s energy loss to space. Thus the temperature has to rise in order to restore the original rate of energy loss. CAGW also claims that water vapour creates a positive feedback effect further reducing energy loss to space and thus necessitating even more warming. Energy loss to space is measured as outgoing longwave radiation (OLR). Thus if this theory is to be correct OLR must have been falling. Slight problem, we have been measuring OLR since the late 1970’s and it has been rising! Worse, it has been rising faster than one would expect from the claimed temperature rise alone ie: Earth is finding it easier to lose energy to space not more difficult.
It only takes one clearly contradictory experiment to prove a theory wrong (Albert Einstein). This seems to me such an experiment
712
Michael Hammer,
So, true.
Also the UN-IPCC neglects to see that during the Eocene Optimum the planet did not just go to thermal run-away oblivion despite CO2 levels being many times the current.
As for psychology, it has never suffer from conformatory bias? They can measure effects of their strictures on people?
Consensus seekers within psychology are evident with followers of the Freud, Jung, Langs, Neo-Freudians etc. Theories abound — Interpersonal, Culturalist, Object relations theory, Conflict theory, Group Treatment Theory, etc, etc, etc, Psychological theory piled on more theory,and yet more theory. Not much proof but plenty of trying for consensus.
Then there were those that followed the Portuguese neurologist António Egas Moniz, who shared the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine of 1949 for the “discovery of the therapeutic value of leucotomy in certain psychoses. That was a mainstream procedure, for more than two decades, a medical consensus for its efficacy. Nearly 30 years later studies found that the majority of people were damaged, or severly damaged, by such procedures.
Psychological and psychotherapeutic then moved on, with the willing help of the drug companies, to mind-deforming drugs. This practice of overuse of mind altering drugs took hold, some would say that it still continues today.
So on balance is this a profession filled with careful scientifically trained people attempting do their best for individuals — maybe, but there have been, and probably still are, many within this area of medicine who have no respect for, or understanding of, science.
Some just wish to make a name for themselves by putting out adverts on subjects they have little expertise and certainly no insight in. Pushing their version of argument from authority, with no evidence, no proof.
461
Michael would you give us your best links for OLR since 1970? I think Dessler and Roy Spencer have been at odds about this for years.
And others I’m sure. Thanks.
101
Hi Neville:
I found several links for trends in OLR which all seem to say much the same thing. There is some question over OLR trends since 2002 with some sites claiming it is now going down. Since the planet has not been warming since 2002, that rather speaks against the argument for CAGW instead of speaking for it. If the planet stopped warming one would expect OLR to stop falling. The again if its all due to changes in cloud cover one would exactly expect OLR to stop rising and start falling if the earth started to cool since an increase in cloud cover would reduce OLR but reduce energy absorbed even more. Below are a few links that I found that appear to be from reputable sites;
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/4/1419/2004/acp-4-1419-2004.pdf
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf
http://climategate.nl/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/KNMI_voordracht_VanAndel.pdf
http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/02_Norris_and_Slingo.pdf
http://eaps-www.mit.edu/paoc/about/spotlights/missing-piece-climate-puzzle
hope this helps
30
I agree that, according to the theory, rising temperatures would require OLR to fall,
but then you say, “it has been rising faster than one would expect from the claimed temperature rise alone”.
Any rise would be faster than expected if you were expecting it to fall.
Did you misspeak, or am I just confused.
50
I do think this OLR rise thing is complicated. You need an energy balance measurement, and they are hard. Lots written on the subject, most is bulzgrab.
10
Michael Collard; This issue of rising not falling OLR has been raised before. The result was a change in the story. The claim became that rising CO2 reduced OLR and caused warming but that caused higher water vapour levels which absorbed more of the incident solar infrared radiation (which would otherwise be reflected back out to space). This increase in absorbed solar energy became the main driver of global warming and as the temperature rose so OLR started to rise outweighing the direct fall due to rising CO2. ie: the driver is increased solar energy absorption but its still all due to rising CO2.
Trouble with that is the change in OLR would be rise due to rising temperature minus the fall due to rising CO2 minus the fall due to rising water vapour (which is also a green house gas). Maybe one could argue the net effect could be rising OLR but the rate of rise would have to be significantly less than that due to the rising temperature alone and its not.
Hugh;
I dont think the rising OLR is complicated at all, some just try to create complications where none exist. The AGW hypothesis explicitly claims the warming action of rising CO2 is due to suppression of OLR. If then OLR is not falling but instead rising then AGW cannot be the dominant effect on our climate. Sure rising CO2 will cause some fall in OLR – CO2 IS a green house gas and green house gases do reduce long wave energy loss to space but the issue is HOW MUCH. The fact that OLR is rising and rising faster than predicted by temperature alone means that there is some other effect going on which is far more significant. Its like saying a lighted candle gives of heat (undoubtedly true) and that therefore one could majorly warm a freezing house by lighting a candle. The effect is real but its magnitude is massively exaggerated.
As to what the “other effect” might be, try a reduction in cloud cover. That would increase OLR because clouds also impede energy loss to space but reduced cloud cover would reduce albedo resulting in more solar energy absorption and that is the bigger factor (Svensmarks theory).
151
Michael Hammer:
Thank you for your reply.
I suspected that there might be more going on than you described in your original comment.
Now I think I see what you were saying.
61
Michael, you were doing so well with the increase in OLR, but then this –
”Sure rising CO2 will cause some fall in OLR – CO2 IS a green house gas and green house gases do reduce long wave energy loss to space but the issue is HOW MUCH.”
“Greenhouse gas” is pure Orwellian Newspeak. It is a propaganda term that pre-supposes a net atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect where none exists.
It is true that radiative gases in the atmosphere can slow the exit of surface LWIR, but this only works over 29% of the planets surface. (Empirical experiment shows that incident LWIR can neither heat nor slow the cooling rate of water free to evaporatively cool). Interception of outgoing surface LWIR accounts for less than half of all energy acquired by the atmosphere. The bulk of the energy entering the atmosphere is from surface conduction and release of latent heat of evaporation. In contrast, almost all the energy exiting the atmosphere is emitted to space as LWIR from radiative gases in the atmosphere.
The answer to whether the NET effect of our radiative atmosphere is surface warming (via slowing the surface cooling rate) our surface cooling, no complex atmospheric modelling is required. As we know current surface average is 288K for an average of 240 w/m2 solar SW isolation, all that is needed is an accurate determination of “surface without radiative atmosphere”.
Climastrologists have claimed 255K (-18C) for this figure. All they did to get it was input 240 w/m2 into the Stefan-Boltzmann equation with SW absorptivity and LWIR emissivity set at unity. This is of course inane. This equation effectively treats a surface as opaque. It cannot be used for SW illumination of SW translucent water (71% of our ocean planets surface). It cannot be used for liquids that convect or that have an intermittent illumination cycle.
The only way to correctly find the “surface without radiative atmosphere” figure for our ocean planet is empirical experiment or CFD (computational fluid dynamics), the Stefan-Boltzmann equation simply cannot be used. I used empirical experiment. My best estimate is 335K for the oceans. Even if the land figure is carelessly assumed to be 255K, that’s still 312K for planetary average “surface without radiative atmosphere”.
Given our current surface average is 288K, the NET effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere is surface cooling not warming. Therefore AGW due to emissions of the radiative gas CO2 is a physical impossibility.
131
Konrad; I know we are on the same side of the fence wrt whether CAGW is credible or not but I have to disagree with you to some extent. Green house gases absorb the radiation emitted by the surface (at the GHG wavelengths only of course) and replace it by emission from the top of the GHG column. This is basic spectroscopy known for about a century. Further the OLR spectrum collected by the Nimbus satellite clearly shows the impact of the GHG’s. SO I guess “technically” warming due to rising CO2 is correct but its the magnitude of the effect that is critical and I maintain its not 3C per doubling but more like 0.3C per doubling. What the OLR data shows is that its not the dominant impact on our climate and further that its not even large enough to have an identifiable impact on OLR which means its more or less trivial.
In reference to your claim that people get the 255K figure by plugging 240 watts/sqM into Stefan boltzmann you are quite right but you don’t go quite far enough because the 240 is questionable. No GHG in the atmosphere means no water – the most dominant GHG and that means no clouds. Liquid water actually has very low reflectivity (about 3-4%) so it is close to a black body. Without clouds the earth would not be absorbing 240 watts/sqM but closer to 340 watts/sqM and if you plug 340 into SB you get around 278K. So the actual net effect is more like 9K however what one has to realise is that incremental GHG warming is logarithmic whereas cloud cooling is far closer to linear. So while the overall impact of water is close to zero the incremental cooling from rising water vapour outweighs the incremental warming hence negative feedback from water not positive as claimed.
One can go on, its a big subject but to me the simplest refutation is that CAGW requires OLR to be falling and its rising – end of theory!
100
”Green house gases absorb the radiation emitted by the surface (at the GHG wavelengths only of course) and replace it by emission from the top of the GHG column.”
Michael,
I am not disputing this. What I am pointing out is that over half the energy emitted from the upper troposphere was not acquired by interception of surface LWIR. While radiative gases may be slowing the exit of surface LWIR to space, they are accelerating the net exit to space of solar energy acquired by surface.
OLR increasing in line with near surface temperatures is exactly what you would expect to see if the net effect of our atmosphere was surface cooling, and warming had occurred due to cloud cover variation or solar spectral variation.
The so called “CO2 notch” observed in TOA outgoing LWIR is not a product of CO2 reducing outgoing LWIR, but just that water vapour and condensed water are far better LWIR radiators, and their emission will increase more significantly than CO2 in response to natural warming. Note that as OLR increased with warming, 15 micron emission did not drop, but only increased less that other bands.
In deriving 312K as opposed to 255K, I am leaving albedo unchanged, ie: assuming clouds can no longer radiate LWIR as this is what the climastrologists did in getting their incorrect figure of 255K.
As to water being a “near blackbody” nothing could be further form the truth. This is the massive problem at the foundation of the whole failed hypothesis. There are two parts to the problem. First while as you say SW absorptivity is above 0.9, hemispherical LWIR emissivity is lower, around 0.67. The bigger part to the problem is depth of SW absorption. For a SW translucent material that can only cool from its upper surface, and has a slow internal speed of internal conduction/convection, depth of absorption is utterly critical in determining how SW illumination will heat the material.
Try this simple experiment.
Both target blocks have equal ability to absorb SW and emit LWIR, the only difference is depth of SW absorption.
Illuminate both with 1000 w/m2 of LWIR for 3 hours. Both will rise to an average of 80C.
Allow to cool, then repeat with 1000 w/m2 of SW. Block B will again rise to 80C, but now block A will run around 20C hotter.
This basic physics is utterly missing from the “basic physics of the settled science”. Climastrologists have an 80K error in their foundation “surface without radiative atmosphere” calculation effecting 71% of the planets surface.
50
Hi Conrad
Agree with you that Green House Gases delay the removal of ground origin IR from Earth but not sure how there is an acceleration of removal?
Yes, radiative transfer is at the speed of light BUT the convective phase of transfer is very slow and allows heat to accumulate.
My understanding is that energy accumulates in the atmosphere because there is a delay in removal of energy back to space and that initially there is ground IR being absorbed followed by the slower convective phase then more radiative transfer at TOA.
The Earth warms because of the delay of heat transfer during convection.
KK
00
Are you saying that depth of heat/energy penetration into the target material is a bigger factor than convective delay?
KK
00
Keith,
the question is best put – “What is the net effect of our atmosphere on surface temperatures, warming or cooling?”, followed by “Could an atmosphere without radiative gases provide the same cooling?”
As I pointed out to Michael, more than half of the energy being emitted to space from gases in the atmosphere was not acquired from surface radiation.
It is worth looking at the old bell jar experiment. Our planets surface could be seen to cool even more rapidly than curve “C” in figure 2 as evaporative cooling is also occurring.
An atmosphere without an ability to cool itself cannot provide effective conductive or evaporative cooling for the surface, which are the current primary surface cooling mechanisms.
The reason our radiative atmosphere can cool the surface faster than surface radiation alone is that it can radiate in 3D, where the surface can only radiate in 2D. The atmosphere, particularly clouds, are vastly increasing the planets LWIR radiative cooling ability.
20
”Are you saying that depth of heat/energy penetration into the target material is a bigger factor than convective delay?”
In talking of the importance of depth of SW penetration, I was referring to how the oceans heat, and why the climastrologists 255K for “surface without radiative atmosphere” was so wrong. The experiment link I gave Michael above was for a “clean” example only involving radiation and conduction. You can also try this far cheaper experiment. With equal solar exposure tub A will rise to a higher temperature. In using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to determine “surface without radiative atmosphere”, climastrologists have effectively treated our oceans as SW opaque like tub B.
There is a radiative greenhouse effect on our planet, but it is in the oceans not the atmosphere.
21
Michael
I tend to think that plugging figures into the Stephan Boltzmann equation does not give useful or accurate answers ubnless some form of standardisation is adopted.
The use of black body concept is FULL of dangerous traps and the only real way of working this equation is to actually measure some of the responses to variations in input during standardisation runs.
KK
00
Exactly I don’t buy this simple hypothesis.
The problem is wicked, and measurements of OLR and albedo not good enough.
00
To reply to all the comments so far; there is often a simple way to look at a problem and a complex way. Finding the simple way is the trick. In this case earth is a body completely surrounded by vacuum so it can only lose energy by radiation, further it is not hot enough to radiate appreciable energy outside the thermal IR band.
So treat it as a closed box energy in/energy out. If the Earth is warming it must be because energy in>energy out. The theory of CAGW is that Earth is warming dangerously because rising CO2 is reducing energy out. Yes there are all sort of complex processes going on in the atmosphere, yes in the oceans energy may be absorbed at the surface or some distance under the surface, yes there could be all sorts of time constants and thermal lags. Its all irrelevant to the argument Earth warms if energy in>energy out, energy out is measured as OLR and the theory of CAGW is that earth is warming because energy out is being reduced.
Now when I look at the OLR spectrum as measured by Nimbus in the atmospheric window I see a level of radiation consistent with a surface emission temperature of about 300K (average) (depending exactly which part of the Earth the satellite was looking at the time). If the emissivity of the emitting layer is <1 then the apparent temperature will be lower than the physical temperature, it cannot be greater. The only layer with a temperature as high as this is the surface so this emission HAS to be coming from the surface. At the various GHG wavelengths the apparent emission temperature is lower so these emissions are coming from the atmosphere which is colder than the surface. In particular the CO2 emission temperature is around 220K which corresponds to the lower stratosphere (or tropopause) so this is the top of the CO2 column. (incidentally it also represents proof that CO2 IS pooled in the lower stratosphere despite some claims that CO2 is well mixed in the stratosphere). If Earth had no atmosphere all the emission would be coming from the surface and would have a constant apparent emission temperature.
Thus GHG's do reduces the apparent emission temperature at some wavelengths and thus they do reduce energy loss to space. Gases such as N2 and O2 which are not GHG neither radiate nor absorb thermal IR energy so their presence is irrelevant to this discussion no matter what their temperature. So now the complexity starts, if I increase CO2 does the absorption band broaden, does the CO2 emission temperature rise, do all these complex processes in the atmosphere cause the emission temperature at other GHG wavelengths to rise? The answer is I don't care because there is a short cut to the answer which avoids all the complexity. The satellites measure the total OLR to space and as far as proving or disproving the CAGW hypothesis all I need to know is whether the total OLR is rising or falling and its rising.
Is the rise due to an increase in the CO2 emission temperature, a rise in the water vapour emission temperature, a reduction in cloudiness which increases surface emission to space? There could be many other reasons as well but it doesn't matter. All that matters is that total OLR is rising not falling and that means that if earth is warming its not due to a drop in energy loss hence the CAGW theory is disproven. The rest represent extremely interesting research topics but they are not necessary to proving or disproving CAGW which is my current preoccupation.
30
Man I appreciate you trying to explain this, but I don’t even believe measuring OLR provides an answer what is happening. Total OLR should rise when temperature goes up, and how much it goes up tells how much there is feedback. But I don’t quite buy this theory; there are too much measurement problems including spatial and temporal distribution of temperature and radiation itself. In the long run, the in-out radiation is very near the balance even when temperature is rising at the claimed 0.01C/year.
10
The WUWT page for the Feldman 2010 paper had a lot of discussion around the backradiation phenomenon, including a comment by “Kristian” who tried using CERES data of surface downwards longwave flux to contradict the results. Upshot was that CERES is a satellite so their estimate of surface DWLW is a calculation not an actual measurement like the ground-based AERI radiometers.
Despite the Watters’ resistance to the message of the paper, I think you’d still have to count those measurements as a step forward. It’s more measurements of radiation. The trend they produced was 0.2±0.07 W/m^2 per decade extra surface forcing from CO2.
Assuming a Svensmark-style effect of -0.01 Bond per 100SSN has happened, solar activity would have contributed a surface forcing trend of about +0.14W/m^2 per decade for the 20th century. Half the AMO cycle (~12W/m^2 amplitude) contributed a bit to the regression for the century too. So this CO2 forcing trend is almosy the same size as the natural factors.
Project it forward, in 100 years that’s… S-B law emissivity of 0.9…about 0.4° extra? Or if e=0.7 then 0.5° at the most. In reality it would be less because of negative feedbacks and the earth isn’t a simple blackbody.
Set aside for a moment the near certainty that temperatures will be decreasing for the rest of the century anyway due to lower solar activity, and that the extra from CO2 will still amount to a lower temperature than today.
A 0.4° temperature increment is not worth doing anything to stop.
That paper might be another case of the scientists writing the abstract to toe the expected consensus line while delivering data that tells a subtly different story.
00
Thomas Sowell had this nailed many years ago. The characteristics of the (self-)Anointed in every field are:
1. Assertions of a great danger to the whole society, a danger to which the masses of people are oblivious
2. An urgent need for action to avert impending catastrophe.
3. A need for government to drastically curtail the dangerous behaviour of the many, in response to the prescient conclusions of the few (the Anointed).
4. A disdainful dismissal of arguments to the contrary as either uninformed, irresponsible, or motivated by unworthy purposes.
481
Rick, I think there are additional characteristics that have been observed through history
5. Hate replaces disdain and the self-anointed seek to silence contrary argument.
6. Physical restraint of dissidents is demanded by the anointed and government.
7. violence breaks out
8. 4, 5, 6, and 7 repeat
231
Mark D. Just read a book on Hitler and Darwinism. Every item on the list compiled between you and Rick could be taken right from the Third Reich’s playbook. Let me add a couple more. Control of information and entertainment media to stay on message. Rewriting educational materials from K to university to create believers.
221
All that’s missing is why people just sit there and let this happen. They certainly do not learn from history.
81
Power, Money, Control of the MSM and vote counting manipulation.
It is very tough for the little guy to make the type of difference an Al Gore or a Bill Clinton can and still stay within the law.
However there have certainly been efforts made.
UKIP in the UK, the Tea Party in the USA, True the Vote Founder Catherine Engelbrecht, Mark, Steyn and several others. Heck even Donald Trump. (If the MSM hate him he must have some redeeming charateristics…)
As individuals we can support these people and get the word out one on one.
As an example this uses the wayback machine to show a True the Vote page.
https://web.archive.org/web/20121213095746/http://www.truethevote.org/news/how-widespread-is-voter-fraud-2012-facts-figures
40
Why do they sit there and argue with people that are generally in agreement?
Oh yes that would be me…….
10
Because agreement does not make right.
00
It is a lesson from Roman times. Cicero referred to it as “bread and circuses”. Keep the plebeians fed, and keep them amused, and you keep them controlled.
50
And here we are, with fast food, and smart phones that plan and record all of our social events. Parallel? What parallel?
40
This also requires a population that is basically happy being ignorant and clueless. “Bread and Circuses” don’t work if your population has been trained to think. First remove the thought processes, then bring in the circus.
30
Yes Rereke so true, but were Roman teenagers the disconnected ether dwelling autobots they are today?
00
Yes Andersm0, Nazi methods are similar. Stalin would likely be a match. There are many.
50
I thoroughly recommend Sowell’s Vision of the Anointed. All the behaviour of the self-styled elites instantly becomes clear. Another snippet:
—-
Yes it is a great book. Brilliant writer. I found it so useful I posted on it. Jo
130
I would also like to recommend this short interview given by Carly Fiorina to the wretched Katie Couric.
As a no-nonsense stance on the whole debate surrounding climate matters, I have not seen anything remotely as good.
https://youtu.be/ZZ6t7m5RlnQ
30
Thank you for that. I’ve just been reading Jo’s link…must have been away when it also appeared. It was very interesting and I will try to get the book.
10
Rick, thank-you for the book recommendation, Sowell’s Vision of the Anointed. I just downloaded it onto my Kindle. The book I read about Hitler is by Jerry Bergman. “Hitler and the Nazi Darwinian worldview: How the Nazi eugenic crusade for a superior race caused the greatest holocaust in the world.”
The Third Reich was thoroughly committed to science. Proof they were destined to be the master race was sifted from every piece of evidence they could gather, concoct or manipulate. Dissent was crushed, doctors, scientists and university professors were carefully weeded out until they had ‘consensus’. The parallels with the current political landscape on AGW is stunningly similar.
[Let’s not stray too far from the real topic. Thanks.] AZ
00
Spot on – nail hit on head. A reflection on the parlous state of critical and objective reasoning amongst thought leaders who have emerged from our universities. One reservation though – can you please not use the example “survey Jews to understand what Palestinians feel”.
I acknowledge your world-class expertise in exposing this climate fraud, and agree with you and your fine work, but this example leaves a bewildering and fallacious impression.
Does it mean that Palestinians feel bad, but that Jews (not Israelis – why not?) think they feel good? Or is it that Jews may think Palestinians love them but that Palestinians really don’t? Or maybe vice versa? Does it mean that Palestinians feel like prisoners when Jews think they can have independence when they stop trying to eliminate the State of Israel? Or what?
It’s a non-illustrative, “WTF / huh?” example and spoils an otherwise cogent rebuff.
———————–
[REPLY: I’ve swapped the order of Jew/Palestinians over and added “or visa versa”. Hopefully it makes more sense that way. My point is only that to understand Palestinians we would interview Palestinians, likewise Jews. It’s a choice of two groups with hostility/strong emotions and the bizarre idea that sampling one reveals what the other would say. But maybe it’s a dud-analogy. Point taken. Perhaps we can think of two other groups as better examples. – Jo]
132
If you want to understand Protestants, you wouldn’t just survey Catholics (and vice versa), if you want to understand the Liberal party, you wouldn’t just survey the Labor Party (and vice versa), if you want to understand North Korea, you wouldn’t just survey South Koreans (and vice versa). If you wanted to understand Apple, you wouldn’t just survey Microsoft.
Just because Israel/Palestine is a touchy political subject, it doesn’t make the analogy any less valid, whichever way it is written. (in my opinion)
I was going to be facetious and say that if you wanted to understand polar bears, you wouldn’t just survey seals…
211
If you wanted to comprehend Mark Steyn, you wouldn’t just survey Mike Mann. There.. Fixed 😉
231
But if you want to know how unfixed Mann is, then it’s ok to ask Steyne.
162
jo – typo at beginning of “Define “climate science denial” section…
“Littlefield understands that the work “empirical”
“work” should be “word”.
APS/Littlefield campaigning for the 2010 election!
pdf: 1 page: 2010: APS: Media Release: Psychologists call for behaviour change to reduce climate change
Australia’s largest professional association for psychologists is calling for national, community and school-based initiatives focussed on evidence-based behaviour change as key to reducing climate change.
Australian Psychological Society (APS) Executive Director, Professor Lyn Littlefield, said that current practice tends to view the climate change issue as a scientific and infrastructure issue when the basis of community change is a psychosocial one, based on attitude and behaviour change…
A document outlining the key issues in relation to election has been produced by the APS, with recommendations on using psychology to help address climate change. Key Issues for the 2010 Federal Election calls on all political parties to help address climate change by committing to:..
(LINK) The full document is available on the APS website at http://www.psychology.org.au/about/representation/federal-election.
https://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/MR-Behaviour-change-needed-to-reduce-climate-change-12August2010.pdf
———-
REPLY: Thanks, fixed that typo. — Jo
111
http://www.psychology.org.au/about/representation/federal-election
Empty link
41
ianl8888 –
have tried to find the individual document that was at the dead link. no success so far, but it may be among the pile of stuff linked in the following. haven’t got time to check just now:
APS Resources
Position Statements
Tip Sheets
APS Submissions
Statement of Commitment on Climate Change
InPsych
Advocacy
News
Study
Psychologists’ Stories
http://www.psychology.org.au/public-interest/environment/resources/
love the references to Flannery & Gore in this one linked from above!
APS Tip Sheet: Climate Change – What You Can Do
This information booklet is aimed at helping people cope with the many environmental threats facing us. It offers suggestions for dealing with distressing feelings when learning about environmental problems…
Become informed about problems and solutions
Books, news media, film and the Internet are good places for getting information about the problems. Some popular sources include The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery, A Big Fix by Ian Lowe, Al Gore’s film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, and websites from environmental groups….
Make your concerns known to anyone with decision-making power
Letting the decision-makers, including MPs, governments, corporations and businesses, know that climate change is an issue of major concern to the voting, buying and investing public, is crucial. As Tim Flannery concludes in The Weather Makers, writing to a politician can change the world…
pdf: 12 pages: APS: Psychology & Climate Change: APS Position Statement on Psychology and Climate Change
https://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/Position-statement-climate-change-August2010.pdf
41
I did some research into the Australian Psychological Society here
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2014/04/suitable-cases-treatment/
and here
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2014/05/tt-part2/
Vested interests, indeed.
101
thanks for the links.
00
Reminds me of an ABC journalist introducing an academic as an evidence-based researcher. Why is that a novelty? Is that why I failed to become one? I was ahead of my time?
Serious drivel though if they pretend that its not just indoctrination based on making the kids feel like idiots if they don’t play along.
40
Psychology as practised by those who `research,’ write and publish in the climate arena is obviously a settled science, with all the authoritative researchers in the field (both of them) arriving at a clear 97% consensus. About ‘Deniers.’ ‘Cimate Deniers,’ whatever they are.
We have had to suffer the risible pseudo-scientific `Cooked’ `Lew-papers,’ which have been paraded before us as paragons of ‘scientific research’ despite their highly visible flaws. Now we have Littlefield wagging a scolding finger in the same vein. It does nothing to elevate Psychology above its perceived Cargo-cult status at all. Quite the contrary, it reinforces it.
With her lack of real research, Littlefield demonstrates her own ‘Science Denial.’ The Empress has no clothes.
271
[SNIP OK, we didn’t need to make that literal… Jo]
51
[snip too]
51
[and snip. Sorry]
41
Aww..
OK Jo. I’ll leave that alone. Anything I think about at this point will only get me banished 🙂
Apologies.
71
APS quite the CAGW activists:
pdf: 23 pages: Dec 2011: APS: Submission to the Inquiry into Regulatory and Policy Barriers to Collective Climate Adaptation
Covering letter from Professor Lyn Littlefield OAM…
Table 1: Psychological Barriers to Adequate Climate-Change Adaptation:
What psychologists know about people’s reluctance to make changes in the face of climate change and other threats.
Fear: Fear can lead to people becoming easily overwhelmed at the magnitude of the environmental problems facing the planet. When they become too fearful, there is a tendency for people to react by denying or minimising the problems (Oskamp, 2000). etc…
Increase mental health services…
Using social learning theory for change:
Social psychologist Albert Bandyura applies psychological theories to the major environmental problems of overpopulation and over-consumption…
http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/climate-change-adaptation/submissions/sub035.pdf
LOL:
11 Aug: Desmog: Graham Readfearn: Australian Psychological Society “Disturbed” By Climate Denialist Group’s “Misleading” Newspaper Advert
DeSmog has found the group members have links to mining, finance, agriculture and free market “think tank” the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA)…
(3 comments)
http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/08/11/australian-psychological-society-disturbed-climate-denialist-group-s-misleading-newspaper-advert
61
If psychologists want to be taken seriously
, and want to be called a “science”,as scientists, they need to elect a director who knows what science is.152
Point taken. How about
If psychologists want to be taken seriously, and want psychology to be called “a science”…
I just added psychology and changed the quote marks.
91
Correction?
I
61
Just as the Royal Societies of London and Edinburgh failed to live up to their ‘Nullius in Verba’ ideal when it came to climate scaremongering, and thereby failed the rest of society by not taking the trouble to even try to protect it from hyperbolic emotionalism and political manipulation, so have professional bodies for psychologists failed us. The brainwashing of children using scary stories about climate catastrophes coming their way ought to have been condemned for the sake of the children’s well-being, and for the violation of their childhood for political ends. But no. The professional societies in the psychology sector have, as far as I know, concentrated instead on how best they might help the climate scare to spread. The reaction of the APS to that perfectly reasonable advertisement is consistent with this.
231
“Professional” means they do it for a living, it doesn’t mean they’re good at it.
211
From somewhere the other day
“Sociology – the study of a group of people that don’t need studying by a group of people who do”
Your punt on psychology?
251
Another Ian, here’s my 2¢ worth —
“Psychology – the study of a group of people that maybe sane by a group of people that should be certified”
251
tomomason
That was definitely worth the punt!
51
To refer back to my combat arms days, do we really care what the head thumpers think about anything?
51
The ‘climate war’ is being fought on many fronts: science, law, finance, politics, catholic zeal and psychology. When the penny eventually drops it will be a paradigm shift of enormous proportions.
Hopefully Professor Littlefield will drop in and discuss the intricacies of logical fallacies, circular arguments and the like.
211
I suggest Lyn Littlethought searches for a few papers on “boundary work”. And when she realises that she is the one with the problem, then reads about the behaviour of other primates when their “territory” is invaded. I believe typical display responses for “treading on their toes” are things such as various forms of display including running around yelping and bending over small trees, groups attacking isolated individuals, [snip, sorry Mike, getting into unnecessarily hot analogies there -Jo].
—
REPLY: I don’t think this is a boundary thing that much. I don’t see her objecting to “unqualified psychology” that is anti-skeptic. – jo
82
Having studied psychology in depth at University and having just returned from a conference in Vienna held at the Sigmund Freud Institute I am prompted to offer the following.
Sigmund Freud made his name as a Psychologist by trying to engage in discussion with patients in the hope that he might work out what was troubling them and then help them see a path through their worries.
Modern Psychology bases most of its course work of study on the response of the organism (human) to various stimuli such as sound, vision, touch and smell and the means by which all of this human experience is remembered.
Memory theory is very important.
I don’t remember studying anything about Global Warming as it is not something that would be of any interest to a student of Psychology unless, wait a minute, I do recall a course that was available on methods of advertising and attracting customers. I thought that a bit tacky at the time and more suited to a business course but undoubtedly there must have been some takers.
KK
Disclaimer.
I am a Metallurgist by training and inclination with a more recent Degree : BSc in psychobiology and neuroscience.
231
KK have you considered the ‘believers’ may be influenced by an Oedipus-Gaia complex where a higher peer status is achieved by who can display the most aggressive behavior towards ‘deniers’ through false argument?, this heightened zealous competition has attracted suitors from all walks of life in an attempt to out-Gaia each other regardless of the nonsensical content of their language.
It would explain how such a movement gained popularity to those inclined to grasp some power regardless of what it represented, the quip “Mediocre people are always at their best” springs to mind.
Just a thought really, cheers.
121
Yonnie, If I knew what an O-G Complex was I could comment 🙂 but the above composition of mine is all true but implying more than the reality.
This is a ploy used by Warmers. Some have a PhD and make pronouncements on Climate Science as a PhD but their reality is that they have Phd in Law or some other non science area making their pronouncements just a bit of shouting without substance.
My story is all true but some bits were left out; eg I attended the conference as an amateur observer and I must also confess that I have never met Sigmund Freud. My only claim to fame is that I attended the conference as a partner of a presenter, my wife.
It does cheer me to know that I am always at my best!
KK
41
KK the idea of an Oedipus-Gaia complex is a different take on Freud’s Oedipus complex where the followers of CAGW become the children and Gaia becomes the adult, except the CAGW children target their aggression towards anyone else outside the CAGW belief system that tries to diminish the held supremacy of Gaia, this would be CAGW skeptics adopting the position of the competing adult.
The sexualisation of this act is transformed into coveting the adulation of their peers when ideas or arguments that are perceived to gain a victory against the competing adult is projected via approval through media, promotions, awards, political status or simply gaining renown in CAGW society.
This is simply an idea that came to me and just wanted to put it out there, please feel free to give any critiques.
KK and mediocre is an antithesis of the highest order. 🙂
10
Michael
I tend to think that plugging figures into the Stephan Boltzmann equation does not give useful or accurate answers unless some form of standardisation is adopted.
The use of black body concept is FULL of dangerous traps and the only real way of working this equation is to actually measure some of the responses to variations in input during standardisation runs.
KK
00
sorry folks; this belongs at 2.3.2.2.2 or can be deleted
00
Hi Yonnie
Reading that brought me back to the true origin of Fread’s work: the SEX drive.
Good summary.
And thanks for the last line; you don’t do too bad yourself!
KK
10
To me the word “righteousness” comes to mind.
They have this idea that the wold is somehow in peril, hurting, dieing.
They have this knowledge and know they are right.
They want to save the world, but the people refuse to jump to their command. (they have their own mind and priorities).
So with righteous indignation they berate those who don’t believe them. Accusing them of willfully not acting.
Messiah complex or God complex. This phenomenon has been encountered enough times to get a name. And it should be a chapter or subject in its own right in any psychology degree.
00
For the 25 years before I retired. I was a Psychologist, in Australia. Apart from the two years compulsory ‘Associate’ status needed for membership and therefore a practice Registration by States’ Governments, I refused point blank to be a member of the APS. It is a furphy of a group, riven with feminist nonsense and fabulists, many of whom are not even psychologists. Mrs Amfortas the First was a Professor of Psychology who never studied more than one semester of the subject in her interminable rise up through Batchelor, Masters and PhD, none of which were in psychology. (Quite a passable little potter, mind you). The Society scrapes the barrel of academic nonentiies and ‘fast-tracked’ charlatans to be ‘members’ and add to the financial coffers. Littlefield is not the first lady in the high chair to throw her food bowl along with a public tantrum. A previous one had her feet put to the fire for giving ‘official APS approval’ to a cobbled-together psych ‘test’ used by a recruitment company after a very nice dinner with the chap who put it together. It was his commercial baby that as a consequence of the investment of a dinner in a nice restaurant went on to net a small fortune.
262
Yes, there are lots of “Institutes” that are similar. Somewhere I have a very impressive document, that stands witness to the fact that I am an Fellow of the Institute of Chronometer Observers.
I can’t remember how much it cost, but it wasn’t much. But I was never game enough to put it on my office wall, to see if anybody noticed, in case they did.
40
Worth it’s weight in 120 GSM paper.
00
Jo, are you just preaching to us in the choir?
Or are you also submitting this to the dead tree media?
It really needs to be done.
Plus, any chance of you posting videos of you reading your blogs to Youtube?
121
Actually Id say between The Pope and psychologists joining the AGW band wagon, the appropriateness of their sprukers is increasing all the time.
91
Is that you speaking Safetyguy or your Id?
61
Id be both, I expect.
62
Its really me lol, although I can often feel the power of my online persona overwhelming me 😀
51
This is probably the most funnyest’est idea in it.
It reminds me that other old idea – there’s 97% of one born every minute.
162
Of course there’s a “growing” body of empirical research into the psychology of “x”. She forgot to mention the only reason is the money scammed from us – the government, for everything that becomes faddish.
141
I thought just working the words “empirical research” and “psychology” into the same sentence was an achievement without adding “non existent”.
141
It’s almost unprecedented.
91
And far worse than we thought!
30
Gary in Erko
“There is a growing body of UN emperorial research into the psychology of climate science denial”
Fixed it for you?
20
So, Dolores Umbrage has yet another alias. She pops up everywhere.
151
…“jumping to conclusions” fallacy when arguing that natural past climate changes rule out a human role in modern climate change.’
Its hubris to imagine humans could change the climate, anyway the facts speak for themselves. Sadly CO2 doesn’t appear to increase global warming, so the Denialati have returned to an earlier null hypothesis and use past climate changes as a guide to the future.
141
So easy for climate-change spin,
To take the most gullible in,
Those with knowledge and learning,
Yet in no way discerning,
With insights remarkably thin.
221
As per Wiki:
Attempt doesn’t mean succesful. I wonder if Littlefield ever resolved any of her cases successfully and permanently.
121
how disturbed is CNN?
13 Aug: CNN: John D. Sutter: 2 degrees: Who’s to blame for climate change?
Vote on how CNN will cover this story
Every story needs a villain — and climate change is no exception…
I’d like your help in deciding which bad guys to target…
Below, you’ll find a Facebook poll that lists four of my favorite climate villains, all of which came from your suggestions…
Before you vote, though, you should know some of the basics. In talking to people about climate change this year, I’ve found there is SO MUCH confusion about what’s causing warming and why.
I’ve met people — smart people, reasonable people — who think that climate change is caused by aerosols from hairspray (it isn’t) or that it’s just
part of a natural warming cycle (it’s not)…
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/13/opinions/sutter-blame-climate-change-vote-2-degrees/
13 Aug: CNN: Martin Luther King III: MLK III: Climate change and pollution take away civil rights
Make no mistake, the injustice of climate change and the pollution that fuels it are among this century’s most debilitating engines of inequality…
When Sandy leaves New York dark and underwater; when Katrina sweeps away homes in New Orleans; when coastal cities face continual worry as rising seas pollute drinking water — it is low-income inner city families who suffer most. When punishing drought smothers livelihoods and inflates food prices; when warmer temperatures bring more smog, more asthma, and longer allergy seasons; when heatwaves and cold snaps descend on urban, unprepared neighborhoods — it is communities of color who suffer…
Climate change is fueled by carbon pollution — largely from our power plants — and comes packaged with smog and soot, causing thousands of asthma attacks, hospital visits, and premature deaths every year, especially in vulnerable minority populations…
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/13/opinions/king-obama-limits-on-carbon-pollution/
61
Pat, thanks for the laugh. As always CNN = Constantly Nothing New
20
Smithsonian trying to find CAGW connections!
13 Aug: Smithsonian: Living in the Anthropocene: The Age of Humans: Chinese Cave Graffiti Records Centuries of Drought
By Sarah Zielinski
And chemical clues in a stalagmite inside the cave confirm the chronicles on the walls…
Now scientists have matched those chronicles with chemical data compiled from the cave itself and found evidence that more hard times could be ahead…
Seven inscriptions were special, though, and noted events tied to droughts in the 1500s, 1700s and 1800s…
“We find in our record a stark reminder of the influence climate has on us as society, and the vulnerability of civilization to even relatively small changes in climate,” says Breitenbach. “That our highly industrialized lifestyle is quite different from pre-industrial society in China is clear, but bearing the drought in California in mind, it is evident that sustained shifts in hydrological pattern can very severely impact large populations.”…
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/chinese-cave-graffiti-records-centuries-drought-180956259/?no-ist
news about the ***”climate space”:
13 Aug: Grist: Clayton Aldern: Move over MoMA, New York’s new climate change museum is about to be the hottest place in town
For many, climate change is not yet personal, but Miranda Massie is trying to change that. Massie is the executive director of the forthcoming Climate Museum in New York City, a project that seeks to make the impacts of and solutions to a changing climate intimate and tangible. The museum was chartered by the New York Board of Regents on July 20, which brings the project one step closer to the fabled red ribbon.
It’s a venture steeped with ambition – a word that has seen a lot of play in the ***climate space recently…
For Massie, “everything” is the ambition…
The museum, which Massie aims to launch in an interim space of 10,000 to 20,000 square feet within the next two years, will be the first of its kind
in the United States. (Hong Kong is home to the small Jockey Club Museum of Climate Change.) Backing her up is a heavy-hitting team of advisors and trustees, including environmental, legal, and communications leaders from the likes of Columbia University, New York’s Environmental Justice Alliance, NYU’s Tisch, NRDC, the London Science Museum, the National Audobon Society,
and Harvard’s Kennedy School…
Edward Maibach, director of George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication and a member of the Climate Museum’s advisory board, echoes the need to focus on solutions…
The museum is a tall order, especially in a country where climate denial created the impression of a false debate in the scientific community for so
long…
http://grist.org/climate-energy/move-over-moma-new-yorks-new-climate-change-museum-is-about-to-be-the-hottest-place-in-town/
71
CAGW clearly belongs in a museum along with dinosaurs.
10
14 Aug: UK Daily Mail: CHRISTOPHER BOOKER: £24billion and counting! Lunacy of the biggest white elephant in Britain which costs as much as the Crossrail, Heathrow Terminal works and London 2012 Olympics put together
David Cameron wants to allow EDF to build a new nuclear power plant next to an old one at Hinkley Point
The new site will look across the Bristol Channel to Wales and cost of more than £24billion
Equivalent to combined costs of vast Crossrail project in London, revamping of Terminal 2 at Heathrow and 2012 Olympics
Equally worrying is that, in return for all that vast subsidy paid by ordinary Britons to a French state-owned company, we will be getting only a relatively small amount of electricity (a capacity at any one time of up to 3,200 megawatts) at a ludicrously inflated price.
For that same £24billion, an estimate that could well rise much further in the future, we could get 20 new gas-fired power stations. These would be capable of generating 40,000 megawatts, or more than 12 times as much electricity as the new Hinkley, at little more than half the price charged to us consumers, and without a penny being paid to the French in subsidy…READ ALL
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3197220/CHRISTOPHER-BOOKER-Lunacy-biggest-white-elephant-Britain.html
61
You know, the same amount of power that would be delivered from 4000 Wind towers, each topped with a 2.5MW nacelle, around 20 huge scale (500MW) Wind Plants at an estimated cost of around UK £40 Billion, and then getting it for twice the life span of all those wind plants. (and that’s using one of the recent LCOE costings)
Tony.
91
Prefer a CANDU reactor instead of the old obsolete French design.
51
Hear here Jo! Well said.
61
The Loo school of psychology strikes again. What’s disturbing about it is that it legitimises hatred of a dissenting viewpoint, and that’s only a skip and a jump away from starting to do something about it.
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/05/25/the-real-bastards/
Pointman
151
That has been my fear for a long time.
61
I should mention that having what mainstream thinks are ‘Conspiracy Theories’ and mentioning it to a health professional can land you in a mental institution here in the USA.
This is definitely a future possibility we need to keep an eye on….
52
The article is satire.
61
The author’s name gives it away.
51
The rest that disappeared down the internet black hole is not.
41
“… no one denies the climate changes.”
Yes they do. Michael Mann denies the climate changes.
141
Michael Mann!
Correct. His Hockey Stick showed a long period of No Climate Change during the Natural Era, followed by temperature zooming up in the Anthropogenic Era.
81
I thought the letter was from the APS? It looks like that.
41
Was LL writing a letter without the full consent of APS as an organization? Her private thinking, funded by APS members?
61
Long ago, in ancient times, I took a number of undergraduate courses in psychology. At that time, the lecturers knew that psychology was not a science, but were hoping and trying to make it one some day. It looks to me as though the attempt has been abandoned.
(And this was back in the days when alchemy and haruspexy were classed as settled science.)
Incidentally, it would be great if you could track down the originals of those surveys (rather than reports of them), put them into a page, and put a link under the heading “consensus” on your side menu.
91
Using an argument from authority to claim an argument from authority is not convincing. To say the The Australian Psychological Society is using an argument from authority is itself fallacious – the APS are an authority in their area. Arguments from relevant authority are not fallacious.
The Climate Study Group needs to back up it’s claims with references etc, and thus show evidence they are a relevant authority, especially about psychology in this case.
319
The separation of the creative and emotional from the empirical and factual in academic pursuits was developed in ancient Greece and served as a benchmark for scholastic evolution that allowed human achievement to reach it’s present state.
The irrational blurring of this system will regress us back to throwing virgin’s in volcanos to end a drought.
122
Throwing a virgin, or indeed anyone, into a volcano would increase CO2 emissions, so I look forward to the wording of that policy.
Mind you, even now it’s a matter of 1 rule for the watermelons, and another for everyone else, so I guess we already have a critical mass of hypocrisy to work with.
122
Yes and any rise in CO2 emissions will be assessed very differently by warmists and CAGW skeptics, they will make claims of dangerous tipping points and impending doom based on a distorted emotive pseudo science where skeptics will look to tested data that shows no historical correlation to global temperature and CO2 levels.
Might have trouble finding virgins if the climate gets colder anyway. 😉
42
Sorry Harry – a fail. Argument from Authority is a logicalfallacy, that the argument is true becauseit is made by an authority. The argument MAY be true or maybe not. Accepting it means more than just trusting the authority to be honest- it means you accept that the truth IS what the authority determines, that any other evidence can go hang. It is a denial of your own power of reason (however feeble that may be).
162
Diogenese2: Good explanation.
62
diogenese2.
Well OK then consider it fallacious when an authority claims that AGW is not occurring.
At some point you do have to assume relevant authorities know how to do their jobs.
04
Harry Twinotter,
You’re confusing ‘knowing how to do their jobs’ with ‘producing valid results’. An authority on a given topic may be producing valid results consistently right up until the point when they make their first error. That’s why we always demand to see data and methods.
Just because some authority has been right up until now doesn’t mean they’ll also be right tomorrow.
An appeal to authority is worthless unless the claims of that authority can be verified. In fact, we know someone is an authority on a given subject because their claims have been scutinized and found to be accurate. This is self evident.
Remember having to take a test before getting a passing grade?
Abe
21
Abe may be incorrect in asking “remember having to take a test” because I don’t think they even give tests now except the ones that get the school governement funding. Otherwise, everyone who goes passes so no feelings are hurt. Remember that when you need brain surgery—your surgeon feels good about themselves.
No, at no point do we have to assume relevent authorities know how to do their jobe. A PhD does not endow a person with wisdom or truth. It means they paid a lot of money, did a lot of work and produced a paper someone accepted as doctorate level. Truth is not part of that equation, nor is actual competence on the job. A PhD does not make one a good employee necessarily. The belief that an authority is somehow in possession of knowledge that is hidden or not available to the public is just the same as believing a psychic is in possession of knowledge others do not have. If only a special group can possess knowledge, then that knowledge cannot be scientificallly verified. Which is exactly what the appeal to authority makes climate science—unverifiable.
21
Sheri,
The first green thumb is from me. 😉 I thoroughly agree with what you’ve said and my question was meant to be rhetorical. It was meant to reinforce the concept that even the statements of authorities need to be open to scrutiny by any and all of those people that wish to do so because anyone can make a mistake. Even experts.
Abe
01
Dio, we listen to authority all the time otherwise we would not be able to act on anything at all. If you fly in a plane you are trusting the authority of the engineers etc who designed, built and maintain it to ensure it doesn’t crash. What is a logical fallacy is listening to irrelevant authorities speaking on areas outside their’ expertise.
10
The APS didn’t provide 1 single reference to anything related to the supposed studies they make mention of in their statement. Why don’t you have a problem with that?
Is it because they, just as you do (consider it your trademark, I guess), seem to think that emotive, subjective, and superficial statements are all that is needed when conveying an argument?
122
James Murphy.
“The APS didn’t provide 1 single reference to anything related to the supposed studies they make mention of in their statement.”
Yes they do. They refer to The Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences. “Climate Change: Evidence and Causes.
02
The reference is to a booklet on climate change “evidence”. It’s more a propaganda piece than actual science, but that seems to be the norm for climate “science”. Since neither the Royal Society or the NAS (by the way, this is using fear and intimidation by using “authorities” to prove that something bad is happening and it is not to be questioned. Using authority in this manner is a form of intimidation) are in way connected to psychology departments or research, this is not in support of the writer’s statements. There are no references to support her statements.
Again, it is incredible that psychologists never seem to see their own confirmation bias. They are just as guilty as everyone else—Lyn wants climate change to be real and wants people afraid and coming into counseling where said individuals can be turned into political activists. Yet since she apparently sees herself as a goddess without impure thoughts or motives, she is incapable of using fear and intimidation to get what she wants, just a kinder, gentler form of fear and intimidation.
21
Harry: There is no such thing as the “argument from relevant authority” that nullifies the fallacy of “argument from authority”. It is “Argument from Authority” of any kind. This “relevent” or “appropriate” caveat appears to have been added as scientists and others decided they were the only ones to be listened to.
(I would note that it ONLY applies to science—try saying only a psychic can determine who is psychic and what qualifies because they are the authorities. It won’t fly. However, if there is an relevant authority on psychics, it would have to be other psychics.)
72
My my my “Harry Twinotter” you are very busy with your “little red thumbs” today !
Time to get out of mummy’s basement !!
23
Harry T, I have worked for a professional society and a trade association representing,amongst others, used car salesmen. I can assure you there was no discernable difference in their behavior which was 100% based on self interest.
21
Well said Harry, this site ,along with the other armchair expert sites, only heeds the irrelevant authorities.
10
Yes Frank, the challenge for all of us is knowing which authorities are irrelevant. Curious though, if one is an “armchair expert” does that make them an authority?
PS I am suspicious of any “authority” who’s career is advanced by fear mongering.
10
Oh gosh, do we have to go through the psych stuff again? Yeah, okay, we get it. When you can’t see any logic in your opponents’ beliefs you start to look for alternative explanations for their behaviour. We’ve all played that game at one point. It doesn’t lead anywhere. We can be “team players” and cheer on our allies despite their intellectual paucity, bash out exquisitely verbose reasons to hate the other group, go through all the doxing, implied threats, shakedowns, and gulags, and we’ll still have a physical mystery in nature that can only be solved observationally.
If I had to guess why “the climate debate” is still going unresolved, I’d guess it’s the same reason most other heated debates persisted for years in the sciences: not enough evidence to distinguish competing hypotheses. Climate science is lacking in sufficient quality measurements to draw reliable conclusions about future climate. As the WMO definition of “climate” is a 30 year average I would say 60 years global coverage, land, sea, sky, and sun, would be the bare minimum before really reliable models could be made. We’ve still got 25 years to go on land and sky and 48 more years for the oceans. We started late on this job. As the Earth only generates one annual global temperature measurement per year I do not see how we can speed up the process. The Earth is not running according to a UNFCCC agenda.
~ ~ ~
Whether it’s Cli-Sci or not, in the background there’s also the whole economic and institutional system of science today and how it resolves competing interests in society.
Just noticed an interesting fluff article up on Cracked called “Six Reasons You Can’t Trust Science Anymore“.
The part about scientists paying to get their papers published is interesting. But I don’t like their Tom Hanks analogy for scientists on three levels:
• The scriptwriter is the one who makes the essence of the movie, not the actor. The actor is like the marketing department of the journal.
• There has never been a time in the movie business where the casting director walked off the job due to pressure by an actor who wasn’t even in the movie.
• The implication that the journal should pay the scientists sounds like a recipe for journals to direct the production of particular results even more strongly than at present.
Any actual published scientists in the audience who have a front row view of the problem please tell us the answer here, I’d certainly be glad to hear it.
~ ~ ~
End of intermission. We now return to the thrilling mutual accusations of confirmation bias in your Friday night action blockbuster, Mad APS: Recursive Fury Road.
112
“CAN YOU SEE ME LEWANDOWSKY, CAN YOU SEE ME MAN?!!!!”
81
Shades of The Who there Yonnie?
00
‘…not enough evidence to distinguish competing hypotheses.’
The hiatus proves beyond reasonable doubt that CO2 does not cause global warming, but because AGW is a political bun fight its taking years to knock down.
The warmists need a return to 1878-79 conditions and the coolists require a rerun of the 1962-63 European winter to deal their death blow.
72
el gordo,
All in good time, mate. All in good time.
Abe
00
The problem is not only in science. Being human means that we gradually move from trying to maintain some standard for ourselves to concentrating on the standard of others. You see it in teaching where a teacher comes in with the emphasis on assessment of their own teaching practices to being overly enthusiastic about assessing the students.
The next thing that you know is that people are saying out loud “does he own a mirror?”
Professional societies should be like good librarians. Their role is not to decide on what is a good read but to choose wisely what members might want to read and will appreciate the recommended reading. Keeping up appearances could still lead to some sort of gate keeping for ideologies which they should be criticised for, before it denigrates into being something like the APS which Jo is highlighting. A very closed mind.
51
I’ll add that institutions should do the publishing on line with comments from registered users for reviews. Societies can then provide the recommended reading lists as some sort of QC. It will not stop the gate keeping but there is more of a chance that a dissenting view will get seen.
51
Jo what a great article.
I don’t think I have seen a more devastating “mortar style” commentary
(except on Jon Stewart’s Daily show ), and Stewart has professional script
writers.
The climate change blogscape is literally strewn with psychology “body parts”. 😮
81
I have recently posted on how we can more logically discern if climatology is becoming more or less scientific. In summary, consider the statement
CAGW ⊂ AGW ⊂ GW ⊂ CC
Where
GW = the global warming hypothesis
CC = Climate Change all types
⊂ = “a subset of”
To become more scientific, climatology as an academic discipline should be moving on two complementary fronts. Firstly, through generating clearer empirical confirmations, as against banal statements or conditional forecasts. Secondly, for the statements to become more unambiguous in being ascribable solely to the CAGW hypothesis in particular rather being just as easily be ascribed to vague and causeless climate change in general.
This is explained in more detail here.
Opinion polls are highly indirect evidence. They assume that those questioned are able to formulate an valid opinion based in the state of knowledge rather than belief. Even worse the alarmist opinion polls tend to be content-lite and support for the GW or trivial form of the AGW hypotheses. That is like
The name-calling and psychological arguments are even more indirect. It is basically saying “we are right in our opinions because those who oppose us can’t think straight.“
111
>> The name-calling and psychological arguments are even more indirect. It is basically saying “we are right in our opinions because those who oppose us can’t think straight.“
Occasionally someone will close the loop and argue “we can see the opposition can’t think straight simply because our opinion is the right one.”
Of course if you think the whole issue is purely a moral issue of the deontological variety then accepting circular arguments is practically inevitable.
30
Andrew,
To some extent this is already happening.
Two examples.
The surveys of Lewandowsky and others assume that they are right on everything, which means that anyone who disagrees is wrong. This is an extreme left perspective, which is backed by Lewandowsky’s surveys. The “Moon Hoax” paper was a good poll of alarmists. I was amazed at how left wing the vast majority of those who frequent alarmist blogs actually are.
Another is with the reaction to establishing a Lomborg Copenhagen Consensus Center in Australia. The reaction was of people who could not conceive that there could be another valid point of view either positively or normatively. Like Jo says above the folks are so sure of themselves they cannot use a dictionary, either making up their own definitions or making incorrect assumptions. I engaged a well-known British-based blogger on the subject, who is almost a parody of these traits.
20
“The lady doth protest to much methinks”
Gertrude’s comment to her son Hamlet cynically observes that it is affirmationthat destroys credibility not objection. Thus the concluding paragraphs of her letter betrays the double think that has not passed the notice of many of the commentators here.
“According to the social psychology theories on which the concept of confirmatory bias is based, we would expect the Australian public to be motivated to deny the disturbing realities of climate change, so that their relatively comfortable fossil-fuel based lifestyles could remain undisturbed. Yet this is clearly not the case”.
Actually the whole worlds actual or aspirational “comfortable lifestyle” is dependant on fossil fuels hence the grotesque deception that “renewables” can provide for this lifestyle.
“The THREAT of climate change is a powerful and on-going environmental stressor,”
the threat of, not any actual on-going identified climate change!
“which is already having very real and adverse impacts on psychological health and well-being”
very true – examples are daily emerging on these and similar sites, many of them psychologists!
” on perceived quality of life and environment”
perceived (by whom?) not measured or quantified.
“and on the very survival of whole populations”
Their can be little doubt that the developing nations, led by India & China, are well aware of what is impacting their survival. India is, starting with Greenpeace, in the process of expelling the entirety of the environmental “blob” and digging coal like there is no tomorrow – indeed, without it, there isn’t.
121
I’M in a conciliatory mood tonight because i spent yesterday with my middle daughter as she got her “A” level results and the place in uni that she wanted, and so weeks of worry have have ended with me sat infront of my computer with a nice glass of Rioja , i will worry about the cost of a new ( all singing and dancing)laptop that she wants and the massive deposit on student accommodation that i’ve had to payout at a later date . Anyway please bare with me, perhaps instead of bringing down , insulting ,dismissing etc the views of Prof Lyn Littlefield we should seek to open her eyes to what the skeptical view really is ?. The good professor has probably spent her entire professional academic life surrounded by other academics such as climate science professionals and her views on skeptics have been molded by those people , so she like so many overs think that skeptics are doubtful of AGW (deniers) rather than being skeptical of alarmism , perhaps someone with standing here should seek to enlighten her and open her eyes rather than dismiss her with insults as we tend to do. Jo, you posted a link to a Jose Duarte article in which if you read down from the part where he mentions STEVE MCINTYRE he then lays down a challenge to skeptics to produce evidence that refutes AGW , so clearly Jose dosnt get the skeptics position either !! beside the fact he doesnt understand the skeptic position someone should comment on his blog that its not incumbent on skeptics to to disprove an alarmist hypothesis, its up to people making those claims to show their evidence for their claims, and as far as i’m aware as a lay person they don’t have a single paper that proves their assertion that the world is going to hell in a hand basket if we do not reduce our co2 emissions. Maybe someone better qualified that visits here should take on that task, perhaps the author of comment #15 AMTHORTAS could ( sorry mate but you are qualified to debate with Jose ) anyway back to celebrating my daughters success and that bottle of nice spicy red , goodnight folks and all the best.
61
Doubting Dave: You are incorrect on the challenge to skeptics. Skeptics do have to show the theory does not work as presented. It’s falsification of a theory. If I said Newton was wrong about gravity, it would be incumbent upon me to show why he is wrong. It is incumbent upon Newton to fully explain his theory so I can refute it. This is exactly what skeptics are doing when they point out failed predictions, constant adjustments to temperature, etc. Duarte does acknowledge the temperature adjustments need explaining.
Duarte does “get the skeptic’s position”, he just does not necessarily agree with it. He tends to go with the argument from relevant authority, and in part, that may be because he is going for a PhD. I have noted that people who spent years and years in study are more likely to give higher belief to those who have done the same. It’s partly unconsciously done–if anyone can take apart climate change science, why has this person just spent years on a PhD and a ton of money so a blogger can take out his theory? While I know that a blogger can indeed take out theories, I also know that the person with the PhD is not going to be grateful and happy that it happened. I can see their point of view on this. Their years of work are being questioned by a person with a computer and internet access. It’s scary.
Duarte is considered a skeptic for not buying into the whole picture. I would note that I have not gotten anyone, Duarte included, to tell me what they would consider falsifying the global warming theory. Since it’s based on models and supposition of complex behaviours, how does one disprove it satisfactorily? (You cannot disprove it to a true believer.)
61
I’m sorry Sherri but just about everything you’ve just said is a complete load of bollocks, go back to that Duarte link to where he brings Steve Mcintyre into it, explain to me why he wants skeptics to explain why they are against agw when in fact most of us have no problem with AGW what we have have a problem with is alarmism and i will repeat’it is not incumpent upon me to disprove your theory, it is incumpent on you to provide evidence that supports it , and i’m sorry mate but even though you are better educated on these matters than i am , on this occasion we will have to disagree
24
Doubting:
“Instead, all we see are lower estimates of human forcing, ECS, model quality, etc.” There is no proof of fraud concerning the THEORY. Temperature manipulation, bad politics, but not the theory itself. This is very difficult for skeptics to grasp—and most refuse to even consider this. Sound familiar? Refusal to look at anything that might threaten your beliefs?
Duarte is saying that he is not aware of proof that CO2 does not cause warming. There are some who do not believe CO2 has any role but they are a small minority. As for McIntyre, so far he has looked at temperature manipulations, not the theory itself. AGW is not based on the alarmist propaganda, though that is most often what people perceive it to be.
From Duarte:
Scientific notes:
1. Measuring surface temperatures sure is complicated. In fact, as Gavin Schmidt said, global mean temperature isn’t measured per se. It’s estimated. Scientists can come along in 2015 and redo the temperature estimates for the past several decades. That’s strange. Most sciences don’t work that way, don’t have this constant process of re-estimation of past measured variables. If scientists can redo temperature estimates in 2015, they can presumably redo them in 2016, and 2017, and perhaps in 2023. I think we need to understand this better. Maybe they’re closing in on maximum feasible bias reduction and we won’t see much adjustment in the future, but this should be explained.
2. Knowing about or believing in human-caused climate change is nothing like knowing about gravity or that the earth is not flat. This is not like looking at something and seeing that it’s there, or figuring out the horizon, or dropping a ball. It’s so much more complicated, driven by inferential estimates and wicked statistics. Climate activists should be much less mean to skeptics, and stop trying to treat this issue as though people are obligated to march to the claims of a young, complex, and revisionist science. I don’t think people are obligated to believe in things they cannot observe or confirm directly except in special circumstances. Believing in everything the media folds under “science” is probably unwise, and it’s unclear how a rational knower is supposed to navigate our media/science culture. I don’t have any kind of prescription.
Duarte asks questions. Maybe not the ones YOU want and maybe he picks on someone you like and respect (if you do) but his objections are not unscientific.
Maybe you should try reading what I typed. I was VERY clear that if I have a theory I have to provide evidence to support it. If you have nothing to disprove it and cannot find any errors in my work, then you are indeed an unscientific individual if you then tell me I’m wrong and offer no reasons why. Rejecting a theory on the basis of you just don’t like it is not science.
62
1) It’s become “climate change” in order to avoid falsification (I remember having a conversation 6-7 years ago when I suggested that this nomenclature change would occur when the MSM realised that cold spells needed propaganda too)
2) Because the notion is now “anthropogenically caused climate change”, any bad weather anywhere on the globe at any time over any period is “proof”. Consequently it cannot be falsified
3) The real question: “How may we differentiate any anthropogenic element from other causes ?” is impossible to answer with any surety, so it is simply avoided. This point has been made ad nauseum with no popular impact
101
Agreed. These are questions that I ask and don’t get clear answers to. Falsification is very difficult when you’re dealing with models and statistics, but clearly the models themselves are very, very poor. On the other hand, proving CO2 has no effect on temperature is virtually impossible too. Only in black box models can that been shown and the earth is not a black box. Because it’s so complex, getting any concrete criteria for whether or not the theory should be rejected is impossible. I see no way to prove or disprove the theory. That’s a problem.
32
Ian, Sheri,
I think you are asking the wrong question. The theory that is driving a major change in our economies is not whether CO2 may have a slight warming effect. The question is whether CO2 has a CATASTROPHIC effect causing a TIPPING POINT to runaway global warming.
I think that question has been answered in several ways.
#1. There is no CATASTROPHIC effect without water as a ‘positive feedback’ tripling the CO2 sensitivity. The actual data shows water as a negative not positive feedback. Actual measurements have shown water has gone down as CO2 has gone up.
#2. CO2 ‘modeling’ is a mish-mash of theoretical equations and experimentally derived data. Where the climate modelers missed the boat is in using equations for ‘line broadening’ aka the ‘wings’ where the current CO2 absorption ( at 400 ppm) is supposedly taking place. These equations produce results that do not match up to the experimental data. The lines are not as broad as theory would have it. Dr. Happer has done the actual data gathering to prove this.
In other words CO2 is ‘saturated’ and the temperature/CO2 ppm curve goes flat for all intents and purposes at 400ppm. This says the climate sensitivity @ 400 ppm CO2 heads towards zero and not the high catastrophic numbers the IPCC proposes as an upper limit.
Audio and slides of the physics lecture
http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/
A less-technical lecture for the lay person:
http://jlf.streamhammer.com/speakers/williamhapper090814.mp4
3. Last is WHEN the earth is in the Milankovitch cycle. We are close to glacial inception. A sleepy sun plus major volcanic activity could possibly flip the earth into glacial inception NOW. That scenario is not out of the realm of possibility.
Solar insolation values @ 65N on June 22 for several glacial inceptions vary between a high of 500 W m−2, to 463 W m−2. The current value is 479W m−2, in the middle of the pack.
Lisiecki & Raymo in their paper, A Pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed benthic D18O records say
In plain language, the closest analog to the Holocene is MIS 11. This analysis based on physical evidence, not models like Loutre and Berger, (2003) indicates the Holocene is NOT going to remain above glacial inception (without human influence) and the earth will not return to high insolation values for another 65,000 years.
In other words the only tipping point possible is towards an ice box and not towards an oven.
61
Gai: I’m not asking a question. I’m pointing out that the actual theory is the CO2 adds heat to the atmosphere—what is very poorly called a “greenhouse effect”. That is what one would have to disprove to disprove the theory. This is separate from what the magnitude of the warming would be, whether the introduction of forcings and feedbacks were properly done, if there is such a thing as an average globale temperature, etc. I am not saying that these questions are not important, just that they are not part of the actual theory. Technically, the models aren’t either, but in reality, the models are the only thing out there to “prove” the catastrophic warming. Thus, the models have become the theory to most people.
40
I was reframing the question into the question that actually needs to be asked.
From the point of view of political policy all that matters are the words ‘Manmade’ and ‘Catastrophic’ without those words it is a minor backwater theory with as much political clout as the study of how many unicorns can dance on a rainbow.
Skeptics keep forgetting that point and it is one we need to keep in the front of our minds.
We keep letting the warmists pick the battlefields. DON”T HELP THEM!
40
If we do that, and we do, we must then be absolutely clear it is NOT about the science, but that we are behaving as politcal activists the same as the warmists are. It will not keep us from being called “denyers” but it will make sure we correctly identify our motivation. Because when we start talking about policies, it’s not about the science then.
10
Millions of school children have attempted to debunk Newton’s ideas with some ticker tape and weights and all have failed. Its a bit different to relying on data from someone else, that can’t be reproduced by others, after they have admitted to adjusting it.
Then there is the problem that when classical physics was extrapolated to objects moving very fast or at sub-atomic size, it failed. We can see already that extrapolating results from the models to the near future failed and these are driving public policy on avoiding disaster in 100 years.
Not exactly the right analogy.
41
I said “If I said Newton was wrong about gravity, it would be incumbent upon me to show why he is wrong. ” Newton was wrong when it came to sub-atomic size. No question. However, so far as I know, the physicists at the CERN facility don’t insist on using Newton’s theory and the people designing bridges don’t use quantum mechanics (if someone knows of using QM for bridge construction, I’d love to learn how that works—seriously). It’s a matter of the right tool for the right job, so to speak.
Yes, the models failed. I did not say the models worked. Whether or not the modellers will admit this is a separate issue. The politics of what to do are also seperate issues. It’s quite clear people cannot separate politics and questionable actions of scientists from the actual science. Which is how this whole mess careened out of control.
42
Yes, but if you had said that our children will never see bridges that stay upright then I wouldn’t have to prove Newton wrong.
Or using the analogy above, technically, a candle warms a house but the argument is whether its significant (or even better, that a g-string will keep you warm).
11
RB: I don’t follow at all—how does saying children will never see bridges that stay upright mean you wouldn’t have to prove Newton wrong?
Your statement about the candle is correct mostly. If you says a candle adds warmth to the house, that would be correct. Would you argue that it does not add warmth? I stated that the degree and significance of the warmth is the question, not whether or not the candle puts off heat and therefore adds warmth.
31
Political policies are decided by such pronouncements as “our children will never see snow again” and not that individual molecules of CO2 do not behave like black bodies.
10
What Do Psychologists Have to Say About Climate Change? (climate-resistance.org)
~ ~ ~
There’s no denying this label packs a political punch (eenews.net)
The word “denial” — meaning refusal or withholding — entered the English language from Old French hundreds of years ago, but it gained linguistic muscle with A.A. Brill’s translation of the Austrian father of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, in the early 20th century
But while environmentalists say they are making inroads with a public that is increasingly aware of climate change and impatient with those who continue to dispute it, they’re a long way from what Marshall says is the endgame.
“In the end, if you win the frame war, your opponents back off and they start using your language,” he said. “And then you’ve won.”
71
Psychological warfare, climate change news today;
http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/nasa-says-godzilla-el-nino-will-be-worse-than-all-previous-el-ninos/story-fnjwvztl-1227484302255
61
NASA calls it Godzilla.
Linus calls it the Great Pumpkin.
61
Is this blob the missing heat long sought after, a global warming signal?
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/01-n-pac-ssta-map-aug-2014-to-jul-2015.png
00
“No, says Lyn, the Royal Society was founded in 1662.”
And those founders would be horrified by what the RS has become. As am I.
81
O/T but an important insight into the grubby world of Australian politics and abuse of social media;
http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2015/08/09/bill-shorten-and-michael-danby-accuse-commissioner-dyson-heydon-of-supporting-rape-in-marriage/
61
Jo
Note
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/14/problematic-adjustments-and-divergences-now-includes-june-data/
WRT biases and fallacies, with potential application to BOM homogenisation IMO
51
Clive Hamilton’s hero is a 97% climate doomsday denier! (theconversation)
“Although we live in the upper middle phases of the evolution, a few individuals have attained such high states of consciousness that, combined with deep knowledge of the actual world, they can see and experience the future of humanity now.
Wilber, of course, is one of the few.
Ken Wilber has built a large and enthusiastic following over the last 20 years with a series of books building his “integral theory of spirituality”.
Drawing on the great truths of religious traditions east and west, it’s an all-encompassing story – “a theory of everything” – that Wilber has deployed to considerable effect to explain not just all kinds of religious experience and teaching but everything from the nature of consciousness, psychological theories, art, literature, postmodernism, philosophies of all kinds, feminism, sex, ecology and quantum physics, to name only a few.
So, what are we to think when we discover that Ken Wilber has swallowed the poison pill of climate science denial, and sings the praises of Michael Crichton?”
. . .
Who’s a denier now?
61
Jo
Some more non-sceptic biases and fallacies
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/8/14/gary-yohes-fictional-citation.html
41
We’re 97% Doomed!
Palmerston Council demands $530k in carbon tax money back from Darwin Council
~ ~ ~
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in his presentation “Climate Science and the Inadequacy of the Response,” warned that human activity was responsible for raising temperatures and that only decarbonisation of the global economy can stabilize the climate.
. . .
Gaia doesn’t like her money being stolen back.
Expect extreme, unprecedented weather or “unstable climate” in Palmerston.
51
As I pointed out on my blog, John Cook used the same fallacy (jumping to conclusions) and gave a totally insane example in his editorial on 5 telltale techniques of deniers. Many people use the word fallacy and claim understanding when they really have none. (Cook’s final telltale technique actually landed global warming believers in the science denier’s camp.)
I’m not sure truth was ever really much a part of psychology. That may be a misperception. “Understanding” is generally the goal and understanding has no real verification or measurement. In that sense, psychology is very little different from politics, propaganda, etc. It is the basis of many of these activities. If science is an attempt to measure and quantify reality (truth), then psychology is not science. A few small parts may be, but much is not. Research psychologists are probably the only ones close to or actually practicing science.
All true believers of climate change are blind to their own prejudices. That’s a requirement for the unshaken belief in anything, be it science or religion or whatever. Tell someone who truly believes the moon is blue that the moon is yellow, not blue and he will manage to explain how wrong your eyes are at perceiving the color of an object. Measure the wavelength and he will say your instrument is wrong. He/she CANNOT be wrong.
61
Be reasonable, see it my way.
51
Psychologists are just glorified listeners, that will occasionally offer pearls of wisdom to allow individuals to go on and participate productively in our society. They are really no different than the local beauticians, massage therapists or barpersons that help people everyday.
Regards
Climate Heretic
101
Psychologists are licensed and have a 4 year or more degree. Whether that improves performance or not, I don’t know. However, a “good listener” is not the same thing.
62
“Psychologists …. no different than the local beauticians … ”
I have to disagree. Beauticians, massage therapists, even barpersons perform useful functions. Littlefield? Lewandowsky?
One fervently hopes that neither of these two ever have, or ever will, come within a mile of anyone needing mental health assistance. One should resist making jokes about people who have unfortunate names, but the APS Executive director’s name seems to be singularly appropriate.
41
Please do not confuse Lew and Littlefield with actual practicing psychologists. These are academics. Just as is the case in any profession, there are good and bad examples.
41
I also disagree that beauticians serve any more useful a function than psychologists. Beauty enhancement is no different than going to one’s therapist every week to feel better. It’s all psychology—one is just more evident than the other.
31
today ABC Breakfast opened with the deathly voice of “Climate Change Authority” Bernie Fraser being interviewed by Simon Lauder, who posed the questions in a stilted, slow-motion fashion, with not a single interruption or questioning of anything Bernie had to say. ABC Breakfast trots these critics out daily.
it was exactly like one of those audio press releases which leaves gaps so media can insert appropriate questions.
also reported prominently on ABC’s news page -#2 story:
15 Aug: ABC: Jake Sturmer: Government’s ‘substantially weaker’ emission reduction targets not enough, Climate Change Authority says
The independent statutory advisory body’s Bernie Fraser said in a statement the Authority has recommended reductions of 45-63 per cent by 2030.
“Along with other countries, Australia has agreed to work towards reducing emissions to levels consistent with limiting global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels — this remains a challenging task,” he said in a statement…blah blah…
The Opposition and the Greens have argued Australia’s targets left the nation at the “back of the pack” when it comes to international action on climate change…
INSERT – Top 15 emitters – Interactive Map…etc
Business groups and the Government said the policy was ambitious and gets the balance right between protecting the environment and the economy…
In response, the Climate Change Authority said with the “right” policies the Authority believes more ambitious targets than those adopted by the Government can be achieved at modest costs.
The Government has tried to abolish the CCA, but in a deal to abolish the carbon tax with the Palmer United Party, it was spared.
In its statement, the Authority said it was now following Government directions to conduct a special review comprising three reports on Australia’s post 2020 targets, the case for an emissions trading scheme (ETS) and how the Government could reach its post-2020 targets cost effectively.
“The Authority’s current work on the case for a market-based ETS for Australia is obviously occurring in a difficult environment,” Mr Fraser said…blah blah…
The Federal Opposition has vowed to scrap the centrepiece of the Coalition’s Direct Action climate change policy to save billions of dollars.
Opposition Leader Bill Shorten used a speech on Friday to vow to abolish the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF), which pays companies to reduce their pollution.
Labor said ditching the policy would save up to $4 billion over the next 10 years, which Mr Shorten said could be spent on renewable energy or to reduce the budget deficit…
In a speech in Sydney, Mr Shorten said the centrepiece of Labor’s alternative was renewable energy.
“We have said by 2030, 50 per cent of Australia’s electricity should come from renewable energy,” he said.
“This is not about leading the world — it’s about catching up.”…
ENDS WITH THE FULL CLIMATE AUTHORITY STATEMENT
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-14/emission-reduction-targets-not-enough-climate-change-authority/6699034
The Full Bernie:
pdf: 5 pages: 14 Aug: CCA: Some Observations on Australia’s post-2020 Emissions Reduction Target
Statement by the Chair, Bernie Fraser http://www.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/sites/prod.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/files/files/CFI/CCA-statement-on-Australias-2030-target.pdf
41
Bernie all over the MSM, & Fairfax tells it like it is!
Climate Change Authority head Bernie Fraser issues blistering rebuke to Abbott …
Sydney Morning Herald – 13 hours ago
Emissions targets below other nations
9news.com.au – 14 hours ago
The government’s emissions reduction target would place Australia at or near the bottom of comparable nations including the US and UK, the independent Climate Change Authority says. Chairman Bernie Fraser said
Emission target ‘near the bottom’
The Australian – 7 hours ago
Mr Fraser said with the “right” policies, more ambitious targets than those announced by Australia could be achieved at “modest costs”.
Australia’s emissions cut target ‘at or near bottom’ of comparable countries
The Guardian – 12 hours ago
But CCA chairman Bernie Fraser said
Emissions targets below other nations
Yahoo7 News – 14 hours ago
31
Pat
I see the SMH is helping “lead the charge” with the latest propaganda. Given many in the NH have been complaining about a poor summer , well below average temps. in Arctic regions this summer and SH winter has not been that great I don’t know July could be anything like what they are saying
http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/71153145/world-set-for-hottest-year-ever-after-july-breaks-recordsat
10
2 Laws:
(SMH) Brian Preston, chief judge of NSW Land and Environment Court, joins Peter Hannam for a chat over lunch.
Preston defended the importance of judicial independence, and later remarked that miners too often view environment checks as merely red tape.
~ ~ ~
>> At least miners have “environment checks” & red tape:
(ABC) Solar farm exemption from environmental impact statement disappointing
“It’s ironic isn’t it that for a project, a solar farm that we’re undertaking for environmental purposes, can on the other hand cause some natural conservation damage to the local area,” she said.
“This is an area which is quite heavily treed with yellow box gums which can provide a home to both the glossy black cockatoo but also the region honey eater which is an endangered species in the ACT.
“The ACT Government is in some ways putting one environmental value above another environmental value.”
. . .
It was never about the environment. Follow the money.
61
Hey, this is in the realm of psychology. “Scientists” get to write about their “feelings” on climate change.
http://www.scienceweek.net.au/is-this-how-you-feel/
This compliments the ABC RN story I mentioned ib the previous thread.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/rnafternoons/scientists-say-how-they-27feel27-about-climate-change/6698622
41
Since this did not post the first time I will try again piecemeal.
The first part of the Strategy was to blame everything happening in the natural world on CAGW. Now they have moved to the next stage, blaming anxiety about every social catastrophe on CAGW. The last stage will be to declare “Denialism” a mental illness and have such people committed.
Unfortunately the precedence has already been set and a new international diagnostic manual released. Millions of healthy people – may be wrongly labeled mentally ill by a new international diagnostic manual, specialists said on Thursday.
91
As the The Rosenhan Experiment shows once diagnosed as “mentally ill” the label sticks no matter what. So it is a bit of a facer to find another article by Psychology Today Field Guide to the Conspiracy Theorist: Dark Minds Thankfully the attack is on Alex Jones and not Climate Skeptics…. This time…..
51
gai,
Funny how Paul D. Morrison and R.M. Murray do not realize that in saying —
They are “jumping to conclusions” is a common reasoning style among” by those in Institutes of Psychiatry.
Disfunction of dopamine reward paths is just another theory that is not held by all in the Psychiatric Industry.
These particular psychiatrists are just pushing their pet theory that is (as usual in psychiatry) held together with only many confirmation studies.
20
“even paranoids can have enemies”
00
Yes, but they can never identify them correctly as they believe everyone is out to get them.
00
Here is a link with a list of things blamed on Global Warming(TM). http://akdart.com/warming14.html
51
Yeah, the shoe really fits the other foot doesn’t it?
41
Here is another link to everything that has been attributed to the global warming scam……
A Complete List Of Things Supposedly Caused By Global Warming
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html
It’s good for a laugh !
41
I like the “walrus stampede” the best!
10
David Maddison –
love this bit at the scienceweek link – “the greater public”?:
“The project has really struck a chord with the greater public, receiving write-ups on large American websites like Mother Jones, the National Journal and Grist. It has been featured as a lead story on News.com.au and getting coverage on the popular website Science Alert.”
and, from your ABC link: “Professional science communicator, Joe Duggan and his NEW PROJECT, Is this How You Feel?”
of course, that was a year ago, when the story was NEW:
22 Aug 2014: MotherJones: Chris Mooney: These Climate Scientists Are Telling You What They Really Think
Researchers explain why they feel frustrated, angry, worried, and helpless in the global warming debate.
PHOTO LETTER – CAPTION: A climate scientist expresses some of her feelings about the climate debate.
Joe Duggan/IsThisHowYouFeel.weebly.com
http://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/08/climate-scientists-australia-emotions
so ANU makes it an Event this year, and it’s NEW again:
18-19 Aug: ANU Events: Is This How You Feel?
“I see a group of people sitting in a boat, happily waving, taking pictures on the way, not knowing that this boat is floating right into a powerful and deadly waterfall…”
unbelievable.
51
“…with the greater public, receiving write-ups on large American websites like Mother Jones, the National Journal and Grist….”
Greater public??? Mother Jones??? Grist??? Can you say far left.
This reminds me of the use of the term Bolshevik by another small minority in a different time and place.
In Russian, Bolshevik literally meaning “one of the majority” so it was a deception to make the general public think they were a much larger group than they actually were.
From Webstats:
Wall Street Journal
Daily Unique Visitors: 220 K
Daily Pageviews: 1.1 M
GRIST
Daily Unique Visitors: 39.1 K
Daily Pageviews: 167.6 K
WUWT
Daily Unique Visitors: 2.6 K
Daily Pageviews: 10.4 K
31
gai –
did u wrongly identify MotherJones as WUWT in your webstat listings?
10
In time the great carbon dioxide scare which forced Western democracies to shut power plants, dramatically increase energy prices, build useless desalination plants and 220,000 huge windmills and subsidize billions of short term solar panels will be the subject of many learned tomes in psychology. For now it is unbelievable that a senior psychologist simply demands we obey our science masters and agree to what is supposed to be science orthodoxy, even if we disagree and for good reasons. That is totalitarianism, pushed by a psychologist? What happened to the 32,000 US degreed scientists who gave their names to the Oregon petition, 27 years ago? Is a psychologist more qualified in science? Where is this consensus?
What she should be commenting on is how a billion people were hoodwinked by a few highly placed individuals to the point of mass hysteria about something which is transparently not true. CO2 driven temperature was at best a wild hypothesis thirty years ago and now totally disproven by the simple fact that CO2 has gone up steadily and temperature has not budged for twenty years.
However it takes psychologist to miss the obvious and the real opportunity, to analyse how mass media, mass marketing, wedge politics, Green fervor, fear and huge money have conspired to create the single greatest waste in the history of the world, except of course for those who made the money. Her tack though is to try to jump on the same wagon. Sad. Skepticism is the foundation of all science but apparently psychologists are not scientists.
121
Third try:
I had read several years ago a comment from a nurse that in the USA nurses and doctors were told to identify those who were “Conspiracy Types” as “mentally ill” She was cautioning people to keep their political opinions to themselves or they might just find themselves in a mental institution.
I hesitate to use these links however since lewandowski and others have now linked Skeptics to “Conspiracy Types” it is worth paying attention to the example they offer
Do We Need a Ministry of Truth for the Internet
A psychologist Doug Soderstrom, Ph.D. said in August 29, 2009, “…Having been a psychologist for nearly thirty years now I am not at all surprised to find that such a thing has occurred. The United States government has routinely used (or should I say misused) psychologists to do their “dirty work,” and only recently has the American Psychological Association been willing to consider the ethical concerns that individual psychologists have had to deal with….” (I am leaving out link since I think it is censored)
This is definitely a future possibility we need to keep an eye on….
71
Are People Being Thrown Into Psychiatric Wards For Their Political Views?
It is an uncomfortable question to ask but it should not be ignored as a possibility. The article contains many examples, recent history and links.
51
It is what the communist USSR used to do to its citizens…..
31
Does anyone have figures comparing the amount of materials that go into a windmill subsidy farm or farms (since they produce so little energy you need many farms to make the same power as a conventional power station) compared to a fossil plant of the same capacity? E.g. amount of steel, copper, concrete etc.?
51
Robert Brown of Duke uni gets stuck into the corruption of temp data-sets like GISS and HAD 4 etc. I hope Jo and David have the time to read his post at WUWT.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/14/problematic-adjustments-and-divergences-now-includes-june-data/
61
Is the latest book from Mark Steyn’s website hardcover or paperback? The version from Amazon is paper or electronic. I would like a hardcover. Thanks.
41
There is a phone number at Mark’s site:
http://www.steynstore.com/index.html
41
I ordered from the site and it’s paperback.
41
Greens claim that “renewables” will be cheaper than fossil fuels. It sounds like the claim from the early nuclear industry that nuclear electricity would be too cheap to bother metering.
http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/en/what-we-do/climate/renewable-energy-myths1/
51
David nuclear WAS cheap until the protesters and the regulators got into the act.
Here is an example of the cost of regulation for a small hydro electric power plant.
The Debilitating Cost of Federal Regulatory Compliance
An increase in cost by a factor of ten for a hydro plant, you can imagine what the added cost is for nuclear and that is before the protesters get into the act.
111
Worth a listen !
Alan talks to the emeritus professor about the renewable energy scam
http://www.2gb.com/article/alan-jones-professor-ian-plimer-0
51
Many thanks Angry. Great interview, and I’m an admirer of Prof Plimer anyway, so I’m delighted to hear he’s still very active. And there’s another book I must get.
Cheers,
Dave B
10
The “thumbs down” troll is at it again.
51
I just went and gave thumbs up to all, except the trolls. They got the thumbs down!
Two can play that game.
51
It is curious. Quite why the red-thumber cannot attempt to offer an argument for us to discuss should be a subject for psychological study. Perhaps it is more OCD: turn on computer, get on-line, click on JoNova, select today’s topic, click on red thumb for all comments present, wash hands (using fresh bar of soap), go to work (avoiding stepping on any cracks in the pavement).
20
It is quite obvious that this stupid, vacuous unintelligent “woman” Lyn Littlefield did not ewven pass primary school science !
“She” just broke my BS Meter !
41
“ewven”…..even.
11
“Would she survey Jews in order to understand what Palestinians feel?”
As a mindless spin-doctor of the powers-that-be, she probably would.
51
Well, it would certainly supply the answer she wanted 🙂
30
If you Google https://www.google.com/search?q=psychology+climate+change+belief&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=psychology+climate+change+belief&start=40 you will see a huge number of hits for climate change and psychology but they are all on the alarmist side.
61
That’s because Google is a very slanted search engine and people game it. Want to move up in the rankings? Change your tags, get a whole bunch of people to click on your site, create an algorithm and identities to hit the sites you want listed, etc. It is NOT based on searching for what you type in, only for what matches the criteria Google developed. Since Google is far left, it makes sense most of the hits are going to land on far left sites. This is about money, not information, and pushing a cause. Other search engines are somewhat better, but there is no search engine out there that I have found that will actually look for what is requested.
10
As undergraduates at a liberal arts university in the early-to-mid 1960s, students in all disciplines had to take a number of hours in liberal arts subjects. One of the qualifying subjects was psychology, and I took a five-hour “fundamentals of psychology” class. I admit my memory of that class is vague and what I am about to relate may never have occurred, or occurred but in a matter inconsistent with my memory. In any event, as I recall the teacher of the class related the following story.
Grouping people into one of two classes, educated or uneducated (I have no recollection of the criteria for being put in one of the two classes), some psychologists wanted to determine that when faced with an unsolvable problem, who would be quicker to give up trying to find a solution: educated people or uneducated people? To answer this question, the psychologists devised a problem involving (a) an infinite alternating color pattern of squares (think checkerboard) and (b) an object initially placed on one of the squares. The manner in which the object could make individual movements between squares was restricted (think of the allowed movements of a bishop on a chessboard). Using as many legal movements as needed, the problem presented to the test subjects was to move the object from its initial location to a specified final position. The psychologists designed the test to have no solution so that what was being measured was the lengths of times people would stay with the problem before they gave up.
The weakness of the test was that a few people solved the problem. As I recall, their solution involved treating the infinite set of squares as being three-dimensional, not planar, in which case a set of legal moves could be found that would relocate the object to the desired square.
I know this is anecdotal and in no way is indicative of most psychological testing; but it left me with the impression that maybe, just maybe, what psychologists think they are testing for and what they are actually testing for may not be one and the same.
51
PICS: 14 Aug: UK Telegraph: Oliver Smith: Melting snow leaves behind magical frozen caves in Scotland
Lingering snow in the Cairngorms has created formations that wouldn’t look out of place in Disney’s Frozen
These striking pictures were captured by Helen Rennie at Ciste Mhearad in the northern Cairngorms.
Low summer temperatures mean snow continues to cling to the mountainsides of the Scottish National Park, even in the middle of August. But as the patches begin to melt from below, and water flows downhill, vast caverns – some big enough to walk through – are formed…
Experts say that more snow has lingered in the Scottish mountains this summer than for at least 20 years…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/uk/scotland/11804149/Melting-snow-leaves-behind-magical-frozen-caves-in-Scotland.html
on the other hand!
15 Aug: Guardian: Travis Irvine: Do you know snow? Take our quiz on snowmelt and climate change – quiz
As the climate changes, mountain snow is melting faster at the end of the winter – and that impacts millions of people in ways you might not expect. Take this quiz and find out how much you snow about snowmelt.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/14/snow-drought-wildfires-water-colorado-rockies-quiz
i can’t even see how to start the quiz, but no matter.
12 Aug: TravelWeekly: Felicity Long: More snow for Chile’s Ski Portillo
Can’t wait for winter? Skiers and snowboarders are reveling in the more than five feet of snow that blanketed Ski Portillo in Chile since Aug. 5.
Fueled by El Nino, more snow is expected, dropping fresh powder on this summer ski area, located on the shores of the Lake of the Incas about two hours from Santiago…
http://www.travelweekly.com/South-America-Travel/More-snow-for-Chiles-Ski-Portillo
51
Beautiful pictures of snow caves. What is not so beautiful is more than likely we are moving into a cold period. Not even the Greens will be laughing when that becomes obvious – or maybe not – they always did want us to freeze in the dark.
20
I am interested in your opinions on this article about the Tesla battery. Now, Tesla have developed a good batterybsystem for their cars (based on 18650 type lithium cells as used in laptops) but battery technology still has limitations. For example, the claimed cost is $3,500 (doesn’t say what currency) for a battery to store 10kWh of electricity. Does that make economic sense? Is 10kWh enough for a house? How many solar panels would you need to power a house? I would say you would need many more than the roof space available. And what us the battery pack life? In my house my average power I use is about 1kW (not to mention gas for heating and hot water). This battery pack would not me enough for me, or anyone, I suspect.
https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/revolutionary-tesla-battery-heralds-end-of-fossil-fuels,7677
20
13 Aug: Guardian: Joshua Robertson: Global insurer Aviva warns of ‘grave reputational risks’ of Carmichael mine
President of Kiribati calls for immediate worldwide moratorium on new coalmines and expansions ahead of Paris climate talks
(Joshua Robertson is Guardian Australia’s Brisbane correspondent. He previously worked on the investigations desk and covered organised crime for the Courier-Mail and the Sunday Mail)
The investment arm of UK-based Aviva, which manages assets worth $522bn, is the latest international financier to flag concerns over the Carmichael coalmine, which it said could become a “stranded asset” and was “the antithesis of what was needed” ahead of key UN climate talks in Paris in December…
Tong wrote that stopping new coalmines would make any agreement in Paris “truly historical”, while the “construction of each new coalmine undermines the spirit and intent of any agreement we may reach”.
“As leaders, we have a moral obligation to ensure that the future of our children, our grandchildren and their children is safe and secure. For their sake, I urge you to support this call for a moratorium on new coalmines and coalmine expansions.”…
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/13/insurer-aviva-warns-reputational-risks-bankrolling-carmichael-coalmine
reminder, given Guardian won’t tell their readers:
3 Aug: CleanTechnica: Aviva Pledges $3.9 Billion In Renewable Energy Investments
Aviva Chief Executive Officer Mark Wilson recently stated that the company will invest around $780 million every year in renewable energy and energy efficiency assets over the next 5 years…
Germany’s Allianz Group has increased its annual renewable energy investment budget to around $385 million, while AXA has announced plans to sell $500 million in coal assets and increase cumulative investment in clean energy assets to $3.3 billion by 2020…
reminder:
UNEP Finance Initiative: Online Course: Climate Change Risks & Opportunities for the Finance Sector
MENTORS’ BIOGRAPHIES
Dr. Andrew Dlugolecki (Course mentor for weeks 1 & 2):
Dr. Andrew Dlugolecki worked for 27 years in Aviva insurance group, in a number of senior technical and operational posts with UK and international responsibilities, retiring from the post of Director of General Insurance Development in December 2000. Modelling the effect of weather on insurance claims in the 70’s and 80’s led to his involvement with global warming from 1987 onward. He served as the chief author on Financial Services for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its 1995 Assessment Report, and has been an author, reviewer or review editor in later Assessment Reports. IPCC named him as a key
contributor when they received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. He carried out similar duties for the official UK and EU reviews of climate change. In 2009 the UK’s statutory committee on adaptation to climate change appointed him as a member with specialist knowledge on financial services. He chaired three studies of climate change by the Chartered Insurance Institute (1994, 2001 and 2009).
Andrew is a special advisor of the Carbon Disclosure Project and has been an advisor to UNEP FI on climate change since 2001, having written, edited, or project-managed several of their reports and briefings.
He also consults privately from his home in Perth, Scotland and includes UNFCCC as one of his clients.
http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/training/climate/cc_course_biographiesOLD.pdf
30
the German people need to tell the EU where to go:
13 Aug: Reuters: German legal experts say coal reserve plan may break EU rules
Germany’s plans to pay companies to shift power capacity to a coal-fired reserve from 2017 may well breach EU rules, legal experts at the German parliament have found, a document seen by Reuters on Thursday showed…
The legal experts, who provide independent views on policies and other issues, concluded that the plans to shift about 2.7 gigawatts of power generation capacity into a reserve could be seen as a subsidy that would need approval from Brussels, according to the document…
In theory, the idea of the reserve is to tap it in the event of power shortages arising from Germany’s switch to renewable energy – a more unpredictable source of power than conventional sources like coal…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/13/germany-coal-eu-idUSL5N10O33I20150813
following is a section on Carbon Brief’s Daily Briefing today, with multiple links. notice it’s not suggesting “global warming” is the problem, but “extreme weather”:
Food production shocks ‘will happen more often because of extreme weather’
Climate change and a growing population mean that food “shocks” – where the production of staple crops such as rice, wheat and soybean falls by 5-7% – will triple in just 25 years, according to new research. The report by the UK-US Taskforce on Extreme Weather and Global Food System Resilience says the odds are currently once-in-a-century but such an event will occur every 30 years or more by 2040, leaving people in developing countries vulnerable to instability and conflict. Global food shortages would expose Britain to greater risk from terrorism, says The Times (LINK). Agriculture faces a triple challenge, reports New Scientist (LINK): boosting yields to feed a growing global population, reducing its impact on the environment and becoming more resilient to increasingly extreme weather. The Guardian (LINK)
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/08/daily-briefing-food-production-shocks/
proof Google’s AlGore-ithms are still at work. on my Google News page for today, the oldest piece still being carried, with the summary as follows showing, is:
Drop demand for finance from rich countries: Arvind Subramanian
11 Aug – Business Standard
Chief Economic Advisor (CEA) Arvind Subramanian has suggested Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Finance Minister Arun Jaitley to radically alter India’s climate-change policy and negotiation strategy before the new global climate-change agreement…
Arvind is such a tool.
30
Oooh… that is harsh, Ms Nova. But – well said! Are you sending these posts as articles to various other media outlets? If not, you should do, as one – just one – might pick up on it; then, times will get interesting.
30
Why are we even listening to psychologists? I have worked 25 years in the drug and alcohol sector and have not yet met a client who could not wrap a psych around his or her little finger. All they need to learn was a few key words the psych was wanting to hear and hey presto, instant believe and instant reprieve. In the physical sciences something is correct or incorrect, right or wrong. Psychology has no black and white,right or wrong, just shades and shades of grey.
60
I posted a response to the ABC program talking about the “feelings” of those working in “climate science”. You may wish to do so as well. Note that it is moderated so it might take a while for my comment and others to appear.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/rnafternoons/scientists-say-how-they-27feel27-about-climate-change/6698622
30
“climate change…. already having very real and adverse impacts on
psychological health and well-being”. Lyn Littlefield
I stopped reading right there. Even most climate scientists recognize that global warming (as projected) will probably have a net positive effect for several decades to come, mainly from greening the earth and increases in food production.
She needs to get out more and stop parroting rubbish.
60
It’s job security. A weak, pathetic, helpless society is necessary for her profession to remain strong.
20
“climate change…. already having very real and adverse impacts on
psychological health and well-being”. Lyn Littlefield
Well, this depends how you look at it – children have been taught how terrible humans are, how they should feel guilty about things which were not their fault, and which they had no control over. Not to mention how, if they don’t behave, then there will be great floods, fires, and other catastrophes.
It can be argued by those “greens” who hate christianity and judaism as much as they hate (rich) humanity, that this is all OK, because Christianity started it with all the talk of fire and brimstone, and ‘Catholic guilt’, and that the ends justify the means, as children will respect their environment.
As good as it is to teach children to respect their environment, and other people, the ends do not justify the means, and if I had children, I’d be pretty annoyed that their school time is taken up with teaching them to feel guilty, that feelings about a subject are more important than facts, as well as spending hours playing around in vegetable patches instead of learning skills which teachers are paid to teach because said topics (presumably) cannot be well taught by parents.
Mind you, I also understand that in some circumstances, for example those who live in large cities where multi-storey apartments are the norm, children may not actually have access to gardens (aside from public parks), or any animals aside from traditional pets, so it is not always a bad thing to spend time on such topics.
20
Surprisingly, the APS has not seen the sentinel role human psychology has been deployed by the CAGW protagoninstas. Pavlovian style classical conditioning applied to human cognitive and affective diatheses. So, rather than a bell, the so-called independent stimulus applied to the scenario of a dog salivating to meat, thence conditioned to salivate with the bell only, we have naturally learned word associations, like ideas and feelings reprogrammed for evocation by media bells, many of which are generated to herd psychology, such as simulating trust or hiding behind trusted, therefore preconditioned institutions, like, say science, for example.
20
A very dangerous belief there. They know EXACTLY what is going on and they approve thereof. Not all, but the APS itself is very much in favor of getting as many damaged people in need of their services as possible. Why do you think they keep adding “mental illnesses”. And virtually every professional association out there has a political agenda and they go after it. The APS is no different. They know.
20
also, the Royal Australian College of Physicians put out a position statement on “climate change” not that long ago, which was rightly criticised by some fellows as out of the scientific purview of the RACP. Additonally, climate change articles mysteriously appeared in a widely circulated general medical journal which has nothing at all to do with this topic.
30
We are being monitored by a lower intelligence.
50
.
I eat
I work
I play
And now they tell me that what I discuss at Work, BBQ’s, Gatherings & Home is:
Analysed as garbage by a Prof Lyn Littlefield, with what?
No Science
No data
& No evidence
Why do they think the general public is getting annoyed?
Because they are telling us what to
Do
Say
& Think
I’m over the whole lot of the academics that judge me as an individual, either as an idiot or sane!
The time has come the Walrus said:
” The sea is BOILING”
This Lyn is getting on my goat badly
20
Sorry mods
Just saying what I feel?
20
It is rather odd that geologists are over represented as so called ‘skeptics’. Most of us could obviously do with a session on the couch.
20
Maybe that’s because we spend too much time under the hot sun. It has always amazed me that the colder climates of the world seem to worry about it more, like Great Britain, Germany, Norway, Denmark, Sweeden, Northern France, the top half of the USA etc (I don’t hear them complaining in Texas or Florida). Even in Australia, those in Victoria seem to worry about it more than those living in North Queensland. I remember a pro Australian Climate Change get together a while back; 15 turned up in Townsville, 300 in Brisbane, 2,000 in Sydney and 10,000 in Melbourne. Don’t figure!
20
Here’s a gentler approach…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-14/scibabe-reveals-how-her-medical-past-led-to-debunking-myths/6698594
20
That’s partly PC and partly in case she ends up falling for something down the line. People are responsible for buying into myths and not learning more about things. If you just sit there and passively soak up information, you will end up falling for a large number of frauds. Advertisers love this—there are commercials about having to take 6 pills instead of 2 of a specific pain killer. If you’re too busy to take 6 pills in a day, I think I see your problem. The pills won’t fix it. However, it seems people like being gullible and that’s always been true. TV and internet (especially emails) just replaces the Traveling Medicine Show of the 1800’s.
30
Another excellent post by Jo. I’d back her against anyone when it comes to logical argument in climate debate. In this particular instance it’s a slam/dunk against an amateur, illogical, third rater.
Keep going Jo, you’re an absolute star.
50
APS members take note.
‘The famously cold winter of 1962-63 is now expected to occur about once every 1,000 years or more, compared with approximately every 100 or 200 years before 1850,” Mr Stott (UK Met) said.
10
I take mass delusion very seriously.
20