The Climate Street Fight
So it looks like the climate debate is degenerating to new lows. Make no mistake: This is a win for the Marc Moranos. Of course, some on the other side seem to relish getting into the mud with him. Perhaps they don’t realize that that is what he wants to happen.
Oh well, the “street fight” is definitely on, as I discuss here at the Yale Forum on Climate Change & the Media.
NOW it is a ‘streetfight’? AGW promoters and believers have been making the false claim that skeptics are in a vast conpsiracy for years. yet now, when Emmanuel, like Pachurai and so many other promoters are shown to profiting quite nicely on thier alleged arms length work it is suddenly a ‘streetfight’?
AGW is as corrupt and self-dealing as any other social mania. To find what believers are really doing, look at what they accuse skeptics of doing.
(speaking from a skeptics POV)
The skeptical side should denounce the disgusting vile behavior by Marc Morano. Posting people’s e-mail addresses in order to encourage the craziest of crazies on the internet to harass them is shameful. And yes, the potential of the “death threats” being real or serious is next to zero, but that doesn’t mean anyone deserves such disgusting empty threats being passed their way. Morano, etc. also remove value from the intellectual conversation.
Unfortunately, because its such a community of sorts, this won’t happen and largely goes ignored by people like Watts, etc.
I wish more skeptics took the Steve McIntyre approach.
Morano’s a thug. Always has been, always will be.
hunter
I hope – I really do hope – that you commented without having first read the Yale piece and its links to articles describing what Morano did and the results.
Morano is the Beck/Limbaugh of climate change
Global warming theory is directly responsible for thousands of lost jobs in the US and elsewhere (think Keystone Pipeline cancellation, restrictions on oil drilling, higher energy costs, etc.). Unemployment is linked to suicide, depression, divorce, etc.
When those who have profited from the global warming hoax pay, from their personal assets, compensation to those damaged by global warming theory, I will start feeling sorry for the “scientists” whose e-mails Morano posts.
Fred,
Thanks for reminding me why I shouldn’t feel too bad about scaling back the blog.
Why do you even give them the publicity it takes to condemn them?
Or is that a silly question?
Keith:
I guess the truth hurts. And I’m glad I didn’t make a contribution.
@8
When someone says something so patently absurd, sometimes I feel compelled to respond. What Jeff (2) said is important, as it speaks to the dynamic that allows the climate blogosphere to remain a rollerderby.
People from both camps don’t call out the bad actors (or actions) in their midst because they don’t want to give the other side any ammunition or satisfaction.
Morano likes it when people “call him out”. He quite often links the posts doing so, with amusement, his view being that it shows you’re taking him seriously. The publicity, or notoriety if you prefer, helps him, makes him a familiar name, a major player, gets him on interviews and so forth as being good for the “sceptic” soundbite.
Personally, I’d much rather see people like McIntyre, McKittrick, Roy Spencer, Jeff Id, the Pielkes and so on as the “faces” of scepticism – but oh no, we get the Delingpoles and Moranos and Moncktons instead. Why? Because those are the ones you guys keep attacking and complaining about, so those are the only ones the journalists looking for a quick contrary view have ever heard of.
And of course, it helps the AGW “cause” to have such people being the face of scepticism. It’s polarising and politicising; which suits those who see it as a political war.
So I don’t see why it’s patently absurd. It’s not that nobody calls out Morano, it’s that everybody spends all their time calling out Morano, and he laughs about it all the way to the TV studio. I’ve yet to see anybody from the pro-AGW side write anything about Morano that was not calling him out in some form or other. Does anyone nowadays really not know what you guys think of Morano?
The climate debate has been like this for years, and it goes both ways. And there are crazy people on the internet, as well as people who get angry and frustrated about stuff that they can’t do anything about and find it cathartic to vent their feelings. Everyone in the public eye gets it – maybe you should ask George Bush some time about “hate mail”…
There’s nothing you can do to stop it – calling it out is just more of the same. It the game the political activists play. All you can do is rise above. The best way to get that ‘salon’ atmosphere is to write posts and comments as if that was already the atmosphere, and people will often try to fit in. Or if they don’t, you’re not the one who looks bad.
NiV, you obviously didn’t understand my comment.
Hmmmm….So Morano makes certain people know who the scammers are and how to reach them.
I will have to think on that one.
Well I did, and I think it was about the right thing to do.
When believers start policing the excrement flowing from Hansen, Gore, Romm, etc. etc. etc. let me know.
Keith:
Ideas have consequences. AGW theory has incontrovertibly damaged the US economy through lowering the supply and raising the cost of energy. While some have profited from it many others have been hurt by it. Do you not care about all the people AGW theory has hurt? Why is it so difficult to face the human toll of global warming theory?
I am glad that I helped you by making you feel better about scaling back your blog. I didn’t want to say this, but I am also very glad that you scaled back your blog. Arguing about a dead scientific theory is a waste of my time. Since you stopped your blog the evidence has continued to pile up. For one tidbit, see:
http://www.real-science.com/nasa-satellite-shows-global-temperatures
NiV is right. Stay in the “salon atmosphere.” All the best to you.
NiV tries a new spin:
“And of course, it helps the AGW “cause” to have such people being the face of scepticism. It’s polarising and politicising; which suits those who see it as a political war.”
Oh, so this too is part of the nefarious plot by people who believe the mainstream view (accepted even by lost souls like Dr. Curry) that AGW is real? Hilarious. Does that tinfoil hat ever chafe?
‘real-science.com’ wins the award for the most brazenly counterfactual blog name.
If most climate scientists would find ‘real-science.com’ to be erroneous at best, is it still ‘real science’?
Steve:
It is interesting how you depreciate the name of the blog I linked to without facing the implications of the factual data on falling temperatures that it presents.
What “most climate scientists” would think about the name of the blog is as meaningless and vapid as their support for global warming theory.
@Keith,
Do you see this a symmetrical battle between team 1 and team 2 ?
I don’t. I see it as a very asymmetrical battle between
1) A movement that wants everyone to do as it says – and will do whatever it takes to impose control on those who disagree.
2) A rag-tag collection of people who don’t agree with the ideas behind 1 or the methods of 1 or the plans or timescales of 1.
You could expect group 1 to try and control its members and maybe have an official creed like other religions need after a few years.
Group 2 is not an organised group. It’s like trying to start a club for people who don’t own a Porsche – we have very little in common.
So I feel no responsibility for Morano or Monckton.
Maybe your members need some real-life enemies to rally the congregation.
The “inner-circle” of the hockey team seem to be a paranoid bunch anyway from their emails so I guess having some real enemies helps their psyche.
#12,
Quite likely.
#15,
There’s a scientific/policy debate over what is right and what is the right thing to do, and there is a political battle over who is funded by who, motivated by what, on whose side, using the most outrageous tactics, etc. – the political dirty tricks brigade.
There are a bunch of Soros-funded campaign/lobby groups, the one on the oil-money witch hunt, inventing the “overwhelming consensus”, introducing the tobacco and creationism memes, and resulting in honest and polite sceptics getting driven out of the debate, their businesses hurt, their reputations trashed, hate mail, insults on blogs, all that.
When people write insulting things about sceptics in their campaign-funded news articles, it annoys people, makes them angry, and want to hit back. That’s what they did. And of course that’s ammunition to the political types in their war with one another.
Joining in just drives the debate in their direction. They don’t care whose side you join in on, so long as you’re taking part – they can use it either way. We’ve got Morano, you’ve got Romm.
My point is not about sides, it’s about how you play the game.
NiV
My point is not about sides, it’s about how you play the game.
I have tried to illustrate exactly how you play the game on various threads here. Hopefully the exercises in critical deconstruction were noted by others.
Hunter @ 13
Hmmmm”¦.So Morano makes certain people know who the scammers are and how to reach them.
I will have to think on that one.
Well I did, and I think it was about the right thing to do.
So proving that you are incapable of either rational thought or empathy.
NIV (19)
Good that you acknowledged that you didn’t understand my comment in #10. Did you try reading it again, or would you just prefer not to understand or address the point I was making?
In #19, you write: “There are a bunch of Soros-funded campaign/lobby groups, the one on the oil-money witch hunt…”
Yes, this type of associative labeling is an example of the roller-derby, for it is the mirror opposite of the Koch-funded (or fossil fuel funded) charge often made by the other side.
I know you fancy yourself a high minded sort, but you do your part to keep the roller derby going.
Keith:
May I speculate that one of your problems is that you will not secure funding for your blog from the “big money” players in global warming due to your openness to dissenting opinions. This is absolutely unique among blogs on your side of the climate debate. I don’t think the guys with big money to dole out on your side of the issue have any tolerance for dissenting opinions. If you want substantial support, maybe you will have to be less tolerant and more authoritarian. Asking for small contributions from a handful of readers who are willing to visit a blog that allows free and open discussion won’t work. Always trying to help…
Fred,
Perhaps the best scenario is for me to be jointly funded by George Soros and the Koch brothers. 🙂
Keith:
While your thought did evoke a chuckle here some such approach may be a good idea. While I am very busy nowadays I will help if I can. I would certainly vouch for your excellent selection of topics and scrupulously fair moderation policies. While the Koch brothers might be helpful I doubt that Soros would be. I read somewhere that Soros has funded a website to pressure weather forecasters to present only pro-global warming views. If this is true I doubt he would be open to supporting a blog that featured free and open debate on this issue. But anything is worth a try and I will help if I can.
BBD,
I am empathetic. My heart goes out to people who have been harassed and slandered by AGW promoters. My heart goes out to the tax payers whose money has been squandered on rent seeking and profiteering in the name of a climate catastrophe that does not exist.
As to rational thought, I am not the one defending a cliamte apoclaypse.
Keith,
Since much of the Koch Bros. largesse goes to fund PBS, you might actually have a shot at their money. You are far too civil to attract Soros money, however.
#26
Sic probo.
Morano’s a thug. Always has been, always will be.
No. Thugs are people who try to take your money.
@ 15
If you want to see tin hat you only need to look at the mirror.
#22,
“Good that you acknowledged that you didn’t understand my comment in #10. Did you try reading it again, or would you just prefer not to understand or address the point I was making?”
I have sometimes, in the past, tried asking you to explain further or to clarify something, but it usually seems to annoy you. I assume that if you want people like me to understand the point then you’ll explain what you mean, and if you don’t, you won’t.
“I know you fancy yourself a high minded sort, but you do your part to keep the roller derby going.”
I prefer the more intellectual conversation, yes, but the other stuff doesn’t bother me, and I can play the game if it seems appropriate.
You’ll note my comment was in response to one accusing me of wearing a tinfoil hat, a believer in “nefarious plots”, when all I was talking about was the shallow end of the climate debate – the one we were already discussing and the existence of which is not in doubt. You didn’t comment on or criticise that, for “keeping the roller derby going”. Is this the sort of “salon” talk you’re after? Or is it more “street fight”? Is this the sort of thing you was saying we should call out more?
This is what I get all the time. I’m accused of being an idiot, a liar, a tinfoil-hatted conspiracy theorist, a hypocrite, dishonest, “lawyerly”, an enemy of future generations, uncaring of the poor, a creationist, a tobacco lobbyist, a shill for vested interests, unscientific, a “denier” – a word with some very unpleasant associations – and lots worse. I’ve had torrents of four-letter abuse, I’ve had my comments cut up and edited, and I’ve been frequently banned from places. And then been taunted for not having an answer while having any attempt to answer blocked.
Others report having their publications blocked, their jobs threatened, their careers sabotaged, their talks booked and then mysteriously cancelled at the last moment. We’ve watched as people make films where schoolchildren are cold-bloodedly (and bloodily) executed by their teachers for expressing dissent – because it’s “funny”. We’ve read books declaring the end of the world is nigh, and books recommending that we need to abandon liberty and democracy in the face of this emergency. We’ve watched as expensive, useless, and illiberal legislation has been passed in our name, and seen worse being pushed for. We’ve watched as science lessons have been turned into Green propaganda, our children turned against us, and we’ve watched the national media turn out a steady stream of the same.
Expressing environmentally unfriendly views has become ‘politically incorrect’ – meaning I now have to be careful what I say in public, and to who I say it. That’s one reason I stay anonymous – I don’t want anyone connecting the dots on behalf of the “Lions, Tigers, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears, and, of course, Squirrels.”
This is the sort of debating environment we have to put up with. And I’m supposed to sit here and be called a tinfoil-hatter and take it, because if I reply in kind I’m lowering the tone and perpetuating the roller derby, yes? And you’re complaining about the climate debate having become a street fight.
Well, it wasn’t my side that made it one. I’ve been calling for people to raise the level of debate for years. But with no great expectation that it will happen – the debate is what it is, my one voice isn’t going to change it, and given the way the climate activists generally behave, I’m frankly not at all surprised at the reaction. I don’t like it, but if you call people tinfoil-hatters all the time (or imply it) you’ll likely make them angry. That’s not excusing it. It’s just what happens.
But anyway, like I said, calling Morano names is useless verging on counterproductive, because that’s what he wants. It is the oxygen of publicity to him. Morano makes absolutely no contribution to the sceptic side of the debate, he’s a simple blog aggregator. He links to the work that other people have done with screaming tabloid headlines. The only reason anyone pays any attention to him at all is because he stirs up lots of controversy to arouse the media’s interest, which he exploits to drive more publicity. He’s an expert political operator, and very good at it. So why help him by so loudly condemning him, unless you think encouraging that style of political infighting helps you too?
Looks to me that the AGW Team is just trying to play the ‘victim’ in their desperate attempt to distract the public from the simple reality that all their scary predictions were wrong.
Plays well with the ‘bullying’ meme currently being promoted by the nanny state media.
Except the AGW Team have been the real bullies since this all began, with their DOCUMENTED efforts to silence critics and control the peer review system and, of course, smear the so called ‘deniers.’
I expect them to come up with even more ridiculous and desperate arguments as reality sets in.
This whole episode is a classic case of the the power of ideology and manufactured groupthink over rational thinking, and the promoters of this have and are using every trick in the book to push it.
Doesn’t matter. This gravy train is now derailed and there is no way to put it back… though some actual warming might help.
Next up: Mass Extinction!!!!!!!! Biodiversity Crisis!!!!!!! LOL. More BS.
NiV
Well, it wasn’t my side that made it one.
Of course not. I blame Jule Charney.
@27
BBD,
vos planto vestri fossor
Hunter
I see you did not have the benefit of a classical education.
But never mind that. Perhaps you can help me to understand your POV a little better by clarifying something.
Given that all the evidence stacks up against the sceptical and even lukewarmer position, what makes you so certain that you are right?
BBD,
I can see that you wasted whatever education you may have received.
The lack of sef-awareness on your side is a great tell.
Why not ask why do so many reasonable people- in increasing numbers- look at your side and decide your catastrophism is not right? Why did a President who claimed that his policies would cool the planet and lower the seas and control AGW now makes only implied references to it? Who do more and more economists who study actual loss rates agree that that claims about increasing storms are misleading. why do historians keep pointing out that cliams by AGW promoters about increasing extreme weather events are wrong?
hunter, continuously repeating things like ” Why not ask why do so many reasonable people- in increasing numbers- look at your side and decide your catastrophism is not right?” does not make it true. ‘Skeptics’ have been saying this for years now and the science still does not support this view.
You may not yet have realised this but USA politics does not influence science and certainly do not influence folk like me.
As a general point, when people refer to ‘the President’, why do they think that what one man in the USA says or does has any impact on the rest of the world with regards to climate change?
Politics cannot control science (whether that is republican, democrat, labour, conservative, liberal democrat, greenpeace, GWPF, UKIP or any other organisation you care to mention).
PS – apologies fopr typos – COK
[Cat On Keyboard]
Louise,
I am sorry you have chosen to ignore the news, but this is not a philosophical question about tress falling in the woods.
Since storm strength, intenisty and frequency are not changing globally, slr is not changing significantly, islands AGW promoters claimed were sinking are in fact not, and temperatures, according even to consensus scientists are not behaving as predicted, your argument is, ironically, one based on simply ignoring evidence you do not like. Your fall back that you are unaware of political changes regarding cliamte in Europe is not really relevant in this. the last person I would exect facts and truth to influence is you, Louise.
hunter – once again I repeat, politics cannot influence science. How difficult is that for you to understand?
Satellite measurements of energy entering our atmosphere and energy leaving our atmosphere do not balance. What do you think is happening to the surpluss energy? That you cannot immediatley measure the consequence of this energy imbalance does not mean that it is not there and will not have an impact. How can you be so ignorant as to ignore this basic physics?
This is nothing to do with wind turbines, solar panels, cap and tade, UN socialism taking over the world or any other policy you wish to imagine – this is science.
Yes, Louise, the insurance companies know the real convenient “science”:
“Mass. AG Calls Proposed Homeowners Premium Hike “˜Illegally Excessive’
By Young Ha | January 25, 2012
The insurance industry is seeking the commissioner’s permission to raise rates for the FAIR Plan by an average of 7.4 percent across the state and by 10 percent in New Bedford, Fall River, Quincy, Lawrence, Brockton, Lynn, and parts of Boston. Homeowners on Cape Cod face a 6.7 percent rate hike under the industry proposal”¦
The attorney general also argued that the proposed rate hike is largely based on “undisclosed hurricane models” that insurers claim predict the likelihood and damage of a major hurricane hitting Massachusetts”¦”
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2012/01/25/232738.htm
Yes. This is all about ‘science.’ Funny.
EdG – I have no idea what ‘Mass. AG’, FAIR Plan’ or ‘the commissioner’ refers to in your post. The USA is not the world.
My world (aka the ‘real world’) is based on science
So what makes contarians certain that they are correct?
Louise,
I have no patience with gratuitous old world criticisms of the Americans. The meaning of the terms “Mass. AG” and “FAIR plan” are immediately available to you through a Google search (appropriately enough an American invention).
The US may not be “the world” but my father and grandfather risked their lives to save European countries during their wartime stints in the US Army. And it was European countries whose crazed rulers plunged the world into those wars. If posts by Americans mean you have to Google a few terms, tough.
The views of those who do not believe in global warming is firmly rooted in science. See the letter in the WSJ signed by sixteen scientists (even by some from the old world):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
Not a single one of the current generation of atmospheric physicists is a signatory to this letter.
Why?
Not a single one of the current generation of atmospheric physicists is a signatory to this letter.
Are you insane or illiterate. Try again.
As a general point, when people refer to “˜the President’, why do they think that what one man in the USA says or does has any impact on the rest of the world with regards to climate change?
Because he’s the president of the united states. Next question.
So what makes contarians certain that they are correct?
Because you are conflating questions – a typical warmists misdirection tactic. Contrarians are certain we shouldn’t be doing anything about climate.
Politics cannot control science
Wanna bet? He who pays the fiddler calls the tune.
#41,
“Satellite measurements of energy entering our atmosphere and energy leaving our atmosphere do not balance. What do you think is happening to the surpluss energy?”
Good question. The answer is, we can’t measure the incoming/outgoing energy that accurately.
Incoming energy at the top of the atmosphere varies slightly depending on time of year, and with sunspots, but we can measure that to within a Watt or so. However, incoming energy that reaches the surface depends on how much is reflected by clouds, aerosols, and by the surface itself. The way clouds reflect light is complicated, it’s not reflected uniformly in all directions, and it can vary minute-to-minute as clouds evolve. So we can take pictures from space, but only from certain points of view and at widely-spaced intervals of time. A satellite in a polar orbit can cover the sunrise/sunset terminator every 90 minutes, where albedo is particularly heavily weighted because the grazing angle of the sun means the light passes through a lot more atmosphere than usual, but it can’t cover it all at once. Satellites covering the dayside are the same, but only effective half the time, when they are over the dayside.
Measuring the outgoing IR is similarly complicated. Again, it is not uniform – the equator radiates more than the poles, the land radiates more variably than the sea, and there are those clouds getting in the way again. You can measure the total emerging in certain directions, where your satellites are, but you then have to fill-in-the-gaps to figure out how much is going out in all the directions you don’t measure.
And you need to bear in mind how variable it is anyway. Temperature goes up and down several degrees with the day/night cycle, depending on the weather, depending on the summer/winter cycle. You have a massive imbalance every spring to warm the world ~10 C in 6 months, and then another in autumn to cool it by ~10 C in the other 6 months. Northern and Southern hemispheres partially cancel, but with most of the land in the north not completely. You’re looking at a hugely variable, noisy mess, and trying to extract a tiny signal from it.
How tiny? Well, we’re talking about a projected 3 C/century, or 0.03 C/year, or 9.5E-10 C per second. (We’re currently observing a lot less, of course, but I’ll be generous.) If we ignore the land and suppose we’re uniformly warming the top 10 m of the oceans, the area heat capacity is about 42 MJ/C m^2, we multiply the two to get 0.04 W/m^2. You can increase it a bit if you think the heat affects a thicker layer of the oceans, and reduce it a bit because the effective thermal capacity of land, and hence the global average, is far lower than for water. (In fact, even the effective thermal capacity of water is lower than this, because of heat diffusion’s nonlinear dependence on timescale, but that’s complicated to explain so I’ll skip it and stick with the crude overestimate.)
That’s how accurately you would have to measure the radiation balance to be able to ‘detect’ the global warming energy imbalance directly. And you’d really want it an order of magnitude better to be able to distinguish it from noise. We simply can’t do that.
It’s actually far easier to measure the accumulated effect of that energy imbalance, and simply measure the temperature. That has it’s own problems, of course, but it is at least theoretically feasible.
And at the end of the day, even if you measured an imbalance, you still wouldn’t be able to tell what caused it – whether CO2 or clouds or climate oscillations or unknown unknowns. It tells you nothing more than measuring the temperature does.
kdk33
Are you insane or illiterate. Try again.
Neither. Here’s try # 2:
Not one of the signatories to the letter is among the current generation of atmospheric physicists.
Of the sixteen, there are just three with relevant credentials. They are Lindzen, Kininmonth and Tennekes. All three are meteorologists not atmospheric physicists and all three are very much yesterday’s men.
Use that tone with me again and I will respond in kind.
kdk33
So what makes contarians certain that they are correct?
Because you are conflating questions – a typical warmists misdirection tactic. Contrarians are certain we shouldn’t be doing anything about climate.
—————
I am not conflating anything. You are avoiding answering a direct question. Doubtless because you can’t. Nevertheless, let’s try again:
So what makes contarians certain that they are correct?
Be specific. References.
Louise
Don’t worry. The Arctic melt, worldwide glacial recession, poleward migration of species and of course this are all figments of the collective imagination.
NiV casually ignores the robustly calculated forcing from increased CO2, so let’s do the same.
Nothing to worry about at all.
Louise
Apologies. Link missing above. The robustly calculated forcings from GHGs that NiV ignores can be ignored by others here.
#52,
‘Forcings’ are something else entirely. Louise was talking about the imbalance between input and output, not ‘forcing’.
#41Louise Says:
Satellite measurements of energy entering our atmosphere and energy leaving our atmosphere do not balance. What do you think is happening to the surpluss energy?
And the Satellite measurements from different Satellites don’t agree with each other. I.E. the RSS vs UAH temperature trends.
They all have to compensate for orbital drift, calibration error, sensor degradation…the list just goes on and on.
BBD,
Feel free to use any tone you wish. It won’t bother me. Did you think it would?
I see you’ve changed your story so that now three have “relevant credentials” but are “yesterdays men”. No doubt because they disagree with you catastrophism. I think it is clear your original comment was out of bounds. It is fun to watch you crawfish.
So what makes contarians certain that they are correct?
Be specific. References.
References. Oh yes, because the only argument you recognize as valid is in fact a logical fallacy: the appeal to authority.
Be specific. No, BBD you be specifric. What exactly are you claiming I am certain about that I shouldn’t be. I am certain we should not do anything about climate.
A better questions is: what is it exactly that you are so certain about?
2#
I have allready condemmend Marc Morano’s actions.
I have also written to him, asking him to stop.. If only because it is utterly counterproductive and stupid.
The mains reason, because I have two twitter followers ( that have recieved extrmely abusive/threatening emails because of climate depot (Katie Hayhoe and Leo Hickman(Guardian))
I have interviewed Leo hickman about it.. and Marc Morano has agreed for our exchange to be published. maybe something blogged this week.
11# absolutely nails it…
NiV
“˜Forcings’ are something else entirely. Louise was talking about the imbalance between input and output, not “˜forcing’.
So GHGs have no effect on the energy imbalance at TOA?
kdk33
A better questions is: what is it exactly that you are so certain about?
At this point, that you have nothing.
kdk33
I see you’ve changed your story so that now three have “relevant credentials” but are “yesterdays men”.
This is a lie. My statement at (46) is unchanged:
Not a single one of the current generation of atmospheric physicists is a signatory to this letter.
It is also correct. Why do you think that only three superannuated contrarian meteorologists signed up to this? What about all atmospheric physicists under say, 50? Why did not a single one of them endorse this letter do you think?
BBD says:
“What about all atmospheric physicists under say, 50? Why did not a single one of them endorse this letter do you think?’
As the global warming theory becomes increasingly discredited such individuals will face decreasing prestige, career opportunities, and salary levels. Government grants will dry up. Their graduate students will not be able to find jobs. There will be fewer graduate students to teach.
Hence, it is not surprising that the younger signers of the petition (i.e. Nir Shaviv) are in fields that will not be hurt by the collapse in belief in global warming theory.
Being an atmospheric physicist studying global warming theory will become about as employable as a nuclear chemist after Three Mile Island.
Fred
Same question for you: on what do you base this certainty?
Be specific; provide references.
#58,
What on Earth are you talking about? I didn’t say that. What I said didn’t imply that. This most peculiar statement seems to come from absolutely nowhere.
Are you just trying to distract our attention from your having made a mistake? Making a bigger one doesn’t seem like a good way to do that. Or was it supposed to be an obscure joke? If so, I didn’t get it.
#60,
This is much funnier. Meteorology is a branch of atmospheric physics, and the signatories are obviously well-qualified to have an opinion. Limiting it to physicists under 50 – as if it were possible to have too much experience – is just a case of adding conditions until the desired outcome is obtained. What about all left-handed, pipe-smoking atmospheric physicists under 50 who own dogs and drive a Prius? What about them, eh?
And I’d like to see your assurances that everybody who speaks out in favour of the orthodoxy must be similarly qualified. What qualifications in atmospheric physics has Al Gore got? Or Pachauri? Or half the IPCC?
The answer to your question, why the signatories are older, is that they evidently chose to concentrate on names with experience and qualifications that could not so easily be ignored – not that you didn’t try. There are plenty of younger physicists who are sceptical. And anyway, one can easily explain any lack by hypothesising that since the orthodoxy took control, open contrarians don’t have long and glowing careers in climate science. It wouldn’t be helpful to your case to draw too close attention to this.
It’s amusing. You rely so heavily on scientific authority, up until the point when scientific authorities disagree with you, when you suddenly start hunting around for reasons and excuses for why it can be ignored. We can ignore any scientist over the age of 50 now? Is that really the best you could come up with?
#51 BBD worries about “The Arctic melt, worldwide glacial recession, poleward migration of species.”
This sounds very serious. Could you please provide one specific example of the latter.
Thanks.
Cimate Desk gets to see these vile emails, and we don’t? WUWT?
For the record, I am in favor of these emails being made public. If you send vile, hateful email to a climate scientist (or anyone in the public eye), then I think you forfeit your right to privacy.
I don’t say this to suggest that Emanuel or Hayhoe are not being honest–I believe they are and that they have received such email. In fact, I’ve suggested to the latter that she should make the emails public. I just think that such letters would show the public the real ugly side to this debate.
Keith
Yes. We can compare them to climatologists’ emails and decide who is crazier and more dangerous.
NiV
It’s amusing. You rely so heavily on scientific authority, up until the point when scientific authorities disagree with you, when you suddenly start hunting around for reasons and excuses for why it can be ignored.
When a few au-courant atmospheric physicists add their endorsement I might have a re-think. Until then, fringe is fringe.
EdG
I live on the South Coast of England. We don’t have cattle egrets. Never have. Imagine my surprise when I saw one in a field four years ago.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3347849/Cattle-egrets-nest-in-Britain-for-first-time.html
Keith:
Your take on the nasty e-mails sent to climate scientists ignores the pernicious effect their theory is having on people’s economic well-being. Global warming theory is not just an academic theory with no effect on people’s lives. I have read one article claiming that AGW-inspired regulations and higher energy prices are costing US families an average of $7,000 per year. It obviously has caused tens of thousands of people to be unemployed (Keystone cancellation, oil drilling restrictions, etc).
This is for a theory many people believe is wrong. If you felt someone was aligned with a viewpoint that was stealing $7,000 per year from you and limiting your children’s future prospects it is understandable that anger would be generated.
The only people who have benefited from global warming theory are the professors receiving grants and other remuneration, government agency hacks, solar energy industry employees, etc. All of this comes from money taken from people through taxation. There is absolutely no market demand for any global warming measures.
As I mentioned in my first post on this thread, the proponents of global warming have caused our political leaders to follow paths that have undeniably worsened unemployment and caused much human suffering including suicides, depression, divorces, etc. All of these are well known correlates of unemployment.
If you are going to promote a theory that needlessly causes human suffering why are you surprised that there is blowback?
Wow BBD, you’ve graduated from teh appeal to authority to anectdoal silliness. BTW, can you provide an egret reference?
I think Ed and NiV and well covered the “relevant credentials” issue’
OTOH, you never did way what it was you were so certain about. Just more misdirection and sidestepping.
Where I live it was unseasonably cold today. So I drove around a little extra in my SUV – trying to warm things up ya know.
Fred
This is for a theory many people believe is wrong.
On what basis? Specific references please.
#69 BBD
That was a particularly lame example.
“The cattle egret, due to its great range expansion in association with cattle ranching, has become a true ‘cosmopolitan’ species. It occurs in North America, generally not in the west or far north; and Eurasia, though usually not in the east. It also inhabits Africa, Australia and parts of South America. Cattle egret are native to Africa and southern Spain. (Hancock and Elliott, 1978)”
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Bubulcus_ibis.html
Cattle Egrets are found in much of southern North America now too, and, including the West and sometimes show up in northern British Columbia.
Note they say “generally not in the west or far north” which is true as far as “generally” goes. I assume they “generally” do not show up in your neighborhood either.
Try again. But I’ll give you some clues. Birds FLY. Birdwatchers find unusual birds in unexpected places all the time; that is part of the fun of birding. And ALL the convenient stories about AGW and changing bird distribution have more logical explanations.
And I’m speaking from over 50 years experience as a serious birder.
#66 Keith. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for Hayhoe to make her ‘hate mails’ public.
That would spoil a good victim story.
BBD # 69,
Cattle Egrets have a relationship with humans through domestic livestock and their spreading throughout the world has nothing to do with AGW. They were in England 50 years ago and they bred in Canada in 1962, both events before current warming, and they have even been sighted in sub-Antarctic islands where there are domestic livestock.
The fact they have spread widely into both cold and warm areas in the last half century or so reflects more on the spread of domestic livestock and the ability of wildlife to cope with a much wider climate range than we give them credit for than it does about AGW.
No doubt this is what many denialists will claim
http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/27/week-in-review-12712/#comment-163390
“Dr. Hayhoe, an “evangelist” and suddenly a darling of the lefties, who normally detests “evangelists”, supports the CAGW scam.
Some of the more “professional greenshirts” among the lefties sense an opportunity. They decide to send a probably unwitting Dr. Hayhoe a bunch of “hate mail” posing as false-flag deniers.”
Or they will justify this: “I mean I got an email the other day so obscene I had to file a police report. They mentioned my child. It had all kinds of sexual perversions in it ““ it just makes your skin crawl, but I take heart from the fact that my colleagues have gone before me ““ this is not unusual.” as Fred has done above.
Why can’t they just come out and condem the sending of this type of hate mail?
Fred (70)
I don’t understand your logic. What does the issue of hate mail have to do with your cockeyed belief that global warming proponents have caused the needless suffering you describe. (BTW, where do you get this stuff?)
Louise (76) makes the same point I tried making in #10 (which, NiV, despite his considerable intellect, couldn’t understand.) Why don’t the science-based climate skeptics (such as Lindzen) condemn such behavior? Why do the contrarian bloggers (such as Watts) who relish calling attention to any news that puts AGW advocates in a bad light ignore the contemptible hate mail?
Well, as I said upthread, it’s likely because they don’t want to concede that their own side also behaves badly and thus give any ammunition to their opponents.
Of course, there is also the cynical, acidic stance of folks like EdG, whose own contempt for climate scientists makes him reflexively disbelieve anything they say. But I doubt that is the default positions of most climate skeptics. It’s just political with them.
Christ I’m sick of this.
spangled drongo
Every source I have checked confirms the spread of the cattle egret is correlated to NH warming.
You provide no sources for your various assertions. Specifically, are you saying that the CE was fully established in the UK 50 years ago?
#76,
“Why can’t they just come out and condem the sending of this type of hate mail?”
I condemn the sending of this type of hate mail.
Besides being immature and unpleasant, it’s stupid and counterproductive. The same way calling sceptics “deniers” is, or tinfoil-hatters, as I was above. People get angry and worked up, they find it satisfying to unload with a bit of name-calling, but it’s a rhetorically suicidal tactic – because the one you just called names can use it against you.
I doubt very much there is any false-flag or making things up going on; hate mail is so standard I’d have been more surprised if they hadn’t got any.
Lots of people get hate mail, and hate blogs, and hate comments. Politicians, campaigners, media figures, businessmen… anyone in the public eye. If you want to stand up in public and campaign for some controversial issue, it goes with the territory. I agree that people shouldn’t do it, I wish they wouldn’t do it, and I don’t blame the recipients for using it, but it’s not honest to pretend this is a one-sided thing. It’s not honest to pretend that nobody has ever called sceptics names, insulted them, denigrated and patronised them, or threatened trials or punishments for their ” high crimes against humanity and nature”. Some sort of climate Nuremberg. No pressure, right?
We’re all a lot more polite on here, and I can’t praise Keith highly enough for his open moderation policy, and his success in keeping things civilised here despite that we enjoy participation from polar opposites. But not everywhere is so civilised and tolerant.
There is a shallow end to this debate, where politicians and rabble-rousers and activists operate, and they stir up controversy and strong emotions deliberately to gain media publicity, public attention, commitment, support. They dwell on the perfidy of the enemy, and the purity of their cause, and get their followers riled up over such things, and the cycle goes round again, feeding off itself, provoking more tit-for-tat.
Emmanuel and Hayhoe know what they’re doing, I’m sure, and it’s working, too. Condemn it by all means, but know that making a big deal out of it is just playing the game. If you want to end the war, you have to make peace.
Actually, before going on, I think we need a reality check. Are some commenters on this thread seriously claiming that AGW isn’t happening?
Because that’s what it sounds like to me.
I know, let’s send a dead rat to a climate scientist.
#77,
“Louise (76) makes the same point I tried making in #10 (which, NiV, despite his considerable intellect, couldn’t understand.) Why don’t the science-based climate skeptics (such as Lindzen) condemn such behavior?”
Oh, is that what you were talking about? Yes, I understood the point, perhaps you didn’t understand that I was explaining the reason why?
It goes without saying that people like Lindzen would condemn it. But bringing it up makes that the debate, instead of the science.
“Why do the contrarian bloggers (such as Watts) who relish calling attention to any news that puts AGW advocates in a bad light ignore the contemptible hate mail?”
This is what Watts actually said about it:
“For the record, I deplore hate mail, death threats, and threats of violence, no matter who might be saying it, and always will. Nobody should have to put up with these to do their job and I wouldn’t wish them on anybody. I hope the day never comes when a credible death threat is delivered, much less acted upon. Any such credible threats should get the full measure of the law.”
You might note that he says he gets them, too.
NiV,
I understood exactly what you were saying and it had nothing to do with my point, which glad to see you now understand.
Can you provide the link to that Watts statement? Was it in a post, or a comment thread?
#83,
“I understood exactly what you were saying and it had nothing to do with my point, which glad to see you now understand.”
It was the answer to your point. What I didn’t understand was that you hadn’t realised it – so when you said it didn’t answer your point I assumed you must have meant something else.
But I don’t want to argue about it any more. It’s not worth the unpleasantness.
“Can you provide the link to that Watts statement? Was it in a post, or a comment thread?”
It was in a post – it was after the furore over the Australian scientists claiming to have received death threats, which turned out to be routine hate mail. David Appell had been getting worked up over sceptics not taking these death threats seriously, and had started being annoying.
Watts took him to task, pointed out that there was no evidence of any actual death threats and this was an exaggeration for political effect, that it was just routine juvenile ranting hate mail of the sort everyone in the business gets, including him, and that while he condemned it, it wasn’t anything unusual.
It’s not a very high-minded post itself – which I’m happy to condemn if you like – but he didn’t ignore it.
BBD,
You seem to have fallen into the warmists trap: one can only argue from aruthority and any argument that isn’t authorized doesn’t count. Hence, the need to control the peer reviewed literature and IPPC review of same.
I’m sure there are papers linking global warming to everything from frogs, ticks, misquitos, and carribou, to head lice. So what? These studies were bought and paid for.
Is anybody suggesting AGW isn’t happening? See, you are not being clear or specific about what you mean – a standard warmists ploy. please note I am not asking for a reference,.. Skeptics hold a range of views. A common one is as follows:
GW is happening and has been happening for centuries. There is nothing frightening in current warming. CO2 emissions, in some sense warm the planet, but the amount of warming is highly uncertain. A climate dominated by positive feedbacks is much less likely than one constrained by negative feedbacks. The notion that warming is dangerous is politically motivated speculation. It is more likely to be beneficial. The cost of aggresive decarbonization far exceeds any potential benefit – and that assumes such a thing were even possible: it isn’t. It makes no sense for people today to squander wealth on half-assed technology in a vain attempt to control the future. That wealth is better preserved until such time as we know what the dangers and risks really are and we have better technology choices.
The efforts so far have indeed harmed the world economy, hence people (Keith seems to have his head in the sand on this one). An aggresieve global decarbonization would be very expensive in terms of dollars AND LIVES. Especially in the developing world.
How many people are you willing to kill to assuage your western guilt?
Glad you provided that link. Much more context. Interesting way for Watts to express his condemnation.
FWIW, I’ve already pointed out Watts’ very selective outrage.
#86,
Yes. But that’s nothing unusual, is it?
I just pointed out above that Watts got hate mail too. I was interested to see if you would take the time to condemn it.
kdk33
There is nothing frightening in current warming. CO2 emissions, in some sense warm the planet, but the amount of warming is highly uncertain. A climate dominated by positive feedbacks is much less likely than one constrained by negative feedbacks. The notion that warming is dangerous is politically motivated speculation. It is more likely to be beneficial.
More nonsense per line than I can be bothered to debunk on a Sunday afternoon. However, you can prove to yourself that you are wrong very easily, thus saving me the trouble.
What you argue for is a highly insensitive climate system. But paleoclimate behaviour demonstrates that the climate system is highly variable and by definition, relatively sensitive to perturbation. So we have your argument for insensitivity (‘constrained by negative feedbacks’) contradicted by all known paleoclimate behaviour.
Obviously you have been seriously misled. Time for a careful re-think.
How many people are you willing to kill to assuage your western guilt?
Since you are demonstrably wrong about the basics, perhaps it is you who should be considering the potential human cost of aggressive denialism?
NiV
David Appell had been getting worked up over sceptics not taking these death threats seriously, and had started being annoying.
Such a revealing turn of phrase.
@87, please, this is why engaging with you is a fool’s game. First, you pretend like you don’t understand my point at the beginning, then you offer an unlinked to quote from Watts about him condemning hate email. You don’t offer the link because it contains context that puts the condemnation into a completely different light. I have to ask you for the link. Then you seize on this morsel to disingenuously suggest that my own outrage is one sided. So very typical of you.
Let me put it to you this way. Watts is a phony, a bad actor in the climate debate, who uses his platform for political and ideological purposes, not to advance science. (His response to the recent Muller/BEST episode was proof of that, for skeptics who thought otherwise.) That said, Watts does not deserve to be stalked or to be the recipient of hate mail. No one does.
Anyone who has read my blog for the last few years knows that I have dished it out to the phonies and bad actors on both sides. Subsequently, I have been showered with love from the more partisan tribal members from both camps.
BBD,
You’re faith in climate catastophism is impressive, if not laudible. As usual you are willing to assert “more nonsense per line than you can debunk”, but of course offer no argument. Later you will insist on references… The usual claptrap…
I am not arguing about the value of climate sensitivity, nor did that word appear in my post.
I am arguing in terms of feedbacks – related, but not exactly the same.
You don’t know climate sensitivity any more than anyone else – and nobody knows. That’s why it makes sense to wait and see. (not that “sense” is something with which you are familiar).
As usual, you didn’t answer my question: how many people are you willing to kill?
kdk33
I’ve been asking repeatedly for commenters to state clearly the scientifically-endorsed basis for their ‘scepticism’. None has, because there is no evidential basis for ‘climate scepticism’. Hence the inverted commas.
I am not arguing about the value of climate sensitivity, nor did that word appear in my post.
Clearly you do not have the faintest idea what you are talking about.
And this is the core point. Stupid, scientifically-illiterate ranters send death threats to scientists (with a bit of help from the inexcusable Morano). Yet they have no understanding of the science at all. No mechanism with which to evaluate the very thing they furiously denounce as ‘fraud’.
Interestingly, you move on to accuse me of ignorance and stupidity and then accuse me of murderous intent:
You don’t know climate sensitivity any more than anyone else ““ and nobody knows. That’s why it makes sense to wait and see. (not that “sense” is something with which you are familiar).
As usual, you didn’t answer my question: how many people are you willing to kill?
Fear, ignorance, hate. What a surprise to find these old playfellows back together again.
I am arguing in terms of feedbacks ““ related, but not exactly the same.
I mean WTF? What am I supposed to say to something as asinine as this? Do you really not understand that feedbacks constrain sensitivity? If they net positive (and they do) then you get a moderate or high sensitivity. If they net neutral you get a stable, insensitive climate which does not react to slight changes in TSI or orbital or atmospheric forcing.
BBD,
You have a seriously distorted opinion of yourself and you are profoundly misguided. The basis for much of your argumentation (I hesitate to elevate your rhetoric to that level) is a religious (more exactly pagan) belief that people are evil and mother earth good – hence all human activity must be destructive – combined with a healthy dose of socialist fantasy – punishing the “entrenched interests” as you say.
I will prove my point, then quit. This: If they net neutral you get a stable, insensitive climate which does not react to slight changes in TSI or orbital or atmospheric forcing. Is pure unadulterated BS.
Here’s hoping you do not participate in the democratic process.
Keith (70):
Sending people hate mail is morally reprehensible and tactics that tacitly encourage it are wrong.
A problem is that climate scientists promoting global warming are damaging society and hurting people by negatively affecting energy policy. The evidence this is happening has been mentioned in my previous posts and is impossible to ignore. The parallel to Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union in the WSJ letter by the 16 scientists is very apt.
Another parallel is to the derivatives traders whose reckless speculation brought down their firms and caused wider damage to the economy as well. These were bright people who had sophisticated theories of how markets moved that had fatal limitations. Their incentive structure encouraged them to take risks that would make them rich if their models worked out and, because their firms were often “too big to fail,” other people (society in general through the government) bore the cost of cleaning up the mess they left behind. Mostly, they got to keep the millions they made taking unacceptable risks based upon erroneous models.
Climate scientists have for decades now, since at least Hansen’s 1987 testimony, been pushing government to radically alter energy policy in a way that restricts energy availability and raises energy prices. Politicians have followed their directives and the consequences have been very damaging.
Despite all the wailing of warmists, it now looks like AGW theory is crashing down. Like Lysenko and the derivatives traders, climate scientists keep their gains even though the theory they developed and pushed political leaders to act upon has caused our economy to suffer. They have no incentive not to risk our energy policy and economic well being on their theory. I wish there was a way to hold climate scientists responsible for the harm their mistaken theories have caused, just like I wish there was a way to hold the reckless derivative traders responsible.
kdk’s (#85) statement on what skeptics believe is wonderful. NiV (#80) as well.
kdk33
You demonstrate your lack of knowledge again:
“I will prove my point, then quit. This: If they net neutral you get a stable, insensitive climate which does not react to slight changes in TSI or orbital or atmospheric forcing. Is pure unadulterated BS.”
Please explain why the statement is ‘pure unadulterated BS”.
Fred
Despite all the wailing of warmists, it now looks like AGW theory is crashing down. Like Lysenko and the derivatives traders, climate scientists keep their gains even though the theory they developed and pushed political leaders to act upon has caused our economy to suffer. They have no incentive not to risk our energy policy and economic well being on their theory. I wish there was a way to hold climate scientists responsible for the harm their mistaken theories have caused, just like I wish there was a way to hold the reckless derivative traders responsible.
Two points. First, ‘AGW theory’ is not ‘crashing down’. At least not in the real world where the real laws of physics operate and real scientists work.
Second, a critical reading of your comment (see above) suggests that in your heart of hearts you are an apologist for the senders of hate mail and death threats.
So I don’t believe you at all when you say this:
Sending people hate mail is morally reprehensible and tactics that tacitly encourage it are wrong.
Fred #70 you say “I have read one article claiming that AGW-inspired regulations and higher energy prices are costing US families an average of $7,000 per year.” and you believe it uncritically.
I have read hundreds of science papers detailing exactly how CO2 emitted by man is warming the planet yet you think one media article carries any weight whatsoever.
Perhaps you believe this media article (which you didn’t link to) unquestioningly because you want to.
#90,
In the age of Google, a quote is as good as a link.
Watts condemned hate mail. The context was an argument about death threats, which is a very different issue, and not relevant here. You wasn’t complaining about death threats, you were complaining about hate mail. Watts’ other objections don’t apply.
You can see that as a very different light if you like, but he is making the exact same point you’re making. You do, of course, agree that Watts does not deserve to be the recipient of hate mail, … but. And your “but” is much the same as his.
You yourself have seized on morsels to suggest Watts is one-sided, and indeed that I’m one-sided. And yet, what I’ve been arguing from the start of this thread is that all this stuff is two-sided, and that both the outraged emails and the outrage about the emails are part of an escalating spiral of outrage that helps nobody but the rabble-rousers. On both sides.
Watts has condemned the practice too, but apparently not in vitriolic enough terms to satisfy when it’s his own side, which excuses you dismissing his complaints as “phony” when it’s about yours. You said at first he ignored it. When it turned out he hadn’t ignored it, and indeed had been subjected to it himself, you pointed to his complaints about hate-terms and called it “phony”. Now you’re trying to say he’s one sided, even though he’s condemned both sides, just as you and I have. You agree that he shouldn’t have to put up with hate mail, and so in that sense he is in the same position as Hayhoe and Emmanuel. But there’s a lot of “, but….” in it.
I don’t believe we should have to keep on interrupting the conversation to piously condemn what everybody knows we all condemn. I got called a tinfoil-hatter in the thread above, I’m quite sure you don’t approve of that sort of thing, I’m quite happy to take that as read. I’m not even all that bothered that you called me on it, and not him. But I think we should all acknowledge that this is what we do, and it would make for a far nicer conversation if we could all rise above the tit-for-tat name-calling. Calling people “thugs” and “phonies” and “deniers” is the same sort of behaviour, and perpetuates the cycle.
We can’t always rise above it – as this thread has proved. But we could agree to the need to try.
Don’t get me wrong, I think you do pretty well to keep out of the worst of it, and I will agree you’ve taken on both sides. But it’s not a matter of which side people are on, or whether they play for both sides equally, but of whether they play this game. It doesn’t bother me to do so, but I’d really prefer not to.
NiV
In the age of Google, a quote is as good as a link.
No. You were hoping that KK wouldn’t go to the trouble of checking the context. That you should now try and cover this up by implying that KK is lazy is indicative of many things, none flattering to you.
NiV
But it’s not a matter of which side people are on, or whether they play for both sides equally, but of whether they play this game. It doesn’t bother me to do so, but I’d really prefer not to.
The game you play is misrepresentation. You provide a fine example in your reply to Louise at (48).
You begin with a correct statement: measurement of energetic imbalance at TOA is imprecise. You expatiate for six paragraphs on this uncertainty but fail to point out that the RTEs provide a good estimate of the change in radiative imbalance at TOA consequent on an increase in the atmospheric fraction of CO2.
You conclude:
And at the end of the day, even if you measured an imbalance, you still wouldn’t be able to tell what caused it ““ whether CO2 or clouds or climate oscillations or unknown unknowns. It tells you nothing more than measuring the temperature does.
Here you introduce a further, all-important (fake) uncertainty meme: CO2 forcing (robustly calculated) is deliberately and misleadingly equated with:
– clouds
– climate oscillations
– unknown unknowns
Slick. I have to give you credit. You can misdirect like a stage magician. But to be fair I have noted your grade-A abilities before in comments here before.
BBD (#97)
There are many ways to hold people responsible for misdeeds that harm innocent parties. Bringing them into play with climate scientists is needed.
Your attempt to link me to the support of sending hate e-mails fails. That you resort to such a far-fetched and reprehensible tactic shows the desperation of your side of this argument.
Fred
Your attempt to link me to the support of sending hate e-mails fails. That you resort to such a far-fetched and reprehensible tactic shows the desperation of your side of this argument.
No, it shows the true nature of your position:
I wish there was a way to hold climate scientists responsible for the harm their mistaken theories have caused, just like I wish there was a way to hold the reckless derivative traders responsible.
Is the same as:
There are many ways to hold people responsible for misdeeds that harm innocent parties. Bringing them into play with climate scientists is needed.
You are accusing an entire field of misconduct – even monetary fraud. This is baseless, paranoid nonsense. And who exactly are these innocents that you claim are being harmed? How are they being harmed? Be specific.
On no more foundation than this crass and unfounded assertion, you state that climate scientists should be punished. You are no different at heart from the nutters sending death threats.
The end is nigh for AGW. Note this article reporting what we all know, that warming stopped 15 years ago, that it is cooling now, and that solar influences (adamantly dismissed by AGW believers) are crucial drivers of climate:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
Personally, I understood AGW was wrong as the computer models used to support it are constructed in ways no model with a chance of being accurate for such highly noisy data with uncertain drivers would be. Then it was clear the “observational” data to support AGW was also worthless. Compare such studies to Rosenbaum’s description of how research using data where experimental controls are not possible should be conducted in his Observational Studies. Following up on this would be fun, but I am more highly incentivized to do work in my own area. At least for now.
BBD (103) writes:
“you state that climate scientists should be punished. You are no different at heart from the nutters sending death threats.”
You have completely misunderstood what I have been saying. Too bad.
Fred
You have completely misunderstood what I have been saying. Too bad.
I don’t think so. You were very clear:
I wish there was a way to hold climate scientists responsible for the harm their mistaken theories have caused, just like I wish there was a way to hold the reckless derivative traders responsible.
And:
There are many ways to hold people responsible for misdeeds that harm innocent parties. Bringing them into play with climate scientists is needed.
There is little room for misinterpretation there.
So I repeat: on no more foundation than this crass and unfounded assertion, you state that climate scientists should be punished. You are no different at heart from the nutters sending death threats.
And now you are wriggling for all to see.
Fred
Please, never, ever again quote the Daily Mail to me as a source when we are discussing climate science. It’s not even funny.
BBD – the very fact that Fred thinks a quote from the Daily Mail means anything at all says a lot.
Louise
😉
Louise (98) writes:
“I have read hundreds of science papers detailing exactly how CO2 emitted by man is warming the planet…”
Sorry to hear that you wasted all that time.
BBD:
“Please, never, ever again quote the Daily Mail to me as a source when we are discussing climate science.”
Sorry that this story gets under your skin so much. Of course, I will quote whoever I please.
Fred
Of course. I misspoke. By all means quote any know-nothing hack in any third-rate rag you wish.
I will modify my responses to you and your sources accordingly.
And who exactly are these innocents that you claim are being harmed? How are they being harmed? Be specific.
Oh, gee, well, for starters. The people that would have worked on the keystone pipeline. And all the rest of us that would have benefitted from that low cost energy and from the energy security that oil from friendly Canada would have provided.
Next question.
I have read hundreds of science papers detailing exactly how CO2 emitted by man is warming the planet
Of course you are conflating issues (much like BBD), but let’s set that aside and focus on current events.
Exactly how much of the warming over the last 12 years or so can we attribute to CO2?
BBD:
Too bad you can’t look past your snobbishness about the Daily Mail. The quotes in the article, which I assume are accurate, from Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, Nicola Scafetta from Duke, and Henrick Svensmark of Denmark’s National Space Institute were highly interesting and informative.
The jig is up for AGW theory. (Note to Louise: this is an idiomatic US expression meaning that the game is over.)
Fred
It’s interesting that solar activity peaked mid-C20th. Right in the middle of a period of cool temperatures lasting until the 1970s, when a clear warming trend emerged. But solar activity fell from the 1950s to the present.
I’ve bodged together a rather crap graph in an attempt to illustrate this. SIDC sunspot number (ssn) is shown with GISTEMP global average temperature (GAT) 1880 – present. Note the divergence between the running means (11 year smoothing applied; blue = GISTEMP; purple = SIDC – ssn). How do you explain this if the sun is a primary driver of GAT over this period?
In fact there does not appear to be any sustained correlation between solar activity as defined by sunspot number and GAT. So why are we to expect anything more than the modest effect suggested by Stott in the article you link:
Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible ““ because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, “˜This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: “˜Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’
kdk33
You asked (85); (91):
How many people are you willing to kill to assuage your western guilt?
And:
As usual, you didn’t answer my question: how many people are you willing to kill?
So who is marked for death? You say:
Oh, gee, well, for starters. The people that would have worked on the keystone pipeline. And all the rest of us that would have benefitted from that low cost energy and from the energy security that oil from friendly Canada would have provided.
I sense a disconnect here.
Later, you said:
I will prove my point, then quit. This: “If they net neutral you get a stable, insensitive climate which does not react to slight changes in TSI or orbital or atmospheric forcing”. Is pure unadulterated BS.
And I asked you to explain why the statement is “˜pure unadulterated BS’. You have not yet done so. Please feel free to provide an explanation now.
BBD writes:
“solar activity peaked mid-C20th”
No, it was strong until the end of the century. For a quick check on this simply Google “modern solar maximum.”
In it read :
“The Modern Maximum reached a double peak once in the 1950s and again during the 1990s.”
Obviously, this just a bare bones source. But a much deeper investigation into the matter of solar activity patterns will yield a similar result.
If you want to learn more about solar activity read the work on the length of the solar cycle and its high correlation with temperature which has been found across times and places.
#79 BBD
“Every source I have checked confirms the spread of the cattle egret is correlated to NH warming.
You provide no sources for your various assertions. Specifically, are you saying that the CE was fully established in the UK 50 years ago?”
Well BBD, I see you conveniently ignored my # 73, which DID provide a source.
Please provide at least one of the “every source” you have checked on this.
In the meantime, I must laugh at your comment that “the cattle egret is correlated to NH warming.”
Correlation is not causation. And yes, one could correlate the expansion of the range of the Cattle Egret with recent warming – as the LIA ends – but that is irrelevant. You could also correlate the increase in the number of skyscrapers to that.
BBD: Please, never, ever again quote the Daily Mail to me as a source when we are discussing climate science. It’s not even funny.
My thoughts precisely.
Interesting that Judith Curry is being quoted again by David Rose. One would think she might have learned her lesson. After feigning ignorance as to Rose’s reputation, what’s her excuse now?
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/2011/10/30/a-climate-soap-opera/
Keith Kloor: He/she who talks to David Rose gets cut by the sword”¦
Again and again and again…but honestly, Curry doesn’t really mind being cut a few times if it means “splashing cold water on the triumphalist pro-AGW stories”.
Fred
Look at the running means (blue and purple lines) in the graph linked at (115). Note the divergence over the last four decades. How do you explain increasing GAT during a period of falling solar activity if solar activity is a primary driver of GAT?
EdG
I asked:
are you saying that the CE was fully established in the UK 50 years ago?
You responded:
Well BBD, I see you conveniently ignored my # 73, which DID provide a source.
It did not. The geographical ranges given were not backed by any history of sightings. I still cannot find any evidence that the cattle egret was established in the UK 50 years ago. If you can I’m sure you will post the link.
From your link at (73)
The cattle egret is the most plentiful ardeid in many areas of the U.S. Its range continues to expand as a result of widespread landscape conversion to pasturelands, where these birds forage with cattle. (Telfair, 1994)
England is an old country. No expansion of pastureland has occurred here for a long time.
From the RSPB (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds – a reliable source; emphasis added):
Slightly smaller but much rarer than the little egret, cattle egrets are visiting the UK in increasing numbers. […] Most likely to be seen in the south of England and Wales. In winter 2007/2008, a large influx of cattle egrets occurred in the UK, with the largest numbers in south-west England, though birds did get as far north as Scotland. This influx led to the first ever pair breeding successfully – in Somerset.
Regional temperatures are rising and cattle egrets are becoming more frequent visitors to the South of England. This is not, afaik, controversial.
BBD:
If scientists of the caliber quoted in the Daily Mail article are looking to solar influences to explain climate and you are clueless as to the relationship the fault is with you and your crappy data.
Your measures of solar activity are worthless. You should study up on this topic before putting forth such deficient work. And you find the sources to do the corrections.
No more
“On what basis? Specific references please.”
Get off your ass and do the work. I am too busy with my own to do yours.
Fred
the fault is with you and your crappy data.
Your measures of solar activity are worthless. You should study up on this topic before putting forth such deficient work. And you find the sources to do the corrections.
The SIDC ssn index is a widely-used proxy for TSI. You can easily replace the GISTEMP global average temperature reconstruction with HADCRUT3 or the BEST surface temperature reconstruction if you wish. The divergence persists.
Get off your ass and do the work. I am too busy with my own to do yours.
I think the deficit here lies with you, not me. And judging from your content-free response (and its tone), you know this.
Just to remind ourselves what we are discussing:
– There is a widely-held but unsubstantiated belief among contrarians that ‘climate scientists’ are engaged in coordinated malpractice
– This strength of this belief increases the less the believer understands the mainstream scientific position on AGW
– At its extreme there are apparent sociopaths capable of emailing death threats to scientists
– Ignorance, fear and hate appear to be operating in conjunction in the usual way
BBD:
As I mentioned, the measure you are using, total solar irradiance (TSI), is not and has not been used by solar scientists seeking to develop connections between climate and solar variations. The lack of consistent relationship between TSI and climate is nothing new. From:
http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/IASTP/43/
by Friis Christiansen and Svensmark
“If the hypothesis of a link through the total irradiance is abandoned another mechanism has to be invoked. In fact, the solar cycle variation is much larger in the ultraviolet part of the spectrum of solar radiation.” This but one sentence from an article showing that no correlation between TSI and climate is assumed or expected by solar scientists studying climate. Your data and findings do not in the least disprove a relationship between solar phenomena and climate.
Again, you should have known that solar scientists drawing connections between solar activity and climate do not and have not used TSI. Very lazy on your part.
What we are seeing, as reflected in the Daily Mail article is the collapse of AGW theory. That BBD is so far behind in his understanding as to use TSI measures exemplifies the backwardness of warmists in their scientific understanding. Thanks for this great demonstration of ignorance, BBD.
Fred
If Svensmark’s position was supported by evidence for a mechanism that caused recent warming perhaps it would be more widely accepted. But it is not.
As I mentioned, the measure you are using, total solar irradiance (TSI), is not and has not been used by solar scientists seeking to develop connections between climate and solar variations.
Please tell me you are joking. See here for an overview. Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) is of particular interest.
But let’s suppose that there is an unquantified solar effect forcing GAT. It would operate in addition to the forcing from CO2 and the climate system should have heated more rapidly than observed.
But this is not the case. The more likely explanation is that increased radiative forcing from CO2 is gradually – though not yet decisively – emerging as dominant.
BBD
Are you sane?
Your tethers to what is generally recognized as reality seem to have let loose.
Ignorance, fear and hate appear to be operating in conjunction in the usual way
Yes indeed. And you are peddling it. Fear of retribution from mother earth. Hate of the establishment, “entrenched interests”. Ignorance about both the scientific case for worry and the cost to decarbonizer.
Thank you for pointing it out.
BBD:
I was not quoting that article which had Svensmark as a co-author because I am convinced his is the correct explanation of the solar effect on climate among the several that have been proposed. It is intellectually dishonest or maybe just stupid of you to state that.
I used it because it, among many other sources, shows that TSI is well known to be an inadequate measure of the putative solar effect on climate. To conclude that there is no solar effect on climate because TSI is unrelated to temperature in your data shows ignorance of the various lines of research showing that a solar is present.
Oops, my last sentence should read:
To conclude that there is no solar effect on climate because TSI is unrelated to temperature in your data shows ignorance of the various lines of research showing that a solar effect is present.
Regarding Svensmark, the research at CERN has been supportive so far but time will tell. His ideas seem very creative and at least he shows excellent intellectual independence.
kdk33
Are you sane?
Yes.
Your tethers to what is generally recognized as reality seem to have let loose.
So you say, but do not demonstrate.
And you are peddling it [ignorance, fear and hate]. Fear of retribution from mother earth. Hate of the establishment, “entrenched interests”. Ignorance about both the scientific case for worry and the cost to decarbonizer.
This is nonsense.
This bears repeating:
– There is a widely-held but unsubstantiated belief among contrarians that “˜climate scientists’ are engaged in coordinated malpractice
– This strength of this belief increases the less the believer understands the mainstream scientific position on AGW
– At its extreme there are apparent sociopaths capable of emailing death threats to scientists
– Ignorance, fear and hate appear to be operating in conjunction in the usual way
kdk: The basis for much of your argumentation (I hesitate to elevate your rhetoric to that level) is a religious (more exactly pagan) belief that people are evil and mother earth good ““ hence all human activity must be destructive ““ combined with a healthy dose of socialist fantasy ““ punishing the “entrenched interests” as you say.
Does BBD steal candy from little children too? I’ve looked over BBD’s posts here and did not find support for your claims, and find BBD’s statements here to be supported by the scientific literature, put feel free to carry on with the loony flowery rhetoric. It’s entertaining. But if you come back to reality, BBD’s advice here could be productive:
I’ve been asking repeatedly for commenters to state clearly the scientifically-endorsed basis for their “˜scepticism’.
Your basis amounts to nothing more than “because I say”.
OH yes, BBD, please do repeat. These are strawmen of course. Let me help you out.
There is a widely-held but unsubstantiated belief among contrarians that “˜climate scientists’ are engaged in coordinated malpractice.
No, not to my knowledge. OTOH, we do understand that the community which calls itself climate scientists are self-selecting and responding to perverse incentives. See, you want a carbon tax to incentivize low carbon technology. It’s the very same principle.
The green energy industry is also, for the most part, responding to perverse incentives… But that is another topic.
At its extreme there are apparent sociopaths capable of emailing death threats to scientists
I assume you are referring to the likes of Hanson and his death trains and eniers and illegal activities and the way he is demonizing the scientist who make possible your way of life. So, yes, we are in agreement.
Ignorance, fear and hate appear to be operating in conjunction in the usual way
Yes, these are the primary tools of the warmists and those who are exploiting this silliness to achieve other politcal and financial ends. Wittingly or un you are part and parcel. Feel good?
Funnilly, you blithely ignore that your favored policies will kill millions, yet you whine about death threats (feel free to twist this as my tacit approval, from you I would expect no less). BTW, how many are you willing to kill?
Does BBD steal candy from little children too?
Only if his (and your) favored policies are implemented.
I’ve been asking repeatedly for commenters to state clearly the scientifically-endorsed basis for their “˜scepticism’.
Oh, yes. I see you’re attempting the Trenberth strategy: reverse the null hypothesis. In addition to the usual appeal to authority.
Perhaps we should review the data? SLR, Temperautre, Agriculture, Storms, Droughts, Human Propertiy… You know, the stuff that matters. But no, you’ll get your feelings hurt.
kdk33
We are getting ahead of ourselves.
Earlier, you said:
I will prove my point, then quit. This: “If they net neutral you get a stable, insensitive climate which does not react to slight changes in TSI or orbital or atmospheric forcing”. Is pure unadulterated BS.
And I asked you to explain why the statement is “˜pure unadulterated BS’. You have not yet done so. Please feel free to provide an explanation now.
#121 BBD, you are so desperate for anything that fits your predetermined conclusions that it is hilarious.
Your take on the Cattle Egret is a classic. You CHOOSE to believe that the only thing that could cause them showing up in the UK is increased warming.
Yet it is clear that you have made no effort to look into this story… in case you learn something, apparently.
Here’s a clue from your own link: “cattle egrets are visiting the UK in increasing numbers”
Think BBD, think.
Any wild guess as to what the overall Cattle Egret population might be doing?
Do you think it is possible that an increasing population of a species might expand its range?
I would go further but I have concluded that your are not interested in learning or thinking outside of your collapsing AGW box.
Deer are showing up in new places in the UK. Must be climate change. LOL.
BBD,
You are making quite an ass of yourself. I’ll remind you that I asked my question first and you’ve yet to reply. Yet youi insist I anser yours. Typical misdireciton on yourpart.
By the way. A system with no net feedbacks is not insensitive. Are you this daft?
kdk33
Still dodging the question I see. And no, you did not ask first. That manages to be both a childish evasion and untrue at the same time. Top one!
The met office responds to the Daily Mail’s misrepresentation
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/?tw_p=twt
”
Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled “Forget global warming ““ it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about”.
This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.”
Anyone suprised?
He has quite a track record, that David Rose, predating his climate reporting. Kinda interesting to see climate skeptics like Bishop Hill and Anthony Watts approvingly/uncritically cite the Rose article. But it’d be more interesting to get Judith Curry’s take on her quote and the piece.
Louise
Anyone surprised?
Um, no. As observed already: know-nothing hack; third-rate rag.
Keith – Dr Curry has given her comments here http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/27/week-in-review-12712/#comment-163660
What I find so fascinating with the rude back and forth between BBD and NiV and KDK33 is that BBD has claimed to support nuclear power as a solution and folks like KDK33 couldn’t care less what excuse you use to build nukes.
BBD why do you only attack people you agree with about solutions? Why do you care what their reasoning is for agreeing with you about natural gas? And seriously, you’re drawing a line in the sand about hypothetical miniscule affects of barely measurable warming on bird counts? To be “pure of heart” I must accept that the fraction of recent warming attributable to man is the only reason you saw a not-rare bird?
You’ll get around to talking about solutions when? After Fred pinkie swears that he only attribute Somalia famine to Humvee sales?
I get how this is helpful to “deniers.” How is it helpful to you?
I’m interested to know what the misrepresentation was.
To briefly summarise the Daily Mail article:
1. The planet has not warmed for 15 years. A graph is shown to confirm this.
2. The current solar cycle is low and the next projected to be lower. We may be headed for a grand minimum.
3. The last times this happened temperatures dropped 2 C in parts of Europe and the Thames froze in the winters.
4. The Met Office predicted the effects of a grand minimum would be negligible, 0.08 C to at most 0.13 C.
5. A number of other scientists dispute that.
6. The Met Office models predicted a warming of 0.3 C in the decade following 2004 and at least three record years. The prediction failed, but the Met Office claim the models are still valid.
7. If the models continue to diverge from reality, the models will eventually be falsified and scientists will reconsider.
8. Other factors such as ocean cycles have an effect on climate.
9. It will take another 10 or 15 years of continued divergence to find out who’s right.
Looking at the Met Office’s response, they don’t appear to contradict any of this. On point 1 they state that the final decade has been the warmest, but this does not contradict statements about the trend over the past 15 years. They seem to be saying that it is a true statement but misleading because it doesn’t scare people about global warming and there are other statements that could have been picked that do.
And then they confirmed that the statements in point 4 were accurate.
If you only read the first three paragraphs of the reply, I get one impression, but after reading the rest I am mystified as to what the justification for it is. They say there are numerous errors, but they only give a substantive discussion on one point, where their response is to talk about a different point illustrated by a different quantity entirely. What they say is true, but doesn’t appear to do what it claims to do.
And yet, three other people in a row here have read the same two articles, and apparently found the refutation convincing, and indeed, confirming their prior expectations.
It is amazing, don’t you think, how people can look at the same scene and see completely different things?
So I’m kinda interested to know what people saw. Are the above 9 points a fair summary? Which points are refuted by the Met Office response?
Some possibilities I noted might be:
a) 2 in conjunction with 3 looks like correlation implying causation. The solar-climate connection is not well-understood. The cold spells might or might not have been due to the sun.
b) 5 may not be a representative sample. And of course quoting experts risks argument from authority.
c) European temperature records are implicitly compared to global temperature predictions, which is apples to oranges.
Of course, all three methods are routinely used in climate reporting by mainstream pundits, like the Met Office, so they’re weak objections. The Met Office ought to be judged by higher standards than the Daily Mail. And none of them relate to any actual ‘errors’, just weaknesses.
But none of these points were even mentioned in the Met Office response, which didn’t even reach the level of ‘weak’. How come? And what other problems did people see?
—
I’ll say in advance I’m not going to bother to argue this time. I’m just interested in the reasoning.
jeffn
The only reason I mentioned the sodding egrets was because I actually saw one and it stuck in my mind. I am aware that they are i/rare ii/on the increase in the UK iii/extending their range because of rising regional temps. Very stupidly, I didn’t expect anyone to make a mucking great issue out of an uncontentious fact.
My comments on NiV’s careful misrepresentations are self-explanatory. I don’t like misrepresentations. Do you?
kdk33 is both wrong and abusive and insistent, which is an unpleasant combination. Again, I don’t like this so I push back. What would you do?
Oh – I know – you’d have a pop at me. Silly of me not to have seen that coming, eh?
@bbd
FWIW I admire your persistence and intellectual consistency. I gave up on the local trolls long ago.
NiV
Rose is pretending that AGW is a non-issue: “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)“. This is what is generally termed ‘misrepresentation’. It is generally held to be A Bad Thing.
1. The planet has not warmed for 15 years. A graph is shown to confirm this.
Deeply misleading. See Foster & Rahmstorf (2011). And this. Funny how showing more than one record makes it all rather less clear cut. I also understand that HADCRUT4 is going to show warming over this period as it now includes Siberian stations.
2. The current solar cycle is low and the next projected to be lower. We may be headed for a grand minimum.
A setup for the misrepresentation at (3):
3. The last times this happened temperatures dropped 2 C in parts of Europe and the Thames froze in the winters.
Steady. The suggestion is a Dalton-type minimum, not a Maunder, so no Frost Fairs, and no significant global cooling. Also, neither minima shows up much on the CET does it? And ‘parts of Europe’ isn’t GAT. And there wasn’t all that CO2 forcing to factor in back then either, was there?
4. The Met Office predicted the effects of a grand minimum would be negligible, 0.08 C to at most 0.13 C.
Yup. Show why this is incorrect.
5. A number of other scientists dispute that.
Who are you referring to?
6. The Met Office models predicted a warming of 0.3 C in the decade following 2004 and at least three record years. The prediction failed, but the Met Office claim the models are still valid.
Signal to noise ratio. Natural variation can and does overprint the CO2 signal. And will do so for decades. As GAT continues to rise on a multi-decadal timescale, of course.
7. If the models continue to diverge from reality, the models will eventually be falsified and scientists will reconsider.
Yes, but who says that this is actually happening? See response to (6).
8. Other factors such as ocean cycles have an effect on climate.
Not that much. Conservation of energy. See response to (6).
9. It will take another 10 or 15 years of continued divergence to find out who’s right.
You almost sound as if you believe that the divergence will continue for another 10 – 15 years. I wonder which ‘good sceptic papers’ convinced you of that?
#146,
So do I!
Marlowe
Mrs BBD thinks I’m insane. Not wrong, you understand, just quixotic. She’s probably right. Usually is.
Where did you go, btw? Is there some haven of common sense that the smart money has fled to? 😉
#145 BBD goes on:
“The only reason I mentioned the sodding egrets was because I actually saw one and it stuck in my mind. I am aware that they are i/rare ii/on the increase in the UK iii/extending their range because of rising regional temps. Very stupidly, I didn’t expect anyone to make a mucking great issue out of an uncontentious fact.”
Except that your belief that they are “increasing their range because of rising regional temps” is false and based on zero evidence except some (selective) opinion.
These birds ended up in North America by first showing up, from Africa, in South America. Explain that based on “rising temps.”
You CHOOSE to believe whatever fits your AGW box BBD.
In this case you are proving yourself to be a real Dead Parrot intellect. To repeat, any link between Cattle Egret range expansion and ‘warming’ is coincidental at most. The real reasons are far more interesting and eco-logical.
kdk33 is both wrong and abusive and insistent, which is an unpleasant combination. Again, I don’t like this so I push back. What would you do?
Yes, BBD. You are the victim.
BBD- for goodness sakes, I’m not having a pop at you. I’m with you. Go, build nukes. Have at it! Don’t waste time in the weeds over whose scientific analysis is the most “pure” or who has the best recall of obscure avian extent studies?
And Marlowe is the “smart money?” The Marlowe who insists on windmills and rooftop solar (in Canada, no less!) Well, only if fighting is more important than winning.
Winning, did I say? Why yes, I did. Every single candidate for the Republican nomination for president and the only candidate for the Democratic Party nomination claim they are willing to build nuclear power plants and encourage a shift to natural gas from coal. All of them. Both parties. “Deniers” and “believers.” Congrats. I don’t agree with you on AGW, but I’m right there with ’em.
This supposed to be urgent- so go! Go!
Oh, but no, no, no. There’s someone over there who dares to question James Hansen! Sigh. Must start over. No gas production, not a single nuke in the meantime- and I mean none of it. Back to square one. Anyone who says otherwise is just a “troll” right Marlowe? Can’t let solutions intrude on the cat fight, right?
Natural variation can and does overprint the CO2 signal. And will do so for decades.
In other words. Climate scientists have a lot to learn and don’t have a product upon which we should base economic decisions as profound as decarbonization.
Now you are getting it.
Yes, but who says that this is actually happening?
Who says it won’t. We don’t know. So we aren’t ready to DO ANYTHING.
@149
it goes without saying that we must be insane?
how else does one deal with the content-free, fact-free, reference-free blather that oozes out without fail from all internet comment sections? I would note that climate-related blogs don’t appear to be special in this respect 🙁
kdk33 and EdG
Various misrepresentations:
@ 150 – Egrets. It is not ‘my’ claim, it is not based on ‘zero evidence’ and it is not ‘false’. You offer no evidence. You misrepresent the RSPB and numerous other sources including your own and You are becoming tiresomely aggressive over an uncontentious point.
@ 151 – ‘Victims’ don’t fight back. Nor am I whining. I am stating a fact: you are aggressively wrong and tiresomely persistent.
@ 153 Deliberately truncated quote. Let’s have the rest of it since it shows how you have deliberately twisted my meaning:
Natural variation can and does overprint the CO2 signal. And will do so for decades. As GAT continues to rise on a multi-decadal timescale, of course.
I have had enough of your nonsense now. The partial quoting above was the last straw.
So lets return to that unanswered question. You have now dodged this (and not proved your point) so often I have lost count. Either stand revealed as a blustering know-nothing, or answer:
You:
I will prove my point, then quit. This: “If they net neutral you get a stable, insensitive climate which does not react to slight changes in TSI or orbital or atmospheric forcing”. Is pure unadulterated BS.
I have asked you to explain why the statement is “˜pure unadulterated BS’. You have not yet done so. Let’s have it, please.
Marlowe Johnson @ 154
Yes, we all get burned by the moronic inferno, don’t we?
BBD,
I have already answered your question and you are too daft to understand.
An atmosphere with net neutral (ie no) feedbacks is not insensitive. it just doesn’t amplify or attentuate the original input.
Now, time and again I have addressed your points and yet you refuse to answer mine. Why is that, BBD? So answer my question:
How many people are you willing to kill to decarbonize the economy. It is a legitimate question. Man up or go home.
kdk33
An atmosphere with net neutral (ie no) feedbacks is not insensitive. it just doesn’t amplify or attentuate the original input.
That is the definition of an INSENSITIVE CLIMATE. You buffoon.
Time and again you have avoided the central issue: water vapour contributes a net positive feedback under increased CO2 forcing. That is why RF from CO2 will warm a moderately SENSITIVE climate system like this one.
You keep on and on about ‘killing people’. This is pure misdirecting rhetoric on your part. I argue that nuclear can and should be used to displace coal from baseload as fast as possible. Your ranting insistence that I advocate anything that will ‘kill people’ is offensive nonsense.
To the point of this thread: many sceptics exhibit sociopathic behaviour. At your end of the scale, you just lie blatantly in an attempt to discredit opposition. At the extreme, death threats are issued.
MJ: how else does one deal with the content-free, fact-free, reference-free blather that oozes out without fail from all internet comment sections?
Haven’t you heard? Content and references are for people who can’t think independently. Far better to just make things up on the fly (such as inventing your own definition of climate sensitivity) or repeat what you heard from some dubious sources. Quantity of blather makes up for any lack of a robust well-supported argument.
@160
indeed. on a somewhat related note does anyone have any theories as to how Oliver-Iron Sun-Emmanuel always manages to be among the first commenters on any post over at climate etc? Given the volume and speed at which comments appear over there I find this impressive and puzzling at the same time.
BBD,
Seriously, you are disturbed. Mentally ill. This is your original quote.
“If they net neutral you get a stable, insensitive climate which does not react to slight changes in TSI or orbital or atmospheric forcing”.
Now, if the feedbacks net neutral, the climate will absolutely without any doubt react to slight changes. The reaction won’t be amplified, or attenuated, but react it certainly will.
You said “does not react”. Does not react and does react are exact opposites. You are 100% wrong. Which part of this confuses you.
ps. I like the name calling. Very much expected from your side.
and NYJ, you also do not understand the definition of sensitivity.
Sorry BBD, you cannot destroy trillions of dollars in wealth and not kill people. One of the problems with your side is that you have no idea what you are asking.
Once you recognize the true costs in terms of dollar and lives then you will view the climate risk more appropraitely light.
Oh what’s the point? It’s like talking to the cat.
Or a particularly stupid adolescent.
MJ
Not a clue how the fastest Iron Sun in the West does it. But it is among OKM’s more impressive achievements.
Oh I see what you’ve done. You are nit-picking. Let’s refine the statement so that what was assumed on the basis of common sense is made explicit:
If forcings and feedbacks net neutral you have an insensitive climate.
I cannot f*****g believe you are trying to make an argument out of this.
I didn’t make an argument out of it. You insisted. Now let’s be clear.
You said climate would NOT REACT. It most certainly will REACT. You were wrong. Repeat after me, I was wrong.
Sensitive is a qualitative term. Climate sensitivity, without feedbacks, is just it’s sensitivity to the initial change. There will be no amplification or attenuation. Insensitive means not sensitive, which means it won’t react. But, of course, you have already conceded that it will, which brings us full circle.
BBD, just man up and say it: I was wrong.
Here’s more on the Hayhoe “hate mail,” including eight examples she chose to release:
[ January 30, 2012 ]
Texas Tech scientist sees intimidation effort behind barrage of hate mail
http://texasclimatenews.org/wp/?p=4153
I would say that one of them could qualify as genuine “hate mail” but it is obviously written by somebody who is clearly deranged (and likely writes “˜hate mail’ to anyone with an address).
To call some of them “hate mail” is ridiculous, except for playing victim to gain public sympathy.
So, much ado about nothing. But it certainly does distract from the real issue, which is how wrong her statements about the Texas drought have been.
kdk33
BBD, just man up and say it: I was wrong.
I will admit to a trivial lack of clarity and nothing more. Not a factual error as you seem to think.
On the matter of factual accuracy, you are the one claiming that climate science is nonsense, and anyone suggesting practical measures is a mass-murderer. Now that is wrong. Nit-pick for all you are worth – it makes no difference.
The climate system is moderately sensitive because of the relationship between CO2 forcing and water vapour.
The following is correct but does not describe this climate system:
If forcings and feedbacks net neutral you have an insensitive climate.
I actually wrote this the first time round:
If they net neutral you get a stable, insensitive climate which does not react to slight changes in TSI or orbital or atmospheric forcing.
As anyone can see, it was a trivial lack of clarity in a blog comment. Not the collapse of my argument or the scientific consensus on AGW. The fact that you are trying to turn it into a rout just shows that apart from cheap rhetorical tricks, you have nothing.
Let’s just revisit the outpouring of unsupported nonsense that prompted my question in the first place. You said:
GW is happening and has been happening for centuries. There is nothing frightening in current warming. CO2 emissions, in some sense warm the planet, but the amount of warming is highly uncertain. A climate dominated by positive feedbacks is much less likely than one constrained by negative feedbacks. The notion that warming is dangerous is politically motivated speculation. It is more likely to be beneficial.
I’ll take my slight, unconscious error of omission over your barrage of conscious misrepresentations any day. Being able to decide between the irrelevant and the relevant is an indicator of mental health btw.
kdk: A climate dominated by positive feedbacks is much less likely than one constrained by negative feedbacks.
Nope:
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
Whoops. There we go with the preponderance of scientific evidence and references again. We need to think more creatively like kdk does, and mistake the evidence for what we want it to be (anything to avoid the politically-motivated alarmism generated by the thought of moving away from fossil fuels) rather than what it is.
Yes, NYJ, Let’s discuss evidence
Droughts, floods, SLR, human prosperity…. Any important parameter you care to mention. Let’s plot them against temperature, how’s about. I dare you.
Of course BBD, you failed to point out any single error in what I said. As usual. You will set up your typical strawmen, that don’t in any way reflect what I’ve actually said.
Mass murderer. Yes BBD, now you are getting the point. Decarbonization will be tremendously expensive (do you disagree), destroying that much wealth will hurt people – people will die. The only justification for it is if AGW is actually CAGW, big C agw, and we can rationalize the intentional deaths we inflict by energy (or lack of energy) policy as being less than what would result form catstrophic global warming.
In my view, we don’t implement these policies until we are damn sure about the C in CAGW. And we ain’t there yet. So it’s best to wait and see.
Lastly, are you seriously claiming that DOES NOT REACT and REACT represent a trivial difference. Oh my.
kdk33
Of course BBD, you failed to point out any single error in what I said. As usual. You will set up your typical strawmen, that don’t in any way reflect what I’ve actually said.
Okay. Let’s get on with it.
GW is happening and has been happening for centuries.
No. The LIA ended between 1850 and 1900. Warming since for ~100 years. Prior to that, ~5ka of discontinuous cooling since the end of the Holocene Thermal Maximum.
There is nothing frightening in current warming.
Balls. Read.
CO2 emissions, in some sense warm the planet, but the amount of warming is highly uncertain.
Wrong. The best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity to 2 x CO2 is ~3C.
A climate dominated by positive feedbacks is much less likely than one constrained by negative feedbacks.
See NYJ @ 170. Also explain how only spatial and seasonal reorganisation of insolation by Milankovitch forcing terminates glacials if the climate system is insensitive. In fact for this to happen requires the operation of strong positive feedbacks.
The notion that warming is dangerous is politically motivated speculation. It is more likely to be beneficial.
Balls. Where do you get this tripe from?
Lastly, are you seriously claiming that DOES NOT REACT and REACT represent a trivial difference. Oh my.
No, I’m not saying anything of the sort. See (169). I’m not going over it all again. And stop putting words into my mouth. I’m more than fed up with your cheap rhetorical tricks now.
BBD,
Youre entire 173 is a cheap rhetorical trick. Your reason that I am wrong: Balls. Brilliant. I thnk you epitomize the entire catastrophists argument.
Of, course you have yet to answer my question: how many people are you willing to kill. Man up, BBD. I grow weary.
kdk33
My reason that you are wrong is that this is balls:
A climate dominated by positive feedbacks is much less likely than one constrained by negative feedbacks.
I can’t be held responsible for your failure to understand the basics.
In case folks didn’t see it (including #144), Phil Plait ably demolished the Daily Mail piece.
Again, my issue is more with how some respond to something like Rose’s article. Alas, as I’ve noted, the debate has a zero sum dynamic, so even climate skeptics or might agree the article is full of gross inaccuracies don’t say so publicly. Better to stay mum than give the other side any ammunition, right?
Again, BBD, you didn’t answer my question. Funny that.
Yes, you’ve already stated that I was wrong. What you have failed to do is show why.
But carry on BBD. Carry on.
@ 146
The funniest part is that you’re not even joking.
Keith
Thanks for the pointer. I see that the usual poison is being applied over at Bishop Hill.
kdk33
Yes, you’ve already stated that I was wrong. What you have failed to do is show why.
Yes I did. See for example:
#159:
Time and again you have avoided the central issue: water vapour contributes a net positive feedback under increased CO2 forcing. That is why RF from CO2 will warm a moderately SENSITIVE climate system like this one.
#169:
The climate system is moderately sensitive because of the relationship between CO2 forcing and water vapour.
#173:
See NYJ @ 170. Also explain how only spatial and seasonal reorganisation of insolation by Milankovitch forcing terminates glacials if the climate system is insensitive. In fact for this to happen requires the operation of strong positive feedbacks.
I repeat: I can’t be held responsible for your failure to understand the basics. Especially if you don’t even bother reading my comments.
#176- So I’m reading this “demolition” (which uses “Media Matters” as a source- a neutral source, of course). It appears the claim “no warming for last 10 years” or “15 years” is plainly wrong because, well here the answer is provided in the form of a chart that shows a warming trend from 1978 to 2008. Ahem. Both statements are true. It really is possible for today to be warmer than 1978 but not warmer than 2002.
What does this “prove”- nothing for either side of course other that everybody can wave their hands.
Ah and BBD with the insistence on ~3C for doubling of CO2 (derived from models and paleo reconstructions so we know it’s “robust!”) At least we’re making progress. Five years ago activists called me an idiot denier for daring to doubt the number was 6 degrees C. In 5 years I’ll be an idiot denier for doubting it’s 1.5 degrees and in 10 years I’ll be a liar and a baboon for suggesting you ever predicted warming at all (for a similar example see Paul Ehrlich’s modern pretension that he never “predicted” a population bomb and that, anyway, he was right).
jeffn
WRT ‘no warming’ – I copied this from #147 – please see original if links are broken below. F&R11 removes ENSO, aerosol and TSI effects from NCDC, GISS, HADCRUT3, RSS and UAH to reveal underlying trend from CO2 forcing. Doubtless not the last word, but well worth a careful read:
See Foster & Rahmstorf (2011). And this. Funny how showing more than one record makes it all rather less clear cut. I also understand that HADCRUT4 is going to show warming over this period as it now includes Siberian stations.
WRT climate sensitivity – you say:
Ah and BBD with the insistence on ~3C for doubling of CO2 (derived from models and paleo reconstructions so we know it’s “robust!”) At least we’re making progress. Five years ago activists called me an idiot denier for daring to doubt the number was 6 degrees C.
Well they were badly-informed ‘activists’ then. AR4 WG1 is explicit about the most likely value for equilibrium climate sensitivity:
Since the TAR, the levels of scientific understanding and confidence in quantitative estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity have increased substantially. Basing our assessment on a combination of several independent lines of evidence, as summarised in Box 10.2 Figures 1 and 2, including observed climate change and the strength of known feedbacks simulated in GCMs, we conclude that the global mean equilibrium warming for doubling CO2, or “˜equilibrium climate sensitivity’, is likely to lie in the range 2°C to 4.5°C, with a most likely value of about 3°C. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is very likely larger than 1.5°C.
The harder everyone looks, the more solid the ~3C ECS estimate gets. It’s certainly not going to get much lower, so this is wishful thinking:
In 5 years I’ll be an idiot denier for doubting it’s 1.5 degrees and in 10 years I’ll be a liar and a baboon for suggesting you ever predicted warming at all
There is nothing – and I do mean nothing – that provides plausible backing for an ECS as low as 1.5C. It all points to around 3C for 2 x CO2 or equivalent increase in RF.
#176,
Yes, several people on the sceptic side have already noted it.
In the climate debate generally, a certain amount of what you say does go on. On both sides, of course – I assume you didn’t intend to be one-sided by only mentioning sceptics. Some believers complain when another stupid weather-is-climate story hits the headlines, some sceptics complain when a fellow sceptic puts their foot in it and lets the side down.
However, in a lot of cases, there is a genuine difference of viewpoint. It’s not that they’re keeping quiet out of tribal loyalty, it’s that there are several ways of looking at some statistic or observation, and which one people see depends on their context.
Just for example, let’s take the statistical issue Phil picks up first. But rather than talking about climate, (which obviously won’t work because of our different viewpoints), let’s use the economy instead.
Let’s say that some journalist for a disreputable rag writes that the US economy has stagnated over the past four years. It’s not going up. They plot a graph of the last four years to make the point.
Many people read it and genuinely see nothing wrong with the statement. Yes, the US economy is in recession – everybody knows that. They find it surprising that it still needs to be said, as if anyone didn’t know.
They’re not keeping quiet out of tribal loyalty, that’s really what they see.
Another journalist reads the statement, and declares it to be an outrageous lie! They plot a graph of GDP over the last 60 years, draw a straight line trend through the data, the line is clearly going up. In fact, it’s accelerating! They point out that for the last four years the US GDP has been the highest on record. There is no recession, the US economy is still rising strongly.
And the people saying that, and reading it, likewise see it as the obvious truth, not subject to question.
How can two people both report on the same set of data, both make true statements about it, and yet draw such diametrically opposed conclusions from it?
People say that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. But statistics don’t lie, what they do is allow people to jump to unjustified conclusions. People commonly use certain well-known heuristics, like “correlation implies causation”, which can be used to lead them astray. The statistics just shows a correlation. It’s the reader who fills in the lie to say this means A causes B. You don’t lie to people with statistics, you persuade the reader to lie to themselves.
In this case, the issue is with the meaning of trends, and trend lines. The statistics says that if the data is generated by a process that consists of a linear function plus independent, identically distributed Gaussian errors, then the best estimate of the linear function given the data can be calculated by a certain procedure.
But if the data has not been generated by such a process, the output of such a calculation is entirely meaningless. The output will usually vary wildly depending on what period you pick, so you can get whatever answer you want by picking different periods. Long periods are no more meaningful than short ones. It doesn’t work if the conditions are not met.
The lie is assuming that because you can plot a trend line on a period of data, that this means there is an actual trend over the interval and the line shows it.
Thus, when somebody sees a flat trend on 4 years of data, the lie is that this implies the data was generated by a process where the gradient is flat there. When someone sees a rising line over 60 years of data, the lie is that this shows the data was generated by a process with a strongly rising linear trend, and being a linear function cannot have stopped. You can’t possibly draw two diametrically opposed conclusions from the same data with valid reasoning. The reasoning has to be wrong. The appearance or calculation of a trend does not imply the existence of a trend.
This is where our background assumptions let us down. If you assume the existence of a continuing trend, you can find it. But you brought it to the party yourself. If you instead assume the process underlying the data is a curve plus noise, and that the curve can vary in gradient, and maybe even peak, then you can find it. Yes it rose earlier; but that was earlier, and the conditions now are different. Shorter intervals tell you more about current conditions than very long ones.
Is the US in recession or is the economy still rising? Is either side lying? Is either side even wrong? Literally, you decide.
That’s right NiV. Keep ignoring the facts. Or indeed the entire comment at # 147. Especially this bit:
1. The planet has not warmed for 15 years. A graph is shown to confirm this.
Deeply misleading. See Foster & Rahmstorf (2011). And this. Funny how showing more than one record makes it all rather less clear cut. I also understand that HADCRUT4 is going to show warming over this period as it now includes Siberian stations.
You are really quite something, aren’t you?
#179 BBD
So any critique you don’t like is “poison”? Funny.
I see on another thread there that BH had put you out to pasture for a few days to cool off.
BBD – Good news! Just saw that more of that “poison” is being spread by those evil propagandists at WUWT!!!
But I must laugh. The use of the word “poison” certainly illustrates the title of this thread.
#184,
I point out that lots of people assume straight-line trends, independent errors, etc. but their reasoning is invalid, so you cite a bunch of charts assuming straight line trends, independent errors, to make your point. It’s a beautiful example confirming exactly what I was saying.
I wasn’t ignoring your “facts”, I included them as one of the two cases I was explaining.
You really are quite something, aren’t you?
EdG
I see on another thread there that BH had put you out to pasture for a few days to cool off.
I started asking questions about who or what is funding the GWPF. Suddenly I’m banned. Bizarre.
NiV
In order to maintain the fiction that GAT has been flat for a decade you need to use HADCRUT3. Which is of course what Rose does. GISTEMP and UAH show warming over this period and the revised HADCRUT4 will also show warming thanks to the inclusion of Siberian station data. Thus bringing it into line with GISTEMP (and NCDC).
F&R11 removes noise and demonstrates a linear warming trend 1979 – 2011. In other words, the warming trend continues. But what do we get from you at # 183? A great, obfuscatory waffle which insinuates that ‘assuming the continuation of a long term trend’ is a ‘lie’:
The lie is assuming that because you can plot a trend line on a period of data, that this means there is an actual trend over the interval and the line shows it.
That is a distortion of the facts – something you never stop doing. And you have the front yet again to deny what you are doing. I’ve seen some bad faith in my time, but you are something else.
#189,
I said:
“They plot a graph of GDP over the last 60 years, draw a straight line trend through the data, the line is clearly going up. In fact, it’s accelerating! They point out that for the last four years the US GDP has been the highest on record. There is no recession, the US economy is still rising strongly.”
This is precisely the same argument you are making. The same logic. The part where I said ” this shows the data was generated by a process with a strongly rising linear trend, and being a linear function cannot have stopped” is the same as “…demonstrates a linear warming trend 1979 ““ 2011. In other words, the warming trend continues.” I have already restated the case you make – I’m not hiding or omitting or ignoring anything. I had already said it.
The problem, like I said, is that you read things into what I say that are not there, and then complain that they are misleading. “You don’t lie to people with statistics, you persuade the reader to lie to themselves.” And you are absolutely brilliant at lying to yourself, convincing yourself that you’re right and everyone who disagrees is wrong and being deliberately deceptive to boot. They must be, to claim not to see the world as you do.
It’s interesting to watch. You dig a pit trap in the middle of the path, don’t bother coviering it with leaves or anything, put a sign up pointing to it saying: “This is a trap”, and then watch as someone walks straight into it. What can you say to something like that?
NiV
“They plot a graph of GDP over the last 60 years, draw a straight line trend through the data, the line is clearly going up. In fact, it’s accelerating! They point out that for the last four years the US GDP has been the highest on record. There is no recession, the US economy is still rising strongly.”
This is precisely the same argument you are making. The same logic.
No, it isn’t. I am saying that:
– several data sets show warming over the last decade (never mind your misdirection over the long-term trend superimposed over short-term data)
– F&R11 provides an even clearer rebuttal to the ‘warming has stopped’ nonsense by removing noise to reveal the signal
Here is your misrepresentation of what I (didn’t) say:
The part where I said “ this shows the data was generated by a process with a strongly rising linear trend, and being a linear function cannot have stopped“ is the same as “”¦demonstrates a linear warming trend 1979 ““ 2011. In other words, the warming trend continues.”
[…]
The problem, like I said, is that you read things into what I say that are not there, and then complain that they are misleading.
Oh. Come. On.
It’s interesting to watch. You dig a pit trap in the middle of the path, don’t bother coviering it with leaves or anything, put a sign up pointing to it saying: “This is a trap”, and then watch as someone walks straight into it. What can you say to something like that?
You can say this:
That is a distortion of the facts ““ something you never stop doing. And you have the front yet again to deny what you are doing. I’ve seen some bad faith in my time, but you are something else.
‘No warming since 1998’…
GISTEMP: trends 1995 – present and 1998 – present
@ 176
You have an interesting perception of ability, Keith. Can’t you see that the guy is a serial cheater. Look at how he attacks the statements that were not made. Exhibit A:
WSJ: “Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now.”
PP: “That statement, to put it bluntly, is dead wrong. It relies on blatantly misinterpreting long term trends, instead wearing blinders and only looking at year-to-year variations in temperature.”
Well, these are three lies in a row. The statement is correct. WSJ says nothing at all about long term trends. Hopefully, Keith, you can see the difference between ignoring the long term trends (as WSJ did) and misinterpreting as alleged. And it’s not about year-to-year variations. It’s about > 10 years record now.
Exhibit B:
DM: “Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years“
PP: “2012 is expected to be around 0.48 °C warmer than the long-term (1961-1990)”
Did the change of subject go unnoticed? Need it be explained that the two statements are not mutually exclusive?
What about Met’s failed forecast (NiV’s #6)? Was the forecast ably defended? I didn’t notice.
PP: “the Little Ice Age “” a cold period during the 17th and 18th centuries “” was not a global effect; it only affected Europe.”
That’s an overstatement at best. While the evidence is lacking to prove that LIA was global there is no definitive evidence to the contrary either. The point is moot.
PP: “It also coincided with several large volcanic events that helped drive it.”
Even a large volcanic event hits temp record only for a few years. See Pinatubo.
Keith say:
“Phil Plait ably demolished the Daily Mail piece.”
I am sure you can choose suitable definitions of demolished for this to be true, but as Nullius notes above “HADCRUT3 is flat for the decade” is objectively true. Nor in fact is this at odds with the statement that this is the hottest decade ever.
What I actually find most amusing about this escapade was the return fire that ensued. Briggs notes in Bad Astronomer does Bad Statistics that the SkepticalScience response was misleading and specifically that it lacked error bars and metrics. With this, I had a strange sense of deja-vu. I had seen this before.
Hopping into the Way-back machine I note in July of 2011 a post on RealClimate by Trenberth and Fasullo slagging Spenser and Braswell for (you guessed it) “misleading data due to lack of error bars”, further the point is picked up and parroted by SkepticalScience, but they obviously must nit have understood it. What is funny is that Spenser is on the receiving end of both attacks.
So which of the attacks is garbage ? Is it the claim by SkepticalScience that it is unprofessional and misleading to not include error bars when attacking Spenser and Braswell or is it the graph also from SkepticalScience that commits exactly the sin they were railing against in the first attack ? You don’t get to hold both in your head at the same time without extraordinary amounts of doublethink.
“Oh. Come. On.”
Excellent! Brilliant argument! I fall to my knees in admiration at this rigorous application of logic. Your chain of syllogisms is almost poetic!
Sheesh.
I deliberately chose a different example so as to be able to concentrate on the precise statistical point that Phil Plait had highlighted – without all the baggage. Now you are trying to claim that I’m wrong about the statistics under discussion, because I left out some of that baggage that is entirely irrelevant to the point.
It’s like some bizarre cups-and-ball trick where you point to the cup you want and the street hustler lifts the other two cups and says “wrong!” Rose was discussing HadCRUT. Phil was discussing HadCRUT. I was discussing HadCRUT. So you have to pick another two series and say “what about them, eh?” You picked them simply because they gave you the answer you want, of course. But it doesn’t matter because you missed the essential point of my entire argument which is that if the assumptions the algorithm relies on are invalid then the calculated linear trend is meaningless. It doesn’t matter which data set you pick, it doesn’t matter if you pick US GDP, the same problem applies to all of them. It doesn’t matter if you pick a more sophisticated model, that enables you to delete just those bits of the climate system you don’t like, it still doesn’t work if its assumptions are invalid. Your objections are irrelevant to the point we were discussing, which was Phil’s argument about trends and periods.
You keep on arguing against an argument I’m not making. It’s very nice of you to try to help me out by making some extra arguments on my behalf, but I can’t justly claim the credit for them. They’re all yours.
BBD: GISTEMP and UAH show warming over this period and the revised HADCRUT4 will also show warming thanks to the inclusion of Siberian station data. Thus bringing it into line with GISTEMP (and NCDC).
I think this is true, but I’ve only based that off eyeballing difference graphs. Is the new data available?
NiV’s analogy to economic conditions brings up an interesting point. Long-term (several decades, for example), the economy in a sense responds to “forcings”, such as labor force growth, increased production, productivity and technological improvements. As long as such forcings don’t change, one would logically expect long-term that real GDP would continue to grow (let’s disregard the finer details that are difficult to make an analogy to climate science, such as heat capacity / “warming in the pipeline” / methane feedbacks). Short-term, other factors can influence GDP, such as fed policy, over-speculation, a bubble-producing regulatory environment, spending or tax changes. This can lead to bubbles that increase GDP to higher than it would have been otherwise, and busts that produce recessions, masking the long-term forces.
The equivalent of a global warming denier is one who uses the short-term data (cherry-picking their start and end points to coincide with bubbles/busts perhaps) to argue that these basic economic forces that grow GDP long-term don’t exist, but all that GDP growth is the product of some sort of natural variation. They would then use the recent economic bust/downturn as evidence for that, and conclude that GDP will fail to grow going forward, or more likely drop closer to 1950’s levels, maybe even bring on another economic ice age. Perhaps they even made the same argument in 2008, 2001, 1991, 1982, etc.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif
Sashka: Well, these are three lies in a row. The statement is correct. WSJ says nothing at all about long term trends.
The statement is not correct, unless one constrains “well over” to be a year or less and severely cherry-picks their data. That’s dishonest. Also dishonst, if you believe the piece says nothing about long-term trends, then a skeptic might ask why they would conclude from their first shaky presumption that it “suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause.”, when anyone who has examined climate models with CO2 forcing note that periods of a decade or more of cooling or flat temperatures are fairly common, particularly when there are ENSO and/or solar swings during select periods.
But climate science isn’t all that they flunk.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/30/scientists-challenging-climate-science-appear-to-flunk-climate-economics/
NiV
NYJ clearly understands exactly what I am saying (196).
It doesn’t matter if you pick a more sophisticated model, that enables you to delete just those bits of the climate system you don’t like, it still doesn’t work if its assumptions are invalid. Your objections are irrelevant to the point we were discussing, which was Phil’s argument about trends and periods.
The point we are discussing is your attempt to pretend that the ‘assumptions’ underpinning AGW are wrong. I do so by challenging your misdirections. Starting with the claim that there has been no GW since 1998.
First, this is in all likelihood not true. Second, the F&R11 analysis shows that it is imperative to separate signal from noise or the misrepresenters will have a field day with Hadcrut3.
This is very clear to me. I am, however, completely unsurprised that you profess to find it baffling. It does not suit your agenda, after all. Which, as NYJ correctly states, is denial:
if the assumptions the algorithm relies on are invalid then the calculated linear trend is meaningless.
In summary, I reject this:
You keep on arguing against an argument I’m not making.
Because is not true. I argue against your misrepresentations. As always.
NYJ
I think this is true, but I’ve only based that off eyeballing difference graphs. Is the new data available?
Not yet afaik. Annan’s discussion remains the best indicator, along with the abstract of Jones et al. (2012 – in press) linked @ 184.
“Second, the F&R11 analysis shows that it is imperative to separate signal from noise or the misrepresenters will have a field day with Hadcrut3.”
Separating signal from noise requires a statistical model of how signal and noise behave, in particular, how they differ.
If you don’t have such a model, or if the model you use is wrong, then your separation will be wrong too. Any processing done to ‘extract a signal’ makes your conclusions conditional on your assumptions.
What F&R did was to assume that ENSO was “noise”. It isn’t. It’s real weather. ENSO is a part of the climate, like the AMO and PDO. When observers round observations to the nearest degree, or when instrumentation changes, or when the air conditioners turn on and warm your thermometer, that’s noise, because it’s not real weather. But ENSO is actual weather, it’s just an aspect of weather that’s proving inconvenient for the hypothesis so it has to be removed. Had we said that the AMO and PDO cycles also had to be removed, and estimated their effect by regressing against temperature, we’d have removed the whole of the 20th century rise as being “noise”. Various sceptics have already done so.
That you should see the need to do something so that the “misrepresenters” should not “have a field day” with the data is letting your desires lead your methods. I would advise you instead, don’t try to tell us that your underlying trends are more real than the observations you extract them from, and don’t hold back on truth for fear of what we’ll do with it, or we really will have a field day.
A scientist is supposed to seek out the strongest evidence and arguments against their hypothesis, and publicise it all. It is only by surviving every attack that can be thrown against it that we gain any scientific confidence in the hypothesis. If people suspect you’re downplaying such arguments, for fear of giving sceptics ammunition, you’ll subvert your own scientific credibility overnight.
Take it up with Foster on his blog. Link back here.
AMO is a consequence of warming, not a cause of it.