Its Official: Climate is the First Post-Modern Physical Science
You can find a lot of different definitions of post-modernism. Here is one from Wikipedia, which seems appropriate because in some sense at its very core Wikipedia adopts a post-modernist approach to truth. Post-modernism rejects objective truth, or at least man’s ability ever to identify such truth. As applied to science, post-modernists would say that what we call scientific “truth” in in fact the results of social, cultural, and political forces within and acting on the scientific community.
Some elements of post-modernism actually provide a useful critique of science. Its focus on biases and resulting observational blindness to certain results that falsify ones pre-conceived notions are useful caveats in a scientific process. But the belief that a rational scientific process is not just difficult but impossible leads to all kinds of crazy conclusions. Many in hard core postmodern circles would argue that since objective truth is impossible anyway, scientific findings should be guided by what is most socially useful. As Steven Schneider of Stanford says vis a vis climate:
We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.
And speaking of Steven Schneider, he is coauthor of a recent study appearing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that has really made it plain to me that climate is becoming the first post-modern physical science. Just note the incredible approach to his study, and how much it mirrors the precepts of post-modernism: To decide who is right and wrong in climate science between skeptics and alarmists, the study authors have … wait for it .. counted them and measured their relative influence in academic circles. Since the authors count more alarmists than skeptics, and judge that the alarmists are more influential in academic circles, then they must be right! After all, truth is determined by those with the most political and cultural influence, not by silly stuff like testing hypotheses against observational data.
Postscript: I think a lot of the skeptic backlash against this study is overwrought, examples here and here. To paraphrase another climate publication, this study is “not evil, just silly.”
stan:
This study merely demonstrates the extent to which climate science is an academic circle jerk.
June 23, 2010, 11:44 amChuckles:
I’m still trying to work out where the science is in the paper. It reads like a sophomoric report on some database search results.
If the skep response seems a bit overwrought, what of those lining up to robustly defend it as excellent scientific work that should be lauded for it’s advancement of human knowledge?
June 23, 2010, 12:34 pmGORE LIED:
“I think a lot of the skeptic backlash against this study is overwrought….”
I completely agree. When this story broke I just basically said “Ho hum”, and didn’t even post anything about it on my own blog. I suppose it should be somewhat scandalous, but I guess this type of stuff just doesn’t register much of a reaction with me anymore (perhaps I’m a bit punch drunk).
I’d think that the chronic doom monger Steven Schneider’s reputation would take another blow, but I’m not holding my breath. But, slowly, over time, people hopefully will just stop listening to the pronouncements from people such as he.
June 23, 2010, 12:47 pmhunter:
As ever, you balls up even the most simple things. Your ineptness is spectacular to watch. Slapstick is the oldest kind of comedy, and watching someone slip up on a banana skin is still inherently funny. Even funnier when they themselves have laid out a whole trail of banana skins.
The co-author was not “Steven Schneider” and the paper does not anywhere say anything that can remotely be construed as deciding “who is right and wrong”.
As so often before you have absolutely no clue what’s going on. As so often before you merely demonstrate that you are intellectually pathetic.
June 23, 2010, 2:21 pmMourn:
Hunter, as a long time reader of this blog and its comments I have to agree with you to a degree: someone here is certainly intellectually pathetic. Unfortunately, it is you as your every post demonstrates. You are an excelent representative of the Alarmist movement, and that speaks volumes for the intellectual power of your movement.
June 23, 2010, 2:29 pmDoug:
Lysenko is alive and well in the 21st Century!
June 23, 2010, 2:41 pmkuhnkat:
Unfortuantely sillier things have been taken very seriously by people in with authority or power to act. Hope it does turn out to just be silly.
June 23, 2010, 4:01 pmSean2829:
I cringe whenever I hear the term “post-normal science” or post-modern science. What comes to mind is a comment made by Rutherford when asked about using statistics to interpret noisy experimental results. His answer was ““If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.” Climate science is in its infancy but some good experiments have been designed and their results are just beginning to be published. As these get recognized and the results incorporated into the debate, climate science will begin to look more like traditional science.
June 23, 2010, 4:32 pmhunter (the real one):
The PNAS paper is seen by rational and reasonable people for what it is:
June 24, 2010, 3:38 amA way to list out who the CAGW promoters wish to have excluded from the public square.
That it is not accurate and misrepresents the work and positions of those it seeks to exclude is just one of its many disgusting attributes. That it pretends that skeptics are now uncivilized ‘deniers’ is just a sad reminder that extremists, when unconstrained by civility or ethics do not bother with accuracy or truth.
That CAGW true believers pretend it is not a list is just typical from people who have bought into a non-existent crisis.
hunter:
What is “CAGW”? What is a “CAGW promoter”?
June 24, 2010, 4:57 amPaulD:
“What is “CAGW”?”
It stands for “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming” The term is helpful because many reasonable observers believe that good evidence supports anthropogenic global warming. They dispute that a climate crisis exisits or that antrhopogenic global warming will lead to catastrophic outcomes.
June 24, 2010, 6:51 amnetdr:
Counting the number of climate scientists that believe in CAGW us mentally challenged, but attractive to authoritarian personality types.
When Albert Einstein was
informed of the publication of a book entitled 100 Authors
Against Einstein, he is said to have remarked, “If I were wrong,
then one would have been enough!” (Hawking, 1988); however,
that one opposing scientist would have needed proof in the form
of testable results
The only testable results for CAGW are climate models and they seem to always predict far more warming than actually happens. In other words they fail the test.
If they were unbiased they would bracketed the real answer but they are all skewed to the high side, with the added benefit that they are hockey stick shaped. Any manager knows the benefits of hockey stick shaped graphs when the bad things happen 40 or 50 years in the future so you can be safely retired. In the interim you aren’t too far wrong when warming fails to happen.
June 24, 2010, 7:30 amhunter:
To show us that you haven’t just built the most immense straw man I’ve seen for a long while, please quote a peer-reviewed journal paper or two which uses the phrase “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”.
June 24, 2010, 8:28 amhunter (the same one):
CAGW is the social moevement that has highjacked climate science and energizes trolls like you, scientist/wannabe hunter.
June 24, 2010, 9:56 amIt is a description of the pile of crap you and the true believers hlod so dear.
A promoter is someone who promotes something- an opinion leader. Hansen, Gore, Mann, etc. are promoters of CAGW, for example: they fabricate studies, sell them to the public and reap social status and wealth from the effort. they manage the public square so as to suppress competitive ideas and maintain their social power.
You are just a neverwuzzer- a miserable troll who thinks she is clever but is really just a derivative consumer of CAGW dogma, capable only of regurgitating it and pretending to be what she/he/it is not. And regurgitating it in a fashion that is as close to vomitus as possible in an electronic medium.
hunter (the real one):
‘ll say it again then:
To show us that you haven’t just built the most immense straw man I’ve seen for a long while, please quote a peer-reviewed journal paper or two which uses the phrase “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”.
Should be easy, no?
June 24, 2010, 10:46 amnetdr:
Hunter
To show us that you haven’t just built the most immense straw man I’ve seen for a long while, please quote a peer-reviewed journal paper or two which uses the phrase “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”.
*****************
More sloppy thinking !
Who cares if I just made up the “CAGW” label?
What possible difference does it make ?
If the shoe fits wear it.
It fits some people’s beliefs like a glove. The “catastrophic” is what separates the loonies from the sane, in my opinion. Mankind might even be guilty of changing the environment, but mostly by land use, CO2 effects are minimal at most.
My peers [my wife and mother in law] have reviewed this message, so it has been “peer reviewed”.
June 24, 2010, 10:52 amJusta Joe:
“…the paper does not anywhere say anything that can remotely be construed as deciding “who is right and wrong”. not hunter
You may have something there? The authors appear to just assume that the CAGW climate cranks are correct and that the CAGW skeptics are “deniers”. They actually use the term deniers.
June 24, 2010, 10:53 amchemman:
“Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
If there is no such thing as objective truth then there can’t be any such thing as honesty.
June 24, 2010, 12:27 pmhunter (the sane one):
hunter troll,
June 24, 2010, 12:57 pmYou are the one relying, as always, on a pathetic strawman of immense dimensions.
I never represented that CAGW is a peer reviewed term. I claimed it is one I choose to use.
Here is Scientific American on the topic:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=risks-of-global-warming-rising
And yes, you are still a miserable troll.
RG:
This article is a fascinating exercise in deliberately missing the point.
You know that “silly stuff like testing hypotheses against observational data”? – The NAS study found that 97 of the top 100 people in the world who do that believe climate change is real and human induced.
This article reeks of desperation.
June 24, 2010, 5:01 pmWally:
RG, I wonder just who decided how to come up with 100 of the top people in the world are? And how they did that, you know, objectively, without coming up with some completely arbitrary set of rules.
I also wonder how 100 of the top people in the world that test hypotheses against observational data would think about using a poll to determine the correctness of a hypotheses?
I’d say it you who is a desperate, if you have to rely on a poll to make yourself feel better.
June 24, 2010, 5:55 pmRick Bradford:
The losers who form the CAGW crowd are desperate to tear something down. Because they are incapable of creating anything, their only way to try and feel adequate is to pull someone else down; in this case it is the whole edifice of capitalism they hate and would like to destroy. The added bonus is that they can hug themselves and pretend they are nobly helping to Save The Planet.
Look in any psychology textbook under victimhood, narcissism, projection, and you’ll see detailed character sketches of the typical Warmist.
June 24, 2010, 6:42 pmNokTang:
“It reads like a sophomoric report on some database search results.”
You were right. The other lead author of this piece of junk science is a certain William R. L. Anderegg, who’s a climate change student at the Stanford University, yes the university of Schneider.
And Hunter, please do continue to post your silly messages, it further erodes the Church of CAGW.
June 25, 2010, 1:41 amCraig Goodrich:
One of the more interesting things about this study is the reaction of MSM journalists — the New York Times and the Guardian, to name only two, actually take this insane study seriously. This fact alone should demonstrate clearly to anyone with an IQ above that of a toaster that these “science journalists” are completely clueless, both about science and about journalism.
It is also hilarious that the article’s terms “CE” and “UE” include the word “evidence”, when there has been absolutely no actual evidence adduced for CO2-driven global warming after more than twenty years and $100 billion in research. Pitiful.
June 25, 2010, 5:08 amhunter (the sane one):
OK, that’s good – I didn’t expect two people independently to say so explicitly that “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming” was just a figment of their imagination. Weird that they would choose to do so, but still, at least we’ve got that confirmed now.
June 25, 2010, 7:01 amhunter (the real one):
@troll,
June 25, 2010, 9:09 amThe ultimate dodge of a CAGW true believer- only peer reviewed terms are acceptable.
Your arguments are as lacking in substance as your name games: completely.
CAGW is a useful term to summarize the claptrap bullshit you believe in.
Please do continue your romp to show anyone not yet decided that CAGW true believers are empty of substance and character as well as sad caricatures of intelligence.
You are a sorry little thief, you know it, and you have no argument or defense- only more trollishness.
Justa Joe:
“You know that “silly stuff like testing hypotheses against observational data”? – The NAS study found that 97 of the top 100 people in the world who do that believe climate change is real and human induced.”
What climate change? The climate cranks have a hypothesis. That’s for sure, but they seem to be a tad lacking with the observational data. The climate cranks strong suit appears to be wild eyed predictions based on compounded suppositions. That never pan out. Get back to us when the 1st actual verifiable problem occurs due to not heeding the warming abatement edicts laid down by Algore & the Klimate Krank Krew. (besides Goldman Sachs not making as much money as they planned)
“I didn’t expect two people independently to say so explicitly that “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming” was just a figment of their imagination…” – hunter (the lesser)
What’s a denier within the context of the discussion of climate?
June 25, 2010, 9:12 amDM:
To the authors of “Expert Credibility in Climate Science”,
I have read your paper. I can only describe it as a strong candidate for a new all-time low for science itself. Since when does the number of adherents to a particular theory or their so-called “credentials” matter in terms of deciding whether a scientific theory is correct or not? Perhaps you need a little refresher course from a “non-scientist.” Scientific theories are tested, and stand or fall, against the evidence. Nature, the universe, reality (whatever you want to call it) is the final arbiter. Does the theory fit with the observations from the natural world? That is the only relevant question. If it does not, throw it out, construct a new theory and test that one against the observations (basic scientific method). Science is not democracy, and the validity or invalidity of a scientific theory does not depend on a head count of adherents and skeptics. Need I remind you that at one time the weight of adherents was behind the flat earth theory and at another time the weight of adherents was behind the geo-centric theory of the universe (the history of science is rife with such examples). It seems you may have been listening too attentively in a typical university philosophy course when the professor blathered on about a socially constructed theory of truth. Science, however, is based on the correspondence theory of truth, i.e. a theory is valid only to the extent it corresponds to observations of the natural world.
If you wonder why the anthropogenic climate change theory (“global warming”) is losing credibility among the general population, you need not look any further than articles and statements such as your recent paper.
June 25, 2010, 10:50 amLaurent:
Unrelated.
Swiss Re (Reinsurance company) published a refutation of skeptics arguments. If anybody’s interested, see http://media.swissre.com/documents/rethinking_factsheet_climate_sceptic.pdf
June 25, 2010, 2:11 pmCharles Higley:
It’s much too kind to call the study “silly”. It is outright STUPID.
If their time was funded by a grant for scientific research, they are guilty of fraud, as this is not science. This is sociology and probably not the area of knowledge for which the funds were provided.
June 25, 2010, 3:09 pmhunter (the real one):
Laurent,
June 25, 2010, 3:51 pmDo you have any other links?
That one does not appear to work.
I will look as well.
Thanks,
netdr:
Laurent:
I read some of your link to ” skeptics arguments refuted” [or some such], and as usual they are strawman arguments which distort the real skeptical arguments. The strawman argument is false and is easy to refute.
Example: All warming is caused by UHI. The real argument is that some warming is not real but caused by uncorrected UHI !
I haven’t checked all stations in the USA but in the DFW area I know it to be a significant factor.
In 1977 DFW airport was a cow pasture, but since then a small city has grown up. An international airport with tons of concrete with huge air conditioners blowing hot air, along with jet aircraft. Even if the site of the surface station is 100 ft from concrete [ I cannot locate it exactly so let's assume that it is.] the surrounding UHI is huge and has grown significantly since 1977. A cow pasture that becomes a city has more change in UHI than a big city that gets bigger.
Has it been corrected for ? No both the homogenized and non homogenized data shows the same fictitious warming. Their idea of homogenization is to make excellent surface stations worse by mixing them with inferior stations.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425722590001&data_set=0&num_neighbors=1
From the early 70’s to 2009 there would seem to be 1.5 ° C warming from the graph.
A small navel air station 15 miles away which wasn’t in this heat bubble shows no warming during this period.[particularly in the raw data.]
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425722590010&data_set=0&num_neighbors=1
Since the climate alarmists have convinced themselves UHI is trivial it need not be adjusted for.
The DFW readings are routinely 3 or 4 ° F higher than in my back yard 20 miles away.
June 26, 2010, 8:10 amhunter (the real one):
netdr – your DFW graph looks rather flat until about 1995, with some high values seen since then. Your Hensley Field graph stops… in 1996. Over their common period, the two records show almost identical temperature trends. Were you simply too stupid to notice that, or were you being intentionally dishonest?
June 26, 2010, 9:27 amnetdr:
Hunter
You really are blind. From 1970 to 1996 the average Hensley temperature goes nowhere.[The Hensley field data does stop in 1996. You are correct about that.]
The DFW goes from about 18 ° C to about 20 from 1970 to 1998.
I will leave it to anyone interested to look at the graphs for themselves.
You are not “stupid” just not very skilled at reading graphs
Using insults instead of logic just weakens your arguments.
June 26, 2010, 10:05 amhunter:
You are, as I suspected, completely innumerate, and very stupid indeed. You obviously don’t have the mathematical training to even begin to understand data quantitatively. You admit that you didn’t realise the Hensley field data stopped in 1996, but you bizarrely cling on to the flawed conclusions that you reached as a result of that major error.
The simple truth is that the DFW and Hensley data show near identical trends from 1970 to 1996. The trends are +0.09 and -0.02 °C/decade respectively, and these values lie well within each other’s 1σ confidence limits.
If you’re going to post again, try and include some actual numbers, instead of just waffling.
June 26, 2010, 12:05 pmhunter:
Laurent,
The site from Swiss RE is a sales tool.
A corporate version of Gore’s movie.
Swiss RE can justify higher premiums on insurance by claiming to be factoring an increase of losses due to CAGW.
netdr, Perhaps it would be better to either ignore my little shadow or at least to make sure it gets a distinctive name? Which also raises the question: if the troll did not have insults, it would have nothing.
June 26, 2010, 12:43 pmhunter:
Blah blah blah blah blah
June 26, 2010, 12:58 pmnetdr:
OK – you’re right. I chose a bad example. I can’t argue with the numbers – DFW does not show any different behaviour to the nearby rural station.
June 26, 2010, 3:51 pmShills:
interesting link:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/06/leakegate-a-retraction/
June 27, 2010, 7:00 amTed Rado:
I guess I wasted my time getting a degree in chemical engineering many years ago. To determine if heat flow from a high temperature source to a lower temperature sink, instead of studying heat transfer, we should simply have a vote. It would be especially useful to get the votes of those with no technical background whatsoever, such as the idiots in Congress.
Gee, think of all the extra beer I could have enjoyed during my college days instead of studyng late at night!!
June 27, 2010, 12:42 pmnetdr-[the real one]:
I did not post the above retraction.
The graphs show the growth of UHI just like I said they do.
The impostor is playing games.
I will go over to DFW with a temperature logging thermometer some evening and do a similar experiment to one I did in Dallas a while ago.
I did an experiment to determine UHI for Dallas by taking readings from (1)downtown Dallas and (2)at a city park and (3)35 miles out in the country ! I drove as fast as it as legal to drive so the temperatures were taken 1/2 hour apart maximum.
The result was that there was 7 ° F difference from downtown to the country, which is a lot when we are looking for 7/10 ° C in a century. [the city park was 2 ° F cooler than downtown]
I’ll bet the DFW airport shows a similar but smaller UHI effect.
BTW the corrected and uncorrected graphs show no attempt to adjust out the UHI.
June 28, 2010, 6:43 amnetdr - the real real one:
I don’t know who the comment above is, but I really did concede the point. I do know that there is an urban heat island effect – as does everyone, so there’s no need, false netdr, to re-discover it – but I do accept that that DFW, at least, doesn’t show that this real and well known effect actually contaminates the temperature record.
June 28, 2010, 5:18 pmRick Bradford:
If urban heat islands significantly biased the temperature record, then you’d expect a global map of temperature change to have red spots where the population is concentrated. You’d expect the most warming to be in Europe, the lower 48 states, Japan, India, and eastern China. You wouldn’t expect the most warming to be in the Arctic, across Siberia, in northern Canada, the Amazon basin, or on the Antarctic peninsula.
Oh look – here’s a map:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2010&month_last=5&sat=4&sst=1&type=trends&mean_gen=0112&year1=1880&year2=2009&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg
Hmmmm…..
June 28, 2010, 5:27 pmRick Bradford:
I’m not sure why I wrote what I just did. It was tragically stupid, like the vast majority of my posts. I have no idea at all about how the climate works, and I’ll keep living in my fantasy world like a retarded fuckwit.
June 28, 2010, 6:16 pmnetdr-[the real one]:
So the impostor contends that in 1970 there was a very hot cow pasture at DFW ? Do the cows emit UHI ?
So there has been no UHI because it was always hot. I cannot believe that can you?
This pattern probably repeats frequently because temperature stations tend to be frequently located at airports.
The temperature records show no downward adjustment of temperature to negate the UHI. [He doesn't refute that because it is easily verified.] In fact the later temperatures over most stations are adjusted UP according to NOAA. [About 5 ° F.]
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif
This however has no effect upon the temperature record.
Amazing simply Amazing.
I have read that all temperature readings above a certain latitude comes from one station in an area known as the “garden spot of the arctic”. Also the Russians claim that when the soviet union folded the coldest and most remote stations were shut down.
When the number of surface stations went from 5000 to 1500 there was a preference for keeping the less remote ones.
The old temperature record has never been redone using the new set of stations which indicates incompetence.
So temperatures taken in 2010 do not correspond to ones taken in 1990 or 1980 etc and no one knows how to convert between the two.
Poor data goes into poor studies to get the wrong answers.
June 28, 2010, 7:20 pmRick Bradford:
“So the impostor contends that in 1970 there was a very hot cow pasture at DFW ? Do the cows emit UHI ?”
You’ve jumped the shark already there. This makes no sense. You don’t seem to understand that the temperature records are calibrated to correct for urban effects, and the very close match between DFW and a nearby rural station shows that this is accurately done. You seem to have been totally thrown by the Hensley field data stopping in 1996.
Your graph shows the total effect of all calibrations, not the effect of urban corrections in isolation. Graphs and maps on pages 18 and 19 of this paper show the actual effect of urban corrections in the US.
Perhaps you know you’re on a hiding to nothing with your urban paranoia, because you then change the subject entirely and take us up to the Arctic. Or perhaps you believe there’s a whole lot of tarmac up there, biasing the record? The rest of your comments are simply rants, with no basis in truth.
June 29, 2010, 12:59 amhunter:
The troll/wackjob is making any conversation at this site impossible.
June 29, 2010, 8:37 amThanks to the troll’s lack of integrity it is not clear who is making many of the comments posted here.
This is of course the game a lower plays who has no argument- hope to destroy the conversation and shut down communication.
I wonder if our host will be happy when the troll takes its impersonation game to the logical conclusion?
Either our host takes the time to do some basic house keeping or his blog will become useless.
WaldoSaysHi:
****”Its focus on biases and resulting observational blindness to certain results that falsify ones pre-conceived notions are useful caveats” just as easily describes the mindset at CS, folks. In fact, Mr. Meyer’s own words describe the ethos here as well as anyone could.
And it is not clear that “Postmodernism” (which is a term largely applied to the humanities) actually has any relevance to modern science at all. Objective truth or not, it should be apparent that modern science is extremely effective – this blog and the fact that we are all posting from various times and places in the world is a perfect example of how our lives are completely predicated upon science – unless it conflicts with one’s “pre-conceived notions,” of course, at which point someone will blame Al Gore.
****”Either our host takes the time to do some basic house keeping or his blog will become useless.”
What hunter (who is as whacked as any whackjob out there) suggests above is, according to CS, “censorship.” Sorry droogy, Mr. Meyer stays away from the comments probably because, deep down, he knows he’s full of the ol’shinola.
And this blog is largely useless. Just no one here will admit it.
June 29, 2010, 2:27 pmTed Rado:
Ha ha ha – “become” useless? That’s a good one. If you find any use in this blog that you have very low standards indeed.
Given that I’ve never seen the author even reply to a comment, let alone show the slightest evidence of having remotely understood one, I think that disrupting the comments can hardly make them any less relevant. You think he gives a shit?
June 30, 2010, 3:08 amhunter:
Waldotroll,
June 30, 2010, 5:49 amA site owner, like a home owner, has the right to run their home in an orderly fashion.
I am not calling for censorship, and you know it. If a meeting becomes filled with babble by people talking over each other and interrupting each other making rules so that conversation can take place is not censorship. But you should know that, if you were half as smart as you keep telling people.
In fact what the bizaretroll has accomplished is censorship. The bizarretroll is the one making discussion impossible.
That is fine for your purposes.
the articles posted here are good. Too bad the host does not seem to care.
And AGW is still a social mania that will compared to tulipomania and eugenics.
Przemysław Pawełczyk:
Some people will never learn from the History, just like the author of this blog.
There were people who shook their heads with disbelieve to the “silly” fact of Adolf Hitler’s election. He was ridiculed a lot.
Sadly but you on the West deserves yet to be be given another lesson for your deranged seeing of EVIL things as “not evil, just silly”.
I have in mind specially Americans and Australians, as Europeans still remember the times of “not evil, just silly” people or things. The lousy times which reined on the West and on the East of Europe during XX century.
Pathetic.
Regards,
June 30, 2010, 9:33 am(Poland)
Justa Joe:
Przemysław Pawełczyk, I agree with you. The Klimate Kranks aren’t just silly. They’re evil. However, your lower echelon Klimate Kool-Aid drinkers are largely oblivious to harm that the policies, which they subscibe to, seek to do. The CAGW conmen are steeped in a malthusian world view. The CAGW crowd are basically our generation’s Eugenicists.
June 30, 2010, 10:39 amJusta Waldoe:
****”I am not calling for censorship, and you know it.”
I do not know how many times I’ve read on this here very blog about how the “alarmists” are “squashing” or “censoring” “dissenting opinion” or some such tripe. I am only echoing the opinion of the tribe here.
Did it ever occur to you, hunter, that peeps like Justa Joe, Przemysław Pawełczyk, and many, many others here are every bit as irrational, poorly informed, politically motivated, antagonistic, and just plain silly as any of your so called “trolls”?
I would follow your line of reasoning here if it were applied to both sides of the argument – but repeatedly you and the tribe are frothing, ranting, raving, and making ridiculous analogies (to Eugenics,tulip frenzies and now even Hitler)with the best of them yet the hunters of the world refuse to recognize this (or it might be too great a stretch of intellect).
You folks are as trollish as anyone on this useless site. The first step is admitting you are powerless in the face of an overwhelming addiction…
June 30, 2010, 11:36 amJusta Joe:
Trolldoe, Przemysław Pawełczyk might be one of you guys.
I’m not the person that invented the comparison of CAGW movement to the eugenics movement. The comparisons are fairly obvious unless you’re just in denial. I’m sorry if I’ve offended your sense of self righteousness. Here is an example below.
Global warming: The new eugenics, Henry Lamb
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2382
Are you also denying the Malthusian nature of the CAGW movement?
June 30, 2010, 11:55 amJusta Joe:
Trolldoe, If you want to avoid being called a troll you could start with settling on your own unique moniker rather than perverting other people’s names.
June 30, 2010, 11:59 amWaldoTrolldoe:
Well, I’ve never denied being a troll – the idea does not bother me in the least, certainly not on site as problematic and ridiculous as this.
And no, my friend, the Climate Realist article was not particularly convincing. I like the Reductio ad Hitlerum: “The idea that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is ‘killing God’s green Earth’ is as preposterous as the idea that society would be better if it consisted only of blond-haired, blue-eyed Aryans.”
Yeah, that’s a reasonable, rational response to a scientific problem. The Mathusian connection is just as absurd. The irrationality of this stance is fairly obvious unless you are in a state of frustration bordering on hysteria…
Actually I suspect it is a very human albeit juvenile response to a position one disagrees with: rather than actually dealing with the issues, some people will exaggerate their argument in order to stifle any possible objections, to frighten, and to create propaganda. The Hitler and Eugenics comparisons are the rhetorical equivalents of screaming in an opponent’s face.
What you posted is pure propaganda, Joe, and very poorly researched and presented at that.
One of the most interesting things about the denialist stance is how often the deniosphere accuses scientists and government agencies of doing exactly the same things the deniosphere does in spades. You may be much closer to your socialist examples than you realize.
June 30, 2010, 12:19 pmhunter:
Only a sad idiot or or poor actor could honestly compare pointing out how you trolls have trashed this board and asking the host to fix it with the suppression, list making and efforts at censorhsip of CAGW con-artists.
June 30, 2010, 1:45 pmUntil this blog is cleaned up, ‘bye ‘bye.
WaldoByeBye:
So hunter takes his ball and goes home. Nevertheless, he claims “suppression, list making and efforts at censorhsip of CAGW con-artists” without the least bit of irony.
Pot meet kettle.
June 30, 2010, 2:11 pmPrzemysław Pawełczyk:
Mr Meyer and Commenters,
I am fed up with skeptics naivety to adroit policy of the Church of AGW (CAGW) believers and what I see your practically total vulnerability to their socio-technical tricks.
“First we take Manhattan” – “first we take the Skeptics then we take the Globe” – AGWers could say nowadays, after admitting recently it is high time to change the tactics and reach for the “denialists” directly.
And thanks to you, and Mr Watts, and probably many others from skeptic camp who cannot accept the idea that AGWers are taking no chances in this fight against opponents of their “new religion”. (The main target is of course bigger than the cranky denialists.)
First I read on Mr Watts’ webblog the post “Badges? The “We don’t need no stinking badges” contest” (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/28/badges-the-we-dont-need-no-stinking-badges-contest/) in which he downplayed the danger to “PNAS blacklist” tentative “balloon”.
What’s more, he made fun for himself (not “of” himself) and ridiculed the warnings about “wearing badges”. That’s not __funny__. Wearing any signs just for fun of being a skeptic would create precedence from which the skeptic camp would collapse under own burden.
Now going over the Climate AGW skeptics’ blogs (I do it once a week, reading Watts Up With That daily) I came across with your remark – “not evil, just silly”.
And if the name of the “National Academy of Sciences” didn’t sound alarm bell, I wonder what would do it for skeptics to open their eyes, and minds!? Using definitions of “post-modernism” Science, what sounds to me like “euphemism” for the real Science, is not enough.
The crux of the problem with the “skeptics” versus “alarmists” or the “progressists/progressives” versus “traditionalists” debates is that the latter agree to use the language of the firsts and they do it without a stutter (mostly not knowing that they say or behave like the first ones wanted them to do!).
So they lose “the battle”, playing on the progressives/alarmists playgrounds. QED
WAKE UP, please!
With regards
June 30, 2010, 3:26 pmJusta Joe:
“Until this blog is cleaned up, ‘bye ‘bye.”
Finally!
June 30, 2010, 4:12 pmJusta Joe:
The poster purporting to be Justa Joe immediately preceeding this post was a troll… Just more in lies in the service of the neo-pagan religion that is CAGW.
June 30, 2010, 5:29 pmJusta Joe:
The poster purporting to be Justa Joe immediately preceeding this post was a troll… Just more in lies in the service of the neo-pagan religion that is science denial.
July 1, 2010, 12:40 amTruth seeker:
So denial is part of religion ? get a grip, religion is belief and resorting to any backhanded tactic to promote it (because they believe the truth is on their side). Denial of what is forced down your throat by the “ordained” and backed by the powers that be bought about the foundation of science. Just because some are so internally conflicted why do they feel the need to hijack a site such as this. Discussion , thought and individual determination of truth is the enemy of religion. It is fairly easy to read by the comments those that are free and those who feel the need to evangelize their unshakeble beliefs.
July 1, 2010, 7:32 amJusta Joe:
“And no, my friend, the Climate Realist article was not particularly convincing.” – Waldoe
You can lead a troll to water, but you can’t make him drink. The only thing that the mentioning of the article was intended to convince you of is that the comparison of the CAGW movement to the Eugenics movement is not new and not exclusive to this site. Like most of your ilk you’re well practiced in female-like snarky derision, but your ability to comprehend foreign concepts suffers as a result.
Eugenics and CAGW both based on discredited or at best controversial “scientific” theories. Eugenicists and Warmists both are zealots hell bent to refashion society to their liking for the good of the little people even if the little people don’t agree. Eugenicists and Warmists steeped in the Malthusian wet dream of preserving resources through selective depopulation. Eugenicists and Warmists both to be eventually relegated to the ash heap of history we can only hope.
“ The Mathusian[SIC] connection is just as absurd…” – Waldo
I would just love to hear how you think the CAGW movement in terms of its proposed solutions is not Malthusian. I know we won’t get a valid explanation for that idea because none exists.
Another Inconvenient Truth: The World’s Growing Population Poses a Malthusian Dilemma
Solving climate change, the Sixth Great Extinction and population growth… at the same time
By David Biello
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=growing-population-poses-malthusian-dilemma
Nature Reports Climate Change
Published online: 15 May 2008 | doi:10.1038/climate.2008.44
The population problem
http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0806/full/climate.2008.44.html
Instead of your usual mealy mouthed knee jerk nay-saying of everything why don’t you do some research and see how Malthusian concepts apply to the CAGW scam? Also since so-called “ deniers” aren’t asking you to do anything besides leaving them alone while the warmists have an entire new comprehensive plan for the world your constant worrying about “deniers” seems a tad hysterical.
July 1, 2010, 8:24 amWaldogate:
You can lead Joe anywhere…particularly if is a right wing blog! Are you really that gullible, Joe?
Or one could read Newsweek’s breaking news Read it folks, then let the rationalization and conspiracy theories begin:
http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/06/25/newspapers-retract-climategate-claims-but-damage-still-done.html
July 1, 2010, 11:16 pmWaldoweek:
Or better yet (since no one here will actually read anything outside their comfort zone), let’s actually take a look at the article in question:
Newspapers Retract ‘Climategate’ Claims, but Damage Still Done
Greg Rico / AP
Vindicated too late? Penn State climatologist Michael Mann
A lie can get halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its boots on, as Mark Twain said (or “before the truth gets a chance to put its pants on,” in Winston Churchill’s version), and nowhere has that been more true than in “climategate.” In that highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal, e-mails hacked from computers at the University of East Anglia’s climate-research group were spread around the Web by activists who deny that human activity is altering the world’s climate in a dangerous way, and spun so as to suggest that the scientists had been lying, cheating, and generally cooking the books.
But not only did British investigators clear the East Anglia scientist at the center of it all, Phil Jones, of scientific impropriety and dishonesty in April, an investigation at Penn State cleared PSU climatologist Michael Mann of “falsifying or suppressing data, intending to delete or conceal e-mails and information, and misusing privileged or confidential information” in February. In perhaps the biggest backpedaling, The Sunday Times of London, which led the media pack in charging that IPCC reports were full of egregious (and probably intentional) errors, retracted its central claim—namely, that the IPCC statement that up to 40 percent of the Amazonian rainforest could be vulnerable to climate change was “unsubstantiated.” The Times also admitted that it had totally twisted the remarks of one forest expert to make it sound as if he agreed that the IPCC had screwed up, when he said no such thing.
It’s worth quoting the retraction at some length:
The article “UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim” (News, Jan 31) stated that the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report had included an “unsubstantiated claim” that up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest could be sensitive to future changes in rainfall. The IPCC had referenced the claim to a report prepared for the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) by Andrew Rowell and Peter Moore, whom the article described as “green campaigners” with “little scientific expertise.” The article also stated that the authors’ research had been based on a scientific paper that dealt with the impact of human activity rather than climate change.
In fact, the IPCC’s Amazon statement is supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidence. In the case of the WWF report, the figure . . . was based on research by the respected Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM) which did relate to the impact of climate change. We also understand and accept that . . . Dr Moore is an expert in forest management, and apologise for any suggestion to the contrary.
The article also quoted criticism of the IPCC’s use of the WWF report by Dr Simon Lewis, a Royal Society research fellow at the University of Leeds and leading specialist in tropical forest ecology. We accept that, in his quoted remarks, Dr Lewis was making the general point that both the IPCC and WWF should have cited the appropriate peer-reviewed scientific research literature. As he made clear to us at the time, including by sending us some of the research literature, Dr Lewis does not dispute the scientific basis for both the IPCC and the WWF reports’ statements on the potential vulnerability of the Amazon rainforest to droughts caused by climate change. . . . A version of our article that had been checked with Dr Lewis underwent significant late editing and so did not give a fair or accurate account of his views on these points. We apologise for this.
In another retraction you never heard of, a paper in Frankfurt took back (apologies; the article is available only in German) its reporting that the IPCC had erred in its assessment of climate impacts in Africa.
The Times’s criticism of the IPCC—look, its reports are full of mistakes and shoddy scholarship!—was widely picked up at the time it ran, and has been an important factor in turning British public opinion sharply against the established science of climate change. Don’t expect the recent retractions and exonerations to change that. One of the strongest, most-repeated findings in the psychology of belief is that once people have been told X, especially if X is shocking, if they are later told, “No, we were wrong about X,” most people still believe X. As Twain and Churchill knew, sometimes the truth never catches up with the lie, let alone overtakes it. As I wrote last summer in a story about why people believe lies even when they’re later told the truth, sometimes people’s mental processes simply go off the rails.
July 1, 2010, 11:18 pmJusta Joe:
Nature & Scientific American are “right wing blogs,” and Newsweak is not a leftist vehicle? I didn’t know that.
If you believe or even care about Penn State’s white wash of Mikey Mann you probably believe CBS’s “investigation” that concluded that Dannie Rather and Mary Mapes were 100% free of political bias in either case you’re beyond gullible and entering the area of willful blindness.
I seemed to have missed your explanation of how CAGW activism is free of Malthusian ideas. Sorry, We can’t just accept your self serving proclamations as evidence.
July 2, 2010, 6:40 amnetdr-[the real one]:
I have enjoyed some rational discussions on this board.
The troll [whatever his name is] is bent on shutting down any coherent discussion.
That is because he keeps getting demolished when he attempts logic.
His purpose is to disrupt this board.
One way to counter him [or them] is to require a password if it could be done automatically like USA today does it would be ideal.
[He could have multiple ID's but he couldn't impersonate someone else.]
It could be done manually by putting it at the beginning of the post and the moderator removing it.
Any other ideas ?
July 2, 2010, 7:15 amWaldo [the real one]:
Now netdr, I thought this was a discussion board! Your demolishing logos is not as demolishing as you would like to think and remains unconvincing, lame even (comparisons to Malthus and Hitler are automatically weak because they are such exaggerated and emotional analogs that thinking people see them for what they are). This is the tribe’s real problem here – the “logic” on these boards is demonstrably weak and the ’science’ is markedly simplistic and amateurish. It is not disruption, it is the simple act of pointing out where your “logic” and “rational discussions” are anything but.
And you are ignoring the article above (predictably!) in which several of the leading media crusaders against global warming science have now retracted their claims.
Let me post that again!
Several of the leading media crusaders against global warming science have now retracted their claims!!
Let me post that again!
SEVERAL OF THE LEADING MEDIA CRUSADERS AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING SCIENCE HAVE NOW RETRACTED THEIR CLAIMS!
Demolish the logic of that if you will.
July 2, 2010, 12:24 pmAdam:
“SEVERAL OF THE LEADING MEDIA CRUSADERS AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING SCIENCE HAVE NOW RETRACTED THEIR CLAIMS!
Demolish the logic of that if you will.”
Y’know, I’ve mostly been sitting on the sidelines of this blog, because watching most of you go back and forth demonstrates about as much argumentative merit as children fighting over Lego blocks. I’d file myself under “implicitly skeptical, but still reading through evidence.”
Anywho, back to the bit I quoted. *What* logic? The appeal to authority?
July 2, 2010, 12:58 pmWaldam:
Just a play on netdr’s snarky commentary, Adam – a bit too literal there.
And there is no “appeal to authority” above – if you are going to express derision about the tone of the commentary, my friend, you should not allow yourself to be sucked into the mentality yourself.
Very simply, I want to see if the people here are willing to acknowledge that two of the loudest critics of the AGW scientists have retracted their statements or if they are going to rationalize why this is not significant.
July 2, 2010, 1:08 pmAdam:
“…if you are going to express derision about the tone of the commentary, my friend, you should not allow yourself to be sucked into the mentality yourself.”
Aye. I’ll admit I misread the tone of your statement but, in my defense, you must admit that, given the trolls and random nonsense in most posts here, discerning between the literal and the ridiculous is somewhat… difficult.
Given that a great deal of weight has already been placed on the supposed legitimacy of consensus in this affair, though, I have to say I’m not swayed one iota one way or the other by the retraction of statements made by people I placed no credibility in *anyway*.
I’m returning to the peanut gallery.
July 2, 2010, 1:29 pmWaldo:
****”given the trolls and random nonsense in most posts here, discerning between the literal and the ridiculous is somewhat… difficult.”
Yes, and I admit I do tend to get sucked into the general melee of backlashing.
****”the retraction of statements made by people I placed no credibility in *anyway*.”
I do like the “no credibility” aspect of the comment, Adam, but the point is that so much public sentiment is based upon commentaries just such as these – in fact, these particular articles where apparently very influential in turning public opinion against climate science – and now we are seeing retractions. Probably the first of many.
All along I have been arguing we, the laypeople, should step out of the way, let the scientists do their work. We do not understand enough and are too easily swayed by commentary just like the ones above. This, I think, was my very first argument on this blog. And now I am being vindicated.
July 2, 2010, 2:09 pmnetdr-[the real one]:
Whatever the troll calls himself.
I seriously doubt that either of the above scientists you mentioned said they had changed their mind and CAGW was a real problem worth spending tens of trillions of dollars at. [In a worthless non solution I might add.]
I actually respect people that are human and make mistakes and don’t know everything and admit it. Real science is about being wrong then being peer reviewed and finding errors and getting closer to the truth. The peer review system has broken down by too much buddy buddy peer review. Dr Mann’s hockey stick study is the poster child for that.
The “debate is over” attitude of the climate alarmist is so anti-science that it is appalling to me and it causes me to question their honesty. If the climate alarmists were more honest and scientist like I might believe them. Instead their studies read like the converted in a messianic church. CO2 is the answer now what is the question ?
I saw a science show last night in which Stephen Hawking and another scientist [ a former plumber] wrote papers for several years disputing each others theories. Finally Hawking wrote a paper which said “I was wrong” in effect. This gained him a lot of respect in my eyes.
Science never has been about 100 people believe X and 10 believe Y, and it never will be.
When Albert Einstein was informed of the publication of a book entitled 100 Authors
Against Einstein, he is said to have remarked, “If I were wrong,
then one would have been enough!” (Hawking, 1988); however,
that one opposing scientist would have needed proof in the form
of testable results
The only “testable result” the climate alarmists put forth are models which always predict a lot more warming than actually happens. A set of models should have some too high and some too low. All of them too high suggests a lack of understanding of some aspect of the problem.
I don’t expect a rational reply to any of the points I have made.
July 2, 2010, 4:10 pmnetdr-[the real one]:
Isn’t wanking fun? I love it. But my penis is so tiny. I make up for that by pretending to know about stuff. But really I don’t know very much at all. I just like wanking.
July 2, 2010, 4:54 pmWaldo [the real one most of the time]:
netdr’s default defense is to run back to dogma and then claim everyone else is being irrational. But this -
****”The only ‘testable result’ the climate alarmists put forth are models which always predict a lot more warming than actually happens. A set of models should have some too high and some too low. All of them too high suggests a lack of understanding of some aspect of the problem.”
- is pretty darn silly. Certainly you know that there is a good deal of evidence other than climate models. Fixation on climate models is he favorite rational of denialists. But, netdr, are you so darn sure that climate models are inaccurate? Have we been down this road before? And if you understand the problem, why not tell Hansen et al? Explain to them what they’ve done wrong.
****”I don’t expect a rational reply to any of the points I have made.”
You have had plenty of rational replies in the time I’ve been on this blog, netdr, and plenty of justifiable questions and challenges to the things you post. You do not want to admit that, however – generally you disappear.
July 2, 2010, 10:32 pmnetdr-[the real one]:
To the toll whatever his name.
Actually the way you post makes rational discussions an exercise in self abuse. The purpose seems to be to shut off debate. When I answer you I get a torrent of abuse and a lame answer. Do I want to get another torrent of abuse to point out how lame it is ? Eventually you end the conversion with your arrogance and abuse.
Please show me the other TESTABLE evidence for CO2 causing CAGW.
“There is a particular configuration of warming which was predicted by the computer models.It is at once visible that the predicted warming caused by greenhouse-gas concentrations produces a pattern
strongly distinct from other causes of warming. A “hot spot” appears between 8km and 12km of altitude in or near
the tropics. At this computer-predicted “hot spot” high above the Earth, the UN’s models project that greenhouse
warming will cause temperature to rise over the decades at a rate up to three times faster than at the surface.”
The temperature data fails to confirm the existence of the hot spot despite tens of years of frantic searching. The prediction fails.
The existence of overall positive feedback is crucial to the cause of CAGW. Without it a doubling of CO2 will cause 1 ° C of warming in 100 to 200 years. The crisis doesn’t exist without positive feedback and lots of it. Most climate alarmists are ignorant of this simple fact. CO2 is a poor GHG and cannot by itself cause significant warming.
A simple experiment was done by comparing the amount of radiation from the earth in response to warming or cooling over a period of time.
Climatologists have their own definition of positive and negative feedback which is different from the rest of science.
Here is how it works.
There is a certain amount of radiation which a black [gray] body should emit for a given amount of temperature rise.
If it emits more than that there is overall negative feedback.
If it emits less than that there is overall positive feedback.
The climate alarmists predict that the earth will exhibit strong positive feedback. The prediction failed.
This experiment was redone by several teams working independently. [Lindzen and Choy 2009] Realclimate didn’t argue with the results except to claim the feedback wasn’t as negative as claimed. They forgot [temporarily] that the whole CAGW bandwagon was postulated on strong positive feedback. [oops!]
We don’t have a spare earth to do experiments with but we can analyze what happens when the one we have heats and cools.
July 3, 2010, 7:31 amWaldo [the real one is a douche]:
no really I am
July 3, 2010, 10:52 amWaldetdr:
Okay, netdr.
One of the things you do is summarize and simplify vast amounts of information, sometimes incorrectly and always with a tremendously biased understanding. You also tend to misquote from the same sources over and over, as you do here – we have already discussed this paper.
You do not provide links so I have to track down what you post. So forgive me if I have to answer your posts one at a time and perhaps out of order.
First: it is “Lindzen and CHOI” not “Choy.” The world refers to it as WC09. We’ve been over all this before, which makes me think you do not actually read ripostes. It is also readily apparent you did not read the actual paper…or you would have the author’s name correct – and yet you have a die-hard opinion on the subject. Interesting…
And you are factually incorrect on the Real Climate response – it is considerably more detailed and complicated than what you indicated.
You can read the actual response here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lindzen-and-choi-unraveled/
Although I suspect you will not – you would rather have your incorrect ideas which confirm to your own beliefs.
So I shall summarize.
• The first charge against LC09 is that the data was cherry picked. Lindzen and Choi only looked at tropical feedbacks and they randomly selected their “end points” randomly.
• L&C treated the tropics as a closed system, not a dynamic one influenced by the Ninos, evaporation, and other factors. Therefore LC09 fails because it does not take into account many of the other factors involved, and cloud feedback cannot be understood by local analysis analysis.
• LC’s only model was not very robust.
• LC used only incomplete forcings.
• LC did not use black body forcings in their feedback parameters.
Are these critiques correct and valid? I dunno. But apparently, netdr, neither do you – you did not understand the RC response and it seems fairly certain you do not understand the concepts Lindzen and Choi present.
As for the TESTABLE evidence for CO2, it would seem you are ignoring a great deal of the evidence in existence, such as global temperatures and ice melt. But fine, the deniosphere either denies or ignores a great deal of stuff.
What I want is TESTABLE evidence that plate tectonics cause earthquakes along the Pacific Rim. I also want TESTABLE evidence that the sun goes around the Earth. And I want TESTABLE evidence that we exist on an outer arm of the Milky Way. I mean, that’s fair, right?
July 3, 2010, 11:39 amisenhamran:
pattern project extinctions new
July 3, 2010, 12:22 pmnetdr-[the real one]:
What I want is TESTABLE evidence that plate tectonics cause earthquakes along the Pacific Rim. I also want TESTABLE evidence that the sun goes around the Earth.
[Actually the sun does NOT GO around the earth. Who told you it did ? -- NetDr]
And I want TESTABLE evidence that we exist on an outer arm of the Milky Way. I mean, that’s fair, right?
[That is not difficult to prove by computing distances and angles of stars. There aren't tens of trillions of dollars riding on the answer so the astronomers are fairly objective. -- NetDr]
************
Please post a testable prediction based on the hypotheses of CAGW.
The examples you chose from astronomy were either wrong to easily testable.
Without testable hypothesis CAGW is just astrology.
If people die of freezing in Peru it is global warming.
If it rains too much in Omaha it is global warming.
If it is too dry in Oklahoma it is global warming.
if there are few hurricanes it is global warming.
Same thing if there are more hurricanes.
The steady drumbeat of CAGW scare stories make the more intelligent people skeptical. The rest just believe the “experts” must know what they are talking about no matter how mentally challenged it may seem.
CAGW predicts all things so how can it be proven wrong ? It is the astrology of sciences. Your horoscope like CAGW predicts everything so it predicts nothing.
You cannot show a testable prediction, and when the CAGW crowd tries they always fail.
July 3, 2010, 12:43 pmnetdr-[the real one ]:
s for the TESTABLE evidence for CO2, it would seem you are ignoring a great deal of the evidence in existence, such as global temperatures and ice melt. But fine, the deniosphere either denies or ignores a great deal of stuff.
**********
No one denies there has been a slight warming.
The slight warming in the last 120 years however wasn’t predicted.
Any after the fact attempt to blame it on AGW is not a validation of a prediction.
July 3, 2010, 12:52 pmWaldo [mostly real]:
Have you confused observable – such as angles of stars – with testable?
And the scientists disagree with you about “slight warming” in the last 120 years. Why should I believe you?
And, after all that rhetoric about abuse and trying to stifle debate, do you honestly not see that same trait in yourself when you write emotionally charged, highly biased comments such as: “The rest just believe the ‘experts’ must know what they are talking about no matter how mentally challenged it may seem.”
Is this really what you think happens? Really? Do you really believe that you are that much smarter than the people who disagree with you? And if so…
What about Lindzen-Choi 09?
July 3, 2010, 1:04 pmarianneage:
reducing retreat 2000
July 3, 2010, 6:15 pmShills:
Third climategate-related investigation — Mann cleared:
http://live.psu.edu/story/47378
July 4, 2010, 5:04 amShills:
Something to think about before you scream ‘whitewash!’:
http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2010/02/15/psu-cover-up-extremely-unlikely/
July 4, 2010, 5:12 amnetdr-[the real one]:
Have you confused observable – such as angles of stars – with testable?
.
[No confusion that is a testable prediction. I can predict where a star will be in 10 years and point my telescope and there it will be. I can launch a satellite and predict it's orbit accurately. There are things like "dark matter" that they don't understand but they don't PRETEND they do. I respect that! None of this "the debate is over" nonsense.
.
There are many poorly understood processes in climate science which makes them unable to predict temperatures in 10 years let alone 100 years. They then have the dishonesty to claim that it is somehow easier to predict 100 years in the future. Nonsense I have written computer models professionally and I know better. -- NetDr]
.
And the scientists disagree with you about “slight warming” in the last 120 years. Why should I believe you?
.
[There is that old argument from authority. No matter what logic you are faced with a person with your mindset will always choose the authority. Go on believing the lies and distortions.
The fact is that we have no Idea if the warming is particularly rapid since we started measuring at the end of the Little Ice Age [Maunder minimum]. We have gone down that path before and in my opinion you lost that argument.– NetDr]
.
And, after all that rhetoric about abuse and trying to stifle debate, do you honestly not see that same trait in yourself when you write emotionally charged, highly biased comments such as: “The rest just believe the ‘experts’ must know what they are talking about no matter how mentally challenged it may seem.”
.
[That is like comparing spitting on the sidewalk with murder, they are both crimes. You have disrupted the conversation and posted under my name and under so many other names [hunter for one] I really don’t know who I am discussing things with as you intended.
.
I posted on another board and one of the posters said I should be banned from posting. Later on he said I should be put into a reeducation camp to learn the truth as he saw it. He was banned from posting because of his attitude. Too many people complained about him, abusive [like you] arrogant [like you] and disruptive [like you]. —NetDr]
.
This attitude from the true believers some of the climate scientists makes me think that they cannot be objective.
.
Is this really what you think happens? Really? Do you really believe that you are that much smarter than the people who disagree with you?
.
[Most of the lay people just don't know the facts. They think CO2 is this super GHG when it is actually rather puny, the CAGW comes from broken computer models and positive feedback which is unproven and probably not true.--- NetDr]
.
And if so…
What about Lindzen-Choi 09?
[I read an article in realclimate soon after the paper was published and it didn't say any of what you quoted. Their only quibble was that the data used wasn't the latest and greatest. They even admitted that using the newer data the experiment still showed overall negative feedback which blows CAGW away. If they did another attack on the paper it must have come later. I just looked it up on realclimate and it is definitely not the article I read. Possibly they took down the one I read because it was embarrassing to them.
.
July 4, 2010, 6:18 amSo it all comes down to "argument from authority". No matter what untestable nonsense the climate scientists propose they are automatically right ?
.
The near magical thinking that causes the faithful to assert connections between CO2 and every evil known to man is comical and tragic. They have cried wolf so many times and been proven wrong that if a wolf should actually appear the won't be believed.--NetDr]
Waldarce:
***”There are many poorly understood processes in climate science which makes them unable to predict temperatures in 10 years let alone 100 years”
This is the old evolution ploy – if the scientists can’t explain everything they must not be able to explain anything. Evidence would seem to suggest that they have explained a good deal – in order to counter this evidence, you must run to amateurs who do not work in their field and willfully ignore the evidence presented by the experts.
On the other hand, there do seem to be a great many processes that seem to be understood and a good deal of observable evidence [in the same manner that your stars are observable] to back them up. Haven’t we had a significant warming in the last 100 years or so?
Is the only important evidence that which would seem to disrupt climate science?
***”You have disrupted the conversation and posted under my name and under so many other names [hunter for one] I really don’t know who I am discussing things with as you intended.”
Not me. I have always posted under a variation of “Waldo” – can’t you tell the difference?
And the point, my friend, is that you are every bit as annoying, abusive, one-sided and disruptive as any of the so-called “trolls.” And yes, DR net, you are arrogant – you have repeatedly condescended to people who disagree with you [probably a good idea to stop posting the "alarmists don't understand..." ploy - you have no great reservoir of esoteric knowledge, my friend].
There is no observable difference between the behavior of the regular denialist commentators and the people who disagree with them [how many times have people on this board used variations of the verb "to fuck" in regards to yours truly?] – the only reason you call people “trolls” is because we disagree with you and you are looking for a cheap shot to stifle debate. That one has clearly not worked and yet you persist. Again, interesting.
***”Their only quibble was that the data used wasn’t the latest and greatest. They even admitted that using the newer data the experiment still showed overall negative feedback which blows CAGW away. If they did another attack on the paper it must have come later. I just looked it up on realclimate and it is definitely not the article I read. Possibly they took down the one I read because it was embarrassing to them.”
Reeeeeally? Awfully convenient that it’s gone, now isn’t it? There’s been some BS slung on the boards, my friend, but this is some thick guacamole.
***”So it all comes down to ‘argument from authority’. No matter what untestable nonsense the climate scientists propose they are automatically right ?”
Never said that. You said that. Strawman. I’ve said all along that if it comes to a choice between the actual scientists and good people like yourself – who obviously do not read the material or even properly understand it and have a demonstrably biased and exaggerated attitude – why the hell should I listen to you?
And even if it is an “argument from authority,” if by “authority” you mean “expert,” I see little problem with it, particularly when someone like yourself is clearly not informed but has a hammer-headed opinion anyway – you honestly don’t see that in yourself?
But just for sake of argument, isn’t the reliance on Wattsup or Mr. Meyer an “appeal to authority”? And aren’t these “authorities” simply people who do not work in climate science? Hmmmm…
July 4, 2010, 9:52 amnetdr-[the real one ]:
So it all comes down to ‘argument from authority’. No matter what untestable nonsense the climate scientists propose they are automatically right ? ”
.
Never said that. You said that. Strawman.
.
[I think you said exactly that. You have admitted that CAGW cannot be tested but must be accepted on the word of "authorities".
.
I’ve said all along that if it comes to a choice between the actual scientists and good people like yourself – who obviously do not read the material or even properly understand it and have a demonstrably biased and exaggerated attitude – why the hell should I listen to you?
.
[If you want an "authority" you shouldn't listen to me. Listen to Dr Hansen or Dr Mann and his hockey team and believe whatever nonsense they say. I think it is you that have failed to understand the arguments but that is my perspective.
.
I have pointed numerous places where the so climate scientists have goofed. You may not agree but the argument that they are the "experts" and so must be correct is ludicrous. For people of a certain mindset it is the ultimate argument. To me it is the poorest argument that exists.
.
Look up lysenkoism where all of the major science bodies in Russia subscribed to a false scientific theory. Were the "experts" right on that one ? They called those that disagreed with them "deniers" and tools of capitalism [big oil]. Doing experiments which could refute lysenkoism required getting someone like big oil to fund you because the government was in love with lysenkoism. Similar to CAGW ? Of course it is ! –NetDr]
.
And even if it is an “argument from authority,” if by “authority” you mean “expert,” I see little problem with it, particularly when someone like yourself is clearly not informed but has a hammer-headed opinion anyway – you honestly don’t see that in yourself?
.
But just for sake of argument, isn’t the reliance on Wattsup or Mr. Meyer an “appeal to authority”? And aren’t these “authorities” simply people who do not work in climate science? Hmmmm
.
[I don't cite Mr Meyer as an authority on anything he is just a man with opinions many of which are similar to mine.
As engineer's we have learned to separate the "flyspecks from the pepper". He isn't an authority and I am not one either. It isn't surprising that a lot of skeptics are engineers because we have to recognize Bovine Scatology when we see it. That is a job requirement.
.
To someone with your mindset authority is the only argument you understand. You have to decide what you believe and if authority does it for you then go with it, but don't expect others to buy it. Engineering projects don't respect authority they work or they don't work and all of the authority in the world won't save your job if it doesn't work. That attitude is probably why engineers aren't authority based.
.
The CAGW attitude of "step to the back of the bus and leave the thinking to us" is insulting and doesn't cut it with me or any other engineer. --NetDr]
****************
We can go back and forth forever and never agree. No matter what I say the argument that “the climate scientists don’t agree with you” trumps any logic ! God gave you a brain but you have given it away to any passing authority.
.
I find that way of thinking lazy.
July 4, 2010, 11:45 amWaldoWorldCup:
****”I think it is you that have failed to understand the arguments but that is my perspective.”
Nope. I understand the arguments perfectly – I simply reject yours. You would like to believe that we skeptics-of-the-skeptics do not understand, but we do.
I do not know if CAGW is real or not. I know that I do not know, however, and this is the big difference between us. You have elevated yourself above the actual scientists, and if this is true I think you should contact them and explain what they’re doing wrong – no one here will do this, probably because Mann et al can actually do the science. The peeps here have blog postings, which is kind of like coaching the World Cup from your barcalounger. Now that’s arrogant.
We may agree to disagree here, netdr, because your reasoning – that you can “think for yourself” even though you demonstrably do not know the material and do not work in the field [which is truly lazy thinking] – is patently ridiculous under the circumstances. I think it is very telling that, in order to argue, denialists need to make these gratuitous analogies to Red Soviet programs and American racial bigotry. In the end, climate science will probably be much closer to conservation efforts which have brought back nearly extinct species or preserved wetlands, saved the ozone and coral reefs, and quenched acid rain. Pretend otherwise if you will.
July 4, 2010, 2:08 pmnetdr-[the one ]:
Anyone that thinks he is incapable of reasoning for himself about global warming is absolutely right.
He knows his limitations.
July 4, 2010, 5:43 pmWaldo [the right one]:
And some of those people who think they are capable of reasoning about global warming are absolutely deluded.
These people should know their limitations but do not.
Another way to say this – simply because you think you can leap tall buildings does not mean you can leap tall buildings. You need to prove you can leap tall buildings.
So, since your limitations are apparently quite far off, why don’t you email Dr. Mann and Dr. Hansen and explain to them what they are doing wrong?
mann@psu.edu
James.E.Hansen@nasa.gov
Or, better yet, peer review your findings? Clearly if you are as capable as you believe, you will have no trouble in getting published.
Go for it, netdr, you’d be the first from Climate Skeptic to be brave enough to actually put your money where your mouth is. Go ahead – after all, only you know your limits.
July 4, 2010, 7:05 pmShills:
I second Waldo’s suggestion for netdr. Have asked others to do the same. Go on netdr.
Pretty sure we’ll get the same answer we got from Wally though.
I Don’t know why Waldo still bothers here.
July 5, 2010, 6:01 pmWaldolove:
****”I Don’t know why Waldo still bothers here.”
It’s love, man, plain and simple. Pure love.
July 5, 2010, 7:24 pmAlan D McIntire:
Here’s an example which even someone with only a knowledge of elementary algebra can spot:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1984/Hansen_etal_1.html
Click on the Download PDF at the bottom.
He assumes a feedback of 1.6 for water vapor, 1.3 for clouds, and 1.1 for ice/albedo effects.
I think the feedback factors are overestimated, but take a look at equations
#10 and #12. Anyone should be able to figure out that they’re obviously wrong.
For a multiplier of 1.6, lambda must be 0.375 for water vapor, since 1/(1-0.375) = 1.6.
likewise, lambda must be 0.231 for clouds and 0.091 for ice/albedo feedback, using Hansen’s figures.
Hansen plugged in 1/(1 -.375-.231-.091) and got a multiplier effect of 3.3 total times the original incrase of around 1.2 C.
Using Hansen’s equation, with 3 multiplier effects of 0.333… each, you get a multiplier effect of
1/(1 – .333… -.333…-.333…)= infinity.
Using 4 feedbacks with lambda of 0.333, each, you get a multiplier of 1/(-.333) = MINUS 3, so instead of an increase of 1.2 C, you plug in that -3 multiplier and get a DROP of 3.6 C – obviously the equation is flawed badly.
July 6, 2010, 7:25 amWalitive:
Brilliant Alan! Now, I posted Dr. Hansen’s email above – why don’t you let him know his mistake? I think he would be very appreciative.
July 6, 2010, 10:14 amAlan D McIntire:
In reply to Walitive: Are you claiming it WASN’T an obvous booboo?
July 6, 2010, 1:37 pmnetdr-[the actual one]:
Trying to prove CAGW was in error to Dr Hanson would be like trying to prove to the pope that Jesus wasn’t the son of God ! I am sure the pope is just as objective as the authors of the multiple papers and books on global warming I have read. Dr Hansen has gone to England t testify in favor of eco-terrorists so I am certain he is unbiased.
July 6, 2010, 7:28 pm.
Hansen is the pope of the church of CAGW and is almost a rock star so the analogy is apt.
.
Neither CAGW nor the divinity of Christ can be proven by testable methods. [Waldo admitted the latter though he is confused. He thinks other sciences aren’t testable either and in that he is very wrong as I proved.
.
For another Example:
It is easy to prove the the essence of plate tectonics. With GPS receivers at high precision we can measure how far the continents move each year. We can predict where each continent will be next year and measure to check our predictions.
.
With CAGW you just have to have faith. Particularly about the “C”.
Waldfest:
@ Alan D.
****”Are you claiming it WASN’T an obvous booboo?”
No – nothing of the sort. I suggesting you take it to the source. If you are correct, as I am sure you are, I’m sure you’d want to clean up this climate mess, right? Take it to Hansen and let him know what he did wrong. Do it for the children!
*************************************************************
@ netdr
****”Trying to prove CAGW was in error to Dr Hanson would be like trying to prove to the pope that Jesus wasn’t the son of God !”
So? Prove it to the world! Peer review it. Otherwise one might surmise that you are, in fact, unsure of your own science on some level. Or perhaps you do not really know what you are posting about. Or perhaps you are lying. Or perhaps you are, to be crude, chicken.
Sure sounds like you’re hedging to me…no one’s fooled by this sort of tactic, netdr, no matter how you rationalize it.
****”Hansen is the pope of the church of CAGW and is almost a rock star so the analogy is apt.”
And you yourself are very unbiased (as evidenced in the comment above). Somehow I just can’t see Hansen at Ozzfest. By the way, did you use the above “rock star” analogy on WUWT?
July 6, 2010, 10:08 pmshills:
Netdr says: ‘Trying to prove CAGW was in error to Dr Hanson would be like trying to prove to the pope that Jesus wasn’t the son of God !’
So now we are back to this excuse again. Somehow the Climate scientists don’t behave scientifically? What evidence to you have for this? None.
It is ironic that this recent denialist group, supposedly championing good science, have had very little effect going through the scientific process, whilst the vast majority of their effectiveness has come from climategate and other media-bolstered scandals.
July 7, 2010, 4:10 pmWaldosee:
And those scandals are quickly being retracted (see above) much to the consternation of the denialist camp.
July 7, 2010, 4:19 pmtwitchellu:
reviews debate videos
July 8, 2010, 2:13 amanonymiss:
I know this is OT for this artical, but you realy do have to laugh at people that cry “Mann CLEARD!” when you realize he was “cleared” by his present employer and his previous employer.
It’s kind of like a bartender and the liquor company saying the drunk on the barstool isn’t “realy” a drunk..
And to those posting links to other blogs that “prove” he was cleared, as you all like to point out, blog’s “prove” nothing.
July 9, 2010, 12:36 amShills:
Anon says: ‘It’s kind of like a bartender and the liquor company saying the drunk on the barstool isn’t “realy” a drunk..’
I don’t agree with your analogy on a number of levels but suffice to say that there are serious penalties for deliberately serving alcohol to a drunk.
How do you imagine that any of the investigators would see it as in their favour to whitewash?
Anon says: ‘as you all like to point out, blog’s “prove” nothing.’
No disagreement here. So why are we accusing these scientists in the first place?
July 9, 2010, 3:03 amnetdr-[the real one]:
I just convinced the college of cardinals that Jesus Christ is not the son of God !
The pope is going to be a tougher nut to crack. [Almost as hard as Mike Mann and his hockey team] !
When I get done with him I will take on the CAGW mafia.
July 9, 2010, 6:41 amWadlomr:
As with Shills, can anonymiss “prove” that Mann is guilty of anything? Go ahead, anony, “prove” Mann guilty.
And netdr is predictably whimping out and using a gratuitous analogy to do it.
July 9, 2010, 9:50 amnetdr-[the actual one]:
I have just convinced the Pope that Jesus is not the son of God.
I was surprised that he was so open minded and willing to listen to my arguments!
The pope of CAGW [Dr Hansen] is next.
Or maybe I should start with his college of cardinals headed by Mike Mann and his hockey team.
July 9, 2010, 12:26 pmWaldo [sometimes actual]:
Let the record show that the defendant tacitly admits he is unable to do the actual science through his repeated attempts at wit and sarcasm.
Hence the lifetime achievement award in trash talk.
Stay safely in the blogosphere, netdr, if that’s your speed.
July 9, 2010, 1:48 pmAnon:
Can Waldo prove that anonymiss can’t prove that Mann is guilty of anything? Go ahead, Waldo.
Obvious troll is obvious.
July 9, 2010, 11:34 pmShills:
Anon says: ‘Can Waldo prove that anonymiss can’t prove that Mann is guilty of anything’
Umm, no one, and not Waldo, has claimed that. If Anonymiss (you??) can prove Mann is guilty then go for it.
July 10, 2010, 3:02 amShills:
independent report clears CRU
http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf
July 10, 2010, 3:12 amWaldon:
Well Anon, if Anonymiss can’t prove Mann guilty, that pretty much proves that Anonymiss cannot prove Mann guilty, right?
And if Anonymiss does not “prove” Mann guilty here, we much conclude that Anonymiss cannot prove Mann guilty anywhere.
Thus, based on available evidence, and despite Anonymiss’ brave assertion that nothing has been proven in the first place, Anonymiss cannot prove Mann guilty. If she could prove Mann guilty, she clearly would.
Nice try though.
What we can prove is that official reports have cleared the CRU, rationalize it as you will. And this is something which is clearly sticking in the craw of the denialist camp.
July 10, 2010, 10:14 amAnon:
Well, Waldo, you have yet to prove that Anonymiss can’t prove that Mann is guilty. Right now you don’t seem to be able to do that, and that might be a sign that you actually can’t prove that Anonymiss can’t prove that Mann is guilty. So, I stand by my original observation that obvious troll is obvious.
July 12, 2010, 4:10 amShills:
Anon,
What a strange and confusing bit of nonsense you are spouting.
I can just imagine a lawyer in court saying to the opposition: ‘you can’t prove that I can’t prove my client is innocent!!’.
July 12, 2010, 5:44 amAnthony Watts:
Hi Warren, since you live in the region, perhaps you or someone else can help in this?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/12/carefree-record-high-temperatures-in-arizona/
Thanks for your consideration.
Anthony Watts (with an S)
July 12, 2010, 8:57 amWaldotts:
You keep working that out there, Anon. In the meantime Mann et al are officially cleared, and that means that no official sanction is coming there way. So, the deniosphere will simply have to keep doing the two things it does best: flushing pseudo-science into the system and engaging in character assignation of the scientists.
And here we are beating a dead thread…
July 12, 2010, 8:36 pmhunter:
True believers think that the CRU has been proven to be valid and accurate.
they are as usual wrong:
From the Oxburgh report: “2. The Panel was not concerned with the question of whether the conclusions of the published research were correct.”
The Muir Russell review said in its introduction: “5. In response [to the emails publication], the UEA commissioned two inquiries. The first led by Lord Oxburgh, into the science being undertaken at CRU, has already reported. This document is the report of the second inquiry … which examines the conduct of the scientists involved.”
The parliamentary report also indicated that the Oxburgh committee was to appraise the science: “10. Alongside the Independent Climate Change E-Mails Review [Muir Russell], UEA decided on a separate scientific assessment of CRU’s key scientific publications; an external reappraisal of the science itself.” And “137. … It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek evidence on, the science produced by CRU. It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel [Oxburgh's] to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains valid.”
July 13, 2010, 4:52 amJusta Loe:
Nah… CAGW alarmist are not in the least bit Malthusian.
http://www.popoffsets.com/
“opt for lower populations, lower emissions”
“Research is indicating that investing in family planning is a cost-effective and permanent way of reducing CO2 emissions and climate change, compared with other technological fixes – and has many other environmental benefits, and no downsides.”
July 13, 2010, 9:48 amWally:
Well, I’ve been out for a while, but I see we’ve moved this conversation off into discussing the climategate investigations again.
I think we’ve all been round and round with this, and I don’t really expect to get any convictions for academic dishonesty, much less fraud, even though I do believe they are guilty of both. However, in looking at the format Genome Research (one of the absolute top tier journals in my field) requires for article submissions, I can across this:
“Genome Research will NOT consider manuscripts where data used in the paper is not freely available on either a publicly held website, or in the absence of such a website on the Genome Research website. There are NO exceptions.”
In fact, this is a common clause in my field. Even when applying for grants you are required to describe how you’re going to make your primary data freely available (generally some home-made website or public database for a specific type of data) and you’re immediately disqualified if you do not include such a section. I’m not so familiar with climate journals, though looking through a few of them (particularly the ones that are common on the CVs of Mann and Jones), I don’t see such statements. And obviously the granting process hasn’t required this field to make data/code freely available either. (which isn’t to say no data is available, much of it is, but large gaps are missing, which of course are required to support their hypothesis)
This combined with some of the statements of these “public” researchers in the climategate emails such as this one by Jones, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it,” makes me believe this entire field is no longer acting as a group of PUBLICLY funded researchers in search of the truth. These publicly funded researchers (and no you can’t use that word enough) has formed alliances with those that share a belief in their pet theory and have (and for all I know still are) acting to exclude those that simply wish to advance knowledge (see emails regarding black listing journals/authors they don’t agree with). This may or may not be criminal, but it is not the work of honest scientists, engaged in an unbiased search of knowledge. As an academic researcher in a field far larger and more competitive than climatology (not to mention publicly valuable!), listing to quotes such as these makes me want to puke. These people have used politics and personal influence to divert large quantities of public moneys for basic research that would see a much better use in other more valuable, not to mention HONEST, fields.
What the likes of Mann and Jones have done is simply disgusting behavior from someone that claims himself to be a scientist. If this were just about any other field, these people would no longer have their jobs. Yet, climatologists, particularly those will to “prove” AGW are a politically favored bunch, so I don’t expect to see anything more than a slap on the wrist. History however, will probably look back on this chapter in science much like we see eugenics today. So, we’ll probably have to wait 30 some years for our validation (as will those climate models!).
July 13, 2010, 2:48 pmShills:
Hey Wally,
You wouldn’t have to wait 30 years for your validation if you guys gave us some solid reasoning for your beliefs.
July 14, 2010, 5:25 amADiff:
Wally certainly doesn’t need wait 30 years:
CO2 will cause more & worse hurricanes! Uh..well, no it won’t.
CO2 will cause more floods and droughts! Er, ah…no it doesn’t look like it does.
CO2 will cause the oceans to rise and flood places! Oops. That doesn’t appear to be the case either.
CO2 will cause Greenland to melt! Oh my! Sorry about that! That correlation hasn’t occurred either.
CO2 will cause the Arctic icecap to disappear! Well…maybe not, at least in the foreseeable future.
CO2 will cause a terrible increase in fires! No, these don’t correlate well with CO2, or warming.
Has there been warming? Well, yes, sure.
Has it been ‘unprecedented’? No, not in historic terms. LIA and MWP both demonstrate that.
Does the physical evidence show a clear CO2 warming/cooling causality? Well, no, that’s not really there.
Is CO2 a factor in recent warming? Well, no, not in the early 20th Century warming, but then, yes, in the late 20th Century warming.
Was it the primary factor? No one’s really sure. That can’t be demonstrated. All we know clearly is that CO2 doesn’t appear to have been a significant factor in the early 20th Century warming period, but does appear to be at least a significant factor in the warming between 1970 and around 2000. We don’t really have a good handle on what was going on between 1940 and 1970 when things cooled substantially.
Bottom line: There’s been warming…in general…since the end of the LIA. We’re not entirely sure why, or even why the LIA occurred.
Is CO2 a factor in warming? Yes, it’s involved, but we’re not exactly sure how or to what extent. But it’s clearly not the only factor involved and may not be the most significant when it’s involved. We know there are some warming periods where it doesn’t seem to be involved at all, and that it doesn’t appear to be a factor in at least some cooling periods, either.
What’s all this add up to? It’s way too early to assume we really understand climate change, including warming. There’s still a lot of uncertainty and a lot of work to be done. And any claims we know, conclusively, that it makes sense to spend trillions trying to reduce CO2 emissions is just speculative bunk, without any firm basis, at this point.
July 22, 2010, 1:00 pmShills:
I encourage anyone who just read Adiff’s summary to get a second opinion from the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
July 22, 2010, 5:55 pm