The Alarmist Bait and Switch
This quote from Michael Mann is a great example of two common rhetorical tactics of climate alarmists:
And so I think we have to get away from this idea that in matters of science, it’s, you know, that we should treat discussions of climate change as if there are two equal sides, like we often do in the political discourse. In matters of science, there is an equal merit to those who are denying the reality of climate change who area few marginal individuals largely affiliated with special interests versus the, you know, thousands of scientists around the world. U.S. National Academy of Sciences founded by Abraham Lincoln back in the 19th century, all the national academies of all of the major industrial nations around the world have all gone on record as stating clearly that humans are warming the planet and changing the climate through our continued burning of fossil fuels.
Here are the two tactics at play here:
- He is attempting to marginalize skeptics so that debating their criticisms is not necessary. He argues that skeptics are not people of goodwill; or that they say what they say because they are paid by nefarious interests to do so; or that they are vastly outnumbered by real scientists (“real” being defined as those who agree with Dr. Mann). This is an oddly self-defeating argument, though the media never calls folks like Mann on it. If skeptics’ arguments are indeed so threadbare, then one would imagine that throwing as much sunlight on them as possible would reveal their bankruptcy to everyone, but instead most alarmists are begging the media, as in this quote, to bury and hide skeptics’ arguments. I LOVE to debate people when I know I am right, and have pre-debate trepidation only when I know my position to be weak.
- There is an enormous bait and switch going on in the last sentence. Note the proposition is stated as “humans are warming the planet and changing the climate through our continued burning of fossil fuels.” I, and many other skeptics, don’t doubt the first part and would quibble with the second only because so much poor science occurs in attributing specific instances of climate change to human action. What most skeptics disagree with is an entirely different proposition, that humans are warming the planet to catastrophic levels that justify immensely expensive and coercive government actions to correct. Skeptics generally accept a degree or so of warming from each doubling of CO2 concentrations but reject the separate theory that the climate is dominated by positive feedback effects that multiple this warming 3x or more. Mann would never be caught dead in public trying to debate this second theory of positive feedback, despite the fact that most of the warming in IPCC forecasts is from this second theory, because it is FAR from settled. Again, the media is either uninterested or intellectually unable to call him on this.
I explained the latter points in much more detail at Forbes.com
pauld:
I posted the following originally at Lucia’s Blackboard in response to a comment made by “Boris”. I think that it fits in well with the point that Warren makes here (if one substitutes “Mann” for “Gleick”)so I will cross-post it here as well:
Some time ago Steven Mosher wrote a helpful post at Judith Curry’s blog that delineates the various positions in the climate debate. http://judithcurry.com/2011/06…..ment-72648
He categorized as “deniers” those in the sky-dragon camp, who deny the greenhouse effect and he suggested that this group is indeed anti-science. Ridicule and appeals to authority may be the most effective strategy to address this group. Although you may see things differently, I would not place Heartland within this group.
Next, Mosher identified a group in which he placed Lindzen and Spencer, those who believe climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is likely below 1 degree. He recognized that this group is out of the scientific mainstream, but he suggested it is not “anti- science” because it contains researchers who are committed to the scientific process and who are doing serious science.
Next, he identified luke-warmers, who are within the mainstream, but believe that climate sensitivity likely falls in the lower-end of the range identified as reasonable in the IPCC reports.
An additional group not identified by Mr. Mosher, but that warrants mention is exemplified by Roger Pielke, Sr. He agrees that CO2 is a significant and potentially dangerous first-order human forcing, but thinks that the IPCC fails to adequately consider other significant human forcings such as land-use changes.
Gleik’s glaring blindspot is that he apparently thinks that all of his opponents are in the “anti-science” camp. Thus his arguments are not persuasive to serious scientists who are outside the mainstream, the lukewarmers and those who agree with Pielke, Sr.
Of course, this leaves out entirely the policy debate in which even those who agree with Gleick on the science issues may disagree with him on policy issues. Roger Pielke, Jr., who like his father defies easy classifications, is arguably representative of this position.
Ironically, Heartland is pursuing a much more nuanced and therefore more effective communication strategy.
March 5, 2012, 9:32 amPat Moffitt:
Interesting Mann is trying to use the Academies for their original intended use- stamping out politically incorrect science.
The National Academies of Science was the idea of Harvard’s Louis Agassiz who thought he could use a quasi-governmental organization- which he and his like minded associates would control- to crush the pro-Darwin’s scientists. It was only Yale’s James Dana’s last minute maneuvering that undermined Agassiz plan.
March 5, 2012, 10:41 amDale:
Looks like the bait and switch is here, where you apparently don’t recognize all the other types of skeptics who put your view in the minority.
March 7, 2012, 9:16 amnetdr:
I believe AGW is real but CAGW [catastrophic AGW] isn’t. Dr Lindzen insists on the distinction and I believe he is right.
A doubling of CO2 most probably causes 1 ° C without feedbacks, since the feedbacks are negative the actual sensitivity is less than that.
I agree with Warren that the alarmists discuss the 1 ° C for a doubling of CO2 which is agreed upon even by many skeptics [like Lindzen] then claim CAGW is inevitable. This is bait and switch.
March 7, 2012, 9:57 amBenfromMO:
I do not think it matters what we believe coming into the argument. I shouldn’t have to say that I agree with what Dr. Lindzen says just to be given a seat at a discussion table. This is not a discussion of politics where we can throw people out if they have beliefs that are “radical.”
I might think Dr. Lindzen is correct in most things he says and follow his work a lot of times, but this by no means should discount what I say or discount the points I make, and this I think is the bigger point made in the article. People should not be judged in what they believe. They should be judged on whether they are right or wrong in science.
That is it. Arguments are about facts, figures and nothing else. We have gone downhill into territory where we have to declare ourselves as a “non-denial” before we are even given a seat and this is frankly un-acceptable in science.
Now if we were to discuss politics, sure by all means lets have a war of words, but I am not so sure the alarmists are going to survive that one intact either. Their position is rather weak I would say if we want to go into political positions, so that is where we are left at. Is global warming about politics or science?
And I will say this, the second I am discounted or called names such as “denial” I switch to political attack dog mode and just go for the kill. Its no longer about science in that case….
March 7, 2012, 5:15 pmTed Rado:
How “expert” one is in climate science is beside the point in this case. The question is purely mathematical. Given a hypothesis that
Y=f(x1,x2,x3,x4,….xn)),
how good is the equation? This can be determined by calculationg values of Y for many values of the variables “x1″ through “xn”. A correlation coeficient for the calculated vs actual values of Y will then tell us how good the equation is. The sigma value for the correlation can also be determined.
What the equation is about is immaterial in terms of determining its validity and usefulness. We could be calculating anything and use the same technique. If we are looking for a tenth of a degree and sigma is one degree (exagerated to make the point), the equation is useless.
Has anyone seen such a study of the AGW projections?
I have used this method many times to test my own work. A sound equation will have all the data (projected vs actual) fall on a straight line with very few data points off the line.
Note that poor correlation could be caused by any number of things: poor temp measurement, unknown and/or unaccounted-for variables, faulty theory, etc. The end result is the same: poor correlation of calculated vs actual and hence a useless equation.
To reiterate, the validity of the math or model has nothing to do with one’s skill in climate science. Thus, anyone, presented with copious data, could determine the validity of the equation, even if they never heard of climate science. It thus appears to me that arguing about a commentator’s credentials in climate science is a red herring.
March 7, 2012, 7:52 pmMark:
BenfromMO, you wrote:
“And I will say this, the second I am discounted or called names such as ‘denial’ I switch to political attack dog mode and just go for the kill. Its no longer about science in that case….”
But those who would call you a “denier” do so on the basis that you are not intelligent enough to trust the scientists…
March 7, 2012, 9:23 pmMesa Econoguy:
So now that we know that AGW alarmists engage in 1) wire fraud, 2) identity theft/fraud, 3) statistical fraud, 4) securities fraud (Kleiner Perkins, AlGore) 5) economic fraud (Fisker, Solyndra, et al.), and probably multiple other material fraudulent misrepresentations, I propose we utilize legal resources at our disposal.
March 7, 2012, 9:42 pmLance:
Mark,
Disregarding the childish insult, this remark demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of science and what it means to be a scientist.
Perhaps it is best synthesized by the motto of the Royal Society, Nullius in Verba. Which translates to “On the word of no one”.
Sadly the Royal Society seems to have forgotten their own motto.
March 9, 2012, 11:12 pmmark2:
Environmental skeptics underestimate the depth of “religious” psychosis (I mean this in the psychological sense of religious) in the minds of believers of global warming. You can’t engage a believer in rational scientific discourse on the topic any more than you can convince Christian Rapturists that End-of-the-World wont come when Jesus returns.
March 11, 2012, 2:12 pmThe notion that the sea levels will rise due to mankind’s “sin” of burning fossil fuels is a powerfully religious motif called a Flood mythology, and is found in many culture’s mythological traditions. True believers are stuck in a religious mindset that holds fast to a literal view of this myth sourced in the collective imagination, and then selects only data that supports their beliefs while demonizing heretics (deniers). Arguing science with a believer presumes that they are in a mindset of a scientific methodology where the hypothesis is always subject to change based on ALL data available, but since they aren’t you will always run up against a wall.
Will Nitschke:
“all the national academies of all of the major industrial nations around the world have all gone on record as stating clearly that humans are warming the planet and changing the climate through our continued burning of fossil fuels.”
What that means is that the administrative bureaucracies of these science groups have rubber stamped the IPCC report. While the claim is true, the problem with it is that it suggests that there has been independent verification of the IPCC’s conclusions by these groups, which is not the case. We do not even know how many scientists endorse the catastrophic flavour of global warming as promoted by Mann. What I have observed is that the core group of alarmist scientists willing to ‘go on the record’ seems to be quite small, perhaps a dozen or so. You can see their names repeated over and over again in the media for sound bites. And their papers are the ones that have the scary computer model scenarios/projections.
March 13, 2012, 2:53 pmWaldo says hi:
I’m always so intrigued by the folks who think that somehow they, or the scientists they reverence, are denied a “seat at the table.” Pielke has had a long, flush career in the sciences and academia, as has Lindzen, as has Pielke jr., as has…ect. What you find are that the scientists who work for special interests, such as the Heartland, produce work which is not necessarily accepted by the scientific mainstream (which is why they need propagandist literature for school children to promote their denialism). This might account for Mann’s rhetoric.
So if the people here feel that Pielke’s and Linden’s voices in the wilderness are not enough, or, more importantly, that their own scientific evaluation and opinions on the scientific literature are not being taken seriously, do the right thing and publish your own conclusions. It doesn’t seem to do so much good here, or at least not as good as beating the scientific community at its own game.
Thus, when Ben from Montana, writes “People should not be judged in what they believe. They should be judged on whether they are right or wrong in science”—who is to disagree? I say send your science out there, Ben, be judged on whether you are right or wrong.
Sometimes netdr or another one of the cocksure commentators here posts something that they seem to feel proves AGW invalid and ends the entire “debate”—they usually cite “common sense” or “logic.” I will suggest they “peer-review” their conclusions…and then will follow several versions of denial (one has to “wait” too long, or only climate scientists review climate scientists, which is apparently unfair, etc.). My personal favorite excuse is that the [whatever] is “well known,” and therefore there is no purpose to peer-review. I can only wonder why scientists bother with the lengthy and demoralizing process of having their work vetted by other scientists, especially since so much of it is clearly easily disproved.
The trick, folks, is to find a double-blind review. They’ll take your name and association off the text and data and send it out to experts for a blind evaluation. Therefore, you will be judged on whether you are right or wrong in science.
Perhaps Will will take time off his office products business to independently verify IPCC findings? Perhaps Ted will finally find an honest engineer who is not laughing his way to the bank? Perhaps netdr will finally prove the [interthread alert] “thingy”?
And I appreciate that mark2 is attempting to be profound, but does mark2 not see, perhaps, he is as evangelical and fanatical as any old devotee?
March 13, 2012, 7:24 pmnetdr:
Waldo
The alarmist cause is dependent upon amplification by water vapor.
Since water vapor has gone down since 1950 the theory must be wrong mustn’t it ?
http://climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericRelativeHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
March 13, 2012, 7:36 pmDr. Waldo:
Perfect, netdr. I think you are really onto something. You’ve read the chart! You’ve solved the climate conundrum! Now go claim your place at the table! Peer-review does take a while, but certainly you can write-up your observations and blow the AGW camp right out of the water (a play on words, get it?). I am constantly amazed how often you see right through the sham of AGW—now’s the time to join Pielke and Lindzen over dinner rolls and side salads! Sit at the table, brother!
Or perhaps you’re faking it?
March 13, 2012, 9:03 pmMikeN:
Not only would Mann not debate you about catastrophic global warming, he might even agree with you. I heard him give a talk, where he said the Medieval Warm Period was local in nature. The reason he gave is that it was warmer, but the tropics had an “El Nino like” response, causing lower temperatures there, thus no global Medieval Warm Period. One possibility he gave for this reaction was the Pacific Thermostat Theory of Mark Cane. Mann also suggested that this would happen in response to global warming, with more droughts in the Southwest as a result. Someone asked him that since the Medieval Warm Period lasted a long time, and El Ninos are short lived, wouldn’t his El Nino like response that was long lived mean that climate models estimates of future temperature rise were
March 13, 2012, 10:19 pmvastly overstated?” To my surprise, Mann said,”I agree with that. I have a reputation of being some sort of climate alarmist, but I think there is a missing negative feedback.”
Will Nitschke:
netdr:
If the science points in a direction that isn’t compatible with his conviction, it’s not “real” science. The reasoning is always perfectly circular.
March 14, 2012, 2:01 amDon’t try to argue the science with Waldo… It’s a belief system to him. Facts and data and stuff like that are things that heretics/deniers/non-believers cite to tempt the faithful.
pauld:
Waldo: Geeze, we have been through this a couple times before on peer-reviewed literature. Publishing in the peer-reviewed literature is not a way to test one’s interpretation of existing research. The purpose of the peer-reviewed literature is to introduce new and significant research that adds to the knowledge of those in the field. It does not provide a forum debate ideas that are already well-known in the scientific community. That is why your challenge is beside the point.
March 14, 2012, 3:02 amO Paul Please---you are providing exactly the rational I posted about:
****Publishing in the peer-reviewed literature is not a way to test one’s interpretation of existing research.
Bullshit Paul. PR is precisely how one tests one’s interpretation of existing research.
March 14, 2012, 6:40 amWaldo would never argue with netdr's science:
****Don’t try to argue the science with Waldo
I would never argue the science with you, netdr!
I just think you should share your observation with the world!
…unless, of course…you want to leave it here were you can feel like a scientist…
March 14, 2012, 6:42 amPaulD:
Waldo: ” PR is precisely how one tests one’s interpretation of existing research”
I can see that you are not a scientists and perhaps have never read a peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal.
You can find many of them on the web. Take a look.
March 14, 2012, 7:19 amnetdr:
Waldo
I see now why you refuse to talk science ! You don’t know anything about it so you settle for jabs.
Peer review is no guarantee of accuracy. Dr Mann proved that for all time.
As far as water vapor amplification it is impossible if water vapor is going down.
Is the graph wrong ? If not, warming [if any] will be mild and the predictions off 3 and 6 ° C are simply wrong !
Skeptical science had an amusing graph which is amazingly accurate in one way.
http://www2.grist.org.s3.amazonaws.com/grist-images/2011/November/7-11/SkepticsvRealistsv3-a.gif
http://tiny.cc/5pqn2
Notice how it warms despite occasional setbacks and actual cooling. In the earth this low rate of actual warming will allow us to find alternative fuels and avoid punishing taxes.
The overall rate of warming is ½ ° per century if you include at least one whole cycle of the PDO.
March 14, 2012, 8:54 amWaldo:
Paul, by this point you should know that I’ve made a career here at CS by calling your bluffs. Below are the first two articles that came up in an Academic Search Premier database search. I’ve starred (***) the section in the first abstract that refers to the process of utilizing the literature; and I’ve excepted points from the “Introduction” in the second which explain that, in fact, the second article is an extrapolation of previous research.
Now, you are a meticulous guy often concerned with the semantics involved, so perhaps you have a more purist version of PR, but you might do well not to assume you are the only guy in the room with a little experience in these matters.
In this case you are incorrect; PR may also contain a critique of previously published science—this is precisely what most denialist science is anyway. This is what I am suggesting netdr do, no more and no less. He can download most modeling programs from the IPCC website and probably a couple others; or, since he seems to feel he is smart enough, netdr can write his own modeling software without the “fudge factors.” Or maybe he could just use his brain. I suspect netdr knows what would happen if he did, so he will not (precisely why Ted comes here to rant about green engineering projects).
Atmospheric Lifetime of Fossil Fuel Carbon Dioxide.
Authors:
Archer, David1 d-archer@uchicago.edu
Eby, Michael2
Brovkin, Victor3
Ridgwell, Andy4
Long Cao5
Mikolajewicz, Uwe3
Caldeira, Ken5
Matsumoto, Katsumi6
Munhoven, Guy7
Montenegro, Alvaro2
Tokos, Kathy6
Source:
Annual Review of Earth & Planetary Sciences; 2009, Vol. 37 Issue 1, p117-134, 18p, 1 Chart, 5 Graphs
Abstract:
CO2 released from combustion of fossil fuels equilibrates among the various carbon reservoirs of the atmosphere, the ocean, and the terrestrial biosphere on timescales of a few centuries. However, a sizeable fraction of the CO2 remains in the atmosphere, awaiting a return to the solid earth by much slower weathering processes and deposition of CaCO3. Common measures of the atmospheric lifetime of CO2, including the e-folding time scale, disregard the long tail. Its neglect in the calculation of global warming potentials leads many to underestimate the longevity of anthropogenic global warming. ********Here, we review the past literature on the atmospheric lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 and its impact on climate, and we present initial results from a model intercomparison project on this topic. *********The models agree that 20-35 % of the CO2 remains in the atmosphere after equilibration with the ocean (2-20 centuries). Neutralization by CaCO3 draws the airborne fraction down further on timescales of 3 to 7 kyr. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
The cost of living for freshwater fish in a warmer, more polluted world.
Authors:
Morgan, Ian J.1
McDonald, D. Gord1
Wood, Chris M.1
Source:
Global Change Biology; Apr2001, Vol. 7 Issue 4, p345-355, 11p
Abstract:
Summary Little of the vast literature on the temperature physiology of freshwater fish is useful in predicting the effects of global warming. In the present review a series of laboratory experiments is reviewed in which rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) were exposed to simulated global warming, a 2 °C increment superimposed upon the natural thermal regime, in the presence and absence of two common freshwater pollutants, ammonia and acidity (low pH). Simulated global warming had little effect on the growth and physiology of trout fed to satiation over much of the summer. However, in late summer, when ambient water temperature was at its highest, the addition of 2 °C caused a marked inhibition of appetite and growth, although this impact was not exacerbated by a reduction in food availability. In winter, + 2 °C stimulated metabolism, appetite and growth by approximately 30–60%. Exposure of satiation-fed trout to low levels of pollutants produced unexpected results. Ammonia (NH3 + NH4+ = 70 μm) stimulated summer growth and energy conversion efficiency, whilst acidification (pH 5.2) increased appetite and growth but caused no disturbance of electrolyte balance. These pollutant effects were additive upon, but not synergistic with, the effects of + 2 °C. The ability of the fish to acclimate to the experimental conditions was tested with acute lethal temperature and/or toxicant challenges. Fish exposed to + 2 °C had a slightly (0.2–1.0 °C) but significantly higher lethal temperature than those exposed to ambient temperature when fed to satiation. However, there was no evidence of acclimation to either ammonia or low pH. It is concluded that the impact of global warming on freshwater fish will vary seasonally. The additional temperature may provide growth benefits in winter, but may threaten fish populations living towards the upper end of their thermal tolerance zone in (late) summer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
“[…] in 1992, a series of experiments was inititated to study the chronic effects of a conservative estimate of global warming (+ 2 °C), superimposed upon the natural thermal regime, on the growth and energetics of a reference coldwater fish (Magnuson et al. 1979), the rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). These effects were studied in the presence and absence of two common freshwater pollutants: ammonia and acidity (low pH).”
“[….] This project resulted in 16 peer-reviewed publications. The present review of the work does not intend to provide an exhaustive list of the results obtained from the individual experiments; rather, it reports the most consistent and important findings, and seeks to identify the conclusions that can be drawn about the potential effects of global climate change on freshwater fish in temperate climates.”
Netdr should review the most consistent and important findings of humidity and seek to identify the conclusions that can be drawn about the potential effects on climate. He seems very sure of his findings and clearly this is important—I just can’t figure out why he won’t share.
March 14, 2012, 9:53 amWaldo to netdr:
You are correct, I am not a scientist. I see that you are, however, because you consistently post links with brilliant one sentence summaries of other people’s work.
Come on, netdr, enuff shit-talking—peer review!! Peer review!! Send your review out to the world! PR may not always be accurate, but it’s better than swimming here in the kiddy pool.
Or one could say that you are not a scientist either and you are simply incapable of doing the science you so freely denigrate here on a unmonitored blog.
And denialists hate PR because they have so little which has passed through it.
March 14, 2012, 10:00 ampauld:
Waldo: I am glad that you took some time to do some homework. As the articles you cite above would indicate there is a substantial difference between the type of work that is published in the peer-reviewed literature and the typical comment to a blog post. The difference arises out of the purposes served.
You are certainly free to limit your reading to the peer-reviewed scholarly literature. That is your choice. In that case, it is not clear why you bother to read the blog comments.
Obviously, people can contribute to the discussion on a blog without going to the extensive efforts required to prepare an article that would warrant publication in a scholarly journal. There are blog comments that contain accurate observations that do not warrant publication. Moreover, there are many reasons why a person would not submit all their comments in a blog for peer-review. Among them are personal time constraints and the reasonable desire to avoid extensive unpaid work that is usually performed to advance the career of academics.
It is silly to suggest as you do that one cannot comment on a blog without undertaking the additional enormous task of writing a paper for publication. It would be even sillier to take on such a task to satisfy you personally.
So enough of your taunts. If you want to comment on a blog, the reasonable expectation is that you should offer substantive insights on the topics being discussed. That is something that you seem unwilling to do.
March 14, 2012, 11:02 amTed Rado:
Waldo:
In an earlier post, I pointed out that climate models (or any other correlation) can easily be tested by plotting calculated vs actual data, and determining the correlation coefficient and standard deviation. Since you are so convinced that the AGW models are correct, why don’t you do it and present us with the results? Perhaps you could publish your work in a “Pee-r Reviewed” journal.
I will anticipate your response. You will say to me that I should do it. I am not interested. As I have pointed out many times, since there is no large scale viable alternative to fossil fuels, it doesn’t matter. In any case, over the next few decades, the facts will become apparent. If you are convinced that CAGW will happen, buy property in northern Cananda or Alaska.
This fascination you have with “Pee-r Review” has nothing to do with the facts. At this point in time, much of the AGW stuff is based on computer models, which, as has been pointed out repeatedly, are full of fudge factors and unknowns.
Warren has done a very commendable job in pointing out where things stand (where there is agreement and where there is uncertainty). His review is so logical that I don’t understand how anyone can disagree. Nobody can swear that CAGW will not happen. Many, however, believe that it is very premature to start dismantling our fossil fuel based economy, as there is no workable alternative and the AGW stuff is so uncertain. Any amount of “Pee-r Reviewed” papers does not alter these facts.
March 14, 2012, 12:31 pmTed Rado:
netdr:
Waldo keeps adding to the list of things he demonstably knows nothing about. The list now contains engineering and science. I am sure it will continue to grow. The frog-on-a-hot-rock routine sure is entertaining, though.
March 14, 2012, 12:37 pmTed Rado:
Waldo:
March 14, 2012, 12:50 pmNetdr makes an excellent point:
If you are so enamored of “Pee-r Reviewed” journals to the exclusion of all else, and disbelieve everything else, what are you doing on this blog?
You seem to be saying that all other venues of expression are to be stifled. I would hate to live in a society where all forms of communication other that “Pee-r Reviewed” journals are verboten.
pauld:
Ted: waldo is willing to do a little bit of homework, but I think the assignment you suggest may be too much. He would rather comment on posts with dire warnings that “you might be wrong” and with silly suggestions that people spend hours of time uncompensated to publish their thoughts in the peer-reviewed literature.. This spares him him the effort required to offer an insightful critique that he insists is missing here.
March 14, 2012, 1:33 pmWaldo:
Actually Paul, I do believe I am making substantive comments about the blog post overhead. Mr. Meyer would take Michael Mann to task for pointing out that there is a difference in degree of viability between the scientific community and the general populace, some of whom want to comment and critique the science. I am commenting on why I think there might be some truth to the statement and far less “rhetoric” than Mr. Meyer would seem to think.
And yes, it is very obvious one can take part in a blog discussion without doing the extensive effort required to prepare an article or actually even know the subject matter, but that would only seem to bolster Mann’s point above.
It is “extensive effort” that allows one to double and triple-check one’s work; it is “extensive effort” which allows one to do the necessary research; it is also “extensive effort” and PR which allows one’s findings and observations to be vetted to make sure they are correct, or at least as correct as can be realistically ascertained with current knowledge. “Extensive effort” at this level requires a professional commitment, and few posters here have the time or knowledge to actually perform the level of “effort” required to do any of the steps above. And yet the bloggers here want “a place at the table.” Well, “extensive effort” is what will get people a “place at the table.” It is what makes their opinions worthwhile. Essentially, the above conversation is analogous to an arm-chair quarterback who occasionally plays catch in the backyard with his drinking buddies and then complains that he cannot play in the Superbowl.
And I don’t think it is “silly to comment on a blog” and never posted any such. I do think it is silly to read a few online commentaries from denialist bloggers and then come here believing one is up on the science.
For instance: Do you really, truly, honestly think netdr has discovered something that somehow slipped by the professional scientists working on AGW? Really?! Do you honestly think, if he put this before a panel of scientists, they would scratch their heads, shrug their shoulders, and denounce global climate change? You’re not a dumb guy, Paul, but you clearly have a one-dimensional thought pattern when we get into the atmosphere. I suspect it is tied to an extremely conservative mind-bent, as with Ted and Mr. Meyer himself.
The consequences are potentially very serious. And yet you want to quarterback from an armchair. It is a very simple concept, but I’ll make it even simpler: Mann was correct, and you just helped to prove him so.
March 14, 2012, 2:51 pmWaldo to Ted the funniest damn engineer ever:
And by the way, I would stifle no form of expression—you just engineered yourself a strawman. I would, however, feel free to express my own thoughts on any matter, just as you clearly do. And I question your thoughts. That is what I am doing here at this blog.
March 14, 2012, 3:04 pmpauld:
Waldo: Congratulations! You finally said something interesting. In responding I would first note that you assume that my views on climate science are outside the scientific mainstream. I disagree.
If you look at the first post on this thread I describe various positions in the climate debate. The key issue in the climate debate is climate sensitivity—how will the climate respond to a doubling of CO2. According the IPCC climate sensitivity is subject to a wide range of uncertainty. I agree.
I consider myself a luke-warmer. I believe that climate sensitivity will likely fall in the low range of what the IPCC identifies as reasonable. The alarmists believe that climate sensitivity will likely fall in the high end of the IPCC range. If the alarmists are in the mainstream I don’t see how you can argue that I am outside of the mainstream. I’ll need an argument to convince me that I am not. I would also note that Warren’s position is similar to mine as I understand him.
Regarding uncertainty in climate science, Michael Hulme, a climate scientist who is squarely in the warmest camp said it well here:
“Yes, science has clearly revealed that humans are influencing global climate and will continue to do so, but we don’t know the full scale of the risks involved, nor how rapidly they will evolve, nor indeed—with clear insight—the relative roles of all the forcing agents involved at different scales. ”http://online.wsj.com/article/…..71336.html
I would note that the issues he describes as uncertain are where the disagreements lie between the luke-warmers and the alarmists.
Any attempt to estimate climate-sensitivity involves a far-ranging discussion so for this comment I would like to limit my discussion to where I have the most doubts about the warmist’s position. Can high climate sensitivity be reconciled with the observable modern temperature record?
According to the UAH temperature record, the current 30 year trend in temperatures is +0.13 C per decade. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpr…..uary-2012/ . You can choose any other temperature time-series and obtain a roughly similar result. Moreover, all the temperature time-series have been flat over the past decade or more. Finally, it is well documented that the most recent IPCC multi-model mean forecasts predicts substantially more warming than has actually been observed. In short, I would expect to see more warming if climate sensitivity is at the high end.
Now I am certainly aware that the warmists have various explanations—the cooling effect of aerosols, the possibility that we are observing transient warming with more heat in the pipeline, and the possibility that the heat is hiding unobserved in the deep ocean. In my mind, however, these explanations read like ad hoc excuses that start with the premise of high climate sensitivity and then seek to explain the lack of warming.
What I would like to see are papers that really make a convincing case that these explanations are valid, built from the ground up without any assumptions about climate sensitivity. I am not a climate scientist and do no not claim to be aware of all the literature. It is here that pointing out any gaps in my knowledge would be useful in moving me from the luke-warm camp to the warmist camp.
March 14, 2012, 4:06 pmWill Nitschke:
Notice how Waldo always avoid discussing the water vapour issue. It’s central to the catastrophic view of global warming theory. Without it, there is no catastrophe. If there is no increasing water vapour trend in the atmosphere, the IPCC model ensemble cannot be making accurate forecasts. You don’t have to be a genius to work this out. The Waldo’s of the world never discuss this. It’s always evasion, insults and misdirection. You will see the same pattern everywhere when you try to engage on this topic with Believers.
March 14, 2012, 4:19 pmWaldo to Paul:
I read your designations upstairs with some interest, Paul. You’ve created an interesting and, I’m sure, astute hierarchy. And I’m glad you thought I finally said something interesting—I’m not sure what I posted that prompted the 4:06pm comment, but this too I read with some interest. You’ve made some interesting observations about the “mainstream” and so on.
Is there something you’d like me to respond to? Do you want to move to the warmest camp or not? Some paths a man must walk alone, and I suspect this is one of them.
And if you are looking for papers, what are you doing at CS? You will not find anything of that nature here. May I suggest Ebscohost or Science or Nature or even Real Climate. CS is dedicated to politicizing climate science.
March 14, 2012, 5:36 pmWaldo to Will:
Why would you like to discuss the water vapor issue with me? I’m not a scientist. I don’t have the knowledge base to discuss water vapor and would have nothing interesting or insightful to say on the subject.
So I have the same sort of question for you that I have for Paul: If you want to discuss water vapor, what are you doing here?
Real Climate will discuss the issue with you—those folks have the qualifications and the data. They also have a search field where you can do a search on “humidity” and “water vapor.” Or, like Paul, you can find a library with an Ebscohost database which, I’m sure, would yield much more intelligent things to say than I could.
March 14, 2012, 5:45 pmWaldo:
By the way, I posted netdr’s comment about water vapor to the Real Climate open thread. They are not always prompt about responding, but we can wait and see if there is a response from that part of the blogosphere.
March 14, 2012, 5:47 pmRespondes to netdr's observations thus far:
[Response: Water vapour hasn't gone down. The chart you have been pointed at is a model result from the original NCEP reanalysis. Changes in what data are assimilated into that system over time, and changes in the quality of the radiosondes has created a false and non-climatic trend. In newer and more sophisticated reanalyses, this effect is not seen (rather the opposite is seen), and that is coherent with direct measurements - at the surface, via satellite and in the upper troposphere. People who show you this without mentioning any of the rest are guilty of serious misrepresentation. Take the rest of what they say with a great pinch of salt. - gavin]
341
dbostrom says:
14 Mar 2012 at 7:36 PM
“Since water vapor has gone down since 1950 the theory must be wrong mustn’t it ?
A favorite. Try What does the full body of evidence tell us about humidity and/or Climate cherry pickers: Falling humidity
342
Kevin McKinney says:
14 Mar 2012 at 7:54 PM
#340–Well, probably someone more knowledgeable will have something to say about this, but in the meantime–
First, water vapor is just one feedback, but it is definitely a major one.
So–note that the bottom curve seems to have rising relative humidity, while the upper one has falling? And the middle one seems to fall early, then stabilize? Those curves, as the legend makes plain, show the evolution of relative humidity over time at different altitudes in the atmosphere. The bottom is near surface–the air you and I breathe–the top is around 9 km, and the middle curve is somewhere, well, in the middle.
Guess where the mass of the atmosphere is concentrated?
Right–near the ground, in the near-surface layer. So the rising trend in the lower curve is going to represent much more water vapor added to the atmosphere than the declining top curve represents as leaving it.
Now, a proper analysis of this would involve actually doing the sums, not ‘eyeballing it’ as I’ve done here. You’ll find that the pros have done that–unlike your unmannerly interlocutor. Perhaps someone has a specific reference? I’d look, but I’ve got to go see if the noodles are done yet.
(Yes, really.)
March 14, 2012, 6:03 pmTed Rado:
Waldo;
You mean you feel free to express yourself on any matter WITHOUT “PEE-R REVIEW”? Why doesn’t everyone else have that same priveledge? The purpose of these blogs is to have a forum for free exchnge of views. I have endeavored to accompany mine with calcs and analysis. I am hoping to solicit a response showing that I made a mistake, or that there is some other likely explanantion. Merely stating that I or anyone else is out of step with the “experts” so I must be wrong is not a valid criticism.
It is interesting that the Germans and others are now starting to realize what they have gotten themselves into with their CO2 reduction program. They are shutting down thir nuclear plants at the same time the shortcomings of wind and solar are becoming apparent. They will have to build coal fired plants to replace the nukes and for wind/solar standby. All this could have been (and indeed was) figured out long before the politicians and enviroloonies started playing energy expert.
I believe I am speaking for many on this blog when I say that we are simply pointing out what Warren has so well summarized: The AGW theory is still uncertain and is not a good reason to screw everything up.
March 14, 2012, 6:04 pmWill Nitschke:
It’s real simple Waldo, but I will type it out slowly for you. IPCC climate models assume increased water vapour over time. That’s about 2/3rds of the total warming expected from them if the middle range of their forecasts are likely to happen. If you measure the water vapour content of the atmosphere and it’s not changing or going down, then the theory has a major problem right there.
We already know you don’t have “knowledge”, “insight” and having noting “interesting or insightful” to say [about the science]. You don’t need to point that out. That’s obvious from what you write here. That’s also why your posts are packed with logical fallacies: misdirection, poisoning the well, ad hominem insults, arguments from authority, etc. If you had something intelligent to say, I’d be inclined to suspect you’d say it.
March 14, 2012, 6:07 pmWaldo:
Why are you telling me, Will? As you can see over your head, they are discussing this very subject over at Real Climate. I, at least, am willing to admit my limitations; you should be willing too.
And please Will, it’s not a good idea for you to play the “say something intelligent” card.
March 14, 2012, 6:11 pmWaldo Rado:
Back to blaming the politicians, I see; the Germans, however, are new.
I am totally into expressing one’s opinions, but I am always confused here—I thought people wanted to discuss science. Why don’t you go someplace where you can really get good feedback on your “calcs,” Ted? There is virtually nothing like that here.
March 14, 2012, 6:15 pmnetdr:
Waldo
If the graph of water vapor is wrong show me a post of a correct one.
There was no model involved in these measurements.
Where did you get that idea?
If water vapor has gone down the theory of amplification is surely wrong !
March 14, 2012, 7:57 pmnetdr:
So where is this graph of actual water vapor going up.
Perhaps Gavin is still drawing it ?
March 14, 2012, 7:59 pmWaldo Rado:
Why are you asking me, netdr? The thread at RC is an open one. I think they’d love to hear from you. Go ask them. They make it sound like you don’t really understand what you are seeing. Don’t you want to set them straight. You’ve been talking pretty tough here, and you like to remind me that I am no scientist (something I’ve never denied)—now it’s time to put up.
Unless you are faking it here.
Truly, you mystify me.
March 14, 2012, 8:09 pmWaldo Rado:
It suddenly occurred to me—in case you didn’t understand what you were reading above—I cut and pasted your 3/13, 7:36 comment over on the open thread at Real Climate.
What you are reading above are their verbatim responses to your comment.
Apparently the chart you cited is actually the result of a model. Quote: “The chart you have been pointed at is a model result from the original NCEP reanalysis.” Did you realize that?
March 14, 2012, 8:17 pmWaldo Rado is saddened and amused:
OMG U R a funny bunch, the whole bloody lot of U.
March 14, 2012, 8:19 pmWill Nitschke:
With regard to limitations Waldo, if you’re too ignorant to use your own brain, don’t assume others must be as ignorant as you. The world is full of ‘experts’ who turn out to be idiots. And BTW, I believe the greenhouse effect is real, that the planet has warmed, and that humans contribute to warming. So I’m as much a part of that 97% consensus you love to cite. But that doesn’t mean I don’t think you’re full of shit.
March 14, 2012, 11:28 pmpauld:
There is a nice review of the evidence regarding water vapor feedback here http://www.staatvanhetklimaat.nl/2011/04/22/water-vapor-feedback-still-uncertain/, which is discussed by Pielkie, Sr here: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/water-vapor-feedback-still-uncertain-by-marcel-crok/
Vonder Haar, who develops the NVAP series is quoted:
“We have most definitely never said the preliminary NVAP data show a negative trend and anyone who does is making a false scientific statement. All we can say at present is that the preliminary NVAP data, according to the Null Hypothesis, cannot disprove a trend in global water vapor either positive or negative”
March 15, 2012, 2:32 ampauld:
Below is a nice back and forth discussion between Pielke’s Sr. and Andrew Dessler on water vapor feedback. Both agree that the IPCC models are based on a strong-positive water vapor feedback. Pielke agrues that most of the future warming in the models is coming from water vapor and cloud feedbacks but that currently the observational evidence for these feedbacks is not yet very strong, let alone evidence for a net positive feedback.
March 15, 2012, 3:46 amThe discussion starts here:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/12/29/q-a-are-water-vapor-feedbacks-from-added-co2-well-understood/
Andrew Dessler responds in a follow up and Pielke, Sr. then responds again. You can follow the links, but Warren’s spam filter will not let me post all of them.
PaulD:
Gavin quoted above from realclimate said:
“The chart you have been pointed at is a model result from the original NCEP reanalysis. Changes in what data are assimilated into that system over time, and changes in the quality of the radiosondes has created a false and non-climatic trend. In newer and more sophisticated reanalyses, this effect is not seen (rather the opposite is seen), and that is coherent with direct measurements – at the surface, via satellite and in the upper troposphere.”
I was curious that Gavin did not provide any links to the updated analysis so I went to the NVAP website to see whether Peter Van Vonder Haar, who develops the NVAP series had updated his position from the quote I cited above:
“We have most definitely never said the preliminary NVAP data show a negative trend and anyone who does is making a false scientific statement. All we can say at present is that the preliminary NVAP data, according to the Null Hypothesis, cannot disprove a trend in global water vapor either positive or negative”
I found this at his website.
“Project Status
November, 2011:
The NVAP-M team recently released a preliminary Beta Test Version of the dataset to selected users with significant experience using water vapor data. Feedback from these users will be implemented in the final version of the dataset, due in the NASA Langley Atmospheric Science Data Center (ASDC) in May 2012. As part of the Beta Test data release, two posters describing the dataset and its construction were presented at the World Climate Research Program (WCRP) Open Science Conference, held October 24-28 in Denver, CO.”
http://nvap.stcnet.com/
March 15, 2012, 5:58 amWhat is your point Paul?:
Okay—there is a conversation regarding water vapor. And once again there’s Pielke.
Don’t you think your question would be better posed to Gavin at Real Climate?
March 15, 2012, 6:44 amWaldo Vapor:
If we return to Mann’s comment via Meyer above, Mann is simply saying what has been demonstrated repeatedly on this thread: the good peeps here don’t really know what they are talking about. Some of you know a few things, but that’s about it. Some of you have yet to demonstrate that you have more than a Wikipedia understanding of a phenomenon such as water vapor (such as Will above). Some of you have been reduced to juvenile behavior (see Ted’s post above). And some of you simply don’t know what you are talking about at all.
This is why a mechanism like peer review is so damn important. One can have any dumb opinion or interpretation on a blog-post.
I’m sure there is a great deal of information on vapor forcings. People have written dissertations on the subject, no doubt, and dedicated many hours to its research. How can any of you expect to keep up?
By the way, if Gavin did not post something you think is relevant, Paul, you might lower your radar a bit and think about the circumstance—what he provided was a short, perfunctory response to my post, nothing more. If you did your research, I’m willing to bet many of your questions would actually be answered.
What I think is most interesting is how afraid of the actual scientists the good peeps here are. No one ventures over to Real Climate, for instance, and clearly the defensiveness against a well-accepted process of science.
March 15, 2012, 7:52 amTed Rado:
In addition to the Germans, the Spaniards, Brits, and many others are having second thoughts re wind and solar. The problems have been much described earlier. As the amount of wind and solar capacity increases, these problems become impossible to hide. When only a tiny amount of energy was so produced, the shortcomings were hidden in the huge conventional energy system. This is clearly a situation that is coming to an end.
The complaint that I see many unethical engineers/scientists in the woodwork brings a smile to my lips. Utilities are required by law to buy ALL the wind/solar at an inflated price. In Spain, it was found that the solar companies were producing power at night! It turns out that they were running their standby diesel generators to sell power to the utilities at the inflated price. Where there is cheese, there are rats (Spanish or otherwise).
A whole industry has grown up to take advantage of government subsidies (R&D grants, prototype plants, subsidized power price, etc.). Anyone who has any understanding of human nature will see that the rats coming out of the woodwork is an inevitable consequence of these programs. We are being turned into a bunch of crooks by such USG programs.
Until the USG gets out of the picture and leaves energy progress in the hands of competitive free enterprise, this mess will continue. Good ideas will be pursued and bad ideas abandoned by competent businessmen and engineers, WITHOUT intervention by self-serving idiot politicians.
March 15, 2012, 7:52 amOops sorry:
Last sentence should read:
“…and clearly the defensiveness against a well-accepted process of science is the result of well-placed insecurity.”
March 15, 2012, 7:54 amPaulD:
Waldo: The links on water vapor feedback are intended for anyone who is interested learning about the issue. I do understand that you are not a member of that group.
Waldo: “Don’t you think your question would be better posed to Gavin at Real Climate?”
No, I think that Pielke,Sr. and Dessler, along with the other article I cite, delineate the issues better than Gavin is likely to in a response to a blog post. If you want to ask Gavin whether his position differs in any significant way from Dessler’s, that might be an interesting question you could ask.
I think the links illustrate well the point that Warren makes in his main post.
March 15, 2012, 8:09 amAnother response to netdr's post:
Waldo, another way to look at this is to think what would happen if this actually were true, and absolute humidity would be approximately constant when the climate warms up. It would mean that relative humidity would go down by some 7% for every degree of warming. And it is relative humidity that controls the formation of clouds and precipitation.
Clouds form when locally, relative humidity exceeds 100%. Lower relative humidity means less clouds; how much less, I couldn’t tell; clouds are tricky and also the big unknown in current models. But less clouds means a lower albedo, bringing in though the back door a positive feedback again… and about precipitation, we as a society are much more dependent upon that than upon constant temperature. Summa summarum, the (fortunately counterfactual) absence of the water vapour feedback would concern me more, not less.
Note also that going back to the ice ages, the glacial-interglacial temperature swing cannot be explained without full water vapour feedback on top of both the ice sheet albedo and CO2 effects. Fortunately, because with constant absolute water vapour, relative humidity would be some 5×7%=35% higher than today, and the last glacial maximum would be (counter to what we think we know) a foggy, soggy place…
Comment by Martin Vermeer — 15 Mar 2012 @ 12:58 AM
March 15, 2012, 8:23 amTed Rado:
An interesting summary of the wind and solar energy situation in Germany may be found at:
thepanelist.net
The article is titled: German Solar Subsidies. Gone With The Wind.
March 15, 2012, 8:34 ampauld:
Waldo says: “And once again there’s Pielke.”
Other than the fact the Dr. Pielke, Sr. is an excellent example of a scientist that alarmists have attempted to marginalize, I was wondering whether you could explain what you have against him.
The study in the PNAS study on “Expert Credibility in Climate Change” lists him one of most widely published and cited climate scientists. Before he retired he had 369 peer-reviewed published articles. http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/pielke/pubs/
March 15, 2012, 8:45 ampauld:
Waldo: I see you got a response from Martin Vermeer. If you recall, he is one of the climate scientists I quoted on a previous thread who thinks that the Heartland memo was forged by Peter Gleick. While you got his attention, why don’t you help him out.
March 15, 2012, 8:47 amnetdr:
Waldo
I am persona non Grata at realclimate.
It seams I asked some embarrassing questions and my posts are blocked.
Just because warmer air can hold more water vapor there is no reason to believe it does.
http://climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericRelativeHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
I don’t know where you get the idea that the above is a computer simulation !
It says it is a 7 month running average by NOAA, would they lie ?
It also starts at 1948 which is more useful than 1980.
Clouds have both positive and negative feedback aspects. More clouds cause a larger amount of radiation to reflect back into space. They also have a blanketing effect so the jury is out on which predominates.
Whatever the case, water vapor going down when it is predicted to go up doesn’t sound like the theory holds water ! [I said it and I'm glad]
March 15, 2012, 8:49 amTed Rado:
Another interesting article on alternative energy in Germany at:
bbc.co.uk
Title of the article is: Will Sun Shine on Germany Solar Power Industry?
There are nay number of articles discussing the problems with intermittent solar and wind energy. I guess some can put their head in the sand, ignore them all, and BELIEVE in alternative energy as our savior.
March 15, 2012, 8:49 amWaldo says "Huh"?:
****”I see you got a response from Martin Vermeer…why don’t you help him out.”
What?
Are you okay, man? Your last couple of posts have been a little…wandery.
If I discussed the Gleick memo with Professor Vermeer, I would say approximately the same things I said to you—although hopefully with a little more decorum on both sides.
If I discussed climate science with Professor Vermeer, I would probably listen politely, seeing as he actually knows what he is talking about.
March 15, 2012, 11:11 amWaldo reads another netdr excuse:
Seriously dude, you have an excuse every single time for why you cannot or will not do the serious scientific work or even post a question over at RC.
Go to RC; sign in under a different moniker; post politely; don’t write with the ungrammatical, abbreviated, perfunctory style that you use here; make your observations clear; keep an open mind.
Enough with the evasion—at this point it’s, what, two years of evading the obvious?
Time to put up or shut up, man, or you’re simply faking it in the safety of the blog backwaters.
March 15, 2012, 11:38 amTed Rado:
Nobody on tis blog claims to be a climate expert. We are merely asking obvious questions, which most scientists and engineers would be glad to answer. Raising questions does not equate to a claim of expertise. The idea of accepting the word from academe or the DOE without question is absurd.
March 15, 2012, 11:45 amIt's not the heat, it's the humidity: links:
By the way, these links didn’t come through above. I’m just posting them in case anyone is interested in learning more about the subject.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/humidity-global-warming.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-cherry-pickers-Falling-humidity.html
March 15, 2012, 11:48 amOh please.:
****”We are merely asking obvious questions, which most scientists and engineers would be glad to answer. Raising questions does not equate to a claim of expertise.”
BS Ted. This place is pure climate politicization.
And the whole point is that y’all are not experts yet you bob along with Mr. Meyer and generate very specific and mostly hardcore opinions which, I suspect, are far more the result of political polarization than any science.
March 15, 2012, 11:53 amWaldo loves Pielke:
****”Other than the fact the Dr. Pielke, Sr. is an excellent example of a scientist that alarmists have attempted to marginalize, I was wondering whether you could explain what you have against him.”
I have absolutely nothing against Dr. Pielke whatsoever. He is a fine scientist and should argue, disagree, debate, and present his findings with and to any other climate scientists.
I just think we should let Dr. Pielke debate with Dr. Mann and Dr. Jones et al., since these are the folks who have a handle on what’s going on, not you, not me, not Mr. Meyer. This has been my whole point—in fact, my only point—all along.
I do find it interesting, however, how often the good peeps here marginalize all the other climate scientists but flock to Pielke and Lindsen. It seems there is some selectivity on which scientists Meyer’s Minions are willing to believe.
March 15, 2012, 1:26 pmWill Nitschke:
Waldo, the reason why sceptics are more accepting of researchers such as Pielke, Lindzen, etc., is that they use observations (data and numbers) to argue their case. The fellows you cite tend to argue from authority (a habit you’ve picked up I see) and from theoretical computer models. Could the sceptics be wrong? Of course, frequently sceptics are wrong. But could the Alarmists be right? It’s possible, but unlikely. Most theoretical models in science turn out to be significantly wrong. Only the 1% that survives observational tests become part of scientific cannon. Most of the Alarmist case consists of these experts citing themselves in circular fashion, and pointing out that the data has not yet conclusively *disproved* their claims. OK, fine. But not a strong case once you take a hard look at the arguments from both sides. So, you’re arguing you’re not able to apply critical thinking skills to this topic. Fine. But if you don’t have the intelligence to do that, it’s hubris to assert you think you know who is right and who is wrong.
March 15, 2012, 2:06 pmWaldo loves Pielke:
****”is that they use observations (data and numbers) to argue their case.”
Oh come on, Will. You cannot seriously argue that this…
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml#.T2JcjXnN1lM
…or this…
http://www.noaa.gov/climate.html
…are not research based on “data and numbers.”
****”Most of the Alarmist case consists of these experts citing themselves in circular fashion”
Who, for instance, and what?
I am usually happy to admit that people know more than I do, but you may actually know less. Interesting.
Paul, are you paying attention?
March 15, 2012, 2:20 pmWill Nitschke:
Waldo, you don’t seem to understand how science works. Pointing a link to an IPCC report and implying that settles the argument ex cathedra is juvenile. Cutting edge science (and climate science *is* cutting edge) is constantly evolving and changing. You look at what AR4 asserts regarding water vapour. You look at their citations. You see what the experts say about those papers. You look at the criticisms of those papers and the alternate papers cited by academic critics. Yes, there is a lot of good stuff in the IPCC reports. But the IPCC reports get a lot of stuff wrong too. And occasionally they get things completely wrong. I.e., the claim that the glaciers of the Himalayas would melt by 2030 was not based on observations or numbers. The claim that the water resources of 2 billion people were at risk, was, fabricated. The claim that the Amazon was at risk was also fabricated. Around 30% of the contents of the IPCC reports are citations from ‘gray literature’. I.e., activist reports, newspaper articles, press releases, etc. There is a lot of speculative content in the IPCC reports as well as some good science. So I think you really need to grow up a little here.
March 15, 2012, 2:36 pmWaldorph:
Do you understand how science works, Will? I’m pretty sure you have a blog/brain going on here, particularly when you cite “activist reports.” Which reports? What do they get wrong? You’ve cited one egregious citation based upon a magazine article which denialists use ad nauseam. Otherwise you’ve made numerous sweeping statements. And the comment that Pielke and Lindzen use “numbers and data” while other climate scientists use “appeals to authority” really, honestly makes no sense—they all use “numbers and data.” All of them. The true denialists simply cherry-pick.
I think that Paul and Ted have Republican-brains, but they clearly know what they are talking about. See above for substantive comments.
March 15, 2012, 2:52 pmpauld:
Waldo: I am certainly happy to hear that you have affecton for Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. I guess a few of your offhand comments misled me.
I do like your original idea of encouraging leading climate scientist to debate important issues. Dr. Pielke’s blog exemplifies a model approach. Although he does not allow comments anymore, he does frequently invite prominent climate scientists with whom he disagrees to publish guest posts on his blog. He then publishes his response. The back and forth often continues and provides the public with a good deal of information on diverse perspectives.
The link I provided above of the exchange between Pielke, Sr and Dr Dreesler is just one of many example. Unfortunately, as Pielke Sr. reports many prominent climate scientists such as Dr. Gavin Schmidt, have declined numerous invitations to enage in such fruiful exchanges.
Speaking of Gavin, it is unfortunate that the the blog with which he is affiliated does not follow Pielke’s example. For example, Peilke’s son, Roger, Jr., has reported on his blog of a time when his own paper was criticized in a full post at Realclimate, and yet his response was not permitted pass moderation in the comments. Ultimately, I think such behavior at realclimate is self-defeating.
Then there is the Gleick affair. As you recall, Dr.Gleick illegally phished and then caused to be published confidential documents from Heartland, along with an obviously fake strategy memo of “unknown” provenance.
The fake memo, that sounded as if had been written by a comic book villan, attempted to smear Heartland, and suggested that scientists who were paid modest sums to write for Heartland’s publications had sold their integrity.l Many people have catologued substantial evidence that Gleick, himself, wrote the fake memo.
In his confession concerning the illegal phishing, Gleick expressed frustration that organizations such as Heartland were hindering open debate, even though he had just turned down an invitation from Heartland to participate in expense paid debate with a Heartland representative.
To top it off, Gleick was quoted by a reporter after a recent speech as saying:
“Those who deny this science and this evidence are becoming increasingly desperate in their efforts to attack the science and scientists and fool the public and prevent any rational discussion of a climate or energy policy from being adopted,”
http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2012/03/09/pacific-institutes-peter-gleick-breaks-silence/#more-20187
Heh
March 15, 2012, 5:25 pmWill Nitschke:
To emphasize:
Nobody would particularly care if the IPCC reports have thousands of little mistakes in them. Big complex reports have *lots* of mistakes. But what you don’t do is tell the public in your science reports that billions of people will run out of water in 20 years or so from now or hundreds of millions with have their habitats destroyed (Amazon) and have no basis for such claims whatsoever. You then definitely don’t hand wave this away as just “one egregious citation”. It doesn’t get more pathetic than that.
March 15, 2012, 5:38 pmpauld:
By the way, I may be mistaken but I don’t you have provided a link to this interesting “conversation” you have initiated at realclimate.
March 15, 2012, 5:48 pmTed Rado:
Waldo:
I have repeatedly stated that I am NOT a climate expert. My area of interest is in the engineering required to implement alternative energy programs. I have accompanied my comments with calcs. As I recall, you agreed with them. There are no viable large scale alternative energy sources. Hence the argument about the CAGW hypothesis is moot.
Warren has simply summarized the debate about CAGW. He did not state that the theory absolutely wrong. He merely highlighted the areas of debate. What is wrong with that?
I am still waiting for you to point out a viable alternative energy scheme, complete with standby/storage etc. References to Kitty Hawk do not qualify.
A rant about Warren etc accomplishes nothing except to illustrate that you have no valid arguments and must resort to name-calling. If you have a viable alternative energy scheme, speak up. Or, if you have some explanation of what we can do about global warming ex a viable alternative energy plan, that would be of interest as well. Don’t hide your brilliance under a bushel basket.
March 15, 2012, 10:08 pmWaldo bids Adieu:
******I may be mistaken but I don’t you have provided a link to this interesting “conversation” you have initiated at realclimate.
No conversation, I simply posted to their open thread:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/03/unforced-variations-march-2012/
I have had some trouble posting from my regular ports, and I have a feeling this may have to do with Mr. Meyer. But fair enuff, it is his blog.
So I will simply leave you with this for the while:
Ted is a done deal, and, despite his knowledge of engineering, he has nothing really viable to say about AGW—he simply wants to post about things he’s read in the news.
You have your mind made up.
But look at Will—it is pretty clear he has no purchase on the actual science involved and has swallowed a good deal of the blogarrhea and urban legends of the Internet. This is the problem with the blog world you inhabit—anyone can post any strange or ridiculous comment and they will find a too-willing gullible audience. For instance, most of the “gray matter” in IPCC reports are news items about things which are not a matter of science or review—insurance rates, flood damage, and such. But Will has the idea that somehow, climate scientists don’t use “numbers and data.” And you, Paul, such a meticulous critic of counter-posters, didn’t seem to even see this.
By the way, the real “Waldo” is querying some E-Zines about the chance to write an article about his time here at CS. The real “Waldo” will post an email address at some time in the future. If any of you boys or girls want to cuss me out, rant, rave, or dig for quotable material, shoot me a line.
March 16, 2012, 7:49 amTed Rado:
Waldo:
I post very little re AGW. I have no idea whether it is true or not. As I have pointed out before, once I concluded (based on my calcs, NOT quoting the popular press) that getting way from fossil fuels is not feasible, I lost interest in AGW. It doesn’t matter whether it is right or wrong. If it is true, move north. I long ago discovered that one shouldn’t believe anything they hear and anly half of what they see. This is terribly true in the alternative energy field. Most of it is utter rubbish. A few calcs clearly shows this. I have repeatedly asked you to show me where my calcs are wrong. If they are, I would like to know. All I get in reply are diatribes and nonsense. It is entertaining, though.
Where will your blog be posted? At Norman State Hospital?
March 16, 2012, 12:57 pmTed Rado:
Waldo:
One last suggestion. It has been proposed to mount windmills on huge kites high in the sky. (This is reported on one of the greenie blogs). It is reported that the USG has allocated $100k to study this further. Maybe you can get a post CS job with them, perhaps holding the kite string? Better yet, do the engineering calcs re how do you get it up in the sky? How do you keep it up when the wind dies down, etc. etc.?
This sounds like something right up your alley.
March 16, 2012, 1:10 pmTed Rado:
One thing about the AGW and alternative energy issue is the unwillingness of the AGW and alternative energy proponents to engage in debate. Various members of the CAGW crowd ahve been invited to debate and have refused. I would love to debate alternative energy schemes with someone from DOE. If Obama is so confident that fossil fuels are the “old” and alt energy is the “new”, why not have a public debate? The issue could be quickly decided. Either there is a viable large scale alternative energy source which makes doing away with CO2 possible or there is not. My studies show the latter to be the case. If I am wrong, let’s find out.
March 16, 2012, 1:32 pmpauld:
Waldo appropriately signs off with a post that can be summarized: “I am full of myself.”
March 17, 2012, 8:22 amWill Nitschke:
The links I posted got eaten by the auto moderator. But anyway for those interested in grey literature cited by the IPCC — Go to the “NoFrakkingConsensus” website and then search for IPCC there. One shouldn’t rely directly on blogs but that website will take you to the relevant source materials.
As for the nonsense that Waldo makes up, for example:
“For instance, most of the “gray matter” in IPCC reports are news items about things which are not a matter of science or review—insurance rates, flood damage, and such. But Will has the idea that somehow, climate scientists don’t use “numbers and data.””
The claim that around 2 billion people would run out of water by 2030 was one such citation from grey literature. Rather important, don’t you think? That is, a link to an interview in a popular science magazine! And the individual interviewed renounced making such a claim anyway. There is repeating pattern here. The claim on the imminent destruction of the Amazon met a similar fate. It doesn’t matter if a thousand uncontroversial statements are correctly cited. It’s the big scary stuff that turns into political rhetoric that is of concern. And it is not just about not being able to substantiate claims. Most of the big scary scenarios presented in IPCC reports have reasonable citations, but then their interpretation of those citations, or the credibility of those citations, is arguable.
And BTW, this has nothing to do with “internet lore”. I’m an old school sceptic, not just a climate sceptic, and I check my facts by going to source materials. If I can’t find source materials, I don’t believe it. The air of superiority that Waldo displays, while simultaneously admitting he is ignorant of this topic, is indeed remarkable.
March 18, 2012, 6:36 pmWill Nitschke:
Also, I forgot to add how Waldo plays the typical Climatist straw-man game. When I wrote that sceptics focus on data and numbers, I meant the following:
Sceptics will tend to argue from data derived from empirical observation.
Warmists will tend to argue from authority and hypothesis (i.e., computer models).
That doesn’t mean that both sides don’t cross-over each other. My statement was obviously a generalisation, but remains a valid one. Look at your own arguments Waldo. They fall neatly into the 2nd group. As does the bulk of the IPCC argument.
March 18, 2012, 6:43 pmJoey Klee:
Could you provide a link to the interview, Will. It’s not on the website.
March 18, 2012, 7:20 pmWill Nitschke:
Here:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18363-debate-heats-up-over-ipcc-melting-glaciers-claim.html
BUT… I think reading the original article requires that you subscribe to the magazine to get access to the back issues.
March 18, 2012, 7:28 pmWaldo (who was Joey Klee):
Will, I can only say “Wow!” I mean, Wow!
You are so amazingly, demonstrably wrong on every account. And—because this is the relationship I have with the good peeps at CS—I’ll show you why.
Firstly, as I posted above, out of the years of science, out of the thousands of pages, thousands of authors, and thousands of citations, the IPCC used one egregious citation of a magazine article that overstated glacial melting rates. And the denialists have cited it ad nauseum.
Congrats, you just cited that article.
Secondly, the IPCC has said a lot of stuff about water. Whatever you may disagree with that the IPCC says about the subject, it does not come from “one such citation from grey literature.” One just need to put “IPCC water” into Google to see this.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/climate-change-water-en.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session28/doc13.pdf
I just posted the first two, but there are many others. You will find the complete references for “doc13″ on page 179. If you want to seek “grey matter,” fine (good luck) but don’t post something as stupid as “one such citation from grey literature.” Geeze man.
Thirdly, approximately 1.8 billion people on the planet already lack access to clean, safe water. The IPCC predicts that by 2050 this number may grow in parts of the world already under water strain.
Fourthly, wow! “Warmists will tend to argue from authority and hypothesis (i.e., computer models).” This is so demonstrably wrong (begin on page 179 of the document above for an example) that I don’t even know where to start.
You do know that climate scientists and agencies use satellite data, borehole evidence, glacial and permafrost observations, land and sea temp records, historical temp records, tree rings, geological records, and direct temp measurements from around the globe, right? Say whatever you want about their conclusions, but the “authority and hypothesis” comment makes no more sense than the “numbers and data” comment.
Fifthly, “their interpretation of those citations, or the credibility of those citations, is arguable.”
Okay. Do it man! Prove it! Peer review your critique of their science. Because right now it would appear that you have swallowed the blogoreah and urban legends of the Internet and have very little actual knowledge of the issues you are posting about.
Sixthly, “I check my facts by going to source materials.”
Evidence would suggest otherwise.
I don’t know what else to post here, Will. I mean, seriously man, come on. I may come off as superior but all I really do is point out how screwy the denialist mentality is. My “arguments above” have an antagonistic, one-dimensional relationship to climate science and flock to the pseudo-science and misinformation of the blogosphere.
A point you just proved.
March 18, 2012, 9:45 pmWaldo's Email:
Ha! Sorry, the sentence above should read: My “arguments above” are that the good peeps here have an antagonistic, one-dimensional relationship to climate science and flock to the pseudo-science and misinformation of the blogosphere. My bad.
Okay, the real reason I stopped by was to post my email account. Send me a note about our relationship here. I will not use real names or out email addresses and such.
waldosayscall@hotmail.com
March 18, 2012, 9:49 pmWill Nitschke:
Waldo:
“Firstly, as I posted above, out of the years of science, out of the thousands of pages, thousands of authors, and thousands of citations, the IPCC used one egregious citation of a magazine article that overstated glacial melting rates. And the denialists have cited it ad nauseum.”
One egregious citation? It’s closer to 30% of all citations which go back to grey literature. Have you read any of the links I’ve provided for you to research this? Let’s see, I post at 6:16pm and Waldo replies a few hours later. Assuming it took you 1 hour to notice my posting that is not even enough time to read one of the reports (such as the IAC review of the IPCC), much less the hundreds of links to source materials I pointed you to. Laughable, but sadly typical.
March 18, 2012, 10:03 pmWill Nitschke:
BTW, another good book to read on this for those who don’t immediately want to go to the source materials is: “The Delinquent Teenager”
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/my-book/
It’s well cited so you can verify the claims yourself by going to the source materials. Interesting, also, that Waldo drops his original condescending tone and now the hell fire and spittle appears, describing sceptics as Deniers. (We used to be called Heretics back in the good old days…) Not that the internet isn’t full of cranks… Sadly it is. But the other side of the coin are the climatist believers such as Waldo. As I’ve said already, the IPCC has a lot of good science in it, but it also makes many extraordinary claims based on rather weak evidence at times. That’s why research and critical thinking are required to get to the bottom of this issue.
March 18, 2012, 10:26 pmJoey Klee:
Will’s idea of “research” is to read No Frakking Consensus.
Classic.
Having swallowed the blogarrhea and urban legends of the Internet, Will believes he is well informed on the issue CAGW is doing “critical thinking.”
Classic.
March 19, 2012, 7:51 ampauld:
Waldo says: “Okay, the real reason I stopped by was to post my email account. Send me a note about our relationship here. I will not use real names or out email addresses and such.”
I have no intention of responding to Waldo’s email address, but I am looking forward to reading Waldo’s account of his experiences here as a troll. It is will be interesting to see what distortions he will need to make to write something half-way interesting.
March 19, 2012, 12:40 pmWill Nitschke:
Of course not. Waldo is a conceited buffoon. He admits to knowing nothing about the topic and dismisses all links to arguments and evidence with a hand wave. The reason why sceptics speak out is to reach audiences, not to try to privately convert believers.
Even jokers like “Joey” intentionally misrepresent the simplest of statements made here. I.e., No Frakking Consensus will take you to links to the source materials. I do not recommend anyone read blogs as authoritative. Although this is exactly what believers such as “Joey” and “Waldo” do, by repeatedly citing “Skeptical Science” and “RC”. If they didn’t have those two blogs (which are two great sources of misinformation), they would have no understanding or arguments at all.
March 19, 2012, 1:44 pmWill Nitschke:
Nice article on problems with the IPCC here.
“Unfortunately, not only is this implication contrary to all peer-reviewed science on this subject, but the IPCC created this misleading graph from whole cloth, intentionally mis-cited it, and when questioned by an expert reviewer of a draft of the report, falsified information in its much-touted peer review process. When challenged in recent weeks, the IPCC quickly issued a press release calling the claims “baseless” but completely ignoring the substantive issues. In recent days, a leading German scientist went so far as to suggest that the IPCC’s actions on disasters and climate change were tantamount to “fraud.””
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/major_change_is_needed_if_the_ipcc_hopes_to_survive/2244/
March 20, 2012, 3:16 pm