I want to discuss the recent Kaufman study which purports to reconcile flat temperatures over the last 10-12 years with high-sensitivity warming forecasts. First, let me set the table for this post, and to save time (things are really busy this week in my real job) I will quote from a previous post on this topic
Nearly a decade ago, when I first started looking into climate science, I began to suspect the modelers were using what I call a “plug” variable. I have decades of experience in market and economic modeling, and so I am all too familiar with the temptation to use one variable to “tune” a model, to make it match history more precisely by plugging in whatever number is necessary to make the model arrive at the expected answer.
When I looked at historic temperature and CO2 levels, it was impossible for me to see how they could be in any way consistent with the high climate sensitivities that were coming out of the IPCC models. Even if all past warming were attributed to CO2 (a heroic acertion in and of itself) the temperature increases we have seen in the past imply a climate sensitivity closer to 1 rather than 3 or 5 or even 10 (I show this analysis in more depth in this video).
My skepticism was increased when several skeptics pointed out a problem that should have been obvious. The ten or twelve IPCC climate models all had very different climate sensitivities — how, if they have different climate sensitivities, do they all nearly exactly model past temperatures? If each embodies a correct model of the climate, and each has a different climate sensitivity, only one (at most) should replicate observed data. But they all do. It is like someone saying she has ten clocks all showing a different time but asserting that all are correct (or worse, as the IPCC does, claiming that the average must be the right time).
The answer to this paradox came in a 2007 study by climate modeler Jeffrey Kiehl. To understand his findings, we need to understand a bit of background on aerosols. Aerosols are man-made pollutants, mainly combustion products, that are thought to have the effect of cooling the Earth’s climate.
What Kiehl demonstrated was that these aerosols are likely the answer to my old question about how models with high sensitivities are able to accurately model historic temperatures. When simulating history, scientists add aerosols to their high-sensitivity models in sufficient quantities to cool them to match historic temperatures. Then, since such aerosols are much easier to eliminate as combustion products than is CO2, they assume these aerosols go away in the future, allowing their models to produce enormous amounts of future warming.
Specifically, when he looked at the climate models used by the IPCC, Kiehl found they all used very different assumptions for aerosol cooling and, most significantly, he found that each of these varying assumptions were exactly what was required to combine with that model’s unique sensitivity assumptions to reproduce historical temperatures. In my terminology, aerosol cooling was the plug variable.
So now we can turn to Kaufman, summarized in this article and with full text here. In the context of the Kiehl study discussed above, Kaufman is absolutely nothing new.
Kaufmann et al declare that aerosol cooling is “consistent with” warming from manmade greenhouse gases.
In other words, there is some value that can be assigned to aerosol cooling that offsets high temperature sensitives to rising CO2 concentrations enough to mathematically spit out temperatures sortof kindof similar to those over the last decade. But so what? All Kaufman did is, like every other climate modeler, find some value for aerosols that plugged temperatures to the right values.
Let’s consider an analogy. A big Juan Uribe fan (plays 3B for the SF Giants baseball team) might argue that the 2010 Giants World Series run could largely be explained by Uribe’s performance. They could build a model, and find out that the Giants 2010 win totals were entirely consistent with Uribe batting .650 for the season.
What’s the problem with this logic? After all, if Uribe hit .650, he really would likely have been the main driver of the team’s success. The problem is that we know what Uribe hit, and he batted under .250 last year. When real facts exist, you can’t just plug in whatever numbers you want to make your argument work.
But in climate, we are not sure what exactly the cooling effect of aerosols are. For related coal particulate emissions, scientists are so unsure of their effects they don’t even know the sign (ie are they net warming or cooling). And even if they had a good handle on the effects of aerosol concentrations, no one agrees on the actual numbers for aerosol concentrations or production.
And for all the light and noise around Kaufman, the researchers did just about nothing to advance the ball on any of these topics. All they did was find a number that worked, that made the models spit out the answer they wanted, and then argue in retrospect that the number was reasonable, though without any evidence.
Beyond this, their conclusions make almost no sense. First, unlike CO2, aerosols are very short lived in the atmosphere – a matter of days rather than decades. Because of this, they are poorly mixed, and so aerosol concentrations are spotty and generally can be found to the east (downwind) of large industrial complexes (see sample map here).
Which leads to a couple of questions. First, if significant aerosol concentrations only cover, say, 10% of the globe, doesn’t that mean that to get a 0.5 degree cooling effect for the whole Earth, there must be a 5 degree cooling effect in the affected area. Second, if this is so (and it seems unreasonably large), why have we never observed this cooling effect in the regions with high concentrations of manmade aerosols. I understand the effect can be complicated by changes in cloud formation and such, but that is just further reasons we should be studying the natural phenomenon and not generating computer models to spit out arbitrary results with no basis in observational data.
Judith Currey does not find the study very convincing, and points to this study by Remer et al in 2008 that showed no change in atmospheric aerosol depths through the heart of the period of supposed increases in aerosol cooling.
So the whole basis for the study is flawed – its based on the affect of increasing aerosol concentrations that actually are not increasing. Just because China is producing more does not apparently mean there is more in the atmosphere – it may be reductions in other areas like the US and Europe are offsetting Chinese emissions or that nature has mechanisms for absorbing and eliminating the increased emissions.
By the way, here was Curry’s response, in part:
This paper points out that global coal consumption (primarily from China) has increased significantly, although the dataset referred to shows an increase only since 2004-2007 (the period 1985-2003 was pretty stable). The authors argue that the sulfates associated with this coal consumption have been sufficient to counter the greenhouse gas warming during the period 1998-2008, which is similar to the mechanism that has been invoked to explain the cooling during the period 1940-1970.
I don’t find this explanation to be convincing because the increase in sulfates occurs only since 2004 (the solar signal is too small to make much difference). Further, translating regional sulfate emission into global forcing isnt really appropriate, since atmospheric sulfate has too short of an atmospheric lifetime (owing to cloud and rain processes) to influence the global radiation balance.
Curry offers the alternative explanation of natural variability offsetting Co2 warming, which I think is partly true. Though Occam’s Razor has to force folks at some point to finally question whether high (3+) temperature sensitivities to CO2 make any sense. Seriously, isn’t all this work on aerosols roughly equivalent to trying to plug in yet more epicycles to make the Ptolemaic model of the universe continue to work?
Postscript: I will agree that there is one very important affect of the ramp-up of Chinese coal-burning that began around 2004 — the melting of Arctic Ice. I strongly believe that the increased summer melts of Arctic ice are in part a result of black carbon from Asia coal burning landing on the ice and reducing its albedo (and greatly accelerating melt rates). Look here when Arctic sea ice extent really dropped off, it was after 2003. Northern Polar temperatures have been fairly stable in the 2000’s (the real run-up happened in the 1990’s). The delays could be just inertia in the ocean heating system, but Arctic ice melting sure seems to correlate better with black carbon from China than it does with temperature.
I don’t think there is anything we could do with a bigger bang for the buck than to reduce particulate emissions from Asian coal. This is FAR easier than CO2 emissions reductions — its something we have done in the US for nearly 40 years.
Malcolm,
Thanks for responding, unlike the useless Netdr, but there is a big difference between what Nerdr claimed and what you provided. So it is still a lie on his part.
Why do the ‘skeptics’ even bother with petitions when they continually state that ‘consensus isn’t science’ motto of theirs??
Why are ‘skeptics’ so indifferent to Willie Soon’s conflict of interest but can be completely condemning of climate scientists who are merely in alleged conflicts of interests??
Why do skeptics who have read 20 papers feel confident that they understand the topic rather than admit that they are probably victim to the Dunning-kruger effect?
It is because they are not skeptics, they a deniers.
It is completely mind-blowing that the response Waldo gets from Malcolm (and others) when asking about Soon is ‘So?’ Either you guys have been living under a rock for 3 years, or you are being incredibly obtuse to not understand the significance of this information.
As Waldo has said, these are not logical discourses. You guys think you are championing science when rather you are messing it up. Thank God more people don’t listen to you.
sock puppet
Your link did not say here wasn’t a lag between temperatures and CO2 like you claimed it did.
EPIC FAIL !
It gave the old ” amplification” song and dance which anyone with a brain can see through. Throwing 1 tablespoon of salt in the ocean amplifies the saltiness but is it a significant amount?
.
Since the temperature went down when the CO2 was the highest it had been CO2’s effect was minimal if measurable at all. Just like now the effect is unmeasurable.
.
What was worse the snake oil salesman [AL] gave the impression to the viewers that CO2 caused the warming even though he knew better.
.
The litany you quoted from Realclimate just repeated the song and dance which the other papers I have read spouted.
.
As Ted said about numbers:
.
“Another point re engineers. They are taught to quantify things. Many schemes sound wonderful until you hang numbers on them. Examples are water and air storage of energy, making gasoline out of CO2, etc. A few simple calcs illuminate the flaws in these schemes, even though the idea, without numbers, sounds great. I have shot down a whole bunch of ideas of my own by simply quantifying them. ”
.
Without numbers the “amplification” is just so much cow dung.
Now I know why the alarmists won’t debate, they loose.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/20/monckton-wins-national-press-club-debate-on-climate/#more-43775
The skeptics have an unfair advantage. Their arguments make sense to the public and the alarmist’s arguments don’t.
I am not an engineer, but I will make a few comments in their defense.
Some people want to create the impression that climate science is some arcane field that make sense only to climate scientists. This is nonsense. A reasonably intelligent person with a very basic background in science and math can easily read and understand the IPCC reports and most of the technical articles that it relies upon.
My own daughter is an undergraduate in biomedical engineering. She has a strong background in calculus, linear algebra, statistics, physics, biology and fluid mechanics. She has no problem following the most technical discussions in the climate science literature.
Obviously, to understand climate science one must take the time to read a good deal of background information. Any competent engineer can do this.
The most frequent comment I read from engineers concerns the poor quality of the IPCC reports. They observe that IPCC reports are no where near the quality that engineers expect in a technical report made for decision makers. I think that this is a reasonable criticism for engineers to make and it is well within their experience and expertise.
“Why are ‘skeptics’ so indifferent to Willie Soon’s conflict of interest but can be completely condemning of climate scientists who are merely in alleged conflicts of interests??”
I have read a bit of Willie Soon’s work and for the most part I have not been that impressed with it. His work certainly is not important to my skepticism about CAGW. That is why I am not particularly concerned about him.
Certainly, the fact that he received money from industry sources would cause me to be more careful in reading his research. However, any journal article should be evaluated based on its merits, not based on how the research was funded.
As to why skeptics are so concerned about the funding sources of climate scientists, I am not. For the most part, when I have seen the issue raised by skeptics, it is usually in response to alarmists who try to say (falsely) that all of the skeptics have been tainted by big oil.
Ultimately, evidence and arguments stand or fall on their own merits. In general, I think it is a waste of time to devote much time to arguing about funding sources. It is much more useful to discuss the quality and merits of a person’s research.
In short, rather than pointing out who funded Willie Soon’s research, I think it is much more helpful to provide information as to why it is good research or bad research.
The reduction of CO2 emissions to Kyoto levels is a first step. To stop global warming (according to the CAGW pushers) CO2 emissions must be reduced by 80%. Many governments (I believe Obama included) state this as a final target for 2050. Thus, the first step is to get the camel’s nose in the tent with what seems to be a reasonable proposal. Trying to hide the 80% reduction behind the first Kyoto step is a joke.
This is all well documented. There is NO doubt that an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions would destroy our modern industrial economy. There is also NO doubt that that is the final goal of the CAGW pushers. This is WELL documented.
Someone should either explain that a reduction beyond the first step in unnecessary, or explain how industry can run on 80% less carbonaceous fuel.
As to Willie Soon, I am not familiar with his story. There are mindless zealots on both sides of the argument. I have no interest in those sort of people. Decisions should be based on reality, not hysteria and zealotry. If someone can show me a TOTAL plan for a future without fossil fuels, I would be delighted to see it. Otherwise, the whole idea sounds like keeping our finger tightly pressed on our self-destruct button.
Having a contest to see which side can muster the most adherents, or demonizing each other, is a childish waste of time. “My dad can lick your dad”. Hopefully, we are all intersted in finding the truth, not just pushing our own opinions.
One other point re the Soon thing. Unless one has been unemployed all their life, they can be accused of “taking money” from someone. Perhaps we should get all our expert testimony from skid row. Those people are not taking money from ANY employer.
Further on the 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050. The EU and G8 have commited to this. The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security act mandates a 70% reduction by 2050.
See: euroalert.net , also Heritage Foundation website re Liebermen. The latter discusses the consequences.
There are any number of references to the 80% reduction goal. How to do this without destroying industry is not explained. Our scientists/engineers will pull a rabbit out of the hat, I guess. Maybe waldo will do it?
***”Your link did not say here wasn’t a lag between temperatures and CO2 like you claimed it did.”
“EPIC FAIL !” (WTF are you even saying here?)
Come on, netdr. You posted that there was no explanation for the 800 year lag time. There is. You are trying to change what you initially posted because you have been caught. Or you are in denial.
****”It gave the old ” amplification” song and dance which anyone with a brain can see through.”
Prove it. Go ahead. Prove “amplification” wrong.
So Malcolm–
“The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.”
–this is enough qualifications for you to place your faith in? Fine. But, unless then next 8,500 signatories are radically different from the first, then you have a bunch of educated people who actually don’t have much of a background in climate science.
So let’s just jump to the punch: this petition is bogus. It proves nothing. An “MD” studies the pathologies, injuries, and cures of the human body, so unless these MDs have studied specifically the effects of CAGW on the human body, they probably don’t know any more than, say, netdr does on the subject. DVMs study animals. A PhD can be in any number of subjects; how many of those on your list have actual climate science backgrounds in their PhDs?
Your list is a bogus agitprop.
Paul, thank you for actually addressing intelligently the issues of Soon and IPCC quality.
However, I always return to the question about how we, the lay people of the world (including engineers), can determine how honestly someone like Soon does his research? It is easy to say that we are only worried about the outcomes of the science and not the source of the funding, but unless we can actually address the science itself (unless we have an equivalent understanding to the scientist), how can we be sure that the results are unbiased? As netdr pointed out(unfortunately for himself)who has the time to become educated enough to critically evaluate Soon’s work? I personally do not buy the idea that anyone with a science background can adequately evaluate someone like Willie Soon.
“However, I always return to the question about how we, the lay people of the world (including engineers), can determine how honestly someone like Soon does his research? ”
The same way one would evaluate the research of anyone.
So Malcolm, do you have any other information about CRU funding? Or are you just going to refer to a brief, vague list at the end of a CRU webpage?
And Ted, “Decisions should be based on reality, not hysteria and zealotry.” I agree. So please, no more hysterical or zealous comments (like “pull a rabbit out of a hat” type comments). And when you see someone like ADiff making a “kill the poor” allegation, call him on it.
And be reasonable—“If someone can show me a TOTAL plan for a future without fossil fuels, I would be delighted to see it.”—this is the whole point of development. America and the Western world would be infinitely better off without a dependance on fossil fuels. And certainly, if you really are an engineer, you must realize that a TOTAL plan takes time and support and is developed incrementally. This reasoning is a little like a creationist who claims that evolution is false because scientists cannot show a monkey becoming a person. Remember, we’re being reasonable here (so personally I’d ditch the Heritage Foundation).
There is one thing that I can agree with netdr about—
****”The skeptics have an unfair advantage. Their arguments make sense to the public and the alarmist’s arguments don’t.”
I suspect this is true. Even Real Climate—a public outreach—is terribly written and very hard to follow. It is also extremely complicated and frequently refers to theories and papers which would be familiar to climate sciences but are alien to the rest of us. They really should hire a science journalist or a technical writer to do their work for them.
Of course, skeptic arguments tend to be grossly simplified to make them palatable to the general public (‘CO2 lags warming’) but does that make them correct?
****”The same way one would evaluate the research of anyone.”
How would you do this? Are your abilities that good?
“****”The same way one would evaluate the research of anyone.”
How would you do this? Are your abilities that good?”
It really is not that hard. I would do the following:
1) I would read the article and form my own initial impression based on the author’s description of the existing literature, his research method, his results and the logic of his analysis;
2) I would read what others have said in response to the article;
3) I would read what other researchers have written regarding the same topic.
As to your question, “Are your abilities that good?” On an issue that is important to me, that I am able to understand and that I have taken the time to investigate, I trust my own assessment.
Chippas:
Why do the ‘skeptics’ even bother with petitions when they continually state that ‘consensus isn’t science’ motto of theirs?? — I guess they do this to show that even if one were to use this flawed criteria of the truth, the debate is far from over.
Why are ‘skeptics’ so indifferent to Willie Soon’s conflict of interest but can be completely condemning of climate scientists who are merely in alleged conflicts of interests?? — I can’t speak for all skeptics, but I think many of them basically only care for the science no matter the source of funding, applying this to both sides. It should also be said that if we were to mark energy companies as questionable sources of funding, it would perhaps make sense to extend this to Greenpeace and similar activist organizations. Add to that that energy companies in particular fund both sides of the debate and you have a complete mess, with no clear view as to which side is more guilty as regards money you’d like to mark as “dirty”.
Why do skeptics who have read 20 papers feel confident that they understand the topic rather than admit that they are probably victim to the Dunning-kruger effect? — No opinion. I am not sure why you feel you have to ask this question.
It is because they are not skeptics, they a deniers. — Meh. I am not going to call you names in return.
Waldo:
So Malcolm, do you have any other information about CRU funding? Or are you just going to refer to a brief, vague list at the end of a CRU webpage? — Yes, I do have other information about CRU funding. US DOE in particular has given CRU millions of euros, significantly more than the 1.033M figure for Soon that so amazes you. This shows in the Climategate emails. You should be able to inquire US DOE to verify. Or ask CRU.
Forgot to reply to one last bit from Waldo:
The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 … –this is enough qualifications for you to place your faith in? Fine. But, unless then next 8,500 signatories are radically different from the first, then you have a bunch of educated people who actually don’t have much of a background in climate science. — Maybe. Still, many of the claims made by the proponents of CAGW, eg, on how CAGW will affect the world, involve biology, physics and all other sciences the petitioners are specialists in. Plus, if you want to say that scientists who specialize in studying climate overwhelmingly support CAGW, I’d be interested in seeing numbers that show that. I saw a paper or two that tried to make this case and they had serious flaws.
So let’s just jump to the punch: this petition is bogus. It proves nothing. — It proves that there is no consensus on CAGW among scientists, by listing a large number of scientists who disagree with it. If you want to take a look at numbers among some subset of scientists, let’s do that and see whether the criteria you use for filtering makes sense.
****”biology, physics and all other sciences the petitioners are specialists in.”
So, you are saying that the petitioners have done research in these areas?
And I hate to point out the obvious, but the IPCC is the leading climate science body. There is the NOAA, the Joint Science Academies, The Royal Society, and the UN.
Then there is this from the National Academy of Scientists which actually did survey climate scientists:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract
I’ll excerpt the abstract for you:
“Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.”
Now, I will not do anyone else’s homework on this page!! Really, this stuff is not hard to find!! You’re all old enough to take responsibility for your own information!!
That the western world would be better off without fossil fuels may or not be true. It has nothing to do with the point in question.
You don’t start tearing something down before you know what you will replace it with. Let’s have a clear total energy program before we wreck the one we have. I never heard of starting construction of anything without having all the engineering drawings completed, and the materials lined up. If someone wants to plunge ahead without a plan, go for it, but not on my dime!
The idea that the engineers “will think of something” so lets charge ahead is the biggest piece of nonsense I can imagine. Particularly when one considers the consequences. We MUST have a total plan before dismantling our current energy and industrial system.
Yes, it takes time to do large things. But it must be based on a workable plan.
Everyone seems to agree that we have no energy policy. Whatever we develop in that area must be based on DOABLE things, not pie in the sky ideas. The lack of viability of wind/solar (backup and/or standby) and other schemes on a large scale has been discussed to death. Until there is a viable alternative that can be implemented on a large scale, we have to stick with what we have. We certinly need to keep looking, but let’s keep our hands off until we find it.
What I find rather amusing is that those who comlain that we don’t blindly follow the climate scientists, clearly are not willing to blindly agree with engineers on purely engineering matters. Nothing like good old hypocracy.
Waldo:
So, you are saying that the petitioners have done research in these areas? — Yes, among others. I agree that most people on the petition do not specialize in climate science, if you mean that.
Then there is this from the National Academy of Scientists which actually did survey climate scientists: […] “Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.” — Well, the 97-98% figure is for a list of researchers composed by the authors of the paper, and the paper itself says that this list was neither comprehensive nor designed to be representative of the entire climate science community. The authors think this list is still useful, but they don’t claim that the 97-98% figure extrapolates to the entire field of climate science. Also, the 97-98% figure is for scientists that think that it is “very likely” that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for “most” of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth’s average global temperature in the second half of the 20th century. This is relatively weak. The amount of warming that we saw is small. The main point of contention is whether or not we will see catastrophic amounts of warming in the future. The paper does not explore this question.
Waldo Won:
***”Your link did not say here wasn’t a lag between temperatures and CO2 like you claimed it did.”
“EPIC FAIL !” (WTF are you even saying here?)[I am saying you are wrong NETDR]
Come on, netdr. You posted that there was no explanation [No I didn’t— Netdr] for the 800 year lag time. There is. [Of course there is. What is your point ?– Netdr] You are trying to change what you initially posted because you have been caught. Or you are in denial.[You are the one in denial.– Netdr]
****”It gave the old ” amplification” song and dance which anyone with a brain can see through.”
Prove it. Go ahead. Prove “amplification” wrong.
***************
Netdr Won
Your own article ADMITTED there was an 800 year lag. [I have never said there was no reason for it, you just made that part up.] Warming causes CO2 but CO2 may or may not cause significant warming, no one knows now or then.
AL Gore sold it like CO2 caused the warming and got caught red handed. The climate scientists rushed to his defense with the amplification tap dance.
The whole amplification tap dance is:
CO2 is a GHG
CO2 was there
CO2 caused unmeasurable [and unmeasured] warming[amplification].
I was interested in how they could tell exactly how much warming would have been caused by natural processes including water feedback and remove them so they could determine how much warming was caused by CO2.
Since this is impossible then or now they just fall back on their mantra.
CO2 is a GHG
CO2 was there
CO2 caused unmeasurable [and unmeasured] warming.
Re: Why alarmists won’t debate.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/20/monckton-wins-national-press-club-debate-on-climate/
The reason the skeptic won the debate was that he had the facts to back up his position. The alarmist had only emotions.
They were talking about Australia’s CO2 tax and the alarmist likened it to insurance. You insure your car even though you hope there won’t be an accident.
The trouble with his analogy is that if implemented the tax would forestall .02 ° C in 100 years. That is the what the majority of climate scientists say. Paying hundreds of billions of dollars to forestall that amount of warming makes no sense.
Using the insurance analogy if it cost thousands to insure my right headlight it would make more sense to self insure and spend the savings to fix the car.
Mitigation makes more sense than avoidance.
In the CO2 case the cost of Australian [or American ] carbon taxes would cause jobs to go overseas and actually increase worldwide CO2.
The reason the skeptic won was because his arguments made sense and the alarmists arguments didn’t.
This is getting tedious, netdr.
****”[I have never said there was no reason for it, you just made that part up.]”
Yet you claimed that:
****“If they have explained away the 800 year time lag between warming and CO2 they must have kept it very quiet and told only a few select [gullible] people.”
They did “explain away the 800 year time lag.” They did not “keep it a secret.” You didn’t know that. The issue was never that scientists denied the CO2 lag. You came up with that once I showed you where you were wrong.
Did you or did you not post “If they have explained away the 800 year time lag between warming and CO2 they must have kept it very quiet and told only a few select [gullible] people”?
If you did (and we can both see that you did), then you are wrong.
And since you are so sure of your three note explanation of amplification, why don’t you take it to the big boys and girls? Peer-review. Are you chicken?
So Malcolm, is your contention that the 11-hundred plus scientists surveyed don’t represent the state of thought in the climate community? That would be a fairly silly thing to suggest. Also as I mentioned before—all the major scientific bodies in the world stand behind CAGW. If you want to contend otherwise, go ahead. But again, that would simply be silly.
****”The main point of contention is whether or not we will see catastrophic amounts of warming in the future. The paper does not explore this question.”
You are correct. But that was not the issue in the paper I linked. The issue is where does the climate science community stand, which is pretty obvious. Those people like vets and medical physicians, unknowns, and people who have expertise in areas other than climate science? They sign petitions like the one you linked. I also have to point out that, even if you had 9K+ “scientists” who signed an online petition, they are only a tiny fraction of the overall scientific community, and thus not really statistically significant (this is not my argument, by the way, but something you might Google yourself).
Waldo:
So Malcolm, is your contention that the 11-hundred plus scientists surveyed don’t represent the state of thought in the climate community? That would be a fairly silly thing to suggest. — Well, the researchers themselves say the list of scientists they have come up with was not designed to be representative of the entire climate science community, so if you want to say that it is, indeed, representative, that would be your claim, not the claim of the researchers. If you are going to make this claim, fine, but be prepared to back it up. I personally can’t say whether or not the scientists selected by the researchers are representative anything without seeing the list of their names.
The main point of contention is whether or not we will see catastrophic amounts of warming in the future. The paper does not explore this question. — You are correct. But that was not the issue in the paper I linked. The issue is where does the climate science community stand, which is pretty obvious. — I don’t get it. So, where does the climate science community stand with respect to whether or not we will see catastrophic amounts of warming in the future, which you agree is the main point of contention? You say it is pretty obvious where the community stands, but apparently not when it comes to the main question.
Malcolm,
No one uses the term CAGW. The survey shows those that support the tenets of the IPCC, which is what you deniers dispute right? So just using that language would be better, no??
you and Waldo can argue about who’s survey is better but NetDr’s claim still remains unsupported–the liar liar.
The comment I made about the 20 papers and Dunning Kruger effect specifically pertains to netdr, who rather than accept he is prob. victim to the Dunning-kruger effect thinks he is able to understand the lit. But it can generally apply to any of you who think you have enough understanding to critique climate science (but strangely enough, never publish any papers in it…)
Calling you guys ‘deniers’ is not name-calling. It is just the label that fits. If you take offence to it, well the problem lies with you.
All o’ ya,
The responses from a number of you guys to my last post are generally things I would agree with, namely that the science only matters, but you can’t pretend for a minute that you guys only focus on that. Netdr is a prime example of this currently. He seems to say what ever he want’s, unsupported, and than when someone asks him over and over again to give evidence, he just ignores them.
Of course the more reasonable thing for netdr to do, if he genuinely cared about the science/argument, is to admit that he made a mistake, but he won’t even do that. Wouldn’t you agree he is doing the wrong thing?? I don’t like to reduce these things to taking sides, but don’t you think he is doing the argument on your side a disservice??
sock puppet
I wrote:
****“If they have explained away the 800 year time lag between warming and CO2 they must have kept it very quiet and told only a few select [gullible] people.”
*************
What I was referring to was your claim that there was no 800 year lag. [Which your own link proved bogus.]
“Explained away” meant that they had explained that it didn’t happen.
You misunderstood as usual.
I see your point but you must admit that your response is, again, a little bit paranoid and frankly overblown.
Essentially what you have said it, ‘Unless they have a fully blown, workable plan which I can see now I will believe that the point is to destroy industry.’ But, to make an analogy, how would we have built the Space Shuttle? How would we have developed the automobile or manned flight? Would you have told the Wright Brothers that, since they do not have blueprints to a 747, they shouldn’t attempt glider flight? All these began with some sort of mandate. All these took development and incremental advances. The Wright Bros first heavier-than-air flight was in 1903; and by 1943 the Brits were flying Spitfires (actually, when I looked it up, the Spitfire was only about 30 years after the Wrights). Should we not develop a photon computer since we don’t have a plan right in front of us? Eventually we will have fully electric cars, possibly within even the next 40 years—but should we abandon them now since we only have the Prius? Should we not attempt to find a cure for cancer? You could accuse any cancer researcher of “pulling a rabbit out of a hat” under your reasoning.
Plus, as I mentioned, we’re only talking about reductions to “pre 2000” levels.
There is nothing unreasonable in asking for reductions by 2050. It will not destroy industry. The mandate might even provide green jobs. The only way you can infer that climatologists and environmentalists are trying to damage industry, or are even jumping the gun, is to come in looking for a fight.
I was thinking about your petition above, and the more I thought about it, the funnier it seemed to me.
Lets take a scenario: lets take Dr. Wilbur A. Aanes (4th on your list)—a veterinarian (there is not very much about him on the Net, so he is probably retired).
Dr. Aanes comes home from a day of spaying, neutering, pulling ticks and expressing anal glands. He sits down at his laptop and—what, exactly? Downloads the IPCC database, evaluates it with his expert knowledge of canine and feline anatomy and animal pharmaceuticals, and comes to the conclusion that, since the effect on zoology and biology (his areas of expertise) will not be affected to any degree, he is doubtful of CAGW? How exactly does Dr. Aanes evaluate climate science?
Or let’s take “Roger L. Aamodt”—who is this guy, Malcolm? It’s actually very hard to verify who this guy is. Are you going to put your faith in someone who may or may not actually exist?
Or the first guy on the list, Earl M.J. Aagaard. Professor of biology. At a 7th Day Adventists college. I was thinking of emailing him and seeing what he had to say about global warming. Shall we?
Here’s his email: eaagaard@southern.edu
Waldo, what is it you are trying to say? If you want to talk about the consensus, let’s. Otherwise, I am glad you are having your fun, and believe me, I am having mine. I just watched a video of the debate between Lord Monckton and Richard Denniss. It was hilarious. I particularly enjoyed the analogy of a doctor which Mr Denniss tried at the beginning of the debate (you know, the usual shtick with the Earth being a patient, the proponents of CAGW being doctors and skeptics being nutsies that don’t believe in science), especially after having seen this version of it:
Doctor: You have a melanoma on your arm, I need to amputate the arm.
Patient: Where is it?
Doctor: You can’t see it yet.
Patient: So how do you know I have it?
Doctor: I ran a computer model.
Patient: Has the model ever successfully identified a melanoma before?
Doctor: No, but this time we have it right. There is an overwhelming consensus that it works.
Patient: How does it work?
Doctor: There is an overwhelming consensus that it works.
Patient: But how does it work?
Doctor: There is an overwhelming consensus that it works.
Patient: I think I need a second opinion.
Doctor: There are no other opinions, there is an overwhelming consensus.
Patient: I think I’ll go and see Dr Smith.
Doctor: You can’t trust him, he’s a denier.
Patient: He published a paper on chemotherapy treatment for melanoma.
Doctor: It wasn’t peer reviewed.
Patient: It was the Medical Review.
Doctor: Yes but the reviewers were all deniers and the editor was fired.
Patient: I think I’ll go now.
Doctor: It’s much worse than we thought.
Patient: I’m going.
Doctor: First pay me 4 trillion dollars.
Patient: Bye now.
So the scenario above is an accurate analog to the current climate debate, Malcolm? How about this one:
Doctor: You have a melanoma on your arm.
Patient: This will cost a lot of money. Therefore I don’t believe it.
Doctor: We got the tests back from the lab.
Patient: But I read online–actually on a blog run by a parks service manager–that there was no such thing as melanoma.
Doctor: Look, I’m a professional. I went to med school. I studied dermatology and, even if I don’t know everything yet, I’m fairly certain that what we are looking at on your arm there is cancer.
Patient: I found a petition online. It was signed by 9,000 people who said there was no such thing as skin cancer.
Doctor: There are several generations of scientific writing on the subject of cancer. Why would you trust an online petition?
Patient: Because some of these people actually have a little bit of science in their backgrounds.
Doctor: Are they dermatologists or oncologists?
Patient: No. I’m not actually sure who they are. But the website said they had DVMs and PhDs (I don’t know in what—they only posted names) and some even had bachelors degrees.
Doctor: All the major scientific bodies in the world believe in skin cancer.
Patient: They does not convince me. I read online. Also, I watched FOX news.
Doctor: I’ll tell you what. Why don’t you find a climate scientist and ask him or her about the best way to treat your cancer. That makes about as much sense as going to an MD and asking about climate science.
Patient: One science degree is as good as another. And if you tell me I’m sick again, I’m going to call you an “alarmist” and charge you with trying to ruin the economy. Then I’ll go see Dr. Soon—he was paid by a cigarette company to study cancer and he also says there’s no such thing.
Doctor: Best of luck to you.
All the examples of human progress have nothing to do with the current debate. Inventors have always been looking for better ways to do things. Investors have always looked for promising places to put their money. The competitive market economy thrives under these conditions. Every company has R&D people looking for better ways to manufacture their products, make new products to suit the customers, etc. This has worked well and resulted in the marvelous economic system we now have. The idea that USG diktat is a better way is moronic. Leave it to the business enterprises. Bill Gates and the other leaders in the computer field did it without (perhaps despite) the USG, and very well indeed.
An exception is military hardware. The Spitfire (indeed all military hardware) was developed out of military necessity. The fallout from military development frequently leads to economically usefull civilian applications. The space program was put in place to avoid the Soviets gaining space supremacy. Although useful and interesting stuff has come out of the program, I doubt if it would have been done without the Soviet threat. Including military needs in the discussion is meaningless. Do you really think that spending 600 billion per yeay is a good idea except for believing it is militarily necessary? There certainnly is no economic reason to build guns and aircraft carriers.
Apparently, there are those who feel government diktat in setting R&D priorities is a good idea. If there is a need for a product or service, normal economic forces will steer the money and effort in that direction (cancer research, for example). If electric cars are a sound idea, business men will develop them. No need for USG intervention. If it is not a sound idea, it will fail. Substituting USG diktat for this normal process in absurd. All USG intervention accomplishes is to distort natural economic activity. Does anyone really think that the USG (or any government) is a wonderful source of wisdom? Look at housing and the deficit!
The AGW folks have MANY TIMES stated that the CO2 emmisions must be reduced by 80% to stop warming. This is the stated goal of the EU and G8 (and USG as well). The first step is to go to pre-2000 levels. That alone won’t do the trick, so there is no point in doing it unless you are prepared to go the whole way. Why are you dodging this point?
I have never seen a project move forward without paper studies that showed that, if it worked, it was doable economically and rechnically. Then you do the R&D needed to confirm that it does indeed work. I am all for progress, as is everybody else. There are well-established and proven ways to go about this. Let’s stick with those methods rather than Don Quixote.
Finally, how do you reduce CO2 emmisions by 80% without destroying our industrial econmy? Merely saying it won’t doesn’t cut it. Show how we would produce steel, aluminum, run airlines, etc. Where is your energy and material balance for the fossil fuel-free scenario? If you can’t, go back to a new red herring (which I am sure you will).
To say that anyone who disagrees with this, or raises questions is just looking for a fight is a copout. If you have no legitimate point, attack the other guy. Answer the questions rather than go off on nonsensical tangents.
The original theme of this blog was the fudge factors in the computer models. The discussion then got into who is sufficiently expert in climate science to be qualified to comment?
I don’t believe one has to be expert in climate science at all. In any calculation, we have something like:
Temp.=f(V1,V1,V3,..Vn,F1,F2,F3,…Fn,U1,U2,U3,…Un)
Where the V’s are known variables, F’s are fudge factors, and U’s are unknown variables we are not even aware of. The latter might include, cosmic radiation, solar wind, etc. I am sure knowledgable people could come up with a whole bunch.
We know that there are many things that are not well understood, such as cloud formation, different sorts of aerosols, solar wind, etc. There are also completely unpredictable events, such as volcano eruptions.
It is not clear to me how anyone, even an Einstein of climatology, could say with a straight face that in this mathematical situation, he can design a model that he is certain can predict the future. One cetainly does not have to be a climatologist to legitimately raise this question. Anyone with a background in computer modelling would be aghast at the idea of basing action on such a model.
As has been repeatedly pointed out, unless there in a viable alternative energy plan, and the Indians and Chinese are on board, doing away with fossil fuels is idiotic. Thus, even if the CAGW thing is correct, there is little we can do about it, except move north. There are those who say “plunge ahead with hope in your heart”. They make entertaining reading, but offer nothing in dealing with the problem.
Again though, Ted, at the base you are suggesting that we scrap everything if we don’t know everything. This is your central point boiled down. We need a “paper path” in front of us or we are simply going to stand still. Okay, I’ll play it again, Sam: let’s scrap cancer research, alternative energies, building earthquake proof buildings, etc.; anything and everything that doesn’t already have a clear cut paper trail in front of it, out the door. Yet everything you quoted above—private enterprise, military hardware, all R & D—is a product of invention and evolution, no? That’s why we have till 2050.
****”That alone won’t do the trick, so there is no point in doing it unless you are prepared to go the whole way. Why are you dodging this point?”
Didn’t know this was a point. Fine. We will go the whole way. First, by 2050, let’s get to “pre 2000″ levels. Then we can worry about getting 80%. That’s reasonable.
****”It is not clear to me how anyone, even an Einstein of climatology, could say with a straight face that in this mathematical situation, he can design a model that he is certain can predict the future.”
Well, Hansen’s original “Scenario B” is fairly accurate. And I don’t think modelers are trying to “predict the future”; rather, they are using the best available knowledge to see how a system might work with certain forcings. The climate scientists admit these models are not and will not be perfect—what’s the conflict?
****”I have never seen a project move forward without paper studies that showed that, if it worked, it was doable economically and rechnically.”
Okay, let’s develop these paper studies and then move. Part of the mandate. That’s why we have 40 years to do it.
****”All USG intervention accomplishes is to distort natural economic activity. Does anyone really think that the USG (or any government) is a wonderful source of wisdom? Look at housing and the deficit!”
Well, to be fair to the USG, we could also point out the government successes—the most powerful and technologically advanced military in the world, highway system, national parks, the most advanced space exploration, a number of the top universities in the world, etc.—and the housing crisis was brought on by deregulation—in that case we need more government, not less. One can always cite either failures or successes in government. Clean air act anyone?
Personally, while I find commercial air travel uncomfortable and a draining experience, I’m glad the Wright Brothers didn’t give up simply because it seemed like flight was a daunting task that a great many people thought was impracticable. Wonder what their paper path looked like?
Oh yeah, and I love Lord Monckton:
“Lord Monckton called for more respect for climate science sceptics and said the debate should be more civilised.
On the eve of his Australian tour Lord Monckton was forced to apologise after he compared the government’s climate change adviser, Ross Garnaut, to Hitler.
Lord Monckton dismissed the question mark over his credentials as a member of the House of Lords, producing his passport as evidence.
“My passport says I am, get used to it,” he said.
The clerk to the British parliament wrote to Lord Monckton last Friday, repeating requests by the previous clerk asking him to “cease claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication”.
Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/monckton-compares-climate-risk-to-asteroid/story-e6frfku0-1226097709474#ixzz1SzzI1nWQ
And more by the way: Monckton was debating an economist, not a climate scientist.
I had to share this: [The author is admittedly a better writer than I am.]
CO2 lags temperature:
“Cook uses the usual talking counter-point, trying to say that the influence goes in both directions. Qualitatively speaking, it’s right. Quantitatively speaking, the influence of CO2 on the temperature during the ice age cycles has been so much weaker than the opposite influence that it is pretty much undetectable and remains a theoretically justified by empirically unsupported speculation. It’s clear that the outgassing etc. – the influence of temperature on the concentration of gases – explains the bulk of the correlation between the temperature and the concentrations as seen in the Vostok ice core (and others). It’s a very important that the Vostok charts provide us with no evidence of the greenhouse effect and whoever is saying something else is a liar: Al Gore has been caught as one of them but there are many. More generally, it’s preposterous to pretend that the greenhouse effect is “on par” with the opposite effects because it’s at least one order of magnitude smaller and undetectable in
practice.”
Pretty much what I said only more eloquently phrased.
It’s all about the numbers which is why engineers are skeptics.
I also found out that dams emit CO2. [they release dissolved CO2 like shaking up a bottle of soda.]
The wacko’s also want to stop windmills because they kill birds. Some [not all] just want to stop civilization, the self hatred radiates from them.
Waldo:
So the scenario above is an accurate analog to the current climate debate, Malcolm? — Yes, I would say it is pretty accurate. Your scenario is much less so.
As to your picking on Lord Monckton, I am not impressed. He apologized for whatever he did. Did any of the correspondents asking him about his membership of the House of Lords, after he specifically requested the organizers of the debate to try and refrain from asking questions like these and stick to the issues of climate science, apologize to him? Did the organizers apologize? No, they didn’t. So, don’t try to say Lord Monckton does not know how to hold a civilized debate. He does. His opponents frequently don’t.
Malcom
Your analogy of the doctor was “spot on”.
Sock Puppet wote
Well, Hansen’s original “Scenario B” is fairly accurate. And I don’t think modelers are trying to “predict the future”; rather, they are using the best available knowledge to see how a system might work with certain forcings. The climate scientists admit these models are not and will not be perfect—what’s the conflict?
*********
Scenario “B” is not fairly accurate as of 2011, how can you possibly claim that with a straight face. [I assume you aren’t laughing.]
Here is Hanson’s defense dated 2007
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/hansenscenarios.png
My calendar says it is 2011 doesn’t yours?
Updating the chart.
The predicted temperature anomaly for scenario “B” is 1 ° C.
The actual temperature anomaly for 2010 [an El Nino year] was: .63
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt
so far 2011 is cooler:
Jan to June
45 41 57 54 42 50 = average = .48 cooler by .15
Place even the 2010 dot on the chart and is is clearly way below scenario “B” and even below the control scenario “C” with huge expensive carbon taxes which never happened!
He even included a simulated volcano or his predictions would have even been more laughable.
How can anyone possibly say Hansen’s model is “fairly accurate” ?
He blew it get over it.
Ted Rado:
The original theme of this blog was the fudge factors in the computer models. The discussion then got into who is sufficiently expert in climate science to be qualified to comment? — I am ready to talk about computer models. As many other people on this blog I think that the existing climate models are either unproven (too new to be verified) or unreliable (old enough to be verified, failed verification). It is just that none of our opponents here feel like talking about models seriously. Waldo’s reason is, if I am not mistaken, that he doesn’t know enough to talk about models seriously and that we don’t know enough to do that either. Since we can’t thus talk about models, I am talking about things our opponents are ready to talk about, like Willie Soon and consensus. That’s a far call from what I would like to talk about, but it looks this is the best we could do here and now.
The realclimate discussion that says part of the model is only off by x % so fix that and it will be correct in the future is laughable.
#1 The future probably will not mirror the past especially if the 1978 to 1998 rise is included in the past.
#2 Claiming that one part is all that is wrong is sloppy thinking at it’s finest. The amplification of that part must also be wrong since the model was wrong by more than the cherry picked parameter.
This is getting more and more hilarious. The scientists admit they are not sure, but we should plunge ahead anyway. Great idea. Lets screw up based on speculation. Why didn’t I think of that.
We should plunge ahead and then try to think up a plan for the 40 year scenario, while our economy spirals down (or moves to China). Great idea again. And if we can’t come up with viable alternative energy? I guess we can call waldo and he will tell us what to do.
This whole thing is getting more and more insane. I guess we should start building a bridge first and then do the stress calcs 40 years later. What an inspiring approach to engineering!
The bottom line still remains: Unless we have a plan to deal with a fossil fuel-free economy, and the Chinese and Indians are on board, we have nothing but a plan for economic self-immolation. Hoping we will come up with something in the next 40 years is idiotic. I can’t imagine presenting such an idea to the VP of engineering of any company I have ever seen. Great way to the unemployment line.
If wqldo really believes this nonsense, he is beyond repair. I have had enough. I will visit the state mental hospital if I need more of this stuff.
Now Ted, weren’t you the one who posted about “jumping on people who disagree” and weren’t you the one who would like a “more gentlemanly discourse”?
I am more interested in the denialists. I find you more interesting than model forecasting simply because the good peeps here are not really interested in the science, they are interested in finding whatever information (no matter how dubious the source) that contradicts the evaluations of the most qualified people.
There are different reasons for this, I suspect, but most probably have to do with political ideology. Some people, I suspect, just want to feel like scientists for a while.
In other words (and here I’m being blunt, Ted, not necessarily trying to be rude), you don’t want to believe in climate change, and you come here looking for validation, very carefully avoiding the real science community while bravely inserting your opinions here where you all agree with each other.
And that’s pretty interesting.
One point I neglected to mention in my previous post was the repeated reference to cancer research. This is an excellent example of the point I am trying to make.
1) A need for a better cancer drug is seen.
2) Reserch, usually by a drug company, is carried out to find one.
3) If one is found that shows promise, clinical tests are run.
4) If it is proven to be more effective than the current drug, engineers design and build a plant to manufacture it.
5) Then, and ONLY then, the old plant making the old drug is torn down.
This is invariably the sequence of events in technical progress. You don’t tear the old plant down before you have a new bird in hand. This is so obvious that I am amazed it has to be argued. I can give endless examples.
Nobody I know says that they are sure the AGW thing is bugus. Most people who are labeled “skeptics” simply make the point that the evidence (mainly from computer models) is insufficient to trigger the draconian program being pushed. The ONLY points I have made are a) we must have an viable alternate to fossil fuels in hand, and b) we must get the Chinese and Indians on board. If the AGW theory is correct, the only alternative we have is to move north unless we can achieve a) and b) above. If the AGW thing bombs (for example, if global warming continues to stall for many years), then we have wasted piles of money for nothing. I have no objection to the USG wasting piles of money (they are extremely good at it), but it is very unwise to destroy our present energy system without a viable alternative available. It is extremely reckless to plunge ahead without addressing a) and b). That has nothing to do with being a “denier”. It is only common sense and reads right on what is routinely done in industry.
Malcolm:
You are so right. I would thoroughly enjoy a discussion of the things you mention. Arguing with someone who is obviously devoid of any understanding of engineering, modelling, or (seemingly) of anything else, is frustrating. Perhaps we should ignore that and discuss the real issues.
I mentioned earlier that I spent several years modelling chemical plants and processes. The ONLY models that are really usable are those based on first principles, are rigorous, and contain NO fudge factors. In one case, $27 million was spent to expand a plant’s capacity by 18%. The work was based on an empirical model. Shortly before the expansion was completed, I finished a rigorous model which showed that the capacity would actually GO DOWN by 10% because of subtle changes in the operating conditions. This caused a furor, but when the plant came on line the capacity was indeed down by exactly 10%. I wrote a series of programs for a large chemical plant complex, and every stream flow and composition, as well as steam and power consumption, was exactly as per the measured data. This was because the models were RIGOROUS. Thus, I have lots of faith in rigorous, well validated, models, but NONE in empirical (fudge-filled) models. I am sure everyone with modelling experience has similar views.
The point is that computer models are marvelous for studying “what ifs”, process control, product mix optimization, cost reduction, etc. Bad models (as in the case I described), can lead to horrible decisions. This is what I fear re AGW.
The ability to discuss scientific snd technical issues is important. Many times I have seen good things come from the exchange of views, calcs, and experimental results among colleagues. Yes, I have seen similar situations to waldo in industry, but (thankfully) that is the exception. Most people try to be constructive and solve the problem rather than just push their views.
If one surfs the internet re alternative energy and related fields, it is astonishing how much of it is pure mindless zealotry and technical nonsense. Also, much of it is motivated by getting goverment grants (that sure brings out the worst in us). I am always glad to find out if I have a mistaken view of some issue. This requires that the info I get is sound and objective. Unfortunately, 99% of the stuff on the net is nonsensical zealoty (on both sides). Perhaps we can, in our own way, improve the situation.
Ted Rado said: ‘Perhaps we can, in our own way, improve the situation.’
Sound’s good. I’m all for it. Go publish.
Waldo:
… very carefully avoiding the real science community … — Not true. I’d be glad to talk to Gavin Schmidt, for example, it is him who wouldn’t talk. On his site, he just bans comments he doesn’t want the general public to read. I guess this way the science looks more settled. I agree Gavin is not obliged to talk to me or anyone else, but the fact remains, it is him who isn’t willing to talk, not the skeptics.
****”The ability to discuss scientific snd technical issues is important.”
****”This requires that the info I get is sound and objective.”
Two things, Ted:
1) Willie Soon! Willie Soon! Willie Soon!
2) Warren Meyers! Warren Meyers! Warren Meyers!
Both these men are potentially dangerous to sound and objective information. That is the point I have been trying to make for quite some time. This is a point that most of the people here would avoid.
How are these people not just “pushing their views”? How is someone like ADiff simply not “pushing his views”?
And what about the petition that Malcolm posted? Do you seriously consider that that is a component of a sound discussion of the science involved?
While we are very beholden to engineers, we must also admit that we are equally if not more beholden to the scientists. I understand your objection to emission reduction,—and we should probably let that discussion stand since we are simply repeating ourselves—but it is a long stretch to talk about destroying an economy simply by slowly implementing technological change. And not everybody in industry is as upset about this as you seem to be. These actually seem to supporting what I’ve said all along—progress, invention, evolution:
http://www.cbi.org.uk/ndbs/press.nsf/0363c1f07c6ca12a8025671c00381cc7/c89c2266d47c69128025729d003952ef?OpenDocument
http://www.greenaironline.com/news.php?viewStory=494
http://www.climatefruitandwine.co.za/