.jpg)
“THE improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”
This quote from Thomas Huxley is a favourite among so called ‘climate sceptics’.
Mr Huxley, a self-taught 18th Century British biologist ruthlessly attacked the established consensus in defence of Charles Darwin’s new theory of evolution by natural selection.
The word sceptic has come to be associated with those who doubt the accepted consensus on anthropogenic global warming. It is generally used by non-sceptics disparagingly to suggest this group would doubt any assertion or apparent fact.
Some sceptics who understand the use of the term in this classic sense insist they are not sceptics, but rather rationalist. The outspoken Australian geologist Bob Carter is a case in point.
Others embrace the label as meaning a person who seeks the truth. This meaning is consistent with Mr Huxley’s writings.
Of course few doubters of the modern consensus on anthropogenic global warming are always true to Thomas Huxley’s ideals, but it is surely a worthy goal – to seek the truth above all else.
***************
Notes and Links
The photograph of Mr Huxley is from Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
“Huxley had little schooling, and taught himself almost everything he knew. Remarkably, he became perhaps the finest comparative anatomist of the second half of the nineteenth century. He worked on invertebrates, clarifying relationships between groups previously little understood. Later, he worked on vertebrates, especially on the relationship between man and the apes. One important conclusion was that birds evolved from small carnivorous dinosaurs, a view widely held today. The tendency has been for this fine anatomical work to be overshadowed by his energetic and controversial activity in favour of evolution, and by his extensive public work on scientific education, both of which had significant effects on society in Britain and elsewhere… From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley
“Huxley’s most famous writing, published in 1863, is Evidence on Man’s Place in Nature. This book, published only five years after Darwin’s Origin of Species, was a comprehensive review of what was known at the time about primate and human paleontology and ethology. More than that, it was the first attempt to apply evolution explicitly to the human race. Darwin had avoided direct mention of human evolution, stating only that “light will be thrown on the origin of Man;” Huxley explicitly presented evidence for human evolution. In this, once again, he locked horns with Richard Owen, who had claimed that the human brain contained parts that were not found in apes, and that therefore humans could not be classified with the apes nor descended from them. Huxley and his colleagues showed that the brains of apes and humans were fundamentally similar in every anatomical detail… From http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/thuxley.html
Other series at this blog include:
What is Wilderness?
12 parts, scroll here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/tag/wilderness/
‘Defining the Greens’
13 parts, scroll here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/tag/philosophy/
The idea for this series, ‘Defining the Sceptics’, came from Larry. Thanks.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
A toast to Huxley and all his followers! This world would be very boring and oppressive were it not for those who ask the hard questions.
Jen – so how do we separate the pretend “faux” sceptics versus the real ones.
Faux sceptics like harlots will jump on any theory as long as it’s putting the boot into AGW. Doesn’t matter that we can 10 contradicting sceptic theories going at once. They’re all good as long as they’re anti-AGW.
Which for me sums up most of the public out-spoken Australian sceptics. Fundamentally shonky !
Can I think of a single semi-public exception – Steve Short.
And you never see a two-way table of evidence for and against lined up. It’s always against.
And never a serious discussion of risk management.
Huxley would turn in his grave at what denialist scum are doing. (about now someone should invoke Galileo)
But nevertheless thanks for the soapbox !
Luke,
Maybe you will have a better idea of how to separate the “faux” by the time we get to part 12 of this series.
So, a real sceptic is a truth seeker? Is that agreed?
Luke,
Maybe you will have a better idea of how to separate the “faux” by the time we get to part 12 of this series.
So, a real sceptic is a truth seeker? Is that agreed?
look Jennifer, to see the truth, all we need to do is check out your “other” series: “defining the greens (part 1)”
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/defining-%E2%80%98the-greens%E2%80%99-part-1/
there you jumped to the following conclusions:
And so Nature was successfully redefined. This was for political purposes, not because of new scientific insights.
and
Are the Greens and some ‘scientific disciplines’ based on Romanticism?
your “sceptical” approach, obviously by mere chance, starts by defining greens as something rather stupid, while “sceptics” are something very good.
this shows beyond any doubt the heavy bias that you and those supporting your view on your blog show. the term “sceptic” simply does NOT accurately describe what you and the other posters here are doing. the right term is denialist.
this is obvious:
a sceptic would have started with a sceptic looks at sceptics!
WHO GOES THERE, FRIEND OR FAUX?
Luke, you of the warm persuasion believe almost all foes to be faux [it’s nice that you should mention SS but you must have had a recent trip to Damascus.]
Your main problem is that you go out of your way to upset a lot of people and you judge them from their human reactions.
We sceptics are very open to evidence and about all we have seen to date are the well known exhibit A & B of RW.
As these don’t constitute evidence we must remain firm followers of Aldous Huxley.
Here are a few mileposts on my journey to becoming a subversive–I mean AGW Disasterism Skeptic. The first milepost: The shrill rhetoric on both sides of the debate reminded me of Gregory Benford’s Law of Controversy:
“Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available.”
I began to wonder if anyone knew what they were talking about.
The second milepost. An online friend posted a remarkable interview on another board. It was with Nils-Axel Mörner, a geophysicist, who specializes in the measurement of sea levels. This seemed to be very germane. A favorite scare tactic of some Alarmists is the bête noire that all of our coastal cities will drown from rising sea levels by the end of the century. Here’s a link to that interview.
http://tinyurl.com/4tphbr
I remember a couple of main points from the interview. First, Mörner’s own work shows that there has been NO discernible trend in sea levels since the early 1970s, although there have been small transient ups and downs. Prior to that, there had been a gradual trend of sea level increases.
Second, Mörner claimed that the authors of the sea level articles appearing in an IPCC report (I forget which year) had cherry-picked the data. Yes, sea levels are apparently increasing in places like Venice, Italy–because groundwater beneath the city is being pumped out. Other places–like Finland–are still slowly rebounding from the last Ice Age. Places like Venice were grossly over-represented in the sample, apparently in order to reach a foregone conclusion.
My own tentative conclusion? This is NOT a matter of small-minded academics splitting hairs and sniping at each other. Someone is lying through his teeth.
I googled on Mörner, to see if there was any dirt on him, and I didn’t see much of that. However there was one bloke who popped up again and again, harping on a claim that Mörner had misrepresented his current position in some professional organization. Apparently Mörner was saying something like: As Muck-ya-muck of such-and-such a society, blah blah blah. Perhaps Mörner should have said: As PAST Muck-ya-muck… But Mörner is Swedish, and English is not his first language. If there’s any truth to the complaint, I’d chalk it up to an innocent communication error.
Milepost Number 3. Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts–two leading climate Skeptic bloggers–independently stumbled across data fabrication by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, headed up by James “4-Years-to-Save-the-Planet” Hansen. GISS is one of the major sources of data that the IPCC uses in preparing its reports.
Anyway, someone at GISS had rolled over temperature data for a large land area that included most of Russia from September 2008 to October 2008. The fake data led to wild claims about that being “the warmest October on record”, when in fact, the world as a whole was in a cooling mode.
Innocent mistake, you say? Thanks to Hansen’s Alarmist hyperbole, GISS is well-funded. If Hansen had wanted one, he could have afforded to set up a ‘Red Team’ to root out those kinds of ‘errors’. But everyone at GISS knows what their institutional role is: Churn out Alarmist propaganda, in order to maintain their generous funding. Here’s a link to that news story.
http://tinyurl.com/68ufnt
The big picture? In every major debate, there are Neanderthals on both sides competing to see who can shout the loudest. It’s predictable that Free-Market Fundamentalists and Libertarians in general would gravitate towards the Skeptics’ camp, because the Alarmists advocate huge governmental interventions in the economy that will cost the working class dearly. Ditto for Christian Fundies, because the Climate Alarmists are stealing some of their religious Alarmist thunder. Oh, I almost forgot to mention scientifically literate Freethinkers.
What do we see on the other side of the debate? Scientific prostitutes (like GISS employees), the certifiably insane (like Hansen), the profiteers (like Gore), born-again Pol Pot environmentalists, control-freaks (present in all of the world’s governments) and a huge army of useful idiots, who believe that Dada (scientific authority figures) knows best.
Is there a reasonable middle ground here? I’ll answer that with another question: What’s the middle ground between the truth and a lie?
Sorry, that should be Thomas Huxley.
Sod,
I thought at least with a series “defining the sceptics’ I wouldn’t have to deal with all the denial that followed the thread about “defining the greens”… All these greens tell me that the label was no appropriate, that no such group existed. That the greens couldn’t be defined.
And now you are telling me there are no sceptics – that the group can’t be defined. So what is your definition of a denialist?
Sod:
“the term “sceptic” simply does NOT accurately describe what you and the other posters here are doing. the right term is denialist.”
I thought John Quiggin’s term “delusionist” was the preferred label used by the warmies to describe their opponents.
I thought at least with a series “defining the sceptics’ I wouldn’t have to deal with all the denial that followed the thread about “defining the greens”… All these greens tell me that the label was no appropriate, that no such group existed. That the greens couldn’t be defined.
well, there is obviously a group called the greens. from what i read, the complains were more about a simplistic definition, and especially with YOUR definition(s).
the reason was your bias, that showed in your very first post on the subject. the same is happening now. you jsut replaced your negative bias (greens are irrational romantics that redefined nature for a political purpose) to a positive one (AGW sceptics is just another word for “rationalists”, and has a long tradition of the best of thinkers)
And now you are telling me there are no sceptics – that the group can’t be defined. So what is your definition of a denialist?
a denialist is a person in denial of a (climate science) fact. “there are no greenhouse gases.” “CO2 does not have a greenhouse effect.” or “humans are not responsible for rising CO2 levels” are typical statements that identify you as a member of that group.
if you use the term sceptic for yourself, but show that you don t fit the obvious definition of the term (sceptic towards all sides! Luke explained this very well above), you deserve to be put into the next group, being denialist.
Sod,
Are you prepared to conceed that AGW sceptics exist?
Sod,
you have basically set up a strawman argument using the “someone who denies a fact”.
The scepticism is over AGW – that we can from burning coal and oil affect the thermal state of the Earth. We are not contesting greenhouse gases, or human emission of CO2, etc. those are indisputable. We do contest the speculation that increased CO2 will cause the earth’s surface to get warmer when in fact the evidence points to the opposite.
Comment from: sod June 14th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
“a denialist is a person in denial of a (climate science) fact. “there are no greenhouse gases.” “CO2 does not have a greenhouse effect.” or “humans are not responsible for rising CO2 levels” are typical statements that identify you as a member of that group.”
Typical straw man set up by AGW proponents to smear the skeptics in order to stifle discussion (Isn’t that how politics work?) One by one:
“there are not greenhouse gas” – please post a link of any reputable scientists that made this statement. If you can’t, I am forced to assume that you made this one up.
“CO2 does not have a greenhouse effect” – Again, please post a link of any reputable scientists that made this statement. What many reasonable minds question, though, is the exact extent of warming brought about by CO2, and particularly, the ~5% that originated from human activities.
“humans are not responsible for rising CO2 levels” – Are human solely responsible for the rise in CO2 level? And once again, only ~5% of atmospheric CO2 input is of anthropogenic origin; do you think the overall trend of CO2 increase would have been very different if all human CO2-producing activities were curbed?
Skeptical minds are also doubtful about all the validity of the climate models. So far, no model has successfully predicted the cooling trend since the beginning of this century, despite the continual increase in CO2 concentration. And we are supposed to believe it can accurately predict what will happen in 50 years time? If that’s not faith, I don’t know what is. Science without falsifiability is religion.
My favorite:
“Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing.” — Thomas Henry Huxley
Louis,
I think it would be more accurate to say that what is in dispute is:
A) what evidence can validly be used to prove/disprove AGW, and;
B) How that evidence can validly be interpreted
There is a substantial body of evidence that indicates that warming is occurring, some of which has been mentioned by Jennifer in the past.
There is also evidence that the level of CO2 is increasing (also linked to or mentioned by this blog).
In my view the area of criticality is around correlation/causation.
Jen – seeker of the truth is fine.
And let’s be clear too – nothing would make me happier than for AGW not be true. For the risk to be zero. A V8, big plasma TV and large air-conditioner are attractive items.
The nature of this problem is that at this point in history the numbers are not yet in. The trend is or is not emerging from the fog of climate variation noise. So we can only probably know just so much for now.
But unlike CoRev – I find the recent climate of the last few thousand years and indeed the last century far from benign. Climate extremes can be lethal.
So like all great management decisions – we shall have to vote yay or nay on all manner of actions or inactions imperfect knowledge.
How serious are sceptics – depends on the way the scepticism is conducted. Lack of engagement of CSIRO and BoM by the Australian sceptic community a case in point. Failure to publish another. Many in those organisations would see them as politically motivated non-scientists.
I am a member of a skeptic society because it seems my natural mode of thought is a skeptical one. The general discussion among fellow members does not challenge AGW. I don’t know why but the society I am with does not. There other societies that do but they also don’t address this elephant in the room to anywhere near the degree of it’s importance. For me there is not a thing called a skeptic but there is certainly a skeptical mode of thought.
Humans are complex creatures who can exhibit this mode of thought on particular things but at the same time be very prejudiced about others. An example of this is Senator Fielding who has spoken with skeptics in the USA and realized there is strong evidence that since 1998 the Earth has cooled. But at the same emissions have increased so how could that be? That is a skeptical mode of thought but the same person will happily accept there is a god!
There a group on this blog who would attack the Senator on the grounds that who ever he talked with was connected to big oil so therefore there is no need to even consider what he is asking. That is a religious mode of thought! Skeptics are charged with the denial of facts without examining the so called facts this is also a religious mode of thought. Facts are hard to come by but not it seems for the climate zealot.
Luke
“The nature of this problem is that at this point in history the numbers are not yet in. The trend is or is not emerging from the fog of climate variation noise. So we can only probably know just so much for now.
But unlike CoRev – I find the recent climate of the last few thousand years and indeed the last century far from benign. Climate extremes can be lethal. ”
What the hell! Of course climate is not benign never has been never will be. Are you a strong precautionary principle sought of guy? You say “The trend is or is not emerging from the fog of climate variation noise” so you are not convinced of human collective guilt for destroying the planet? So why do you think anything should be done or maybe you don’t?
Sod,
So was Thomas Huxley a denialist?
He was passionate about the right to believe in ‘Evolution by Natural Selection’. Though he was also critical of aspects of it.
I am passionate about the right to be sceptical. But I am not sceptical of everything, I am a Huxley type sceptic – turning over facts, accepting some, not others, and then moving on.
The classic use of the term does not apply to me. You may need to re-read the original post to understand what I mean here.
I am critical of aspects of the scepticism around AGW (as you will see in later posts in this series), but more critical of ‘the greens’ who appeal to science to promote their beliefs that are essentially based in the anti-scientific romantic movement of the 18th century. Here is a real irony. Don’t you think?
Grendel
What substantial body of evidence shows warming is occurring? The temperature record? The temperature record can only be interpreted one way – either it’s getting hotter, or its getting colder. Right now it’s getting colder and it seems we are heading for another Maunder Minimum. (I hope not).
The latest solar data has just been published on Anthony Watts Site, wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/13/sunspots-today-a-cheshire-cat-new-essay-from-livingston-and-penn/.
The general commentary there can be summarised as “we do not really understand the Sun” – quite true, so if you can’t figure out what the sun is doing, and it controls the Earth’s climate, then ergo, you cannot then deduce that you understand the Earth’s climate and what drives it.
The lack of sunspots is because the Sun is getting reduced power from the galaxy via the galaxy sized Birkelands. Fiction – no, not when mainstream science admits they don’t understand the operation of the Sun, but it’s how those who use the Plasma Model explain the observations using known empirically verified physical processes.
The magnetic fields of the “sunspots” diminish in magnitude and the only explanation for that is that the electric currents forming those magnetic fields are reducing in power. (Magnetic fields are produced by electric currents and by nothing else – they are inseparable). Kristian Birkeland demonstrated this experimentally over 100 years ago. Since then his ideas have been proven correct. Sunspots are probably electrical discharges at the photosphere, and the cooler insides below the photosphere could well be the atmosphere between the photosphere and the solar core. Some astronomers think the core could be made of iron, but there is insufficient data at this point in time. But a fusion generator it isn’t. In science you cannot invoke imaginative constructs to explain observations – you must use known facts, and that’s what the proponents of the plasma model do.
So let’s propose the AGW hypothesis – increased burning of coal and oil will release more CO2 into the atmosphere and cause the Earth’s surface to become warmer.
How is this to be tested? By measuring the temperature of the Earth’s surface.
This has been done and the result is no, the average temperature has not risen in sync with rising CO2.
Hypothesis is therefore falsified.
It needs no interpretation and if is dependent on interpretation, then it isn’t science but the dialectics of pseudoscience. That’s the problem – someone comes up with an “obviously correct” idea that everyone agrees on, and then proceed to cantilever a theory on this initial assumption. However the original assumption was never empirically verified, so all the deductions made from it are wrong. That is what has happened to the AGW hypothesis. Part of the problem can also be traced to the scientific irrationality that happened when mainstream science tried to counter Velikovsky’s deductions, among one which was that Venus must be a hot planet because it was recently formed. When science finally had the technology to test that hypothesis, Velikovsky was proven right. However since he could not be right, another explanation had to be foound and Sagan used the runaway CO2 greenhouse idea, which Hansen did his PHd on and that generated into the AGW hypothesis.
The thermal state of the Earth is tied up with the rest of the solar system and the galaxy sized electrical circuit – and if the sun is getting less power, then that reduction in energy cascades down the line to the rest of the system. While mainstream science obviously does not understand what the Sun is doing, that is because the Standard model is wrong – but rather than throw an “obviously wrong” theory into the waste bin, science adds ad hoc variations to keep the corpse of the Standard model alive. Solar power is not a fusion generator (There is fusion but it occurs on the photosphere) but what it actually is, remains to be solved but it must involve electricity that Birkeland and his successors have always maintained is the real power source of stars such as the sun.
Ultimately what causes the fluctuations in the galaxy electrical circuits remains an unknown.
When the Earth warms up life proliferates and CO2 is produced as a result. When the Earth cools down, life diminishes and CO2 is reduced. The AGW group have confused effects with causations, it’s as simple as that. It’s the warming that has produced more CO2, not the other way around. And as shown on a previous post Svante Arhhenius got it basically wrong as well with his misunderstanding of the greenhouse mechanism.
“But unlike CoRev – I find the recent climate of the last few thousand years and indeed the last century far from benign. Climate extremes can be lethal.”
Luke, from mankind’s POV the climate must be doing SOMETHING right. And every time it warms up a bit we find it even more benign.
Next you’ll be saying it was climate that wiped out the Easter Islanders.
Luke
“How serious are sceptics – depends on the way the scepticism is conducted. Lack of engagement of CSIRO and BoM by the Australian sceptic community a case in point. Failure to publish another. Many in those organisations would see them as politically motivated non-scientists.”
Perhaps you should read Tommy Gold’s article of 1989 describing what happens in government funded science, and therefore learn why scientific sceptics can’t get published. I’ve posted it on my blog and it’s also available on the AIG website in the latest AIG News.
And AGW is more surely politically motivated science.
PS Sod,
If it helps, but going backwards slightly to my last post in the series on the Greens, both the greens and the sceptics consider themselves morally and intellectually superior – don’t you think?
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/06/defining-the-greens-part-13/
“The lack of sunspots is because the Sun is getting reduced power from the galaxy via the galaxy sized Birkelands. Fiction – no, not when mainstream science admits they don’t understand the operation of the Sun, but it’s how those who use the Plasma Model explain the observations using known empirically verified physical processes.
Spooky Louis, what was the old Asimov story – “the currents of space”.
Jennifer
you are an expert at Framing. “Greens” vs “Sceptics”. Well, but nothing to do with the actual issue.
However, you have brought out the desired response.
“Scientific prostitutes (like GISS employees), “.
You are single handedly an excellent job of debasing a scientific issue.
Eyrie
Well, the Plasma Model is well published under the auspices of the IEEE. It might be spooky for those who only think that apples fall to the ground by magic, but those of us who have to use electronic equipment in our work understand that Isaac Newton sort of had it right but knew nothing about electricity. It is indeed sparkly spookly, but all matter is made of electrically charged particles, and electricity has naught to do with the physics of the Earth, solar system, or universe?
My personal paradigm shift to the plasma model came about from trying to work out the mechanics of kimberlite eruptions at the surface of the Earth. Kimberlite diatremes are steeply sided smooth sided holes (-80 degrees dip) into the Earth. We instinctively realised that these structures were formed by a downward tunneling vortex mechanism, but could not understand how magma could do that.
A decade or so ago, when I was unemployed, I spent some time researching ideas about the geological past (I work as a professional exploration geologist) and noted that kimberlite eruptions seemed to be correlated with mass species extinctions in a global sense. That discovery led to some “unorthodox” deductions which Megan Clarke wryly noted as impermissible.
I tend to voice inconvenient opinions, but then professionally I also seem to have few peers.
SJT,
It might be good for your self-esteem to tell us here what you do and your science qualifications are.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but from prior evidence, you are employed by the AGO as a computer programmer, and never finished a university degree. (and no I am not an elephant).
As Luke Walker, another anodyne pseudonym, both of you seem to have abundant time to post critical remarks concerning AGW scepticism.
Neither of you have really identified your real identities, so all any of us could conclude, therefore, is that your comments here are politically motivated.
Care to comment or have I cut to close to the bone?
SJT, Sod,
How would you begin a discussion about ‘sceptics’ or ‘greens’? Inparticular how would you begin a discussion to find out what they really believe and how they have developed their different, particular unique value systems?
Louis – 2 points you’ve made – of course you might come down with a bad case of exploding noema if it suddenly dawned on you that the reason you weren’t getting published is because you’re crap. “I tend to voice inconvenient opinions, but then professionally I also seem to have few peers.” YES EXACTLY !!
“so all any of us could conclude, therefore, is that your comments here are politically motivated” – or perhaps a more perceptive individual might think not political motivation but protection from religious persecution – indeed the exact opposite of not pushing any regional issues at all. Perhaps we may even be disenfranchised with current governments. Would you really know?
In fact Louis we laugh continually at your analysis of our motivations. Indeed due to your infatuation with UN type conspiracy theories and vast ego – it might be too difficult to realise that you’re simply arguing with another point of view. i.e. we think you’re peddling bullshit.
You’re the lot with sceptic political parties and secret societies. You don’t seem to have a problem with an anonymous Cohenite who we know is politically motivated. Or Hunter, Neville, Marcus etc
Your analysis of SJT is utterly hilarious – I’ve watched you talk yourself into this decision over a couple of years. He’s never said anything of the like.
Self auto suggestion – hey Louis – we’re making you think this – hahahahahahahaha
Face it Louis – you love us – if we didn’t exist you’d have to invent us. Or maybe you already have – hahahahahahaha
Jen,
objective truth isn’t a matter of opinion – nor is it’s recognition a result of a unique valuation system.
An example – take an Eskimo, Australian Aboriginal and Swede, put them at Bondi Beach and make them observe a sunrise.
Ask each, in their own language, where the sun rises, and to point to the direction on the horizon where it appears.
All three will point to the same position.
This is called an objective fact, and has nothing to do with some one’s value systems.
So what’s your point with the previous post?
Luke,
lost your straight jacket?
Jen – from an essay written by Kerry Emmanuel (of hurricane intensity fame). A thoughtful look as to why perhaps AGW ended up as a perceived left wing issue at all.
Also interesting how Barry Brook is devoting lots of space to innovative nuclear technology. Hardly traditional green?
A quirk of history that Louis would think AGW = green – inevitable ?
The following even sheets a fair bit of blame about inaction on climate change to the greens themselves.
Emmanual laments the lack of political diversity among American academics. Probably central to the evolution of this debate.
excerpt from http://e-courses.cerritos.edu/tstolze/Kerry%20Emanuel_%20Phaeton's%20Reins.pdf
“….Especially in the United States, the political debate about global
climate change became polarized along the conservative–liberal
axis some decades ago. Although we take this for granted now, it
is not entirely obvious why the chips fell the way they did. One
can easily imagine conservatives embracing the notion of climate
change in support of actions they might like to see anyway.
Conservatives have usually been strong supporters of nuclear
power, and few can be happy about our current dependence on
foreign oil. The United States is renowned for its technological
innovation and should be at an advantage in making money from
any global sea change in energy-producing technology: consider
the prospect of selling new means of powering vehicles and
electrical generation to China’s rapidly expanding economy. But
none of this has happened.
Paradoxes abound on the political left as well. A meaningful
reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions will require a shift in the
means of producing energy, as well as conservation measures. But
Kerry Emanuel: Phaeton’s Reins 08/23/2007 05:16 PM
http://bostonreview.net/BR32.1/emanuel.html Page 21 of 22
such alternatives as nuclear and wind power are viewed with deep
ambivalence by the left. Senator Kennedy, by most measures our
most liberal senator, is strongly opposed to a project to develop
wind energy near his home in Hyannis, and environmentalists
have only just begun to rethink their visceral opposition to
nuclear power. Had it not been for green opposition, the United
States today might derive most of its electricity from nuclear
power, as does France; thus the environmentalists must accept a
large measure of responsibility for today’s most critical
environmental problem.
There are other obstacles to taking a sensible approach to the
climate problem. We have preciously few representatives in
Congress with a background or interest in science, and some of
them display an active contempt for the subject. As long as we
continue to elect scientific illiterates like James Inhofe, who
believes global warming to be a hoax, we will lack the ability to
engage in intelligent debate. Scientists are most effective when
they provide sound, impartial advice, but their reputation for
impartiality is severely compromised by the shocking lack of
political diversity among American academics, who suffer from
the kind of group-think that develops in cloistered cultures. Until
this profound and well documented intellectual homogeneity
changes, scientists will be suspected of constituting a leftist think
tank.
On the bright side, the governments of many countries, including
the United States, continue to fund active programs of climate
research, and many of the critical uncertainties about climate
change are slowly being whittled down. The extremists are being
exposed and relegated to the sidelines, and when the media stop
amplifying their views, their political counterparts will have
nothing left to stand on. When this happens, we can get down to
the serious business of tackling the most complex and perhaps the
most consequential problem ever confronted by mankind.
Like it or not, we have been handed Phaeton’s reins, and we will
have to learn how to control climate if we are to avoid his fate. …”
Luke,
you haven’t changed at all – still the plagiarizing twit you always were. Incapable if summarising anything in your own words.
Oh thanks for confirming SJT’s credentials – 😉
Luke
“Like it or not, we have been handed Phaeton’s reins, and we will have to learn how to control climate if we are to avoid his fate. …”
Allegory it is but it’s pure second millennialism fear of an other Gottedammerung – Phaeton’s fate harks back to mythology and past catastrophes.
You, being ignorant of the literature, do as you do.
AGW is but another variation of the Ending Times, but this time cloaked in technical jargon.
Well, I see that I must come back to defend my comment. In the earlier thread Luke asked a general question about climate’s benignity. I was thinking in terms of the difference between climate and weather, and comparatively climate is more benign than weather. My thinking was on the borders between the two when weather becomes climate there may be some cross over. BUT, for life on this planet climate is benign. For there is life in every climate, even the extremes.
Now I see we are talking about climate extremes, and we still have not defined benign for what/whom? Anyway, right or wrong for that question those are my not very scientific views. Now let’s move on.
I am an AGW skeptic. I also do not believe in any of SOD’s criteria for defining a skeptic which I would class as an extremist. What amazes me, is that I do not know any of Sod’s type of skeptic. I do see the opposite, AGW extremism, in many folks.
Which leaves me with this question is extremism a reflection of their belief structure or a tactic? SJT and Luke have shown glimpses of middle ground beliefs recently. So which is it?
Jen
The other term introduced by the Sir Stevey Short is that of the Luke Warmer (no relative hahahahaha) – as to what extent an AGW follower might sign up to. I believe Steve said he was “a luke warmer”. Suggesting a small degree of warming was possible and likely.
Steve has good justification for his position.
However for many it’s a comfortable scientific position – treading the narrow line between denialist scum and rabid alarmist scum. But is it essentially a sell-out position of median, mode or perhaps mediocre if not based on analysis?
The other point that I have never gained any traction here on is that if (a) one believes in AGW it follows (b) that you believe in an ETS (c) support Penny Wong fully (d) totally agree with Hansen, Gore, Flannery etc.
Why is this logical?
True sceptics would be seeking the correction position. Which may not be the most comfortable place to be.
Oh darn Louis – you saw through it – yes SJT is a indeed the Chief Programmer at the AGO – golly you’re good. What instinct. Keep it up.
BTW Emmanuel’s thoughts are not mine. I quoted the source. The significance lost on an eccentric kook such as yourself.
Its very amusing how self regarding denialists are. Its one of the main things that stops them questioning things.
The irony to all of this is that the climate sceptics were, of course, those who thought that AGW could in fact be a serious problem.
Read Weart’s Discovery of Global Warming.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
The accepted position was one that CO2 could not cause any problems, it took many years of research and evidence to convince the majority of scientists the opposite was the case.
So when you refer to climate sceptics, remember, they are the people who discovered AGW.
Luke,
Your self-revelatoin is interesting:
“rabid alarmist scum”
Luke warming – your disowned relative- happens to be a pretty good description of reality.
The problem of course is that your leadership is invested in, and profiting from, AGW-as-calamity, and you and your your fellow minions cannot get off the party line.
Luke,
So, I gather you don’t lookup to “Hansen, Gore, Flannery or Wong”.
So, who is your “Thomas Huxley” – so to speak?
Interestingly, so far no ‘sceptics’ have complained about me placing the picture of Huxley and suggesting him as someone to read, study, look up to.
PS We all need heros? Even sceptics?
Skeptics question. Skeptics do not accept argument by authority. Skeptics respond to specific issues and questions. Skeptics quote fairly what the one asserting says.
True believers, as we see here and elsewhere, depend utterly on ad hom, arguments based on the authority of their side, and the disreputable nature of those with whom they disagree. True believers dismiss questions fo their position, and in extreme cases seek to silence skeptics wiht force of law.
True believers *know* the the answer to any question is that which they believe in. True believers know the issue is settled and not capable of significant improvement.
Why didn’t any greens come out with comments like this from Hunter, showing some pride in the label, when I posted the series on defining the greens?
Jen – the names on the papers I often quote. Those unsung scientists getting on with it and not in the limelight like Gore et al.
Come on Hunter – cuts both ways….
If I sin in the self regarding direction it takes the form of thinking that if I am not vocal about the flat lies being peddled regarding AGW, then my fellow humans will not see them.
This is more a reflection of the megaphone monopoly the media has then an objective observation of the reality. The media has massaged the message and cultivated the appearance that there is a populist movement to enact state controls of energy. I react to that appearance.
It isn’t true.
AGW legislation will never pass a public referendum. The few times it has been tried, restrictions on oil exploration within the state, mandated across the board co2 cuts for public utilities, percentage quotas of energy produced from windmills, it has lost by wide margines in all counties of the state of California, even the hyper liberal, bay area counties.
The people are not that stupid.
So the government toadies and pickpockets do stealth runs around the public to pass the legislation they want. They are the only ones who want it. They are the only ones who believe in it – if they truly do.
No candidate runs with AGW as a platform. They would never get elected if they did.
I live in a state where the legislature draws the district lines via computer program so that liberals never really have an opponent and even with this intense party line drawn on the map for election purposes candidates still won’t put AGW in as a plank – which gives you an idea of how unpopular the whole concept is.
Henry Waxman who is the Washington representative for Hollywood is the elected over and over again unopposed by bubbleheaded bleach blondes, self important starlets, and harlots, is the nominal author of the cap and trade bill for the entire country. There is a reason for this. Tells you how popular the idea is with the country.
It’s pitchfork and torches, crowds storming the ramparts if it passes, unpopular.
Somewhere deep inside I know this, and yet I still find myself railing against the absurd amounts of daily propaganda dumped on us by the mainsteam media.
That and to a lessor extent I enjoy beating the crap out of selfserving blowhards like Luke.
Hunter your comments really are pretentious – we have have reams of text in blog archives here insisting Hansen be sacked. Indeed a climate scientist, Jim Salinge, was sacked in NZ under the new regime.
Reams of abuse from Mott, Sinkers, “xxx day still the next election” dude, Wessy Woo and many others.
Hence AGW types have evolved the “shoot first – ask questions later” style. Learned behaviour from the faux sceptics.
And most of the faux sceptics accept “authority” every day. Soon as Wattsup prints it – it’s everywhere as the accepted new truth.
Pull the other leg
“Why didn’t any greens come out with comments like this from Hunter, showing some pride in the label, when I posted the series on defining the greens?”
Once again, an excellent example of framing. Who are you to define me as a Green, and yourself as a Skeptic, and who gave you the right to define the debate in those terms?
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, Jennifer, but you are no sceptic. Anyone who would accept G&T as correct is a denier, not a sceptic.
My error – I apologise profusely – I forgot to add ex-hippie sepos like Mayeau to my creep list. Peace out indeed man.
Jen posted G&T, she didn’t endorese G&T.
Jen even posts that Anne from Sweden who doesn’t like her.
I want to know who Luke and SJT have as heros? What do they read for inspiration?
Hansen as victim?
What a hoot.
The AGW community started out seeking to silence skeptics.
It is part of what social movements high jacking science do.
You know, the whole ‘the science is settled’ mantra.
‘faux skeptics’, ‘denier scum’, and all of nice things true believers call others when they know in their heart they are defending the wrong side.
SJT,
Speaking of framing. Have you gotten over my use of an exclamation point yet?
I don’t recall our hostess calling you a ‘Green’, but I could have missed it.
Thanks Dennis. From memory, I posted G&T, in part, because the paper was in a peer-reviewed journal … from memory, it was published in the sort of journal Luke and SJT suggest sceptics publish in. I can’t remember much else?
And, BTW, are G&T sceptics?
My political position and justification is described here;
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/introducting-the-climate-sceptics-a-new-political-party/
Personally, I have no political ambition at all; unfortunately, AGW is not a scientific dispute; it is political and ideological and framed by a, largely, compliant msm; Cassidy’s interview with Fielding this morning revealed that; Cassidy couched his questions in the 3 paradigms which have sustained AGW; firstly, consensus and the appeal to authority consisting of the mythical 2500 scientists responsible for the IPCC reports and the science is settled mantra; secondly, the ad hom; the Heartland conference which had brainwashed Fielding was financed by big oil; a truly stupid idea because if the science is right who cares who supplies the money; and 3rdly the idea of the precautionary principle; even if the science isn’t right, can we take the risk?
This 3rd justification for AGW preventitive measures is the most insidious and difficult to rebut because the human condition is inherently fragile; we all carry our own mortality and in our psyche we know the human species treads a type-rope; at this level AGW is both a denial of this because it posits that humans can drastically effect nature, even threaten the planet, and yet similtaneously it offers the comforting illusion that if we don’t use our nature threatening prowess and live in a naturally defining way then nature will somehow preserve us. The irony is that living within natural constraints is unnatural; every species strives to exceed its natural limitations; however, humans are the only species to so far partially exceed natural dictates; through medical and technological intervention there are large numbers of people alive today who wouldn’t be if left to nature. In this respect those who argue in favour of AGW and the measures to solve it are denialists of the human condition.
Comment from: Louis Hissink June 14th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Wow, what a great post! Hope Luke can understand it.
Comment from: James Mayeau June 14th, 2009 at 11:36 pm:
“So the government toadies and pickpockets do stealth runs around the public to pass the legislation they want. They are the only ones who want it. They are the only ones who believe in it – if they truly do.”
Yes, this fascinates me. Given all the information that is available to everyone and the fact that these toadies all have a very capable staff, NONE of these toadies can logically say “AGW is real and there is no debate.” But they DO say this. Ergo, they are outright LIARS. I’ve noticed that lying is becoming very PC in leftist circles (think Clinton, Gore, and lie-a-day Obama, e.g.).
Luke: why don’t you take just one little aspect of AGW, like sealevel rise, and sumarize the LITERATURE? Because you don’t know how to deal in facts?
Cohenite,
I think what you write is complete rubbish but next time I’m in Australia I’ll buy you a coffee down at the Swell cafe at Merewether beach. Then I’ll get the cafe patrons to referee.
James Mayeau,
What state was Ronald Reagan governor of?
Comment from: Luke June 14th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
Wasn’t that fun, Luke?
My first post here, and some random lady came in after to thank me for a cogent understandable analysis.
Just out of the blue like that.
Then she turned around and contrasted my comment with your nasty condescending tone. How touching that you remember.
I’ve gotten a bit more squiggidy around the edges since then, while you have become a bit more nasty, but people don’t come in out of the blue to comment on it. No, that lady had been watching you for a while, waiting for the opportunity to give you the publics critique.
And when it comes down to it, she’s the one who left a mark.
“Peace out” is Luke rubbing the sore spot that lady left on his soul.
Cohenite June 15, 12:16 am- Well-written comment!
Comment from: Jeremy C June 15th, 2009 at 1:04 am
That would be mine. California. Why do you ask?
For those interested in more on Thomas Huxley’s views on science, check out “Consensus Climate Science: What Would Thomas Huxley Say?” at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/16/consensus-climate-science-what-would-thomas-huxley-say, at Watts Up With That, or http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=91.
“humans are not responsible for rising CO2 levels” – Are human solely responsible for the rise in CO2 level? And once again, only ~5% of atmospheric CO2 input is of anthropogenic origin; do you think the overall trend of CO2 increase would have been very different if all human CO2-producing activities were curbed?
funny. after making the claim that my points are strawmen, you chose to agree with one of them.
sorry, but your thoughts about CO2 make you a denialist.
Sod,
So was Thomas Huxley a denialist?
no. the climate science that coins the term came after him.
apart from that, i have basically no knowledge about him. and in general, i find your “definitions” lack the substance needed for a definition.
I am passionate about the right to be sceptical. But I am not sceptical of everything, I am a Huxley type sceptic – turning over facts, accepting some, not others, and then moving on.
i don t think that you need to be sceptical of everything all the time, to be a sceptical person. but you shouldn t just be sceptical of stuff that doesn t fit into your political world.
I am critical of aspects of the scepticism around AGW (as you will see in later posts in this series), but more critical of ‘the greens’ who appeal to science to promote their beliefs that are essentially based in the anti-scientific romantic movement of the 18th century. Here is a real irony. Don’t you think?
no, there is ZERO irony in that. i could have written those pieces for you, your oppinion didn t surprise me at all with “sceptic” insight.
PS Sod,
If it helps, but going backwards slightly to my last post in the series on the Greens, both the greens and the sceptics consider themselves morally and intellectually superior – don’t you think?
again a pretty loose use of a term to characterise groups. i guess we would find the majority of “political” groups have some feelings of intellectual superiority.
a critical look would most likely show the following:
those greens with he strongest feeling of “superiority” are those who bring big personal sacrifices.
very few sceptics have done anything that shows any form of “intellectual superiority”. perhaps the web projects of McIntyre or Watts could sort of qualify. (the surface stations project obviously was an achievement, though i disagree strongly with the conclusions taken from it and the presentation by Anthony)
SJT, Sod,
How would you begin a discussion about ’sceptics’ or ‘greens’? Inparticular how would you begin a discussion to find out what they really believe and how they have developed their different, particular unique value systems?
how i would do it, doesn t really matter. my problem with your approach is, that it is not the way a “sceptic” would do it.
but as you asked my opinion:
i think enough was written about the green movement. i would simply take a serious look at the literature. in general, i would avoid to broad a brush and i would ask GREENS, with little to no “outsider guesses” (your approach).
votematch europe would be a good start to get some handle on their opinions..
http://www.votematch.eu/votematches/VoteMatch2009/English/index.html
as i already wrote above, i don t think that there is a significant “sceptic” group (on the topic of climate science) the majority of people posting here (or on other “sceptic” sites, like Wattsup) are in fact denialists. (ie, people in denial of a fact)
those with a reasonable (but “sceptic”) view on climate science, to fully qualify for the term, need to show a sceptic opinion on their own position and side.
what we are left with, is a tiny group, not worth a definition. (but surely good guys. if you know some, give them my best wishes..)
let me try another approach:
a majority of posters here would consider themselves to be sceptics. let us look at the agw-is-just-a-theory topic:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/06/agw-is-just-a-theory/?cp=all#comments
Hissink thinks that electricity is the cause of warming.
Siddons declines that CO2 is a greenhouse gas
smokey belives that warming needs no physical explanation, but just happens after “little ice ages”…
cohenite and Hammer believe, that you can have a real proof of AGW. (funny: cohenite gives the most reasonable impression..)
in short, from looking at their latest remarks, the empirical definition of “sceptic” will be very similar to the one of “clueless”.
ps: cohenite was the only one, who i found to being sceptic of his own side. (he disagreed with a remark about evolution)
I think Jen has done us a favour by redefining ‘sceptics’ as those who seek the truth. This may coincide with current orthodoxy or it may not. Scepticism for its own sake tends to lose oneself in diminishing circles; Darwin rejected such excessive scepticism, Hume the ultra-sceptic found himself lost in dead ends, even Huxley (sorry, Jen!) was apt to be inconsistent in the application of his scepticism as his biographer Irvine notes. But some orthodoxies are wrong and scepticism then becomes appropriate.
Most AGW sceptics would accept some AGW but would question alarmist versions like Gore’s movie. They would question the computer models because a lot of their warming seems to be a controversial secondary amplification of modest CO2 warming by water vapour, which can also cool the earth by forming clouds. They would accept that the IPCC gets input from numerous scientists, but would note that the crucial IPCC summaries for policy makers are the work of a much smaller group of envirocrats. They would accept that global temperature has risen in the last century but are sceptical about how much is AGW and how much is natural variation like solar cycles, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and so on. They might accept precautionary emission cuts but be sceptical about whether ETS is the best way to do this – what about Nick Xenophon’s Canadian-based scheme which seems to be working much better in Canada than the EU one? (Jen, is there any chance your blog could cover Nick’s proposal? He is a highly respected figure here in SA.) None of this ‘scepticism’ is ‘denialist’, and that loaded term with its Holocaust connotations is highly objectionable. Such labels do not help us get at the truth and we have every right to be sceptical of them.
david elder,
Well said.
But do note that the real vitriol from the AGW community goes towards very well credentialed scientists who raise just those points.
I would clarify the concept, however, of ‘accept some AGW’.
The problem is that if any credulity is granted the apocalypse hype machine, then they can claim authority in the name of their mis-application of the precautionary principle.
CO2, land use, vegetation, are all primary forcings.
However, AGW turns CO2 into a magical forcing that is amplified to our doom. AGW ignores the lessons of history in the name of fear today. AGW makes the leap from understanding how CO2 behaves physically to how it behaves in the atmosphere/climate system. So you end up with, as we are seeing now, AGW causing the wind to blow harder and the wind to blow more gently. More storms and fewer storms. Hot summers and cool summers, more ice and less, etc. etc. etc.
Truth is the point. The AGW community acts like every other self-declared community wiht special enlightenment on the apocalypse. That is an excellent indicator that AGW is far from the ‘truth’.
“There a group on this blog who would attack the Senator on the grounds that who ever he talked with was connected to big oil so therefore there is no need to even consider what he is asking. That is a religious mode of thought!”
That is a very confused or naive mode of thought. Why would you not be skeptical of the conclusion that AGW either doesn’t exist or is benign reached by a group that has a powerful vested interest? These are precisely the conditions under which skepticism is mandatory. Senator Fielding’s sources for his arguments should be treated with a great deal of suspicion Are you a sceptic or a moron?
“This is called an objective fact”
A fairly useless fact on its own I would have thouoght. And wasn’t there a view that prevailed for a very long time that the Sun was in fact rising over the earth rather than the other way round? The point is that you can observe the phenonenom but you haven’t asked any of the observers what is happening. Facts are one thing, but they are nothing without interpretation. That’s where you need to do some work loui. Lesson over, could do better.
“Thanks Dennis. From memory, I posted G&T, in part, because the paper was in a peer-reviewed journal … from memory, it was published in the sort of journal Luke and SJT suggest sceptics publish in. I can’t remember much else?
And, BTW, are G&T sceptics?”
Then what sort of a sceptic are you, Jennifer? You put up a comment about Mike Hammer’s paper that clearly stated his ideas on refuting AGW confirmed those of G&T. But next you say you have no idea what G&T actually claim at all.
PatB raises the old chestnut of tainted sources; big oil and creationism seem to be the 2 prevailing attributes disqualifying opinions about AGW from the sceptic camp.
Of course there is no mention of the attributes which are present amongst the spruikers for AGW; that is power; the UN aims to be the banker for any world carbon trading system; this would make it financially independent, the ultimate aim of any bureaucracy; the leading lights in the UN and its affiliates are also tainted by this association.
Secondly, money; Gore’s wealth has increased many thousand fold and there are spivs falling over themselves to get a position on the carbon trading gravy train; this includes governments which can see a bottomless well from AGW measures; money also taints the so-called integrity of pro-AGW scientists because being in accord with the AGW ‘science’ provides career paths and financial reward.
Thirdly, there is the taint of ideology; large sections of the pro-AGW mob are declared ideologues of one sort or another; for instance Holdren and his posse are believers in Malthus and his modern reincarnation Erhlich; these people simply believe that nature imposes limits on human numbers and activity; they are incapable of seeing that humans continually overcome these natural limitations; noone has had their ‘theories’ disproved more than Erhlich.
Then there are the gaia worshippers; these people genuinely believe that pristine nature is a desirable, indeed the only end and oppose humanity in both numbers [and in some extreme cases the existence of humanity at all] and in terms of any encroachment of natural process. Bizarre manifestations of this include Glenn Albrecht and his definition of sustainable living as what is necessary to minimise impact on nature to a degree less than what was ‘achieved’ by 100,000 aborigines 40,000 years ago.
Then there are the watermelons; green on the outside and stuck in 1984 in the inside; Clive Hamilton is an exemplar of this hypocrisy but there are many others who despise egalitarianism such as Manne who advocate silent compliance by the masses as their betters go about ‘saving’.
With sceptics there is a stark difference from these categories of AGW supporters; most sceptics I talk to are conservative in the sense they want to preserve what is good and best; the status quo is a core set of values and conditions which, while not precluding improvement [ie there are real pollution issues which must be addressed], deserve to be preserved because they have done the job. The AGW way, on the other hand, has no track record [except a bad one; see Spain, California, England etc] and is predicated on the complete abandonment of the status quo. At the end of the day, with no AGW science standing any reasonable test all we are left with to justify AGW are the above tainted motives.
David Elder,
Thanks, And I agree with much of what you have written.
Luke,
I was just sent the picture of the hero’s for the greens: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/06/defining-the-greens-part-14/
The ‘tainted’ dodge is one of the greatest.
Fortunes and careers are made promoting AGW.
NGO’s run lying fund raising commercials pretending that polar bears are at risk right now.
Gore & pals are uber rich from exploiting AGW.
Governments pour megabucks into ginning up claims for AGW, conferences in nice vacation spots to ‘discuss’ AGW, and plan to use AGW to raise trillions. So of course there is no pressure on anyone to keep AGW well promoted. Not at all. As if.
Anything the members of the AGW community is saying is okily dokily.
But if a scientist at some in his career pumped his own gas, then he is corrupt and must be disregarded. And God forbid a politician talk to someone not approved by the AGW machine.
Please continue, Patrick B. Every time an AGW true believer uses this chestnut, it just shows more people how shaky their stand really is.
“Of course there is no mention of the attributes which are present amongst the spruikers for AGW; that is power; the UN aims to be the banker for any world carbon trading system; this would make it financially independent, the ultimate aim of any bureaucracy; the leading lights in the UN and its affiliates are also tainted by this association.”
More hare brained conspiracy theories. So that’s what you actually think this is all about, and why you will believe any nutcase theory just as long as it’s not AGW.
Do you have any actual evidence for this ridiculous idea? Or did the black helicopters tell you?
It is fascinating that Jennifer devotes a series of threads to “defining sceptics” (BTW, the correct spelling, for you British heathens, is skeptics. Sceptics deals with waste treatment systems, bacteria and poop). 🙂 So… I’m a skeptic about the word sceptic, LOL.
Why do some folks think it is somehow “weird” or “wrong” that there are “skeptics,” relative to the AGW crapola? There are “skeptics” about everything of importance. Religion, economic systems, nuclear energy, etc.). And many things not of importance (movie star romances, e.g.).
I cannot imagine any significant issue in life that is not without questions and which does not have people with opposing views. But I guess the word “skeptic” can only be defined in terms of some concept of a majority view. But that is what is REALLY STUPID in the case of AGW. That majority view DOES NOT EXIST, except in the minds of those morons who don’t have the basic common sense and intellectual aptitude (hey, Luke!) to venture beyond the absolutely STUPID UNSCIENTIFIC statements by a few LYING politicians who have stated that “the science is settled.” If you will travel briefly into the real world, you will immediately notice that the MAJORITY of scientists thinks AGW is bullshit (current count of the Oregon Petition is more than 31,000 vs. some unknown, unreported number in the AGW camp–probably all of whom are dependant upon AGW research for their very survival). Only a very vocal minority of “scientists” keep the fraud alive. THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES!
The skeptics, denialists, crazys, pseudoscientists, religious zealots, non-mainstream morons, are, indeed, the insane folks that believe that AGW is a crisis worthy of destroying economic systems.
SJT et al
I don’t endorse G&T or Hammer – but they are both worth reading and they both come to similar conclusions.
G&T I understand was peer-reviewed, but Hammer’s contribution just a blog post.
I am open minded.
As regards my personal view on carbon dioxide as a GHG – I am increasingly inclined to the view of Ferenc Miskolscki which in my view accords with the work of Roy Spencer.
But here again I understand Miskloscki and Spencer say they don’t agree and that there work is not complementary.
In particular, I see that there appears to be some sort of feedback system at work. This is why we don’t have a climate crisis and continual warming.
Also, I’m not much into the sun as a source of 20th century warming – but will post on this.
Yeah, yeah, I left out some words. I should have said that “the majority view OF SCIENTISTS that AGW is a problem DOES NOT EXIST…”
Luke, SJT, and ill-informed ilk are confusing “scientific majority” with “political majority.”
Everything in ones life should be approached with a strong sceptical eye, particularly if it’s going to cost you a lot more money and doesn’t seem to stand up to historical evidence.
In fact evidence should be the strongest weapon in a sceptics armourey, particularly in the case of CC.
Most of the evidence cited to prove AGW is ridiculous, like the demise of the Murray, GBR and Kakadu which is constantly parroted by krudd , wong and garrett.
But if the same group was to put a good case for Gen 3 or 4 nuclear power stns or to spend a billion dollars to fast track research into better battery technology, Im sure I would be much more inclined to agree.
Note that both of these technologies would reduce co2 emissions and eventually reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
OTOH I can’t see a bit of use for wind farms or solar technology because they are not constant and require heavy taxpayer subsidies.
Comment from: Jennifer Marohasy June 15th, 2009 at 12:54 pm:
“In particular, I see that there appears to be some sort of feedback system at work. This is why we don’t have a climate crisis and continual warming.”
Indeed! How can anyone conceive of a Planet Earth that has supported life for eons upon eons, without there being a “check-and-balance system,” IOW, the feedbacks that are necessary to prevent sudden run-away changes. Occams razor and plain common sense insist that no small change in a minor gas, such as OCO, can make a big difference in temperature or climate.
Perhaps a useful way to approach the question of definition of skeptic and
greens is a hierarchy of necessary conditions (or filters; to get to each filter it’s necessary tp pass the earlier ones). Maybe:
1. Engaged. To be a skeptic or a green this needs to be true. Among the
unengaged there are many categories who might rject AGW, such as I
Prefer Football, Too Hard, Too Busy, Not My Field, My Job Not
Threatened … and so on
2. Accept Scientific Method as relevant to AGW. This would exclude
various categories of romantic primitivists who embrace AGW because
of mankind’s sinfulness or because they dislike civilisation as
unnatural, and many others who would consider themselves green. It
would also exclude parts of the industrial and commercial world who
would oppose AGW solely because it would reduce profits; also those who
consider their own consumption as more important than any damage that
might be a consequence.
3. Accept that a theory is rejected by a valid falsifying instance. This
would exclude those who believe that a theory is accepted if there is a
consensus among any particular group (such as the IPCC) that it is valid.
4. Accept that what consitutes a theory, what constitutes a valid falsifying
instance, and whether the falsifying instance actually contradicts the
theory are all matters for open debate. That is, excludes those who argue
that “the science is settled”
5. Accept that scientific knowledge is provisional and always open to
revision. Excludes any that believe they have the True explanation for
Climate Change; eg totally controlled by the sun. (But OK to search for the Truth, provided you know it can’t be found)
I suggest that anyone still in the pack after Condition 5 is a Skeptic.
These conditions would reject many people who would consider
themselves Greens or Skeptics. But that’s inevitable, unless the
definitions are: A Green is anyone who says they are; a Skeptic is
anyone who says they are.
Another condition I would like to put in somewhere is something about the precautionary principle (aka cost/benefit analysis) and something about addressing economic/financial issues.
“Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise”. This was stated in a well known book by someone who is well remembered as a master of propaganda.
I state it because the reply to any discussion by those pro AGW here is presented in the terms of political propaganda. They do not encourage discussion they wish to suppress it. This is because they believe is no other path other than what they have fixed on. They play to some imaginary audience and try to win plaudits for political point scoring from each other. No attempt to convince us of the validity of their argument. Insult and ad hominem attack are the order of the day. This does not work unless you are playing to the converted.
To say that the satellite temperature record is incorrect because big oil may or may not have informed Fielding of it is nonsense. If Exxon says emissions are increasing does that mean it is not? Be skeptical of the big oil mantra maybe it has a hidden agenda? It is all about manipulation wake up.
Comment from Jen:
“I’m not much into the sun as a source of 20th century warming”
I agree with Jen on this. The sun is a good candidate as driver of the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age and the Modern Warm Period starting about 1850. It may be responsible for warming up to 1940 which preceded any marked emissions rise – this accounted for about half of the 0.7 deg C rise last century. But the later 1976-1998 warming does not seem to be well explained by solar effects. Steve Fielding is vulnerable to this criticism.
But he may ultimately be right in seeking natural explanations for this rise. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation is a candidate cause of or contributor to this late 20th century rise. This 60 year cycle can encourage El Nino warming and then La Nina cooling. That would fit well with several things including the 1976-1998 warming and its subsequent cessation and even cooling from 2003. Hopefully someone briefs Steve on the PDO angle, quickly, before he gets glibly dismissed by the usual suspects. (Jen, do you know any way to get a quick briefing on this to Fielding?)
jae
“So… I’m a skeptic about the word sceptic”
Sorry to be a pedant but the word “sceptic” in the meaning you refer to, is spelled “SEPTIC”
as in septic tank.
Cheers
davide,
I’d go further and say that it is a tactical error to consider any alternative explanation at this point. We have a theory which says that increasing CO2 is causing catastrophic AGW. As Fielding says, then why does the temperature fall while CO2 rises? To me that falsifies cAGW regardless of whether there is a plausible alternative. But to mention, say, PDO will bring out all the reasons why PDO is not a complete explanation and therefore it must be CO2. Remember, this is not a rational debate.
davidc “We have a theory which says that increasing CO2 is causing catastrophic AGW. As Fielding says, then why does the temperature fall while CO2 rises?”
It falsifies AGW if it were a scientific theory
It is irrelevant if AGW is a belief or dogma.
As AGW was never a scientific theory in the first place, because science is about explaining observations, not about creating new theories. Creating new scientific theories is really nothing more than technically sophisticated witch-doctory – Scientific theories that have falsified are thrown in to the dustbin of history or become engineering issues. The rest are simply wild speculation, which AGW most assuredly is.
And so far there has been nothing posted here that stops me being sceptical/skeptical about the denialists.
davidc “We have a theory which says that increasing CO2 is causing catastrophic AGW. As Fielding says, then why does the temperature fall while CO2 rises?”
It falsifies AGW if it were a scientific theory
It is irrelevant if AGW is a belief or dogma.
a rather well know climate theory is, that summers are warmer than winters.
but last night, temperatures were FALLING, even though we are approaching summer over here.
so you think that whole “winter vs summer” theory is garbage?!?
As AGW was never a scientific theory in the first place, because science is about explaining observations, not about creating new theories. Creating new scientific theories is really nothing more than technically sophisticated witch-doctory – Scientific theories that have falsified are thrown in to the dustbin of history or become engineering issues. The rest are simply wild speculation, which AGW most assuredly is.
the observation that needs an explanation is the the MASSIVE warming over the 20th century, that does continue till today. (if you are looking at climatic time frames)
you know absolutely nothing about scientific theories. the vast majority of them was NOT thrown on “dustbins” but instead was expanded and modified.
Louis, please tell us, do you consider yourself a sceptic?
sod: “a rather well know climate theory is, that summers are warmer than winters.
but last night, temperatures were FALLING, even though we are approaching summer over here.
so you think that whole “winter vs summer” theory is garbage?!?”
The theory you’re referring to relates to the sun and it’s role in determining day/night and summer/winter.It doesn’t predict a monotonic increase in temperatures whereas CO2 induced GW does.
My my oh my – what a tawdry collection of impuned motives what are essentially denialist. Just because you don’t “like” AGW or “prefer” someone else’s theory doesn’t make you a sceptic – it just makes you a by-stander at best – or a denialist at worst if you’re campaigning on that basis.
True blue truth-seeking sceptics need some active science engagement which counts out at least 70% of the boofhead denialist cheer squad here – with their stinking bag of fabricated motivations. Sickening really.
As for the PDO – gee it hasn’t been around just lately. Demonstrate a temperature correlation with the 400 record.
“It doesn’t predict a monotonic increase in temperatures whereas CO2 induced GW does.”
WRONG ! Play reverberating gong-like WRONG sound now.
Ensemble means might but individual instantiations don’t.
“PatB raises the old chestnut of tainted sources; big oil and creationism seem to be the 2 prevailing attributes disqualifying opinions about AGW from the sceptic camp.”
This is bullshit, stick to the topic. If you don’t have a healthy suspicion that the information imparted to Senator Fielding will be influenced by the those who have a powerful vested interest in the status quo then you are naive, gullible, credulous and a fathead.
“Fortunes and careers are made promoting AGW.”
I didn’t say that there were or weren’t individuals or groups who may seek to profit from exaggerating the threat posed by global warming. I was just referring only to the stupidity of the comment quoted.
Sod,
I am a professional scientist, one who uses the scientific method in his daily work. A sceptic? Some one who doubts everything? No, in that sense I am not but it would interesting to find out who labelled opponents to the AGW belief sceptics in the first instance.
I’ve thought over Jennifer’s title for this thread and I am frankly ambivalent over it.
Incidentally your reply to Davidc and me is an incoherent diatribe – hard to work out to whom one or other comment is directed to -clearly you might be suffering from SJT syndrome, the malady of writing soliloquies here.
Fact is that by trying to assassinate the characters here by verbal invective is full admission that the AGW belief is false. If it were true this debate would not be occurring.
Sod,
now that I re-read your post, you need to qualify your use of hyperbole to describe the measured temperature rise as massive during the 20th century.
Point is it occurred in the northern hemisphere, not southern, and most of it is attributable to the UHI effect.
That there is a long term modulation in the Earth’s base temperature is not in dispute – it’s a little like falling into a freezing river in Siberia, being rescued and then allowing the metabolism to warm the body again.
It’s the ice ages or cooling periods we should fear, not the warming ones. Science still does not understand the physics of the Sun, or the cause of ice ages, many of which were associated with mass species extinctions, followed by the appearance of new species, save for the Pleistocene which did not herald the appearance of new species or life forms. (Perhaps I err here – the appearance of Homo Greenus Stupidii could be classed as one new variant).
And don’t tell me I don’t known anything about scientific theories – exploration geologists are the pre-eminent scientific professionals expert in the scientific method. It’s our living. You will find that the loudest objections to AGW come from the professional geologists.
So sod off, sod.
PB; this is a junk argument; that the scientists who were at the Heartland conference are somehow compromised by the sponsorship by big oil; big oil also sponsors pro-AGW ‘think-tanks’;
http://www.aussmc.org/about_sponsors.php
The science will either stand or fall by itself; the Idso’s at CO2 science are a classic case; everything they produce is dismissed because of their alleged sponsors, so to Pat Michaels according to the fly-tormentors at Deltoid; oh, sorry, nothing personal.
This whole argument comes back to the notion that if you don’t accept AGW you are either a big-oil/tobacco/shrill or a fat-head; how can that change the fact that CO2 movements have no correlation or possible causality with temperature movement and that Fielding was smart enough to notice this but noone else can? If you guys are going to fasten your egos to a doomsday cult can you at least produce a deus ex machina that at least makes sense.
Luke – “Ensemble means might but individual instantiations don’t.”
This is simply statistical gobbledygook churned in lexical ignorance.
A collection of 12 GCM’s might be described as an “ensemble” (posh word for a sample) and how such an “ensemble” can produce and average of some abstraction, is another mystery, since “climate” isn’t a physical object but an human abstraction describing the physical state of, err, hmmmm, the whole surface of the Earth, or part of it, and how do you average a desert with a rainforest in a numerically useful way?
Always happens when the shonkies get the floor. Whether a mining boom or a theory boom, the shonkies always seem to get first billing.
Alas my little Dipteran numb nuts – was only one widdle GCM. Yourself as a single instantiation of the possible expression of the fly-boy genome would make it obvious the negative departures from the mean can occur quite easily.
And it’s obvious to anyone Louise that an average between a rainforest and a desert would be a Scottish heath.
Point proven.
Nice one Louis , and try to ignore Luke , he’s obviously NFQ, not the full quid.
As an alarmist ie. one who has substituted his brain with a set of ringing bells, Luke has been suckered into believing in an old discredited Arrhenius CO2 theory fed to him by a thick politician ( D in science) Algore.
“A collection of 12 GCM’s might be described as an “ensemble” (posh word for a sample) and how such an “ensemble” can produce and average of some abstraction, is another mystery, since “climate” isn’t a physical object but an human abstraction describing the physical state of, err, hmmmm, the whole surface of the Earth, or part of it, and how do you average a desert with a rainforest in a numerically useful way?”
You do what the GCMs do, and divide the globe up into cells that have different land/ocean/vegetation, terrain. It’s obvious, isn’t it, which is I guess why they did it.
Davidc I agree with your 5 points and that they could serve as a measure. I come in contact with people who call themselves skeptics but often don’t see that this applies to everything. I don’t see a skeptic as being a collective noun (like saying someone is a catholic) I see it more as a way of thinking about our perceived world.
The precautionary principle is a joke which shows how closely aligned with religion the AGW movement is. Blaise Pascal argued that the consequence of not believing in god was so great one should even though one could not perceive a logical reason for doing so. This if the principle is followed means that any belief or action can be justified. Blaise also wrote “It is not certain that everything is uncertain” which is an intriguing thought which I must acknowledge as true. But is such a thought productive?
I confess to not having read Thomas Huxley. I have read Aldous and Julian Huxley however. A large influence on my thought has been Betrand Russell and Popper is of significance in recent times. I do not think the AGW crowd who spill forth bile on this blog have any understanding of how difficult is to obtain truth or in how lacking their argument is. They deny the entire scientific understanding of the history of the earth.
I would say a skeptic is anybody that goes against the scientific consensus.
At the moment, the warmoholics are winning the debate.
They have produced the only credible explanation / physical mechanism.
The skeptics have nothing. There is currently no Copernicus.
Any skeptic today has no reason to be triumphant.
As Dick Lindzen recently noted in his speech at Heartland: the solar theory is just as fanciful as AGW.
The skeptic / denier you wish to “define”, does not exist.
SJT I just could resist your ignorant comment. You must divide up the body being processed into cells because the computers used are digital and incapable of doing otherwise. It is a limitation not an asset. Analog computers would do it better because they are not limited in this way. Unfortunately if such computers still exist they fundamentally lack they necessary capacity for the task. “how do you average a desert with a rainforest in a numerically useful way” answer no one can it makes no sense.
“SJT I just could resist your ignorant comment. ”
You can’t debunk what you claim is ignorance, with ignorance. You have no idea about the models or how they work.
Thanks to my near-namesake davidc for tactical advice (3:43 pm). His point is, it seems: just hammer the fact that temperature has not risen significantly fpr some time – since 1995 according to Lindzen – despite CO2 rise. Certainly that is an important point to focus on.
However, Steve Fielding has already gone beyond that by speculating that the sun is involved in climate change. It no doubt is to a degree; but as Jen says it doesn’t explain all 20th century warming, especially the part late in the 20th century. It seems to me that the PDO copes better with that (in conjunction with ENSO as explained).
Still waiting for the AGW sheeple to use their “hypothesis” to explain the current cooling and lack of warming for the past 12 years. And Luke, even your “individual instantiations” also don’t show a 12-year period without a temperature increase. Ergo, the models are falsified. Face it, if CO2 has any effect on temperature, that effect is much smaller than whatever is causing the current cooling (probably the Sun).
SJT says,
“You have no idea about the models or how they work.”
But we do know they are not accurate, so it really does not matter.
Again, the AGW side has to offer something that works. It has not done so.
Skeptics are simply pointing that out.
You can trash talk all you want, but you have lost, except in the ability to sell the used car of AGW.
Don’t feel so bad. No apocalyptic-based theory has everybeen true. You are in good company.
Jae –
Well they do J-boy – show off you toddle now – carefully does it.
It’s stunning that the alleged mighty brain power of sceptics can’t integrate a few factors. Dopey pricks.
Conclusion of the Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC):
“There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of carbon dioxide or methane.”
That about says it all, relative to the “science” of AGW.
Nothing demonstrates the credibility of AGW better than our very own Luke.
Please keep up the great work, enlightened one. You are really making the case more and more clearly.
Notice how when we proles do not understand his Luke’s lofty thinking, he simply curses louder. Sort of like a tourist yelling in his native language more loudly because that ignorant taxi driver in Paris only speaks French. But Luke’s native langugae seems to mostly consist of grunts and curses.
Here is a nice summary of why AGW and the policies the AGW community are demanding are not going to win, at the end of the day:
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/06/14/9791341-sun.html
‘Luddites’ is a great way to think about our AGW community, imho.
“Comment from: jennifer June 14th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
PS Sod,
“both the greens and the sceptics consider themselves morally and intellectually superior – don’t you think?”
Many do, but I don’t, since I do not think that superiority in these two qualities is of any importance in this debate. It is purely a matter of who is likely to be right or wrong in assessing the various climate parameters. My take is that on balance the skeptics are right even if they happen to have despicable morals, paid by Big Oil, have extreme right wing tendencies, religious and (therefore?) are intellectually inferior.
Louis Hissink:
“And don’t tell me I don’t known anything about scientific theories – exploration geologists are the pre-eminent scientific professionals expert in the scientific method. It’s our living. You will find that the loudest objections to AGW come from the professional geologists.”
This is so true, because any idea an exploration geologist will manage to sell to his bosses will eventually be falsified or confirmed to be correct, and that, at a great cost of the company and the reputation of the incumbent. For a climate scientist to be proven wrong or right will not happen during his life time and the need to be professional and unbiased bears no consequences for his career or reputation.
Hunter thanks for your comment about SJT as always he actually does not reply. He offers some sort of political propaganda to an imaginary audience. His reason for spending so much time on this blog escapes me. He did not address my proposition that cells are used because of the limitation of digital computers. I think he just has no idea about anything.
I think we should promote SJT and Luke as examples of the AGW creed. I may set up a website in which I will put up the sorts of questions put here. Then for answers the invective bile that is delivered here.
Eg Q The sun cycle correlates with the global average temperature why is that?
A It doesn’t because the you are stupid and your mother is a whore.
Hunter thanks for the link to the Toronto Sun. Did you catch the link to cheat neutral http://www.cheatneutral.com/ in the comments its very funny. Worthy of a mention under humor I think Jen.
“Hunter thanks for your comment about SJT as always he actually does not reply. He offers some sort of political propaganda to an imaginary audience. His reason for spending so much time on this blog escapes me. He did not address my proposition that cells are used because of the limitation of digital computers. I think he just has no idea about anything.”
There is no arguing with such sheer, bloody minded, ignorance. You have not the first idea what you are talking about, and I doubt you ever will. That they are digital computers and not analog, has absolutely nothing to do with modeling the climate.
Huxley would be turning in his grave if he could read this nonsense.
If we were to update Huxley, the orthodoxy he would have attacked would be the one that clung to the old assumption that man can not influence global climate. Just as he championed the new theory of evolution, it’s likely he would have done the same for the new theory of climate change.
Michael muses:
“Just as he championed the new theory of evolution, it’s likely he would have done the same for the new theory of climate change.”
Can you explain what “the new theory of climate change” is? I thought the climate was always changing. Do you mean, specifically “global warming?” If so, where has it been hiding for the last decade? I just cannot understand the warmers’ thought process, since they refuse to admit, let alone address, the complete lack of ANY physical evidence for the “hypothesis.” When people have fixed and false beliefs, they are considered delusional by the shrinks. Would it be fair to say that the warmers are delusional?
Comment from: SJT June 15th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Corporate welfare. Too big to fail. Stimulus money. – You heard of any of those?
We don’t have to resort to conspiracy theories to connect corporate benificiaries to AGW bills. They get direct subsidies for building windmills and solar power. They get the profit generated by those plants. They are allowed to raise rates on the consumer if conservation cut into the profits. And they get government funds to propagandize the public.
It’s in the headlines dipshit. Fred Krupp and Peter Darbee: Carbon cap bill’s good, and time is short.
Fred Krupp is president of the Environmental Defense Fund. Peter Darbee is chairman and CEO of PG&E Corp., the parent of Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
Chris Schoneveld “My take is that on balance the skeptics are right even if they happen to have despicable morals, paid by Big Oil, have extreme right wing tendencies, religious and (therefore?) are intellectually inferior”.
That’s a pretty open-minded statement. First of all, you might supply proof that any skeptic has links to Big Oil. The only one known for sure is Patrick Michaels, who has never hidden from the fact. When Hansen started his blather in the 1980’s, he was doing so as an employee of NASA, and backed by the likes of Gore. In other other words, he did not lack for funds or backing. Michaels was on his own at the time, with no financial backing to get his message out.
When he started opposing the idiotic claims of Hansen, he was NOT connected to Big Oil. It was years after that Western Fuels came calling. I don’t blame Michaels in the least for accepting their funding and I applaud him for doing it while remaining his own man. He’s a comical guy who presents the science objectively.
As far as intellectual content is concerned, I’d be far more concerned about the lack of it displayed by the AGW mob. Not one of them has the intelligence or intellect (man-made intelligence) to stand up to Richard Lindzen. He’s a professor at MIT, the number one technical university in the world. That goes for Singer as well, a veritable rocket scientist. Singer has degrees and citations coming out of his ying-yang.
You take a shot at religion as well. Was that aimed at John Christy and Roy Spencer? Some right-wingers they are. Christy goes to Africa as a missionary to teach poor Africans and Spencer leaves a lucrative post at NASA to join him at the University of Alabama. No one has managed to connect either to Big Oil since Christy insists on paying his own expenses when he attends seminars or whatever he is called up to do. Meantime, both of them have single-handedly shot down the model-based AGW paradigm through direct observation. Is that what you mean by unscrupulous?
Back to the intellectual capacity. The AGW mob have managed to set physics on it ear with their outrageous distortions of basic physics. They have invented new jargon in thermodynamics, like ‘net energy balances’, and have managed to screw up the 2nd law of thermodynamics with a misunderstanding of the basic concepts, that even a high school student would not have trouble understanding.
I’m afraid the AGW movement has inherited the dregs of the science world. They are basically a load of wannabees who rely on consensus and virtual science while pushing their pseudo-science through rhetoric. Their supporters on this blog cannot even formulate a coherent argument and specialize in avoiding the same. That lack of intellectual capacity is the hallmark of AGW theory.
dhmo,
You are very welcome.
SJT and Luke are merely typical. Go to any AGW believer site. They are unremarkable in their arrogance, poor manners, lack of critical thinking, and complete faith in AGW. I think of the salesmen who arranged for Constantine’s mother, Helena, to buy up relics all over Palestine when I consider what AGW promoters are doing today.
Do wank on Gordo ” Meantime, both of them have single-handedly shot down the model-based AGW paradigm through direct observation” – hahahahahahahahaha
and they had their own satellite story shot down too .hahahahahaha
Are you that blind?
“AGW movement has inherited the dregs of the science world” hahahahahahaha
You clown. But you’re funny. I haven’t laughed so much in ages. You fucking amateur.
Louis Hissink “A collection of 12 GCM’s might be described as an “ensemble” (posh word for a sample)….”
Louis…and I though an ensemble was something you bought from Abercrombie and Fitch to wear as your ‘Sunday-go-to-meeting’ clothes.
Luke…”You clown. But you’re funny. I haven’t laughed so much in ages. You fucking amateur”.
Great comeback Luke…very witty…very intellectual. That will be Mr. F***cking Amateur to you.
dhmo…”Unfortunately if such computers [analog] still exist they fundamentally lack the necessary capacity for the task”.
Not only that, a computer is only as good as its programmer. With AGW programmers, the ‘gigo’ principle readily applies…garbage in, garbage out. When you don’t understand the basics of physics, perhaps because you are a mathematician like Gavin Schmidt, or an astronomer like James Hansen, or worse still, a biologist like Stephen Schneider, how the heck can you program a model of the atmosphere, especially when real physicists don’t understand it yet? Current results of model studies give the answer, you can’t.
Jeremy C. “And so far there has been nothing posted here that stops me being sceptical/skeptical about the denialists”.
Let me fix that. Start here, Jeremy:
http://climate.uah.edu/25yearbig.jpg
That’s 25 years worth of temperature data for the lower atmosphere as seen by satellites that cover 95% of the globe. Note the large areas of white that depict essentially no warming (range -0.1 C to +0.1 C). Note the next largest area of lightest yellow that represents warming of +0.1 C to +0.3C. The areas of the globe being described as global warming (average +0.6 C over 100 years) are restricted to the northern part of the northern hemisphere, and most of it occurs in the winter. Down at the southern part of the southern hemisphere, you see areas of equal cooling.
Tell me how an extremely rare, well-mixed gas like CO2 can have such a localized effect on warming, so much so, that it warms only the northern half of the globe and cools the southern half, while leaving the tropics alone.
There is no such thing as ‘global’ warming, especially of the man-made variety. There is only localized warming that has been mathematically transformed into a global average. It is a product of virtual science and perverse data manipulation, as a product of the minds of yuppies/hippies who need an excuse to stop petroleum production and have us all running about in sandles and on bicycles.
This is not about skepticism since global warming ‘theory’ is based on consensus. There is nothing to be skeptical about or to deny. Nothing out of the ordinary has happened. As Akasofu points out, we are recovering from a mini ice age that ended circa 1850, and half a degree C average warming was expected. The average temperatures have waxed and waned over the past century, apparently following cycles in the oceans. Temperatures have held fairly steady ‘on average’ for over 10 years now and we ‘may’ be headed for a cooler spell as the PDO changes cycles and the Sun recovers from it’s quiet spell.
How’s that? Convinced yet?
“PB; this is a junk argument; that the scientists who were at the Heartland conference are somehow compromised by the sponsorship by big oil; big oil also sponsors pro-AGW ‘think-tanks’;”
Your are a moron. The OP is about scepticism and the point is that if you aren’t sceptical of advice from from powerful vested interests that happens to conincide with those interests then you can rightly be described as naive etc.
It appears to me that you have swallowed the anti-AGW like so fully that you are incapable of any scepticism whatsoever with regard to the issue.
What has science got to do with this post? It’s about scepticism, get yourself a mentor.
THE WHOLE SUBSTANCE OF LUKE’S INPUT IS IN HIS MOST RECENT POST:
“hahahahahaha
Are you that blind?”
ROFLAMO!
Gordon,
“Ensemble” yes that is the standard definition I suppose, but using it to describe the average output of a number of GCM’s suggests it’s much like using one of those software packages that generate syntactically correct, nonsensical English sentences.
Judging by the hyperbole and increasing use of “strong” language by the climate bruvvers here, suggests their comfort zone has been well and truly breached.
A sceptic might be described as someone who can actually recognise the difference between artful dissembling and scientific fact. or a sceptic is one who can recognise science from pseudoscience.
The brain-dead liberal MORONS’ sermon of a warming world is quickly losing credibility, probably even among the homeless, so they are getting VERY nervous, panicked, and neurotic. It is getting hillarious. They are now putting on maximum effort: Shouting, Ad Homs, Bigger and Bigger Exaggerations, “Famous” people (like involving the absolute morons in Hollywood who are as far away from science as possible), Liberal Blogs, Disgusting Whoresome Biased Media (e.g., CNN, MSNBC, ABC, PBS, BBC). What is hillarious is that it is clearly REACTING NEGATIVELY IN PUBLIC OPINION POLLS. THE AVERAGE BLOKE IS NOT AS STUPID AS THE COMMUNISTS, LIKE OBAMA, AND HIS BAND OF HISTORICAL ILLITERATES THINKS. THE POLLS CONTINUE TO SHOW EROSION OF THE POPULARITY OF THIS “DOOMSDAY” SCAM ON THE WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. THERE WILL BE NO MEANINGFUL CAP ‘N TAX LEGISLATION, NOR HEALTH-CARE REFORM. DUMB LOOSER SHITS.
IT IS TIME TO THROW OUT ALL POLITICIANS WHO ARE IGNORING THE MAJORITY. THIS INCLUDES MOST OF BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS. THIS IS WHAT THE TEA PARTIES ARE ALL ABOUT!
Gordon Robertson I hope you don’t in anyway think I am defending GCMs. My point about digital versus analog is that it is a fundamental problem one faces of resolution. Because of the complexity of the task each cell must large. So we are trying to calculate points that are far apart in between those points we know little. My expertise is the production of computer software. I have done this as an analyst/developer for many decades and earnt a lot of money doing so. If we had a theory of weather and climate which covers all factors the task of producing computer systems is still unbelievably difficult. Computer systems that deal with the simplest of tasks often fail. Yes due to the failings of the humans that produce them. The delusion that we can actually produce GCMs that predict changes well in to the future is beyond comprehension. Anyone who puts the argument that we should act on the output of GCMs has either a vested interest or is remarkably stupid.
“That’s 25 years worth of temperature data for the lower atmosphere as seen by satellites that cover 95% of the globe. Note the large areas of white that depict essentially no warming (range -0.1 C to +0.1 C). Note the next largest area of lightest yellow that represents warming of +0.1 C to +0.3C. The areas of the globe being described as global warming (average +0.6 C over 100 years) are restricted to the northern part of the northern hemisphere, and most of it occurs in the winter. Down at the southern part of the southern hemisphere, you see areas of equal cooling.
Tell me how an extremely rare, well-mixed gas like CO2 can have such a localized effect on warming, so much so, that it warms only the northern half of the globe and cools the southern half, while leaving the tropics alone.”
Just as predicted.
The oceans in the SH take longer to warm than land, the tropics should see less warming than the poles, so the Arctic is showing the greatest warming, the Southern Pole is a special case due to the Polar vortex and the oceans, which is clearly discernable.
“Gordon Robertson I hope you don’t in anyway think I am defending GCMs. My point about digital versus analog is that it is a fundamental problem one faces of resolution. Because of the complexity of the task each cell must large. So we are trying to calculate points that are far apart in between those points we know little. My expertise is the production of computer software. I have done this as an analyst/developer for many decades and earnt a lot of money doing so. If we had a theory of weather and climate which covers all factors the task of producing computer systems is still unbelievably difficult. Computer systems that deal with the simplest of tasks often fail. Yes due to the failings of the humans that produce them. The delusion that we can actually produce GCMs that predict changes well in to the future is beyond comprehension. Anyone who puts the argument that we should act on the output of GCMs has either a vested interest or is remarkably stupid.”
Your problem is that you think that being involved in the production of software means you understand what the producers of GCMs are doing, and how they cope with the difficulties you outline. They already know all that, believe it or not, and completely independent teams around the globe have come up with models that are still functional, and giving us models that help to understand what is happening and why. They are at work on the next generation of models right now, and making the grid sizes smaller, and the modeling of clouds more realisitc.
The thing that amazes me is that a zero dimensional model like Miscolczis is welcomed with open arms here, yet much more sophisticated models are called unrealistic.
Gordon Robertson June 16th, 2009 at 10:29 am
“Chris Schoneveld “My take is that on balance the skeptics are right even if they happen to have despicable morals, paid by Big Oil, have extreme right wing tendencies, religious and (therefore?) are intellectually inferior”.
That’s a pretty open-minded statement. First of all, you might supply proof that any skeptic has links to Big Oil.”
You obviously got me wrong. I personally don’t think there is anything wrong with the morals and intellect of skeptics, I just wanted to express that even IF any of them is morally suspect (which I don’t believe, once again) it is immaterial to the science.
Chris Schoneveld
Chris
“IF any of them is morally suspect (which I don’t believe, once again) it is immaterial to the science.”
(The last post was due to a change in using a M$ keyboard to an Apple one at one strange things happened when I habitually did a keyboard sequence).
This is correct – the scientific method has nothing to do with morals or values.
The only exception I might raise is the problem that those who have strong religious beliefs also tend to allow that habit to influence their scientific thinking, and what I have previously described as the religious mind.
For example a Christian could not accept a scientific theory that did not entail creation or the idea of T=0 some time in the past. Hence Evolution is a mechanistic way of explaining biodiveristy under the prior assumptions of a remote creation event.
Unlike the secular humanists posting here, I accept that the Christian scriptures are based on prior observed facts but that, thanks to Lyell and his fellow political activists of the 19th century, are dismissed as myths or literature.
There is now solid empirical evidence that “something” happened to the Earth at the end of the Holocene, and which initiated the Pleistocene extinction – Peratt has postulated that a very large surge (perhaps over hundreds of years) in the solar wind caused frightening plasma phenomena in the sky our ancestors observed and documented in rock as petroglyphs and ‘graphs.
It is assumed that it occurred “about” 10,000 years ago, and if this interpretation of the data is correct, then the Middle East belief of a creation at that time makes more sense.
Gentry’s various publications of polonium, for eample, are scientifically sound but raise serious doubts about the geological chronology – and Gentry was a firm adherent of his Christian Faith. Would he be described as a sceptic? I think not, but his critics were quite mean spirited.
I’ve come to realise that thinking itself, as an electro-biochemical process occurring in our brain, ( and it depends utterly on our memory), has generally become an unconscious habit; continued repetition of any physical activity ultimately develops into habit, and thinking is no different to riding a bicycle.
Hence one understands why Totalitarian States and Religions emphasize indoctrination during the age if 6 to 10 years. As a Jesuit was reputed to have said, “give me a child at 7 and I will have him for life”.
Sceptics are then individuals who have not gone through this State sponsored brainwashing, or as I was lucky enough to experience, exposure to other ideas than the mainstream, (I was introduced to the teachings of Jiddu Krishnamurti while a teenager, took his ideas on board and later on found myself agreeing with another Krishnamurti, UG Krishnamurti).
We also have to take on board the fact that Huxley was a devout Catholic – (all the Huxley clan were) and Evolution for him was another way of explaining life than that proposed by his political opponents in Victorian England at the time, and skillfully by the Paley on behalf of the Tories who had parliamentary power at the time).
We also need to take on board the idea that AGW is a uniquely Anglo-Saxon idea that germinated in Thatcher’s policies against the UK coal miners union at the time, (and now we discover that Jack Jones and Arthur Scanlon were sponsored by the USSR). So from day one AGW was always politically motivated.
The tragedy is that it’s adherents, (their predecessors described by Lenin as useful idiots) have been trained what to think, not how.
The present group seem no different, sad to say. I am sure they are well meaning and sincere in their beliefs, but can we expect a Damascene mass conversion? Possibly if physical reality does what we suspect it will – put the Earth into another LIA. But as we have not worked out how the LIA came about, let alone the Pleistocene extinction, ice and all, I will repeat a fundamental rule of thumb used in Geophysics in mineral exploration.
“When the observations (measurements) become non-linear, all bets are off”.
patrick b,
Are you being deliberately misleading or are you unable to accept things which disagree with you?
You have failed to provide anything that shows skeptics are making their under instructions of vested interests. Yet there is mountains of proof that AGW promoters are conflicted regularly on papers they peer review and publish.
It is obvious that Gore and pals are enriching themselves dramatically while not only promoting AGW but dodging any debate on AGW.
It is not skeptics calling for an end of debate, it is AGW promoters.
SJT,
Again, since the sophisticated GCMs you keep relying on do not work, it really does not matter how fancy they are.
You can say they are useful, but if they were they would actually predict something that is, you know, happening.
And as to the oceans, since their heat content is not incresing any where near the amount needed for AGW to be correct, why will AGW promoters not do as real scientists do and adjust the models?
Louis I doubt Julian or Aldous Huxley can be classified as devout Catholics. Read for instance “The Humanist Frame” or “Eyeless in Gaza”.
I am not a scientist but have had many occupations. I have a degree computing and that has been my occupation since 1975. I was not raised in any religion at all. No my father was not a clever man he was an atheist who hated religion and probably for good reason. My instinctive mode of thought is not to accept anything on face value. This does not sit well with most people but that is the way I am.
You say you are a geologist so you have a view of the history of the earth. I have read an amount about this history. What I understand is that CO2 has been up 7000ppm and that there has been glacial and interglacial times that do not correlate with CO2. In fact it is not well understood why these changes occur. I know there are many theories that relate to orbit and position in our galaxy. But until we actually move into an ice age or out of one we do not actually know why. The AGW crowd are mostly commenting on the last 30 years and onlyy rarely 100 years. In the terms of geological history this seems like a joke. It has no hope of telling us anything. A climate model that correlates to a few years of data and then is supposed to predict the future 100 years. A hundred such models averaged against themselves are still of no more worth.
If as geological history tells me we are at near the lowest point in CO2 ppm and temperature surely the relative few microseconds we argue about are irrelevant.
Huxley was introduced to vegetarianism and later he was interested in experimenting with psychedelic drugs , which made him also interesting for early hippies. He wrote a book about his drug experiences, how it was to be impacted by drugs, a lab bunny…
He wrote the book ” The Doors of Perception” about his experiments with LSD, later the rockband the Doors took their name after Huxley’s book.
Birdie,
Completely different Huxley.
Aldous Huxley is who you are thinking of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldous_Huxley
Thomas Huxley was his grandfather.
Much thanks for the info Hunter!
Thanks again
“You can say they are useful, but if they were they would actually predict something that is, you know, happening.”
You have to evaluate the models on what they are claimed to be able to do, not what you claim they should be able to do. They cannot, and it has never been claimed that they can, predict the year to year fluctuations in climate that are the result of such influences as the PDO. These fluctuations are larger than the year by year signal from AGW. Over the course of a century or two, the gradual but persistent AGW signal will create a significant temperature rise and change in climate.
Hunter yes it was Aldous and Birdie I have confused “The Doors of Perception” with “Eyeless in Gaza” thanks for putting me straight. I read both back then so I guess it is not surprising I mixed up the title. It made a lifetime impression on me!
SJT,
Apparently the models don’t do anything except to validate the modeler;s prejudices.
Now you say ‘gradual but persistent AGW signal’, yet we are told the signal has already been responsible for much of the last 60 year’s warming.We are told that CO2 is *the* driver of climate. And we have been told for many years that strong weather of all sorts is proof for sure of AGW.
But now it is a subtle thin, gradual and persistent, shy and easily hidden by natural fluctuations.
Sorry, but you don’t get it all ways. No wonder the AGW leadership wants to change the name something that cannot be falsified: climate change.
The models are sales graphics.
Spam test
“#
Now you say ‘gradual but persistent AGW signal’, yet we are told the signal has already been responsible for much of the last 60 year’s warming.We are told that CO2 is *the* driver of climate. And we have been told for many years that strong weather of all sorts is proof for sure of AGW.
But now it is a subtle thin, gradual and persistent, shy and easily hidden by natural fluctuations.
Sorry, but you don’t get it all ways. No wonder the AGW leadership wants to change the name something that cannot be falsified: climate change.
The models are sales graphics.”
Can you make up your mind? Are you looking at the long term trend over centuries, or just cherry picking a decade and demanding that everything is explained for that short period of time?
SJT,
AGW is nothing if not cherry picking.
Hansen declared apocalypse *now*, and the wildlife protection racket people declare the polar bears are drowning *now*. And the US President just declared that our cities will roast starting *now*. The Arctic ice melting, according to AGW is not cyclical anymore. It is apocalypse *now*.
When that piece of ice shelf broke off this spring, we here were told, in between insults, that *this* shelf is the apocalypse at hand.
In 2005, we were told the storms were AGW *now*.
So don’t pretend that skeptics response when individual weather events occur, and we point out the obvious, ‘well that actually, from an historical view, is pretty normal’ are the ones cherry picking.
And by the way, what are your thoughts about the marketing firms helping pick the new name of global warming?
“And by the way, what are your thoughts about the marketing firms helping pick the new name of global warming?”
More lunatic conspiracy theories.
“Hansen declared apocalypse *now*,”
That’s the problem with deniers, basic comprehension skills. Hansen said if we don’t do anything about it now, we won’t be able to undo the damage when the serious problems start, it will be too late by then.
SJT,
You seem rather fixated on calling any unpleasantness about how AGW works ‘conspiracy’.
Please get in touch with the NYT on this and tell them to stop spreading conspiracy theories..
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02enviro.html?_r=1
SJT, it seems that you, Luke and the other rude, ill-informed reactionary posters here are the deniers. When ever a troubling fact comes up, you simply deny it or rationalize it away. As rudely and ignorantly s possible.
Not only is Hansen saying the apocalypse is now, but also you Australians are personally responsible for it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/15/james-hansen-power-plants-coal
Apocalypse now is the official position of the United States:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/16/obama-climate-change-impacts
What I find entertaining in you and so many other true believers is that you flame any skeptic, but never actually say what you think is happening.
It is an interesting blend of cowardice and rudeness.
To your own Senator, whom you allegedly want to vote a certain way, you offer infantile, childish and uninformative answers designed to insult. Now, according to your news, this person is perhaps the one vote between Australia and AGW evil impact.
If I was trying to influence someone to actually agree with me, I would consider the strategy of insulting and belittling that person as one of the strategies I would not employ.
But I am not an enlightened believer in AGW. I am just a poor ignorant redneck denialist scum.
Do keep up the good work.
AGW is doing exactly what I predicted, and hoped, it would do: its believers would become increasingly hysterical and inarticulate as the plain emptiness of their pseudo-faith eats more and more of their rational thinking abilities.
Chris Schoneveld “You obviously got me wrong. I personally don’t think there is anything wrong with the morals and intellect of skeptics, I just wanted to express that even IF any of them is morally suspect (which I don’t believe, once again) it is immaterial to the science”.
Chris…my apologies if I misread your post. I agree with you in the respect that a scientist in the employ of an oil company could well be objective. The implication from the AGW side is that a person has to be on the take to work for an oil company, but they are no different than any other person funded by a corporation or a paradigm-driven government or university. The inference is obviously rhetoric and aimed at discrediting scientists. In fact, if anyone is on the take, I’d say it’s those schleps who spout AGW nonsense just to get funding or to keep it intact.
I saw Fred Singer being hounded by a load of looney media types here in Canada. He had a bemused look on his face as if to say, why are you being so foolish? I couldn’t give a hoot if Singer was making $100,000 a year from Big Oil, I go by what the man says, not where he sources his income.
dhmo…”Gordon Robertson I hope you don’t in anyway think I am defending GCMs”.
Not at all, I was just helping you with your point. I’m in the hardware end of things but I dabble with software. I know just enough assembler to be dangerous. In fact, I can read it a lot better than I can write it.
I agree with your assessment about programming computers. It’s a hard enough job at the scale of a computer model let alone trying to program in areas that are totally theory. I was reading an article the other day that infered the bottleneck in programming today is computer memory speed, not processing power.
If the models were written in assembly, with a concerted effort to get rid of duplicate code, that might help. However, when I trace through assembler code while doing some reverse engineering, I can’t help noticing the amount of code that is duplicated and in triplicate. That is no doubt the product of bloated C++ code, or even Fortran. Writing programs at that level is frought with all kinds of problems, never mind not having a firm grasp on the science.
That’s why I keep railing about mathematicians and programmers taking over physics. They are an arrogant lot, like Gavin Schmidt, who think they are doing cutting-edge science, when all they are doing is playing at it.
James Hansen was in an archery competition. First arrow went 1 metre to the right of the bullseye; the second went 1 metre to the left of the bullseye. He pumped the air in delight – the average….
His modelling is the same…
Bulls@#$eyes.
SJT “Just as predicted. The oceans in the SH take longer to warm than land, the tropics should see less warming than the poles, so the Arctic is showing the greatest warming, the Southern Pole is a special case due to the Polar vortex and the oceans, which is clearly discernable”.
You sure have a peculiar thought process. It’s very pat and cute but it avoids many basic truths. For example, the Arctic was just as warm in the 1920’s and warming today is not keeping pace with the increase in ACO2 density. In fact, the warming is miniscule compared to what Hansen predicted in 1988, an error he acknowledged by 1998. Ten years later, the average global temp has all but leveled off.
Another truth is the rarity of ACO2, an inconvenience you AGW types fail to acknowledge. You are always on about ACO2 increasing the inability of IR to escape but a good physicist and a meteorologist, Craig Bohren, refers to that theory as nonsense. He claims the theory of photon radiation and absorption is far too complex to have photons considered as being trapped. He points out another truth, that the frequency at which they are absorbed is different than the frequency at which they are emitted. No one knows enough about how energy operates and the very term ‘photon’ is merely a convenience for making EM energy a discreet particle as opposed to a wave. As Bohren points out, it’s easier with CO2 molecules to think of it as a particle but we don’t know if EM behaves that way. In other words, no one knows how it operates.
The only other theory is the notion that ACO2 helps develop a positive feedback in the water vapour cycle by trapping energy and re-radiating it to the surface so as to warm the surface more than it’s warmed by solar radiation. Bohren calls that what it is…a model. There’s no proof for it and it contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
If you guys knew anything about physics, you’d have questioned that theory long ago. It’s so damned obvious that the surface cannot give up energy to warm the atmosphere and have that energy it gave up come back to warm it to a higher level than it is warmed by solar radiation. And please don’t say it gets its extra energy from the Sun. That energy already warmed it so it could give up energy to the atmosphere.
You also wont acknowledge the rebound expected from the Little Ice Age. The IPCC conveniently left that off the 0.6 C they claimed occured over a century till 2001. Akasofu reckons it could be enough to leave us with no warming from ACO2. When push comes to shove, we are talking about a paltry few tenths of a degree localized warming. If it was 2 or 3 degrees across the board, we might have something to worry about, but your cute theories, that were not predicted, but came after the fact as a catch-all, face-saving maneuvre from the likes of Gavin Schmidt, are a little hard to justify.
Your theories can’t explain the yo-yo effect of temperatures since 1920, with cooling during rapid increases of ACO2. Now that the average temperature has leveled off with increasing ACO2, you are lost for an explanation, so you come up with the theories you just presented. When you talk about the oceans, why not tell the entire story as Tsonis and Keenlyside did. Keenlyside thinks the warming has just stopped temporarily, but at least he admits it has stopped. Tsonis goes a lot further, claiming the warming/cooling over the past century is directly related to oceanic systems like the AMO, the PDO and ENSO. When they are in phase, it warms, when they are out of phase, it cools.
If you guys would at least discuss those issues as a viability, I could understand your POV, but you keep on trying to prop up a lame theory. Where are the expected increases in ocean levels? The climate in my part of the world has not changed a whit and the ocean levels are in a normal range. If the globe is warming, we should have noticed it here. Other parts of North America, like Kentucky, and other parts of the eastern seaboard, have cooled in the meantime.
Your theory makes no sense. Why not broaden your horizons and look for something that does?
SJT “Your problem is that you think that being involved in the production of software means you understand what the producers of GCMs are doing, and how they cope with the difficulties you outline. They already know all that, believe it or not, and completely independent teams around the globe have come up with models that are still functional, and giving us models that help to understand what is happening and why”.
I don’t have a problem with the concept of modeling or what they are trying to do. I can see the usefulness of modeling. I have a problem with people defending models that are clearly immature and wrong. When John Christy took his data to a modeler he knows, the guy got testy with him. Instead of welcoming real data, he declared that his model was right and the directly collected data was wrong. When Roy Spencer and Lindzen try to tell them they have the sign wrong with one of their feedbacks, from their direct observations, the modelers mock them.
Stephen Schneider, a biologist, said just as much. He claimed it’s tough for him to go with his model when real data is contradicting it. Of course, he’s the same guy who suggested it was ok to lie about science if it served a purpose. Gavin Schmidt claimed Richard Lindzen is ‘old school’. He’s talking about a scientist with 40 years experience who teaches atmospheric physics at MIT. I don’t think Schmidt could qualify to get into MIT and he has no formal training in physics. I went to high school with a guy who got honours at a masters level in electrical engineering at a local university. He had to upgrade to be accepted at MIT.
It’s the arrogance of certain modelers that bothers me. I’m sure there are modelers who are more objective, and there are AGW supporters like Trenberth who are more realistic about the abilities of models. There was no sound reason for the IPCC to base their predictions solely on models. They had the satellite data and they acknowledged it in TAR. By AR4, it was plain that a concerted effort had been made to discredit the satellite data. In AR4, they did not claim the data was wrong, they claimed it was now in line with the models, which was a load of hooey. The satellites have shown no more than 0.25 C warming in the atmosphere at any time, other than the 1997-98 El Nino warming. Claiming the satellite data was in line with the models was mealy-mouthed rhetoric trying to support a weak paradigm.
There was far too much made over tiny errors in the satellite data acquisition system. Christy pointed out that the biggest error was about 0.1 C in the tropics only. Overall, the satellite data has told us not much has changed in the lower atmosphere in 30 years. There’s way too much in the way of politics involved, with people afraid to back away from a position. The IPCC is caught firmly over a barrel because their mandate is to find evidence of warming and their leaders are sold on the ACO2 cause to the point they can’t/won’t extricate themselves.
There is emotion involved, a cardinal sin in science. Recently, the head of the UN was still vehemently preaching that dangerous warming was taking place. When a member of the audience pointed out that the atmosphere had not warmed on average for 10 years, the UN leader was at a loss for words. Here in Vancouver, a formerly well-respected biologist, David Suzuki, has turned into an arrogant twit over global warming. He shouts people down and walks out of meetings if his theories are in the least questioned.
Surely you have seen this behavior and surely it concerns you. You and I have argued over the HIV/AIDS paradigm and you seem to be oblivious to the plight of Peter Duesberg. This guy was the darling of the retroviral community not long ago, winning major awards for his research on viruses. Because he expressed skepticism about a theory that has not panned out in 25 years, he has lost all his funding and he is reduced to teaching undergraduate lab classes at his university. They would fire him if he did not have tenure.
You take a really smart-assed attitude about such matters but I can’t turn a blind eye to out an out corruption in science. You smirk about anyone questioning the HIV/AIDS theory since a majority claim it is true. You do the same with the AGW theory. If you were at all serious, you’d give yourself a good kick up the butt and start looking at the nonsense going on in modern science. Then again, you’re probably part of it.