Following is a much talked about letter from ’60 climate skeptics’ to the new Canadian PM. It was published by Canadian and UK newspapers including The Telegraph.
“Thursday, April 06, 2006
An open letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper
Dear Prime Minister
As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government’s climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol. Although many of us made the same suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chretien, neither responded, and, to date, no formal, independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada. Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science.
Observational evidence does not support today’s computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada’s climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.
While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an “emerging science,” one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth’s climate system.
Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.
We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no “consensus” among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.
“Climate change is real” is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural “noise.” The new Canadian government’s commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to “stopping climate change” would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.
We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today’s global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.
We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic.
Sincerely,
Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia’s National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards
Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.
Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.
Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant
Dr. Andreas Prokocon, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology
Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta
Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria
Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax
Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.
Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta
Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.
Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary
Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.
Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists
Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia
Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.
Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville
Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.
Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment
Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change
Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey
Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand
Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001,’ Wellington, N.Z.
Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut
Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.
Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.
Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000
Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service
Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society
Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.
Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland
Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.
Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.
Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health
Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist
Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.“
The letter has generated much discussion.
I have been sent links to criticism by Tim Lambert. Rather than deal with the substance of the letter, Lambert, a computer scientist, predictably tries to attack the credibility of the scientists.
Lambert must be cranky that The Telegraph then published Bob Carter again a few days later with the title ‘There IS a problem with global warming… it stopped in 1998’.
What is perhaps most interesting in all of this, is the extent to which the ‘climate skeptics’ are getting together and starting to use the tactics the ‘climate believers’ have used for so long – and against them.
They are appealing to authority and a consensus.
And remember that Australian Conservation Foundation President Ian Lowe published a book just last year that claimed there were only 5 climate skeptics in the whole world!
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Remember , before the battle is joined this worthy advice from RealClimate ; ” ad hominem attacks and “shoot the messenger” strategies are often the last refuge for those losing the substantive debate “.
Here endeth the lesson.
It’s a stunt for the desperate and morally bankrupt – as every day the journals make the pro case grow stronger.
Well Jen it’s better than the utterly rampant lies in the letter. And it’s just the usual contrarian crowd. And information content is zero. Personally reckon come in spinner – climate change vote just got stronger. Ian’s right – there are probably five climate related skeptics in the letter. That is people practicing contemporary climate science. Get a pen and scratch out the other names.
Of course the pro-AGW side could collect a couple of 1000 signatures and write back – return stunt. But why bother – the issue is being settled in the literature – this is just the death-throws of the contrarian flat-earther crowd finding that every issue of Science and Nature brings more bad news for their case.
I did deal with the substance of the letter, which was the claims that “climate change is real” is meaningless and that since Kyoto was proposed the science had moved in favour of the skeptics. Neither claim is true as I explained in my post.
Please correct your post.
Regarding tactics. You’ve tried to rhetorically paint the picture that climate scientists have been using ‘tactics’ to spin their message. In fact, climate scientists use fairly widely accepted processes involving official publication of peer-reviewed results in widely read and regarded journals with follow up exposure to critique.
Your rhetorical picture continues that the climate skeptics have only just cottoned on to these ‘tactics’ and that this is somehow interesting, with the most obvious thing to infer that the debate is about to swing the other way, with more people becoming skeptical now that climate skeptics are using these ‘tactics’.
Firstly, there is a big difference between writing a letter, and publishing peer-reviewed work.
Second, these ‘tactics’ are not new for climate skeptics.
Remember the ‘Oregon Petition’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
and the Leipzig declarations?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leipzig_Declaration
I reject your rhetorical picture. I think the climate skeptics have been using the ‘tactic’ of making illogical appeals to authority to win their argument since the year dot, and this is nothing new. I think that the most logical and acceptable appeal to authority on this issue is to go to the recognised journals that publish on climate science, by climatologists, with the inbuilt process of public exposure of results and criticism by peers.
PS. Why did you mention that Tim Lambert was a computer scientist? How was that relevant? You weren’t trying to “predictably” “attack” his “credibility” were you?
Just asking.
“morally bankrupt”, another pejorative from the pea brained.
The authors also said that “Global climate changes all the time” which presumably is beyond dispute.
“Climate change is real” is a phrase employed often inappropriately against sceptics who aren’t disputing that climate changes at all.
In fact, most sceptics I’ve read seem to assert that climate changes constantly and has for millenium.
The authors also don’t deny AGW – they just note that it can’t be measured or determined.
If they’re wrong on that then the experts should be able to point out what proportion of the current warming is man-made?
I read the letter as a warning against over-reaction/hysteria rather than a denial of anything.
It includes a sensible caution about over-reliance on computer models and acknowledges the necessity for sober policy sconsiderations.
It’s only controversial if you can’t tolerate any acknowledgment of uncertainty while defending your position.
Up perks “Chicken hawk” – that pesky little side-kick character. I say, I say boy, you gotta do yaself some research boy. Don’t stand around making one-liners boy. Get some facts boy.
Well Bird-Brain – you’d have to be morally bankrupt to sign a letter with major lies to a national newspaper of Canada.
Oh really? where did you get all this moral authority from, can you download it from RC?
Just taking a stab at the list, Dr. Madhav Khandekar has a PhD in meteorology, a masters degree in statistics and won several post-doctoral fellowships, including one with the National Research Council, was a top climate scientist with Environment Canada for 25 years, as well as with the UN. Altogether, Khandekar – who has never had any affiliation with energy companies – has worked at the highest levels on climate research for 48 years and has published more than 100 highly regarded scientific papers.
Phil, Am I the Ian who’s supposed to have said that there are probably only five climate-related sceptics on the list? Anyway, I didn’t say that, and I think that this is a long way from being true.
On my count, 28 of those on the list have the words ‘climate’, meteorology’ or ‘atmospheric science’ in their own description of their position or role, which makes them ‘climate-related’ sceptics in my book (I’m not vouching for their capacities because I simply don’t know).
Nearly all of the others on the list have professional descriptions that mean that their work COULD be climate-related, and in some cases it certainly is (e.g., Roy Spencer, who describes himself as ‘principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville’).
oooo – is that right Bird Brain- well he shouldn’t be signing bilge then.
Spencer should resign for getting the MSU data wrong – I mean really. Knock off all the plaeo guys and the retired non-operationals, social types, etc – what have you got left? And why would you want to put your letter to those who are demonstrated shonks anyway (see Lambert’s excellent analysis of shonkiness).
No, Ian Castles you are not the Ian. It is Ian Lowe (see last line of article). There are too many Ians for our own good. I would think that he uses skeptic in a strict sense, ie those who disbelieve anything they cannot directly verify from direct use of their own intellect, a bottom up approach a la Descartes (forgive the pun). There are very few deniers in that category, they are more in the nature of film reviewers, kibitzers, armchair critics, old jocks who could have done better in their day, etc. They seem to have scoured the world to get a life-boat full for a wetter, warmer world.
Phil, what are the ” utterly rampant lies in the letter”?
As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines .. ..
Observational evidence does not support today’s computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future
If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.
It was only 30 years ago that many of today’s global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe.
1. As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines .. ..
The signatories aren’t experts in climate and related sciences?
Did they forge their credentials to get their current positions?
2.Observational evidence does not support today’s computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future
I understand this to be a reference to computer models being unable to accurately guage past cimatic events far less future ones? If that’s true then current model predictions would have to be heavily qualified wouldn’t they?
At any rate , the authors don’t deny warming is occurring which is what models also predict ; they appear to be warning against relying on models as opposed to observable and measurable data – a reasonable view.
3.If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.
This is an opinion which cannot be proved or disproved – it’s a long way from a rampant lie.
4.It was only 30 years ago that many of today’s global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe.
Is your contention that none of the current AGW theorists predicted global cooling previously?
It’s a big call – Science in 1976 and Newsweek in 1975 talked about global cooling as a prediction of climatologists with Newsweek describing the position as ” near unanimous”.
Again , nothing like a rampant lie.
Jim – you have to be joking. Get a grip.
Your points.
1. A lot are not ! – read the list. And a few that profess to be climate scientists are shonks – see Lambert’s list of fibs.
2. Their statement stands in the face of published evidence – it’s rubbish and a disgrace. The models have well mapped the temperature rise of the last century combining a number of forcings – and that’s not by tuning or fitting.
3. Knowing what we know now, makes climate change theory much more certain – what a stupid statement they’ve made on this
4. The global cooling thing was popular press on a science meeting on Ice Ages. Put up the scientific papers by the MANY who said global cooling. That’s MANY –
Adjective: many
1. A quantifier that can be used with count nouns and is often preceded by ‘as’ or ‘too’ or ‘so’ or ‘that’; amounting to a large but indefinite number
They could have made a balanced statement about concern on sudden implementation of Kyoto measurements on the Canadian community, and focussed on climate science still having not unravelled everything, about adaptation being more possible – but they have deliberately chosen to misrepresent, as some of the group have done with their MANY blog and newspaper articles have over a long time period. What a disgrace.
And “real causes” of climate change – where’s their publications ! We’re waiting !
“Observational evidence does not support today’s computer climate models”. Doesn’t this suggest that these guys are out releasing radio sondes to the stratosphere, trekking across glaciers, numbing their fingers from their hard-won ice-cores, getting sea sick when they observe ocean currents, etc. How many of these highly credentialled signatories actually get their hands dirty as do the climate scientists they implicitly criticise? I dont think this field is like theoretical physics where Einsteins make thought experiments. In this field the evidence is king. Does anyone know their emails or other addresses so I can contact them directly for my “observational evidence”? I mean this at least half seriously because it might be interesting.
I’ve re-read the letter Phil and I’ll stand by my observations.
I don’t need to get a grip – I have accepted on balance of expert opinion the reality of AGW many times previously however it’s your ( and others) reaction to a pretty reasonable letter which seems way over the top.
Why do the authors and contents have to be discredited so fulsomely?
Can’t you accept a different viewpoint made in good will?
Finally , what is lambert’s expertise in the field of “exposing Shonks” in the climate field?
I’m happy to listen to what dozens of climatologists , earth scientists and others have to say on the subject of climate change.
Ian K,
Bob Carter’s home page with a list of publications is here: http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/ .
When I look down his list of publications I see lots with titles relevant to understanding climate change. But I appreciate that some are ignorant of the importance and relevance of geology as discussed previously at this blog here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/000575.html#comments.
Ian Caatles, anybody can put “climate consultant” after their name. The people on the list are mainly geologists, economists, and geographers. As for recognized publishing climate scientists, I count Spencer, Lindzen and Michaels. Which is close to all of the ones that are skeptics. I guess there would be Christy as well, but it looks like he had too much sense to sign the letter.
Ian, did they ask you to sign this letter? Would you sign it?
Jim – “prediction of climatologists with Newsweek describing the position as ” near unanimous””
You might be confusing the popular press with scientific publications. The press did sensationalise this however there was never a consensus amongst scientists that this was going to happen.
“they appear to be warning against relying on models as opposed to observable and measurable data – a reasonable view”
No-one is relying on computer models for the scientific theory of Global Warming. That is firmly based on observation. The consequences of this warming is being modelled as this is the only way any sort of research can be done. Again the letter confuses deliberately the difference between the observational evidence for global warming and the modelling that takes place to try to get a handle on possible consequences.
Jennifer, nice to see you commenting. Will you correct your post, as I requested in my earlier comment?
Tim, You ignored the substance of the letter and, as usual, focused on the scientists and suggested they had no credibility. its your style and very predictable. you and quiggin are masters of the personal attack.
Jim – goodwill my foot – have a read of their speeches and blog comments over the years. Balance ? No that’s a perceived misbalance through excessive noise but no published substance.
Bob Carter’s impressive list of publications are in various paleo fields but do not appear to list anything in the area of atmospheric physics or climatology of the 20th and 21st centuries. I didn’t see any papers on contemporary climate change.
It’s also worth again reminding ourselves what the national academies of sciences said:
http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
(as quoted by Tim Lambert)
Bob Carter writes that there has been a cooling trend from 1998-2005, and that this shows global warming is bunk.
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Statement on the Status of the Global Climate of 2005 states that the Global Temperaure Anomaly of +0.47degC (but posssibly as high as +0.58degC) “..places 2005 as one of the two warmest years in the temperature record since 1850”, suggesting the two years are statistically indistinguisable. The highest is 1998 with +0.52degc. See http://www.wmo.int and their “free downloads” section.
This matches with the NASA GISS record, which says it was a dead heat between 1998 and 2005 (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/ ), as does the NOAA record (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2005/ann/global.html) which in one data set has 2005 second, but in a new methodology has it highest.
As Bob Carter has pointed out previously, the 1998 hot year was assisted by the El Nino of the century. In 2005, no such El Nino/assistance occured, making such a high global temperature simply remarkable.
ABW – exactly and this style of ongoing shonky attack is why the contrarian side should not be taken seriously. Another classic is incorrectly quoting the trends in the MSU data (now revised).
Ender, the quote from Newsweek was that the position of climatologists ( on cooling ) was “near unanimous” – it may have been an exageration , but then so may their other more recent alarmist story about global warming.
Doesn’t change the fact that the hyper sensitivity to alternative views which has been displayed in this thread is not encouraging for goodwill debate.
Jennifer you’ve dumped a pile of BS and now you’re trying to dress it up as a bunch of roses. Tim did address the substance of the letter, ie the science of whether or not climate change is real, and you have not shown otherwise. All you’ve done is repeat an unjustified accusation – not good for your own credibility.
Tim didn’t attack the authors personally but he did point to evidence that their claims may not be reliable. You in turn tried to attack Tim’s credibility by saying he’s a computer scientist, ie not a climate scientist (who has ‘climate scientist’ printed on their business card?). By brainlessly repeating your original claims you just look silly – reinforced by the fact that you never engage on the science of climate change yourself, you just spin angles on the work of others who do get up their elbows in the science of the matter. If you have any dignity you’ll retract your silly accusations about Tim.
Jennifer, I am asking you politely for the third time to correct your post. I did not ignore the substance of the letter. They claimed that “climate change is real” was a meaningless statement. It isn’t as I explained in my post. They claimed that since Kyoto had been proposed that the science had moved in favour of the skeptics. That isn’t true either. As I explained in my post, since Kyoto has been proposed the strong warming trend has continued, as predicted by the models.
Jennifer, why did you ignore the substance of my post?
Jim – this page comprehensively discusses the “Ice Age” story:
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
and this link suggests no Ice Age soon.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html
http://amper.ped.muni.cz/gw/articles/html.format/orb_forc.html
And Jim – you’re now comparing a single meeting somewhere with the ongoing work of major meteorological institutions around the world – USA, UK, Australia, Germany, Japan, Canada – over now decades.
Tim and Thinksi,
I know you hate it when others have a different point of view. And you have this tendency of insisting and insisting that people see things from your perspective. But sorry, in my view Tim missed the substance of the letter – and he attempted to discredit the scientists.
Now Tim, tell us about DDT or about how salt levels are rising in the Murray River.
Wrong Jen, I’m not the bigot here. Contrary to your unjustified claim, IMHO Tim did address the substance of the letter, ie the science of whether or not climate change is real, and you have not shown otherwise. All you’ve done is repeat an unjustified accusation – not good for your own credibility. Do you honestly believe your own rubbish?
Tim pointed to evidence (ie clear points, explained) that question the reliability of some of the authors’ claims. You in turn tried to attack Tim’s credibility by saying he’s a computer scientist, ie not a climate scientist (who has ‘climate scientist’ printed on their business card?). Not only is the pot missing a handle and calling the kettle black, but by brainlessly repeating your original claims you just look silly – reinforced by the fact that you never engage on the science of climate change yourself, you just spin angles on the work of others who do get up to their elbows in the science of the matter.
Jennifer if you have any dignity you’ll retract your silly accusations about Tim. OR give a detailed explanation of exactly how he missed the substance of the letter. Clearly a few of us did then. PLEASE EXPLAIN!! WHAT is the substance of the letter then that we’re all missing? And WHAT is the substance that Tim wrote about? I expect that Tim would be happy to write a new post addressing the actual substance of the letter IF IF IF you can explain clearly exactly what it is that he missed.
Jennifer, what I hate is when people misrepresent what I write. You falsely claimed that I did not deal with the substance of the paper. I’ve pointed again and again exactly where and how I dealt with the substance. Instead of telling us what you think the substance was that I missed, you have just repeated your false claim without offering anything at all in support.
Oh you poor dears! Someone stole Timmi and Pinxii’s Tonkas! Tears before bedtime!
Bwaaahaa!
There may be no room for an attempt at balance in here, but I am willing to have a go.
Warmers –
1. I agree that Bob Carter’s point is pretty weak. Just because temperatures have not quite surpassed their 1998 peak (yet), does not mean we may not see further warming, especially in the surface record. Just have to wait and see.
2. The global cooling scare of the 1960s and 1970s was on a very modest scale compared with the current global warming scare, and there were a limited number of scientific articles about it. Moreover, these articles did not all finger industrial aerosols as the culprit in the way that industrial greenhouse gases are targeted now.
3. There are not many currently publishing climate scientists in the list of signatories, although I would add Baliunas, Chylek, and Barrett to Lambert’s list, and there are a number of retired experts there with substantial publication records in the field – e.g. Elsaesser, Leroux, Hoyt, Tennekes, Kininmonth, Hage, Khandekar, as well the editor of climate journal, De Freitas.
Sceptics –
If you take the exact meaning of what the letter says, you have a point on the first two items:
1. “As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines” – The signatories are not claiming to all be currently publishing climate experts. The identification is much broader and probably applies to at least the bulk of them.
2. “Observational evidence does not support today’s computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future” One could argue till the cows come home about this, but I imagine that the signatories would point to factors such as that recent observed warming appears to be less at the surface than higher in the troposphere, negligible or negative in most of Antarctica, and that models have still failed to predict major climate phenomena such as El Ninos, that they contradict one another especially on regional and local climate etc. The statement is sweeping, but it is defensible, and the IPCC itself has admitted to significant limitations in models and their predictive capacity. Observations also clearly contradict some model inputs, e.g. methane concentrations have stopped rising, contrary to all IPCC scenarios.
On the other two points, I would sit on the fence:
3. “If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.” Again one could argue till the cows come home: this is a matter of opinion and judgement.
4. “It was only 30 years ago that many of today’s global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe.” “Many of today’s” is pushing it a bit, because some have died in the meantime, and not all the coolers changed their minds. Stephen Schneider, Crispin Tickell and some NOAA people flipped to warming. Overall, though, there were quite a few global cooling alarmists. In addition to the Newsweek piece, check this Time Magazine article from the year before, where other scientists are also quoted: http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf
As usual a reasoned post from Davdi Brewer.
But to his sceptics responses:
(1) yes not implicitly but – the public in general will take their word, in lieu of any information to the contrary, that they are all climate experts – looks an impressive list to the lay person
(2) yes – as I said earlier there is still much to know – but it doesn’t say that – those of us following the debate know what the signatories really think and have said from previous experience of their comments – the letter deliberately leaves the lay person with the impression that the models are total 100% duds. Which is very far from the truth.
(3) I can’t agree. Yes cows do need to come home in the very long run. But surely the case has strenghtened not weakened and the IPCC are saying so. The literature is saying so. The world’s National Science Academies are agreeing. John Zillman is agreeing.
(4) Can’t concede Schneider on the evidence presented. Connelly’s reference (above) to a book at the time is worth reading. And the Time article from Junkscience is titled “another Ice Age” but read it – it’s not what the scientists are quoted as saying inside the article at all.
The issue is what does a lay person make of that letter. Surely science communication with the public holds a signficant responsibility. And all very interesting as pine beetles chomp their way through North American forests thanks to the extra warming. Canada has much to contemplate.
Phil: All countries have much to contemplate including Australia. Guess why I am watching this blog? (apart from the fact Dr Marohasy is jetting around creating smog).
Jim – “Doesn’t change the fact that the hyper sensitivity to alternative views which has been displayed in this thread ”
It is not a question of alternative views. AGW is scientific fact and not subject to views or opinion. The degree of climate change is unknown however the risk can quite easily be calculatd. These people are trying to get a government to ignore a risk with scientific sounding half truths which is not worthy of some of the names there. I am absolutely sure that the scientists on the list with peer reviewed papers to their credit would not have submitted such work to the scientific community.
I think David Brewer’s attempt at bringing balance to the debate has succeeded, but in my opinion David has misunderstood the conclusion that Bob Carter drew from the fact that there was no upward trend in global temperatures between 1998 and 2005. After making the point, Carter wrote:
‘In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say “how silly to judge climate change over such a short period”. Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.’
Bob Carter doesn’t say or imply that stasis since 1998 means that there’ll be no further warming: his point is that conclusions can’t be drawn from short-term trends, whether over 8 years or 28. I know that there are contrary views, but Bob’s point can’t be dismissed as a ‘shonky attack’.
I am disappointed but vindicated. This is an inflammatory and mendacious posting from Jennifer, so the negative impression about her purpose I said was forming but was uncertain of a few posts back was correct.
I also posted a link to my comments on that letter in a previous thread:
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/04/oh-canada.html
I said this, and still stand by it:
“I am not generally a believer in arguments from authority or attacks on other’s credentials, scientific arguments must stand on their own. However, this letter, as I said above, is one big hand wave with nothing specific or substantive to address, so I feel justified to note that most of the signatories are not climate scientists and it includes the usual batch of sceptical political economists and the regular cast of denialists for hire: Micheals, Baliunas, Singer, Peiser, Jaworowski, Essex and McKitrick.
There some demonstrable liars in there.”
If there were some scientific findings mentioned or contrarian papers or theories they could be debunked accordingly, but as it is one long opinion and presented as an authoritative one, discussions of the signatories is fully justified and really unavoidable.
Ian – of course it’s a shonky attack in a long line of shonky attacks. Come on – Bob’s not making a point for a stats class. It’s a device in an argument.
I’m disappointed Ian – suddenly you have an attack of “expertise” when it suits. You have omitted 2005 matching 1998 without an El Nino and you know full well that the IPCC sourced modelling that has fitted the whole period of the last century – using forcings of CO2, solar and volcanism effects. So Ian what is your explanation for the unprecedented rate of warming we’ve experienced? (Given your new found reserve of expertise).
And frankly with a strong hypothesis and a wide variety of supporting evidence 28 years would well qualify I’d dare suggest.
El Nino detrended the line would keep going to 2005.
And if you don’t think anything is happening well you’ve wasted an awful lot of time on those SRES scenarios that could have been spent on the rose garden.
Simply Philo, we’ve got some naïve characters reading both figures and the graphs.
IMHO They couldn’t hold a bar of music between them.
Dear Phil and others.
Watch out Terry MCCran got you in his sights.
Blair
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/sectionindex1/0,5442,dhs_terrymccrann%5ETEXT%5Eheraldsun,00.html
Obviously difficult to decide if Terry is just an ape-arse or a just a parrot than can transcribe what he’s told.
Ian – “his point is that conclusions can’t be drawn from short-term trends”
However if he is claiming this then this is a falsehood as the instrument temperature records go back to 1880 or so, so it is not being judged over the short term. Less reliable proxy records go back futher and put recent warming in a longer context still.
This may strike a chord with Pinxi; our Dr Marohasy will one day realize (before she is too much older) it takes a lot of well used imagination to make one good engineer.
Worth a read. RC linked to this article from the Society of Environmental Journalists – perhaps Bob can apply for membership.
http://www.sej.org/pub/index4.htm
cheers buggybuggabugeye, I hear the music.
A brief aside, but very relevant to scepticism and misleading arguments used in an attempt to discredit climate change scientists: Ian Castles remember arguing ad nauseam that Australia gives Official Development Assistance (ODA) above or on par with the international average?
To update you with the latest OECD figures: 2005 preliminary data has Australian ODA/GNI 4th last. Unchanged from 0.25% the previous year and well below the average of 0.33% (and way below the unweighted average country effort of 0.47%). (Kindly don’t dredge up the spurious ‘Downer said..’ lame defence again). Are you confident that Australia’s poor ODA/GNI position will change in a hurry?
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/27/36418598.pdf
This is further evidence that a big stink was fabricated over an incidental point and then defended with endless quoting and pontificating in an attempt to lend it some legitimacy, all from the motivation to discredit unwelcome work on climate change.
Pinxi; pure science will struggle with all the issues associated with global warming and environmental losses etc for a long time before there is consensus amongst the masses that something is wrong let alone heading for disaster.
We have the early signs in many fringe areas, ice, deserts, high country but only the super sensitive will see it as long term. As one or two of my mature silver birches die each long summer I don’t need science or even this discussion to reach my own conclusions about what’s in our daily media.
My grand children are the 8th generation of our history in this country, I can look backwards and forwards with ease knowing this blog and any pseudo science or Johnny come lately practice paraded here is an aberration.
Lets all demonstrate how our feet are feet are firmly planted on the ground and not in a piece of paper with these arguments.
Jennifer
Lambert’s just upset that there wasn’t one single website design teacher in that group and now he’s taking it out on you. The fact they didn’t even ask a few fashion design “professors” from the New School of Fashion got Lambert even more upset that he is foaming at the mouth.
It is tempting to respond in kind but it would be too demeaning; the request that “balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held” made by a consensus of scientists has obviously inflamed the chattering and twittering classes into yet another orgy of personal attack and villification.
http://www.nbr.co.nz/print/print.asp?id=14429&cid=18&cname=Opinion
Jennifer says:
“Now Tim, tell us about DDT or about how salt levels are rising in the Murray River.”
Great, jennifer, now he’s off doing another 10,000 word essay on why the Julliard School is reponsible for the banning of DDT. Don’t frown at the silliness of this proposition as he doesn’t. lambert will think there is a connectiont there somewhere and the figures (his) will prove it.
My idea of hell. Having to sit beside Lambert with a computer and a can of Mortein as he’s spraying for mozzies every 5 seconds.
I was wondering when the two stooges would show up. Did you guys rehearse that. The only orgy that you’ll witness Bird Brain is in your mind. Joe at least just goes for the jackboot as he realises now that he doesn’t understand that rain doesn’t fall in the desert. Cognitive overload.
Phil
Mr. Website designer put up the chart he’s trying to use to beat up Carter with. It’s as clear as mud that warming has not ocurred since 1998 despite the moving average continuing to point higher up to 2005. The reason for the MA moving up is because it is of course a lagging indicator depending on the time sequence used. However the actual years from 1998/2005 temps are not moving up.
That reminds me of the old Hollywood story that is supposed to be true.
Hollywood mogul is in bead with a starlet.His wife walks into the bedroom and sees them. The gals runs out.
Mogul turns to his wife and says, “I know what you saw is what you think you saw. I wasn’t doing anythinbg wrong, so who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”
Phil.
Lambert’s the husband and you seem to be the wife.
rog; Lets ignore all the debate over models for a moment.
what’s wrong with us using the two glaciers mentioned in the NBR article as our temp sensor over the past 200 years in regards to AGW?
Stick to the derivatives Curley if you don’t know a bull run when you see one. You see comments like this make me think you’re a dork.
Incidentally – I apologise about the dork quip – my blood was up – what happened to my palladium question?
Well this has been an illuminating but not enlightening thread.
Joe; this thread aint Hollywood, no moguls, no starlets – not much left mate, is there?
Bugga
It was the story, not moguls or starlets.
Anyways, I always return here to take a look a Jennifer’s very cute pic.
For jim’s benefit; there is a few old wives around hoping to hold up billions of dollars for the right people.
Aaah! Flattery beats science anytime hey
Thanks Phil, I knew that IPCC sourced modelling fitted the whole period of the last century using forcings of CO2, solar and volcanism effects. On the basis of this and other advice from scientific experts, the intergovernmental panel concluded that ‘In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is LIKELY to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations’ (EMPHASIS added).
This conclusion implied a broad subjective judgment that it was 66-90% probable that most of the warming over the last 50 years had been due to increased GHG concentrations. To a bird brain, it seemed to follow that in the IPCC’s view there was a 10-34% probability that most of the observed warming over the last 50 years was NOT due to increased GHG concentrations, But that was five years ago and maybe all of the uncertainties have now been resolved? We’ll know more about it when AR4 is released next February.
I don’t know why you’re asking me about the cause of the recent unprecedented warming. It seems from the IPCC’s last assessment report that there is a division of expert opinion on the point. So how would I know?
I’m not even sure that the recent warming IS unprecedented, given the finding in the TAR that the increase in temperature between 1910 and 1945 was greater than that between 1976 and 2000. As to whether it can be said for sure that no warming of this order occurred in the pre-instrumental period, the evidence (at least for the past two millennia) is currently being evaluated by a panel of the US National Academy of Science.
I’m puzzled why you think I’ve wasted an awful lot of time on the SRES scenarios if I don’t think anything is happening. The value of sound scenarios doesn’t depend on what I think is happening, nor on what does happen. Their purpose is to guide policymakers to assessments of how they should respond to an uncertain future.
For example, one of the studies based on the SRES scenarios, which will be reported upon in AR4, finds that, without any climate change, the population at risk of malaria (PAR-M) would reach 8820 million in 2085. With unmitigated climate change under the A1FI scenario, the estimated PAR-M will be 300 million greater, and with stabilisation of GHGs at 550 ppm CO2 equivalent PAR-M will be 260 million greater, than if there is no climate change.
So climate change appears to have a relatively minor influence on the future incidence of malaria, and the potential effect of alternative mitigation options is even smaller. Sound scenarios will be valuable for assessing adaptation options, whether or not climate change occurs and whether or not efforts are made to mitigate it.
Buggga, as it happens my grandchildren are also eighth generation Australians. My hope for them is that they’ll know a world in which the massive inequalities which exist at present will have been eliminated, and in which people in the poorest developing countries have the same opportunities as my grandchildren do today.
I can’t be right that those PAR-M numbers are for the A1FI scenario, because they’re greater than the population of the world under that scenario. They must be for the A2 scenario. Anyway the principle is clear and the results of the study were published in the special issue of Global Environmental Change published in May 2004 (Parry, M L, editor: ‘An assessment of the global effects of climate change under SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios’).
We will find that post hole digger in Ian yet, I’ll just keep picking away. Recall, as the Brits moved inland in this country they cut down the trees and put up fences, thereby erecting comfort zones in the wilderness.
Some of us eventually turned what shred of creativity the Victorian system allowed into engineering, that’s what finally built this country and generated surpluses. All technology like engineering has its creative roots in craft.
Our grand children’s experience will be enhanced when their lessons are based on developing their own craft. Independence comes from using knowledge obtained while working at the grass roots. Our art starts with a blackened stick, a pile of stones and a noisy vessel. Beyond that all of us are using more than our share.
Meanwhile, I can’t let Ian run off with this new science or its critics as the only way to carry on.
it’s a funny one bugggabuggga, many of the expert scientists, economists, statisticians, politicians and corporate heads – most of whom mean well – just can’t figure out why their policy recommendations aren’t widely supported by the pragmatic salt-of-the-earth types, the hippies, the urban leafy vote, the blue collar class or the poor. Despite being such disparate groups with hugely differing views on activism, in common these people generally resent these policies and despise the elitist judgements (as you’ve pointed out before) that they consequently bear the brunt of for their alleged ignorance. But as the problems are more widespread and hence interconnected, hence more complicated, and expertise becomes more specialised and the common man is no longer entitles to have an opinion in expert areas, where will it all lead? Increased conflicts between inside experts and alienated activitists?
Marohasy’s misrepresentation
Jennifer Marohasy has written a rather self-referential response to my criticism of the sixty scientists’ letter. Rather than deal with the substance of my criticism, Marohasy, who works for the Institute of Public Affairs, predictably tried to attack …
Argue to your hearts content people, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
Never was until Carl Sagan deemed it to be some 45 years ago when attempting to present an ad hoc refutation to the novelty that Venus must thermally hot due to its recent formation.
Other than that, do some homework on what spectral absorption means, compared to trapping heat.
CO2 is NOT a Greenhouse has. Never was and never will be.
Correction to previous post: omitted “be” between “thermally” and “hot”
Oh on this tried and hung issue, Louis has sprung up yet again like Mr Wobbly man on Noddy.
Meanwhile Jennifer’s silly and unsubtantiated accusations about Tim remain standing as well. Jennifer still hasn’t explained exactly what it was that Tim (and the rest of us) missed in the substance of the letter.
Dry up Louis, soon!
No Bugggga,
Please go to bed, your are waaay to up late for your age to be here.
Don’t bother engaging – he’ll do a runner before the debate ends (as always)
What? no hissup, hey
“kew.
Bob Carter confronts critics (how long before the predictable barrage of abuse from Done, O’Connell and other non experts?)
“..Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as “if”, “might”, “could”, “probably”, “perhaps”, “expected”, “projected” or “modelled” – and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.
The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.
Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating warming during the 20th century – a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and co-workers from mostly tree ring records – has been a seminal image of the climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this graph is now known to be deeply flawed.
There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from those scientists who approach climate change issues rationally, the so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against speaking out, which operates intensely on several parallel fronts…”
For some reason I can not post links, the previous was from the UK Daily Telegraph and this from Fox News;
Global Warning No More?
Could global warming be in remission? Australian geologist Bob Carter thinks so. Carter notes that since 1998, average temperatures across the globe haven’t increased at all and, in fact, have dropped slightly. Carter says what he calls “climate scaremongering” is merely a “self-created political fiasco,” writing in the London Telegraph that global warming devotees ignore the fact that the Earth got warmer between 1918 and 1940 — before worldwide industrialization — and cooled between 1940 and 1968 — during the height of the industrial era. His conclusion? The earth’s climate changes naturally, and unpredictably, in cycles.
Rog – if you’re actually believing that you are the greatest tosser and Scottish git of all time. And you actually vote in elections do you? Heaven help us.
Really this is desperate stuff. Snipping Carter’s press clippings. And Bird Brain looks at Fox News .. .. hahahahaha we knew it !
Incidentally Nursery Boy – there are a goodly number of sites on-line that will take you bet given you’re SO sure it’s cooling. Only a very view have. I think Bob Carter wasn’t one.
“Of all the lousy websites in all the world – I had to stumble into the one where Louis Hissink and rog do uproarious daily battle for their crowning as “Idiot of the Day””. Bueno!
41 minutes, you guys are getting better.
Washington Post also gets in on the action;
Let Cooler Heads Prevail
The Media Heat Up Over Global Warming
By George F. Will
Sunday, April 2, 2006; B07
So, “the debate is over.” Time magazine says so. Last week’s cover story exhorted readers to “Be Worried. Be Very Worried,” and ABC News concurred in several stories. So did Montana’s governor, speaking on ABC. And there was polling about global warming, gathered by Time and ABC in collaboration.
Eighty-five percent of Americans say warming is probably happening, and 62 percent say it threatens them personally. The National Academy of Sciences says the rise in the Earth’s surface temperature has been about one degree Fahrenheit in the past century. Did 85 percent of Americans notice? Of course not. They got their anxiety from journalism calculated to produce it. Never mind that one degree might be the margin of error when measuring the planet’s temperature. To take a person’s temperature, you put a thermometer in an orifice or under an arm. Taking the temperature of our churning planet, with its tectonic plates sliding around over a molten core, involves limited precision.
Why have Americans been dilatory about becoming as worried — as very worried — as Time and ABC think proper? An article on ABC’s Web site wonders ominously, “Was Confusion Over Global Warming a Con Job?”
It suggests there has been a misinformation campaign implying that scientists might not be unanimous, a campaign by — how did you guess? — big oil. And the coal industry. But speaking of coal . . .
Recently, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer flew with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos over Glacier National Park’s receding glaciers. But Schweitzer offered hope: Everyone, buy Montana coal. New technologies can, he said, burn it while removing carbon causes of global warming.
Stephanopoulos noted that such technologies are at least four years away and “all the scientists” say something must be done “right now.” Schweitzer, quickly recovering from hopefulness and returning to the “be worried, be very worried” message, said “it’s even more critical than that” because China and India are going to “put more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere with conventional coal-fired generators than all of the rest of the planet has during the last 150 years.”
That is one reason why the Clinton administration never submitted the Kyoto accord on global warming for Senate ratification. In 1997 the Senate voted 95 to 0 that the accord would disproportionately burden America while being too permissive toward major polluters that are America’s trade competitors.
While worrying about Montana’s receding glaciers, Schweitzer, who is 50, should also worry about the fact that when he was 20 he was told to be worried, very worried, about global cooling. Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of “extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.” Science Digest (February 1973) reported that “the world’s climatologists are agreed” that we must “prepare for the next ice age.” The Christian Science Monitor (“Warning: Earth’s Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect,” Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers “have begun to advance,” “growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter” and “the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool.” Newsweek agreed (“The Cooling World,” April 28, 1975) that meteorologists “are almost unanimous” that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said “may mark the return to another ice age.” The Times (May 21, 1975) also said “a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable” now that it is “well established” that the Northern Hemisphere’s climate “has been getting cooler since about 1950.”
In fact, the Earth is always experiencing either warming or cooling. But suppose the scientists and their journalistic conduits, who today say they were so spectacularly wrong so recently, are now correct. Suppose the Earth is warming and suppose the warming is caused by human activity. Are we sure there will be proportionate benefits from whatever climate change can be purchased at the cost of slowing economic growth and spending trillions? Are we sure the consequences of climate change — remember, a thick sheet of ice once covered the Midwest — must be bad? Or has the science-journalism complex decided that debate about these questions, too, is “over”?
About the mystery that vexes ABC — Why have Americans been slow to get in lock step concerning global warming? — perhaps the “problem” is not big oil or big coal, both of which have discovered there is big money to be made from tax breaks and other subsidies justified in the name of combating carbon.
Perhaps the problem is big crusading journalism.
This bit from my last post in Jen’s latest thread is appropiate here too “However I can respect your ability as a hired writer like any other pro journo if ‘you’ can accept that”
NB you was left out there (Jen)
you” works both ways rog
Thankyou Jennifer for directing me to the publication list of one of the signatories of the letter. With respect, however the rate of change now seems unprecedented and surely would not show up well in records of deep time with which geologists deal. The broad statements made in this letter imply that each of the signatories is across all of the issues in climate science and thoroughly up to date. Since you seem to have had some dealings with Prof Carter, what background does he have to make up to date commentary on climate models which seem to belong to a highly arcane field of their own?
The rest of us are in the position of having to run hard to catch up with working climatologists who have been in the field for many years. And that is my basic point. We are all interested in climatology these days not because of the abstract pursuit of truth but because we all have an economic interest (which calls *deny, deny*�) but hopefully also have a sense of justice for future generations and the many presently struggling on $2 a day (whose interests seem to pull the other way).
Surely this letter should be treated as a political document because after all it is written to a politician. I can imagine how John Howard would react to such a letter (with which he disagrees): *I think it is a bit rich that the elected government of a democratic country should be lectured as to how to conduct a more democratic process by a group, the majority of whose members are not even citizens of that country.*� (only a third of the signatories are Canadian, apparently)
I think this group is forum-hunting because in their own forum, the broad scientific community, they would be heavily outvoted. They know that politics is a numbers game and so they have enlisted every denier they can find to man the oars. Usually when a list of scientists has penned a letter I take them as a (perhaps eminent ) sample of that community. This group however is not representative. Rather they have taken upon themselves the role of correctives of a community which they believe to be delusionally catastrophic. Sadly I suspect they are wrong. Far too much is made of psychologising or in other ways impugning the motives of those whom we must rely upon for the basic data of climate.
If the signatories sat down with working climate scientists or engaged in some way in the forums of science, eg journals, meetings etc, their opinions may prove productive. However are public consultations a good way of enlightening the public? I think that such meetings often reduce to slanging matches as evidenced in this blog.
I dont want to turn down the thermostat this winter or nag the kids to turn off the lights. Dig up the evidence for yourselves if you would deny and I will gratefully listen. I am tired of people hoeing and re-hoeing the fields of others.
Wow – Ian that’s really good commentary. Very throughtful stuff. And perhaps a point for me to move on.
Yes contrarians need to engage. This is now difficult as the pro side will suspect their motives. But it needs to happen. And the pro side needs to answer the contrarians concerns and make time for discussion. Is it going to happen?
How do we get more good will into what has become a very polarised situation. How do we get work that doesn’t stand the test of time to be overturned without rhetorical bloodshed and House inquiries.
Contrarians need to be heard.
Ian working with people affected by drought would suggest there is no fun in it. So there is no glory in climate catastrophes nor would anyone wish cyclones on anyone.
I for one don’t wish to go back to the caves. And I don’t wish you to be cold in Canberra this winter. However if could give you a simple programmable $20 device to turn the lights out when nobody was using the room – wouldn’t that be worth it?
This observation by Ian “I think this group is forum-hunting because in their own forum, the broad scientific community, they would be heavily outvoted” probably sums it up.
Ian’s last comment “I am tired of people hoeing and re-hoeing the fields of others” reinforces my own view, respected experts from within each field of science must be authorized by their peers to conduct independent reviews of the quality of their work in any direction. This process must also be transparent across boarders.
Phil; I think Ian has the floor with this sentiment “I don’t want to turn down the thermostat this winter or nag the kids to turn off the lights”.
Ian; none of us want to put this issue on our kids.
>I think David Brewer’s attempt at bringing balance to the debate has succeeded, but in my opinion David has misunderstood the conclusion that Bob Carter drew from the fact that there was no upward trend in global temperatures between 1998 and 2005. After making the point, Carter wrote:
>
>’In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say “how silly to judge climate change over such a short period”. Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.’
I am suprised this has slipped under your radar. The linear trend since 1998 is +0.15 to +0.20C/decade (depending on your favorite temperature set) – this trend is the “same” as that which became established in the mid 1970 when greenhouse gas emissions really started to bite and is very firmly up. To make matters worse, Bob has been widely quoted stating that not only is there no trend but there is a cooling trend. I tried to get a negative trend fitting a variety of polynomials but couldn’t get close (even without last years record). Bob was unwilling to provide me with his definition of trend when I queried these results.
Would be nice if Jen could chase this down, and even better get this great scientific finding published? After all, we are interested in a fact based discusion aren’t we?
Of course, modelling from the Hadley centre shows that by 2008 every second year will be warmer than 1998. I guess we can just move the goal posts.
David
The various slopes derived from linear trend fitting of temperature versus time, while numerically precise, are meaningless.
Temperature is a qualitative measure of an objects “heatness”, referenced to some predetermined benchmark, generally based on the human experience of water solidifying at 0 deg. Celsius and its boiling point at 100 deg. Celsius.
Those trends quoted here, in the range of 0.05 deg. Celsius/decade, cannot be measured with existing technology, yet the more prolific keyboarders here ( alluding that as surfies their brains too are addled with “*” abuse) debate incessantly over temperature differences, whether daily, annual or decadal, are, with present technology, impossible to measure.
The lot of you are arguing over how many angels could be placed on a pin head.
And you Louis are, without a doubt, just such a pinhead! I luv your posts 🙂
>Those trends quoted here, in the range of 0.05 deg. Celsius/decade, cannot be measured with existing technology, yet the more prolific keyboarders here ( alluding that as surfies their brains too are addled with “*” abuse) debate incessantly over temperature differences, whether daily, annual or decadal, are, with present technology, impossible to measure.
Once more Louis I remind you of the central limit theorem. Annual average global temperatures have a standard error of estimation of about 0.025C. This has been covered in dozens of papers in Journal of Climate, Monthly Weather Review, and International Journal of Climatology (just to name a few) and is a well established fact. Suggest you (and other interested parties) use google scholar for further information. Some of the concerned papers are rather elegant in design, and could teach a few on this blog a thing or two about good scientific practice.
Regards,
David
Louis: try to get the sun of all the numbers 1 to 20 then give us the average.
IMHO if you can’t accept the decimal place it’s back to school for you mate!
Here is a link to a Wall Street Journal article, which decsribes what I am talking about.
By: M. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
And Lindzen is full of it:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/open-thread-on-lindzen-op-ed-in-wsj/
The IRIS effect was comprehensively shown to be a non event – Bulletin of American Meteorological Society had a poor attempt to prove it so by Lindzen and crew a few years back (where they “dubiously” used spatial patterns as an analogue for temporal patterns). This was torn to shreads a couple of volumes later. The idea never really had any legs because it is an observational fact (readily verified from satellites) that the enhanced greenhouse effect is strongest in the warmest regions where moisture level are highest as they must be. Don’t believe me – go for a walk at night in the deep tropics.
David
Thanks Phil and Buggga (is that really correct?) for your comments. Sorry about the delay in responding. I am sure churning through threads is rather tedious for all of us. Oh for a good book on the subject, but things seem to be moving too fast for paper to catch up.
Phil, such a sensor would be wonderful. $20 is about my sticking point considering the number of rooms that would have to have one.
I am still in a phase of educating myself on GW. I am sure I lean toward believing it is a real problem because of the quality of the content and discussions at the RealClimate site. I wish the deniers would set up a similar site that is open to all comers. As I suspect many of them are retired they should have the time.
There seems to be a never-ending ability to introduce complexity into doubts on GW. I suspect that even laypeople that are willing to give it a shot, as I am, feel frustrated and may just have to base an opinion on their assessment of the character of the scientific participants.
Direct engagement by both sides surely should be possible over the internet so that the rest of us can at least *listen in*.
David, you seem to have made contact with Prof Carter. The encounter seems to have been frustrating in one respect. Do you think he is amenable to discussion of his more general basis for scepticism.?
>David, you seem to have made contact with Prof Carter. The encounter seems to have been frustrating in one respect. Do you think he is amenable to discussion of his more general basis for scepticism.?
Ian, in the past few years it would appear that his concerns about the climate sciences have been largely resolved. The hockey stick has survived review with no contradictory alternative published (it is a little wobblier but this is expect as more paleo series become avalible giving greater variance explained), the MSU record has been resolved in favour of the climate models, the warming has comprehensively been shown to not be linked to urban heat islands, and the temperature trend has continued upwards (with last year the warmest or second warmest year on record – a record which will almost certainly fall with the next El Nino event). Unless some profound breakthrough is made, the issues are largely settled and the debate and any discussions are in the margins.
David
Before people dump all over those among the 60 scientists who you don’t know, may I respectfully suggest you research these people a bit first. Many are listed on http://www.envirotruth.org/myth_experts.cfm and some appear in the 23 minute on-line video you can view right on your PC at http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3. Where, if anywhere, is the science wrong in this video, please (as of April 13, 2005 when it was released, that is – I know some of the satellite mesuremnets ahve been moves up a bit (to .123 deg C/decade, I believe).
T
Well here comes the tip truck Tina for these dudes:
Video 1 – natural by output of the Sun – nope – hasn’t changed.
Urban heat islands – wrong -we’v been over this here ad nauseum
Satellites not warming – wrong
1998 – El Nino is warm. YES – nobody is diagreeing (Pity 2005 is just as warm with no EL Nino which they didn’t mention).
1970s -science consensus for cooling – nope
Video 2.
Hockey stick – we’ve fileld pages on this. Recent studies are if anything confirming the Hockey Stick despite the blathering.
More hurricanes – no AGW theory doesn’t say that.
“Not a single paper” on linking AGW to extreme weather – nope- 3 on hurricanes in last 12 months.
Video 3.
More solar stuff – doesn’t stack up. No real change since the 50s.
Ends of speculation about oceans and galaxies – in a mumbling fashion – but amazingly doesn’t address CO2 radiative physics – why??
Video 4.
The CO2 plant food story – no argument. But you’ll only get yield responses if you get rainfall with it.
Trying to say CO2 is “safe” for plants – yep and so what.
They imply CO2 should be the only driver of climate – no orbital mechanisms can be greater.
The CO2 lags the temperature story. RC has covered this.
THEN – rolling around the floor by now – cooling since 1998 – come on !!!
Then CO2 not the major GHG – oh for heavens sake. Yes yes yes.
Tina – not wishing to be insulting – but really a crap video. Spend an afternoon on the climate archives this blog and on RealClimate and see if you still believe the video. I’m speechless on what a shonky production it is – it doesn’t even attempt any balance !
And that’s not to say we now everything either. And not flogging a doomsday message.
David, You say that ‘The hockey stick has survived review’; and Phil, You say that ‘Hockey stick – we’ve filled pages on this. Recent studies are if anything confirming the Hockey Stick despite the blathering.’
I have the contrary impression but am open to persuasion. If you have time, could you please post citations to the papers that you believe confirm the Hockey Stick?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/a-new-take-on-an-old-millennium/#more-253
Ian – a review with refs. Especially Osborn & Briffa.
>I have the contrary impression but am open to persuasion. If you have time, could you please post citations to the papers that you believe confirm the Hockey Stick?
Ian, will do when I make it back into the office.
BTW Tina, the first “law” of the internet is never believe anything on a website with a name like “enviro truth”. Anything that purports to be the truth on an issue like the environment (a topic full of value judgments etc) should ring alarm bells. I would never click on the URL.
Truthly, though, the letter was never about science.
David
Yes, David, I am inclined to agree with your comment that you should never believe anything that you read on a website with the name Enviro Truth.
And the same applies to a site with an equally pretentious name like Real Climate.
Also, if you want to learn why the hockey stick is now broken beyond repair, you could profitably spend a day at Climate Audit. As it’s name implies, this site deals with statistical matters from a viewpoint of intellectual rigour rather than blather.
Cathy
ionolsen23 Hello Jane, great site!
14050fceef26 Can you write more about this
Nothing is as it seems to be!
U know these elite bloodliners who hold the cash? They also control the climate as well as hundreds of thousands of individuals many unaware.
Clones existed 30yrs b4 u knew. I drew the military map for those who wrote the 911 script – in the drawing of the buildings (all 3) it is inscribed “historic justice” and “pig” this doodle is over 25 yrs old.
u cannot beat these individuals – their are excessively intelligent and are 50yrs ahead of ur time!
Some advice from a first born…..
Invest in SILVER all types even the gadget to make collodial silver and bottled water……I promise u wont be sorry