The Australian Environment Foundation had its first conference and AGM last weekend.* There was some discussion on the subject of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
In my talk I suggested that in the film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ Al Gore took away the potential for dissent by making global warming a moral issue. I suggested he turned it into an issue of faith.
I quoted Thomas Huxley (a colleague of Charles Darwin) who once wrote something along the lines of “religion is for morality, science is for factuality”.
I went on to suggest that there is no ‘truth’, however inconvenient, that should not be exposed to the blow torch of healthy skepticism and there should be no claim, however morally appealing, that we are not prepared to test against the available evidence.
After my paper there was some discussion about semantics, in particular, David Tribe made comment that it is important to be clear about the distinction between skepticism and being an AGM skeptic.
He made the same point as a comment at another blog post this afternoon:
“This is a good a place as any for me to repeat my view said previously directly to Jen Marohasy that it’s highly important to be clear about semantic distinction between scepticism and being a sceptic on AGW. The later implying you reject well established findings.
I consider that it is part of scientific ethics to always be upfront about the limitation to current data and theories. That is, to know and freely state where certainty and range of precision lie, and to never have to apologise for expecting that, because to fail in doing this do so is professionally unethical.
To demand clearer statements from IPCC about the validity and uncertainty range of their claims is not necessarily to be in disagreement with the validity of parts of their model, but normal ethical practice in science. For example IPCC clearly failed ethically in the hockey stick episode. The computer model has numerous complex assumptions that are empirically unproven.
I note also there is substantial empirical evidence for solar forcing processes whose mechanisms are uncertain. That does not mean I am an AGW sceptic: I want to see those aspects of the IPCC model tested against this recent interesting solar driving hypothesis as it could mean all the CO2 efforts being advocated (Kyoto etc) are completely unnecessary or indeed counter productive.”
Does David make an important point? Most so-called AGW skeptics are not AGW skeptics. They do not deny that C02 causes warming, but rather recognize the limitations of the current data and theories.
In calling us AGW skeptics, are the AGW alarmists suggesting we deny the physics of carbon dioxide based forcing?
So is my recent blog post entitled ‘How to Become a Global Warming Skeptic’ misleading, because while I accepted the label, and encouraged others to nominate for the label, I also explained that I don’t deny global warming or climate change or that increasing levels of carbon dioxide may drive warming.
Should we reject the ‘global warming skeptic’ label? What would George Orwell of said?
—————————–
* I’ll do a summary of the AEF conference for this blog in due course and link to the conference papers which should be up at the AEF website by the end of the week. In the meantime you can see some of the photos from the conference at
http://www.aefweb.info/display/con2006gallery.html . Some regular contributors to this blog were at the conference including David Tribe and Walter Starck.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
A lot of the meaning of the term “AGW skeptic” depends on the meaning of “AGW.” If the latter is defined as reasonably as David Tribe would have it, then any scientist worth his or her salt who’s involved in the field is an “AGW skeptic.”
If you define ‘AGW’ the way Al Gore does, then an “AGW skeptic” is a Bush (US president)-loving shill in the pay of giant oil monopolies who is bent on destroying the fragile environment for the sake of spreading neo-liberal capitalism at the expense of the world’s poor while flooding the rare coastal ecosystems which are host to the world’s most exclusive resorts and casinos.
Exhibit A (below) is better and more internet accessible but less reader friendly for non-scientists than Jen’s link.
Exhibit B is a line of evidence often used to dismiss the possibility that solar variation might have a significant effect on global temperatures.
Exhibit C is one example (thanks to Paul Briggs) of indications that there are other factors than direct irradiance (by photons) that could couple the solar-cycle to global atmospheric temperatures. Magnetic flux is one, cosmic ray flux is another, cloud albedo a third. These are hypothetical examples of possible indirect coupling mechanisms suggested by Exhibit A or similar data.
I’m glad Jen made this post as it gives me an opportunity to voice a distinction which I feel has unfortunately not always been clear in the public comments of some commentators (whom I still respect).
The distinction is this: that criticising IPCC does not necessarlity mean that you reject CO2 forcing effects. (Not that those to whom I am directing this comment don’t know this well, and not that there arn’t even some reasons ie temperature change preceeding CO2 change in the geochemical record, for even considering dismissing the importance of CO2 forcing, although I personally don’t go that far. It was interesting that one person at the AEF conference sensed I was criticising Jen in making this point. It was however intended to be a helpful critical comment to help her and others avoid being misinterpted as completely rejecting certain evidence when I suspect they don’t really do so.)
I just assume everyone want’s rigourous debate so we can find out the most accurate estimate of climate trends.
John Quiggin has made an open challenge, in effect, as a rhetorical ploy, for more than ? 10 AGW skeptics to be identified in the professional geoscience community, if I recall his remarks correctly from memory. My response is that ALL those who comment on AGW should be clear about the range of validity of any assumption they make and of the data they rely on, or else get out of the discussion.
My answer to him is that all members of the IPCC and John Q. himself should be sceptical about the precision of their hypotheses and models in the sense I describe.
Exhibit A
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2006GL027142.pdf
Exhibit B
Variations in solar luminosity and their
effect on the Earth’s climate
P. Foukal1, C. Fro¨hlich2, H. Spruit3 & T. M. L. Wigley4
Variations in the Sun’s total energy output (luminosity) are caused by changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on
the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have
contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years. In this Review, we show that detailed
analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this
new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming
since the seventeenth century
Exhibit C
It’s important to understand that the bulk of the Sun’s influence on climate is due to eruptivity rather than irradiance – the Sun’s influence is often dismissed as minor when only irradiance is considered.
My Environmental Sciences friend tells me the Sun’s influence is 30% irradiance, and 70% eruptivity.
I can recommend this long exchange between RC and Nir Shaviv, from May this year:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/thank-you-for-emitting
Nir Shaviv enters the discussion at comment 37, then the debate continues in between other posts: 49, 54, 56, 57, 60, 61, 69, 70, 83, 89, 90, 95, 102, 110, 125, where Rasmus cuts off the discussion.
Enjoy!
Finally, back to JM’s question: Was Jen’s Blog earlier title misleading?
Well Jen, its only a blog, and blogs have comment sections to clean up the messy bits. If they didnt, no one would be reading it, coz thats where most of the fun is.
Jen:
Without discussing the rights an wrongs – but dealing with the issues of skepticism.
Re “Most so-called AGW skeptics are not AGW skeptics. They do not deny that C02 causes warming, but rather recognize the limitations of the current data and theories.”
I have to be skeptical about this claim – I suggest most of your contributors are very skeptical on this issue citing:
– solar drivers – both radiance and eruptivity
– celestial drivers
– the CO2 record
– CO2 is plant food (which it is)
– CO2 lags temperature in ice cores
– more variation in the “system” than we think
– water vapour most important gas
– CO2 is very small atmospheric component
complexities on the aerosol/global dimming issue
– if you lift the lid on a greenhouse the heat escapes
You then have the data skeptics:
– climate data conspiracy and analysis issues at the CRU – see Warwick Hughes for details
– the satellite data doesn’t show a warming or it’s a small warming
– but “x” is colder today/last week
– the surface data are contaminated with heat island effects
– whether the present day is warmer than Medieval period and the whole Hockey Stick debate
Extreme events:
Whether they is an increase in cyclones/hurricanes from global warming
– it’s all multi-decadal variability
– – the hurricane record is incomplete/faulty
Droughts and rainfall trends:
– Australia’s rainfall overall shows little trend
Glaciers:
-“glacial retreat started earlier in the 1900s before AGW”
– “y” glaciers are increasing
– Kilimanjaro ice fields retreating for other regions
Polar regions: Antarctica and Greenland
– getting colder
– getting more snow
Artic –
has melted before – is multidecadal variability
***********
So – using these examples I have to suggest that most of your bloggers here do not anywhere near believe in anthropogenic global warming caused by the combustion of fossil fuels for energy and transport. Jen your fellow travellers are true disbelievers. I am not debating these issues – simply reflecting back to you that for all the debate we haven’t got anywhere IMHO with accepting the basic theory of increasing greenhouse from CO2/CH4/NOx emissions.
You would add most of the contrarians from your post opening on: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001635.html – why because they advance most of the arguments above.
After this point there is the whole issue of accuracy of models:
– can’t model the weather in 2 weeks time so .. ..
– I don’t trust models
– garbage in/garbage out
– Ian Castles – scenarios are wrong
– processes not represented properly
– models don’t do El Nino well enough
A corrupt process:
– the IPCC is a greenie communist plot because .. ..
– Hansen/Schneider/Mann said .. ..
Then we have “alarmism” – here I will venture an opinion – “alarmism” is hissed at the pro-AGW side like “child molester”. Everything is seen as alarmist. You alarmist – you .. .. Alarmists are SO darn alarming. I’m alarmed about increasing alarmism.
Interestingly the pro-AGW side hasn’t taken to hissing back “economic alarmist” at suggestions that any reductions in CO2 emissions or new technology will ruin the the economic system.
SO my point – I disagree with the thesis of your opening – your are up to your armpits in fundamental skeptics, contrarians and denialists. Wear the badge “global warming skeptic” with pride.
The physics of CO2 forcing is heavily contested.
You are nowhere near a blog consensus like Pielke seems to have developed. This is Skeptic Central.
[And it’s all your fault – Jennifer – you big skeptic you – 🙂 ]
Why perhaps: well this blog is more than science and evidence-based environmentalism – it’s about “politics and the environment”. This debate has gone political. And the debate is NOT over.
Perhaps the AGW believers are still yet to be tested with the reality of it all. See “How much reality can you take” http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/09/21/how-much-reality-can-you-take/#more-1015
[ and jolly good luck to you all – nobody says we have to believe in AGW – and who says you’re not right – well you know their names !]
But anyway LOOK A RABBIT.
– when you say “IPCC clearly failed ethically on Hockey Stick” – well I object because blah blah and blah. The committee findings did not show .. .. Hell will freeze over before I surrender on .. .. zzzzzzz.. . . 🙂
Its people like you Luke that has politicised and stuffed the debate, you can jump from AGW to GWB to Kyoto in a single breath. Its just another day for the self haters of western civilsation.
Opposition environment spokesman Anthony Albanese is a prime example, on Als movie he said;
“…the film documented the scientific consensus that climate change had led to a significant increase in both the duration and intensity of hurricanes, and a drop in rainfall in agricultural areas.
“The minister should explain what was entertaining about Hurricane Katrina and other extreme weather events,” Mr Albanese said.”
Luke,
Your whole reasoning here is very confused and irrelevant to working out the limitations of models such as the IPCC one. Your asessment of the balalance of opinion expressed at this blog is connected with the validity of the (say) IPCC model is totally irrelevant. I coursre there are nutters. There are obstructors. There are those who make mistakers. There are Greenpeace activists and there are a few competantant scientists and the majority who visit, read and say nothing. How you can go from your opinion of this mixed rabble to judgement about geophysics and economics is very muddled. It may even reflect badly on your judgement. All it means is that you are frustrated that you dont get a chorus of “Yes Luke your right” which only happens in the life of brian.
Forget about all these judgement and return to making the case for the science and models, They speak for themselves irrespective of what many nutters, ockers, cockies, cryptic nom-de-plumes or wise geniuses say here.
Rog – I have “politicised” the debate? Thanks for confirming my point. Albanese was half right but who cares.
Detribe – (a) you’ve missed the point – Jen is writing “but we skeptics are more advanced in agreement than portrayed” – I’m saying – nope – you have zero consensus on anything including the most basic points. This blog actually says we’re totally unsure of anything and everything. It has nothing to do with having my point accepted at all. I don’t care if you don’t agree.
(b) mate forget about IPCC models and climate modelling in general – because you have no consensus on what they should represent in terms of a model and they would always be such bullsheet anyway – garbage in – garbage out would be hissed by Rog. The debate never gets above the trivial. And you’re asking the IPCC to represent some celestial process that you cannot describe ?? How?? You guys would never be convinced on any models ever and Rog would just continue to drop in one-liners as long as it sounded greenie/leftie – regardless of all and any facts.
(c) you sound about the same on GMO !
Forget whether AGW is right/wrong or whether the IPCC is good/bad/evil or whether eggs are going up in price – is there any skeptic or blog consensus? Jen’s implying there is on CO2 – I can’t see it at all. Show me ! Tell me ! Abuse me later.
Luke,
When you say things like, “we’re totally unsure of anything and everything,” you need to add the phrase “cocksure ignorance” to balance your vocabulary.
Luke,
You write as if people who comment at the blog are part of some family of “sceptics” who need to agree, when to say “you”. I’m only speaking for myself. Drop the group “label” bit.
(b) mate forget about IPCC models and climate modelling in general .
If you mean that you dont want discussion of the usefulness of models, or you really dont believe there is anything useful in the modeling, why not just shut up and save others the angst and let them make better progress.
The debate never gets above the trivial.
I agree, except you should at least say hardly ever if you want to avoid refrring to yourself. But yes, there is a lot of annoying trivia, and Pielke ‘s quality on climate policy is better hes a pro on the topic and may have a different audience.
Jen generally puts up fairly simple and understandable statements or questions; it a strength as well as a weakness. Much of her stuff is exploring new newsworthy issues; why you want a consensus on these is a mystery to me. At least she gets good readership, and is not pompous and self important like some sites.
Thanks for noticing some consistancy in my approuch to this topic and GMOs. Can I take that as a complement?
Luke, I doubt that there is a blog consensus among sceptics. Why should there be? Being a sceptic means questioning assertions, and it relies on common sense and previous experience.
What’s wrong with questioning various aspects of AGW theory and accepting others? Jen’s previous post was about how various people are labelled as sceptics, not about defining a sceptic “consensus”.
I must say I also don’t understand the need for agreement/consensus on this issue.
Perhaps Luke sees progress as a top down approach that can only be achieved through strong leadership or consensus?
In contrast, I tend to see progress as a bottom up approach – along the lines of emergent complexity theory – along the lines of natural selection and evolution.
I like to be informed, but I see no need for general agreement or disagreement.
People will make decisions based on the available information – this blog is potentially a source of information for individual decision making.
The skepics consensus is that there is no consensus.
debate, which debate? Look at wiki topics about global warming, pro AGW editors won’t even let the “this is a heavily disputed subject” tag in place. But then take a look at the discussion page.
I’d welcome a true debate about the error bars in ice core co2 concentration measurements.
Schiller – I was not trying to insult you (fun as that may be) – I am saying there is a wide range of scepticism on almost all points.
Detribe – don’t know if there’s a family or not, probably tribes and degrees of scepticism. On modelling please discuss at will. But if you don’t agree on any basic theory – what do you model? And it doesn’t happen really – as “all models are nonsense” is the usual retort. That’s cool. I can handle it. And I don’t want a consensus – how boring.
What was the old joke about being models being like self-abuse. An essential pleasant and harmless activity but not be confused with the real thing.
Paul – Jen says: “In calling us AGW skeptics, are the AGW alarmists suggesting we deny the physics of carbon dioxide based forcing” – IMHO there is fair degree of scepticism here about this basic premise of the AGW case. So I have to say therefore there is little consensus on the fundamentals. That’s OK.
But if some rogue (not Rog) hisses sceptic – well it’s probably true. And that’s OK isn’t it?
Proud to be sceptical ? Sceptics have more fun ?
Luke,
Modelling may be important to you, but its not to me.
Having a complete explaination may also be important to you, but its not to me.
Most people seem to need complete answers which I think is why we have religon.
…I am a happy skeptic and atheist, I like information, I like exploring information, I don’t need whole stories with happy endings.
Maybe we could have a discussion about what “healthy” skepticism is?
I would suggest that not considering modelling important is ‘unhealthy’ skepticism.
Being happy to label yourself as a skeptic, as though you take some pride in the label and see it as your identity, is, i would suggest ‘unhealthy’.
Constantly taking the role of skeptic, without taking any time at all to either explore the possible value in the object of your skepticism i would suggest is unhealthy.
Constantly taking the role of skeptic and never taking the time to offer an alternative explanation, i would suggest is unhealthy skepticism.
Being mainly skeptical, but then completely dropping your skepticism when you find a tidbit that seems to fit your world view (eg. a paper on the sun and global warming, or ianM’s recent trumpeting of the limited results on variable historic CO2 levels) is, i would think, unhealthy skepticism.
Unhealthy skepticism might make you happy, but it is not befitting of someone who ‘likes information’ and likes ‘exploring information’.
So what is healthy skepticism?
Steve,
What do you mean by unhealthy?
I get the impression that you and Luke always want knowledge to contribute to some sort of predetermind public good? For you the truth has no intrinsic value?
FOR LUKE A CASE STUDY IN SUPRESSION OF DISSENT
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE ROYAL SOCIETY
Aynsley Kellow
Dear Mr Ward,
I must say I was somewhat amazed at your letter to Nick Thomas of ExxonMobil of 4 September. That such an august institution as the Royal Society is attempting to suppress scientific argument is one thing, and that it relies upon notions of corporate influence that would flunk any reasonable examination in political science yet another.
I could write you a lengthy discourse on what is wrong with your line of reasoning, touching on the $1 billion Exxon is spending on its own corporate response to climate change, the amount it donates to Stanford University alone to research solutions (an order of magnitude larger than that your analysis indicates Exxon provided to organisations you consider ‘misinformed’ the public), and so on. I will save such an analysis for my own research on the politics of climate science, for which your letter will constitute an excellent example of attempts to suppress dissent.
Instead, let me address the basis of your claims about the IPCC – and here I write as an expert reviewer for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
You take issue with Exxon’s statement that the IPCC relies for its conclusions ‘on expert judgment rather than objective, reproducible statistical methods.’ You cite a conclusion to Ch12 of TAR stating that ‘most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greeenhouse gas concentration.’ You do not seem to appreciate that Working Group I adopted quite specific meanings, specified in the Summary for Policy Makers, where expressions such as ‘likely’ quite explicitly refer to the subjective level of confidence of the Chapter Lead Authors.
‘Likely’ quite specifically means that the Lead Authors believe there is a 66-90% chance that the science is true. The Exxon statement in its Corporate Citizenship Report that you cite is thus entirely consistent with the IPCC conclusion that you cite.
Sadly, we have now reached the point where the Royal Society is a less reliable source of scientific advice than Exxon Mobil. A sad day indeed.
I am copying this letter to Benny Peiser, who runs an excellent newsletter on such issues.
Yours,
Professor Aynsley Kellow
—
Professor Aynsley Kellow
School of Government
University of Tasmania
No, the truth has a lot of intrinsic value for me.
By unhealthy in relation to scepticism, i mean scepticism that obfuscates the truth, rather than making it clearer.
To work out whether your scepticism is unhealthy or healthy (and thus ensure it is healthy) requires the capacity for self-reflection, to be sceptical about your scepticism.
Detribe – I listed this in this blog a few days ago – at least read the other side first.
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2006/09/19/LettertoNick.pdf
I think Royal Society has a point and they made it in writing – no messing around. But that’s just me. Politics of course may have been less than diplomatic.
All probably indicates a need for contrarian viewpoints to be better heard and debated – any ideas.
Exxon Mobil is the worlds largest company. For Exxon’s opinions to be characterised as dissent
that would have to be one big, significant overwhelming consensus about AGW for the world’s biggest company to be characterised as a dissenter.
It is absurd to suggest that Exxon’s opinion and influence and interests can be repressed.
getting to the truth of a matter can be a very messy business. chances are if you like complete stories and straight paths you will not find the truth.
Yes, that’s the way it seems to me too Jennifer. *smile*
Wow, this blog is going all philosophical.
Steve, I disagree that the sceptic has to come up with an alternative explanation. A proponent comes up with a theory and evidence to explain an observation and suggest a policy.
A sceptic just has to show that any part of the chain is wrong, inconsistent or illogical. Scepticism is built into science in the form of the null hypothesis.
now we are going all Zen! Null hypothesis heheheh.
I agree with you Paul, but think that it only applies in the short term.
If all you do is be a skeptic, then the best you can manage is null. That might be better than being wrong in the short term of a debate, but its still a bit underachieving in the longer term.
Eg. its easy to say that capitalism is hopeless because so many people live in poverty and are still unhappy. As a skeptic with no alternative, i sound convincing.
But as soon as one tries to put up an alternative (eg. communism) then suddenly capitalism starts looking a lot better hey?
At some point, idealistic skepticism has to become pragmatic, because the story will never be complete, but that is no excuse to sit around waiting for everything to be perfect.
The AGW theory and all its facets has been around for a long time. As Jennifer said, there might not ever be a complete story. So when do you decide to act? If you are a perpetual skeptic, and never present your own alternative, then you will easily be able to keep finding holes and uncertainty, even if that uncertainty is consistently diminishing. How do you decide when the uncertainty has diminished to such a point that you can act?
Presenting an alternative is a good way of getting an idea for uncertainty and limitations, and whether they are bearable or unbearable. Alternatives prod you into making a choice. And making a choice is the hard, pragmatic part – its what real people have to do.
Steve,
I supported an alternative recently: AP6. You suggested the post was all spin.
I’ve repeatedly stated that AGW is a technological issue and we need to support/not mandate the development of new technologies.
I don’t think there is any need for a grand plan, just support for innovation.
The Royal Society is a crock. It told Africans that GM crops would make them sick–without evidence, and said so *twice*. Now the crusty old codgers are making scientific pronouncements based on faulty nanoeconomic data. Brits have “muddling through” and “mucking about” down to an art, because science is these days beyond them. They should learn to speak French and retire to the bosom of Old Europe, where they can dodder into the senility that encompasses the world’s largest museum.
The term “unhealthy scepticism” is an oxymoron because the value judgement unhealthy has been added to a term that has its roots in the primacy of evidence over values.
Jennifier,
Modelling and prediction are important to anyone who’s a scientist. It’s one of the basics of science, to come up with a hypothesis. Any useful hypothesis will enable prediction. With your statement you’re basically saying that science is not important to you.
Having a complete explanation of the universe is what drives science. Scientists need to understand the world and how it works. With you’re statement you are basically saying that science is not important to you.
“Most people seem to need complete answers which I think is why we have religon” This is why we have science. Religon doesn’t provide any answers. Science does. Only people who don’t need the whole story need religon.
“I don’t need whole stories with happy endings”, well I need the whole story as I hope most people do. I find your attitude as something approaching anti-science where you are quite happy to be ignorant of the whole.
Steve, I think you can briefly state the null hypothesis as “Anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases has no significant effect on global climate”.
The alternative hypothesis, that we spend a lot of time dicussing, is “Anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases has a significant deleterious effect on global climate”.
Another alternative hypothesis is “Anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases has a significant beneficial effect on global climate”.
And a third alternative “Anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases has a significant effect on global climate that is neither beneficial nor deleterious”.
So in science, you should first propose the null hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis. You then demonstrate that the null hypothesis is false, and that your alternative hypothesis explains the observations. If you can’t demonstrate that the null hypothesis is false, then the alternative hypothesis is not worth a cracker.
In AGW theory, I’m not convinced we have yet disproved the null hypothesis.
SimonC,
You’ve taken everything out of context and extrapolated too far.
Modelling is relevant. Prediction is important. But this discussion began with Luke suggesting it was the beginning and the end for him.
He was almost suggesting that if he had a bit of information that didn’t fit anywhere, he wouldn’t know what to do with it.
I was simply stating that I can cope with information that is incomplete. I can happily collect bits of evidence that doesn’t seem to fit any particular story.
BTW I am not driven by a complete explanation for the universe. But I would like to have a better understand of what drives climate on earth.
I thought it was spin that you went from Richard Branson to AP6 without covering his call for Australia to ratify kyoto.
Everyone but extreme luddites agree that technology can help address AGW.
However, currently the spruik is that technology is what makes AP6 special, as though the other approaches are not about technology.
Emissions trading also promotes new technology.
One big difference between the two is the one is technology neutral (emissions trading) and the other picks winners (AP6.) I’d rather the market pick the winners and private equity investors and money lenders do the risk taking – that is what they are good at and how they make their living. The government should not be the one trying to pick the winners, and risking millions of dollars of taxpayer funds on potential lemons, because it is not what they are good at.
Jen – I have plenty of bits that don’t fit well.
However I was merely responding to your opener. I’m simply suggesting that blog agrees on very little if anything about climate change theory. So one has not much basis for moving the debate with no fundamental agreement on anything.
Detribe would find it hard to start modelling for example.
Interesting though that most paleo climate evidence (except the Hockey Stick) will be accepted without question. And we don’t normally discuss what’s wrong with the CO2 driver specifically – simply “but hey it could be this or that”.
And I’m not trying to debate these here – simply reflecting.
Scepticism is all very good until you’re in government – you weigh up what the IPCC, CSIRO and BoM are saying. Then consider what the sceptics are saying. Gee that Bob Carter has some good points. Wasn’t Andrew Bolt into them on the weekend. Ian Lowe’s on the phone again. Gorby just visited. Think through the economic implications. Ponder funding technology and science. React to constituent concerns. Ponder that ongoing droughts and urban water issues.
So El Sceptics – what would you do if you occupied the Ministerial leather? Jen ? any advice? Does scepticism induce policy paralysis.
I find it curious that the blog is generally supportive of AP6 – if we’re sceptical and totally undecided should we not hand the cheque to Rog for TB and malaria control? Why endorse AP6 – isn’t it a waste of time on a non-issue?
Unhealthy scepticism is not an oxymoron.
An extreme example: i had a friend who, during a traumatic time, went delusional. She believed people were trying to brainwash her through her clock radio, and that members of a religious group were trying to program her to kill herself.
At first we tried to reason with her. We tried to rationally explain how what she was thinking was false. But she was deeply sceptical of what we were saying, and argued vehemenently with us, and even at one point began worrying that we might be somehow part of the group that was after her. (She’s ok now)
That is clearly unhealthy scepticism. But how to prove it? How could i prove that i was not one of the bad guys? To get to the truth, my friend needed the capacity to be sceptical about her scepticism, and to put more weight in the fact that we had been her friends for a long time, and that the chances of us being badguys was low.
In the end, she needed counselling, a lot of time to relax, and a short stint of medication to come out of her delusion. (Maybe that’s all some of the uber sceptics on this blog need – a hug and a prescription?)
If you can’t see the truth that scepticism is sometimes unhealthy, then you probably fight with your wife a lot! Sometimes arguing doesn’t make you right, it makes you wrong, it is just being a pain in the a$$ and getting in the way of useful, pragmatic action.
Scepticism is also at the heart of postmodern deconstruction theory – all that finding a weakness in any argument Derrida stuff. It gets dull when taken to an extreme doesn’t it?
As I said before, at some point, you’ve got to put your scepticism aside and come back to the real world and make a pragmatic decision. At some point, uncertainty is small enough and consequences great enough that scepticism takes a back seat to an imperfect solution/action. Its far to easy to just sit back and find all the holes. Its the difference between being a critic and being a performer.
I can understand Paul not wanting kyoto or any expenditure on AGW if he does not think the null hypothesis has been disproven. And I can see why that belief means that it is not necessary to come up with alternatives.
My uncertainty about the null hypothesis is low enough that i am comfortable thinking of it as true when deciding what to do next.
I’ll admit to not knowing how to convince you to share my view though.
“Scepticism is all very good until you’re in government”
could also say it as
Scepticism is all very good until you hold some responsibility for the outcome and are under scrutiny.
That doesn’t happen when all you do is stick to the null hypothesis without proposing an alternative.
Analogy:
Scepticism about whether certain farming practices are appropriate is all well and good in the city, but when you are trying to make a living off the land, maybe you think twice before being so sceptical.
Until the null hypothesis is disproved, then all alternatives are of equal value, ie zero.
The Hockey Stick was a major attempt to disprove the null hypothesis, or a key part in doing so. There were problems identified with the statistics that say its conclusions are not supported by the evidence, not that its conclusions are wrong. There are other studies which support the HS, and yet others which don’t. Bob Carter says that on geological timescales, 20C climate was unremarkable. That doesn’t disprove the null hypothesis.
As things stand, I don’t believe the null hypothesis to be disproved. Until it is, there is no justification for taking action which is acknowledged to have a large cost.
I agree governments have got themselves into a bind by creating such large greenhouse bureaucracies. It’s hard for them to ignore the advice from bodies they have funded. Ross McKittrick’s idea of a counterweight group, to specifically examine flaws in the concensus argument, seems a good option.
You still dont get it do you Luke, Albanese quickly conflated climate with weather , the man is an outrageous liar and a shill for the union movement.
So Paul or anyone – would you suggest that some groups are only interested in destabilising the debate for political ends – i.e “Whatever it takes”. So how do we distinguish between levels of disagreement. When does healthy or robust scepticism simply become warfare with disinformation to slow/impede/halt any productive understanding. You might equally apply this logic back to the environmentalists and alarmists as well.
Ian Castles had previously mentioned the idea of a B team – roots in Rand Corporation Cold War strategy I think. But you would still need fairly rigorous rules of debate and fair play.
But do people want probabilities and risk levels – do not we all crave certainty?
Rog – see my previous comments on Katrina in recent weeks. There is new science to suggest AGW had a role above multi-decadal influences. Hence my half right quip. Anyway he may still be a liar, outrageous and a shill despite being half right – I’ll leave that to you to decide as our political analysis attache.
No such thing as “new science to suggest AGW had a role…”, science is facts not based on circumstantial hypothesis.
You mean “there is a new theory…based on an observation..” well so what, argue the sceptics case if you want to obtain a smidgin of credibility.
Until that happens you are just leaning over the fence gossiping like all the other climate change alarmists.
Rog – cripes you’re rude and nasty. A real lil’ righty hater – the worst kind. You wouldn’t know what science is. Now I’m telling you there is new science based on analysis of observational data. I could remind you what is was but given your attitude you can go find it or remain uninformed. I frankly don’t care. And your ongoing use of the term alarmist is alarming and a try on. What has it to do with alarmism. You’re just being abusive. As for arguing the sceptics case Rog – you don’t even know where it would be appropriate to start. Don’t bother trying to ram raid and bluff Rog.
Some direct questions for all of you who debate the AGW science:
1. Who here claims that scepticism has no role in science?
If no-one, then we’re all sceptics and this post is a weak attempt to frame the debate in a ‘certain’ light.
As Steve said, & as has been said plenty of times before, a balanced sceptic will also be sceptical of scepticism. Which of the AGW dissenters can explain how they show balanced scepticism? Kindly clarify which aspects of the AGW sceptical argument you’re sceptical about.
2. What is the nature of your scepticism?
I invited the AGW sceptics (on earlier thread) to clarify the nature of their scepticism (fits with detribes point that some might more sceptical about IPCC but less sceptical about AGW science) but who obliged? (Jennifer has explained a bit (but still hasn’t explained how you can’t not believe AGW is causing problems but support AP6 anyhow)).
3. Who is sceptical of acid rain or ozone thinning?
I ask this question of EVERYONE who argues the AGW science on this blog because in doing so you’re claiming to have a decent grasp of climate science to validate your AGW stance.
I also asked this on earlier thread. Who knows? Why would you be knowledgeable and sceptical on the subject of AGW/climate change BUT NOT acid rain or ozone thinning? Have you asked yourself if you have a narrow agenda for your scepticism?
4. Are the self-proclaimed “AGW sceptics” (GOOD) fighting the “AGW alarmists” (BAD) really genuinely AGW sceptics or merely AGW dissenters?
In criticising the imperfect moral stance of the ‘others’, what implicit morals or what value system of your own are you overlooking? Cos seems to me that some of the AGW dissenters’ remarks really take the high moral ground. eg: compared your stance with any great dead philosophers of late? (They can’t exactly speak up to distance themselves from you can they?)
** Which of the following are you?
– AGW believer & alarmist
– AGW balanced sceptic (pls clarify the balanced nature of yr scepticism)
– AGW dissenter
– AGW observer
The problem for the CO2 Flux Clan is that they are presenting their arguments in a context of more than a decade of some of the sleasiest political double dealing since Brutus was a boy.
I cannot think of any major environmental issue or green objective that has not been associated with major scientific and policy fraud, gross misrepresentation of fact, extrapolation to extremes from limited data, demonisation of contrary opinion holders, ambit claims, serial abuse of political process and deprivation of rights and liberties.
Be it forestry, fishing, farming, vegetation management, salinity, water yields, biodiversity, habitat quality or wildlife administration, the best one can conclude about any statement provided by the bimbecologists or the spivocrats is that any material that is true is only there to either camouflage a more significant untruth or to occupy the space that rightfully belongs to a major omission.
The only reasonable, fully informed response of those who have no vested or predatory intent is to conclude that every statement made by these interests has an underlying basis in bad faith and a fundamental contempt for the rights of ordinary people to exercise informed consent.
A good example has been exhibited on this blog with the recent posts on the Greenland Ice Sheet. We are told of the rate of increase in glacier melt but are not told the relative proportion of the total ice sheet that is in glaciers. So we are invited to assume that the rate of glacier melt will also apply to the main ice body. And when challenged to deliver, Luke coughed up a stack of irrelevant data on the Antarctic.
We finally get a clear number on the km3 of ice melt but are never told what the volume of the whole ice mass is so we can apply a simple test of significance. All we ever get is some crap about the number of Sydney Harbours or the number of football fields.
Get this through your slippery brains, folks, it is the modus operandi of the lying scumbag. You give us the “facts” with all the smarm and body language of a paedophile and then complain that we don’t believe anything you say.
Give us a break.
Go on Luke, argue the sceptic case on your Katrina theory. I bet you cant – you would blow yourself out of the water.
Seasonality and Increasing Frequency of Greenland Glacial Earthquakes
Göran Ekström,1* Meredith Nettles,2 Victor C. Tsai1
Some glaciers and ice streams periodically lurch forward with sufficient force to generate emissions of elastic waves that are recorded on seismometers worldwide. Such glacial earthquakes on Greenland show a strong seasonality as well as a doubling of their rate of occurrence over the past 5 years. These temporal patterns suggest a link to the hydrological cycle and are indicative of a dynamic glacial response to changing climate conditions.
Paleoclimatic Evidence for Future Ice-Sheet Instability and Rapid Sea-Level Rise
Jonathan T. Overpeck,1* Bette L. Otto-Bliesner,2 Gifford H. Miller,3 Daniel R. Muhs,4 Richard B. Alley,5 Jeffrey T. Kiehl2
Sea-level rise from melting of polar ice sheets is one of the largest potential threats of future climate change. Polar warming by the year 2100 may reach levels similar to those of 130,000 to 127,000 years ago that were associated with sea levels several meters above modern levels; both the Greenland Ice Sheet and portions of the Antarctic Ice Sheet may be vulnerable. The record of past ice-sheet melting indicates that the rate of future melting and related sea-level rise could be faster than widely thought.
Pinxii, the biggest threat to mankind is not shrinking ice caps or tiny increases in CO2 or changes in climate it is poverty, and that is man made and is fixable.
All it needs is the ideologues to be run out of town and people can be left to make money and buy some prosperity. I said “make money” not cop govt handouts or Band-aids.
Rog the sceptic case is that it’s multi-decadal variability (AMO). Thanks for playing.
Now perhaps back to the debate on scepticism or alternatively accusing people of paedophilia.
Wow! the ice is melting! (has been for 6,000 years)
You proved it wrong? dont think so.
ta rog
a) could you kindly elaborate on the man made causes of poverty? ie What are chief root causes?
b) How specifically do you propose to fix poverty? ie which idealogues would you run out of town and how?
Rog you’re supposed to attempt being sceptical not playing the drongo. Try adding some other sentences around your Tim Blair one-liners and making an expansive case. I know it’s very hard and you’re very angry but try not to be – it will only add to your local heat island anomaly.
Luke mate
re
“Detribe – I listed this in this blog a few days ago – at least read the other side first.”
What makes you think I didnt read the other side first and didnt ssume that everyone including you had already reaD the rOYAL sOC LETTER AS IT’S RATHER OLD NEWS which you’d already linked to?
Of course I read the initial Roy Soc letter first.
I thought also that its worth putting up an Aussie comment of Aynsley Kellow, rather than, say the ex Greenpeace founder’s Patrick M. at Greenspirit website, whose comments are well worth reading too, but which I assume you’d prefer to ignore.
But thanks for reposting the link in this thread.
Following on from post above by Luke at September 26, 2006 01:45 PM…
can the AGW sceptics on this blog agree upon a succinct statement that clarifies the (balanced) nature of their scepticism?
eg, position on:
– SCIENCE: natural climate change/AGW/impossibility of human activities to affect climate (the Hissink line)
– ACTIVITIES: mitigation/adaptation/do nothing/invest in technologies if big companies say we should
– URGENCY: now/soon/later (wait & see)
– POLICIES: IPCC/UNFCCC/Kyoto/AP6/national & state GHG policies
– FOCUS: national only/backyard only/international co-ooperation/global responsibiity
If not a common sceptical line, then at least can you provide an individual clarification (without quoting a famous dead person)?
Cos from here looks like you’re all fighting over which end of the BBQ tongs to hold while the mystery bag is burning to a crisp
Detribe – sorry – meant present/list/link first chronologically and do both together in the same thread. By all means post Aynsley’s view. I have no problem and did not ignore either.
AGW theory has a number of links in the chain. This is how I understand them.
1)Global surface temperature is rising.
2)Atmospheric CO2 level is rising.
3)The increase in CO2 is caused by burning of fossil fuel.
4)CO2 in the atmosphere “traps” heat from the sun, causing temperatures to be higher than they otherwise would be.
5)The increase in global temperature is caused by the increase in CO2.
6)The increase in temperature cannot be explained by any other mechanism.
7)The increase in temperature is a bad thing.
8)Projected human activity this century will cause so much CO2 to enter the atmosphere that disasterous climate change is very likely to occur.
9)The best response to all this is to force people to emit less CO2.
I think that 4) is ok, the evidence for 1), 2) and 3) need more scrutiny, and the rest of them I am very sceptical about. Does that make me an “unhealthy” sceptic or a “balanced” one. I have no idea. But I’m still sceptical.
Pinxii
a) could you kindly elaborate on the man made causes of poverty? ie What are chief root causes?
protectionism
tariffs
taxes
Luke, if put forward a scientific hypothesis you must be able to provide the opposite ie play the sceptic, and disprove that sceptic.
You cant even put forward a proper hypthesis just a grab bag of meaningless and churned one liners from real climate and http://www.algoresupportcenter.com
Get real.
and part b, rog?
Note that 1 out of 3 of yr causes are irrelevant to most of the world’s poor and all of the world’s poorest. Having no or little monetary income, living in subsistence and in the unofficial economy, they don’t pay taxes. This is a major factor in international aid – the poorest countries lack an adequate tax base with which to fund reforms such as the development of employment opportunities.
Oh silly me, I may have misunderstood you. You probably meant LACK of taxes being a major contributing factor in poverty and hunger. In that case, yes, you’re spot on. Taxation is a luxury that only the priveledged of the world can enjoy. I’m sure that made yr day.
How are sales in rain tanks going, btw?
Pinxii, when it comes to “proving the point” you have never ever, “proved the point”
So when it comes to demanding evidence try following your own advice, if you can.
Taxes in the 3rd world !!
Rog – NO – I was just sucking up with the one-liner style. Didn’t like my answer – what were you looking for. Tutor me.
Wow you last post to Pinxo had TWO lines. Boy -feeling frisky are we. But of course they were just filler so it probably didn’t take too much effort.
Pinx – I think you’ve over-rated Rog – looks like he may not be that informed after all. Go easy – a sudden reality shock might be terminal.
ever the optimist, I like to believe that rog doesn’t mind learning the odd thing now or then even if he outwardly appears ungrateful
rog, for evidence, you only need read back over previous for general trends:
I usually provide the justification for my claims when pressed to do so.
You usually provide empty 1 liners
Of course third world countries have taxation. They even use it as a means of oppression.
What they don’t have is property rights, rule of law and accountable government.
Dear all
In
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001643.html#comments
both Pinxiii and Luke finally seem to have grasped some of the implications of major revisions to the IPCC model implied by Exhibit A, and the thread has reached the stage of staring alternative hypothesis in the Eye.
We seem to have got to the stage of addressing a new hypothesis implied by Exhibit A and associated sun spot cycle progression over the next 20 years or so, and the possibility of solar cycle drive global cooling.
I do hope we dont retreat from this apparent progress in discusion of putative processes that the IPCC model dismisses or “cannot win on” because they involve recent publication (Exhibit A 2006)
Is that yr best Pinxii? time for me to watch “the Bill”, better entertainment.
Detribe – get off the ganja – what makes you think we haven’t been over this before and found nothing. The apparent progress you have to make is to check out the CO2 radiation physics science in some detail. And in the unlikely event there is something left in solar – CO2 greenhouse doesn’t just disappear in a puff of smoke. And the issue is way beyond the IPCC.
Paul, earlier I started to type a compliment on your explanation on AGW but the decided no-one made me judge so I’d shut-up about the fact that you at least do make an attempt to rationally explain yr position. Then you went & ruined it by make a rubbish claim about tax in 3rd world countries. No-one said that 3rd world countries don’t have taxes or use them when they can, but the focus of rog’s tax claim was poverty.
When talking of poverty, particularly extreme poverty, the majority of the impoverished people do not earn any/sufficient monetary income and do not participate in the official economy for govts to tax or for it to be economically profitable to pursue taxes. What taxes do the masses pay in sub-Saharan Africa? By taxes – referring to official taxes, not illicit rent-seeking activities. Moreover, MNC investments in developing countries extract tax concessions and private equity investments have ploys to avoid tax obligations, ensuring that 3rd world country tax bases remain stretched at best, hence they’re dependent on international funds and will unwillingly accept IMF conditions.
Yes absolutely, poverty is created/deepened by unrecognised property rights and lack of public participation to bring about accountable, impartial governance. (rog would have done better to have raised these issues). Also key are education, equality of opportunity and health issues. (rog go read some UN world development reports).
gee whiz climate change is all over the media tonight!! AGW alarmism must be infectious.
Pinxi; in one way, that most recent stuff in the media was more refreshing than watching the endless sniping going on here. Did you see young Mr Jones who said it was about 1 degree up all round?
Had a new experience last w/e. When the long awaited showers finally arrived here on Sunday morning; down came red mud!
Brown rain must indicate something’s wrong up there in the sky.
Luke mate,
I would suggest there is another area to be checked out: the possible alternate mechanisms for solar cycle couplings, via magnetic flux, cosmic rays or whatever, that the IPCC model does not give weight to. I do remember discussing this general topic quite a while back with Phil Done, but he seems to have gone walk-about, and that discussion occurred before publication of Exhibit A. Like Lord Keynes, when I see new evidence I’m willing to revise my judgements.
Why is it you studiuosly avoid considering new hypotheses and insist (it seems) that CO2 forcing physics and associated fedbacks are quantitatively rock solid when the computer simulations of IPCC have so much room to accomodate a revised CO2 forcing effect or water vapur feedback effect in their many assumed parameters?
By the way, I didn’t suggest that C02 forcing should disappear, so please don’t stuff stawmen into my mouth. I would realy appreciate it, mate, if you would stop playing rhetorical games and try and address the science earnestly. In professional science such diversion is considered really bad form – my real mates call it “hand waving”. I don’t mind being proved in scientific error by somewhone whose physics is less rusty than mine , but hand waving stunts and evasion only encourage me to continue trying to get a response that’s directed at the issue in question
Yeah Gavin it struck me as odd – people here are crying: ‘where is the tangible proof’, and when they get some they say ‘oh that’s not climate, that’s weather’ but when you have older emergency workers on TV, old-timers, insurance agents & other professionals who deal with ‘natural’ disasters saying ‘the frequency and magnitude of these events exceeds living memory and even, historical records’ then the screamers yell ‘that’s climate change but it’s not AGW’.
London & Shanghai, among others, not just Tuvulu, are going under and preparing for more. And the Murray looks like a regular sized chocolate thickshake.
But few sceptics are prepared to explain the nature of their scepticism.
You could express scepticism about AGW but still acknowledge a need to prepare for the effects of climate change.
When I was a young fellow, summers were much hotter and lasted longer. I distinctly remember it that way. So did nearly everyone I talked to who was about my age.
That must be evidence that global cooling is happening? No, it’s anecdotal evidence, it’s not science until the measurements are done.
yes but back then Paul, grown-ups were always right. Perhaps we need to find one & ask them. I nominate Gavin.
Detribe – what bolsh – I think you’re a rude jerk at this point. I am not playing rhetorical games – if anything your posts illustrate you are. I don’t find your contributions jaw-dropping in the clarity of their meteorological relevance. It was not a straw man argument – it is a default assumption that seems to be present in all the discussions on alternatives. “oh it’s something else” – then CO2 just disappaears. It ain’t that simple. You also need to argue the CO2 issue down ! The down argument is “missing” totally.
Now in terms of solar or celestial drivers, instead of playing tag with me, why don’t you get the finger out and make a blog case here as to why the IPCC should listen to you on “including” whatever. What is it that you’re actually suggesting? Why do you think it stands up? You’re making the running on the issue – bat up ! Because in terms of hand waving and stunts – I think it’s actually you ! [mate]
Luke, thank you for at last at least putting [mate] in brackets, and to twig that I was using satire to somehow disloge you from a rather unhelpful rhetorical habit.
However moving from hand waving to personal abuse is even less helpful, and I absolutely don’t worry when I am subjected to it in these debates, as happens repeadly, especially by those who seek a cloak of anonymity. I just record and move on, or if its repeated highlightit it by satire or more direct criticism.
I am hopeful however that what I may have mis-interpretad as hand waving is a major difference in mode of reasoning.
I remain convinced however that your reasoning methodology is profoundly unscientific and a form of argument by authority. THis is NOT intended to be personal abuse but merely a direct statemt of why I consider your stance to have little logical merit. Science proceeds by repeated challenge to the ‘authority’ of the ‘consensus narrative’, and there is no ethical need to justify open minded consideration of “new” hypotheses based on new peer reviewed reports when these are not yet incorporated in a “consensus” model.
Thus I think the rather pointless circles this paricular discussion goes through actually demonstate a very important misconception about scientific approach.
In the end we may just have to agree to disagree, you the consavative defending the status quo, and me the rebel asking if an alternative interpretation has been misvalued by the experts.
Its happened sometimes, you know. Peter Mitchell and vectorial metabolism is one. Gallileo Gallilei is another. Continental drift is a third. Amir Atteran and continued use of DDT is a topical and very relevant 4th case ( highlighted this morning at GMO Pundit. And no I dont think I’m a genius either, because their are cold fusion failures like Fleishman and Pons too, plus water memory and new form of ice that threatened the planet in the 1970s. They are the price we pay by giving licence to the renegades, and science is proud of the tradition.
You are demanding I prove that there are understandable and specific flaws in IPCC assumptions before proceeding futher.
To the contrary, athough the methods used by IPCC to derived a model with numerous assumed parameters and followed up by extensive refinement to get it to (force) converge on real world data per se are flawed (as there are so many degrees of freedom) if they have made any significant mistake about the physical reality of their model, I don’t need to even rely on that line of reasoning.
All I am doing is asking for the merits of a “novel” hyothesis about solar invovement in climate to be considered seriously and discussed specifically in an open minded manner. It’s a provisional hypothesis. I dont really know if it is true. Im not says ing the alternative is false. I am not a climare change sceptic. Im more like the Devils Advocate, that at least the Catholick and Universal Church allows. I’m merely following a well established scientific technique of thought experiment about “novel” hypotheses.
Now your jibe implying that I personaly think my proposal is a jaw breaking insight is actually wrong. This alternative ” novel” idea has been around for years. I’m only highlighting Exhibit A 2006 to show that new studies give it a bit of fresh life. But what I do say is that its pretty hard for those who seem to be married to retention of “consensus” models a la IPCC to seriously consider this alternative hypotheses and even discuss it in an open minded debate. Thats happened more than once at this blogsite, and youve just re-demonstated this. Im well aware that the IPCC dismisses the importance of this line of conjecture- I do actually read a fair number of these papers.
I do realise you have close contact with the climate literature, and boundless confidence in the absolute validity of the IPCC model e CO2 forcing effects. Apart from that I have no other reason to take your judgements as the final word.
You can continue to keep on avoiding this ‘radical solar conjecture, but you cannot claim that testable alternative models to the standard IPCC approach have not been offered by participants in this discussion. Such alternatives have been persistently called for in recent threads, and it seems when one emerges, you dont want to discuss it. This I find rather puzzeling.
PS Luke
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001654.html#comments
I had noticed Paul B had made some great comments which I had quoted and was generally aware of the arument in the new thread linked above. I theremore assume this discussion moves there.
Tribesy – maaatteee – don’t say “unscientific” or “without merit” – try “paedophile” – works better for Motty. Now Tribsey keep going and I’ll have to tell you that you’re a numb nuts that doesn’t know the first thing about this stuff and get all flustered – next we’ll be trading quasi-political one-liners Rog style – but let’s not get to that – let’s parlez 🙂
Listen to yourself “to get it to force on a data set”.
You said “boundless” – – your words not mine – I didn’t – have a go at Paul Biggs post. Do you think I think there are no issues. I’m not an IPCC groupie. Indeed contrarians being more deviant probably have more fun. Do molecular biologists have more fun?
In summary
(a) I don’t have to do all the heavy lifting – you can help – don’t be bashful – what makes you think I’m not looking at these things – and in return are you checking out CO2 issues(b) have you checked your GMOpundit mailbox in recent millenia ? (c) remind us of the alternative hypotheses offered – how would the IPCC test them – and some evidence/support to give them credence. Let’s go.
Meanwhile back on the ranch…
ATTENTION ALL AGW SCEPTICS:
No sceptic has (or can?) clarified the nature of their scepticism (other than Paul, cheers to Paul, & a cheer to Jennifer too (but AP6?)).
Who else can or will clarify the nature of their scepticism? What’s your stance on the following separate but related aspects:
– SCIENCE: natural climate change/AGW – happening/accelerating/might be happening – need better science; or it’s impossibile for human activities to affect climate (the Hissink line)
– ACTIVITIES: mitigation/adaptation/do nothing/let the kids worry about it/invest today in technologies if big companies say we should (eg AP6)
– URGENCY: now/soon/later (wait & see)
– POLICIES: IPCC/UNFCCC/Kyoto/AP6/national & state GHG policies
– FOCUS: national only/backyard only/international co-ooperation/global responsibiity
WHAT EXACTLY are you sceptical about?
And what activities do you support anyway?
Or haven’t you thought past being contrarian?
note that was Paul W who got the cheer, not Paul B
Tribesy – maaatteee – let’s parlez 🙂
Listen to yourself “to get it to force on a data set”.
Well yes I did say that, damn that bad isnt it!, better typing would be:
to force it to fit to a real world data set,
and in general terms thats what much of computer modeling of a global system consists of.
(a) I don’t have to do all the heavy lifting – you can help – don’t be bashful – what makes you think I’m not looking at these things – NOTHING, Great
and in return are you checking out CO2 issues
Well yes I am but I dont come on full blast untill I’ve done all my homework
(b) have you checked your GMOpundit mailbox in recent millenia ?
Yes but not the last week for various reasons, thanks for the reminder
(c) remind us of the alternative hypotheses offered – how would the IPCC test them – and some evidence/support to give them credence. Let’s go.
I have already. Solar emission events that are distinct from radiative heat forcing are one . There are vaious mechanisms being speculated about which I have mentioned already. If you want more youll hasve to wait while I go back to my livbtary Since the mechanism (eg related to magnetic flux changes) are not validated, a research program is need to identify them, and I’ve already mentioned that. It rather pontless talking about hypothetical which I said would need 2-5 years of effort to reseach.
I’m also please to see your efforts to get Pauls comments up.
As for my use of unscientific, I remain unapolegetic. Its concise, relevant, and accurate.
As for your demanded heavy lifting, I do plenty of heavy lifting and choose to allocate my energies where they will be most effective. If you think I am incable of the physics and maths or I’m too lazy , so be it, but heavy lifting in this area will probable hamper my other activities so Ill have to let others do it.
” general terms thats what much of computer modeling of a global system consists of”
Make a phone call to CSIRO or BoM and check ! Check what they do in terms of validation. Is it that simple as fitting a curve through some data ?
Luke
Please do not assume that I think it’s simple curve fitting.
There a crude rule KISS, for science outside academe. Keep it simple.
I said it real simple. The fact that I’m a climate amatuer encourages me to. Its a plus and a minus for discussion. It tends to make you misread what I say.
The model may be mechanistically simplistic and the adjustment of a simplistic model may obscure the errors in the claimed validation. There are plenty of simple feedbacks and forcing terms that are allready left out of the model that have evidence for their existence. Biggs/ Pielke and others showed that (thanks again for sending that to this blog)
My argument also mentions POSTULATED mechanisms which are ill underestood that are not part of IPCCs model. You then proceeded to send reprints of papers, some of which I had read, that related to this area. I simply mentioned ker words COSMIC RAYS , MAGNETIC FLUX, SOLAR CYCLE (eg 11 year sunspots not 100 year events)
I do happen to have been reading the climate change literature directly for about a year before even making a few modest comments, so please accept that Im not completely naif. Ive also spent a fair effort over the years keeping alive my mathematical biology skill so I can follow the modeling stuff at least superficially. irreversible thermodynamics, yes, I love Prigogine, Stuart Kaufmann is interesting at Santa Fe but a terrible writer. Curls and gyres throw me a be though and I’m not up to Hamiltonions. My quantum mechanics is quite good for an amatuers but unfortunately not very relevant to climate.
I had mentioned a period of 2 to 5 years would needed to clarify this. You then miscontrued this. I was guesssing at the research time needed to test these hypotheses. You assumed I was talking only about further time in secular climate trends.
If the IPCC model is missing physical processes that they are unaware of but do exist, there are dangers that their extensive validation may be missing something.
I’m really pleased I amuse you though, and delighted to find you to can be amusing. I can’t stand people who allways take life seriously.