“A new report published today by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change challenges NASA scientist James Hansen’s claims of a dire global warming future. In the report, physicist Sherwood Idso and agronomist Craig Idso conducted a comprehensive evaluation of Hansen’s April 26, 2007 testimony before the House Select Committee of Energy Independence and Global Warming and concluded there is “very little evidence to justify [Hansen’s] policy prescriptions for dealing with what he calls a ‘dangerous climate change.'”
“Considered by many to be perhaps the world’s foremost authority on the ‘greenhouse effect’ of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, Hansen’s statements are typically regarded as expressions of fact . “In many cases, however, they are merely his opinions ,” said Dr. Sherwood Idso, lead author of the report. “When Hansen’s testimony is compared with what has been revealed by the scientific investigations of a diverse assemblage of highly competent researchers in a wide variety of academic disciplines, we find that he paints a very different picture of the role of anthropogenic CO2 emissions in shaping the future fortunes of man and nature alike than what is suggested by that larger body of work.”
“Among the inconsistencies between Hansen’s House of Representatives’ testimony and the scientific literature is Hansen’s claim of a sea level rise this century measured in meters , due to “the likely demise of the West Antarctic ice sheet.” However, the most recent and comprehensive review of potential sea level rise due to contributions from the wastage of both the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets suggests a century-long rise measured in milli meters. Similarly, whereas Hansen claims the rate of sea level rise is accelerating , century-scale data indicate the mean rate-of-rise of the global ocean has either not accelerated at all or has actually slowed over the latter part of the past century.
“Another Hansen claim that is at odds with reality is that atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are “skyrocketing,” which is not universally true. The most important contrary example is methane , which has historically provided a climate forcing equal to approximately half that provided by CO2 , but whose atmospheric concentration actually stabilized several years ago and has not risen since by any appreciable amount.
“Also contrary to what Hansen claims is the fact that the earth is not any warmer now – and is possibly a fair amount cooler – than it was many times in the past. These warmer-than-present periods include much of the Medieval Warm Period of a thousand years ago, most of the Climatic Optimum that held sway during the central portion of the current interglacial, and significant portions of all four of the prior interglacials, when (in all six cases) the air’s CO2 concentration was much lower than it is today. These facts are extremely important because they demonstrate that today’s temperatures are not in any way unusual , unnatural or unprecedented, contrary to what Hansen claims.
“Hansen also foresees a warming-induced “extermination of a large fraction of plant and animal species,” with many at high latitudes and altitudes being “pushed off the planet.” However, as demonstrated by the scientific studies cited in the Center’s critique of Hansen’s testimony, warming – especially when accompanied by an increase in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration – typically results in an expansion of the ranges of terrestrial plants and animals, leading to increases in biodiversity almost everywhere on the planet. Likewise, where Hansen sees nothing but “destruction of coral reefs and other ocean life” in response to a predicted CO2 -induced acidification of the world’s oceans, real-world observations suggest just the opposite .
Read the entire report (pdf) at: http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/education/reports/hansen/HansenTestimonyCritique.pdf
To read the report in html format, go here: http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.jsp
End of the Media Release from the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I reckon there’s a big neocon chocolate wheel funded by CEI, Exxon and the tobacco industry.
Landed on Rachel Carson last week. This week it’s Hansen? Next week …?
If you have seen them, good. If you haven’t seen them, good, here’s your chance.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Sidewinder77+dyson
He says the same thing as other thinking people. Models are a crock of… politely of course.
Nevket – excellent choice – thanks for shooting youself in the foot. I rather enjoyed video 2/2. Did you actually listen?
Dyson has previously said “The bad news does not mean that climate models are worthless. They are, as Manabe said thirty years ago, essential tools for understanding climate. They are not yet adequate tools for predicting climate.” His opinion.
Some of his points.
1/this(modelling) is a very dubious business if you don’t have good inputs. (maybe a backhander to the fraud thats been going on.)
2/the average ground temperature is a fiction
(thinking people know that)
3/its a question of land management essentially.
(so why the attempt at taking over the worlds energy complex?? it wouldn’t be for profit, would it?)
Yea – cool but pity he’s wrong on all 3 points though, especially 3.
Just remember Nevket – if you want to go all the way with point #2 – stop arguing because you are essentially saying you don’t know anything about anything.
I did like this from the other day:
Hansen:
“I was being questioned, and boxed-in, by a lawyer for the plaintiff in Automobile Manufacturers versus California Air Resources Board (Auto Manufacturers 2006). I conceded that I was not a glaciologist. The lawyer then, with aplomb, requested that I identify glaciologists who agreed publicly with my assertion that the sea level was likely to rise more than one meter this century if greenhouse gas emissions followed an IPCC business-as-usual (BAU) scenario: `Name one!’
I could not, instantly. I was dismayed…”
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/2/2/024002/erl7_2_024002.html
And he still can’t – A consensus of one?
cheers
Arnost
So did you read your own link Arnost.
Hansen makes some valid points as an individual scientist.
He recommends : “I suggest that a `scientific reticence’ is inhibiting the communication of a threat of a potentially large sea level rise. Delay is dangerous because of system inertias that could create a situation with future sea level changes out of our control. I argue for calling together a panel of scientific leaders to hear evidence and issue a prompt plain-written report on current understanding of the sea level change issue. ”
What’s wrong with that?
But where is there a politician or government game enough to stand up and expose the huge con of climate change/ global warming before we suffer irreparable damage to our lifestyle and / or the undeveloped countries do with their future takena way in pseudo tree planting for Gaia schemes?
We know in their unrecorded moments numerous of them in Oz are sceptics but its more than their votes are worth to admit it
Just another push by media who really design and control our lives like it or not
So Luke, I take it you don t agree with any/ much of the report?
The science community will take a very long time to get teh respect of the public back, when all the doom and gloom doesnt eventuate. Surely you have to be concerned that Hansen continues to make outrageous and opinionated statements as if they are facts?
Luke – “scientific reticence” cuts both ways. You can also interpret this to mean that there are people out there that are reticent to speak out against the “consensus” for fear of repercussions – let’s face it, if Hansen can trash his bos with impunity, he can far more destroy a career…
Regardless – there is not one “glaciologist” that can stand with his heart on his heart and say there is going to be a meter rise in sealevels. At best they can say the most pesimistic models show that we can get half of this…
I quote Motty from the Grifin thread which says it all – “Hansen dredges up all the gonzo scarenarios and wraps it up as official science. If this crap was found in a company prospectus he would be doing a stretch by now.”
Hear Hear
Arnost
Luke , I know you shake your head at we sceptics……..but having read the above article from co2 science, I can only shake mine and wonder what the hell we are being led into!
Come on Arnost – whinge whinge. Everyone is getting a say.
Toby if you started to read critically and read Hansen’s testimony he has made it abundantly clear it’s his opinion. He’s made it clear his position is different to the IPCC. AND WHY !
As for the Idsos well I could start picking away but why bother. Their position is full of holes. But you guys are not going to read it. They’ve simply made another selective little grab that they’ve had plenty of time to cobble together. Basically the Idsos are essentially full of it.
I bet you haven’t even read what Hansen said – fess up now ! Asking the Idsos is like asking Howard how good Rudd is. Come on !
Hansen says : The above conclusions follow from the science. In part because of resistance that the scientific conclusions have met among special interests, and because of misinformation about the science that has been spread, I believe that it is not inappropriate for me to discuss my opinions about implications of this research for citizens in our democratic system. My opinions carry no more weight than those of any other citizen, but conceivably my experience in presenting this research in different circles allows some insight. In any case, I have as much right to express my opinion as do the special interests.”
So get stuffed special interests !! Back to getting your Exxon paycheck.
As for Motty insight “company prospectus he would be doing a stretch by now” – yes if that’s right he’ll be a long way back in the queue behind the usual couldn’t lay straight in bed, lying through the teeth, contrarian scum.
But alas it’s not a company propectus is it. Just another example of Mottsian totalitarian philosophy where only people he agrees with (mainly himself) get to have a say.
Typical Hansenite, can’t be trusted.
Nothing succeeds like taking something out of context.
((Nevket – excellent choice – thanks for shooting youself in the foot. I rather enjoyed video 2/2. Did you actually listen?
Dyson has previously said “The bad news does not mean that climate models are worthless. They are, as Manabe said thirty years ago, essential tools for understanding climate. They are not yet adequate tools for predicting climate.” His opinion.))
from Dysons bio in Wikipedia.
Q// Criticism of global warming studies
Dyson has questioned the predictive value of current computational models of climate change, urging instead more extensive use of local observations. He considers this view to be “heretical”, along with his views on the PhD system.
The good news is that we are at last putting serious effort and money into local observations. Local observations are laborious and slow, but they are essential if we are ever to have an accurate picture of climate. The bad news is that the climate models on which so much effort is expended are unreliable because they still use fudge-factors rather than physics to represent important things like evaporation and convection, clouds and rainfall. Besides the general prevalence of fudge-factors, the latest and biggest climate models have other defects that make them unreliable. With one exception, they do not predict the existence of El Niño. Since El Niño is a major feature of the observed climate, any model that fails to predict it is clearly deficient. The bad news does not mean that climate models are worthless. They are, as Manabe said thirty years ago, essential tools for understanding climate. They are not yet adequate tools for predicting climate.[14] //UnQ
I like the reference to “fudge-factors”
so all those peer reviewed articles you so love that demonstrate temperature has been higher than today in the not too distant past without we humans ……means nothing to you?
Temperature has apparently not increased this dramatically before…look at the temp anomolalies from 1750 to today and that s clearly not the case.
Has methane stopped increasing in the atmosphere?
When you think about it from the big picture. not micro snippets, I think you have to be blind not to be sceptical….but thats just my opinion. No more no less, just as Hansen says….he is entitled to his opinion, but his opinion is in danger of destroying our faith in science. And my opinion is not going to be heard by millions….. his is.
Maybe I am blind, but like you Luke I keep thinking WTF…just about different things.
And no I have not read his testimony to the house ( but I have read his comments on many things in teh past)…has he been misquoted?
Now I am alert and alarmed. The USA has just announced a cut in CO2 emissions and those nice Idso boys from Arizona keep telling us that CO2 is good for you. CO2, CO2 , good for you. I just love their logic. Stuff the evidence. Talk about goddam market failure. Cant we live by bread alone.? This planet needs more plants and some plants sometimes love CO2. An uncomfortable and a bit inconvenient truth,we are what we eat, and dont we show it. I just wish those nice Idso boys would dismount their asses, get on their horses and get right on down to the Western Fuels Association and to Exxon and get some more R&D bucks to fund some peer reviewed research and then we could easily get a thousand scientists together to mount a consensus. Bring it on , boys.
Toby – and those papers are?
just think all those past climate changes and all those extinctions. The rocks may still be here but many species are not.
The methane has levelled out – so? Have the CO2 equivalents levelled out?
When you think about the big picture I’d be stunned if you would be sceptical.
It’s not just Hansen’s “opinion” – he’s made a science case. Betcha you read NONE of it.
The important issue with Hansen is that his paper (which did you read??) ended in a positive non-alarmist note.
Luke refers to Hansen making some valid points and asks ‘What’s wrong with that?’
Well nothing, he is just expressing his opinion
“I suggest that a `scientific reticence’ is inhibiting the communication of a threat of a potentially large sea level rise”
CO2 science, the web site with the spin masters in control.
“Is carbon dioxide a harmful air pollutant, or is it an amazingly effective aerial fertilizer?”
I thought this was supposed to be about the science of CO2, not false dichotomies and leading questions.
Dr. Gerry Browning on climate models.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1124
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1516
Al Gore argues that it is a conspiracy by a corrupt govt via a corrupt media to pervert the public’s knowledge of what is real.
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1622015,00.html
Similarly Hansen argues that it is a corrupt govt that prevents other scientists from agreeing with him.
Gore claims that the condoning of torture is another example of a failed democracy.
Of course Gore is a liar, he and the Clintons approved of extraordinary renditions. He must also know that the US is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition
So now we have Gore, Hansen and Carson on the neocon hitlist chocolate wheel. We could have of course have a contrarian choccy wheel and play a game of bulldust bingo. “Spot then porky”.
If you say so Luke.
On many occasions Hansen has argued that attempts to silence him has been made by the govt and other powerful interests and he continues to put forward that argument.
Of course Hansen feels free to criticise others, using non scientific language.
Gore is just having another long whinge about how life has treated him bad and he had victory snatched from him. It is a pattern of his political life, remember when his running mate Lieberman sided with GWB?
Yes Rog and thanks for you reminding me:
Hansen explicitly sets out his issues here (not Rog more than one liners).
“Political Interference with Government Climate Change Science”
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070319105800-43018.pdf
Given Toby now only reads the critiques instead of the source documents it may be prudent to peruse.
http://globalwarming.house.gov/pdf/Hansen%20Final%20Testimony%2026April2007.pdf
“Humans are now in control of global climate” and an “ice age will never again occur”, even a thimbleful of cfc’s will prevent an ice age!
He is optimistic if we stop emmitting now……we won t so he is infact not optimistic!
come on get a grip, forgive me for thinking the guy is an alarmist!
will read the rest later.
But it certainly doesn t sound like he has been badly misrepresented in the co2 science article ! Are the rebuttals to hansen valid or not? are they equally valid cos its debatable?
Alarmism = anything that causes cognitive dissonance.
La la la la lah – I don’t want to listen/even consider.
Stoat blogs on Griffin’s regrets
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/06/griffin.php#more
James blogs on “the barking mad” – guess who?
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2007/06/from-department-of-you-couldnt-make-it.html
Yeah , well they do a lot to refute the lead story…..not.
So given that they appear to have quoted hansen correctly…and refuted his comments………
Luke, your contortions and weaseling on this thread have been a joy to watch. Squirm, punk.
The fact is that if Hanson had been a scientists armpit he would have at least run the calculator over the Antarctic Ice sheet and have discovered that at least 760 cubic km of ice and melt water has to break off each year simply to prevent sea level from dropping.
Evaporation from the ice sheet is almost zero so each annual snowfall represents a permanent removal of water from the southern ocean. And the sum of that annual ice deposition is in excess of 760km3. But true to the form of a spiv on the make, Hansen chose to only consider half the story. That is, the scary half, the half that allowed him to indulge his narcissism as a prophet of doom.
That self indulgence is as far removed from “scientific reticence” as the denials of “sexual relations” by Al Gore’s boss. The only similarity is that the public is being jerked off in both cases.
Don’t call me a punk punk. Frankly I thought I’d done you guys like dinners. I remind you on all previous touch-ups e.g. super resistance, undersea lava, no water down there and many others you’ve come a gutser. You’ve bankrupted your credibility quota I’m afraid.
Evaporation, snowfall – WTF – you’re not even on the page.
As I’ve said before Mottsa – no wonder there’s earthquakes.
Nevket240,
When will you get it right? They are not ‘fudge factors’, but ‘tuneable parameters’. The Thought Police will get you…
Is Luke a sergeant in the Thought Police? Just a thought …
His mother was…
For a start look at the pathetic discussion on CO2 fertilisation. Yes everyone knows about growth cabinets. But they real world isn’t like that – they’ve skipped a whole discussion on the results of free air experiments – why’s that Toby?
Toby tell us how all the additional CO2 helped agriculture during the recent Australian drought?
The methane story is irrelevant as we’re not at the point of signficant transformations in these systems – it’s just beginning.
Let’s get into MWP – well http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/the-weirdest-millennium/
Without exception, the reconstructions show that Northern Hemisphere temperatures are now higher than at any time during the past 1,000 years, confirming and strengthening the conclusions drawn in the previous IPCC report of 2001
Forget about species richness – let’s talk about individual species on thermal limits which they conveniently cherry pick around:
What would be topical would be a recent example:
The tuatara. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200706/s1942061.htm
Species that cannot adapt fast enough or have nowhere to go won’t make it. Well in the wild at least.
I notice they’ve referenced Church but skipped his recent paper – why’s that?
Science 4 May 2007:
Vol. 316. no. 5825, p. 709
DOI: 10.1126/science.1136843
Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections
Stefan Rahmstorf,1 Anny Cazenave,2 John A. Church,3 James E. Hansen,4 Ralph F. Keeling,5 David E. Parker,6 Richard C. J. Somerville5
We present recent observed climate trends for carbon dioxide concentration, global mean air temperature, and global sea level, and we compare these trends to previous model projections as summarized in the 2001 assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC scenarios and projections start in the year 1990, which is also the base year of the Kyoto protocol, in which almost all industrialized nations accepted a binding commitment to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The data available for the period since 1990 raise concerns that the climate system, in particular sea level, may be responding more quickly to climate change than our current generation of models indicates.
1 Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, 14482 Potsdam, Germany.
2 Laboratoire d’Etudes en Géophysique et Océanographie Spatiales, 31400 Toulouse, France.
3 Marine and Atmospheric Research and Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Hobart Tasmania, 7001, Australia.
4 NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), New York, NY 10025, USA.
5 Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA.
6 Hadley Centre, Met Office, Exeter EX1 3PB, UK.
Toby you haven’t invested 5 minutes of serious thought. You a sucker for the next press release from scam central.
Yes Davey – breathtaking contribution as usual – well when you can independently simulate the world’s climate and resolve multiple forcings let us know !
Davey, they are tunable parameters because they don’t know everything, and some things they have to find out empirically. That’s the lot of science, imperfect people investigating a complex world. So far, however, science has come up trumps, not that many people seem to realise it. Just look at the laser beam, when I was a teenager, it was just a curiosity, now it’s used for everything from playing CDs to treating facial blemishes, to mounting on shark’s heads. Yet the science behind it is fascinating, and would be incomprehensible to most people.
Okay Sergeant Luke,
Has your friend Pandora got her models to agree yet, or does her box contain only hope? Models (climate or otherwise) are interesting, and can be fun, but predictions they are not. Nor should anyone try to fit reality to the model.
From your voluminous posts, you seem desperate to dominate the debate, and rebut all other viewpoints. Yet you also claim that the matter is already settled. Bit of a contradiction. When Catholic priests begin to doubt their faith, they sometimes become missionaries.
But I doubt if anything I, or anyone else can say, will take your copious supply of breath away. You seem to be a pernicious CO2 emitter. I remember people like you at meetings, when I was a Public Servant.
Oh, in a previous post I mentioned the three Rs of propaganda – rhetoric, repetition, and rebuttal. I forgot the fourth. It is ridicule, or at least attempts at such.
Luke, I don’t know how you do it on this blog but hats off to you, must feel very much like the proverbial head butting against the wall.
Ian, when will you produce a paper for peer review on Arctic Ice formation or some such. Don’t forget to double check you press the right calculator buttons before you submit it!
You don’t seriously expect that last contribution to be taken as some sort of coherent input do you, Luke. I thought only the low life scrubbers resorted to running lists of claimed debating victories when no such victory took place. But it seems either you have stooped to their level or you are just a plain old deluded nutter who’s comprehension deficits are so bad that you seriously believe you won a point. Next you’ll be telling us that Napoleon won a moral victory at Waterloo.
Or is this just another in a long line of porkies that are repeated enough times to make some of the people believe then some of the time.
The other interesting fraudster is Stern. It beggars belief that a guy from the Woprld Bank would not be fully aware of the consequences of using a discount rate for calculating the future cost of emission abatement that is only half the one used to calculate the future benefits.
He has no excuse whatsoever for not knowing that a 3% discount rate would understate costs by a factor of 4.2 at 50 years, compared to benefits discounted at 6%. And as Stern projected out to year 2100 he would have known that the understatement by then was by a factor of almost 18.
Once again, anyone who did that in any prospectus in any OECD nation would be doing a stretch. In fact, to even put it in a funding application would be major fraud. And these are not some quaint far right value judgements, Phlukey. They are core community values that have developed over centuries of case law and have stood the test of time and challenge.
But what are core principles and community expectations to a gormless Green Gollum devoid of intellectual or moral substance?
SJT,
I agree science is fascinating and wonderful, and ‘tuneable parameters’ are needed when we are not sure about something. So what’s new?
However, Corporal Luke (I just demoted him for being spiteful) is like an inflated condom, with no knot on the end, zooming around in cyberspace. I doubt if anything I, or anyone else can say, will take his voluminous breath away. The point is, apart from Anthony and your good self, how many take him seriously as a climate expert? Perhaps he should reveal his publication list. Anthony too?
Super and cross resistance ! No answer.
Lava under oceans – wrong !
Water under ice cannot be – wrong !
CO2 in the surface layers – wrong !
pH not changing – wrong !
Draining Canada – giggle
and it goes on .. ..
But anyway Davey – I can see you’re busting to make a contribution so it’s all yours.
Davey, I don’t pretend to be an expert and have no publications on climate science but I’ve seen Ian sweep away facts faster than your metaphorical condom and I think he needs to justify himself when he is discrediting what is potentially very serious work.
Until I am presented with convincing evidence that either
1- IPCC got it completely wrong
2- There is less than a 0.1% chance that runaway/catastrophic climate change will occur on the existing or increasing emissions trend given best available understanding
I will continue to believe reductions in CO2e is necessary and obstructing reductions based on whims and back of envelope calculations is moronic and childish.
I note Ian has chosen to forget the very painful and drawn out exchange in which many attempted were made at explaining CO2 lag and how… shock horror… Ians discovery was not ground breaking science
Davey
One thing we do know, the CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it is increasing, the world will get warmer. The only question is, to what extent, all other forcings being equal. The models give us an insight, and no one expects them to be exactly right. But consider this, what if the IPCC has been to conservative? So far, that appears to be what is happening.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/thunderous-sounds-of-arctic-warming/2007/06/06/1181089151979.html
“Greenland, the world’s largest island, is mostly covered by an icecap of about 2.6 million cubic kilometres which accounts for a 10th of all the fresh water in the world.
Over the past 30 years, its melt zone has expanded by 30 per cent. Now the cap loses 100 to 150 cubic kilometres of ice every year — more than all the ice in the Alps.
“Some people are scared to discover the process is running faster than the models,” said Konrad Steffen, a glaciologist at the University of Colorado at Boulder and a Greenland expert who serves on a US Government advisory committee on abrupt climate change.
In the past 15 years, winter temperatures have risen about five degrees on the cap, while spring and autumn temperatures increased about three degrees.
Swiss-born Dr Steffen is one of dozens of scientists who have peppered the Greenland icecap with instruments to measure temperature, snowfall and the movement, thickness and melting of the ice.
The more the surface melts, the faster the ice sheet moves towards the ocean. The glacier that Swiss Camp rests on has doubled its speed to about 15 kilometres a year in the past 12 years, while its tongue retreated 10 kilometres into the fjord.
“It is scary,” Dr Steffen said. “This is only Greenland. But Antarctica and glaciers around the world are responding as well.””
Sergeant Luke Davey?
Kiss me goodnight Sgt Luke…
..nah, doesnt scan
I also agree that “science is fascinating and wonderful” but reality is not science.
Look at cars, everybody is raving about the fuel efficiency of the new diesel Golf. Cutting edge technology. But the alloy engines cant take the heat of places like Australia and need major repairs, cracked heads etc. Ditto SAAB, BMW etc.
The single biggest cost is depreciation and a 10 year old SAAB may only be worth $7K wholesale, replacement cost +$70K. Fuel efficiency is a big price to pay for an unsustainable motor car.
SJT,
That’s a good answer, worth serious consideration. I know CO2 is a greenhouse gas – didn’t Arhenius point that out in 1896? So is water vapour. I too would like to see CO2 emissions reigned in, plus other gases, especially from motor exhausts and coal fires. For me it is partly aesthetic – I hate the ugly stink in city streets. Perhaps my nose is telling me something else too – like keeping clear of the sewage farm.
All I am asking for is freedom of thought and expression, without Constable Luke (demoted again for insubordination) of the Thought Police heaping scorn on any who don’t toe his politically ‘correct’ line, and clogging threads up with his boring cut-and-paste quotes, and increasingly tedious attempts at ridicule. Is he in the SB (Sabotage Branch) of the TP?
No Luke, I am not bursting to contribute. I am rather quiet by nature, and prefer to listen, read and think rather than spout forth regardless. Who knows, perhaps by keeping quiet I can conceal the fact that I am a fool. You might consider that option yourself.
Okay Rog,
I won’t buy a SAAB or a VW. Pity, I rather fancied a diesel VW Touareg. I wonder what Constable Luke drives? It probably has very large hot air-bags.
OK I get it – you just want to have a big of back-slapping right wing scumoid bitch fest. Few one liners from Rog. A long winded speech on property rights from Ian. Bit o’ Euro bashing. Nothing too heavy on any facts. Certainly no link link from ram-raid Rog. Something about marxists from Schiller. Bit of condemnation from Toby without actually reading the documents. Something smarmy and sleazy from Davey.
OK OK – I wanna play too.
Hansen is very naughty and says bad things.
How’w that?
And anyone who says the Idsos are funded by the fossil fuel industry is evil.
Pls let me back in the club!
Try harder,Luke. Adolf used to froth at the mouth and bite the carpet.
Davey
I don’t know if you noticed it, but Luke is regularly attacked here, especially by Ian. He spends hours looking up scientific references, only to have them studiously ignored, and rejoinder usually has something to do with the word spiv.
Gosh, SJT post a url and quote, for a change, and now he is the font of wisdom. It is clear that both SJT and Luke have pursued a strategy of firing at anything at all but the actual topic of the post. The topic is Hansens ignorance of glaciation and his abuse of office.
But lets just just attend to a bit of housekeeping with the age quote. Hmmn, 2.6 million cubic km of ice in greenland, 100 to 150km3 annual melt rate and what do we get? Well, 2,600,000/130 = 20,000 years for it to melt. So the rate is increasing? Gosh, do you mean we only have 10,000 years grace?
Hmmn, if 2.6mkm3 = 7metres of sea level rise then 7000mm/20,000 years = 0.35mm/year or 3.5mm/decade or 3.5cm by year 2100. Surely, there must be some dumb boofhead who inherited a waterfront property and wants to sell out for a song?
And how come the spivs always tell us Greenland has 10% of all fresh water in the world but fail to tell us that it only accounts for 0.175 of 1% of all the water in the world.
And how come they never tell us that this melt zone that has apparently expanded by 30% is a reference to the couple of cm of surface puddles that appear on top of the ice for a few weeks in summer before freezing up again?
And how come they felt the need to mention that winter temperatures have increased by 5C but fail to mention that this rise if from a winter mean of -23C? Still a way to go before anything melts.
And you plodders have the gall to claim that my calculator is some sort of evil right wing secret weapon. Your right, actually, our secret weapon is the truth. And long may it smite the forces of ignorance.
The other part of Hansen’s delusion is the one about large scale extinctions because of warming. What? Species don’t migrate? If it is too hot they usually head away from the tropics. Has the dumb turd ever considered that species might move north as the tree line moves north?
Enough said. I’m off to ensure the public doesn’t get any more seedlings on my land. If they don’t own a tree of their own they don’t deserve any of mine. Revenge, what a sweet way to spend a long weekend.
Correct SJT and thanks for noting the non-equality of treatment – but I have been reminded before that Davey is a sell out and cop out. So Mott’s appalling excesses appeal to his moronic mates who think the behaviour is just fine.
And of course references are ignored as “random” quotes. These guys just want to have a little right wing matey chat and bitch session. Not a serious discussion. I mean let’s not contaminate a discussion with any unneeded information. Rog will usually make fun of quoted urls by the famous “link link” whinge but note home-boy out of the comfort zone called to account by Quiggin on DDT.
Mottsa of course is a fatuous blowhard that’s in love with his own ego. He thinks he’s representative of some greater rural oppressed but he’s really just unelected unrepresentative swill that’s incredibly made his way by all things “spivery”. The fact that he thinks his calculator is some sort of secret weapon only confirms an earthquake is near.
He needs to be reminded on past crap outs again:
Super and cross resistance ! No answer.
Lava under oceans – wrong !
Water under ice cannot be – wrong !
CO2 in the surface layers – wrong !
pH not changing – wrong !
Draining Canada – giggle
So in classic sleazy style of the sophist he’s now racheted the level of melt up to 7 metres. Note the typical right wing scum methodology – pick a really high number then a great blather of calculations to justify it. But the whole thing is wrong at point #1.
Back to the reality of the literature which being more serious interpretations and observations of the real world is really what Grotty fears most.
Ignored is that the sea level rise is trending towards upper limits. Ian has ignored the potential warning signs in edge effects now manifest in Greenland and Antarctica, undermining of ice, carving of very old ice islands, worldwide accelerating glacial melt – a number of papers presented here over months that show that we don’t understand near enough. But anyway let’s not worry – it’s probably just a randomish thing.
Hansen says that ice sheet disintergration is a very non-linear process. As he asserts that paleoclimatic data indicate it has happened before. But our blog hero is using linear calculations? Whoops need a few function keys on the envelope. Ice shelves are attacked above and below by global warming.
And Mottsa may have to become a coprophage himself and have to explain how all manner of high mountain fauna and fauna separated by vast areas of geographic and man-made barriers are going to pick up their little kit-bags and go on holiday. And all this will happen in 50-100 years. I mean really what a gimp.
And what’s that – the tree line heading north. I thought that could not happen. Oh dear – inconsistency creep. And does Hansen actually refer to large scale extinctions – oh that’s right – blog standard is to publish the refutation before the argument and not bother reading the actual argument.
Just quickly Luke, how does a carbon tax reduce GHG?
I really really want to know.
Hey Luke, you know how some (like the IPCC) say that there is consensus on AGW?
NREP did a survey and found that 59% of respondants (n=793) believe that a large part of GW can be, in large part, attributed to human activity.
http://www.nrep.org/globsurv.htm
Its a funny world, whilst the EU are dragging a reluctant GWB to the emissions table Germany is powering ahead with its brown coal power stations.
“BOXBERG, Germany (Reuters) – As Chancellor Angela Merkel seeks to convince world leaders to cut greenhouse gases at a G8 summit this week, one of the biggest brown coal-fired power plants ever built is taking shape in this depressed town.
Hosting the Group of Eight summit in Heiligendamm, Germany may see itself as a guardian of the environment and sometimes wags a green finger at the rest of the world’s efforts to tackle global warming.
But residents of this eastern town, where the population has halved since 1990, are delighted by the plant and by a plan to fuel it by re-opening an opencast pit which closed eight years ago.
The plant on the outskirts of Boxberg near the Polish border will emit 4.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year — as much as 1.5 million cars — and is one of 26 coal-burning plants due to be built in Germany.
“Everyone here is in favor of the new power plant,” said Boxberg mayor Roland Trunsch. “The town would have died without it. People went out to protest in the streets to get it built. The CO2 doesn’t bother any of us. The jobs are more important….”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/04/AR2007060400171_pf.html
A carbon tax – probably won’t do much.
I assume you are suggesting 59% isn’t high. It’s not. Perhaps a survey among geologists would be lower. There’s probably a consensus among high level climate scientists but that’s about it. Most people would not have gone into the issue in enough detail to really know.
But don’t blame the science just because you don’t like the policy response or the Germans.
GHG tax on human production could work a number of ways. But effectiveness depends how lamely or well it’s devised, implemented & administered. ie unlikely in a conservative short-termist mindset
What are rog’s contructive thoughts on the policy? Oh, that’s right, my buddy in the Thought Police task force tells me rog doesnt hav any.
>I am rather quiet by nature, and prefer to listen, read and think rather than spout forth regardless. Who knows, perhaps by keeping quiet I can conceal the fact that I am a fool.
What a crock Davey. Having just read through all this you have managed to yell derogatory and unnecessary comments when you can’t add anything useful yourself. Perhaps you should actually try keeping quite, because you certainly are not concealing the fact you are a fool doing it this way.
A quote from Idso Snr.
“Since something other than atmospheric CO₂ variability was … clearly responsible for bringing the planet into the Little Ice Age, something other than atmospheric CO₂ variability may just as well have brought the planet out of it.”
Well of course you idiot, who ever claimed otherwise? I can pretty well guarantee that all scientists would concur with that statement. How are you supposed to debate CO2 when people make idiotic statements like that?
The only reason that CO2 is claimed to be the factor now is that that is what the science demonstrates.
Travis,
I have not noticed you before. I have now, and have formed an opinion about you.
Jen,
There are, I suspect, two debates conflated here. One is a debate about climate change. Few on this blog (including me) are really qualified to debate that topic, apart from appeals to (dubious?) authority. The second is a meta-debate about that climate debate. Why do people get so worked up when someone puts a different point of view? Why the attempts to shut people up? I don’t think the term Thought Police is too far fetched. Know any psychologists who might be able to throw some light on the murky roots of aggessive zealotry? I am just reading Patrick Fermor’s book ‘A Time of Gifts’. He hiked through Germany in 1934, and found most people kind and hospitable. However, he made some deep comments on the SA stormtroopers, with their bully tactics toward dissenters. Those tactics worked, with decent Germans afraid to speak out.
More recently we have seen similar violent street demonstrations, with beating drums and megaphones. Ostensibly they are about the natural environment, or industrial fairness, but I have my doubts. What sort of people take part? How about a thread on that meta-debate? Do we really have freedom of speech and thought in Australia?
Davey – but is anybody really being silenced. Plenty of blog space and newspaper space dedicated to the anti-AGW campaign. Even the ABC are going to run TGGWS.
The anti-AGW crowd believes the pro-AGW crowd is alarmist and hell bent on destroying western civilisation. The pro-AGW crowd sees the anti-AGW crowd as denialists and protectors of vested interests. It’s a major clash of ideologies, science and politics.
The anti-green sentiment released here is relentless and incredibly abusive on pretty well all issues. Are you suggesting no come back ?
So you need to ask who are the stormtroopers in the analogy ?
As for the violent street demonstrators. Do they really care – just an extension of football hooliganism mentality. Any excuse for a fight with the police. Who cares about the topic.
Davey,
I can offer a partial answer for the question you posed: “Know any psychologists who might be able to throw some light on the murky roots of aggessive zealotry?”
Here’s a cite to a highly explanatory article.
Justin Kruger and David Dunning (Cornell University) “Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1999, Vol. 77, No. 6. 1121-1134
[Extract of Abstract]
Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error.
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
We all know that eco-Fascists and neo-Marxists, such as the howling, sanctimonious AGW mob, have no sense of humor, easily succumb to illogic (such as ad-hominem arguments), and have nearly no capacity at all to distinguish between accuracy and error.
Thanks Schiller,
A fascinating paper, and I enjoyed the reference to Darwin (1871). The old ones are always the best. Your even older friend Goethe also once said something about the perils of ‘ignorance in action’. My lemon tree is bearing at present, so I might try Mr. Wheeler’s lemon juice trick at the local bank. Do you think Google is, for some, an electronic form of lemon juice?
No sense of humour – we spend half the time pulling Schiller’s chain. “name two !” But we is sure dumb. Dat’s 4 shore.
Is everyone who’s a bit of a greenie an eco-fascist and a neo-marxist. I seem to know a few greenie types – they don’t seem to tell me what to do, are very polite, and don’t look too dangerous to me.
Is there an eco-wussy class?
Luke,
With a few ifs and buts, I am a greenie, and I know many other greenies who are nice and polite and well balanced, like me and you. I also know a few who are rather dodgy – they wear a green shirt over a black or brown one, and often a red one under that. The give away is the glassy stare, and a propensity for shouting. Close up they have bad breath (mung beans?). As you have pointed out, they have much in common with soccer hooligans.
The variance between the exchanges Luke thinks he has won and the ones he has actually won would be on a similar scale to the research. It is not just a question of capacity to distinguish between fact and error but also the capacity to distinguish between fact and assumption as well as fact and opinion.
Luke, SJT et al have cosistently merged them all in a quasi intellectual sludge that is then repeated ad nauseum, especially if it can be used to divert the topic.
His claimed victory on sub-oceanic lava, for example, is based on a claimed contact with the original author who actually changed his story to cover the inherent inconsistencies in the original reporting. At first all reports related to massive lava flows heating up CO2 rich sediments but when challenged, the story was changed to claim the heating was caused by sub-seabed magma domes. So why were the lava flows even mentioned if they did not play any relevant role?
Watch for the sound and light show now, folks?
Ian you are an utter lying varmit. We did not understand the paper which was quite short. The author (yep phone or email a friend instead of ranting) provided a comprehensive informed answer. The magma cooked fossil carbon deposits from underneath and was emitted through named vents.
So you are a cad and a bounder. Your disgraceful response really startles me – as I now know what lengths of skanky skunkery you’ll descend to. I am really miffed.
In terms of the topic I had posted some rebuttal of the Idso dudes earlier which was summarily dismissed as random noise.
SJT – I am appalled ! Obviously Ian does not recognise the Geneva convention.
Lets see, what were those tests again? Humour, grammar and logic, hmmn. What were you saying about my calculator? What were those numbers on Greenland ice melt that we were expected to ignore in deference to extrapolations to extremes and idle opinion?
“sceptic” someone who questions the truth of religious doctrine, someone indisposed in general, or on a particular subject, to accept currency or authority as proving the truth of opinions. From the Greek, skeptomai, to observe.
Not to be confused in any way with “utter lying varmint”.
Also see “exposed”, “caught in the open”, “diversion”, and “Galileo complex”
Nice try at changing the issue. But anyway.. ..
The numbers you were expected to ignore were the ones you have forgotten that you fabricated. And also ignored the mechanisms to boot. “Whoops. I didn’t check source”.
It’s fascinating that some self-appointed sceptics think they’re on a mission from God or doing a Galileo when they’re really simply misrepresenting and snow-jobbing pure and simple.
It’s called “Bulldust” from the australopithecine “Bulldust”.
“Cad & bounder” and no sense of humour?
So now the punk accuses me of fabricating evidence but fails to substantiate. Gosh, Luke, is that another attempt at defamation. Or is it another diversion?
Remember the thread? Criticism of Hansen, which, to date, you have conspicuously failed to respond on topic.
HELLO – Earth to Ian – I made a wad of comments above.
No – it was not am attempt at defamation – you were putting words in Hansen’s mouth which he did not say – then doing elaborate calculations on the assumption unjustified – while ignoring the non-linear mechanisms he was quoting. If anything you have defamed Hansen. Wouldn’t be surprised if you didn’t even read his material. But I’m sure he’s a tough cookie and losing no sleep nor stature – he’s used to peanut gallery comments.
Notice how Hansen tries to take the moral high ground by placing himself on one side of the argument, and what he terms ‘special interest’ parties on the other.
So, receiving thousands of pounds in government grants, and a lucrative career, does not give him any ‘special interest’ then?
Look, the science of global warming is so flimsy, it’s laughable. The temperature records going back thousands of years PROOVE with no doubt that current temperatures are nothing unusual.
All the scare mongering is based on comuter emulations that the IPCC have admitted are not accurate enough to be called ‘predictions’. They are only ‘projections’ (which many take to mean the same thing, but is far from it).
A projection is just a future ‘possible scenario’ produced from an inputted earlier ‘possible scenario’. So, you can input anything you like, and get any projection you like. Ifs and buts, basically.
But in scientific terms, it all adds up to pure guesswork. That’s why none of the models bare much resemblence to real observations.