It is not so many years ago that Professor Ian Lowe published a book* explaining, “there is a great scientific tradition of scepticism, generally a good thing because it keeps us honest and forces us to justify our conclusions.” But then he went on to claim that climate skeptics try to win their arguments, sometimes by actually lying, but more often by making statements that are factually correct but misleading. He also claimed global warming skeptics actually only number perhaps 5 while about 10,000 scientists “support the accepted view”.
Al Gore in his award winning documentary ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ conceded there were probably more than 5 global warming skeptics but he said they were all in the pay of big oil.
This much maligned group, of which I am often accused of being a member, is increasingly fightening back claiming their membership is not only respectable but also large and growing. There was Professor Bob Carter who compiled the list of 100 or so signatures for a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister a year or so ago, then very recently Tom Harris collected signatures for a letter to the United Nations Secretary General in Bali. Now, the very hard working Marc Morano has a list with over 400 signatures and it is getting some coverage in the mainstream media.
Following is the original US Senate Report with the signatures:
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007. Read more here: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
Following is some of the media and commentary that has followed:
Hundreds of scientists reject global warming, Basing policy on carbon dioxide levels ‘potentially disastrous economic folly’ By Bob Unruh, WorldNetDaily.com
A new U.S. Senate report documents hundreds of prominent scientists – experts in dozens of fields of study worldwide – who say global warming and cooling is a cycle of nature and cannot legitimately be connected to man’s activities. “Of course I believe in global warming, and in global cooling – all part of the natural climate changes that the Earth has experienced for billions of years, caused primarily by the cyclical variations in solar output,” said research physicist John W. Brosnahan, who develops remote-sensing instruments for atmospheric science for clients including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.
Read more here: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59319
Report challenges global warming claims, WASHINGTON, Dec. 21 (UPI) — A report released by the ranking Republican member of a U.S. Senate environment committee refutes claims by Nobel laureate Al Gore on man-made climate change. In the report, more than 400 scientists expressed doubt over the claims made by Gore, a former U.S. vice president, and the United Nations that man-made climate change endangers the planet, The Washington Times reported Read more here: http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/12/21/report_challenges_global_warming_claims/7759/
“Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust”’, the introduction said. And there probably would be many more scientists making such statements, were it not for the fear of retaliation from those aboard the global-warming-is-caused-by-SUVs bandwagon, the report said. And it details some of this intimidation. Looks like man-made global warming theory is melting away faster than you can say Al Gore. A lot of reputations are now going to disappear along with it: all those who were part of the famous ‘consensus’ (not). Those people should never be taken seriously again. It’s over, guys. Reason, truth and real science are fighting back. Read more here http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/413976/good-news-earth-not-flat.thtml
400 Prominent Scientists Dispute Global Warming – Bunk, Climate change denial lives – though not nearly to the extent that Swiftboater Marc Morano would have you believe in his latest overstatement about “prominent scientists” who dispute man-made global warming. Morano’s list of “over 400” alleged climate quibblers includes the usual deniers … There is also a group of second-order “scientists,” who are not scientists at all… Finally, Morano includes a group of legitimate scientists … Read more here: http://www.desmogblog.com/400-prominent-scientists-dispute-global-warming-bunk
Scientists doubt climate change, By S.A. Miller – More than 400 scientists challenge claims by former Vice President Al Gore and the United Nations about the threat of man-made global warming, a new Senate minority report says.
The scientists — many of whom are current or former members of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Mr. Gore for publicizing a climate crisis — cast doubt on the “scientific consensus” that man-made global warming imperils the planet. “I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached,” Mr. Tennekes said in the report. Read more here: http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071221/NATION/844993096/1001
Comments in the report include:
• “Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double, man would not perceive the temperature impact.”
Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences
• “I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting — a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the [U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] number — entirely without merit. … I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached.”
Atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, former research director at the Netherlands’ Royal National Meteorological Institute
• “The hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth’s surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The [greenhouse-gas] hypothesis does not do this. … The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”
David Wojick, expert reviewer for U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
• “The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming.”
Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo-Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
———-
* A big fix – Radical solutions for Australia’s environmental crisis, Black Inc, 2005.
UPDATE 27th December 2007
The list has been updated, you can read Part 2 here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002642.html
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Now I understand why Prime Minister Rudd has placed a gag on statements from commonwealth scientific organisation.
Thanks for putting in the instant rebuttal to the ‘400 scientists’ from the Desmoblog, Jennifer. Anyone who calls John McLean or Monckton as scientist has to be fiddling the books.
Jennifer
do you think that people like Morano lower the tone of the place?
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=/SpecialReports/archive/200601/SPE20060113a.html
He’s a hack for hire, and has never let the truth stand in the way of a good savaging of people or facts.
At least SJT is consistent. He will never addresses the science if he thinks a personal attack is the way to go.
How risible it is to see him claiming that someone else “lowers the tone”. It must be because of his long experience in that position.
As for the link, it seems like there are very legitimate reasons to question whether the guy deserved two purple hearts (and I say deserved in terms of the normal standards that the US Defense force sets, not merely as my opinion). It looks like Morano wrote this article almost 2 years ago and was trying to get to the truth of the matter. If subsequent events have revealed the truth then maybe Morano’s piece was a driver.
Why does SJT have a problem with trying to determine the facts?
SJT, I have great respect for Marc Morano. He works hard because he believes in what he does and in the concepts of liberty and truth. He is not always correct in the detail and has got some stuff completely wrong. I don’t believe this is ever intentional. His background, I believe is in journalism, rather than science.
This site is about ‘politics and environmentalism’ and Marc Morano has been a key player on the global scene through 2007.
BTW While I am unsure what John McLean’s exact university qualifications are, it has been my observation that he is a committed and hard working ‘student in research’ which I believe qualifies him as a scientist. I understand the notion that all knowledge starts with a university degree is a relatively recent one.
Just one question: Why is it ok for journalists, politicians and non-scientists etc. to speak in favour of global warming(GW); but if they criticise GW orthodoxy they are immediately subject to ad hominem attack?
I think you have already answered your own question, Ivor.
They are reporters and politicians.
A highly successful scientific method has been developled over the years that has produced immediately obvious benefits. When the scientists tell us something we don’t want to hear, however….
Some good points above but in the absence of hard schooled knobs (academia) you must rigorously apply the “practical” test to the remainder.
Although much of the economy in developed countries remains blinkered to the impacts of over exploitation (all natural resources) I find it very reassuring that the business world generally wants to participate in discussion about our way forward. Their media output is quite different to Mark’s back peddling on the climate issue.
Some more creative cutting and pasting from Morano.
His ‘report’
“There’s definitely global warming,” Shore said. “No question about that. And it seems very likely that what we’re doing has some part of that, some impact; but as to exactly how much of it is us and how much of it is other things, nobody knows.
As for global warming. Waldenberger and Demers pretty much agreed with Shore that it’s here but that the causes can’t be nailed down precisely.
“Well, I went to school at UCLA, a big climate school. And it isn’t really an issue as to if the global climate has been warming,” Waldenberger said “I has over the past 40 years. The question is what type of role do we take in that warming. Is it all natural fluctuations or are the increased concentrations of carbin dioxide part of this? And that’s a subject that’s up in the air.”
Here is the part he left out of the interview.
“Shore explained. Waldenberger further commented, “But you know carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas just like water vapor, which is actually the most efficient greenhouse gas. And that’s why we’re actually 60 degrees warmer than we would be without water vapor in the air. So if you’re talking about the greenhouse effect, that’s very real, and we need it to survive. But as far as carbon dioxide concentrations increasing over the last 100 years, they have about 30 percent. And temperatures have increased about a degree on average across the entire globe over the last hundred years as well. So it seems to be a reasonable argument.” “So the debate now goes into, well, what does that mean? Are things going to keep going in the direction that they’re going or does increased carbon dioxide sort of fertilize the air and does that create more plants which in turn digest more carbon dioxide and create more oxygen? You know, there’s a wide variety of ways we can go from here. So the debate then becomes: What do we need to do now?” he added.”
Morano believes passionately in what he is doing. Maybe he needs to get back to the basics of what a journalist is supposed to do.
Radioactive core and tidal forces ruled out as source of Enceladus Geysers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7145530.stm
SJT is being as selective (or is it deceptive?) as he claims others are being. Notice that he gave no reference for reference for what he claims is another part of the interview!
What’s teh source SJT and what’s the relevance to Morano’s overall piece that started this thread?
And as the length of the current 25 year global temperature plateau gets longer by the day, perhaps we should more appropriately call it “Global Luke-Warming”?
What do you think, boy wonder? This could be your one and only claim to fame.
And as for SJTs ad homs, if Tim Flannery, an expert in tropical mammals and paleontology can be referred to as a climate scientist then John McLean or Monckton certainly can as well. So give it up, punk, you’re conducting with feathers again.
Remind me again of the reasons why it is a good idea to keep pumping ever-increasing hundreds of millions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year – I seem to have missed them.
Slim – ask China.
Bit hard to ask China – it doesn’t seem to be offering an explanation here. So what are the good reasons?
“Remind me again of the reasons why it is a good idea to keep pumping ever-increasing hundreds of millions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year – I seem to have missed them”
Well I’m hoping the CO₂ enrichment of the atmosphere will help me grow bigger and better tomatoes.
http://homeharvest.com/carbondioxideenrichment.htm
Better tomatoes – it would be more efficient to build a hot house. But seriously, what are the good reasons? Perhaps the question is a bit hard?
OK,
Like CO₂ is a byproduct of the industrial processes that guarantee the lifestyle you currently enjoy – like your ability to communicate this way, or will (hopefully) enable about 4B. people, just like yourself, to enjoy a similar lifestyle.
How’s that.
Cheap thrills Slim. Co2 is a by-product of delivering the high quality medical care, good education, quality food, movies, holidays, cyberspace, entertainment and spiritual renewal that contemporary life chooses to aspire to.
Take out the CO2 and you tell me which kids must endure the 19th century ailments that were part of every day life before emissions took off.
And we all know that every single one of the parents, grandparents, siblings and relatives of each child you nominate will howl you down as a heartless beast for your callous disregard for their well being.
And for what? 25 years of emissions with nil warming in response? Some 34 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 and nothing but Luke-Warming?
Co2 is a by-product of delivering the high quality medical care, good education, quality food, movies, holidays, cyberspace, entertainment and spiritual renewal that contemporary life chooses to aspire to.
But these things will still be available without continuing growth in CO2 emissions. It’s not as though these things are universally available to humankind as a whole.
A century ago most people could see no problem with using waterways and oceans to dispose of industrial waste. Nowadays no-one is advocating that we continue to do so. Like it or not we are coming to regard atmospheric pollution with similar caution.
Perhaps the real reason for continuing the pace we have now is because we find more convenient than actually doing something about it?
Flannery has never claimed to be a climatologist. If you read his book, every claim he makes is backed with a reference to a scientific study. He gets a few things wrong still, which Realclimate points out in their review of his book.
On C3PO’s suggestion that Marc Morano lowers the tone of the place, I have a counter suggestion which will tend to raise the tone to something that assuages the droids new found sensabilities.
There are quite a few names of Australian and New Zealander climate specialists on Senator Inhofe’s list whom I am unfamiliar with.
Jennifer, perhaps you could solicit a blog post from each of them as a way of introducing us all to their opinions, lifes work, ect.
Slim, run off and do some introductory units of economics and come back when you understand that higher prices for eliminating carbon will feed through to a reduced capacity to purchase good health, good education, good food etc.
And until we know for certain that CO2 will cause serious harm then there is no case for mandatory targets. But if a new technology is developed that can supply energy at the same price without CO2 then, of course, it is welcome.
But all the alternatives still need subsidies to compete and those subsidies will be funded by longer hospital waiting lists and crowded classrooms.
So the main reason to keep pumping out CO2 is economic convenience (wealthy countries mostly)? As with all forms of pollution surely the onus is to prove that it is not detrimental rather than prove that it is.
So apart from economic issues, why is exponentially increasing CO2 pollution a good thing?
“And until we know for certain that CO2 will cause serious harm then there is no case for mandatory targets. But if a new technology is developed that can supply energy at the same price without CO2 then, of course, it is welcome.”
By then it will be too late.
Back to the ‘400’ claim. Our old friend Beck is on the list, a high school teacher.
Slim, SJT, do you fools realy think that your modern city type living could survive with any meaningful reduction in energy consumption.
I can see the horse & cart traffic jam, trying to get your food out to your supermarket, If the bullock wagons had managed to get it into the city, in an edible form, from farms hundreds of miles away, in the first place.
Get the rose Coloured glasses off, grow up, & face reality some time you twits.
If you want to live with nineteenth centaury energy consumption, plan to live a similar life style.
You can leave me out of your cockeyed dream of renewable energy as well. I’m not interested in paying a fortune for inefficiently generated power, just so you can feel better, for a while, as we slowly sink into the mire.
Do you have any idea, just how many useless people are employed, because those of us who do any real work, can be extremely productive, with modern high energy industry.
I wonder how the health & safty brigade will go about getting roll over protection, & seat belts on a horse & cart.
Loaded question slim. CO2 is not proven to be pollution and it is not expanding exponentially.
Again, when you have some evidence of serious temperature increase, especially over the past 25 years, we might take a close look. Till then, spare us the casuistry.
Hasbeen – “modern city type living could survive with any meaningful reduction in energy consumption”
Reality is that we will have to sooner or later – what is wrong with acting towards that now? If everyone on the planet lived our lifestyle, emissions would be in the billions of tonnes annually, what to speak of whether or not we have sufficient non-renewable energy sources and sufficient mineral resources to meet the demand of growth at any cost economies.
Kyoto II is going to happen and policies will enacted accordingly.
Anyway, on my original question why is increasing CO2 pollution a good idea – no-one has offered any answer other than to claim it will be economically inconvenient to them to do otherwise.
“those of us who do any real work” – and what is real work? What do you do? Is that real?
Ian – I’m not actually that interested in whether climate change is real and whether CO2 has a role in it.
As one trained in environmental science I’m more interested in why exponentially increasing CO2 pollution in a closed system could be anything other than undesirable and imprudent – especially if we can take reasonable measures to reduce it. In this sense our emission of CO2 is pollution. As a species we have acted on most other forms of unadulterated pollution. Why not CO2 (apart from individual economic inconvenience)?
“those of us who do any real work” hmmmmm Cob & Co days hey
(I wonder what type of wheel we could build between us given the need)
Anyone got a spokeshave or a horse collar?
“BTW While I am unsure what John McLean’s exact university qualifications are, it has been my observation that he is a committed and hard working ‘student in research’ which I believe qualifies him as a scientist. I understand the notion that all knowledge starts with a university degree is a relatively recent one.
Posted by: Jennifer M at December 22, 2007 10:29 AM”
Who said “all knowledge starts with university degree”? I certainly didn’t in that other thread, but perhaps you could clarify your comment:
When you say he’s qualified as a scientist, do you mean:
Computer scientist?
Climate scientist?
Some other kind of scientist?
Thanks.
Oops, another question:
“Now, the very hard working Marc Morano has a list with over 400 signatures and it is getting some coverage in the mainstream media.”
Somehow I missed the signatures. Can you point to something that enumerates a letter (or anything) actually signed by the 400(?)?
Hasbeen
classic false dichotomy.
Jennifer – “BTW While I am unsure what John McLean’s exact university qualifications are, it has been my observation that he is a committed and hard working ‘student in research’ which I believe qualifies him as a scientist.”
So I have done a lot of research – does that make me a scientist as well?
Ender!
“So I have done a lot of research – does that make me a scientist as well?”
In a way YES! there are some provisos though, did you keep an open mind? has your political leaning influence the outcome of your research?
Formal knowledge never was a prerequisite to become a researcher-scientist, it became fashionable only after every Tom Dick and Harry went to uni.
Believe me, I met some of the most idiotic useless a..holes with multiple degrees you can imagine.
Not being jealous here, I do have a degree myself, hard earned in a disciple where BS will not suffice.
Cheers
Make that “formal education!” not “knowledge”
Hay Slim, I sure hope you didn’t waste your time being trained in environmental science at the Gold Coast campus of one of our universities.
I had a look at the course notes for that course, a couple of years ago, & if it weren’t a huge waste of taxes, it would have been funny. The high point was the year 10 high school maths they expected the students to master, in just 4 years.
I don’t suppose you can’t expect much more from the OP 18 students that did the course.
The fact that the Department of Environment is now flooded with graduates from this, & similar courses, should worry even the greenies. Still I suppose not, they have at least been thoroughly indoctrinated in “greenie” thinking in that 4 years, even if they have not learnt anything.
If that’s the training you’ve had, I’d make sure no one heard about it, if I were you.
Hasbeen – there’s nothing quite like the thrill of destroying a most fantastic straw man after you’ve carefully created him. Gives one a certain sense of power. A pity it bears no relation to the topic.
FYI My degree was with the esteemed Zoology department of the University of Tasmania back in the early 70s. I guess any consideration of the principles of environmental science looks like ‘greenie’ thinking to one who wishes to ignore and deny them.
So remind me again why exponentially increasing CO2 emissions in a closed system is a good idea – apart from ignoring it being more financially convenient.
It would appear that you can’t. It doesn’t matter how many scientists Jennifer gets on her list of skeptics – the world is moving on. Howard, friend of the Coal industry, is no longer PM. We are going to deal with CO2 emissions whether you like it or not, and regardless of how loudly you continue to claim that it’s all a hoax on sites like this one.
The times are a changing. I haven’t met a denialist yet who was motivated by a desire other than not wanting to change their habits and the fear of what they imagine they have to lose. That’s your choice – just as it’s the choice of the majority of our citizens to demand that action be taken to curb CO2 emissions.
You may claim there is no science to say that global warming exists or is caused by human activity. Equally there is no science that says that our increasing rate of CO2 emission is a good and justifiable thing.
A complete (I hope although Steve Bloom thinks I missed a few) alphabetized list of the Denialist Society 400 can be found at Rabett Run.
And, by the way, congratulations Jennifer, you made the list although looking at it you may want to adopt a Marxist position:)
Well that about wraps that up. Pick a number, any number, 400 sounds good. Then pad it up to the top with fluff, lies and selective quotes. Done.
http://www.desmogblog.com/400-prominent-scientists-dispute-global-warming-bunk
Next Topic?
I see I am on the list, the Morano list of only 400.
And I’ve heard computer modelling is something useful to the IPCC – I’m not a computer scientist. I gather John McLean is.
Now where is the list of 2,000 IPCC scientists???? I guess Vincent Grey will be on that list? Can anyone confirm this?
Eli, James,
Do you have a list of the 2,000? Are either of you on it?
The IPCC, as you well know, Jennifer, have published their reports on their web sites. The authors of those reports are all listed in those reprots. The reports list all the papers that form the basis for the reports. Those papers always have all the authors listed in them, as required of published papers.
Dr Gray is listed as a reviewer. Most of his comments were hilarious.
As a species we have acted on most other forms of unadulterated pollution. Why not CO2 ?
Because co2 is the natural byproduct of all work, whether mechanical or animal.
Every twitch of a muscle, every turn of a wheel results in co2.
The only way you can reduce co2 emission is by adopting the chinese methods of birth control, setting a world occupancy rate and giving over the power of life and death enforcement to government demigods.
Besides that global warming doesn’t work. CO2 isn’t raising the temperature, but if it did I would welcome warm winters, more rain, and increased output from co2 enhanced plant life.
Merry Christmas to everyone–even to the people who believe in global warming but are skeptics about Christ. (I know…different religions.)
re: “I’m not a computer scientist. I gather John McLean is.”
I’m curious. Do you know computer scientists? How would you tell whether somebody should be called that or not?
Do you think all computer scientists are actually *scientists* (in the usual sense of the latter term)?
“And I’ve heard computer modelling is something useful to the IPCC – I’m not a computer scientist. I gather John McLean is.”
So what exactly is your point?
– computer modelling used by IPCC
– computer modelling = computer science
– John McLean = computer scientist
=> John McLean = climate scientist
??
Being a “computer scientist” does not make you versed in computer modelling. Most -if not all- of the modelling is actually been done by people having a background in the science of the domain (climate science, etc.) which the models simulate. As with everything scientific these days, climate modelling is a highly specialised area and although knowledge about computer science will help when writing models, it alone does not qualify you to do so.
Have a happy Christmas
Jennifer, I saw a reference to this post elsewhere and decided to pay your blog one of my rare visits to see if the rumors were true.
Cutting right to the chase, I think it’s more than a little desperate of you to defend a document that on its face purports that fifty or so TV/internet weather forecasters are “prominent scientists.” As you are not stupid and have some scientific training, it simply is not credible that you would think that Morano believes that assertion to be true.
How low you have sunk.
I find it interesting that the same group who think that an economy can be modelled (econometrics etc) also believe that climate can be modelled. It can’t (climate that is) because the fundamental assumptions are wrong.
The most important assumption is the presence of CO2 as an independent gas phase in the earth’s atmosphere – it actually does not exist – it is air that has a slight chemical component of CO2. Physically there is only one gas phase in the earth’s atmosphere – “AIR”.
The behaviour attributed to CO2 is based on its molecular properties, but that is based on inference and extrapolation. Much like saying that air bubbles enclosed in your ice cubes from your refridgerator affect the physical characteristics of ice.
CO2 does not exist as an independent gas (on which it’s behaviour is based) and hence cannot be used as an independent factor in a computer model.
And the only empirical evidence linking CO2 and planetary temperatures are Venus, Earth and Mars.
Conclusion? CO2 and surface temperature are not causually linked despite all the theoretical hoo hah trumpted by the climate charlatans.
Thanks for that comment Louis, it confirms you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Paul Biggs agrees that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, he disagrees on the magnitude of it’s effect.
SJT!
No wonder your comments make so little sense, to maintain the ignorance you display is a full time job.
CO2 maybe a green house gas, nay IT IS, it’s being used in green houses!
Why do you deliberately ignore the facts? CO2 is but a part of the atmosphere, not THE atmosphere!
Hiding behind quotes (which you and fellow travelers would be hard pressed to understand let alone explain) from web pages, is not the way to conduct arguments.
Errol “justification based on physical evidence”
That’s all we are asking for, not pie in the sky computer modeling. (I can write you a programme to prove anything you wish, luckily I am in industrial design where bullshit doesn’t survive.)
You may scoff at the description of some of the people as “scientist”, but come up with some real physical EVIDENCE of “A”gw and I’d be convinced.
As “Whitehorne Leghorne” used to say, “I’m pitching to you boy, but you ain’t catching” we give you ample material to think about, but you cannot answer, so you attack the man.
The North American audience hopefully won’t wise on.
Errol we are busy digging out of the snow.
The most important assumption is the presence of CO2 as an independent gas phase in the earth’s atmosphere – it actually does not exist – it is air that has a slight chemical component of CO2. Physically there is only one gas phase in the earth’s atmosphere – “AIR”.
I think Louis is on to something.
Co2 loses the IR absorbed by collision with other molecules. In “air” most of those molecules don’t reabsorb the IR lost in collision events. After each collision the IR drops in energy moving lower down the spectrum. There is a point along the spectrum where co2 no longer absorbs IR.
Perhaps this is why my glass jug of co2 never shows a warming signature.
“SJT!
No wonder your comments make so little sense, to maintain the ignorance you display is a full time job.
CO2 maybe a green house gas, nay IT IS, it’s being used in green houses!
Why do you deliberately ignore the facts? CO2 is but a part of the atmosphere, not THE atmosphere!
Hiding behind quotes (which you and fellow travelers would be hard pressed to understand let alone explain) from web pages, is not the way to conduct arguments.”
Relying on experts in a field of scientific research is not hiding behind quotes, it’s acknowledging the whole basis of modern science. If every scientist in every field of research had to resort to building a thesis based on first principles, we would never get anywhere. Science is based on the ability to depend on published, prior research, and the independent reproduction of the findings of research.
I am not a climatologist, but I do what any sensible person does who is not an expert in a field, he relies on the experts.
As usual, the hypocrites Mr’s Bloom & Rabett preach trends, yet ignore/discount this obvious one. The statistic and physical science ignorant former is most guilty of this, as he has DENIED the trend of added skeptics taking public positions for many years. His is a true AGW zealots position, where he believes the list is actually declining inversely to his perceived GAT anomaly warmth since 1998. Both perceptions are wrong of course, but that’s his faith.
Mr. Rabett’s selective analysis of this list is also obvious; where’s the analysis of IPCC members? Like VP DUH Gore, simple screw-ups such as knowing skeptics who’ve resign from the IPCC out of protest or other reasons vs. skeptics who still participate escape him. Stick to bad chemistry and isotope misconceptions, Mr. Rabett — statistics and thermodynamics still find you hopelessly lost.
McCall
let me know when science becomes all about the obvious.
errol!
“If you are trying to make an argument about tuning an algorithm to give a desired result I suggest you know much better and desist from being disingenuous.”
Not necessarily tuning the programme, but using unreliable data.
And, “The core issue is a substantial body of quality scientific evidence exists for the affirmative case.” ??
Does it prove beyond doubt,that it’s mostly human influenced? Sorry I can’t buy that, it’s just not true. Name one scientist who can categorically say yes it is “A”gw and for this or that reason! PROVE, not model. Until then I’m afraid it’s only supposition.
Marcus
have you read the AR4? It’s got all the proof that is available in there, up to a couple of years ago.
If you don’t like models, then that’s going to hinder a lot of science and engineering that’s going on right now, around the globe. Model’s are an indispensable tool.
SJT!
Yes we use models, but we can test as well.
You cannot test your climate models.
Marcus
how did they know the A380 was going to fly till it flew?
SJT!
I hate say it, but that was a silly comment!
We know aerodynamic principles very well, heck they been known for more then a century, besides if in doubt there are wind tunnels!?
Mate you are leaving yourself wide open here!
Cheers
CO2 is used in greenhouses? What? To make them warmer or to fertilise the plants?
SJT – I demolish AGW from first principles using basic physics – the rest is institutionalised science which Henry Bauer, editor of The Journal of Scientific Exploration, details in his editorial of JSE Vol. 21, No 3, Fall 2007.
That science is essentially pseudoscience driven by vested interests and political (of the academic type) power. That you and the now mute Luke (AKA Phil Done) are easily gulled by these scientifically clothed priests indicates a worrying lack of critical analysis on your part(s).
That 2007 is statistically the same as 2006, and 2007 temperature wise, (reported elsewhere, and it’s a global metric being quoted) means unequivocally that AGW has been falsified.
However, drunk with rhetoric, you and your fellow believers then search for ad hoc ajustments to your litany to cope with “fact” of the inconvenient kind.
I note in other replies to my heresies here that you aver from commenting about Al Gore’s hypocrisy.
The debate has been won – humans do not affect climate but are indeed affected by it. The problem is that you and your mates don’t know how to adapt to change, climate or otherwise, and that is the problem.
Whoops, 2007, 2006, 2005, and 2001 as David Whitehouse reported elsewhere.
And whoops, institutionalised science is pseudoscience (having typing problems with a new Toshiba R500 Portege not having a spinning disk but a 66gb flash drive).
SJT seems to be doing a sterling job here but I reckon most of the current arguments against AGW have been discussed ad infinitum on this blog including the “growing” list of scientists, journos etc scraped up by the odd few who aren’t content to leave the other side alone.
BTW I recall looking at aircraft models ready for the wind tunnel back in the 50’s and thinking how much we had developed then. I also recall the odd pilot saying later on all those early jets flew like a brick when the fuel shut off or the engine malfunctioned. Pilot ejection seats had become the norm.
We are so dependent on the design of our platform. Collective heads in the sand never helped anybody.
We know aerodynamics, but we never had an A380 fly before. We know a lot about fluid dynamics and other rules of physics that make up the atmosphere, too.
LOL @ Errol.
Error SJT! and Popeye!
“We know aerodynamics, but we never had an A380 fly before.”
But we have irrefutable engineering experience-evidence!
What do you want? Go back to studying gliders before we start building any new airplanes, for God’s sake? Jesus, you are bloody thick.
Popeye I hold a privet pilot’s license, I can assure you that while not flying like a brick when the engine stops, even a Cessna will not fly for long unless the big fan up front is spinning. As to the military jets, the most sophisticated ones simply cannot be flown by humans alone, if either the engine or the computer fails, then it’s time to bail out.
All this response re. airplanes is bizarre.
You talk nonsense.
I don’t give up, I just can’t be bothered with you anymore.
I cannot argue with people who’s mind is made up by a belief and not facts, it’s a waste of time.
I just hope we all will be around for an other five years, so I can see the smug smiles wiped off your faces.
Of course by then you all would be involved in an other scare campaign.
We have irrefutable evidence of modeling fluid dynamics and other systems. Don’t have a smug smile. Whatever gave you that idea?
“I just hope we all will be around for an other five years, so I can see the smug smiles wiped off your faces”
bye, bye marcus.”I just hope” says it all hey
Errol exemplifies the closed mind; without any investigation other then wikipedia he is able to 1) form an opinion and 2) issue condemnations based on that opinion.
Using Wiki I find that Errol may be an owl in Harry Potter and therefore maybe a fiction.
Worth a look meantime
http://rolexsydneyhobart.com/yacht_tracker.asp?key=522
The list of authors and reviewers is found as an appendix to each section of the AR4. For example, here is the list for WGI. And yes, V. Gray is listed as a reviewer there being no official troll category.
At this point the fact that anyone asks for something so well publicized and out in the open is a test of their seriousness. If anyone refers to our friend McLean that clinches it.
Erroll
As your reference is WIKIPEDIA, an extremely partial reference, one might conclude your post was a waste of time, and thus a blathering one
And I see the Rabetts are still Rabetting ad hominem
Erroll
Better get to know the object of your hate before posting further comments here unless, and I pause, you are happy being an idiot.
ooo popeye
SJT
“We have irrefutable evidence of modeling fluid dynamics and other systems. Don’t have a smug smile. Whatever gave you that idea?”
Oh? Citation please because the mathematical prediction of a particle in turbulent motion, as opposed to fluid laminar flow that is quite predictable, remains a scientific problem.
Now which area of fluid dynamics are you on about?
Laminar or Turbulent?
If the former, then no problem but climate is about turbulent flow.
And you don’t know what you are talking about!
popeye!
“I just hope” says it all hey
I’m long in the tooth and have bit of a problem, that’s all I meant.
But cheer away!
As chaos theory has shown, even chaotic systems can have steady states.
It’s like we can get an average weight of the Australian adult population. Yet if we had random people come through a door in front of us, we could not predict what the weight of the next person was.
SJT
“I am not a climatologist, but I do what any sensible person does who is not an expert in a field, he relies on the experts.”
Any sensible person would rely on the opinion of an expert, but also on common sense and personal observations. If common sense and personal observations contradict the expert’s opinion, you have to make a choice. You and others have chosen to “believe” that climate change is caused by humans; others like me have chosen to rely to the paradigm that climate change (if any) is a natural phenomenon.
I believe in Nature. Do you?
Yes Louis, Rabetts are still Rabetting, and a great pleasure it is. Ms Rabett sends love.
Now which area of fluid dynamics are you on about? Laminar or Turbulent?
Being a practical fellow, I intend putting that lot to some skippers on the dock in Hobart ASAP given some have been in the race for decades.
How was it? Do you believe in climate change or AGW? Which theory (above) works best at sea?
Hey; these bleary eyed mariners could give me a right dunking!
Timo
if all we went on was commonsense, we would have never discovered relativity.
Boffins cool on global warming, Article from:
Gerard McManus, December 27, 2007 12:00am
MORE than 400 prominent scientists worldwide declared themselves climate-change sceptics in 2007, a US Senate report says… The report challenges the view that “the science is in” on global warming… The US Senate environment committee minority report published the names, papers and peer reviews of the scientists from more than 20 countries who had voiced objections to aspects of the “consensus” view on man-made global warming… “The endless claims of a ‘consensus’ about man-made global warming grow less and less credible every day,” the Oklahoma senator said… the number of sceptics, who include climatologists, oceanographers, geologists, glaciologists, and meteorologists, is growing rather than diminishing.
Read more here:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22974425-663,00.html
Jennifer: They obviously didn’t look at their footprint.
“CSIRO rejects censor demand”
SEE – CT exclusive today
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/news/local/environment/csiro-rejects-censor-demand/1152071.html
Jennifer
do you read your own website? The “400” includes supposed Doctors, who aren’t, documentary makers, weathermen. The basic claim being made by Morano is a lie. If he wants stick to the actual people he claims are scientists, he had better make the list a lot smaller. Then if he wants to refer to people who actually have research experience in that area, the list is going to be smaller still.
400 is a lie.
“The basic claim being made by Morano is a lie. If he wants stick to the actual people he claims are scientists, he had better make the list a lot smaller. Then if he wants to refer to people who actually have research experience in that area, the list is going to be smaller still.”
Turnabout’s fair play! What about the so-called IPCC 2500?
More turnabout — what is the count of SPM authors who were scientists, or even more unlikely have “research experience in that area.”
Trying again:
“While I am unsure what John McLean’s exact university qualifications are, it has been my observation that he is a committed and hard working ‘student in research’ which I believe qualifies him as a scientist.”
If you think he qualities as a scientist, can you point me at some of his scientific work that impressed you, maybe say the best 5 that you know of?
a) John’s publications in credible peer-reviewed journals, hopefully on climate science, but I’d be happy to see computer science, or any other science. (I know about the E&E publication.)
[GoogleScholar search for john mclean gives many hits, but there are so many hits for others that it’s hard to find anything.]
b) If there aren’t 5 in a), then maybe pick the strongest ones from John’s webpage, which has many documents, and there’s only so much time.
Marcus is exactly right when he says “Of course by then you all would be involved in an other scare campaign.”
And why is this true? Because believers in AGW are the worst sort of coward. They are willing to exterminate future generations and curtail the present, in effect exersizing the modern form of human sacrifice, at the mere suggestion that the thermometer might be half a degree higher on average.
What a collection of spineless curs.
Just like the ancient shamans demanding virgin deaths to appease the weather gods, these pusillanimous, submissive, jellyfish, are so frightened of a change in the weather, that they practically jump to sell out their fellow human being, just so they can affect a pretence of relevance.
The 400 club not only has TV Weather Guys, but a TV Gardener! Chance indeed
As to the SPM authors, let Google Scholar be your friend. You might be surprised.
“As your reference is WIKIPEDIA, an extremely partial reference, ”
And quick check of the journal’s website reveals that it publishes articles like
“Some Bodily Malformations Attributed to Previous Lives”. I’d say wikipedia is pretty spot on.
I guess everybody who tries to explain to you why you’ve got it wrong is “partial” or “politized”.
I can’t resist commenting this one
“That 2007 is statistically the same as 2006, and 2007 temperature wise, (reported elsewhere, and it’s a global metric being quoted) means unequivocally that AGW has been falsified.”
No it doesn’t. It means that you don’t understand the differnce between weather and climate (and why forecasting the weather of tomorrow is quite a different thing than predicting a future state of the climate).
You are also wrong when you critise the “scientific mainstream” with arguments like
“Put simply, doubling CO2 does not mean the temperature increases as a linear function as believed by the global warmers but asymptotes to a plateau.” (http://www.henrythornton.com/article.asp?article_id=4775)
It is well established that the relationship is not linear but logarithmic.
Frank,
Climate is weather averaged over 30 years by definition. I reported David Whitehouse’s comments that the global temperature has been statistically identical since 2001. As climate is an extrapolation from weather, it is you who does understand it.
Glad to see that you quote me out of context – I quoted Lubos Motl, and summarised his findings.
Try again please and this time get the fatcs right.
Whoops,
I meant Frank does not understand the difference between weather and climate.
Abject apologies for getting the basics so wrong.
SJT,
“if all we went on was commonsense, we would have never discovered relativity.”
Does this mean that you only rely on science? If yes, the world would have looked completely different today. In my opinion, evolution of humankind has developed due to the combination of science, common sense, observation and gut feeling. Relativity is discovered by this combination and not by science alone.
“They are willing to exterminate future generations”
Damn, how did he find out?
“Climate is weather averaged over 30 years by definition. I reported David Whitehouse’s comments that the global temperature has been statistically identical since 2001.”
good one, Louis. Shifting the goalposts in the blink of an eye.
Louis Hissink clearly needs a larger knowledge base, given his utter silliness about laminar and turbulent flows.
The former (low Reynolds numbers) has relatively easy mathematical solutions, the latter (high Reynolds) problems use powerful computers employing “Computational Fluid Dynamics” simulation techniques, which got started about 40 years ago.
The current methods are far better, and have (mostly) replaced windtunnels, of which some of the most famous are at NASA Ames Research Center, located a few miles from where I worked. They have long used SGI supercomputers (including some I helped design) for CFD. I loved NASA folks: if we could ship them a system with 256GB of main memory, they wanted a Terabyte. Great customers, great people to work with.
I also used to spend 1-2 weeks/year in Australia with scientists & engineers using such computers, of which some of the most powerful in Oz are SGI Altix systems at CSIRO, ANU, etc. Oz has competent people in such areas.
CFD methods are applicable in aerospace, automotive, petroleum engineering, design of boats, of chocolate ice cream bars, of Barbie dolls, and many others, including climate science. If you don’t think these methods work well, you should stay out of cars and airplanes. (Consequences of errors in ice cream bar and Barbie doll design are less serious.)
However, understanding the basic idea of AGW doesn’t need *any* of this computer simulation. It should be enough to know a little physics (mostly high-school level or at most lower undergraduate) and enough about statistics of time series not to get excited about random jiggles, and be unable to ignore straightforward data.
“Louis Hissink clearly needs a larger knowledge base, given his utter silliness about laminar and turbulent flows.”
that’s what happens when you get an geologist assuming he knows all about fields of science he has no knowledge of. He should stick to what he knows.
Thanks for the information, JM. Very interesting, and from the little I know (I’m just an amateur in this field, like Louis), spot on.
“CFD methods are applicable in aerospace, automotive, petroleum engineering, design of boats, of chocolate ice cream bars, of Barbie dolls, and many others, including climate science. If you don’t think these methods work well, you should stay out of cars and airplanes.”
The big difference is that man designed and built these cars and airplanes and intimately understands how they work. Such a claim cannot be made with respect to the earth’s climate! Garbage in, garbage out!
Hi Louis,
Even though you are correct when you say:
“…, it is you who does understand it.”:)
please notice that nowhere have I tried to explain what the difference between the two is.
“I reported David Whitehouse’s comments that the global temperature has been statistically identical since 2001”. My bad. I did not pick up your second comment. In your original comment you just talked about 2006 and 2007 and two years are not relevant to climate.
Tell me, since you say that climate is weather averaged over 30 years, how do you justify that global warming has stopped when temperature is the same for only six years?
“Glad to see that you quote me out of context – I quoted Lubos Motl, and summarised his findings.”
Well I looked around to see if can find any of your writings where you “demolish AGW from first principles using basic physics” and picked this one up because I know with quite a lot of confidence that it is wrong.
Besides, on the page referenced above you do not _quote_ Motl, you summarise him and leave no doubt that you think he is correct. So by pulling this out of context I did not alter the meaning of what you wrote.
And if you were really into the science you would also have noticed that I made a mistake when I wrote that the relationship between CO2 and temperature is logarithmic. I meant the relationship between CO2 and radiative forcing of course. But it is still true that “warmers” do not believe that temperatures rises linear with CO2.
“…climate is an extrapolation from weather,”
You don’t really mean that, do you? Try to put this into google define:extrapolation.
Anyway, I am still hoping to see how you demolish AGW from first principles.
(Minima knowledge of physics) -> garbage
How many oil fields do you think we constructed? How many human veins & arteries? (CFD is used for modeling those as well.) Anyone who thinks we understand everything about planes & airplanes we’ve designed hasn’t see the visualizations of surprises that I have, and I hope they don’t do it for a living.
But in any case, it’s irrelevant, like I said:
In my last sentence, I noted that understanding the basic idea of AGW doesn’t need computers *at all*. If CSIRO and NASA and Hadley couldn’t do big simulations, we’d know less detail about the effects of various scenarios, and our confidence intervals would get wider, but the simple fundamental physics would still be there, and the simple data would still be there, and people have done good physics long before modern computers.
“but the simple fundamental physics would still be there, and the simple data would still be there, and people have done good physics long before modern computers.”
The simple fundamental physics tell us that the warming impact of CO2 gets less and less as the ppm increases. Then what happens when precipitation effects are factored in? Then factor in aerosols and land use change effects. Is the resutling anthropogenic impact on planetary temperature positive or even slightly negative? If it’s positive, is the impact beneficial or detrimental to mankind? If it’s detrimental, is this offset by the positive economic benefits of utilizing fossil fuels? Let’s see if your CFD can figure that out!
Jeepers ark, they know all that already. Do you think researchers are that dumb an anonymous poster on the internet knows more about it than they do? They also know a lot more about it than that.
Mark: I’ve twice said that basic AGW science doesn’t need CFD codes, and I say it again. Three should be more than enough.
I used to manage cognitive psychologists, and I have friends & relative who are psychologists with whom I’ve discussed anti-scientific belief patterns and psychological backgrounds thereof. One reminded me of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, which seems to apply here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
To John Mashey
The Dunning Kruger effect as described seems to have been “proved” by using Cornell Undergraduates,where like most adult males/females at that age they believe they are immortal and know everything anyway.
The effect might have some credibility if it was proved against a more diverse population and was shown not to be age related ie older people using the experience of life know that they dont know everything. We suspect however that the alarmists are wrong,becase we seen these dramas come and go countless times before
Speaking of wikipravda links, here’s one that is pertinent to the alarmists who post here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artful_Dodger
Come on, in ten summary points let’s have an outline of the so-called proof that man-made emissions of CO2 are causing a catstrophic warming of the earth because this is what we are being told by the alarmists.
Dodge that!
Have you read the AR4, Mark?
Have you read the AR4, Mark?
To Malcolm Hill:
The general effect is well-known, Dunning and Kruger just happened to do a study that got their names on it. I knew the general idea in the 1970s, not only from university teaching (which you wouldn’t count), but from explicit instruction in management at Bell Laboratories. We (managers) were reminded by our bosses that if someone was not performing well, we’d better be very explicit in telling them so through the year, because the least competent folks tended especially to overrate their performance and be astonished when they ended up with a bad review.
The Wikipedia article points at other articles on variations and related effects, so this isn’t just Dunning & Kurger’s students.
In the US, NEETF & Roper do telephone surveys on knowledge of energy & environmental issues… people think they know more than they do. See Rosalyn McKeown, “Energy Myth Two – The public is well-informed about energy” in Sovacool & Brown’s (fine) book “Energy and American Society – Thirteen Myths.” (A lot of which fits Oz).
I don’t know offhand if anyone has formally studied this effect regarding knowledge of climate science, although I’ve certainly seen many 100%-certainty (but wrong) posts by people who clearly didn’t know much, and many were by people far removed from their student days.