Steve McIntyre’s recent Ohio State University presentation is now available online. This is an excellent summary of the ‘Hockey Stick’ debate and the climate debate in general, which extends to 45 pages (including references).
The presentation concludes:
So where does that leave us?
In my opinion, there are serious and probably fatal problems with the main proxies used as supposed evidence against a warm MWP – the Graybill strip bark chronologies, Briffa’s adjustment to the Tornetrask series, the inconsistency between Briffa’s Yamal substitution and the updated Polar Urals series and so on. For every proxy that supposedly shows a MWP cooler than the present, there seems to be one that is just as good or better evidencing the opposite. For the California and Urals proxies so fundamental to the Hockey Stick, the ecological evidence is further evidence against the Graybill and Briffa chronologies being interpretable as temperature proxies.
The selection of proxies in studies displayed by IPCC seems to me to be biased against proxies with a warm MWP. IPCC itself does not carry out any independent due diligence of the type that might be expected in a prospectus. Further, in 2007, as in 2001, the authors involved in preparing the paleoclimate section were active parties in controversies and, in the end, IPCC Fourth Assessment Report strongly reflects their partisan point of view.
Is there a wider lesson here for engineers? We are often told that the “Science is settled”. But engineers, of all people, know that, even if the “science is settled”, the engineering work may have just begun. One would hardly derive the parameters for a chemical process from an article in Nature without an engineering feasibility study.
The most critical question in climate is the estimation of a parameter – is the sensitivity of climate to doubled CO2 1.5, 2.5 or 3.5 deg C? Or could it be 6 deg C or 0.6 deg C?
In some ways, the estimation of such parameters through the development of complicated computer models is reminiscent of activities carried out by engineers. One important difference is that climate scientists typically report their results in highly summary form in journals like Nature, rather than in the 1000-page or 2000-page engineering studies that an aerospace engineering enterprise would produce.
Viewed from this perspective, a remarkable aspect of the climate debate has been the seeming inability of the climate science community to narrow confidence intervals on this estimate. In 1979, the Charney Report (National Research Council 1979) estimated the impact at 3 deg C with a 1.5 degree range either way. In 2007, IPCC AR4 estimates are virtually unchanged. With all the improvements in scientific knowledge and all the efforts of climate scientists over the years, why has the improvement of these confidence intervals proved so resistant? I don’t know, but it’s worth thinking about.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Paul
because the science is wrong.
Indeed, the IPCC version of the science is wrong, wrong, wrong.
“In some ways, the estimation of such parameters through the development of complicated computer models is reminiscent of activities carried out by engineers. One important difference is that climate scientists typically report their results in highly summary form in journals like Nature, rather than in the 1000-page or 2000-page engineering studies that an aerospace engineering enterprise would produce.”
What a crawler.
“The selection of proxies in studies displayed by IPCC seems to me to be biased against proxies with a warm MWP. IPCC itself does not carry out any independent due diligence of the type that might be expected in a prospectus. Further, in 2007, as in 2001, the authors involved in preparing the paleoclimate section were active parties in controversies and, in the end, IPCC Fourth Assessment Report strongly reflects their partisan point of view.”
You can’t convince left-leaning people that they are wrong. For example, the polls in Ohio in the last U.S. Presidential election said that Kerry would win the State, but Bush did. So, the U.S. liberals still to this day say that their “models” were right and that Kerry really won the state–despite the reality. They will never admit that global warming is false but will say that others hijacked their models and are lying–and paid by EXXON. What a pathetic bunch of losers.
Following Woody:
MBH98, 99, ff., ‘Fake but accurate’. Forget the science, we’ve got to a world to save!
In the past McIntyre has made the very simple statement – paraphrased – “If you do not use any
strip bark data, and use correct methods, you cannot get a hockey stick”.
That still seems to be the case as all of the “spaghetti studies” use some strip pine data.
Thomsons tropical ice cores were new to me, but if these are thought reliable proxies, wouldn’t the AGW’s have been waving them around for years?
Being used as a stage prop in An Inconvenient Truth, doesnt do much for their credibility in itself.
While it is still officially deniable, I understand McIntyre has largely won this particular debate and the Medieval Warm Period has survived it’s assassination attempt.
It’s remarkable what one (or two) persistent people can achieve – if they are right. There’s hope for science yet!
The common man, might respond to this with “Oh, that McIntyre guy is just a nerdy engineer type who nitpicks over minutia”.
But they don’t realize that, if engineer types didn’t “nitpick”, we wouldn’t have HDTV’s that work, planes that fly, bridges that don’t fall down (usually anyway) and so on.
The challenge is to generate a concise “takeaway” message, perhaps with analogies to the processes behind the design and production of HDTVs, planes, and bridges. (This applies to the whole “AGW is not a technically likely concern” story).
What really eats at me as one with a Mechanical and Ocean Eng. B.S. who can follow all the physical arguments and much of the statistical arguments is that it seems that the complexity and volume of data is being used by some smart folks with ulterior motives, and to some extent I think smart people should have a higher ethical responsibility than those not so smart.
Pete
**********
P.S: In the U.S., the State of Alaska is supporting a lawsuit against the U.S. EPA for listing polar bears as threatened. Getting the courts involved may inject some sanity if technicalities don’t impede the facts from being considered.
Woody – “You can’t convince left-leaning people that they are wrong.”
However equally how do you convince right leaning people that they are wrong?
Obviously you are easily convinced. Minor nitpicking doubts about a 10 year old study manages to convince you that the entire edifice of the scientific case for AGW is also wrong. Even pointing out that MBH99 was confirmed by later studies, which also all must be false, and that even it if was false would not affect AGW as it is a historical study that places recent warming in a historical context. Whether the MWP was warmer than today is irrelevant as the 2 events are independent with possibly different causes.
Again none of this would convince a right leaning person who desperately want the fantasy world of a pure a capitalist utopia with infinite resources to last forever to preserve them the horrors of thinking or changing. Oh well at least you have FOX news to reassure you.
The left is never wrong. They just reinvent themselves when reality intrudes on their fantasies.
Capitalism, by any stretch of the imagination, cannot be described as a utopian worldview; Socialism, on the other hand, in all its various guises,red or green, most unequivocally is.
Ender,
” Even pointing out that MBH99 was confirmed by later studies…”
Confirmed to be what??? Yes, MBH99 was confirmed, BUT HAS STILL NOT BEEN VALIDATED AS A TEMPERATURE PROXY!!!! You Pseudo PSIentists crack me up. One tree, or group of trees, proves virtually nothing even if they ARE temperature proxies, which MBH99 most assuredly is NOT!!!
“Whether the MWP was warmer than today is irrelevant as the 2 events are independent with possibly different causes.”
I accept your admitting that the current climate is NOT outside of NATURAL VARIABILITY then. As for the “different causes”, could you give us just a HINT about what those different causes might be, or, is this another plea that SOMETHING BAD MIGHT HAPPEN SO I SHOULD GIVE YOU ALL MY MONEY AND STOP BREATHING!!
What was you sides argument again?? Seems to be slip slidin’ away.
Apparently FOX has hit the top. I guess people really do get tired of being lied to and treated like gullible morons by the POWDERED ELITE!!
What tertius said in BUCKETS!!
tertius – “Capitalism, by any stretch of the imagination, cannot be described as a utopian worldview; Socialism, on the other hand, in all its various guises,red or green, most unequivocally is.”
I go back to my previous statement – how do you convince right leaning people that they are wrong?
KuhnKat – “BUT HAS STILL NOT BEEN VALIDATED AS A TEMPERATURE PROXY!!!! ”
Really shouting does not make it more true. They are reasonable proxies – what proxies do you use to prove that the MWP was warmer?
“I accept your admitting that the current climate is NOT outside of NATURAL VARIABILITY then. As for the “different causes”, could you give us just a HINT about what those different causes might be, or, is this another plea that SOMETHING BAD MIGHT HAPPEN SO I SHOULD GIVE YOU ALL MY MONEY AND STOP BREATHING!!”
I don’t want your money however you stopping breathing would help – not the climate just the human gene pool (Joke sorry I could not help myself). Are you so ignorant of the issues to know that this warming event is caused most probably by human activity.
“Apparently FOX has hit the top. I guess people really do get tired of being lied to and treated like gullible morons by the POWDERED ELITE!!”
Did you know that there are two FOX networks? There is one apparently for international audiences and one for domestic. Even the FOX people know that the domestic one would be just a substitute for the comedy channel in any other country.
BTW you are wrong. People like being lied to as long as the lies reassure them – hence the popularity of FOX.
tertius – “Capitalism, by any stretch of the imagination, cannot be described as a utopian worldview; Socialism, on the other hand, in all its various guises, red or green, most unequivocally is.”
Ender:
“I go back to my previous statement – how do you convince right leaning people that they are wrong?”
Whatever the value of your question this response is a non sequitur in regard to my comment.
Come on Paul you know the answer. Their confidence intervals are totally baseless in the first place. So why would they change?
You’ve got to stop doing this. Where you are giving a baseless racket the veneer of being a plausible point of view. These people are just lying. Thats all it is. They need the opposition to give them the credibility which they lack.
Can you find any evidence for their confidence intervals? No you cannot. So why are you pretending that they themselves have such evidence?
Its James Annan who has fashioned this triangulating 3 degrees. And he doesn’t have any evidence.
Either come up with the evidence that they themselves lack of start calling them what they are. They are a fraud. They are a racket. This is a pandemic of lying. Stop pretending the situation isn’t what it is.
Ender
“They are reasonable proxies – what proxies do you use to prove that the MWP was warmer?”
1) no, they are not. This is the pointy end of McIntyre’s due diligence – there is no definitive answer, but the MWP has as least as much hard evidence for as against it being warmer
2) favoured ploy of the losing argument: “Prove a negative” ie. prove the last 50 years are NOT the warmest in the planet’s history etc etc.
The AGW proponents have to demonstrate their hypothesis against critique; opponents do not need to demonstrate something else must be true in its place
Repeat after me: the onus of proof is on the hypothesiser, not the critiquer. This we call scientific method.
Many of the strip pine sites are in western or northern USA. the strip pines indicate a large amount of warming in the past 100-150years. Accurate thermometer records in nearby towns show there has been little warming in these areas. That demonstrstes that the strip pines are unreliable temperature proxies. The “spaghetti study” authors were well aware that the strip pines are unreliable. There appears to be a strong consensus by statisticians that the strip pines should not be used.
Obviously the AGW scientists keep using strip pines because they cant get anything like a hockey stick if they dont.
A single study that got a hockey stick without the pines, would be more convincing than all the “spaghetti studies” put together. But they cant do it.
Ender
Even Alarmist Creep is here to help you.
Sad.
Ender
Even Alarmist Creep is not here to help you.
Sad.
Sorry – repetition – previous, previous (using endering logic) is wrong.
That said,
how can we work out that 1998 was the warmest year during the millenium?
Instrumental records go back, what, 150 years?
OK.
Before that what else could we rely on, in a scientific sense.
Measurement? No.
Inference? Yes, from the use of proxies or other data which have demonstrated functional relations with temperature.
Anectodal evidence? Yes, it was warmer, and the Greenlanders still cannot farm where their predecessors did.
Ender’s dilemma might be expressed as:
1. My car’s engine has seized due to heat stress.
2. This was caused by coolant loss.
3. I noticed this because I was driving it through the Rockies and the roof froze.
4. Therefore the car’s frozen roof caused its engine to overheat.
??????
“The Hockey Stick does not say the MWP did not happen just that it was not as warm as GW skeptics say” Ender July 21, 2005 10:41 AM
http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/research/INTERNAL/MILLENNIUM/nhem-millennium.gif
“I would really suggest very strongly that Real Climate has a greater chance of posting science that is closer to the truth” Ender November 5, 2005 08:16 PM
“Mann et al did make one critical mistake. They underestimated the sheer bloody persistance if his detractors. Surely this debate is inprecendented in the history of science” Ender November 6, 2005 10:59 AM
“MBH99 has been confirmed by subsequent studies that used different techniques and proxies. The idea that the hockey stick is broken therefore AGW is not happening is a classic stupid denier tactic that does only appeals to the ignorant” Ender March 19, 2008 08:50 AM
“Real people [sic] would interpret as confirming the soundness of the original study and data. I guess the man with the biggest tin foil hat is McIntyre. Do you get yours made to measure from CA?” Ender March 19, 2008 08:31 PM
This is a random selection of many posts from Mr. Ender defending the ‘Hockey Stick’ reconstruction.
Progress has been glacial but there seems to be a bit of a break through:
“Whether the MWP was warmer than today is irrelevant as the 2 events are independent with possibly different causes” Ender May 24, 2008 09:44 AM
Mr Ender must have a lot of time on his hands, to waste it on multiple posts over years, defending an irrelevancy.
“Ender’s dilemma might be expressed as:…”
Louis — see Carl Sagan’s piece on YouTube at:
..especially the bit between 6:20 and 6:50; namely:
“Observation: You couldn’t see a thing. Conclusion: Dinosaurs”
The logic chain presented in this small segment is the fundamental basis for Climate Scientology.
chrisgo .. the philosophy of Ender (and most other AGW proponents for that matter) is probably best summed up by this cartoon:
http://scottthong.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/gwinquisitionpanel.jpg
It seems that ender has shown that he/she does understand the crux of the modern day dilemma,
“People like being lied to as long as the lies reassure them”.
Now, if only he/she would acknowledge who scared them in the first place.
i would really appreciate it, when all the people talking about MWP would give a TIME RANGE for that mysterious period!
the best guess at a MWP tempearture that Steve has, apart from single proxies (who don t tell a lot about GLOBAL temperature) is the so calle “loehle paper”.
the problem with it, of course is, that it ends early in the 20th century. if you splice the modern temeperature increase to it, it will immediately show modern tempearture to be WARMER than the Loehle MWP.
btw, the question (about 1998) is a pretty stupid one. we might never know, as it is very hard to estimate global tempearture for single years 1000 years ago. looking at decades at least is much more usefull..
Point proven I suspect, and thanks for the support here people, much appreciated.
Y’Oh!
“In some ways, the estimation of such parameters through the development of complicated computer models is reminiscent of activities carried out by engineers. One important difference is that climate scientists typically report their results in highly summary form in journals like Nature, rather than in the 1000-page or 2000-page engineering studies that an aerospace engineering enterprise would produce.”
Why don’t people understand what has been clearly explained to them?
The summaries are based on thousands of pages of scientific studies. They are all listed in the references. They are all available to read. Go ahead and read them.
Right, SJT, and now Pachauri the Pilot is wondering why the lumbering beast won’t get off the ground.
==============================
1) Bill’s post at May 24, 2008 08:35 AM:
“It’s remarkable what one (or two) persistent people can achieve – if they are right. There’s hope for science yet!”
Reply: I understand the hope, but it was not “establishment” science that did this. A better degree of hope will come if establishment science says; “Enough is enough, the AGW theory has not proved itself and scientific ethics has been sacrificed. We apologize to the people of this planet that we have betrayed your trust in us an vow to take science back for the benefit of mankind.”
2. Ender’s post at May 24, 2008 09:44 AM:
“Whether the MWP was warmer than today is irrelevant as the 2 events are independent with possibly different causes.”
Reply: Sorry, this doesn’t make sense. How do you know they are independent if they “possibly” have different causes? You’d have to say that you know they are independent because you know they have different, independent causes
3. tertius at May 24, 2008 12:07 PM:
“Capitalism, by any stretch of the imagination, cannot be described as a utopian worldview; Socialism, on the other hand, in all its various guises,red or green, most unequivocally is.”
Reply: Didn’t someone once say something to the effect that democratic government with a capitalist free market economy was the worst system in the world, but it was better then everything else? I suppose socialism would be great if only human nature was not what it is. If you can change human nature, I’m open to your proposition.
4. Ianl at May 24, 2008 03:31 PM”
“Repeat after me: the onus of proof is on the hypothesiser, not the critiquer. This we call scientific method.”
Reply: Absolutely right on.
5. Louis Hissink at May 24, 2008 07:43 PM:
“Anectodal evidence? Yes, it was warmer, and the Greenlanders still cannot farm where their predecessors did.”
Reply: What amazes me is that farming in Greenland is probably the most powerful proxy of all for temperature unless the biology of grasses and sheep have changed in only 1000 years. Similarly, we have the proxy of receding glaciers in the Alps revealing human habitation and forests from the Medieval or Roman warming periods. That these facts don’t absolutely burst an AGW-ers bubble suggests they are not exercising God’s gift of reason. Doesn’t the Church of the Environment teach that God gave man the gift of reason like other religions?
6. sod at May 24, 2008 10:14 PM:
“i would really appreciate it, when all the people talking about MWP would give a TIME RANGE for that mysterious period!”
Reply 1: Off the top of my head it’s about 900-1350 and it’s not quite so mysterious (see 5 above).
“btw, the question (about 1998) is a pretty stupid one. we might never know, as it is very hard to estimate global tempearture for single years 1000 years ago. looking at decades at least is much more usefull..”
Reply 2: The question about 1998 temperature is only very important because the AGW hypothesizers flaunt it as having great meaning. Also your right about it being hard to calculate surface temperature for a given year. Just review the NASA-GISS track record of adjusting and readusting, not revealing calculation methods and possible lack of Urban Heat Island consideration.
7. Lastly. In the early 1990’s, just from listening to the pronouncements and not having the internet to access information, I felt that reducing CO2 would be prudent even if there was some uncertainty. I have changed in the last 4 years as more information has become available. I am amazed that there are not more bloggers who come on to say:
“My god. I was so convinced of the AGW theory, but I have now used my God given gift of reason and it says the skeptics are right. Thank you all. I will also use this awareness to scrutinize other media and institutional proclamations to ensure they are grounded in truth. Now we can move on to important issues like protecting our environment (for real) and understanding the natural climate variations that will occur and how we can adapt to regioanl variations to benefit all people’s of the world .”
I don’t know if this is on topic, but I just read one of the best set of posts in a while on the topic of academic ethics.
Its Post 45 thru 47 at http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3109#comments
Pat and Steve just hit it on the head as concise but complete as probably could be written.
There were comments by Woody and Ender about correcting left-leaning and right-leaning people.
What they missed–and which far too few people miss–is that currently, left-leaning people are actually right-leaning, and *don’t know it*.
The supposedly ‘left-leaning’ people of today, i.e., the Greens, environmentalists, organic farmers, ‘Fair Trade’ advocates, etc.
But, they’re actually right-leaning. They want more government, more bureaucracy, more regulation. They oppose free trade.
All in the name of what’s ‘good and holy’, but *they* get to define what’s ‘good and holy’. Which is the classical definition of elitism.
When elitists of this stripe claim to be left-leaning, but actually lean to the right, it’s easily recognized as classical fascism.
“What amazes me is that farming in Greenland is probably the most powerful proxy of all for temperature ” – not really – the anecdote is a denialist poster child. Does this mean it was the same everywhere. (Now it may have been – but the comment is just symbolism – the olde story taught at school – what’s left out is what mega-droughts that were occurring elsewhere).
“The question about 1998 temperature is only very important because the AGW hypothesizers flaunt it as having great meaning” – huh ??? Actually it’s the GREAT sceptic reference point for calculating bogus downward trends. I would have said the overall temperature trend of the last 100 years would be THE great graph – and what explains it.
“Just review the NASA-GISS track record of adjusting and readusting, not revealing calculation methods and possible lack of Urban Heat Island consideration” – sigh and yawn – so do the comparison with CRU, UAH and RSS – does it change your view radically – “no” – it’s just something to go on and on and on about.
“and how we can adapt to regioanl variations to benefit all people’s of the world” – yes which for Australia say from now from a number of recent studies is that CO2 growth has an influence in our rainfall regime changes and ongoing droughts
“”and how we can adapt to regioanl variations to benefit all people’s of the world” – terrific to contemplate?
How nice was the cosy MWP after all? (apart from Greenland sheep)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/books/21book.html?n=Top/News/Science/Topics/Global%20Warming
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5785/345
http://hol.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/5/511
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v403/n6768/full/403410a0.html#abs
This article discribing the Barcroft Observatory just off the summit of White Mountain California makes it sound like an Antarctic station. Smack dab in the middle of the anthropocene global warming era, this site was chosen to study the cosmic background radiation because of it’s excellent infrared seeing (superior to Mauna Kea) and lack of water vapor. This sounds like a techi discription of how cold it is at the summit: – (The atmospheric emission at 90 GHz is about 12K near the NCP (7K vertical.)) – Does that mean something to you scientists?
-Quote- The reason White Mountain was not chosen for the Keck telescope project was due to winter weather concerns and accessibility. While a problem for a large user based telescope facility like Keck, it is not for us. We have observed from the South Pole in three seasons from 1988 to 1994 and based on the evidence to date, we expect White Mountain to allow comparable quality mm observations. If our observations confirm expectations, other instruments will be set there to take advantage of this site. We are already working on two other instruments that could utilize this site. One is a large format bolometer array receiver and the other is a large format HEMT array receiver. Starting with our instrument, already underway with hardware from previous programs, is an ideal way to begin. Ultimately, this will open up a new mm and sub-mm site for general use. -Unquote-
This is the place were those pine tree thermometers grow. Too cold for a Keck telescope!
“Reply 1: Off the top of my head it’s about 900-1350 and it’s not quite so mysterious (see 5 above).”
now take a look at the Loehle reconstruction:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002711.html
the MWP has just been moved forward a couple of centuries…
the only part that has a vague chance of even coming close to temperatures at the end of the 20th century are in the 9th century. the year 1200 (often cited as being part of the “MWP”) actually was very COOL. (according to Loehle)
Ianl – “1) no, they are not. This is the pointy end of McIntyre’s due diligence – there is no definitive answer, but the MWP has as least as much hard evidence for as against it being warmer”
Actually they are that why the original study is confirmed by other studies that use different proxies such as glaciers and use different analysis methods. McIntyre’s due diligence is only a pathetic attempt to inject doubt into the climate debate so as to reassure you people. Only one of his writings is peer reviewed the rest are just blog posts.
Louis – “Anectodal evidence? Yes, it was warmer, and the Greenlanders still cannot farm where their predecessors did.”
Sure anecdotal evidence is crap and you should know this. A viking in the 15th century says it warm and you take this as the basis for your ‘science’.
“Ender’s dilemma might be expressed as:
1. My car’s engine has seized due to heat stress.
2. This was caused by coolant loss.
3. I noticed this because I was driving it through the Rockies and the roof froze.
4. Therefore the car’s frozen roof caused its engine to overheat.”
Not even close. Your dilemma is expressed as:
1. Person dies naturally of a heart attack
2. Second dying person is wheeled in with knife wound
3. Ignore knife wound and conclude second person is also dying of a heart attack because the first person did.
4. Second person bleeds out.
chrisgo – “Mr Ender must have a lot of time on his hands, to waste it on multiple posts over years, defending an irrelevancy.”
Equally you must have time on your hands to go looking up these posts unless you are my greatest fan and keep a scrap book. Over all these posts I have posted the truth as far as science sees it. I am not smart enough to perpetuate a lie so I just stick to the plain truth – I leave the lies to you guys.
Ender
“Actually they are that why the original study is confirmed by other studies that use different proxies such as glaciers and use different analysis methods. McIntyre’s due diligence is only a pathetic attempt to inject doubt into the climate debate so as to reassure you people. Only one of his writings is peer reviewed the rest are just blog posts.”
The original study is discredited. The MWP may, or may not, have been warmer than the last 50 years. The Ababneh study (peer reviewed and accepted as a PhD) could not replicate Graybill’s findings, using the same tree proxies.
McIntyre’s due diligence was world class – he has acted an IPCC reviewer a number of times, which is why he carries out due diligence with such accuracy.
Your silly “ad hominen” screams of rage are childish beyond my patience. Scientific Method is clearly beyond yours.
Ianl – “The original study is discredited. ”
Not even close – actually it was confirmed at least in the peer reviewed literature. Blogs don’t count in science.
“McIntyre’s due diligence was world class”
So why is it not published in the peer reviewed literature which is the scientific standard for world class?
“Your silly “ad hominen” screams of rage are childish beyond my patience. Scientific Method is clearly beyond yours.”
And your false screams of rage about fraud in science are even more childish. Obviously the scientific method is beyond you and your hero as he does not publish in science nor is his work accepted by any of climate scientists that do publish and work in the actual climate science community.
But of course seeings as he cannot publish, of course peer review is flawed and all the other scientists are in the hockey club. There mere fact that you can even contemplate something so self delusional is proof of the shallowness of your case and your thinking.
Also McIntrye’s obsession with a 10 year old study is pathetic. Even now the masters that commissioned the work in the first place are back pedalling and joining the green movement – they are seeing the writing on the wall. They are not finding any oil, can’t build any coal plants and are finding that the scientists that they commissioned are very bad bed fellows. Nobody wants to be associated with the tobacco industry not even oil companies. With all the furore about record profits and high oil prices they cannot afford fake climate scepticism any more. For them to exist in 20 years even they realise that they gave to transform themselves.
Right now the hockey stick for most of us is but a dim memory however as it is still the shining beacon of climate change skeptics it keeps getting brought up for the lack of anything else. Why not try to find a new wedge argument – the climate record is pretty good for weaving your lies however even that is getting pretty thin.
I am sure that you guys can come up with a new one however finding sponsors will be harder.
Creep and Ender, I know you’re trying to rewrite history to suit your preferred story, but 1998 WAS invested with great meaning by AGW proponents at the time.
For example, Dr. Thomas R. Karl, Director of NOAA’s National Climate Data Center (NCDC), said (in 2000);
“there is only a one-in-20 chance that the string of record high temperatures in 1997-1998 was simply an unusual event, rather than a change point, the start of a new and faster ongoing trend.”
He was clearly suggesting that global warming was due to GHG emissions, and would continue.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/02/000222103553.htm
Re: Alarmist Creep at May 25, 2008 09:06 AM
“…what’s left out is what mega-droughts that were occurring elsewhere).”
I agree that there will be droughts in different areas (Was it the Sahara that was a savannah 6000 years ago?) and increased rainfall in others as climate changes up and down. That’s normal for the planet….but we were talking about temperature having been comparably high in the very recent (1000 years) past with no human fossil fuel influence, therefore why would we suspect we’re in some unique time?
“- huh ??? Actually it’s the GREAT sceptic reference point for calculating bogus downward trends.”
Well I’ve seen it frequently “cited” as an important point and I’ve also seen the sceptics cite it for the recent slight downward temperature trends.
“I would have said the overall temperature trend of the last 100 years would be THE great graph – and what explains it.”
Good question. What does explain it? Why don’t we pick the big ones like sun cycles, orbital variations, decadal and longer ocean circulation patterns, million year continent movements affecting ocean circulation, cosmic ray caused cloud formation, dust/aerosols, human land use changes on the albedo, and that probably cover sit all except for a fraction of a degree from CO2 increases. I just hope it stays comparably warm or warmer than now, rather then colder. I like warm more than cold.
“sigh and yawn”.
Sorry, but I can’t sigh and yawn when I feel I’m being snookered.
“- yes which for Australia say from now from a number of recent studies is that CO2 growth has an influence in our rainfall regime changes and ongoing droughts”
CO2 by itself has been proven to do that?
“How nice was the cosy MWP after all? (apart from Greenland sheep)”
It may have been cozy or not, but the only point was that it was comparably warm in the past so why do we think we’re in unique times?
Here’s a 1999 report on MBH 99. The link to the on-line press kit, “including photos of the researchers, graphics, and a link to the report” unfortunately no longer works.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/03/990304052546.htm
“Good question. What does explain it?” Yes indeed – what does explain it – and science is a better method than divining chook guts. The IPCC report covers all that material. The current situation does not automtically remove all understanding that has gone before.
As for cozy – “the credit side of a global balance sheet carefully itemized by Brian Fagan in “The Great Warming,” his fascinating account of shifting climatic conditions and their consequences from about A.D. 800 to 1300, often referred to as the Medieval Warm Period. The debit side is appalling: widespread drought, catastrophic rainfall, toppled dynasties, ruined civilizations. Abandoned Maya temples in the Yucatan and the desolation of Angkor Wat, supreme achievement of the Khmer empire, bear witness to climatic change against which royal power and priestly magic proved impotent.” from the book linked above.
And add mega-droughts in China, USA, Africa too – sounds great doesn’t it. Not.
“CO2 by itself has been proven to do that?” read any of the recent papers tabled here? – of course not.
This notion that the MWP was a great time to be alive is bogus. Very Eurocentric world view.
And as braddles reminded us just last year when cathedral building was brought up.
“I am puzzled by the idea that Medieval times were a Golden Age for humanity.
But what do the Enlightenment, The Renaissance, The Reformation, The American Revolution and Declaration of Independence (and the ending of slavery), Galileo and the birth of science, The Age of Exploration and European domination of the world, and the works of Shakespeare and Leonardo all have in common?
They were achieved during the Little Ice Age.
By comparison, the achievements of Medieval Europe (cathedrals, Viking exploration, ?) look rather pale.
It would seem that climate was irrelevant for all these things, unless a poor climate actually stimulates development of ideas and experimentation with progress.
Posted by: braddles at November 29, 2007 10:27 AM”
Luke,
“And add mega-droughts in China, USA, Africa too – sounds great doesn’t it. Not.”
So you, or your like minded associates have a solution, that will assure, that the climate will always be benign everywhere? No droughts, floods etc.?
As to the rise and fall of empires, silly comparison really, just go back a couple of decades in the here an now!
No need for climate change for that!
PS.
So, for cultural development, you and braddels prefer that we freeze?
“This notion that the MWP was a great time to be alive is bogus. Very Eurocentric world view” braddles via Luke.
Not the point, but the LIA was no picnic either, Peter Bruegel (the elder) “Triumph of Death” (Black Plague) Flemish 1562:
http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/csepa/mhall/IGS/Plagues/PIA/Images/bruegheldeath.jpg
“The Great Famine of 1315–1317 (or to 1322) was the first crisis that would strike Europe in the 14th century, millions in northern Europe would die over an extended number of years, marking a clear end to the earlier period of growth and prosperity during the 11th and 12th centuries. Starting with bad weather in the spring of 1315, universal crop failures lasted until the summer of 1317, from which Europe did not fully recover until 1322. It was a period marked by extreme levels of criminal activity, disease and mass death, infanticide, and cannibalism. It had consequences for Church, State, European society and future calamities to follow in the 14th century” (Wiki).
Worldwide Pandemics (Wiki)
165-180: Antonine Plague, perhaps smallpox, 541: the Plague of Justinian, 1300-1813: the Black Death, 1501-1587: typhus, 1732-1733: influenza, 1775-1776: influenza, 1816-1826: cholera.
‘And as braddles reminded us just last year when cathedral building was brought up (quote: I am puzzled by the idea that Medieval times were a Golden Age for humanity)’ , Chartres Cathedral 12th-13th centuries (incomplete due to social unrest due to crop failure + plague).
http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/medieval/architecture/pictures/chartres/chartresnave.jpg
Regurgitating such an incredibly oafish remark as some sort of authority, defies description.
But the issue isn’t droughts, floods, sea level, polar bears, etc. etc. but temperature.
The evidence indicates that the MWP was nearly as warm, as warm, or warmier than today, without the help of CO2.
“The evidence indicates that the MWP was nearly as warm, as warm, or warmier [sic] than today, without the help of CO2”
I was about to correct myself, but “warmier” sounds right.
“Repeat after me: the onus of proof is on the hypothesiser, not the critiquer. This we call scientific method.
Posted by: Ianl at May 24, 2008 03:31 PM”
I don’t think thats right. I think we rank and rerank hypotheses-in-parallel, according to the evidence, and without predjudice.
I don’t think this business about ‘burden of proof’ comes into it.
And it particularly doesn’t come into it when we are talking to these alarmist fraudsters and anti-science goons. Because we haven’t got to any burden or any proof yet.
We were just after a bit of evidence.
A bit of evidence would be nice for starters.
Here’s an angle some of you might not have thought about before:
http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2008/05/25/initial-1-degrees-from-co2-doublingjust-because-its-bi-partisan-doesnt-make-it-right/#comment-14929
Mucko: “It seems that ender has shown that he/she does understand the crux of the modern day dilemma,
“People like being lied to as long as the lies reassure them”.
Now, if only he/she would acknowledge who scared them in the first place.”
Fascinating logic. So, people are “reassured” by the “same peope who scared them in the first place”?
“the onus of proof is on the hypothesiser, not the critiquer.” – only if decision making is popular. Alas for lots of serious farm decisions, policy decisions, and water resources decisions it isn’t. Going hime not making a decision is a decision on a hypothesis. So you can assume that our past records are a representative view of the future variation – or not ! That’s – or not.
Wasn’t implying the LIA was “nice” either. Simply clinging to “I’d rather be warm than cold” and “what about all that cathedral bldg in the MWP” is a fairly small world view.
So that’s why humans like air-conditioning and heating to keep things “just right” – not too hot, too humid or too cold – “just right” and build dams to level out climate variation in water supply. Clever aren’t we.
That the MWP might be as warm today without extra CO2 could be irrelevant.
chrisgo: “The evidence indicates that the MWP was nearly as warm, as warm, or warmier than today, without the help of CO2.”
So, was the MWP nearly as warm, as warm, or warmer than today?
The evidence is that, say, 429 AD (to pick a year “at random”) was nearly as warm, as warm, or warmer than today. What substance does such a statement have?
Graeme Bird:
“Here’s an angle some of you might not have thought about before: (+ link)”
When this kind of mental rubbish streams out of the sewers of denialist thinking, you know they are getting desperate. Graeme- bless his soul- thinks that radiation loss at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is caused by water vapour. As some of it is, no doubt. But has dear Graeme sat down and worked out just how much water vapour is at TOA, where the radiation loss to space occurs, compared to CO2? Graeme, the mixing ratio of water vapour decreases sharply with height in the atmosphere- that of CO2 does not. That’s why water vapour has much less effect at TOA than does CO2. At sea level, matters are different. But TOA is what determines the radiation balance, not sea level.
Contrary to what the likes of Graeme Bird think, the radiative effects of GHGs are in fact one of the best established aspects of the whole AGW case.
But what’s the point in my attempting to argue this any further here? People like Graeme Bird prefer the ad hominem (“…the political motivation of the committed leftist liars…”) to reasoned argument from spectroscopy (which is a field I can claim to know a little about).
Jen & Paul,
It would appear the AGW education of the American midwest has returned to square one:
http://www.leadertelegram.com/story-opinions.asp?id=BGMHH9IPD4Q
A little education is a terrible thing, ‘eh peterd?
Ender is wrong on multiple counts. MacIntyre and McKitrick have published in the peer review literature – e,g Geophysical Review Letters 2005. The most extensive independent analysis of their work was the WEgman Report, which confirmed their claims. The subsequent studies which Ender seems to think confirm (independently replicate?) the MBH results depend on the same small subset of dubious proxies most of which were used already by MBH. Instead of just sounding off I suggest that Ender, finds a specific more recent study which shows convincing evidence that temperatures are higher now than in all of the last millennium and then we can talk about that. (and he might also read the presentation to which Jennifer refers – it already answers his points).
‘ ( I ) wasn’t implying the LIA was “nice” either. Simply clinging to……’ Alarmist Creep at May 25, 2008 10:35 PM.
Well that clears up one mystery.
Alarmist Creep and Luke are one and the same person (or persons), very close friends, or mutual mind readers.
mikep – “Ender is wrong on multiple counts.”
Really – from all the blog posts that McIntryre has written foaming at the mouth about how had the proxy record is and the result – da da – ONE PAPER published in 2005 in the journal with the least rigourous peer review process. Thats it. BTW M&M2005 was about PCA centering not the proxies.
“The most extensive independent analysis of their work was the WEgman Report”
Yeah right. A report comissioned by Smokey Joe – independant?????? Which also confirmed nothing.
“The subsequent studies which Ender seems to think confirm (independently replicate?) the MBH results depend on the same small subset of dubious proxies …
Really what about:
” Originally published in Science Express on 3 March 2005
Science 29 April 2005:
Vol. 308. no. 5722, pp. 675 – 677
DOI: 10.1126/science.1107046
Prev | Table of Contents | Next
Reports
Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records
J. Oerlemans
I constructed a temperature history for different parts of the world from 169 glacier length records. Using a first-order theory of glacier dynamics, I related changes in glacier length to changes in temperature. The derived temperature histories are fully independent of proxy and instrumental data used in earlier reconstructions. Moderate global warming started in the middle of the 19th century. The reconstructed warming in the first half of the 20th century is 0.5 kelvin. This warming was notably coherent over the globe. The warming signals from glaciers at low and high elevations appear to be very similar.
Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, Utrecht University, Princetonplein 5, 3584 CC Utrecht, Netherlands. ”
Don’t tell me there were trees in the glaciers?
“Instead of just sounding off I suggest that Ender”
Sure see above.
The reason the Leftusts amongst us love AGW is because their centrally controlled economic model has failed everywhere, witness the Soviet Union’s collapse and China’s migration to a capitalist, if totalitarian, model.
The Leftists who learn from empirical evidence are no longer Leftists.
But many Marxist influenced academics, unionists and journalists still cling to discredited paradigms and hopes, often in new guises. Their media leverage is heavy duty, their specious gestalt has saturated a new generation that wouldn’t know Marx from Big Brother.
AGW is new evidence that Marx was right (for the wrong reason) free market capitalism will eventually collapse under its own environmental pressure and humanity will finally devolve to a totalitarian world state where every economic and ecological decision is micromanaged by a central technocracy until we reach a climate steady-state paradise.
Fortunately, weather is as uncooperative with the Left as it is with the rest of us. Climate is simply too complex a system for government bureaucracies to ever hope to manage successfully.
If anyone here doubts that, then they should call on the parliament to outlaw drought immediately!
“Contrary to what the likes of Graeme Bird think, the radiative effects of GHGs are in fact one of the best established aspects of the whole AGW case.”
Yes well that doesn’t say much for the rest of the case does it!!!! The rest of the case is even more ludicrous. But its important to circle back to this first step in the process. And we find that it too is invalid. Not utterly ridiculous like the rest of the constituent parts of the argument. But invalid nonetheless.
You see you are lying petard. And if you aren’t lying go right ahead and prove it. When things are established a demonstration is very easy. We will find out you are lying when you cannot come up with anything.
Its true that reasonable people keep repeating this mantra. They do so because other reasonable people keep repeating it. But running a world-wide global averaging process like this, and then taking these strong conclusions from this averaging process, is not a valid way to do things.
wes george – “The reason the Leftusts amongst us love AGW is because their centrally controlled economic model has failed everywhere, witness the Soviet Union’s collapse and China’s migration to a capitalist, if totalitarian, model.”
What a sweeping generalisation. I have no idea why you think such things. I am certainly not a communist and abhor such systems as I live in a democracy that I have no problems with and would not change a bit. However I equally abhor the idea of unrestrained free market capitalism which is as unworkable as state controlled communism.
We have in Australia what I think is a sensible mix of socialism, tempering naked capitalism and capitalism, tempering pure socialism. In most surveys and studies of world lifestyles Australia is ahead of the USA, it think, because it is less extreme.
The desire, at least for me, to reduce carbon emissions has nothing to do with control. I don’t want to control anything. Renewables, because they are distributed and smaller in scale, in fact should give local communities more control instead of huge central power stations with equally huge power monopolies calling the shots.
You cannot include all environmentalists in your generalisations as there are people of all political types in the mix. Sure there are the died in the wool communists however in my experience they are in the tiny minority. The larger proportion of people that I see and talk to are centralists like myself that promote democracy , free markets and socialism in a sensible mix. I do not approve or want either of the two extremes as these are not viable.
BTW read this from Naomi Klein on the developments in China.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/20797485/chinas_allseeing_eye
Look Ender. You are going to have to come up with some evidence. It doesn’t mean a thing unless you can come up with actual evidence of your own.
Graeme Bird – “It doesn’t mean a thing unless you can come up with actual evidence of your own.”
Sure as soon as you publish your own research to the contrary.
Gary Gulrud.
Jen & Paul,
It would appear the AGW education of the American midwest has returned to square one:
http://www.leadertelegram.com/story-opinions.asp?id=BGMHH9IPD4Q
A little education is a terrible thing, ‘eh peterd?”
So, Gary Gulrud, where is “Sidney”?
Graeme Bird:
“Yes well that doesn’t say much for the rest of the case does it!!!! The rest of the case is even more ludicrous. But its important to circle back to this first step in the process. And we find that it too is invalid. Not utterly ridiculous like the rest of the constituent parts of the argument. But invalid nonetheless.
You see you are lying petard. And if you aren’t lying go right ahead and prove it. When things are established a demonstration is very easy. We will find out you are lying when you cannot come up with anything.”
This is exactly the kind of response I expected from Graeme. Being incapable of coming up with any kind of convincing argument against one of the cornerstones of the AGW case from physical principles, he relies on unsubstantiated assertion, abuse and invective. I had a look at Graeme’s blogsite and found that he boasts of having emailed CSIRO, and accusing them of “lying”, using “a ridiculous amount [sic] of swear words”. Apparently, he expects a reply. I know what my own reply to Graeme would be.
But I have to confess I was also touched by the pathos of his tribute to the “mystique” of physicists.
As to “one degree”, why should I bother trying to explain this to someone who doesn’t know the difference between degrees Celsius and degrees Fahrenheit? And, apparently, Graeme hasn’t yet noticed that the heat that’s taken up as the “wind whip[s] along the ocean and creat[es] water vapour [in] a process of REFRIGERATION” is released when the water condenses, as it inevitably will.
So, Graeme, when and where are you going to publish your Alternative Paradigm?
Look PeterD.
You and Ender and the CSIRO are just going to have to come up with some evidence.
I know that this is just a pandemic of lying. But if you don’t think so you are going to have to make good with the evidence.
So lets have that evidence now.
LETS…. HAVE…. THAT… EVIDENCE…
You are a liar Peter D.
So how about stop jerking around right now.
Birdy – I didn’t know you were on day leave. Anyway mate I very annoyed at you – you assured me that a bone chilling ice age was the only danger and warming was great. So I’m reading this very well referenced book which details the collapse of whole civilisations from climate chaos driven by drought warming. So Birdy – you are actually a counter counter counter counter agent and we almost fell for it. You’re actually a CO2 consuming V8 driving resource gobbling baby killer worse than Pol Pot or Hitler. I WANT THE EVIDENCE THAT THE MWP WAS GOOD FOR HUMANITY birdstwerp. Come up with it by midnight or you are a liar. What you need mate is to be mass sacked with no dole.
Yeah well what book is that. Warm periods lead to a wetter world except in some very isolated areas like the Western United States. So your book is at fault and not me.
Was it some ancient alleged Indian civilisation in the West of North America? The point is that warmer means wetter in general.
So what book was that?
I think that you are just lying again.
You liars are not turning it back onto me. Its you guys that have been doing the lying that have to come up with your own evidence.
This act where you try to forge a case by criticising others without any evidence of your own is over.
You must come up with the evidence and when you cannot admit that you were lying all along.
So thats you, Ender and Peterd.
Lets have the evidence or the admission that you’ve been lying all along.
You have now lied far too much Bird. Book is The Great Warming by Brian Fagan. The extent of worldwide drought carnage is tremendous – Americas, Africa, Asia. Extremely well referenced with lots of evidence. So Bird not only have you shown a dismal performance in your election folly – you have now systematically lied to me. Lied to your “supporters”. Rejected by the electorate as an extremist. What a disgrace. I WANT THE EVIDENCE that you’re not a shonk Bird. Prove it.
And if a warmer world is wetter – why have we had recent multi-year droughts in Australia. You liar. You CO2 emitter.
GraemeBird – “Lets have the evidence or the admission that you’ve been lying all along.”
So read AR4 – all the evidence is there neatly summerised.
AR4??? Bwahahahahahahahahah!!!
Oh the irony of the blogs resident liar, Ender, calling someone a liar.
“all the evidence is there neatly summerised.”
…as opposed to winterised?
Ender “Bwahahahahahahahahah!!!” is denialist for surrender.
Isee Torquemada’s goons, Creep and Ender, are still active. Much like the gaseous effuvium of a herd of Wildebeest recently past; the herd has passed but the memory persists.
Until the next breath.
Ender remains very confused. Just to take a simple example; I quoted one of the three peer-reviewed articles MacIntyre and McKitrick had published in 2005, the one published in Geophysics Research Letters – a journal of unimpeachable quality. He assumes that there is only one publication in 2005. I think he may be talking about their publication in Energy and Environment. But his failure to even realise that there are different publications speaks volumes about his lack of knowledge on this subject, as does his cavalier dismissal of Wegman – a statistician with probably hundreds of publications who clearly knows his subject. Ender might also like to reflect on how the quality of his arguments impacts people who are making their minds up. One of the factors that has made me increasing sceptical about man-made global warming is the way in which perfectly reasonable criticisms have been demonised instead of answered. I have had to consider the possibility that there are no convincing answers. And the extract on glaciers quoted tells me nothing about the possible existence of a MWP. No one serious has suggested that the world has not warmed up a bit since the 19th century.
Louis Hissink sums up the situation for me perfectly. I think I came to this subject with an open mind. Fanatics like Ender remind me of the old Maxist theorists who always fitted the evidence into their preconceived ideas. But that’s not to say that there are not a lot of disingenuous ‘right wing’ people out there arguing from the opposite stance, as equally confused as Ender.
Well if Louis has helped your thinking processes that’s all we needed to know.
mikep – “Ender remains very confused. Just to take a simple example; I quoted one of the three peer-reviewed articles MacIntyre and McKitrick had published in 2005, the one published in Geophysics Research Letters – a journal of unimpeachable quality. He assumes that there is only one publication in 2005.”
So end the confusion and list M&M’s peer reviewed papers on climatology.
“as does his cavalier dismissal of Wegman – a statistician with probably hundreds of publications who clearly knows his subject”
Yes he knows statistics very well however he does not know climatology at all. Have you read the report and seen the graphs where the Y axis is hundreds of times smaller that the actual units used in MBH99? I don’t dismiss the report at all – I leave that to qualified people.
“Ender might also like to reflect on how the quality of his arguments impacts people who are making their minds up. One of the factors that has made me increasing sceptical about man-made global warming is the way in which perfectly reasonable criticisms have been demonised instead of answered.”
The problem is that perfectly reasonable critisisms have been answered often in great detail and in the peer reviewed literature. However none of this makes any difference and in this case the person making the critisicms continues arguing the same debunked points, not in the peer reviewed literature with his/her peers, but in the press and blogs. It is at this point the person can be seen to be demonised if you don’t know the full history.
MBH98 is a classic example. It had it faults, as any first go at something will, which were rectified to some extent in MBH99. Futher studies of the proxy data confirmed MBH98 basic conclusions. However it was seized by people with an agenda in mind and became political whereupon all science left running like a rat out of an aquaduct and has not made a reappearence yet.
Will Nitschke – “Fanatics like Ender remind me of the old Maxist theorists who always fitted the evidence into their preconceived ideas.”
Labelling people is a classic diversionary tactic. Your admiration of Louis obviously has led you to the the same shallowness of thinking. I resent bitterly the label of ‘fanatic’ as I am nothing like this. My ideas have been shaped by the peer reviewed science as it stands now and nothing else. I will continue to counter debunked talking points presented here with the actual science as we currently understand it. That’s not being fanatical that is just being scientifically honest.
The answer to Steve’s question about why the confidence intervals don’t narrow is the great uncertainty in optical path length T.
H/t Miscolzki
========
MBH has not answered his critics in great detail. Indeed his results have not even been replicated because he has never disclosed the exact way he did things. Nevertheless it is now abundantly clear that his results depend upon a tiny subset of proxies which seem very unlikely to be accurate temperature proxies. Examples of what has not been addressed include:
Was the 2oth century growth spurt in the Graybill bristlecones caused by temperature?
Are the Graybill bristlecone cores a representative sample of even the trees that were cored, let alone the bristlecones in the area?
What significance can be attached to proxies such as tree rings whose growth is high during the first three quarters of the 20th century but when resampled later show low growth during the warming of the last quarter of the 20th century – the so-called divergence problem?
To an economist sych as myself the latter problem looks like a classic case of spurious regression – a phenomenon we have become familiar with since Granger adn Newbold’s classic 1974 paper.
And then there is the failure of the rsquared in the verification period (another hint of spurious regression).
I’m afraid Ender is winding me up again and making me more sceptical. Let’s have some honest debate instead of evasions.
AR4? Whats AR4? Are you talking about some lying UN report.
The IPCC has not come up with any evidence for it. So if you claim that one of their reports has neatly summarised evidence or any evidence then you are just lying.
But you better clear up what it is this AR4 abbreviation is all about.
mikep – “MBH has not answered his critics in great detail. Indeed his results have not even been replicated because he has never disclosed the exact way he did things”
Which is a classic example of debunked points being repeated endlessly until they become the truth.
“I’m afraid Ender is winding me up again and making me more sceptical. Let’s have some honest debate instead of evasions.”
And no you are not going to draw me into another hockey stick debate that I am also not qualified to do. Post your questions on Real Climate or simply find where they have already been answered again and again.
Graeme Bird – “The IPCC has not come up with any evidence for it.”
You should really qualify that. The IPCC does not do research as they could not come up with any evidence. They rely on the work of scientists that have come up with evidence and which is summerised in AR4.
If you do not accept this then you are ignoring the work of thousands of scientists over the years. The fact that you accept the mostly non peer reviewed work of a handful of skeptic scientists shows much for your thinking. Nothing I say will convince you if reading AR4 doesn’t. You have read it haven’t you?
Lets just have some evidence Ender. Stop jerking around. We weren’t after the pretense that you had some evidence. We were instead after the evidence itself.
Where is this AR4 and what within it do you consider to be evidence? And on top of that why are you referring me to a SUMMARY when what I wanted was the evidence itself.
You are getting too ambitious here. I would have been happy with one valid piece of evidence. You reckon you can refer me to a summary when I was just after one individual bit of evidence.
Of course if you can find CONVERGENT evidence with 3 or more lines of convergence then that can amount to proof and I’ll be entirely won over.
But what I’d just like for starters is some sort of evidence.
In brief we want to know whether the warming from CO2 is powerful enough not to be a good thing during this brutal and pulverising ice age.
Ender why bother debating an illiterate arts graduate who’s an unelectable shift worker. Someone who can only write GIVE ME THE EVIDENCE and pulversing ice age.
In fact he has been given the MWP drought reference and failed to read it.
What you normally find is that trumped up little nazis masquerading as noveau economists can’t actually read. So you would have to work on his literacy as first port of call.
Graeme Bird – “But what I’d just like for starters is some sort of evidence.”
The scientific basis part of AR4 goes into this in some detail. No if you persist in this foolishness I will just respond the way I do to the really annoying computer users that fail to read the manual and blame you for their ignorance. What I politely say to them after many many hours of fruitless instruction is RTFM. In this case you can RTFAR4.
The willfully blind cry ‘Beware theNazi’.
Look, look around, perhaps you will see.
The problem the models all fail to foresee,
Is the uncertainty in optical path length T.
================================
Well you said it was a SUMMARY of evidence.
But what I wanted was some evidence.
If you want to make some sort of link and tell me what you think is evidence then go ahead.
But for the Love of God man stop screwing around and lets have some evidence.
CAN….. WE….. HAVE…. SOME ….. EVIDENCE!!!!!
So far you have REFUSED to come up with any evidence.
I don’t think its too much to ask that you come up with some evidence.
So how about some evidence.
If you claim that the IPCC has some evidence well clearly you are lying. But on the other hand you might disagree with that assessment.
So lets have that evidence.
And stop stalling.
Look I don’t want to hang around here. I’m just coming back to see if you will continue to REFUSE to come up with the evidence.
And every time I come back here you continue to stonewall and filibuster on the evidence.
NOW FINALLY!!!!
CAN…. WE…. HAVE… SOME…. EVIDENCE!!!!
I don’t think thats too much to ask.
“The scientific basis part of AR4 goes into this in some detail. ”
“this”??????
I wanted some EVIDENCE.
I didn’t want any “this”.
Now stop bullshitting everyone and come up with the evidence.
If Ender could even summarise the alleged debunkings for me I would be grateful. And I don’t mean vague references to AR4.
Truth(tropospheric temperatures) and Beauty(bouy data) are all ye know and all ye need to know.
=================
You’re not going to be given evidence because there is no evidence… you’ll mainly find arm waving at the IPCC assessment, and appeals to authority. Lots of theories, lots of speculation, lots of assumptions… By “no evidence” I mean no “hard evidence” in the sense of there being a “smoking gun”. If it does exist, I’ve been unable to find it, and not for want of trying. And I’ve gone to all the right places where such evidence should be readily found. That’s why I’m a sceptic now. But I would change my mind tomorrow if I could find good evidence.