Cameron Stewart writing in today’s The Australian makes reference to the influence of internet bloggers in succeeding in highlighting that measuring climate change is an evolving science. But, goes on to suggest that “their success has been at the margins only” because we have apparently failed to “prove that these discrepancies negate the broader core arguments about the trends of global warming.”
The article is entitled ‘Key degrees of difference’ and it begins:
“Has global warming stopped? The question alone is enough to provoke scorn from the mainstream scientific community and from the Government, which says the earth has never been hotter. But tell that to a new army of sceptics who have mushroomed on internet blog sites and elsewhere in recent months to challenge some of the most basic assumptions and claims of climate change science…
Read more here: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24148862-11949,00.html
This is at least the second time in the last two weeks that internet bloggers have been identified by the mainstream Australian media as relevant to the debate on climate change. The earlier story was on ABC Lateline, you can watch the video clip: http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2008/07/29/2318074.htm . I comment on the Lateline report in an associated blog post here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003290.html.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I think the “broader core argument” for AGW is “Global Warming is true and nothing will convince me otherwise”.
Hence we have Penny Wong saying that a drought in parts of Australia is all the evidence she needs to accept catastrophic AGW theory. Tim Flannery, when asked what global temperatures had been doing for the last 10 years, said he wasn’t sure.
AGW has become the ultimate unfalsifiable hypothesis, on both a scientific level and a political level.
The success of the bloggers appears to be at the margins because the mainstream (‘dead tree’) media are left-wingers beholden to the scare stories which sell paper and ink–and the old-school left-winger ideologies.
Bloggers just need to get out and about to know where they stand.
I assume he has found the “hot spot”. Maybe he would be so kind as to link it?
Ah, how the ruling classes detest the well publicised opinions of the lumpen proletariat – blogging is the 21st century version of pamphleteering – and the ruling classes didn’t like it in previous times either.
Poor bloggers–inept victors by default.
There will be no print media in the near future and the average age of television viewers is 50 and rising.
“This is at least the second time in the last two weeks that internet bloggers have been identified by the mainstream Australian media as relevant to the debate on climate change.”
It’s a joke, isn’t it?
Jennifer,
The AGW evangelists cannot make headway with the honest science of AGW so their next line of defence is to preach to the kiddies and others of similar mental capacity that it’s really all about pollution, sustainability and similar goody-two-shoe issues.
Sign the pledge and save the earth!
Anyone sceptical of this motherhood stuff is obviously a flat earther.
This is why Penny Wong and Co have to use terms like “carbon pollution” etc.
Cameron Stewart was being far too lenient with the truth regarding the AGW religion.
The argument seems to be that if you add up enough ignorance, it amounts to a certain amount of knowledge. Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way. You could have a million Hissinks, and you would still have nothing.
SJT
What is entirely predictable with the AGW side is the need to vilify their opponents – they only do this when they can’t counter the arguments.
Even John Quiggin has stopped describingus with perjorative labels – apparently as a result of comments made to him. Pity you aren’t as intelligent or sensible as Quiggin. (Methinks Quiggin might have realised AGW is a dead horse not worth flogging and hence finds it prudent nto to be part of the vile team AGW).
SJT
It can’t be a joke otherwise you would not be posting here. After all if the bloggers were not a threat you and the AGO team, and your pensioner camp followers, would not spend so much effort trying to silence us.
So who is SJT? A real nothing.
You remind me of the rent-a-crowd of ne’er do wells, paid to throw rotten eggs and tomatoes at the climate rationalists.
Science is about debate!!
The problem starts when you have people that are so guilable and stupid they will agree with anything they are told by their political masters.
Enter the Global Alarmists, instead of actually reading the latest discoveries they spew venom at anyone that proves their arguments totally flawed.
We all want a cleaner world, but these fanatics are destroying the main case of eventual pollution free energy with their absolute stupid alarmist claims. Flannery and Co are destroying the support of the mainsteam of sciences and the public. Shut up you fools, you are destroying our credibility.
believe in global warming? well then.. you are a fool.
Hi Jennifer,
Remember writing
“Apology Owed to CSIRO and BOM: Geoffrey Sherrington Letter Misleading” on March 26 2006?
Do you now know a bit better how hard it is to lead the pack, to cop the flack when you break new ground?
I say this in peace, knowing the recent publicity you have had for being one of the first influential Australian bloggers. Congratulations.
If you want to see how bad some establishment science has got, slip over to Climate Audit and read the story about alleged data fabrication:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3352
Remember, this is just one of a series of articles where the dirty tricks departments have been at work. I criticised Phil Jones back then in 2006. My criticism was mild compared with what has come out since.
Did I just strike a lucky topic early? No, I researched my material.
How about some more debate on the relevant CSIRO/BOM departments as the case may be, on publising a food diet of doubtful utility, on the drought and exceptional circumstances forecasts demolished by David Stockwell, on man-made global warming causing as many deaths as road accidents, on bad statistics, on poor record keeping, on emission trading, on refusal to provide raw data, on scientific obstructionism, on demanding much money for data provision – just to bolster a diminishing case for anthropogenic global warming.
Actually,
Flannery was recently interviewed on ABC morning radio..
When asked about the Global Cooling that had been going on, he dismissed it as rubbish. When asked what the temperatures were, he suddenly became very forgetful and hesitant.
Furthermore, lest we forget….
Flannery also called for millions of tons of sulphur to be pumped into th atmosphere…
He claimed it would help fight Global Warming by inducing “Global Dimming”.
If we ever needed proof, that Flannery has lost touch with reality, then it is in such a stupid suggestion..
The only Global Dimming I can detect so far, is on his brain.
Rod Trinca
Geoff Sherrington, that letter you wrote in the Australian a few years back has become an item I have used many times to describe the shambolic state of public science in Australia.
Congratulations and thankyou for having the courage and intestinal fortitude for putting the truth out there. You were in front of your time, although your efforts in trying to make CSIRO and other public science organisations more accountable and professional have gone largely unrewarded.
Matt
I must take issue with your first sentence – “Science is about debate!”.
It isn’t.
Science is about performing physical tests to confirm an hypothesis.
No one debates whether a badly designed cell-phone fails to work – in the physical sciences hypotheses are quickly tested. In my area of expertise, mineral exploration, hypotheses are quickly tested by drill holes.
The problem with AGW is that it cannot be subected to experiment. Creating thought experiments to disprove or prove an hypothesis is only valid in the world of imagination, and that is where AGW science fundamentals exist. Arrhenius’ initial hypothesis (1906 paper) has not been PHYSICALLY proved or disproved. It’s acceptance has, however, occurred in the abstract world of dialectics.
The problem we face is the extrapolation from the imaginal world to physical reality. AGW is a specific example of the attempt to enforce the imaginal onto the physical.
Error (now when has an AGW admitted such).
I should have written “AGW is a specific example of the attempt to impose the imaginal onto the physical”.
“”She is just plain wrong,” says Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs. “It’s not a question of debate. What about the medieval warming period? The historical record shows they were growing wine in England, for goodness sake; come on. It is not disputed by anyone that the Vikings arrived in Greenland in AD900 and it was warmer than Greenland is now. What Penny Wong is doing is being selective and saying that is a long time ago.””
You simply do not understand the claims. The claim is that it’s going to get warmer and warmer. The MWP will seem like a mild autumn afternoon. And unlike the relatively short lived MWP, this is not going away.
The aspect of Cameron Stewart’s article in the Australian http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24148862-11949,00.html
that annoys me is one typical of meeja reporting:
sceptics are accused of cherry-picking the time range for temperature anomalies (ie. the “last 10 years” is way too small an interval etc etc),
but this Stewart doesn’t have the intellectual integrity to then ask what is an appropriate time span ? … just another meeja pygmy man
We geological sceptics are acutely aware of the pea&thimble time spans indulged in by the AGW propagandists. Note how many times I have asked the specific question: “Why is 30 years considered an appropriate time span ?”
Now guess how many times there has been a sensible answer to that question …
SJT
And what is the claim, that it is going get warmer and warmer, based on?
Right now the mean global temperature is dropping, and we still have not reached the MWP temperature.
And what is going to get warmer and warmer – the earth? You have to be stark raving mad to think that emitting a gas into a thin gaseous film coating the earth will affects its thermal balance.
And Ianl points to a serious issue – why is 30 years assumed to be a climate metric? If you wantg to blather about climate change, the least you could do is to point changes in the appropriate metrics in terms of their change in terms of a 30 year averaging method.
In this sense climate sceptical arguments are invalid since 10 years is not a climate change metric.
“And what is the claim, that it is going get warmer and warmer, based on?”
Read the IPCC reports.
Currently, according to the AMSU satellites, at 1000m, the planet is 0.37 degrees F cooler than last year.
If the planet’s temperature continues to decline at the current rate for another year or two, it may dawn on a number of governments that they are facing a global cooling disaster. [We already appear to be at about the same temperature level as 29 years ago]
If people need more straws in the wind, currently worldwide sea levels are starting to drop and carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere may no longer be rising. Also sunspots are awfully scarce – cycle 24 shows no real sign of starting.
Yes the IPCC reports; the same ones that Koutsoyiannis has torn apart; but a more serious aspect of AR4 is apparent; AR4 relied on Ammann and Wahl’s (AW) refutation of McIntyre’s critique of Mann’s temperature reconstructions so that its predictions and entire AGW ediface could move forward; the mendacity of AW’s report is now revealed. By way of background; autocorrelation is a mathematical tool for finding repeating patterns; it is at the heart of temperature based AGW; but the problem with average global temperature (AGT), in itself a spurious concept, is as Bob Tisdale has shown, an obstensible repeating signal may be another cause acting similarly to the previous cause’s signal, or be due to 2 or more lessor signals acting in unison, or be the difference between 2 contrary ones varying in intensity; as well Hurst looms large.
To isolate causes reduction of error technique (RE) is employed. The method in AGW is to nominate a cause, CO2 increases, allocate a forcing figure to that cause and match the predicted result of that forcing on temperature with the actual results. If there is a positive value then the predictive skill and validity of the model is vindicated. AW used RE to prove McIntyre’s critique of Mann was wrong and Mann’s method of correlating temperature with Co2 was correct. AW postulated an RE benchmark of 0.0 was sufficient to vindicate Mann and AR4. But they did not substantiate or validate this never before used benchmark; they merely asserted it had been established and based their vindicative paper on the fact that they had asserted it had been validated. Later when pressed by McIntyre, and after their paper and AR4 had been published, they referred to their published paper, which had relied on the (false) assertion of validation, to prove the (non-existent) assertion. McIntyre’s report on the whole sordid mess is here;
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3393
And people like SJT can disingenuously say the proof for outrageous statements about climate is to be found in the AR4.
“And people like SJT can disingenuously say the proof for outrageous statements about climate is to be found in the AR4.”
I don’t know what is outrageous about the physical properties of CO2. It’s like saying it’s outrageous that a little bit of arsenic can be fatal. That’s not my fault, that’s just how the cosmos works.
“But a more vulnerable ice cover
Nevertheless, it is perhaps too soon to make a definitive pronouncement concerning this year’s probable extent at the summer minimum. The Arctic sea ice is in a condition we have not seen since satellites began taking measurements. As discussed in our April analysis, thin first-year ice dominated the Arctic early in the melt season. Thin ice is much more vulnerable to melting completely during the summer; it seems likely that we will see a faster-than-normal rate of decline through the rest of the summer.
Building on our July 17 analysis, the fragility of the current ice conditions is evident in the sea ice concentration fields produced at the University of Bremen using NASA Advanced Microwave Sounding Radiometer (AMSR) data. Widespread areas of reduced ice concentration exist, particularly in the Beaufort Sea. Even north of 85 degrees latitude, pockets of much-reduced ice cover appear. The passive microwave data used in Figure 4 tends to underestimate ice concentration during summer because melt water on the surface of the ice can be mistaken for open water. Nevertheless, such low concentrations indicate strong melt and a broken, thin ice cover that is potentially vulnerable to rapid melt”
August 2008
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
SJT: “I don’t know what is outrageous about the physical properties of CO2. It’s like saying it’s outrageous that a little bit of arsenic can be fatal. That’s not my fault, that’s just how the cosmos works.”
Oh, so now dodgy analogies now constitute scientific proof, do they?
SJT: “I don’t know what is outrageous about the physical properties of CO2. It’s like saying it’s outrageous that a little bit of arsenic can be fatal. That’s not my fault, that’s just how the cosmos works.”
Oh, so now dodgy analogies constitute scientific proof, do they?
“Read the IPCC reports.”
I’ve just been reading chapter 6 why does the blue line end about 1950 in the multi proxy chart on page 467? or very few match the thermometer readings after that?
All seems rather strange maybe the proxies don’t work if they have been around long enough.
SJT says….. “I don’t know what is outrageous about the physical properties of CO2. It’s like saying it’s outrageous that a little bit of arsenic can be fatal. That’s not my fault, that’s just how the cosmos works.”
And the the empirical data that Anthropogenic sourced CO2 has an effect on climate is…. Where?
After all the IPCC accepted that the Rate of warming in the tropical troposphere would be two and a half times that of the surface temperature with an increase of 100 ppb of Anthropogenic CO2.
…. that has not happened. The CO2 went up 100 ppb, but the Temperature did not rise according to those predictions. The radiosonde data has it at zero rise in temp, while the satellite data has a 0.2 degree warming. Neither are in accordance with the Modeled predictions that the IPCC accepted as a signiture of AGW.
That is my understanding.
“Science is about debate”
I think the policy discussion is about debate and the catastrophe proponents won round 1. I say they won by setting the rules and presenting superior “context” and/or framework of the issue, not based on facts.
I think the rules of the past “debate”, established by the proponents, encouraged obfuscation, personal attacks, and maximum use of non-sequiturs (I just looked that up the other day but it’s just not rolling off the tongue yet.) and it might be accurate to say that round 1 of the debate is over.
Note: wikipedia says:
“…Debate is a broader form of argument than logical argument, which only examine the consistency from axiom, and factual argument, which only examine what is or isn’t the case. Though logical consistency, factual accuracy as well as some emotional appeal to audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting superior “context” and/or framework of the issue.”
There other definitions of debate and I may be off base on what the standard definition is of global warming “debate”, but it seems that in science “debate” may be the wrong word unless it is strict logic based debate. It seems to me that wikipedias “logical argument” or “factual argument” phrases are more apt for science.
We’re now in Round 2 and the proponents of natural cause dominated climate change need to make sure they influence the debate rules toward one of logical argument. I suppose an alternative is to use the same tactics as the catastrophe advocates in Round 1, but, me thinks, that the advocates, having vastly greater advertising resources, would win again.
SURGEON GENERAL’S “Less Than Zero” WARNING:
SJT continues to spew among the most insanely idiotic things ever posted. At no point in the rambling, incoherent posts is anything even close to what could be considered a rational scientific thought. Everyone on this blog is dumber for having read any of it; and worse, risks permanent subtraction of intellect by actually responding to any of it.
Ianl: “Why is 30 years considered an appropriate time span ?”
I can answer that Ian.
It is because it is well known that climate changes over time periods longer than that.
That’s what we were taught in met school on about the first day when the difference between weather and climate was made clear.
The implication is that a past 30 year weather average at any place is of very limited forecasting usefulness.
This was all nearly 40 years ago before any of this became political.
re: “30 years…” it really isn’t sufficient.
It’s less than 1.5 Hale cycles, and ~.5 PDO cycles — mere blinks in climate time. Look at the uproar over what happened from 1978-2000? Look at Dr. Hansen’s cherry pick of GISS anomaly based on 1950-1980, with it’s huge overlap of a negative phase of a PDO cycle…
Cameron Stewart took nearly a page to say “the science is not completely settled and some bloggers are pointing this out”.
Stunning stuff. You’d think he could have done a little more searching on the net and actually bothered to read a little more before bursting into print. It isn’t only bloggers pointing this out for starters. He’d have been able to write a far more interesting article.
I find MSM articles nowadays to be extremely shallow and their journos seem very lazy. And this in “The Australian” which is meant to be a high quality newspaper. Well I guess it is compared to the Courier Mail.
Eyrie, it seems that Cameron Stewart doesn’t read his own paper. The Australian has published plenty of opinion pieces sceptical of AGW.
Stewart’s article gave me the impression of a true AGW believer trying, through gritted teeth, to acknowledge that there is another side to the debate.
The encouraging thing is that he would have been far more dismissive of the sceptics six months ago, and would not have even written the article a year ago.
“And the the empirical data that Anthropogenic sourced CO2 has an effect on climate is…. Where?”
Another case of “If I can’t understand it, you can’t prove it”, I fear.
Read the IPCC reports. They pursue several lines of evidence.
Eyrie
“The implication is that a past 30 year weather average at any place is of very limited forecasting usefulness.”
Thank you for your reply. The real answer to what is a reasonable time span and why, is: there is no reasonable answer. Cheery picking to any time scale is the flavour of the day.
The only reason I can find for choosing the last 30 years is the artificial one that satellite temp measurements started then (1979). This time period may be convenient for measurement but I’m sure the climatic system didn’t actually notice.
It’s also interesting that if we stay with this artificial “last 30 year period” for convenience, then the last 10 years of this (where temp anomalies haven’t behaved as AGW says they should) is about 33% of the total time span. 33% is a significant statistical sample size and cannot be discounted with “cherry picking” jibes.
Ianl: “then the last 10 years of this (where temp anomalies haven’t behaved as AGW says they should) is about 33% of the total time span. 33% is a significant statistical sample size and cannot be discounted with “cherry picking” jibes.”
When the volcanic impacts of El Chichon and Pinatubo are considered, temp anomalies haven’t behaved as AGW says they should for about the last 25 years! That’s because AGW theory is crap!
SJT; I find your references to AR4 ridiculous; the forcing figures for CO2 and other “long-lived GHG’s” (which in itself is false) at pp131-132 have been well and truly superseded by Spencer’s work on -ve feedbacks to do with water, and Monckton’s work on forcing calculations; IPCC knows its forcing values for CO2 are not valid which is why it has developed the concept of the “enhanced greenhouse” at FAQ 3.1; but this depends on water being a positive feedback; put simply, CO2 cannot trap and retain heat as AGW depends on; it is a failed theory, and repeating a reference to the document of the failed theory is slightly dissonant in a cognitive sort of way.
How long was the warming cycle when Hansen proclaimed this the greatest challege facing humanity back in 1988?
Something less then 30 years for sure.
James: “How long was the warming cycle when Hansen proclaimed this the greatest challege facing humanity back in 1988?
Something less then 30 years for sure. ”
About ten years but with climate math is 10 > 30??
Perhaps
SJT says,…. “Another case of “If I can’t understand it, you can’t prove it”, I fear.”
No SJT. The onus is on the proponents of the hypothesis of AGW to prove their case. Not for others to disprove it. Natural variation of climate is the accepted norm.
Please remember that the Physical properties of CO2 are not on debate… But rather the effect of Anthropogenic sources of CO2 on the climate globally as per the hypothesis of AGW. By the very definition of AGW…. There would need to be a measurable effect on the climate… not theorised or modeled, for the hypothesis to be valid. It seems to me, with all I have read, that the effect is undetectable within the background of natural climate variation.
You would have to concede this much. As you know that the last 30 year warming trend is as likely natural as it is anthropogenic. Further more as the last 10 years of that warming trend has flattened despite the increase of CO2, one would have to pause for reflection…. In the very least, wouldn’t you say?
SJT said…”And what is the claim, that it is going get warmer and warmer, based on?”
“Read the IPCC reports”….says SJT
The IPCC does not predict that it’s going to get warmer, it says it is ‘likely’ to get warmer. They are guessing. In the 2001 assessment, it clearly states that future climate cannot be predicted, and any future predictions are ‘probabilities’ based on the projections of ‘various’ computer models.
Even Trenberth, an IPCC lead author, says the IPCC does not make predictions (apparently realclimate has picked up that mantra as well). He also says computer models are not reliable, and he’s pro AGW. If IPCC heavyweights are confused, it’s little wonder you are too.
You don’t seem to understand even the basics of AGW theory. The IPCC did not predict the likelihood of a ten year flat trend in temperature, while CO2 increased. If the May 2008 study is correct, that shows a delay of warming till 2016, we will have gone nearly 20 years with no warming.
Can you not open your mind just a little bit?
cohenite said AR4 relied on Ammann and Wahl’s (AW) refutation of McIntyre’s critique of Mann’s temperature reconstructions….”.
don’t know if you’ve read this detailed critique of the IPCC process on that:
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Holland/Bias_and_Concealment.pdf
It’s mind-boggling how far the nepotism and ineptitude spreads.
Gordon: “It’s mind-boggling how far the nepotism and ineptitude spreads.”
Nepotism has a tendency to employ the inept so it’s no wonder. The incompetent always employ the less competent – a sort of survival of the fittest. The fittest in this case refer to the most inept and confers greater reproductive (of clones) fitness.
Jan
Perceptive – there is a firm rule in hiring people – never hire someone brighter than your self, because then the bosses discover who the real ninny is.
Sad really.
Gordon/Jan
I just learnt that in the WA Department of Industry and Resources, the Director General and most of the Deputy Directors are all card carrying members of the ALP.
Given that AGW research is the result of government “forcing” to the tune of some $50 billions world wide, I would not expect to see an lessening of AGW propoganda in Oz while the ALP are in charge.
The 9% swing against them in the NT elections yesterday suggests times might be a-changing. We go to elections here in WA in a month’s time. Hopfully the ALP will be unseated.
“cohenite said AR4 relied on Ammann and Wahl’s (AW) refutation of McIntyre’s critique of Mann’s temperature reconstructions….”.
don’t know if you’ve read this detailed critique of the IPCC process on that:”
Detailed smear job, you mean. 100% smear but music to some people’s ears.
SJT says:
“Detailed smear job, you mean. 100% smear but music to some people’s ears.”
Then why don’t you go to climateaudit and explain to steve why he is wrong? After all, if it is so obviously a “smear job” then you should be able to explain exactly why steve is wrong an W&A are right.
If you don’t what to do it there you can do it here.
“The 9% swing against them in the NT elections yesterday suggests times might be a-changing.”
I notice that the Messiah of Change isn’t having everything his own way in the US either:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/general_election_match_up_history
See also: us-elections.suite101.com/article.cfm/mccain_leads_obama
“McCain now leads only by one point in the general poll, but looking underneath we see an extremely close race. Fifty-five percent of the nation sees John McCain in a positive light, while only 51% approve of Barack Obama. This would seem to go against the conventional wisdom that Obama will be carried into office easily come November.”
Gordon; I think Steve McIntyre sums up the Mann debacle well in his own words;
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/ohio.pdf
The subsequent Ammann and Wahl disgrace is well up there as a prime example of the misrepresentation by pro-AGW science; another good one is the recent paper on thermal wind shear by Allen and Sherwood;
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n6/abs/ngeo208.html
In this paper the boys acknowledge that the predicted troposphere heating has not been travelling well, so they postulate that radiosonde temp measurement is deficient, but radiosonde wind measure is up to speed; so if an assumption is made that measured wind shear is indicative of temperature, then if model predicted wind shear is confirmed by radiosonde wind measurements then it must follow that the postulated temperature must also be as the model predicts; now this is, ipso facto, nuts; it’s like saying if the sun shines tomorrow then people will die; and then when actual deaths occur concluding therefore that the sun kills people; IMO this is probably more egregious than the Ammann nonsense, which is just dishonest; the Sherwood effort raises issues of reality; perhaps that’s what it is, reality by scientific edict; I can’t recall a more bizarre effort from the AGW crowd, but I’m willing to be persuaded. I’m also interested in SJT’s response to the implicit intellectual barrenness manifest by the Sherwood paper.
“Then why don’t you go to climateaudit and explain to steve why he is wrong? After all, if it is so obviously a “smear job” then you should be able to explain exactly why steve is wrong an W&A are right.”
He’s right into smears as well, if you have been reading his posts. For some curious reason, however, nothing from the denier crowd is ever given the blowtorch to the belly, despite a rich field of pickings out there.
I don’t doubt that there are errors in the science, science is one long history of errors and mistakes being corrected and improved upon. Newton got it wrong, Einstein got it wrong. Yet science moves on, and, in the long run gets it right.
AGW is a mature theory now, and the scientific basis behind it is now accepted by Pat Michaels and anyone else who is keen to keep their scientific credentials intact to some degree. Pat Michaels also says you can’t call this a cooling of climate, because that’s an abuse of science as well. Yet you will still read endless people here and on other climateaudit still questioning these basic facts. Why doesn’t McIntyre get to work on them?
SJT
You might provide we simpletons with Pat Michael’s statements on that? Huh ?
SJT:
“He’s right into smears as well, if you have been reading his posts. For some curious reason, however, nothing from the denier crowd is ever given the blowtorch to the belly, despite a rich field of pickings out there.”
You have yet to post examples of alleged smears.
“I don’t doubt that there are errors in the science, science is one long history of errors and mistakes being corrected and improved upon. Newton got it wrong, Einstein got it wrong. Yet science moves on, and, in the long run gets it right.”
Were those guys accused of smearing anyone?
” AGW is a mature theory now, and the scientific basis behind it is now accepted by Pat Michaels and anyone else who is keen to keep their scientific credentials intact to some degree. Pat Michaels also says you can’t call this a cooling of climate, because that’s an abuse of science as well. Yet you will still read endless people here and on other climateaudit still questioning these basic facts. Why doesn’t McIntyre get to work on them?”
AGW HYPOTHESIS has been considered settled science by you guys.Without “debate”.So why are all the AGW believer scientists still getting millions of $$ in research grants each year?
Plus the world is supposed to be in grave peril.Why bother giving money away into research that have allegedly proven everything?
Could it be because they know deep down that AGW hypothesis is pure B.S. but the money is real and nice to have along with a contrived good reputation built on UNVERIFIABLE research?
Sunset – could it also be that you’re rampantly speculating.
“Could it be because they know deep down that AGW hypothesis is pure B.S. but the money is real and nice to have along with a contrived good reputation built on UNVERIFIABLE research?”
Now why would anyone simply interested in money spend all that time doing very very hard physics and maths degrees when business would make you much richer. Sorry most of the people who do science are doing to because they’re interested. And anyone in Cooperative Research Centres would have noted that funding comes and goes.
Most scientists would love to have a breakthrough on an issue that nobody else has seen.
Why would scientists want to voluntarily be on IPCC working groups at endless meetings trying to distill the “science consensus” to be rewarded with rampant abuse from the population. It’s more about service than reward.
AGW is a very complex problem and the intertwining of politics and science doesn’t help. Plus this is now expensive science which is expected to be run professionally in major programs with performance indicators and milestones. The notion that there is plenty of time for gentleman scientists to indulge their fancies chasing every rainbow just isn’t there. That’s the price you paid when Harvard business school cross-bred with science management in the 1990s. Programs, budgets, plans, and process.
What a skeptics picnic this thread has been but there is no lunch yet IMO.
“That’s the price you paid when Harvard business school cross-bred with science management in the 1990’s.”
So, Luke, you’re saying, in effect, that we’re stuck with some bastard pup-child creation with supplementary neck bolts? And now it’s chasing us down the street arms stretched wanting to get us?
Metaphorically speaking of course.
WJP – big institutional science has inertia – the price of accountability and managerialising science.
“Now why would anyone simply interested in money spend all that time doing very very hard physics and maths degrees..”
Please point out anyone named on the front of the AR4 Synthesis Report with a “very hard physics or maths degree”.
In fact, point out anyone with a REAL science degree – period.
“Why would scientists want to voluntarily be on IPCC working groups at endless meetings trying to distill the “science consensus” to be rewarded with rampant abuse from the population. It’s more about service than reward.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Service – right. Very funny – hilarious, even. Swanning off to Rio, Bali, Bangkok, etc.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
These IPCC junkets are the usless articles’ five minutes of fame.
Ivan – please – Bali is for pollies and the IPCC political circus – you really have no idea – reality is that many of the very respected names (which you never hear about on here) spend vast amounts of personal time (for no extra reward) in IPCC science working groups in very non-glamorous places – like NOT Bali. Your comments are really just uninformed and deliberately abusive. Find out what really goes on. Your comments about IPCC report authors are simply ill-founded and rude. Unless you have actually made a serious investigative effort which you are prepared to table against the majority of authors desist.
“IPCC science working groups in very non-glamorous places”
Yeah..yeah. Sorry, no sale.
> Tenth Session of IPCC Working Group I, Paris, France, 29 January – 1 February 2007
> Eighth Session of IPCC Working Group II, Brussels, 2-5 April 2007
> Ninth Session of IPCC Working Group III, Bangkok, Thailand, 30 April – 4 May 2007
All vey unglamorous places, to be sure.
“Your comments about IPCC report authors are simply ill-founded..”
Hardly. I’ve been researching all the authors listed on the AR4 Synthesis Report. As far as I can tell, there are no “very hard physics or maths degrees” there. If you have different information, then send it as long.
And that’s the formal meetings – try all the sub-group meetings – what do you think goes on at those meetings? Sight-seeing. You really are kidding.
Hmmm – weeelll – I’ll just pick two – Susan Solomon – PhD Atmospheric Chemistry
Neville Nicholls – PhD Meteorology – one of Australia’s most well known climate scientists.
You really are a tedious moron. Now toddle off and organise your belly button fluff you gimp.
Paracelsus (1493-1531) wrote more or less “All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison.”
SJT (2001 -???) writes “I don’t know what is outrageous about the physical properties of CO2. It’s like saying it’s outrageous that a little bit of arsenic can be fatal. That’s not my fault, that’s just how the cosmos works.”
No, SJT, it is not.
The lesson, SJT, is that we know fairly well how much arsenic is fatal. But, we do not know at all well how much CO2 (if any) is needed to for Global Warming. I guess all the top experts have been asked for a qauntitative derivation of doubling sensitivity, prominently, but nobody has come up with an answer.
This is post-IPCC stuff, SJT, so if you refer me to that drivel I shall get up-chucky.
Talking of chucky, have you read “Chucky and the U.S. CCSP” at http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3384
U might learn something about the scientific method. Might help.
The problem is the Climate Science field has been found out. Most of the practioners rely heavily on statistical analysis, and as it turns out, there are a lot of statisticians out in the blogesphere. Outside of statistics, the realm of Climate Science is totally beholden to circulation models, of which none have any kind of precision. The models cannot replicate past climate regimes, let alone even forecast the next phase of ENSO. Again, software developers, engineers, and modelers from other fields have pointed this out via the blogesphere. So, yes, the experts who fill the goverment posts, research centers, and universities are being assaulted at the edges. The barbarians are certainly at the gates.
The question that is on everyone’s mind why can’t the people in the field of Climate Science police themselves. It turns out that “peer-review” in this field is not what it is cracked up to be.
“And that’s the formal meetings – try all the sub-group meetings – what do you think goes on at those meetings?”
As usual, in dealing with your dribbling nonsense, it is necessary to cut through all the bull$hit and corruption and get to the facts of the matter. First of all, it was: “Why would scientists want to voluntarily be on IPCC working groups at endless meetings..” Then it was: “they .. spend vast amounts of personal time (for no extra reward) in IPCC science working groups in very non-glamorous places..” Then it was: “well .. yes … they are glamorous places… but they don’t do any sightseeing.”
Give me a break – it’s like Bill Clinton saying “yes I smoked dope, but I didn’t inhale”. But you can see the point – first of all it’s the grandiose statement, then as facts begin to intrude the assertion gradually gets watered down. Which is pretty much the whole underlying philosophy of AGW.
Then there is the issue of relevant qualifications. First of all it was: “doing very very hard physics and maths degrees.” Then it seems there are no physics and maths degrees at all – just a bunch of weather forecasters masquerading as ‘climate scientists’.
I mean the best you can do is Neville Nicholls and Susan Solomons? Neville – who did his PhD 25 years ago (and therefore according to your logic is already well past his use-by date) and Susan – with a degree in a highly specialised branch of Chemistry (i.e. no maths or physics in sight here).
The problem is this: you AGW clowns keep parroting ad infinitum that “weather isn’t climate … weather isn’t climate”. And yet, when you go through the CVs of the ‘scientists’ on the AR4 Synthesis Report (if you can find any CVs, that is), what do you see: Osvaldo Canziani, Zhenlin Chen, David Karoly, Ulrike Lohmann, Neville Nicholls, et. al. – all with degrees in Meteorology. Listen up, numb nuts: Meteorologists are nothing more than Weather Forecasters. If “weather isn’t climate”, then by the same token, “Weather forecasters aren’t climatologists”. You want us to bet our future on the collective musings of a bunch of unqualified weather forecasters? A group who collectively can’t even reliably predict the weather a week in advance – yet you would have us believe that they are spot on when it comes to predicting something way beyond their experience or qualifications: i.e. the climate in 50-100 years time.
While we’re on the subject of Susan Solomon, here’s an interesting little tidbit that helps to put the lie to your assertion that all this AGW junketing is demanding and unglamorous work. Susan used to work with Martin Manning at the NOAA. It seems that the good doctor also managed to bring his son on board to work for the IPCC as well (and share in the Nobel prize, I might add). Not that there is anything wrong with nepotism, of course – there is always room for another snout or two at the trough. Particularly when there is plenty of taxpayers’ money for everyone to wallow in.
But the question is this: if all this IPCC work is such demanding work, and intrudes so much into everyone’s personal time having to travel to all these $hit places – why on earth would anyone encourage their children to follow in the same footsteps? Are they all mad, or what?
As for ” toddling off and organising .. belly button fluff” – generally I would leave that sort of work to SJT and the rest of the plonkers at the CSIRO (when they are not defending AGW, that is). I hear there is quite a demand for organising belly button lint amongst you gubmint science boys in general and in the AGW industry in particular. I can see this opening up a whole new business venture for the appropriately-trained CSIRO and BoM when this whole AGW house of cards finally caves in.
Yes Ivan … a devastating rebuttal. Outstanding.
🙂
Luke you have not answered these questions:
“You have yet to post examples of alleged smears.”
“Were those guys accused of smearing anyone?”
“AGW HYPOTHESIS has been considered settled science by you guys.Without “debate”.So why are all the AGW believer scientists still getting millions of $$ in research grants each year?”
You skated around this question with evasive reply.
“Plus the world is supposed to be in grave peril.Why bother giving money away into research that have allegedly proven everything?”
You skated around this question with evasive reply.
“Could it be because they know deep down that AGW hypothesis is pure B.S. but the money is real and nice to have along with a contrived good reputation built on UNVERIFIABLE research?”
You skated around this question with evasive reply.
Now here is a funny line from you Luke:
“Most scientists would love to have a breakthrough on an issue that nobody else has seen.”
Yeah such as publishing science papers filled with modeling runs that “proves” something is going to happen 50 years from.
(sarcasm)
I bet nobody has ever seen reproducable results 50 years into the future.
Sorry but breakthroughs never happen with unverified and non reproducable results.Not if you have to wait for decades.
LOL
“Why would scientists want to voluntarily be on IPCC working groups at endless meetings trying to distill the “science consensus” to be rewarded with rampant abuse from the population. It’s more about service than reward.”
You forget about the anger of a number of scientists way back in the early 1990’s.When they learned that their science report was swept aside by the politicians.They then asked to have their names taken off the list and some even stated they would sue if the IPCC resisted the requests.
How can I take you seriously when you think this way?
“AGW is a very complex problem and the intertwining of politics and science doesn’t help. Plus this is now expensive science which is expected to be run professionally in major programs with performance indicators and milestones. The notion that there is plenty of time for gentleman scientists to indulge their fancies chasing every rainbow just isn’t there. That’s the price you paid when Harvard business school cross-bred with science management in the 1990s. Programs, budgets, plans, and process.”
Nah not worth a comment.I will pass on this.
About the cooling in the last 10 years, the article quotes someone saying something very obvious: “Most scientists are adamant that any assessment of climate change based on only 10 years of data is not only meaningless but reckless.”
Very true. Why then was there no one accusing the Nobel prize gang of recklessness when they reported that the rate of warming had “accelerated” between 1990 and 2000, predicted further acceleration and runaway climate change?