THE word ‘sceptic’ has come to be associated with anyone who does not subscribe to the consensus view on anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
The term is generally used in a derogatory way, so some politicians (e.g. Steve Fielding) and scientists (e.g. Stewart Franks) even if they are genuinely sceptical of the consensus view on AGW, usually shy away from the label insisting they are not sceptics.
Then there are faux sceptics, people who have very little understanding of the theory of anthropogenic global warming, but who are so ideologically opposed to the greens or more regulation, that they have quickly identified with the label climate change sceptic. Of course there are also contrarians who will always oppose a majority view.
The majority view has become so fashionable, and is so vigorously defended, that even those who simply wish to hear the alternative view, or give the alternative view a platform, now risk being quickly labelled ‘a sceptic’.
Giving such a mismatch of groups and individuals the same label has so far been a useful tactic employed by AGW activists to limit discussion and instil fear.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I call myself a sceptic, and I do not associate it in any with it being a derogatory reference.
I am curious, who are the “faux” sceptics? Are there any hanging around here?
I asked you to provide a summary in your own words about the paper by Miscolczi, which has been used by you as evidence of why AGW is wrong. Would you be prepared to do that?
SJT
It’s Ferenc Miskolczi – you have botched the spelling of his name.
Also, you misrepresent me. The available evidence suggests AGW is a theory with many limitations. I have suggested that Miskolcki theory is a better representation of the real world in particular it provides an explaination as to why despite elevated levels of carbon dioxide there has not been sustained warming.
I am reluctant to summarize the key paper you refer to – I doubt I could do it justice and I risk misrepresenting some of the complexities of the physics – I would prefer to continue to make links between aspects of the paper and the available evidence and the work of others.
There will be more on Miskolcki, indeed I already have a blog post half written building on a note from Christopher Game about the limitations of focusing on temperature and the need to instead focus on specific humidity when one considers feedback mechanism and climate change.
But then you are in the same position I am in, an interested amateur without the skills to fully evaluate the evidence. That is what scepticism is, people evaluating evidence and making up their minds based on that evaluation. If you cannot do that, the only rational alternative is to rely on an authority. All of our peak scientific bodies back AGW, including the CSIRO. Why would you prefer to rely on a lone outsider who claims to have done what very few have ever achieved, overthrown a widely held theory that has the backing of extensive research and peer review? You are ditching the scientific method, based on the word of someone who’s claims you do not understand.
SJT
I am sorry I have NOT ditched the scientific method, and I continue to rely on evidence.
Given the available evidence, I find the AGW theory deficient; what this popular theory predicts and what the data shows are difficult/impossible to reconcile.
In contrast what the new Miskolscki theory claims and explains, fits much better with the available data.
In short I have arrived at my opinions about the relative merits of the two theories based on my evaluation of the theories relative to the available evidence/data.
I am not interested in whether one or the other theory is backed by CSIRO or an outsider this is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that one theory, as per my previous comment, starts to give some direction for understanding the current situation with respect to elevated levels of carbon dioxide and stalled warming.
“If you cannot do that, the only rational alternative is to rely on an authority” this means you are not a skeptic. Many people who evaluate the evidence for the existance of god can not make up their minds so they rely on the authority of the priest. Your statement SJT makes you religious. There is no reason to rely on authority if you are a skeptic.
PS I will certainly be continuing to summarize aspects of the Miskolscki theory at this blog. Stay tuned!
“I call myself a sceptic,”
SJT, Ya coulda fooled me!
So c’mon, oblige us with one of your sceptical thoughts on AGW. I don’t think we’ve ever heard one.
But it’s nice to hear you say it.
The people you argue/debate with on this blog somehow seem much more sceptical.
How would you describe them?
And what do you reckon about Luke?
Another sceptic? Faux or super? Naahh….couldn’t be could it?
For me whether AGW has an A or not does not matter that much. My concern is more about what it is those of that persuasion reckon we should do because of it. The measures that are advocated will end western culture and not do anything measurable. The alarmists just do not convince me they have a reasonable answer to the surmised problem. Those who represent the green agenda here are either fools or represent this http://www.green-agenda.com/ it certainly makes more sense than they do as an explanation of motive.
SJT,
“I call myself a sceptic” and “the only rational alternative is to rely on an authority”
Your own words disprove your claim. For me, being a truly sceptic is, first and foremost, never to rely on authority to judge on the validity of an argument.
Furthermore, an sceptic does not need to be an expert in a field to be able to determine the likelyhood of a claim. Just a little common sense usually suffices. The procedure is very similar to that employed by a detective investigating a murder:
¿Who wins more with the death of the victim?
¿Who is providing the most inconsistent answers?
¿Who seems to be more nervous when confronted with the inconsistencies of its answers?
In this particular case, my dear friend, the AGW proponents look very suspicious to me.
DHMO, I do not think it will end our culture, but it will change things for the worse… there could actually be some winners in the west. Those that waste resources on current renewable energy sources and then sell these expensive resource wasting products to third world countries because they have been convinced of their efficacy. But does anyone seriously believe without a new energy source( or nuclear) that we can reduce co2 levels even if they are causing temp to increase??!! (6 billion people, half of which live a subsistence lifestyle and strive to be like us in the future??!!)
I find the current solar subsidies to be highly unethical. How can the govt spending 12,000 to subsidise my solar panels that in turn save me 400 per year actually be considered ethical?
I also get worried when politicians lecture me on ethics!
Manuel you also make a very relevant point…follow the money trail “believers” and where do you get to?
DHMO great link and everybody shoudl read it….these three quotes sum up why you should all be sceptical.
“We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts…
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.”
– Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world.”
– Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
so tell me its not all about politics and a “new world order”!
people be scared , be very very scared
“Your own words disprove your claim. For me, being a truly sceptic is, first and foremost, never to rely on authority to judge on the validity of an argument.”
You do not understand what scepticism is. The Australian sceptics put exactly that case.
I don’t accept AGW without evidence, there are copious amounts of evidence out there, starting with the Assessment Reports, and then there is all the research that the reports are based on. There is more evidence than one person could reasably be expected to understand. I have looked at the evidence, and it appears to be sound to me.
I have looked at the evidence against, and I am amazed at how shoddy and amateurish much of it is, with any evidence being accepted, no matter how poor. That G&T was so widely accepted was a shock. Fortunately, they seem to have now been rejected by several people here who used to support them.
But if you are going to ask me if I can explain in detail all the equations and physics involved in the case for and against, I am going to have to admit that I don’t. I’m only human, I don’t have a spare life to devote to learning all that is requried to understand climate in depth, to the extent that I could read Pierrehumberts free online cimate textbook, and pass an exam. And I can be quite confident there are precious few people here who could, if they agree with it or not.
On that basis, I have to defer to an authority. That is the official position of the Australian Skeptics Society, in fact.
Toby if we do what the Greens party in Australia advocates we certainly will end our society. They wish to stop use and export of all fossil fuels. Suggesting nuclear as a means is also not acceptable. Wind and solar just does not cut it. I think like the Xhosa they believe that if we cut all means of energy production that miraclously a new age will dawn. Some of the quotes on the green agenda site are about massive population reduction. If we went with Bob Brown and his mates certainly that is what would happen.
That’s interesting news about Christopher Game’s new thread on Miskolczi; as far as I can tell there are 3 issues with the Miskolczi theory;
1 Whether A_A =E_D; that is A_A is the atmospheric absorbed amount of surface emitted LW radiation and E_D is the downward radiation from the atmosphere, the so-called backradiation.
2 Whether eqn 7, SU [or S_G from fig 1] – (Fo + Po) + E_D – E_U = Fo + Po =OLR is valid where OLR is outgoing toa radiation. This is the Kirchoff part of the theory and Steve Short has some interesting things to say about this
3 Whether there is a radiative discontinuity at the boa surface and immediate atmosphere
Miskolczi has based a theory on empirical measurements; his theory assumes that the greenhouse effect is maximised and the pattern and form of water on the surface and in the atmosphere preserves that maximisation and a consequent homeostatic balance [a term which Christopher disapproves of] or dynamical equilibruim, as Miklos Zagoni describes it. Despite the objections of commentators like Nick Stokes there seems to be cogent NOAA evidence that SH, RH and optical depth have conformed to M theory over the last 40 years. As well, Richard Lindzen’s recent obervations about OLR increases also conform to M theory.
“Whether there is a radiative discontinuity at the boa surface and immediate atmosphere”
That would be a temperature discontinuity.
http://www.keypoint.com.au/~skeptics/
“STATEMENT on CLIMATE CHANGE:
The Australian Skeptics do not have an official position in the climate change debate. This is a question being decided by the Science community, and it is not our role to be arbiters of Science. It is up to each individual to make up their own mind. Theories in Science are accepted and rejected on the available evidence, not decided by numbers of people in favour, or by statements from authorities. However, in deciding on who is more likely to be correct, we would have more confidence in information that comes from peer reviewed journals and from scientists working in the field. “
“There will be more on Miskolcki, indeed I already have a blog post half written building on a note from Christopher Game about the limitations of focusing on temperature and the need to instead focus on specific humidity when one considers feedback mechanism and climate change.”
There is no focus on temperature, read the IPCC reports, they consider numerous aspects of global warming. Temperature is just a convenient means of summarising the change process, like a speedometer in a car, but what is happening under the covers is about far more than just temperature. I don’t believe you understand that case for AGW in any real depth.
Miskolczi offers an explanation, without any evidence.
“I find the argument compelling that problems of instability of global climate models stem from inadequate constraints. Miskolczi also presents considerable empirical data for both the Earth and Mars in support of the superiority of his new model of planetary atmospheres. The view of the atmospheric system as an equilibrated system occupying a kind of niche also appeals, although the challenge of this theory will be to explain temperature variability at longer scales adequately.”
What empirical evidence of Mars? Who has been releasing the radiosondes on that planet? You need to check your evidence.
http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-effect-in-semi-transparent-planetary-atmospheres-by-miskolczi-a-review/
I agree Jan; but doesn’t the temperature continuity depend on a radiative equilibrium as per eqn 4, E_D = S_U [1-TA] for all surface[s]?
Jen
I find your scientifically based skepticism proposition far from convincing. What you are conducting is an experiment in anarchic libertarianism perhaps using a genetic algorithm of crowds to shift through the chaos of argument to derive a position of truth – or maybe not truth – perhaps domination by last one standing.
But in doing so you continually emphasise the marginal and discount the majority. A scientific approach to skepticism would be devising a sifting process to work towards an objective. Not chaos.
We are also saturated in a blog political milieu which insists that the climate science must be wrong if the policy response is unpalatable. It also presumes that anyone supporting the AGW climate science is a fundamentalist Marxist green wanting to reduce global living standards and is in love with an ETS. That any AGW climate scientist is a catastrophist. That current climate is actually benign when it’s not. And that nuclear power would not be considered a technological fix by AGW science. We are also consumed by the distraction of cult personalities like Hansen, Gore, Flannery etc.
All this is illogical and irrelevant to the core climate science.
So to Parker, D., C. Folland, A. Scaife, J. Knight, A. Colman, P. Baines, and B. Dong (2007), Decadal to multidecadal variability and the climate change background, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D18115, doi:10.1029/2007JD008411.
Yourself and Coho have an updated Powerpoint version.
Abstract says in part:
Three prominent quasi-global patterns of variability and change are observed using the Met Office’s sea surface temperature (SST) analysis and almost independent night marine air temperature analysis. The first is a global warming signal that is very highly correlated with global mean SST. The second is a decadal to multidecadal fluctuation with some geographical similarity to the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO). It is associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and its Pacific-wide manifestation has been termed the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO). We present model investigations of the relationship between the IPO and ENSO. The third mode is an interhemispheric variation on multidecadal timescales which, in view of climate model experiments, is likely to be at least partly due to natural variations in the thermohaline circulation. Observed climatic impacts of this mode also appear in model simulations. Smaller-scale, regional atmospheric phenomena also affect climate on decadal to interdecadal timescales.
So two data sets back to the 1800s. No UHI arguments. A PC analysis is perhaps the simplest one could do. It shows a centennial warming trend – so called global warming as EOF1 – in BOTH time series of ocean temperatures.
The second EOF is the PDO/IPO signal. And the EOF3 represents variability in the thermohaline or AMO.
Temperature increase over the time period is not monotonic. The IPO and AMO interact to produce temporary periods of cooling. Indeed the current cooling period could easily fit into that category. We’ve been here before. A long term trend overlain with decadal to interdecadal wiggles.
So basing your case on “cooling since” 1998 is rather stupid and short sighted given the record.
The warming signal itself is a combination of solar and greenhouse forcing. A COMBINATION. So why does this blog continually resort to one factor – one dimensional analyses. Indeed a currently quieter Sun will likely reduce energy input which drives the greenhouse response. Add a La Nina or two and you have quite a dip.
Quite a temporary dip.
The models DO NOT produce monotonic rises in temperature – which Sod has shown. And indeed model averages for each model are composed of an ensemble of runs. Any of these ensembles do not produce monotonic increases.
The Hadley Centre in the UK now have a major research initiative on decadal and interdecadal influences. You have failed singularly to report this major development and its implications.
The parameters for Hadley’s decadal research:
• Predict changes in the distribution of upper ocean heat content and land surface air temperature from (a) initial ocean conditions and (b) projected forcing changes.
• Change on decadal time scales can be due to natural variations in the global ocean circulation, particularly the thermohaline circulation. El Nino/La Nina variations can strongly affect interannual changes.
• Changes over a decade or two importantly forced by increasing greenhouse gases and other forcing factors. Includes the “warming commitment” offset by anthropogenic and any volcanic aerosols. Regional land surface changes could be included if understood.
And importantly for individual places on the globe – this blog’s stupid and slavish demands that AGW effects must be uniform will be dashed. Folland et al conclude:
• Large scale natural modes of interdecadal variability exist. Likely to have substantial regional effects on climate “even remotely”.
• Regional effects of natural modes can produce regional climate trends.
• Regional climate variations/change must be increasingly understood as a combined consequence of natural variability and anthropogenic forcing.
I could go on into some of those regional impacts. But that’s enough to illustrate the point. The case for warming is compelling. Decadal variation exists. You have not explored it. How different forcings and decadal – inter-decadal variation interacts, masks and reinforces -abandoned in the debate.
You have given us no methodology except anarchic libertarianism for progressing the debate. You conflated climate science, green/right politics, greenhouse mitigation, and standard of living in analysis of climate science. Or at least the participants love to do it.
No evidence of anything but faux sceptics on the radar.
cohenite: I agree Jan; but doesn’t the temperature continuity depend on a radiative equilibrium as per eqn 4, E_D = S_U [1-TA] for all surface[s]?
Not at all, if radiation equilibrium is all you have there is absolutely no guarantee of temperature continuity I mean the sun and earth are in radiative equilibrium on the average [quasi] there is quite a difference in temperature (5799 -> 279K). It has to do with the inverse square law of radiative intensity. The temperature continuity is purely a conductive/convective affair with perhaps a little latent heat thrown in. In fact with Aa=Ed we can’t really say that radiation warms the atmosphere at all since it’s sending back what heat it absorbs.
“Who has been releasing the radiosondes on that planet?”
Who is the idiot that asked this question?
If he spent a little time he would find the data he needs at the NASA and a few other websites as well it’ doesn’t require radiosondes those boys are getting quite good at remote sensing with the various Mars probes that have been sent.
SJT,
You accept AGW with evidence that satisfies your reliance on the authority of those presenting the evidence.
And, from your vigorous defense of AGW on other threads, you do so unquestioningly.
You out of hand reject those who question the evidence you have accepted on authority and denigrate those who dare question hwat you have accepted.
That is not a skeptical position.
That is a true believer’s position.
Yes Jan, I expressed myself poorly; the issue should be can you have a temperature continuity at BOA between the surface and the immediate atmosphere with a radiative imbalance at the same place?
luke; that is your clearest statement about AGW; however I can’t agree that it is synonymous with the prevailing definition of AGW and I can’t agree with your description of the role of anthropogenic forcing; otherwise what you say is not controversial and, as I have said, I hope to soon have a similar analysis on the role of PDO over the various timescales of climate variability and a new approach to determining temperature trend over those periods both regionally and globally.
I am a skeptic, I take no offense when someone identifies me as such. I accept that during the 20th century the climate warmed slightly. I am thankful for that warmth and what it provided for man. I accept that man’s activities on earth have, to some extent, contributed to the minor increase in global mean temperatures.
I recognize the fact that our very existence causes change. That is unavoidable. Man’s mere presence on earth causes a change in environment and temperatures. Crowd 100 people into a small unheated room on a cool day. The room temperature will rise. Does man cause an increase in near surface global temperatures? Yes, without a doubt. However, our CO2 emissions are NOT the source of man’s greatest impact on the climate. They have a very, very, small effect. The greatest changes caused by man are due to deforestation, land-use, and urbanization. Yet, no one advocates reforestation of agricultural lands, removal of roadways, leveling of cities and towns then replacing them with forests, etc.
One side of the issue arrogantly declares that natural variations at times hide the destructive warming caused by man. On the other hand, they deny that natural variations and forcing have played a role in the warming out of the LIA which occurred during the past century. Man tends to think in terms of a lifetime, or at best a century, when looking at ‘the big picture’. The warming of the last century was in reality not a significant trend. It was a fortuitous event for man, little more. Lets look at some ‘long term’ averages over time. ( I will use very rough numbers).
What is the global mean temperature for earth (since formation)?
About 22 C / 71.6 F
Admittedly that unfairly skews the picture somewhat due to the extreme temperatures during the early years of earth’s existence. After all… a fire ball is a fire ball. So what if we pare it down to more recent times?
What is the global mean temperature for earth over the last 50 million years?
About 17 C / 62.6 F
Still far warmer than today. Since we are essentially talking about man let us bring the scope of time a bit closer.
What the average temperature over the last 500,000 years?
About 5 – 7 C / or 41 – 44.6 F
Oh my goodness !!! Cooler than the present 53 degree Fahrenheit / 11.6 degrees Celsius.
Cooler than present but at a level where man, beast, and crops struggle to survive. A level at which 60% or more of the present 6 billion people in the world would perish. A level at which our power grids would fail, our homes would fail to provided adequate protection (sans massive energy consumption), our transportation systems would collapse, food sources would rapidly drop 50 – 70 %.
Then ask what the ‘comfort zone’ for man, beast and crop is.
About 10.5 – 13.6 C / 50.9 – 56.5 F
On my blog I have a video series titled Stories From The Stone Age. Not only does this documentary provide and insight into the advancement of man it also shows early civilizations adapting to an ever changing climate and regional conditions. An ever present condition of change is something that we really should be aware of and prepared for. During the Stone Age man faced an ever changing climate. Can modern man?
Many feel that ‘modern man’ is better suited to adapt than early man was. We are, however, in some ways less capable. We are dependent upon modern technology for heat, for cooling, for water, for food, for transportation. If any one, or combination of those, is compromised we have a very serious problem. We are so tied to them that our societies would quickly crumble without them. Where early man could quickly adapt, we cannot.
What is always a large factor in adaptation during modern times is the economic ability to do so. Destroying our economies pursuing corrections to mythical / non-existent problems (such as catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) places an inhibitor on our ability to adapt to climate change especially cooling.
Modern man has been most fortunate, lucky. But, geologic history indicates we cannot expect to live in our current utopia forever. It is time for man to focus on adapting to the climate. Attempting to control it, to change it, is futile and irresponsible. Part of the science community, and most of the political community are failing to maintain ethic and pursuit of the moral responsibility they have to mankind. They have been seduced by ill gotten fame, power, and money.
Al Gore, Hansen, the IPCC and others promise a great deal. The problem is; their track record as prophets is dismal. The upward slope of the IPCC model projections reflect nothing that compares to climate realities. On the other hand, that slope does reflect the increase in Gore’s bank account and also the projected increase in governmental revenues in from taxes, fees, and fines levied in the false name of controlling the climate.
Some say the cooling of the last decade or even cooling for the next couple of decades is insignificant. Okay. In a way I can accept that. But, I would also expect the warming during the last three decades off the 20th century to be likewise discounted as insignificant. In fact, lets throw out the entire 20th century. It was nothing more than a ripple in the slope of a larger, longer, trend of great significance.
The true long term temperature trend for more than the last 6,500 years is cooling. No computer, no national or international program, no tax dollar, can change that.
“the issue should be can you have a temperature continuity at BOA between the surface and the immediate atmosphere with a radiative imbalance at the same place?”
If observed at any instant I would say always. Atmospheric temperatures lag surface temperatures by a up to couple of hours. In this plot for instance the red is the absorbed Su(1-Ta)<Ed so the atmosphere is cooling another time you’ll se it warming i.e. two sinusoids out of phase. On the average however over the daily cycle therefore I would say no.
“One side of the issue arrogantly declares that natural variations at times hide the destructive warming caused by man” – why is that arrogant. Why wouldn’t it be complex. Why would you think it would be simplistic?
“Does man cause an increase in near surface global temperatures? Yes, without a doubt. However, our CO2 emissions are NOT the source of man’s greatest impact on the climate. They have a very, very, small effect. The greatest changes caused by man are due to deforestation, land-use, and urbanization.” – well maybe not – clearing and aerosols overall have probably increased albedo.
Lee like most you think the current climate benign – this is the time we now live in – not some unpopulated stone age past. 6 billion humans going to 9 billion. 30 days food security. Consider the MWP a “dry run” – hahahahahahaha
Small movements in temperature herniate as regional changes in circulation and oscillations.
Not to know or to attempt to understand is blind stupidity.
Another reason why skeptics are jsutified and vindicated is that AGW promoters use falsehoods veneered with authority to sell their positions.
The recent Presidential promotional study on AGW, exagerrating and mis-stating global warming and risks of warming is a great example of this:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/06/obamas-phil-cooney-and-new-ccsp-report.html
Only a one-eyed alien could miss the implications of such high handed, deliberate corruption the part of AGW promoters.
Jennifer,
I am sceptical that the majority of people who accept the science on AGW can be labeled religious. As you are aware Jennifer I know little bit about religion because as I have posted before I’m a theologically conservative christian by intellectual choice and a secularist by culture (though you did seem to push back against that ) and as a part of that I don’t believe in things like ID or creationism.
I’m sceptical about the use of the word religious to describe those who accept the science on AGW.
So what I would like from the bloggers here is why they think why I might be ‘religious’ about AGW given I know a little about being religious, perhaps they could offer up some evidence along with it and what exactly do they mean when they throw around the word ‘religious’ with such gay abandon. For example I have never seen a scientist from the CSIRO or BOM doing a happy clappy over AGW nor talk about feelings over it or emoting or any of the ignorant baggage our society attaches to the word whether they are a Richard Dawkins cheerleader, an eastern suburbs mystic or a shiny faced happy clapper from North West Sydney.
Is using the word ‘religious’ over AGW just being derogatory rather than being sceptical?
Oooops! about repeating my sentences
Comment from: Luke June 24th, 2009 at 12:58 am
why is that arrogant. Why wouldn’t it be complex. Why would you think it would be simplistic?
Complex is what the climate is. Arrogance is what is apparent when it gets divided into two simple categories; Natural cooling & anthropogenic warming.
Comment from: Luke June 24th, 2009 at 12:58 am –
well maybe not – clearing and aerosols overall have probably increased albedo.
True, but that does not negate the validity of my statement.
Comment from: Luke June 24th, 2009 at 12:58 am
Lee like most you think the current climate benign
Not at all. If you re-read from a position of objectivity I think you will find that I have reflected a dynamic climate. To that I will add that earths climate has been in the past and still remains with the potential to be both volatile and unpredictable. Make note that I indicated man should be learning to adapt to climate change in either direction.
Comment from: Luke June 24th, 2009 at 12:58 am
– this is the time we now live in – not some unpopulated stone age past. 6 billion humans going to 9 billion. 30 days food security.
Would a larger population at the time prevented the need to migrate? Would a larger population at the time prevented a fertile middle east from changing in to an arid region?
Don’t laugh at their 30 food supply. Most homes today have less as well as most cities. We live in the moment and dependent upon quick and readily available resupply. Most are incapable of surviving without it.
Comment from: Luke June 24th, 2009 at 12:58 am
Small movements in temperature herniate as regional changes in circulation and oscillations.
All elements of the climate are in continuous flux and we currently do not have the ability to make all of the connections, define all mechanisms, or quantify many factors.
Comment from: Luke June 24th, 2009 at 12:58 am
Not to know or to attempt to understand is blind stupidity.
Not knowing can be corrected by learning but one cannot learn with full comprehension if they leave 1/2 of the alphabet and 1/2 of the numerals out of their educational material. Doing so is blind stupidity and pretending to know something that one does not / cannot fully understand at present is dishonest.
“You accept AGW with evidence that satisfies your reliance on the authority of those presenting the evidence.
And, from your vigorous defense of AGW on other threads, you do so unquestioningly.
You out of hand reject those who question the evidence you have accepted on authority and denigrate those who dare question hwat you have accepted.
That is not a skeptical position.
That is a true believer’s position.”
You are just one more person here with a poor understanding of the complexities of the issue, who is prepared to deny the science without even really knowing why. That is not skepticism, that is ignorance. I agree with the statement on the matter by the Australian skeptics. Since I do not have the education or time to understand the in depth science, the only rational option is to go with the accepted science. I do that with many areas of science. When I go to the doctor, I like to ask for explanations of medication and how it works, it does not take me long to be way out of my depth on that too. When I fly in a modern jet, I don’t check that I understand how all the systems work, I take it on authority that it will fly and get me to my destination safely.
Jennifer, have you seen the this post at Anthony’s blog? ISS had best balcony seat for volcanic eruption
It’s a real world illustration of the Miskolczi effect in action.
A volcano erupts spewing volumes of co2 from a point source. What is the effect? It evacuates water vapor from the air in it’s vicinity.
What could be more poetic? What could be more obvious? What would be a more dramatic?
While the alarmist try and sell evaporative heating to the public, we have the sublime truth of nature literally shooting holes in their nonsense.
Drivel Mayeau
Science 26 April 2002:
Vol. 296. no. 5568, pp. 727 – 730
Global Cooling After the Eruption of Mount Pinatubo: A Test of Climate Feedback by Water Vapor
Brian J. Soden,1* Richard T. Wetherald,1 Georgiy L. Stenchikov,2 Alan Robock2
The sensitivity of Earth’s climate to an external radiative forcing depends critically on the response of water vapor. We use the global cooling and drying of the atmosphere that was observed after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo to test model predictions of the climate feedback from water vapor. Here, we first highlight the success of the model in reproducing the observed drying after the volcanic eruption. Then, by comparing model simulations with and without water vapor feedback, we demonstrate the importance of the atmospheric drying in amplifying the temperature change and show that, without the strong positive feedback from water vapor, the model is unable to reproduce the observed cooling. These results provide quantitative evidence of the reliability of water vapor feedback in current climate models, which is crucial to their use for global warming projections.
James Mayeau,
Excellent spotting – one of the reasons many geologists are sceptics to AGW. Look carefully at the morphology of the cloud and the contrasting circular hole in the clouds – notice the wind drift of the volcanic plume? (Off drilling for 2 weeks from now).
Good luck Louis.
SJT “On that basis, I have to defer to an authority. That is the official position of the Australian Skeptics Society, in fact.”
You do not understand what is being said. You say the concept that we are all going to hell because of emmisions is beyond reasonable doubt because someone else told you so. That is it has consenus so you believe. Besides that the Victorian skeptics group does not speak for all skeptics. You are interpreting this in your typical predjudical religious way.
BTW the skeptics society was first formed in NSW, when formed they decided to call themselves the Australian Skeptics Society. They are not a central group who has any authority other skeptic group. What you said is your typical misleading nonsense, I doubt you can recognise a fact.
Luke: “without the strong positive feedback from water vapor”
So what is it that makes me sceptical? It’s the fact that I see little evidence of the understanding of feedback required. In fact I have only seen evidence of one climate scientist that does. While there may be more I have seen no evidence that Brian Soden is among them.
Luke June 24th, 2009 at 8:27 am
Models again? Heh.
Luke you ignorant, misguided…
All you show is that scientists know they are full of crap, and still push the lie.
I’ll save that, (Science 26 April 2002: Vol. 296. no. 5568, pp. 727 – 730
Global Cooling After the Eruption of Mount Pinatubo: A Test of Climate Feedback by Water Vapor – Brian J. Soden,) for the trial.
It goes to showing intent. Malice of forethought.
Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback increase temperature in Europe
Rolf Philipona
Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center, Davos Dorf, Switzerland
Bruno Dürr
MeteoSwiss, Zürich, Switzerland
Atsumu Ohmura
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zürich, Switzerland
Christian Ruckstuhl
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zürich, Switzerland
Europe’s temperature increases considerably faster than the northern hemisphere average. Detailed month-by-month analyses show temperature and humidity changes for individual months that are similar for all Europe, indicating large-scale weather patterns uniformly influencing temperature. However, superimposed to these changes a strong west-east gradient is observed for all months. The gradual temperature and humidity increases from west to east are not related to circulation but must be due to non-uniform water vapour feedback. Surface radiation measurements in central Europe manifest anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback, enhancing the forcing and temperature rise by about a factor of three. Solar radiation decreases and changing cloud amounts show small net radiative effects. However, high correlation of increasing cloud-free longwave downward radiation with temperature (r = 0.99) and absolute humidity (r = 0.89), and high correlation between ERA-40 integrated water vapor and CRU surface temperature changes (r = 0.84), demonstrates greenhouse forcing with strong water vapor feedback.
Received 25 May 2005; accepted 17 August 2005; published 8 October 2005.
Citation: Philipona, R., B. Dürr, A. Ohmura, and C. Ruckstuhl (2005), Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback increase temperature in Europe, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L19809, doi:10.1029/2005GL023624.
The concept of radiative equilibrium originates from the false physics of glass greenhouses. It was wrongly believed that glass prevented the exit of infrared light, which thereby caused light to build up inside the enclosure until its radiant “pressure” was enough to overcome the barrier. When outgoing energy equaled incoming, radiative equilibrium was achieved.
True enough, glass is opaque to thermal IR. In actual fact, however, the only thing a greenhouse does is confine heated air and limit convective cooling. More disturbing, though, is that heating by radiative disequilibrium has never been demonstrated. Nor can it be. For it requires an object to release all the radiant energy impinging on it yet simultaneously confine this radiation inside a zone which becomes hotter than the radiant source can make it. Dream on.
Since, as all greenhouse theorists must, Miskolczi subscribes to the concept of radiative equilibrium, I’m disappointed that Jennifer has so eagerly adopted his compromise position as her own.
Cohenite,
thanks “BMY”
Alan Siddons
helps to think of the Earth as a leaky capacitor and work the physics from that. (It is immersed in the electrically active plasma of space and given the Themis Mission data, and given the known millions of amperes of charged particles entering in and out of the earth’s polar regions, greenhouse gas theory is what you use to explain the observations when you are ignorant of the electrodynamic system).
Alan
” More disturbing, though, is that heating by radiative disequilibrium has never been demonstrated. For it requires an object to release all the radiant energy impinging on it yet simultaneously confine this radiation inside a zone which becomes hotter than the radiant source can make it.”
I’m not sure what you are getting at here. Sure if the source is cooler that cannot be the case but if the source is hotter it can be like when I stand very close to a fire it warms me up (it’s bloody cold here at the moment). I have also done the control system for numerous vacuum forming machines, like the blisters tablets come it, the film is always heated radiatively as there is not enough time for convection to heat the work sufficiently.
JC; I think you are being a bit disingenuous with your disclaimer that AGW is not a religion or has religious elements; one thread of Jennifer’s series was devoted to this;
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/defining-the-greens-part-6/#more-4990
and if you google global warming or AGW and religion take your pick from thousands; even the basic scenario is strongly reasonant; ie, a pristine nature benevolantly providing for mankind who becomes arrogant, develops technology [knowledge] which removes humanity from nature with potential dire consequences; sound familiar?
Jan; the time element of the various equilibriums and [dis]continuities at boundaries is a key point and brings us back to LTE effects; rather than go OT here I’ll probably wait for Jennifer’s post on M.
luke; you are incorrigible; water as a +ve feedback and Philipona on the same thread! Outrageous! Even if CO2 does increase atmospheric water the AGW crew are still confused by the different affects of water in different forms and locations; this is definitely not a winner for AGW.
As for Philipona, I am still waiting for your response to this;
http://biocab.org/Induced_Emission.html
Luke,
Interesting citation.
Could another reading of the abstract be that the water vapor dependency of the model reflects a problem of the model?
“For the trial” – hahahahahahaha – you pretentious little turd. You won’t be doing anything except changing your nappy.
Hunter – this could be one of your silliest statements of all time. I reckon a denialist could sell you the Golden Gate bridge. No it actually checks the model out AOK ! a duh !
What is more likely – that nations of the west self bankrupt only to find out that 0.004 degrees of cooling amounts to nothing?
Or the people of the world vote idiots who indulged AGW out of office, install attorneys with the specific task of procecuting the climate fraudsters who profited from the duplicity?
Luke, you should be working on an alibi, getting your tax filings up to date, and such.
Louis,
Could be, could be, could be. Then again, could be that the initial temperature estimate is wrong. As I’ve outlined before, here’s the accepted method of determining a planet’s temperature. Take Mars, for instance. Mars is exposed to a solar radiance of about 589.2 W/m². Reflective loss makes that 441.9. Dividing by four to distribute over a sphere’s surface area yields 110.475. Plug 110.475 into a blackbody equation and you get 210.09 K.
Same as NASA’s estimate: 210.1 K.
There’s no mystery involved in calculating a planet’s temperature. The only mystery is that climate scientists have never challenged the legitimacy of this mindlessly arbitrary procedure — especially as regards a planet copiously endowed with heat-retentive water. In my opinion, the theory of a greenhouse effect, being an attempt to explain the disparity between real and predicted temperatures, is an artifact of a math error.
Only if you accept Jennifers lie that this is about “greens” vs “skeptics”. It is not, it is about science vs property rights.
“As for Philipona, I am still waiting for your response to this;”
Biocab? You can safely ignore him. There are many science loners out there, wondering why no no one is insterested in their ignorance.
“There are many science loners out there, wondering why no no one is insterested in their ignorance.”
I’m sure you know how that feels. However biocab seems to have a better following than you do.
Sure, he has picked up a bunch of ignorant deniers, as far as science goes, how do his papers and references rate on climate?
“how do his papers and references rate on climate?”
Better than any of yours I should think
“I am reluctant to summarize the key paper you refer to – I doubt I could do it justice and I risk misrepresenting some of the complexities of the physics – I would prefer to continue to make links between aspects of the paper and the available evidence and the work of others. ”
In other words, you don’t understand it, but you will keep using it as evidence even though respected scientists think the paper is utter rubbish, just to further your political agenda of property rights.
SJT, considering what an ETS will achieve without an alternative energy source, I would say that property rights trump the science any day. If its true there is currently sweet FA we can do about it in all reality. Unless a new world order does take over and we decide to cull a huge portion of the worlds population.
Whether you believe in the science or not, the politics is at the heart of what is going on.
Do you honestly believe an ETS will achieve anything?
Do you really think the subsidy to solar of 12k for a saving of 400 per annum is actually ethically sound? economically sensible ( ie using scarce resources wisely?) [ note i recognise it has now been removed]
This does not mean trying to cut ones own personal co2 is a bad thing, far from it is a very sensible thing because it saves us money if it is done sensibly and is economically sound.
If you can afford to get off the grid and use solar/ wind etc then that is fantastic, but we are heading to an environment where we will be made to do things via the price mechanism and or the good old carbon cops.
Sorry but I am completely against being controlled by others…within reason..arent you?
luke, that Soden [love that name] paper suggests that less water in the atmosphere created by the eruption creates cooling; a number of things about that; eruptions increase albedo and cool in that fashion [although they tend to warm in the stratosphere]; paleo studies suggest that it is the absence of clouds and their albedo which leads to warming;
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002914.html
In addition Spencer and Lindzen’s work show that the location of the cloud is also important with high clouds warming and low clouds cooling. So, a simple statement like increased atmospheric water leads to warming cannot be made because depending on where that water is, and its form, increased water may reduce temperature trend.
Little will “even though respected scientists think the paper is utter rubbish”
Can you point us to the refutation in the peer reviewed literature it has been out over two years now still haven’t seen any. Robespierre promised one over a year ago and still nothing. I’m glad no one is holding their breath for it.
“Can you point us to the refutation in the peer reviewed literature it has been out over two years now still haven’t seen any. Robespierre promised one over a year ago and still nothing. I’m glad no one is holding their breath for it.”
Why should they have to refute nonsense? The paper is like G&T, so bad it is not worth the time, they have better things to do with their lives.
Eli Rabett has used some of his spare time to use his team of merry helpers to write up a refutation of G&T, if you care to follow it up. The paper that was so bad that Gavin thought even the denialspere wouldn’t believe it.
““how do his papers and references rate on climate?”
Better than any of yours I should think”
In other words, nothing.
eli and his team of merry helpers; stop it little will, you’re cracking me up!
Will “Why should they have to refute nonsense?”
Many little people in this world ridicule what they don’t understand. I think it’s just possible that’s what is happening here they are so far out of their depth, even Robespierres students may have had difficulty. Perhaps you can help them out. I await your, bound to be, brilliant response.
“In other words, nothing.”
Better than yours translates to > 0.
“Many little people in this world ridicule what they don’t understand. I think it’s just possible that’s what is happening here they are so far out of their depth, even Robespierres students may have had difficulty. Perhaps you can help them out. I await your, bound to be, brilliant response.”
The fact that it wasn’t published by NASA wasn’t because they couldn’t understand it, it was because it is nonsense. The paper is pathetic. The blogosphere has dealt with it in the depth it deserves.
Tiny will “The fact that it wasn’t published by NASA wasn’t because they couldn’t understand it”
NASA withdrew it they didn’t ridicule it and they haven’t said why they did so are you now claiming to be psychic or privy to knowledge from within NASA?
Now there was a promise from Robespierre that his student’s would refute it we haven’t seen it either in published literature or in the blogosphere, so are you going to entertain us with your brilliance and refute it. “because it is nonsense” doesn’t cut it. For instance is there a problem with the derivation in appendix B or the description of the method in appendix A? Do you know how to test for instance if there is an optimum for equation 20. Come let’s see you show off some of that knowledge that is far superior than an atmospheric/radiation physicist with 30 years experience whose fingeprint are on a number of the satelites that are orbiting the earth.
While you are at it you can also rubbish the data on the basis that he calibrated the instruments on the satellite used by these by These guys and therefore their paper must be total rubbish. You are aware of course that the basis of the paper are observations and computations, for example figure 2, and here used to check the calibration of the GLI instrument on the CERES satellite. If one is wrong so is the other.
Dear Jennifer,
Please keep your excellent website. Keep your skeptical mind.
I would like to contribute my view on the word “skeptics” being from Germany.
May grandfather and father were told in the “Third Reich” by scientific authority that scientists have scientific evidence that other races are inferior. However, my father and grandfather did never believe that evidence although being uneducated and poor farmers. I question all of you, should they have yielded to authority?
Germany brought about a lot of death throughout the earth through people yielding to such an authority. My father and grandfather, because of that experience, taught my brother and me to keep an independent and skeptical mind in any circumstance of life.
Another kind of authority ruined the eastern part of Germany in the years after world war two.
Deep in my heart I believe that independent and skeptical citizens are the cornerstones of our western society. Moreover I think democracy can only be developed and kept, if the citizens are independent.
Science that proudly, respectfully and competently accepts skeptical views is the only science I can accept and I think the only appropriate for a democratic society.
With Best regards and thanks again for your excellent post.
Günter Heß (Guenter Hess)
Jeremy C wrote:
“I’m sceptical about the use of the word religious to describe those who accept the science on AGW.
So what I would like from the bloggers here is why they think why I might be ‘religious’ about AGW given I know a little about being religious, perhaps they could offer up some evidence along with it and what exactly do they mean when they throw around the word ‘religious’ with such gay abandon.”
Fair question. Yes, in general, it’s difficult to define the essence of “religious”. But in this context, “religious” means internalizing The Voice of Authority to the extent that one mindlessly rejects the overwhelming evidence that The Voice has his head up his arse.
Example. One of the central claims of the AGW religion is that CO2 contributed SIGNIFICANTLY to the global warming that we experienced back in the late 20th Century. Wet Blanket Larry says that there’s ZERO evidence for that.
Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So what? The $64 trillion question is: To what extent? The ONLY ‘evidence’ that atmospheric CO2 played a SIGNIFICANT role in the most recent global warming cycle comes from bull$hit computer models that have ZERO predictive value. You’ll recall from Scientific Literacy 101 that the best way to partially validate a typical theory is to look at the predicted consequences, and then to throw rocks at the hypothesis, in order to see if it holds up under scrutiny in real-world experiments and in measurements of things that happen in the natural world outside the laboratory. (As I pointed out in another thread, a big exception to this generality is Natural Selection, which is an extremely useful tautology.)
The computer models used by the IPCC make arbitrary assumptions about the effects of CO2, and conveniently hold the control variables–astronomy and volcanic activity–from past warming and cooling cycles constant. A basic principle from logic: If you make a false assumption, then you can ‘prove’ essentially anything. IOW: garbage in, garbage out. In this particular case, masturbating with silicon simply does not cut the mustard for truly independent thinkers. (Pardon the mixed metaphor.) When possible, getting off your duff and comparing hypothesis with external reality is a much better approach.
So yes, AGW is a secular religion, in the sense that I’ve described. The people who subscribe to the AGW hypothesis fall into 4 main categories: profiteers, control-freaks in governments everywhere and in certain NGOs, scientific prostitutes, and a lot of True Believers who function as useful idiots for the high priests in the first 2 categories, who are laughing up their sleeves.
Ironically, Europeans are more accepting of AGW than Merkins, because Merkins are more anti-intellectual, have an inherent distrust of people they regard as ‘eggheads’, and sometimes consider the inability to see beyond the end of one’s nose to be a virtue. Moreover Christian Fundamentalists (approximately 20% of the US population) regard apocalyptic scenarios as their turf. Grrr!
Larry – do you know why there are earthquakes?
“Larry – do you know why there are earthquakes?”
Yeah we haven’t been throwing food parcels down the ravines near fault lines to appease the gods down there.
Luke,
“Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback increase temperature in Europe”
Yes, that would be why my friend from Berne was freezing comparatively the last couple of winters and the summers have been average at best. Why the snow cover has been earlier and later with great skiing… She’s been hinting she wants to move here for the weather!!
Boy Luke, y’all and the modellers sure got that pegged huh??
Wanna let us in on those emprircal measurements that support your fantasy NOW, not 20 years ago??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Cohenite, Sorry i’ve come to you post late
You wrote:
“you google global warming or AGW and religion take your pick from thousands; even the basic scenario is strongly reasonant; ie, a pristine nature benevolantly providing for mankind who becomes arrogant, develops technology [knowledge] which removes humanity from nature with potential dire consequences; sound familiar?”
Hmm….. ‘sounds familiar’, well here’s an exercise for you Cohers , take your training and go and read through a good english translation of gen 1 ter 3 very, very carefully and and prove to me where it matches up with your above comment (I will exclude the beautiful english of the King James version for this exercise, and don’t use the the Latin Vulgate). Here is a clue before you start reading, write down on a piece of paper what you think your presuppositions might be about this piece of writing. You up for it?
Larry,
“But in this context, “religious” means internalizing The Voice of Authority to the extent that one mindlessly rejects the overwhelming evidence that The Voice has his head up his arse.”
Why is that a definition of the word ‘religion’ Is that just your definition because it certainly sounds like it. So matey, I am perfectly willing for you to try and prove prove that as a christian i mindlessly reject evidence and that i internalise a voice of authority and Jesus has his head up his arse (don’t worry gentle listeners if you have read any of the gospels you will realise Jesus would’nt worry about such comments, he wasn’t some sort of wussy metro sexual like Ian Thorpe. Please don’t flutter your delicate hands about your face in consternation).
Because if you are wrong about the above Larry then you gonna be wrong about AGW being a religion……….. you up for these challenges?
But, as I’ve said on this blog before convincing people that AGW is religion was perhaps the best propaganda coup the denialists have ever produced about global warming. I really mean that, very effective! Lots of people have swallowed it. Here in the UK I see newspaper commentators mindlessly repeating it all the time and just the other week watching the download of Q&A off the ABC website I watched Barnaby Joyce mindlessly repeating it with red faced excitement while bouncing up and down doing his impression of an excited Puffer fish.
Jeremy,
What part of the word “context” are you failing to understand? It should have been clear from the CONTEXT that I was mainly talking about AGW as a SECULAR religion. There are other secular religions. Free Market Fundamentalism, for example.
I was NOT saying that Jesus had his head up his ass. How could I? I don’t even know if he existed. For all I know, he could be another urban legend, like that Johnny-come-lately, the Flying CO2 Monster.
But yes, True Believers of all stripes–secular or otherwise–often manifest narrow mindedness, intellectual dishonesty, intolerance, and the inability to understand simple English when they feel threatened by heretics. If the foo shits, wear it.
Larry.
Using secular context as an argument is no argument. The guy who worships his mint condition 1971 orange Charger is being just as religious as someone who prays to buddha.
As to
“I was NOT saying that Jesus had his head up his ass. How could I? I don’t even know if he existed. For all I know, he could be another urban legend, like that Johnny-come-lately, the Flying CO2 Monster.” Good grief what lazy thinking lay behind that.
You should be able to see three things from what I posted.
1. Labeling someone as ‘religious’ is a way of putting people down in our society
2. Labeling people who accept the science of AGW as religious has been a great propaganda coup.
3. I’m going to laugh at you trying to pin the ‘believers of all stripes…..’ stuff.
So Larry, show me why people who accept the science of AGW are mindlessly accepting the voice of authority, as say I am also doing with christianity, because I think you are just repeating propaganda re AGW and I’m challenging you to show me that you aren’t repeating propaganda and all you are doing is twisting about.
jeremy
Labeling someone as ‘religious’ is a way of putting people down in our society
For some yes I don’t think everybody is that way inclined. It’s just a way of saying that faith has supplanted empiricism where it aught not to have.
Ala Anthony Watts latest the Voice of Authority (in this case the EPA) has adopted a different twist. The new dogma is that the march of regression is too far along to be stopped now without damage to the Voice of Authority’s – uh Authority.
So were going to screw that sciency stuff, and continue marching into the dark ages, complete with international trade wars, because otherwise it would be embarassing to the EPA.
And that would just never do —– right?
Jan,
“For some yes I don’t think everybody is that way inclined. It’s just a way of saying that faith has supplanted empiricism where it aught not to have.”
What a cop out! For years denialists have been barking “religious” at anyone who accepts the science on AGW. The first time I challenge it all someone can come up with is a bit of mumbling. A bit pathetic.
“For some yes I don’t think everybody is that way inclined. It’s just a way of saying that faith has supplanted empiricism where it aught not to have.”
Everyone has to go out and do all their science research now? Good luck with that.
” For years denialists have been barking “religious” at anyone who accepts the science on AGW.”
A bit hyper sensitive are we?
“Everyone has to go out and do all their science research now?”
No will I just expect them to have enough wits about to know when a chart is going down and someone says it’s really going up to realise the person saying that is having them on.
Oh come on Jan,
Your above post is a full scale retreat on the whole religious label for people who accept the science of AGW. No one else is defending it and I wrote earlier how I think it was a great propaganda coup – I genuinely think that. As to calling me hypersensitive, well….I’m …. laughing so hard I can barely type this. C’mon Jan don’t tell me a soft brained religious type has sent all you brave denialists scurrying for cover unless of course you realise that the religious label on AGW has always just been propaganda.
Jeremy,
I’ve answered your original question. You’re welcome.
Have you brought anything to the table? Well, let’s see. You did mention the Bible. And you did let fly with a couple of your little choreographed tantrums.
Gee whiz, that’s really impressive. What do you do for an encore? $hit on the carpet?
Larry,
The encore is………… you are just avoiding the question. After all you brought up the guff about internalising the voice of authority as an explanation of why you hold to the propaganda that accepting the science of AGW is a ‘religion’. You think a logical argument is putting two words together (secular + religion) preceded and followed by a string of non connected and baseless statements. Then when challenged you start blustering and throw up more baseless statements e.g. my supposed reaction.
So Larry back to the question, give us all a real explanation as to why accepting the science of AGW is a religion or is it time to admit to you’ve being taken in by the propaganda.
“No will I just expect them to have enough wits about to know when a chart is going down and someone says it’s really going up to realise the person saying that is having them on.”
You know very well that charts of a system that go up and down, that is as complex as the climate, is going to have large excursions from the long term trend.
SJT:
Yes I do I also know that you can fiddle the window in a time series analysis. I am of course talking about Stefan Rahmstorf’s latest effort obliterating the recent downturn in sea surface temperature in figure 3 page 9 where he has used by the look of it a 14 year window rather than the 11 year window claimed. Stunts like are not complex.
JC, if you accept the science for AGW and reject the science against it you refuse to be sceptical.
In the sceptics opinion the science against is at least as strong as the science for so they remain sceptical.
In your situation you accept one and reject the other when both exist.
You really can’t complain when that is claimed to be a religious argument.
Particularly when you accuse sceptics of being deniers even though it is you who is actually denying.
Jeremy wrote:
“So Larry back to the question, give us all a real explanation as to why accepting the science of AGW is a religion or is it time to admit to you’ve being taken in by the propaganda.”
At the risk of being repetitive, I’ll try to explain this in a way that even Little Jeremy can understand. The presumptive science of AGW can be put under 4 headings:
1. The increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
2. The period of global warming in the late 20th Century.
3. The putative cause-and-effect relationship between the 1 and 2.
4. The not-very-nice consequences if 3 is true, and if we don’t sabotage our economies immediately, in order to defeat the evil Flying CO2 Monster.
Yes, CO2 has been increasing since the International Geophysical Year. However the high priests of AGW have systematically favored inaccurate proxy variables of CO2 levels before then, over the published direct measurements, in order to cook the books in favor of Climate Alarmism. However yes, the spectroscopic measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentrations since the IGY do qualify as science.
Yes, we’ve had global warming (and global cooling) periods. The GW period that ended in 1998 was not especially spectacular, from a long-term perspective. There has been some obvious fraudulent temperature reporting on the part of scientific prostitutes at GISS. Nevertheless there was global warming in the late 20th Century. And yes, real temperature measurements do count as science. Is Little Jeremy still with me?
Heading 3 is the biggee. It’s absolutely central to AGW Disasterism. Without heading 3, AGW ‘science’ is as dead as Creation ‘Science’. In an earlier posting, I pointed out that there’s ZERO scientific evidence that increasing CO2 concentrations contributed SIGNIFICANTLY to the global warming of the late 20th Century. Does Little Jeremy understand the concept of “zero”? Does Little Jeremy understand the concept of “significantly”? Did Little Jeremy notice that I capitalized these two words?
Interestingly, Little Jeremy did not dispute my claim. Perhaps Little Jeremy would rather throw a tantrum than have an adult discussion. Just in case I’m mistaken in my character evaluation, on June 25, at 5:56 pm, in the Defining the Sceptics (Part 4) thread, MAGB kindly gave a link that goes into more detail about the central claim of AGW.
http://sciencespeak.com/NoEvidence.pdf
Little Jeremy wanted to talk about the science of AGW. However there’s nothing scientific about AGW, because there’s ZERO evidence for its central premise. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is as good an explanation of late-20th-Century global warming as the Flying CO2 Monster. The TENACITY of Little Jeremy’s irrational belief in the Flying CO2 Monster demonstrates that FOR HIM, AGW qualifies as a secular religion–and a stupid one at that.
How does belief in the Flying CO2 Monster square with being a Christian? I wouldn’t know. For the sake of his immortal soul, Little Jeremy may wish to say a few extra Hail Marys before bed tonight.
Larry,
You are unable to construct an argument. Quoting facts and figures does not make the science behind AGW a religious construct. Instead you have an irrational belief that that there is no evidence for it. So lets sum up the things that have been thrown up on the posts here:
1. Claims are being made that there is no evidence for the science behind AGW
2. Claims are being made that there is no evidence for the opposite view i.e. the denialist position
3. Some people hold irrational views on both positions
4. One group i.e. the denialists has a lot of people in it who label anyone ‘religious’ that hold the view that the science behind AGW has a factual strong basis
5. This label of ‘religious’ is used in a disparaging way
5. When asked to explain what is meant by being ‘religious’ tortured logic is thrown up and all sorts of flack is thrown up and no thinking explanation given.
I think its perfectly reasonable for me to conclude that denialists who use the label religious are just mindlessly repeating propaganda.
Also Larry, cod science don’t do it for me.
JC, To me religion is all about controlling people, it is the worst form of politics.
AGW is religous because no matter what facts get in the way they are discarded.
It does not matter if it gets hotter or colder, wetter or drier, it can all be blamed on climate change.
We have our leaders and many leading scientists attributing one off weather events as being proof of AGW.
We are told the models are not predictive and yet that is exactly how they are used.
Can you honestly say that Fielding has received a satisfactory response to his questions?
have you visited this link to see what was actually said? ( granted the writer is a sceptic, but nobody else is saying what happened at the meeting)\
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/06/19/the-wong-fielding-meeting-on-global-warming/
There is science on both sides, some good some bad. I for one remain sceptical of the degree of warming that will occur from a doubling of co2.
However I am not sceptical about an ETS . Only fools could really support one.
Irrespective of the science, without an alternative energy source there is really nothing we can do on a global scale that will reduce co2….unless of course we use nuclear.
But that is not even being considered. If we really do need to cut emissions, this is the only solution that can provide base load power.
So if its really happening we should be pushing nuclear. But no politicians are considering this…so clearly they do not believe in impending doom either.
IPSOFACTO its really all about controlling us.
Just like religion is all about controlling us!
Toby,
Go look at my post about Fielding on the Nova link you listed. If you had read it you would’ve seen that I think that Evans and the other three guys were duped by Fielding.
Jeremy (June 27th, 2009 at 5:57 pm) is continuing to ride his AGW-ain’t-a religion hobbyhorse. If he thinks that he owns the word “religion”, fine; I’ll let the baby have his way.
If I’ve understood correctly, Jeremy believes that the CENTRAL claim of AGW has some real science behind it. But thus far (in this thread, at least), he has NOT discussed any of the SPECIFIC DETAILS that might support his belief.
Although the infantile Dada-Knows-Best approach may have relevance in theology, it’s the exact opposite of real science. It would be nice if Baby Jeremy made even a feeble attempt to talk science–rather than DKB–for a change. Even luke tries to do that sometimes.
Real science usually involves getting one’s hands dirty, and doing some bloody experiments, or doing some actual field work. Similarly, real science buffs aren’t afraid to get their minds dirty, to compare hypotheses with existing data, in order to see if the latter supports the former. Real science buffs do not overplay the Dada-Knows-Best card.
For everyone, I have a question: If you were on a strict budget of 20 million USD, what experiment–physical or Gedanken–would you do to shed some light on the CENTRAL claim of AGW–that CO2 and other GHGs have made a SIGNIFICANT contribution to the latest round of global warming [that ended more than 10 years ago]?
Hey Luke!!!
You’ve received a compliment from a denialist. Pity it was to avoid answering a question.