THE New York Times, like most of the mainstream media, is not known for its balanced reporting on climate change. I tend to associate the newspaper with sensational headlines suggesting a full blown climate crisis.
But then just yesterday the influential broadsheet published a surprisingly informative article that went as far as to suggest we could be in for an extended chilly period here on planet earth because of a surprisingly weak solar cycle. Author Kenneth Chang also made mention of research at the Danish National Space Centre in Copenhagen and the possible influence of cosmic rays on climate. Mr Change explained that when the sunspot and solar winds die down, more cosmic rays reach the earth, more clouds form , less sunlight reaches the ground, and so temperatures cool.
This article does not fit the established storyline on global warming.
Could the mainstream media slowly change its reporting overtime on this issue to narrow what has been an increasing gap between perception and reality when it comes to climate change?
We know that the mainstream news is expected to fit together like a picture, some have suggested a tapestry, and that what is reported tomorrow is expected to accord with what was reported yesterday. But how long before the tapestry could take on a less dramatic and more complex hue when it comes to this issue?
********
Notes and Links
July 21, 2009. Is the Sun Missing Its Spots? By KENNETH CHANG
Extract: “Among some global warming skeptics, there is speculation that the Sun may be on the verge of falling into an extended slumber similar to the so-called Maunder Minimum, several sunspot-scarce decades during the 17th and 18th centuries that coincided with an extended chilly period. Most solar physicists do not think anything that odd is going on with the Sun. With the recent burst of sunspots, “I don’t see we’re going into that,” Dr. Hathaway said last week. Still, something like the Dalton Minimum — two solar cycles in the early 1800s that peaked at about an average of 50 sunspots — lies in the realm of the possible, Dr. Hathaway said. (The minimums are named after scientists who helped identify them: Edward W. Maunder and John Dalton.)”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/science/space/21sunspot.html
On the media and tapestries: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/11/why-you-should-support-independent-media-part-1-for-koalas/
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
You would think that the less solar radiation, less solar wind, more cosmic rays idea would attract funding from every govt world wide.
If the alternative idea that an increase in co2 ( 0.01% of atmosphere) causes AGW and attracts funding of 50+ billion ( soon to be trillions to stop said AGW) then surely small funds from every nation should be investigating the reduced solar radiation claim.
Alternatively let the scientists give an opinion on the change(s) to ice ages, warm periods, little ice ages etc.
Go back 50+ years and we know that the changes cannot be anthropogenic, so what caused the LIA, the medieval WP, colder dark ages, the Roman WP, the Minoan Wp etc.
We can definitely say it wasn’t anthropogenic change.
Not surprising. The media (newspapers) are essentially their own beast. They rely on readership numbers to sell advertising space, where their main profits lie.
Ultimately they print what sells. What they create they can destroy – if it is profitable. Think Diana.
The future of this direction will depend upon whether it attracts a significantly wider readership.
As the bulk of available research supports AGW it would severely damage the paper’s reputation if it were to promote fringe theories as fact (The Australian newspaper here is sailing pretty close to the wind on this). Further, one common function of news is to report facts as they come to light and this would appear to be the case here. The story you quote supports neither the pro or con case with regard to AGW. It simply reports on some research and quotes an authority. Looking for conspiracy theories in the media is never very edifying for the would be sleuth.
Jen,
I too have noticed a possible shifting of position by the ABC. In a recent interview with Al Gore, the interviewer (Heather Someone?) started off all cosy, and Al was urbane and charming. However, towards the end, Heather slipped in a question about a British judge finding ‘inaccuracies’ in Al’s video. The interview ended with a shot of Al looking rather annoyed.
I’d be annoyed if I was Al, too, since the Judge found that most of the AIT was accurate, and only 8 claims out of the many made could be disputed.
The simplest example his his claims about glaciers and AGW. The evidence on Kilimanjaro is disputable, the evidence on the six other glaciers he referred to is not.
And anyway if annoying Al Gore is your measure of media bias or lack thereof I’d say that the coverage is very well balanced.
Well SJT, don’t let facts stand in the way of your AGW religious beliefs.
The British Judges finding that 8 claims made by Gore were false, effectively destroyed the whole shaky hypothesis.
In relation to your Glacier claims.
I have posted here previously, 2 years ago my wife and I did a 6 week trip to most of the glaciers of N America in company with a retired Glaciologist from the Uni. of Alaska.
In summary, all of earths glaciers have been melting since the last ice age. But during that 15,000 years there have been periods when Glaciers grew again for several hundred years.
In recent years most of the glaciers of N.A. have in fact been growing again.
In the case of the Hubbard Glacier ( the biggest in N.A.) it is growing at a rate of 200 to 300 feet per month. Un precidented in recent history.
It is also interesting to note (while not statistically relevant) that the prairies of Canada and the winter crop states of USA are experiencing one of the coldest summers in 100 years.
So cold that winter crops of wheat, barley and canola may be servely reduced because of frosting at flowering.
My son ( an agricultural scientist) has just returned from a study trip to the Canadian Prairies.
AGW Doomsdayers rather than preaching continued scaremongering, need to become mindful that a warmer world is one where all species thrive.
It is one where the production of food increases and where the area available for cropping increases dramitically. Northern Canada and Russia- Siberia.
If AGW desciples really want to see the world population decrease rapidly then just pray for the worlds temperature to fall a little.
There will be mass starvation..
Pikey.
“The British Judges finding that 8 claims made by Gore were false, effectively destroyed the whole shaky hypothesis.”
You obviously didn’t read the judgement. The judge found that most of Gores claims were based on the accepted science, and that out of those many claim, only eight were disputable. In other words, most of what Gore claimed was correct. The ‘destroyed the whole shaky hypothesis’ is the myth that has arisen from the judgement in denialist’s minds, it has nothing to do with what the judge actually said.
“In summary, all of earths glaciers have been melting since the last ice age. But during that 15,000 years there have been periods when Glaciers grew again for several hundred years.
In recent years most of the glaciers of N.A. have in fact been growing again.”
Research has indicated the rate of melting has accelerated in recent years, consistent with AGW.
“My son ( an agricultural scientist) has just returned from a study trip to the Canadian Prairies.
AGW Doomsdayers rather than preaching continued scaremongering, need to become mindful that a warmer world is one where all species thrive.”
You have no idea what you are talking about. Areas experiencing increasing droughts aren’t finding the warming at all conducive to a better environment. And species adapt to their environment, they don’t suddenly start to thrive just because it is warmer. Too much warmth is just as bad as too much cold. Look at the beatles chewing up Canadian forests.
“Look at the beatles chewing up Canadian forests.” – SJT July 22nd, 2009 at 12:25 pm.
LOL – they couldn’t be eating much, as John and George are dead, Ringo only eats burgers, and Paul just eats what he’s told to.”
Back to the story that inspired these ggod-natured exchanges. “THE New York Times, like most of the mainstream media, is not known for its balanced reporting on climate change.”
Umm, er, a question for Jennifer. “Balanced reporting”? Is that the kind of reporting you get when you treat the claims of one side as exactly on a par with the other, and “balance” things by givng them equal time (or space)? Kind of like “balanced” teaching of evolution in schools, by giving equal time to creationsists? Is that what you mean by “balance”?
Ron Pike: a question. So, what is the situation for glaciers over the whole earth (as opposed to some selected North American ones)? Are we seeing growth, or glacial advance, over the whole earth?
cheers
“LOL – they couldn’t be eating much, as John and George are dead, Ringo only eats burgers, and Paul just eats what he’s told to.””
In other words, nothing to say.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/28/AR2006022801772.html
“QUESNEL, B.C. — Millions of acres of Canada’s lush green forests are turning red in spasms of death. A voracious beetle, whose population has exploded with the warming climate, is killing more trees than wildfires or logging.
The mountain pine beetle has infested an area three times the size of Maryland, devastating swaths of lodgepole pines and reshaping the future of the forest and the communities in it.”
“This article does not fit the established storyline on global warming. ”
Could you stop with the lies, Jennifer. There is no ‘storyline’. If cosmic rays act as he claims, it does not mean that CO2 does not act as described.
Hi peterd,
I am neither a Glaciologist or scientist, but a keen observer and interested in environmental science.
As I wrote above the glaciers of the earth have been melting (retreating) for 15,000 years.
However during that long period there have been significant periods of both accelerated melting, mostly followed by a cooling period when the Glaciers grew again.
The Glaciologist who accompanied us on our trip, explained that it was the periodic melting of the sea ice ( as happened a few years back) that triggered the next cooling phase.
As the sea ice melts, precipitation increases and importantly snow fall increases. It is this increased snowfall that starts the glacier growth again.
Glacier growth dramatically lowers temperature.
Increasing snowfalls have been evident in N.A. now for several years.
Much to my enjoyment as a skier.
We are presently seeing increased snow and ice at both the N & S pole.
We were also witness to the remains of huge tree stumps adjacent to the face of Glaciers as visual evidence of the medieval warming period.
It was when this was reversed by the little ice age that these forests were destroyed by the returning glaciers.
Our guide, in stark contrast to the self assurance of the AGW church, was most humble in his predictions.
In summary he said that he and his peers in climate science, believed that present indications were that the earth was entering a cooling phase for the reasons described above. But was quick to point out that real science did not know and possible wouldn’t for several decades.
He was most scathing of those who claimed any ability to forcast climate even 5 years ahead and described those claiming climate prediction powers 50 years ahead as being close to ego driven insanity.
I cannot answer your question as to all other glaciers and do not have the time to go searching.
A post here from Dr. Doug Killeen, some months ago depicted recent glacier growth in New Zealand.
The most important thing, given the present AGW histeria, is to maintain an open and enquiring mind and not be rushed into futile and disruptive decision making as is being contemplated by Rudd, Wong and Co.
To SJT, give us some recent evidence of your claim.
Pikey.
Pikey,
I note your point on ‘predicting’ climate 50 years hence. If we accept Popper’s view that the unfalsifiable is only pseudo-science, then such predictions are pseudo-science, since they are unfalsifiable until 50 years from now. I don’t entirely accept Popper’s views, but I think they apply here. I also agree that the idea of extrapolating a statistical trend 50 years into the future is, to a statistician, close to insanity. That is true whether the trend is up, down, or sideways.
SJT,
If a witness tells a lie, they are guilty of perjury. It is no defence to say that their evidence is mostly true.
Thanks, Ron, for your comments.
I’m no glaciologist either, but I looked up the post here by Doug Killeen (maybe not “Dr”), and noted the response by John Mashey to “Thinking Man”. I couldn’t help finding myself in agreement with Mashey. The important thing, as he notes, is not to cherry-pick data to support one’s pet hypothesis. “The only way to assess the general trends in [Switzerland] is to look at *all* the data, without cherry-picking ones that support what you believe.” To which one might add: the only way to assess general world-wide trends is to look at *all* the data.
As the discussion has moved to Gore (as it does, so often andirrelevantly, at this site), let me put in my two cents’ worth. The summary of the “Gore-AIT judgement” at Wikipedia does not look at all to me like a “destruction” of AIT’s claims: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimmock_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Education_and_Skills#The_nine_inaccuracies
See, for example, # 9, which basically says that the judge agreed with IPCC’s claim that if temp. rose by more than one Celsius (over 1980s-1990s values), then “…there would be increased coral bleaching and widespread coral mortality”. The so-called judgement really amounts to saying that because of “other factors”, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to attribute actual coral bleaching to warming, and thereby to prove or disprove Gore’s claim. Some criticism.
“If a witness tells a lie, they are guilty of perjury. It is no defence to say that their evidence is mostly true.”
The judge did not say he lied. He said that the evidence provided was not sufficient for him. So Gore did not lie, he had evidence that he believed supported his case for AGW, the judge disagreed, and said it was not strong enough.
In the case of the glaciers, the Judge accepted that the other six glaciers used as examples were sufficient to support the case for AGW. Various scientists think that Kilimanjaro is sufficient evidence of AGW, others don’t. It is arguable, that does not make it a lie.
peterd…i would assume most glaciers are retreating, since the world has been warming since the end of the last ice age! What do you think they should be doing?
Also very few of the many thousands of glaciers are actually studied
The UK judge was comparing AIT with the IPCC ‘consensus’ and found 9 ‘errors’ that went beyond the consensus:
The 9 errors in AIT, that had no supporting evidence, can be found on pages 10 to 12 on the judgement here:
http://noteviljustwrong.com/images/nejw/docs/22161.pdf
The judge also ruled that teachers must follow updated guidance when showing the film in schools.
As for solar, Shaviv’s 2008 paper identifies a solar amplifier, which may be the cosmic ray-clouds link:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007JA012989.shtml
“We find that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism, although without pointing to which one.”
There’s an objective article on cosmic rays/clouds in last week’s Nature:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7253/full/460332a.html
“it is likely that a cosmic-ray–cloud–climate connection will continue to be explored, for two reasons. First, scientists continue to be intrigued by correlations between cosmic rays, Earth’s electrical state and climate variables (clouds, precipitation, drought and so on) on timescales from hours to millennia6, 7. Because the climate displays a multitude of cycles on almost all timescales, detection of a correlation among climate variables usually meets with initial and healthy scepticism. But variations in cloud properties observed on timescales that are unique to GCRs8 will always prompt a hunt for a plausible mechanism.
The second reason that GCR–cloud physics will remain a hot topic is that we have yet to explore all the possible mechanisms. Attention may now shift to the ‘ion–aerosol near-cloud’ mechanism2. GCR ionization modulates the fair-weather conduction current (about 2 picoamps per square metre) flowing between the ionosphere and Earth, thereby altering the charge that has been observed to accumulate around cloud layers. Just like static electricity, this charge can influence how cloud drops stick to aerosol particles. If the particles are effective nuclei for ice formation, then GCRs may influence cloud glaciation and precipitation. And the charge on some aerosol particles in the near-cloud environment could possibly become large enough to influence the formation of cloud drops directly9. But our understanding of the relevant physics is incomplete, and it will be some time before global-impact investigations along the lines of Pierce and Adams’s study can be made.
Some would argue that the link between cosmic rays and climate is just too tenuous to be worth pursuing. Others would point out that, by ignoring the fact that the atmosphere is actually a dilute plasma (that is, is weakly ionized), we are missing some potentially important cloud physics — and clouds are a very large lever by which to influence climate. Despite the controversy, it is clear that the study of cosmic rays in our climate system has come of age. Sophisticated models of ion–aerosol processes now exist. They are supported by observations and laboratory studies, which will include the upcoming CLOUD experiment at the CERN laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, in which a proton beam will generate highly controllable ionization events in an aerosol–cloud chamber.”
Important relevant science is not in the curriculum to become a Climate Scientist. Thus they do not recognize the significance of accepted paleo temperature data. With understanding of the missing science and knowledge of the data, it is trivial to conclude that NET feedback from average global temperature is not significantly positive. Being unaware of this constraint Climate Scientists have not calculated feedback correctly and/or all feedbacks have not been accounted for. Without NET positive feedback the Global Climate models predict that Global Warming from doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide will NOT be significant. Without significant Global Warming from increased carbon dioxide, human use of fossil fuels has no significant influence on climate change. See the pdfs linked from http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true for the evidence, to identify the missing science and to see the cause of the temperature run-up in the late 20th century.
SJT,
Ahem… if a witness uttered ‘material errors of fact’, would that be excused by the same witness uttering truths, such as ‘it’s a lovely day today yer honour’, or ‘my name is Al Gore’?
I am off to the Pacific to buy up all those deserted islands, before the inhabitants return from New Zealand, when they find that the sea does not rise 7 metres, nor the ‘ocean conveyor’ shuts down, nor Lake Chad turns into a desert, nor Kilimanjaro melts down to a mole hill, nor Hurricane Whatever strikes Victoria, causing mega-bushfires, nor all the polar bears drown.
There is a fool proof way of telling which party won a law case; that is the party who is awarded costs; Did the plaintiff receive his costs in this matter of Gore?
Hi peterd,
Doug will probably kill me for this, but I have known him for about 45 years and yes, he is Dr.
In fact one of Australias most accomplished but sadly unlauded research scientists.
It was Doug’s work with in vitor fertalization in sheep that was the basis of all future work in this area. Both animal and human.
A great but largely unrecognised Australian researcher and still a bushy at heart.
Also, just in summary and without detail:
Al Gore is nothing more than a self serving, sensationalist peddling, alarmist, who will go down in history as a failure.
Pikey.
Hey, this is fairly dishonest stuff! What does this solar forcing have to do with the co2 warming component. Just because one parameter might (and the article is pretty clear on might) decrease, it has nothing to do with the effect of the other, so I’m really not sure why you would imply that it would. Also nice to see a bunch of back slapping delusional fools here with their heads in the sand 🙂
“SJT,
Ahem… if a witness uttered ‘material errors of fact’, would that be excused by the same witness uttering truths, such as ‘it’s a lovely day today yer honour’, or ‘my name is Al Gore’?”
Rubbish, maybe you should read what the judge said. It’s nothing like your spin.
SJT,
Are you trying to link beetles to AGW?
And did the judge make any ruling on that ‘slow boiling frog’?
Regarding Gores fantasy film and melting Glaciers, refere to this article and others.
Glaciers, lichens, and the history of the Earth
http://www.cmiae.org/Resources/glaciers-lichens.php
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf
35 Inconvenient truths in gores fantasy film.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/monckton-response-to-gore-errors.pdf
Thanks Rob. I especially liked Lord Monckton’s response. He must be green, like me. Some of us seek the truth, for truth is beauty. Poor SJT, what an ugly mental world to live in.
“35 Inconvenient truths in gores fantasy film.”
The judge found a lot less than that, and he found the film to be substantially correct.
“Thanks Rob. I especially liked Lord Monckton’s response. He must be green, like me. Some of us seek the truth, for truth is beauty. Poor SJT, what an ugly mental world to live in.”
In other words, Davey, nothing.
Since 2000, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased 18.4% of the increase from 1800 to 2000. According to the average of the five reporting agencies, the trend of average global temperatures since 1998 shows no increase and from 2002 through 2008 the trend shows a DECREASE of 1.8°C/century. This SEPARATION (there have been many others) corroborates the lack of connection between atmospheric carbon dioxide increase and average global temperature. With no connection between CO2 and temperature there is no connection between CO2 and climate change. As the atmospheric carbon dioxide level continues to increase and the average global temperature doesn’t it is becoming more and more apparent that many Climate Scientists have made an egregious mistake and a whole lot of people have been misled.
Toby: “peterd…i would assume most glaciers are retreating, since the world has been warming since the end of the last ice age! What do you think they should be doing?
Also very few of the many thousands of glaciers are actually studied”
I suppose your reasoning here runs along these lines: the reason the glaciers are melting is that we’re coming out of an ice age. And how do we know we’re “coming out of an ice age”? Well, I guess it must be because the glaciers are melting!
I must confess that I don’t find such reasoning very helpful.
As to “very few” of the “many thousands of glaciers” actually being studied, I’ve been reading a little of the IPCC’s 4AR, Chapter 4, and don’t get quite that impression.
peterd from
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/blog/2009/05/counting-glaciers.html
“Guessing very roughly, there may be tens of thousands of unlisted glaciers in the U.S.A., and more than that in Canada. Add numbers like those to the 131,000 we have in hand, and speculate that there might be another 50-100,000 in the uncovered regions in the rest of the world, and you end up with an answer to the original question that has to be in the region of 300 to 500 thousand. ”
given that we don t even know how many there actually are..it seems reasonable to assume they havent been studied?! did you know alaska alone has over ten thousand?..do you seriously think they have been studied?
my understanding from reading is that a very small percentage, less than a couple thousand, of the worlds glaciers are monitored in any significant way, and much less than a thousand of those have observed, recorded data going back more than a decade. …but hey if the IPCC says theyve all been studied they must be right.Right?
If you think my thinking is “circular”..how about the the premise that since we can t show what has been causing the warming it must be co2? given the chaotic system and the thousands of inputs, it is a huge leap of faith to say “we are 90% sure it is co2”.
The IPCC is political and has political goals and objectives.
Most of us agree co2 is a greenhouse gas, but we disagree about the rate of warming created by increases in co2…it is only via positive feedback effects that you can create a scenario that requires urgent emission reductions. This seems more unprobable than probable when we look at the geological record….and troposperic and stratosperic data, as well as land and ocean data are not currently supporting a strong correlation between co2 and temperature..are they?
“If you think my thinking is “circular”..how about the the premise that since we can t show what has been causing the warming it must be co2? given the chaotic system and the thousands of inputs, it is a huge leap of faith to say “we are 90% sure it is co2″.”
If had bothered to read the IPCC report, you would know that their logic is not nearly as simplistic as that. Also, a chaotic system still has to operate within it’s physical boundaries.
The truth is in the historical data not the AGW climate models.
Glaciers, lichens, and the history of the Earth
http://www.cmiae.org/Resources/glaciers-lichens.php
and the sun temperature link seen at Armagh since 1740, its the sun you fools, how much historical evidence do you AGwers need.
http://www.arm.ac.uk/press/200years-on-the-Net.html
This argument is now breaking down to the left standing up for fake data.
Take this contribution by Andrew Glickson. Every graph he shows here is fraudulent. He appears not to be the least bit interested in valid data.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2632735.htm
Well not every graph perhaps. But most of them. He’s got a graph showing the medieval warm period to be colder than today. There is no end to their dishonesty these people.
Green Davey,
SJT reminds me of those bus stop advertisements for a beer which red “Who is James Boag”.
In this case who is “SJT”? I wonder if he has a leather bound copy of the IPPC AR4? I actually wonder whether he has read it since he seems to have a profound difficulty quoting any part of it to support his allegations here.
Oh and Christ de Freitas, John Maclean and Bob Carter have published an interesting paper in GRL – seems we humans are not responsible after all.
http://climatedepot.com/a/2117/PeerReviewed-Study-Rocks-Climate-Debate-Nature-not-man-responsible-for-recent-global-warminglittle-or-none-of-late-20th-century-warming-and-cooling-can-be-attributed-to-humans
Whoops Chris de Freitas – (I must have a ghost writer influencing my typing).
Enjoying the balmy climate at Borroloola at present, the barramundi is delicious.
“and the sun temperature link seen at Armagh since 1740, its the sun you fools, how much historical evidence do you AGwers need.”
The sun has always been considered in climate models and climate science, that goes without saying. They cannot attribute the current warming to the sun, the forcing just isn’t there.
Ron Pike “It is also interesting to note (while not statistically relevant) that the prairies of Canada and the winter crop states of USA are experiencing one of the coldest summers in 100 years”.
Never mind the prairies, Ron, we’re getting it out on the Left Coast (aka West Coast) which is traditionally the banana belt of Canada. The latter half of June and the first half of July have been well below average. It’s picking up now but daytime temps runs around 20 C whereas one might expect 25 to 30C this time of year.
Of course, SJT will come back with the La Nina explanation, but it’s really the PDO changing phase. We could be in for 30 years of cooler weather according to some researchers.
peterd “Are we seeing growth, or glacial advance, over the whole earth?”
That’s a good question, but what’s your point? The astronomer Akasofu lives in Alaska and he’s written an article that relates glacial melting to the rebound from the Little ice Age. Prior to about 1850, glaciers in Europe were advancing dramatically, and one wiped out a village that had been built in its way.
Why is it that people have been making so much out of glaciers melting the past few years? To me, it’s just so much rhetoric to enhance an environmental agenda. If you want some interesting data on that, check your local library for two recent books written by Patrick Michaels: Meltdown and The Satanic Gases. If they don’t have them, ask them to get the books.
peterd “The summary of the “Gore-AIT judgement” at Wikipedia does not look at all to me like a “destruction” of AIT’s claims:….”
Peter…you need to do some research on Wikipedia as related to global warming. If you look under the discussion tab at the top of the wiki you’ll often see the name William Connolley a lot. He’s also related to realclimate.org. Get the picture? Connolley rides shotgun on any global warming entries to see that they fit with the realclimate world view. He’s a computer programmer but he goes so far as to diss on emminent scientists like Fred Singer and Richard Lindzen.
Gore’s professor at Harvard was Dr. Roger Revelle, who pioneered CO2 research in the 1950’s. Before he died, he put out a paper with Fred Singer, his friend, urging people to be cautious about their interpretations on CO2 in the atmosphere. Of course, that contradicted what Gore ‘thought’ he’d learned from Revelle, and rather than admit he might have misunderstood the message, he went after Fred Singer, accusing him of putting Revelle up to it and even writing Revelle off as having been senile. Singer successfully sued him. Then Gore tried to influence a leading anchor man (Koppel) into discrediting Singer, which Koppel wisely refused to do.
Al Gore is the vice-president whose claim to fame, along with his wife Tipper, was finding satanic messages in the lyrics of rock stars. He did nothing else…not about global warming or anything. Why would you think for one minute that Gore has the ability to put out anything of value? Long after the IPCC hockey stick graph was discredited, Gore was still using it to claim the 1990’s as the warmest decade in a millenium.
Louis,
Here is Davey’s Conjecture:
Let i = Lord Monckton’s IQ
j = Al Gore’s IQ
k = SJT’s IQ
Then i > j + k
Any offers for a proof?
Green Davey
we might also add the relationship that j + k = 0, hence i > 0, and thus proven.
😉
To Green Davey & Louis:
Great.
Problem solved.
Pikey.
“Louis,
Here is Davey’s Conjecture:
Let i = Lord Monckton’s IQ
j = Al Gore’s IQ
k = SJT’s IQ
Then i > j + k
Any offers for a proof?”
What I don’t get Davey, is you show such respect of Louis, who is a believer of any theory, no matter how unscientific and lunatic, such as the “electric universe’ and Velikovsky.
I feel so sorry for the slaves living in the concrete jungle. James Hansen teeches there it make them so disturbed. My teen just sang at carnegie hall this summer and my daughter performed at the New Balance Invitational. Both had never been there and NEVER want to return. But those misguided souls write what they think we should know.
Off Topic. a New York times subscription creates in 1 year, 572 pounds of paper. Where is the outrage?
“What I don’t get Davey, is you show such respect of Louis, who is a believer of any theory, no matter how unscientific and lunatic, such as the “electric universe’ and Velikovsky.”
But the electric universe theory, or at least parts of it are very sound. They explain a great many things much better than the standard view.
You may not be sold on the theory. But you ought not be such a dumbass as to not be able to see good theory when it presents itself.
I think this quote is for you.
“Electricity and magnetism are those forces of nature by which people who know nothing about electricity and magnetism can explain everything. “
SJT,
I was showing respect for Lord Monckton.
Dammit, he’s an Old Harrovian. Must be a good chap.
Pikey,
What makes me bemused is the role of being a bombardier in an aeroplane – once you get too much flak your know the target has been hit. I expect SJT will recycle his standard ad hominems with his obsession with me and the Plasma Model, or Velikovsky.
Jennifer is on to something. The pendulum of history is swinging at an accelerating pace.
The gestalt of AGWism, which after AIT joined forces with the neo-socialist push to consolidate economic power in government technocracies has peaked much sooner than anyone would have predicted last year. (Rahm’s fierce urgency of the moment?)
I can only guess it’s because Obama is making such a dog’s breakfast of America’s long term economic future. Proving once again that federal governments can not be trusted to run a bloody toothpick factory, much less the Earth’s Climate, as if this wasn’t bleeding obvious after a century of various centrally controlled economic experiments all gone bust.
The political Left, both in the US and Oz, has cynically used a routine, in historic terms, economic crisis as an excuse for a power grab and they have dramatically over reached in perhaps the most blatant display of Machiavellian greed since the fall of the Weimar Republic.
Rudd, Wong, et al, are Obama’s lap poodles. How smoothly they divorce themselves from the coming American debacle over the next year or two will determine their electoral fate. But it’s not looking good long term for Rudd as he forces ETS– which will soon be held in the same high regard as phrenology–upon the Australian economy.
The chickens are coming home to roost and it’s not even morning tea yet.
My worry is that the oppositions in both America and Australia have not been out of power long enough to reinvent their leadership and rebuild their positions, both are very much works in progress and unfit to form governments any time soon. That said, how bad could they be? Hope and change.
The sun has gone quiet.
Earth has stopped warming.
But the CO2 keeps going up.
“Electricity and magnetism are those forces of nature by which people who know nothing about electricity and magnetism can explain everything. “
So what is your argument dummy? I’m claiming that you are being an idiot by not at least recognising good theory when you see it. And you don’t have any serious comeback to that. Just a glib line. What do you yourself know about electricity and magnetism SJT? Not a great deal I would have thought. I couldn’t even figure out who the quote comes from. I googled it and just found dumb-leftists repeating the line as a mantra. This is an insight into how stupid leftists “think”.
SJT,
Good grief, so you did raise those old chestnuts of the electric universe and Velikokovsky.
Am I such a threat to your dogma ? I must be, otherwise you wouldn’t continue with it.
So it’s nice to know one has some effect 🙂
Oh, and I see Graeme Bird also could not source your quote – so it’s not really a quote at all, but a piece of fiction uttered by someone whose physics is challenged.
Bird couldn’t source his way out of a wet paper sack, even if SJT was in it with him! With a GPS compass! And a hand grenade. Pin pulled.
“Electricity and magnetism are those forces of nature by which people who know nothing about electricity and magnetism can explain everything.”
Egon Friedell
http://books.google.com/books?id=hV4ylHqyKJ4C&pg=PA101&lpg=PA101&dq=Egon+Friedell+Quotes&source=bl&ots=uqg6ttWa8O&sig=WvRtD2iNFUHFWWQyWFvTXMW_PJ4&hl=en&ei=2e9rSrOvFI2gswP3jJ2XBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8
Wes,
That was a cumbersome reference – all I got was a Google Book display with Egon …. highlighted. I used Bing and got this one: http://dartreview.com/articles/p/2008-01-25-the-surrender-of-the-spirit
I also note it has made its way into Realclimate rhetoric, so I deduce SJT got it from there.
“The political Left, both in the US and Oz, has cynically used a routine, in historic terms, economic crisis as an excuse for a power grab and they have dramatically over reached in perhaps the most blatant display of Machiavellian greed since the fall of the Weimar Republic.”
You’re funny 😉
Wes,
SJT thinks it’s funny – and you omitted the UK where the process is even more developed. After all the UK spawned Marx, Engels, the Bloomsberries and hence the political system we have inherited.
(This comment should cause SJT to rofl).
wes george…I looked up your link but all I got was Egon Friedell raving about psychoanalysis. I studied a bit of Freud at the uni so let me give you my two-bits worth on that. First, note the lifespan of Friedell which puts him right in the era of Freud.
Prior to Frued’s discovery of the human psyche (unconscious processes) humans believed they were completely in control of their destiny’s. That’s probably where the notion came from that poor people are to blame for their condition. Willpower was huge and anyone who didn’t have it was regarded as a nobody. When Freud revealed that humans are driven by unconscious processes, the average, arrogant, self-made person went ballistic.
Although Freud did contribute highly to psychology, much of his work today is regarded with suspicion, especially the manner in which it applied by psychoanalists. That criticism is probably just but it takes away from what Freud accomplished. He used hypnosis (mesmerism) to study people who had serious psychological defects such as hysterical deafness or blindness. Under hypnosis, some of those people could hear perfectly well, but the minute they were removed from the trance state, the deafness returned. That was a huge discovery that showed unconscious processes were responsible for the neurotic/psychotic problems of many people. Even today, that fact is not given the appreciation it deserves.
If Friedell is that much of a nutcase about psychoanalysis, I don’t have much faith in his comments regarding electricity and magnetism, which were in their infancy.
In my last post, I said Frued instead of Freud. I’m sure I corrected that, leading me to the suspicion that my keyboard may be dyslexic, as well as me.
Louis Hissink “After all the UK spawned Marx….”
BTW…who is this ‘Loulis’ Hissink at the top of your post?
To be fair to Marx, he was run out of Germany. The UK also spawned Churchill, the only raving drunk to lead his country to victory, despite his condition. Churchill also had a propensity for conducting meetings in the nude, an unfair advantage. How can anyone successfully communicate with a fat man in the raw? If Hitler had gotten drunk more often, rather than shooting up extract of bull testicle, he might have had the insight to see his own stupidity. I’m not saying Winnie could see his own stupidity, he just didn’t care.
Gordon
Well, true. I never did find Friedell’s actual quote. I got a life out here amongst the boulders and snow gums too, ya know, milking goats and tossing pebbles into deep pools of still water while chewing sweet gum sap. But I have it on some minor authority that Egon’s the dude.
As for Herr Freud, I’m kind of a Jungian structuralist myself. But no one can doubt Freud’s instrumental importance in delineating our perception of the world in which we exist. Even Jung credits him with paving the way for his own insights into the importance of dreams.
As I like to tell my grad students I use to be a structuralist, but now I am not Saussure!