Here's a critique of the Watts et al paper:

http://skepticalscience.com/watts_new_paper_critique.html

"Ultimately Watts et al fail to account for changing time of observations, that instruments change or that weather stations are sometimes relocated, causing them to wrongly conclude that uncorrected data are much better than data that takes all this into account."

This from "co-author" Steve McIntyre

http://climateaudit.org/2012/07/31/surface-stations/

TOBs?

http://variable-variability.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/a-short-introduction-to-time-of.html

I still don’t get the TOB criticism with Watts; this is in his new paper:

“The USHCNv2 monthly temperature data set is described by Menne et al. (2009). The 215 raw and unadjusted data provided by NCDC has undergone the standard quality-control 216
12
screening for errors in recording and transcription by NCDC as part of their normal ingest 217 process but is otherwise unaltered. The intermediate (TOB) data has been adjusted for 218 changes in time of observation such that earlier observations are consistent with current 219 observational practice at each station. The fully adjusted data has been processed by the 220 algorithm described by Menne et al. (2009) to remove apparent inhomogeneities where 221 changes in the daily temperature record at a station differs significantly from neighboring 222 stations. Unlike the unadjusted and TOB data, the adjusted data is serially complete, with 223 missing monthly averages estimated through the use of data from neighboring stations. 224 The USHCNv2 station temperature data in this study is identical to the data used in Fall 225 et al. (2011), coming from the same data set.”

Here is the Fall et al paper:

http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/r-367.pdf

It is plain that Watts has used the TOB adjusted data; he says this data was:

“further refined in quality control reviews led by two of
us (Jones and Watts), using the USCRN site selection
classification scheme for temperature and humidity measurements
[NOAA and NESDIS, 2002], originally developed
by Leroy [1999] (Table 1).”

That further refinement does not mean that he has tampered with the TOB adjustment, how could he, but merely applied the UHIE test from Leroy as it then was; the point of Watts’ new paper is to apply Leroy’s new methodology with its improved UHIE catching criteria.

If that is the case, and please advise if I am missing something, then the TOB issue is a beat-up.

Great piece by cohenite. What evidence is there BEST does what allegedly Watts failed to do?

Unfortunately there are not many 'thinkers' in our world and they are rarely found in academic institutions which these days are mainly vocational training centres that provide the fodder for the Corporations.

A thinker is a unique individual who is often found on the margins of society. He or she can see things that most indoctrinated individuals can't. Whether it is about global warming or the advent of American Imperialism or the gross failure of capitalism and democracy, etc, the thinker makes his or her own mind up based upon the facts.

It has nothing to do with class!

manipulation, lies, bullying and pseudo science is the best the warmist industry can come up with. Its no wonder the masses helped by Flannery and Gores idiotic prophecies can see through the scam.

cohenite,
This is Victor Venema's initial critique of the Watts et al paper:

http://variable-variability.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/blog-review-of-watts-et-al-2012.html

"Had the new study found clear differences in the mean temperature trend in the homogenised data, the study would have been interesting for the general public. Because it is the homogenised data that used to compute large scale trends in real climate. If the homogenised data would still be partially polluted by the urban heat island effect that would have been an error. The aim of homogenisation is exactly to remove artificial changes from the raw data. It seems to do so successfully, now acknowledged by WUWT the second time.
If I were reviewer of this manuscript, my main question would be to clarify the statement in the abstract that: "[u]sing the new Leroy(2010) classification system on the older siting metadata used by Fall et al(2011) Menne et al (2010) and Muller et al (2012), yields dramatically different results." If this relates to the climatologically important homogenised temperature trends, this statement does not seem to fit with the results. If this statement only relates to the raw data, this is an important disclaimer that should not be missing from the abstract."

It may be that the application of Leroy's new methodology concurs with Best's results, etc., but it's hardly the "slam dunk" that's being celebrated on the principal skeptic blogs.

"...yields dramatically different results"?

Whatever you may make of his analysis it is interesting that Muller presented himself as a sceptic when he clearly was nothing of the kind. If the media applied the same criteria to him as they do to sceptics, then the deception would result in Muller being instantly labelled as a fringe lunatic unworthy of further notice.

You can also say that the basic work of collecting temperatures from ground stations has been so unbelievably sloppy, and the global warmists have been so resistant to any form of criticism, that we have gone this far without being absolutely certain what those records say.

The satellite collected data of temperatures (of the upper atmosphere) is far more reliable, albeit only back to 1975, and that also shows an increased between the mid-70s and the turn of the century. But there the global warmers are on the defensive trying to show some reason why we should accdept the satellite data, as it shows a much smaller increase. Hence the concern over the ground records. Somehow the satellite data has to be made to go away.

"If this relates to the climatologically important homogenised temperature trends, this statement does not seem to fit with the results. If this statement only relates to the raw data, this is an important disclaimer that should not be missing from the abstract"

My understanding, from reading BOTH of Watts' papers, as opposed to blog interpretations of them, is that he has applied the new Leroy methodology to all 3 types of data, raw, TOB adjusted and fully homogenised.

I repeat, I think the TOB is a massive distraction because if it taints Watts' results it will inevitably have tainted the major temperature data; the new Leroy methodology is much better at dealing with UHIE which, as is explained in the article, is not dealt with by Muller because of manifest defects with his methodology.

In the interests of balance do you care to comment on that?

'Where is Wayne Swan and the Boss when you need them?'

The Boss is in his counting house counting his millions, and Swan is in the kitchen sharpening his knives.

Interesting title - it could be interpreted that Robert Manne is somehow either an enemy of ordinary people and/or somehow advocates policies that are against the interests of ordinary people.

It seems to me that Robert has always been a champion of the interests of ordinary people. His Jewish family somehow managed to survive of wartime Europe. He was quire rightly always a staunch opponent of both Soviet and Chinese communism.
After the "cold"-war ended he quite rightly became very concerned about the rise of the neo-"conservative" (psychotic)imperative and has thus been arguing against its malignancy ever since.

He was thus opposed to the illegal USA invasion of Iraq, which was championed and planned by the neo-psychotics.

It is interesting to note that many of the loudest so called skeptical voices re human-activity caused climate change are closely associated with the same neo-psychotic Global Spin machine (described in great detail by Sharon Beder) that championed the war against Iraq, and the various countries that were also SHOCKED and AWED into massive structural change, as described by Naomi Klein in The Shock Doctrine.

He was and still is essentially a proponent of social democracy.

Furthermore I would argue that all of the right-wing think tanks that promote the so called skeptical position re human induced climate change are the most powerful proponents and exponents of collective group-think on the planet.

There is not a truly independent voice/perspective to found in any of their publications, either on paper or online.

Meanwhile the arch-villian or the high-priest of the climate-change proponents, namely James Hansen, has a new essay on the subject titled Here Comes the Sun. It is available on the Fairfax website.

Daffy says this:

"it could be interpreted that Robert Manne is somehow either an enemy of ordinary people and/or somehow advocates policies that are against the interests of ordinary people."

Of course Manne is against the ordinary people; he supports Finkelstein; Manne shares Finkelstein's view that ordinary:

"citizens cannot evaluate independently the scientific arguments and rationally choose to believe the conclusions of a handful of scientific pseudo-sceptics rather than those of the tens of thousands of the scientists researching and publishing in this field,"

Daffy also says:

"He was and still is essentially a proponent of social democracy"

That is debatable if he supports Finkelstein and takes the attitude that "ordinary people" cannot evaluate the climate science; by saying that he is supporting the erection of an elite class of policy creaters who claim the right to override the democratic process.

“Obviously for Manne rationality and reasonableness are qualities of the elites while the ordinary people are characterised by a "feebleness of reason" which produces the Denialism he denounces so vehemently.”

I don’t think Manne’s belief is objective. I doubt it is the “ordinary people” who are suffering from a “feebleness of reason”. I suggest it is the elites who are suffering the “feebleness of reason”.

Consider who is being irrational supporting a carbon tax which will cost at least $10 for every $1 of projected benefits. But the costs will be far more than the Treasury estimates and the benefits will not be realised because the assumptions which underpin the modelling to estimate the benefits are totally impracticable and will not be implemented. Some of the assumptions are:

• Negligible leakage (of emissions between countries)
• All emission sources are included (all countries and all emissions in each country)
• Negligible compliance cost
• Negligible fraud
• An optimal carbon price
• The whole world implements the optimal carbon price in unison
• The whole world acts in unison to increase the optimal carbon price periodically
• The whole world continues to maintain the carbon price at the optimal level for all of this century (and thereafter)

If these assumptions are not met, the benefits cannot be achieved.

Given the above, who are the people displaying "feebleness of reason" - the elites or the ordinary people?

Who are being irrational?

I disagree with Robert on Finkelstein but my assessment of his work altogether still holds.

How does the ordinary every-person come to some kind of intelligent informed understanding of the question/problem re whether climate change and global warming are real and/or caused by human activity?
Or of any possible solutions to the very real questions and problems with which humankind altogether is faced in this now instantaneously inter-connected globalized world.

In fact it is very difficult to do so.

You can be sure that the normal dreadly-sane heavily propagandized every person who stays faithfully "tuned" to the "news" as communicated by the Global Spin Machine, the right-wing noise-machine, and/or the tabloid press, which includes ALL of the Murdoch media, is singularly ill-equipped to come to a thoroughly considered conclusion about any and every thing to do with the human situation in 2012.

The state of the now normal dreadfully-sane every-person was chillingly described and prophesized by both Aldous Huxley in Brave New World (and Brave New World Revisited), and George Orwell in 1984 (1948)

In my opinion some of the best myth-busters re the dreadful death-saturated reality of the world situation in 2012 are Chris Hedges, Henry Giroux, Adbusters with its in your face dramatic graphics, and CounterPunch.

The only explanation I can find for the fervour with which the Green Left clings to the AGW hypothesis is that it somehow fills a gap left by the retreat of religion. Bereft of an imaginary Apocalypse wherein the Faithful are exalted and their enemies humbled, it becomes necessary for them to make one up. Perhaps it also has something to do with the collapse of Communism and the subsequent exposure of Leftist thinking as unviable and ultimately destructive: only by jumping aboard the AGW bandwagon, they believe, can they try and regain credibility.

Alas, they are as ill-advised as ever.

Never mind that some/many key participants in the global environment and global climate change movement are committed Christians, Hindus and Buddhists too.
For example Bill McKibben,Vandava Shiva,Joanna Macy, and the various people and organizations which link into this site:

http://theblueok.com

cohenite,

Just on the other aspect of your article - in that ordinary people "....can see that the science of AGW is not settled and arguably disproven or non-existent...."

"Ordinary people" did quite well in accepting and being educated on Germ Theory. In this situation, they relied on scientists to tell them the truth.
http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/contagion/germtheory.html

"Germ theory required a new public awareness, not only of germs as the causes of diseases, but also of the ways in which germs were spread from one person to another. The public was also taught about germs as they related to home hygiene...."

http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/contagion/domesticmedicine.html

"The boundary between the care of physicians and that of family, midwives and surgeons was blurred....The modern professionalization of scientific medicine in the late 19th and early 20th centuries is primarily associated with two factors: the rise of exclusive, laboratory based medical knowledge that was unavoidable to the general public, and the move to office based medical practice...."

The understanding "germ theory" and its acceptance led to improved sanitation and nutrition, which are both prominent aspects of the decline in mortality in modern times.

How is climate science different from medical science?

Re: my last post...

Should read - "...laboratory based medical knowledge that was 'unavailable' to the general public...."

Hello Mr Duck. You ask a very good question -

"How does the ordinary every-person come to some kind of intelligent informed understanding of the question/problem re whether climate change and global warming are real and/or caused by human activity?"

As an ordinary person (not academic elite) I might venture to offer an answer. And that is, I would like the AGW climate/elite persons to explain exactly the scientific facts about their beliefs and conjectures. Now that isn't too much to ask, is it?

Even the most complicated theoretical science can be put into formulae that us common folk can manage to get our heads around. We can then also witness that theory being played out in reality as we go about our ordinary feeble lives.

But climate "scientists" can't do that. That's their problem. I want facts. I want confirmation of those facts mathematically and I want repeatable, predictable life examples and experiments that demonstrate certainty. That's how the ordinary person comes to some kind of intelligent informed understanding about most things in their spheres of experience.

And I believe that also answers Ms Poirot's question put to Mr cohenite. "How is climate science different from medical science?"

Most respected medical science does offer repeatable, predictable life and death examples and experiments that do demonstrate reasonable certainty. That's how science works. It's not just a have-a-convenient-guess and then declare it as science. Especially when those who do, are seemingly doing it with overt, contemptuous, elitist authority.

voxUnius - quite right and a slap on the wrist to Poirot.

The difference is that there was proof and evidence for the germ theory. As I have pointed out many times, climate science needs a track record in successful forecasts - that is, some indication that the orthodoxy has some validity - to be taken seriously.

There are obviosly problems with forecasts over such a short period (20 years from the earliest IPCC forecasts), but the problem has never been tackled rigorously. Until that occurs, and climate scientists can point to a track record there is no reason to pay any attention to their forecasts.

Poirot, your point about germ theory and the ability of the masses to see and understand the scientific evidence for the theory is really the reason why the public have rejected AGW; AGW has not been proven and the evidence against it is substantial. If the public are capable of understanding evidence for a scientific theory they are capable of understanding evidence against a scientific theory.

Do you really think Joe Punter reads Murdoch, or listens to Jones, or watches Channel 9 and accepts holus bolus everything the journalists at those outlets say unquestioningly? If you do I have a bridge for sale which I would like you to look at.

Have you really ever considered it is the likes of you, no doubt self-assessed as one of Manne's elites, who is the gullible one and not the "ordinary person"?

Poirot, you fkn fantastic woman! You are still sane and managing to respond to the stupidity of the usual suspects on this suspect site; hang in there, truth will win out over the dark side.

I so admire you for coping with the hate and anger and triumphalism that is a feature of the right wing conservative personality - not to mention the ignorance and foolish claims that have been made in comments above.

Check out this website; it is an advice column that is just brilliant; lots of different problems and always I am impressed by the good sense shown in the response.

http://therumpus.net/2009/11/dear-sugar-26-emergency-whats-a-girl-to-do-about-glenn-beck-edition/

Cohenite's response to Poirot is much to the point. Here's another example, from my peer reviewed paper to the Australian Economic Society's Conference last year (ACE2011, available at that website and at my own, www.timcurtin.com.) From 1831 to 1864 there were some dreadful cholera epidemics in England and especially in London. The scientists of the day thought that cholera like Malaria was caused by a miasma in the air, which some even thought was CO2.

A London surgeon (John Snow) spotted that cholera was at its worst where the local water supply (eg Broad Street in Soho) was taken from adjacent sewerage outlets in the Thames, by mapping the domains of the deceaseds' source of water supply. There were several competing water supply companies then, and customers of those companies that obtained their water upstream from London proved to be immune to cholera. It took another ten years before Snow's conjecture was finally accepted.

My papers (ACE2011 and TSWJ 2012)show how while the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is virtually the same everywhere, the trends in temperature at places like Barrow in the Arctic, Mauna Loa in Hawaii, and Cape Grim in Tasmania show NIL correlation with atmospheric CO2, but are actually determined by changes in the levels of atmospheric water vapour which have nothing to do with CO2.

The actionable truth is that 100% of climate scientists refrain from performing econometric (i.e. least squares regressions) because the results are not to their likeing and/or grant applications, Hegerl & Zwiers, authors of AR4 AG1 Chapter 9 are exemplary.

Interesting point Poirot, but I think it's a matter of scale. It's hard to conduct and confirm an experiment on the Earth's climate. Not like a fetus you can throw in the bin; hitting the wall and sliding down, leaving a trail of blood. Hi runner!

Interesting in that you could one time eventually convince people of a theory without explaining the detail. Not sure it's possible in the age of marketing.

Spin, spiii -i -iin spin!

Just like every shop is always on sale, the boy has cried wolf too many times. BTW: Is anyone else suspicious of a shop that isn't on sale for any day of the year? wHO WOULD WALK INTO A SHOP THAT ISN'T ON SALE!

I don't want to believe any more. I have no desire to buy a Harbour Bridge.

I remain a vaguely interested AGW agnostic.

I also think we need to separate the existence of AGW from the likely success of a carbon tax or trading scheme.

In the end, WOman kind will do sweet FA until the last minute (It's always been a successful strategy for me), and it will turn out it's really not such a big problem, or else we'll find a way to cope.

No biggie really.

Poirot,

The following study sheds some light on why some people are having difficulty;

http://sharifflab.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/03/MarkowitzShariff2012.pdf

Whilst the authors identify 6 psychological components, they also identify strategies to confront those challenges - good luck with that :)

I think Bill McKibben wrote an article on it recently, and may have tried to explain it in simpler terms – you may want to follow it through.

Which raises another point: as soon as one tries to simplify the nuances and technicalities (of any science, for example) then one is open to distortion and misrepresentation (deliberately or unintentionally) by those who just don't know, or have an ideological agenda.

We see it on blog sites all the time … ‘wannabes’ and political ideologues pontificating they know more about ‘climate science’ than the vast number of real atmospheric physicists, or actual oceanographers, or genuine meteorologists, or you get the drift.

It’s as if the ‘nay-sayers’ are clasping their hands against their ears, shutting their eyes tight, and shouting at the top of their voice … “I can’t hear you, I don’t believe you, I’m right, you're wrong!”

I do wish they kept with the 'Global Warming' branding, I liked that idea. Not a fan of winter. The soviets could start to grow crops when our country is all desert.

Things change man. They chaaaaange! There's always some good in change.

I think also you have to read some stuff on the accuracy of crowds. Large numbers of people's intuition put together is surprisingly accurate. Ask a bookmaker too, money focuses the mind.

All these solutions. I reckon bet fair would solve the issue once and for all.

Scientists, forests, trees. Your too close to this case Crocket! It's too personal.

Bet on the lay man! The BS meter. Oh those scientists just don't know. I can sense it.

They will work it out one day I'm sure, and I can wait for them to sort themselves out fully. I cant understand all this agonizing. It's like parents that worry their child isn't walking yet. How many 7 year olds really haven't learnt that one yet.

In the meantime it's abundantly transparent that a Tax will always fix anything. We need more churn in the economy, and more office administrators, more legislation, more politicians. There, it's settled. The rich can pay.

Actually I have a spare $100 to burn, I'll literally burn it to help the situation. Other countries will follow suit.

pst, we're too rich, we feel guilty, so this sacrifice for the shifty chinese... ;-) Who wants to work in a factory anyway man.

I think you're onto something Houllie :)

About that $100… I think I'm safe to state categorically that no scientist would accept that burning it would help the situation.

However,

If you send it to me, I promise not to burn it. Most rational people would accept that would result in both of us assisting in not making the situation worse. And we would both feel better for that.

Glad I could help. Sincerely yours in anticipation,

cohenite et al,

I queried what was the difference between 'climate science' and 'medical science'......I should have asked "what is the difference between 'climate scientists' and 'medical scientists'".
Why do you respect some scientists and demonise others. Is not integrity amongst the scientific community, in the main, universal? Why should scientists from one field of related disciplines be considered corrupt?

Mollydukes,

Thanks for the boost : )
Will further check out your link.

bonmot,

Interesting look at the psychological parameters influencing acceptance and rejection of AGW - certainly worth a spending some time on : )

Bonmot links to another study questioning the morality and indeed sanity of "Denialism"

Being truly moral means treating others with respect for their rights and for their equality; alarmists do not do this.

The alarmists are elitists who disdain any who do not accept their world view; part of that disdain is designating what is a correct perception of not only what is moral but what is real.

Lewandowsky is a typical elitist of AGW; his most recent thesis is that sceptics are conspiracists [how original, and ironic given the persistent claims of right wing conspiracies!]; Lewandowsky asserts that the act of denying the moon landing is a good predictor for AGW denialism:

http://notrickszone.com/2012/07/29/australian-psychologists-claim-climate-science-skeptics-are-the-moon-landing-conspiracy-theorists/

Unfortunately for Lewandowsky, all the surviving astronauts who went to the moon are sceptical of AGW.

Lewandowsky is a typical AGW believer, condescending, arrogant and as it turns out ignorant.

Poirot asks:

"Why do you respect some scientists and demonise others. Is not integrity amongst the scientific community, in the main, universal? Why should scientists from one field of related disciplines be considered corrupt?"

For me the emails were a game-changer; people are frank in private and in the comfort zone of people who share and endorse their view. The emails showed what the climate scientists really thought about their science and those who oppose them. I saw no honour or integrity there.


And I'm sorry to say this but AGW science is bad science manifesting every defect of science from cherry-picking to confirmation bias to out and out fraud. The simple lack of transparency with AGW should put every reasonable person on notice.

The New Zealand law case where the defects of the New Zealand temperature record were litigated is one template as to how the social, economic and political infiltration of AGW will have to be dealt with.

To that extent I agree with bonmot; blog discussions are probably useless in providing a resolution to the threat to science which climate science poses.

cohenite,

"For me the emails were a game changer..."

You mean the cherry-picking and distortion that was presented as "climategate"...(psst - let's not mention the exoneration of the scientists involved, because as all dutiful skeptics will tell you - it was a white-wash)

"To the extent I agree with bonmot; blog discussions are probably useless in providing resolution to the threat to science which climate science poses."

"Blog discussions" are the oxygen of the skeptic/denialist movement (and usually there's not a scientist in sight who's 'qualified' in any of the disciplines involved with climate science).

It all simply percolates down to a 'conspiracy' - that's what blog skeptism excels at - providing a forum for the exercise of 'group think' fueled by conspiracy theories and perpetuated by intelligent amateurs who consider that they know climate science better than the climate scientists.

Poirot: the inquiries were a whitewash as they were conducted by past and present members of the CRU team and their associates. Not a single critic of CRU was interviewed by any of the inquiries.

But what I would like to see from you is a denunciation of Gillard's new resolve to bring power prices down, when I thought the whole purpose of the RET and CO2 tax was to force them up to the point where renewables become competitive, which is at least $140 per tonne CO2 (see Richard Tol, Maximum carbon taxes in the short run, 2012) to limit atmospheric CO2 to 450 ppm.

Cohenite, re:

http://sharifflab.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/03/MarkowitzShariff2012.pdf

The authors do not even mention the term "denialism", you obviously disagree.

I can't keep up with all your favourite blog sites (aca-daca 'No Trick Zone') but yes, useless.

.

Tim-Tom

So, you're still at it after this:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12137#209312

Who reviewed your 'papers' - pals over at Jo's, or Jen's, or the Lavoisier Group, perhaps?

Poirot:

"that's what blog skeptism excels at - providing a forum for the exercise of 'group think' fueled by conspiracy theories and perpetuated by intelligent amateurs who consider that they know climate science better than the climate scientists."

Congratulations Poirot, I count 4 cliches in that little diatribe against your inferiors. What a shame Poirot, I thought I saw some capacity for reasoned debate with you; no matter, I'll pass on your comments to Judith Curry, Roy Spencer, Ross McKitrick, Jennifer Marohasy, David Stockwell, Ryan Maue, the Pielkes etc, all "intelligent amateurs".

Bonmot, your link to the psychology of the [im]morality of non-belief in AGW indeed does not mention "Denialism"; it is much too civilised for that. Personally I find the stench of hypocrisy most disagreeable when it is couched in avuncular terms and context and that is what your 'study' does; anyway, as you know, in legal terms an implied meaning has as much force as a stated meaning and your link implies "Denialism" at every turn.

Your link says this:

"Uncertainty about future outcomes generally increases self-oriented behaviour and optimistic (moral) thinking27 (although see ref. 28 for exceptions to this rule); uncertainty also promotes optimistic biases29. Similarly, recent research shows that individuals often misinterpret the intended messages conveyed regarding the probabilistic nature of climate change outcomes — and tend to do so over-optimistically."

This is amusing in the context of AGW hyperbole and agitprop; consider this paper:

http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039642-pip.pdf

The paper says this:

"The greater the uncertainty that is considered for radiative forcing, the more difficult it is to rule out high climate sensitivity, although low climate sensitivity (< 2°C) remains unlikely.”

This is the precautionary principle: we don't know and have no evidence and we’re not certain about anything, but we’re certain things are going to be bad.

How does that sit with the moral imperative of accepting AGW? It is derigueur for climate scientists to exaggerate and lie to get the message across; that being the case why is it such a stretch to think they lie about the existence of AGW at all?

I just love being lectured about the morals of an issue which manifests no morals itself.

Hi Poirot,

The story so far:

* 0.9 degree average world temperature rise in a century;

* two-inches sea-level rise in about the same time;

* no significant temperature -rise in the last fourteen years or so;

* all because of CO2.

But what would bloggers know, even though we scheme and plot together ? As you point out, from the Olympian heights that you share with Manne, Maher, Milne and Hamilton, 'conspiracy' - that's what blog skepticism excels at...."

A roughly, more-or-less democratic society is a messy beast - it allows yobs like me, and so many others on this thread, to ask questions, and expect answers - and if we don't get them, we are free to tell you and your superior friends to go to buggery.

How much more efficient it would be in a Utopia where only experts had a proper say over their own fields, and where us proles would be content to go down pit for fifty years ?

The promised day of power for professionals may yet come, Poirot, the day when Whitlam intelligentsias rule, when the Good Society will be run according to the Grand Plan - and when the trains will all run on time.

As I am starting to be persuaded by Hayek, it is a very short distance, in practice, from socialism to fascism - weeks in the case of Russia, days in the case of Kampuchea. It's just that 'socialism' was sometimes more enduring, and probably more destructive of a belief in human potential.

But not while I and so many others can draw breath. Shove your elitism.

:)

Loudmouth,

"...Shove your elitism."

Nicely constructed narrative you and cohenite have conjured up lately - 'ordinary people', 'proles', 'yobs', 'bogans'...it somehow reminds me of Howard dog-whistling the 'battlers' while stealing Pauline Hanson's support base - shame he slapped them with Work Choices as reward for their gullibility.

"A more-or-less democratic society" spends a great deal educating and training its population. When a section of that population, namely climate scientists, find agreement of global warming they are pilloried....go figure?

Joe, I don't give the least toss if you judge you know better. If elitism means looking to those trained in science for answers on science then so be it.

You're the guy who keeps trumpeting the success of university enrollments for indigenous Australians. I hope none of them take up chemistry or oceanography or geophysics - you'd be the first to inform them their educated opinion is crap if the yobs don't agree with it.

(save your pathetic sarcastic smiley face at the bottom of your posts for someone who cares)

Poirot, I still await your justification of Gillard raising power prices with RET and the carbon (sick) tax and then complaining about rising power prices. Do come clean, or risk being called as much of a hypocrite as la Julia.

Poirot says:

"'ordinary people', 'proles', 'yobs', 'bogans'"

What a snob you are Poirot; I have represented many clients in court and the ones who are always more difficult are the elites who have an ego investment in their cause which always greatly exceeds an occasional inattention by the "ordinary people" in producing difficulty with the conduct of the matter.

You then say this:

"A more-or-less democratic society" spends a great deal educating and training its population. When a section of that population, namely climate scientists, find agreement of global warming they are pilloried...."

A couple of things here; firstly there is a strong push amongst that population and its supporters to suspend democracy so there is a strong elelment of hypocritical biting of the hand by the 'climate scientists'.

Secondly, even if you are right, and I raise the cases of Clive Spash Phil Watson and Doug Lord, all scientists working in the likes of the CSIRO and other government agencies who were chastised, fired or otherwise 'dealt with' for expressing publically evidence and doubt about AGW, about the great consensus amongst government funded bureacracies and academia isn't it the case that this consensus may be merely the usual enforced conformity inherent in such bureacracies to some extent?

Until independent analysis of climate science is done which also shows the validity of the evidence relied upon by that science then the reasonable doubt remains. Of course an independent analysis of the IPCC has been done by the IAC which found the scientific standards of the IPCC were unacceptable.

Do you entertain the slightest doubt that your position is untenable at all?

cohenite,

My reference to 'ordinary people', 'proles', 'yobs', etc. was in response to Loudmouth, who employs them perennially as props for his sarcastic replies. I merely noted that you too have picked up on "the elite vs real people" strategy.

Okey-dokey - let's all wait while the non-climatologists analyse the climate science.

Tell Mr Tiddler I haven't got time to argue politics - family duties prevail (and it's the maid's night off!!)

Poirot,

Oy. I look forward to the time when the majority of people are university graduates, across every field, men and women, Black and White and everything in between, and that they can speak with the authority of their expertise, with each other, and realise the need to explain their theories to the rest of society, in a respectful fashion.

Here are some simple questions, Poirot:

* average world temperature has risen by 0.9 degrees in the past century - yes ? no ?

* sea-levels have risen by around two inches in the last century - yes ? no ?

* average world temperatures haven't risen by anything much in the laast fourteen years. Yes ? No ?

* there are a range of remedies that might mitigate the awful effects of Global Luke-Warming and CO2 poisoning, from nuclear power to tree-planting to switching of the kitchem light, etc. Yes ? No ?

I want to believe in the dreadful danger of CO2 poisoning our atmosphere as much as the next leftie, or Green Party member, but I'm simply too old and grumpy, I've had too many kicks in the nuts, to believe every guru and BS artist that comes along. The melting of the Himalaya glaciers by 2035, in 23 years, was a good one and I was on the verge of flying over to Sydney and putting in a bit for the Bridge when I did some very crude calculations about adiabatic whatever and worked out that, at an average of 18,000 feet, the Himalayan glaciers would melt when the temperature rose by some impossible amount, 500 degrees or something weird like that. That can't be right. But certainly, a rise of two or five degrees would still leave most glaciers intact: the smow line would retreat by how much ? 600 to 1500 metres ? Correct me if I'm wrong :)

And I do apologise for those irritating smiley faces.

:)

Definition of 'ordinary' in Penguin Dictionary.
'Routine or usual; customary; not exceptional; commonplace'.
Attributes I would hardly deem as desirable when debating current issues or framing the future of the world.

"Attributes I would hardly deem as desirable when debating current issues or framing the future of the world."

So, you're an anti-democrat Atlarak? Certainly you are arrogant.

I would suggest to you that the use of the term "ordinary people" by the author was meant to be ironic.

From my experience with the best and brightest I have never seen so little common sense or ability to admit a mistake; and this is what we are seeing with AGW; massive egoes combined with a lot of money, fame and some really weird ideology keeping what is, without a doubt a scandalous pseudo-science going.

We need bright people but we need ordinary people and we need the ordinary social structure of democracy more.

"I would suggest that the use of the term "ordinary people" by the author was meant to be ironic."

You should know, cohenite, you are the author.

I reckon we should ditch higher learning and inter-disciplinary expertise altogether.. It's obviously redundant in a modern democracy where "ordinary people" access their knowledge, comfort and reassurance from gathering together under the ideological umbrellas of blog sites.

Houellebecq,

Send me the $100. I promise, under the government I lead, I will burn it for you.

Bonmot,

I always find your links interesting.

I usually always read them, as in the past I've found they can undermine your own arguments.

This time I only read as far as this

'Converging evidence from the behavioural and brain sciences suggests that the human moral judgement system is not well equipped to identify climate change — a complex, large-scale and unintentionally caused phenomenon — as an important moral imperative'

I immediately had a vision of a pontificating and position changing Kevin Rudd.

You position was undermined ... again.

I then switched off and hit the upper right red X... and stopped reading your posts on this subject

Poirot; you sound bitter; in a democracy people, whether ordinary like me or elite like you don't have to gather anywhere to get their information; they can inform themselves, or not, as individuals.

That is the key, in case you missed it, individuality.

What we see with the AGW push is the concerted effort of some 2nd raters to establish themselves as a sort of priesthood, justified and empowered by the 'save the Earth' exigency.

This push wants to make itself the sole source, not only of information, but authority as well. Their hubris, condescension and grasping for power is despicable.

Poirot, I can't believe you have been taken in by this; all I can say is what Winston said:

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried."

But then he also said:

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

He was a politician after all.

I think wily Winston was correct on both counts.

You're the one making distinctions and claiming certain people are "elite" and others "ordinary".

You offer your services as a lawyer. People come to you for your expertise in your field, just as they seek out doctors, engineers and scientists....even the trades have their particular expertise.

Why is it elitist to imagine that those qualified and working in the field of climate science are more knowledgeable on the subject than "ordinary people", who, by dint of their ideological perspectives and reinforced by group-think, are swayed in favour of conspiracy?

"...2nd raters"...?

Here are some simple questions, Poirot:

* average world temperature has risen by 0.9 degrees in the past century - yes ? no ?

* sea-levels have risen by around two inches in the last century - yes ? no ?

* average world temperatures haven't risen by anything much in the last fourteen years. yes ? no ?

* there are a range of remedies that might mitigate the awful effects of Global Luke-Warming and CO2 poisoning, from nuclear power to tree-planting to switching of the kitchem light, etc. Yes ? No ?

No rush, AGLW is not such a big deal. A few more ad hominems won't hurt us. We can wait :)

"You're the one making distinctions and claiming certain people are "elite" and others "ordinary".

No I am not, Manne is.

The argument that climate scientists should have the same respect as other professionals is sophistry; other professionals are not dictating public policy because they claim their expertise has enabled them to see the end of the world.

If a bunch of doctors starting going around saying that unless massive grant money was given to them, that people should do without and as they are told and investment in their approved projects did not occur then the Earth was basically going to blow up then, unless I have underestimated the capacity of people to recognise BS, I bet the public would start to kick and demand to see the evidence.

And this is the point; the evidence of the climate scientists has been withheld, pronouncements are made and exposes occur which reveal the feet of clay of both the evidence and the climate scientists.

These scientists do not deserve the privileged position they are claiming; they have acted arrogantly and secretively and disdainfully towards the public.

Poirot: I am still waiting for you to explain why Julia was right to force up the price of electricity with her carbon (sick) tax but is also right to demand now that the states force down electricity prices, whilst herself refraining from repealing the carbon (sick) tax.

cohenite,

Your accusation that climate scientists predict "the end of the world" - or "the Earth basically blowing up" is 24 carat sophistry.

Regarding "doctors" - or medical and public health officials - requesting investment in their approved projects as something the public would disdain.

You mean like this?:
http://www.learner.org/workshops/primarysources/disease/transcript03.html

"The only means of preventing these diseases at this time was to clean up the city, improve the the housing stock, reduce overcrowding, provide better sanitation, et cetera.

Now this environmental emphasis implied the need for massive social investment and a change in social and economic relationships..."

Tom Tiddler,

Wait all you like. It's not incumbent upon me to respond to every Tom, Tim and Tiddler on this forum.

Loudmouth,

"...A few more ad hominems won't hurt us..."

"...Shove your elitism."

Hypocrite

Poirot, I have dealt with your germ theory comparison with AGW above; Germ theory was accepted because it worked, AGW is not being accepted because it doesn't work.

Poirot: so you really are intellectually challenged when you cannot respond to my very simple question.

BTW, it was interesting to watch the news this evening, with tales of worst ever droughts in USA, and worst ever floods in Thailand and much of China, despite the identical levels of atmospheric CO2 worldwide including all those countries at all times.

Why are climate scientists so useless that they have not been able to persuade us all that reducing atmospheric CO2 to 350 ppm (Hansen) would ensure just the right amounts of rain in both the USA on the one hand and China/Philippines on the other AT ALL TIMES?

cohenite,

You applied the "If a bunch of doctors..." parallel. I went with it.

"AGW is not being accepted because it doesn't work."

Well thank you, Mr Lawyer (aka climate expert)

Tom Tiddler,

Obviously the increased frequency of extreme events means nothing to you. What were you saying about being intellectually challenged?

Dear Poirot,

I'm afraid I was fast running out of dance partners on the other AGW threads so I wondered if I could have a play with the odd wall flower in here.

But now that I look around I see you've danced most of them to a stand still. Greedy sod.

Actually by the number of blood noses you seemed to have learnt how to keep your elbows up. I think I'm safer off this floor.

Keep an eye out for forged dance cards though.

I'll leave you to it.

Here are some simple questions, Poirot:

* average world temperature has risen by 0.9 degrees in the past century - yes ? no ?

* sea-levels have risen by around two inches in the last century - yes ? no ?

* average world temperatures haven't risen by anything much in the last fourteen years. yes ? no ?

* there are a range of remedies that might mitigate the awful effects of Global Luke-Warming and CO2 poisoning, from nuclear power to tree-planting to switching of the kitchem light, etc. Yes ? No ?

No rush, AGLW is not such a big deal..... We can wait....

:)

Well hello, julia's nutter - Thursday, 9 August 2012 4:42:03 PM

>> This time I only read as far as this ... <<

Ok, let's give you the benefit of the doubt - you're just sticking your head in the sand.

Ergo, you're a fake sceptic. Real sceptics would at least look.

However, if you did read the article;

http://sharifflab.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/03/MarkowitzShariff2012.pdf

and you are telling a 'porky', then you (like others here);

1. find AGW non-intuitive and cognitively challenging, or

2. think yourself blameless for unintended consequences, or

3. feel guilty so exhibit defensive biases, or

4. wish the seriousness of global warming will not be as severe, or

5. identify with conservative idealogues, or

6. believe it's a problem for someone else.

My guess? All of the above.

If you (or others) think that's gratuitous ad-hom, perhaps you can refute the Markowitz/Shariff research.

bonmot, your 'moral' research is pathetic. For a start AGW believers such as yourself blame greedy fossil energy companies and sloth ridden consumers of fossil fuels for WILLINGLY causing AGW in spite of the overwhelming 'evidence' for AGW. This explains why the luvvies have dreamed up a new criminal offence of ecocide which loons like Flannery endorse because the world is a living gaia, don't you know. So the paper's claim that AGW is confusing because it is unintentional is rubbish from the start.

The gaia , mother Earth concept also contradicts the paper's 2nd point that:

"Climate change possesses few features that generate rapid, emotional visceral reactions8: it is an abstract, temporally and spatially distant phenomenon consisting of many different, disparate and seemingly incongruous events"

That is junk; the hysterics who support AGW do so because for them nature is an immediate and emotional concept; the fact that most of these people live in cities away from nature means that emotional connection to nature is NOT based on a realistic concept but the Disneyfication of nature as being something cuddly and, most importantly, something with an inherent moral structure.

This astounds me, Nature is AMORAL; 'it' has no moral purpose or guidelines at all except survival; the nitwits who live in cities and associate nature with bambi and peaches and cream and a moral benevolence which, if humanity could only live in accord with nature, would protect humanity are delusional; their emotional connection to nature is so profoundly intense because that concept is abstract; an unreal abstract but none-the-less an abstract. So, in this respect the paper doesn't know what it is talking about; supporters of AGW do have an immediate emotional response to nature precisely because it is an abstract for them.

I could go on, but suffice to say your paper is junk; so are you.

Oh, why gee, thanks nutter - I mean Anthony ... seems to have got to you too :)

cohenite,

That all sounds rather silly. Does not "life" depend on the earth and its systems for sustenance. You're the one who's deluded and can't see beyond the taming of nature that is human urbanisation. Beneath the facade of mastery over nature lies that reality. The earth of humanity isn't one big city - and if it was it couldn't sustain itself.

Loudmouth,

As csteele points out, I've danced with all the wallfowers on this thread. I have to point out that your dance steps appear peculiarly limited. You keep repeating a tired old left-footed three-step - (and my toes can only take so much)

Perhaps you should sit this one out - maybe toddle off and perch your derriere on one of the "luke-warm" benches for a while.

: )

: )

Bonmot expresses total belief in the Markowitz & Shariff paper, even though its opening statement is misleading: “The climate science community has arrived at a consensus regarding both the reality of rapid, anthropogenic climate change and the necessity of urgent and sustained action to avoid its worst environmental, economic and social consequences…”. Sure there is a climate change community, or cabal, but it does not comprise all scientists, of whom there are thousands including most physicists and geologists deeply sceptical of the cabal’s core beliefs including the reality of CC and that urgent action is needed.

M&S claim that “individuals who do consider the ethical implications of climate change report greater support for a variety of mitigation policies” is itself unethical, because there are valid ethical concerns at the harm CC mitigation policies will do to standards of living of all of us and especially the poor in 3rd world countries most of whom already lack access to cheap electricity and whose food prices are soaring because of the biofuels scam – the latest example is the NZ aid project in Tokelau which in effect requires its people to give up their dependence on coconuts to feed themselves and their pigs and instead use their coconut oil to replace diesel (h/t to w. today at WUWT).

Similarly their claim “Moral judgement is … strongly driven by emotional responses to objects in the environment” is utter nonsense. M&S mention the “what car would Jesus drive” campaign of their fellow travellers, but if they read the Gospels they would find that the moral judgments there bear no relation to “objects in the environment”. They go on: “Climate change possesses few features that generate rapid, emotional visceral reactions” – there they have a point, as none of us anywhere on this planet has experienced any uni-directional climate change. The climate has always been variable, and we have always had regularly alternating hot and cool summers and cold and mild winters, but with zero statistically significant trend in warming anywhere (see my ACE2011 paper at www.timcurtin.com).

M&S also say that “understanding climate change…” requires “cold, cognitively demanding” reasoning, but that is manifestly beyond their capability.

Instead M&S further display their own lack of ethics when they cynically see their role as being equivalent to that of sales agents or advertisers: “Thus, it seems that focusing messaging on the burdens that unmitigated climate change will leave on future generations (for example, higher adaptation costs, greater human suffering from dis¬ease) … may be a simple and easily administrated way to bolster the moral concern of individuals over the impacts of climate change”.

The truth is that adaptation costs when and if required will be both less costly than across the board mitigation imposts like the carbon (sick) tax and more equitable because more likely to be levied on beneficiaries of the adaptation (eg sea walls).

Not only that, there is no evidence that whatever very minimal warming may arise will cause “greater human suffering from disease”, when all the evidence is that mortality continues to be higher in NH winters than summers. As for malaria, see Hay et al in Nature 2002 (2 papers: “The IPCC has concluded that there is likely to be a net extension in the distribution of malaria and an increase in incidence within this range.We investigated long-term meteorological trends in four high-altitude sites in East Africa, where increases in malaria have been reported in the past two decades. Here we show that temperature, rainfall, vapour pressure and the number of months suitable for P. falciparum transmission have not changed significantly during the past century or during the period of reported malaria resurgence.”
See also Stern et al Nature 2010/11.

“Does not "life" depend on the earth and its systems for sustenance. You're the one who's deluded and can't see beyond the taming of nature that is human urbanisation. Beneath the facade of mastery over nature lies that reality.”

I don’t disagree with that Poirot [except the part about being deluded]; how could any reasonable person? But there is a world of difference between appreciating that we, currently, are limited for our resources to what is on this Earth, and saying that we should limit our ability to use those resources. AGW says the latter under a number of guises such as sustainability, peak oil, and general despoliation of nature; that last criteria, which includes pollution, does so NOT from the vantage of what is good or not for humans but on the basis that pristine nature should not be disturbed at all; that is misanthropy.

There are some existential, even epistemological issues here to do with humanity’s battle with nature; the civilizations today, which are nonpareil in the history of human society, are there because natural limitation has been exceeded, so how do you define sustainability?

At the end of the day people like bonmot are luddites who want to keep a lid on the kettle of human development, both technologically and environmentally.

To be free of the tyranny of nature is a worthwhile vision. The AGW believers invoke a delusional and [im]moral perspective of nature in the form of “Denialism” to constrain humanity into a diminished conformity with ideologically derived notions of sustainability. Personally I think AGW belief is due to a morbid fear of personal mortality and worthlessness which is vitiated by seeking to enslave others [excluding you of course Poirot, you just misguided]; basically AGW is a form of Münchausen syndrome by proxy.

Or perhaps we could label your AGW theory as "Munchausen Syndrome by Coxy"

You're quite a clever fellow, I see - shame you're on the wrong side. : )

Dear Poirot,

Although I find some of your comments irrelevant, side-tracking and offensive, I would unreservedly defend your right to make them. We are mostly adults here, we can take it. Slag away [insert smiley-face here]

To get back to the sub-text:

Here are some simple questions, Poirot:

* average world temperature has risen by 0.9 degrees in the past century - yes ? no ?

* sea-levels have risen by around two inches in the last century - yes ? no ?

* average world temperatures haven't risen by anything much in the last fourteen years. yes ? no ?

* there are a range of remedies that might mitigate the awful effects of Global Luke-Warming and CO2 poisoning, from nuclear power to tree-planting to switching of the kitchem light, etc. Yes ? No ?

Am I on the right track or not ? What is the rate of change of increase in temperature and sea-level ? Provided no government does anything, will the changes over the next century be double those of the past century ? Five times as much ? Ten times as much ? A hundred times as much, as we are persuaded by the hystericals to believe ?

And if governments do do something ?

I'm just asking. I hope that's all right.

No rush, AGLW is not such a big deal, at least compared to freedom of expression ....

:)

Loudmouth,

You find some of my comments offensive and irrelevant.

You tell me to "Shove my elitism" because I prefer to consult scientists for answers on scientific questions.

Discussion over

Poirot: just answer Loudmouth's questions, you don't need scientists to help you, as the data are in the public domain.

Tim Curtin/Tom Tiddler, re Markowitz & Shariff ... methinks you protest too much.

Just to be sure:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/17/tim-curtins-incompetence-with/

And hoodathunk? You say to Bernard J you "have studied no science since your Year 10 in 1955".

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/18/tim-curtin-thread/

Appears not to have studies stats either:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/tc-and-dw/

To make matters worse:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/big-difference/

The comments sum Tim-Tom up perfectly.

bonmot, as I expected when you have no answers you resort to ad homs. The criticisms of me at Closed Mind and Deltoid could find only one error, which I freely admitted, and duly explained. The Table in question was a minor part of the whole paper and its SI, and no point of substance was found by any of the creeps at those Blogs. While the paper you think was so brilliant did not have a single constructive comment - its authors' day jobs are probably as advertising executives.

Bonmot,

At last, somebody who might give a straight answer !

Here are some simple questions, Bonmot:

* average world temperature has risen by 0.9 degrees in the past century - yes ? no ? true ? false ?

* sea-levels have risen by around two inches in the last century - yes ? no ?

* average world temperatures haven't risen by anything much in the last fourteen years. yes ? no ?

And if governments do nothing, anywhere, what is the rate of increase in all of these ?

And if governments DO do something ?

I'm just asking. I hope that's all right.

Cheers,

Joe :)

Ah yes, the old 'ad-hom' canard trotted out by Mr Curtin-Tiddler.

Actually, Tim-Tom, I just call it a bit of fact checking.

Btw, I know it's early days but have you found any refutation to M&S?

I mean by real behaviourists, or psychologists even - not the 'wannabes' like cohers, or you for that matter.

Joe, I've already answered your questions in another thread - but hey, I could be wrong :)

Going out to dinner now but watch this space :(

Mr Tiddler,

Let's wait for bonmot to answer Loudmouth's questions - he's a scientist : )

btw...whadaya carrying on about ad homs for? You labelled me "intellectually challenged" for not answering your political question.

Thank you, Poirot - yes, let's wait for Bonmot to answer those simple questions:

Yes? No ?

I don't mind if you or he tries to insult me instead of answering, I'm from Bankstown after all, from the days when it was half bush, so it's like water off a duck's back :) Just as long as, sooner or later, we get answers to simple questions without so much ducking and diving.

Then we can get back to more important issues than AGLW.

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth,

What is it with your disingenuous insistence that you are being insulted. You deliberately manufacture an inferior persona, then hurl it like rotten eggs at me in every post. You often use that particular strategy in your debates.

You don't know me. You consider me elitist because I can string a few words together in coherent fashion - and I'm in favour of trusting scientists on the science of global warming.

Your "confected inferiority" is merely ploy you use to get under the skin of your opponents (as if you're the only one who's ever done the hard yards) - and yet you implicitly accuse us of playing games.

Interesting tactic, but it doesn't wash with me.

: )

Hi Poirot,

Well no, it's just that disparagement is no barrier to a request for answers: be disparaging all you like, it shouldn't be illegal, after all - simply have the courtesy, if you want people to believe your narrative, to come up with some evidence for it.

Yes ? No ?

Thank you, Poirot.

Ahhh Bonmot,

'...as an important moral imperative'.

So you like Kevvy see AGW as a moral imperative. Is that an act of faith?

Do you

1. find AGW intuitive and cognitively unchallenging, or

2. think yourself to blame for unintended consequences, or

3. feel no guilt so exhibit offensive biases, or

4. wish the seriousness of global warming will be extremely severe, or

5. identify with leftie 'progressive' idealogues, or

6. believe it's a problem for only you.

My guess? I'm too old and wise to presume the reasons for others motives. Answers to my questions would eliminate presumption.

Cheers Bonmo

This thread was about Manne and his distinction between the elites who 'appreciate' AGW and the "ordinary people" who have been led astray by the msm and the unscrupulous "Deniers".

In a way bonmot's farcial paper on the moral defects of those who do not accept AGW merely reinforces the point; the point is those who are most likely to be disadvantaged by the measures to 'cure' AGW are once again being lectured by those who are probably least likley to be affected by the CO2 tax and the various other bits of legislation which this government has introduced. In this respect bonmot's 'moral' paper is ironic because the immorality of wilfully imposing pointless and unjustified hardship on people, as the writers of the 'moral' paper advocate, is completely ignored by the so-called moral elites.

cohenite,

There's no doubt about your confidence in opposition to scientific agreement on AGW. "Elites" vs "ordinary people" is probably a reasonable strategy to run with for the time being.

I came across a pertinent passage by that elitist brainbox, Charles Darwin, who wrote the following in his introduction to "The Descent of Man":

"It has often and confidently been asserted, that man's origin can never be known: but ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."

So "those who know much" (ie. climate scientists) are given the epithet "elitists" - and "those who know little" (about climate science) are titled "ordinary people", salts of the earth, heartlessly manipulated by the former and their supporters.

Fascinating narrative.

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F937.1&viewtype=text&pageseq=1

Hi Poirot,

Your quote of Charles Darwin's raises a question:

"So "those who know much" (ie. climate scientists) are given the epithet "elitists" - and "those who know little" (about climate science) are titled "ordinary people", salts of the earth, heartlessly manipulated by the former and their supporters."

Is this your interpretation of how some critics (is one allowed to be a critic these days ? Isn't that getting dangerously close to becoming - dare I use the word ? - a 'sceptic' ?) might be using the words ?

Isn't it possible that what some people mean by 'elitist' is an observation that, in the minds of some other people, if you are not an expert, you should shut up and keep out of the discussion ?

And given that this thread has something to do with free speech for all, i.e. the obverse of the above approach, then the views of the most boorish, ignorant, blathering and bigoted must be given free rein, no matter how much we disagree with them ?

After all, the problem is who decides ? Who should be the guardian of what should be allowed ? Who defines proper thought and speech ? Who sets the boundaries of what 'ordinary people' should be allowed to say ? i.e. the ignorants amongst us (or at least a few suburbs over) ?

Or - eventually - think ? In a properly ordered society, one suspects crosses some minds, 'surely only the elites can deliberate over what should be said and, therefore, thought' ? 'Sadly,' this line of thought goes on, 'will there always be a need for the thought police and the extraction squads, even in the best of Utopias' ?

Cheers,

Joe

:)

Hello Joe

1. Average world temperature has risen by 0.9 degrees in the past century?

Yes. Some regions have experienced even higher averages, especially as you move away from the equator and towards the poles.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201001-201012.gif

2. sea-levels have risen by around two inches in the last century?

No. The global average sea level has risen about 20 cm.

Sea levels rose at an average of about 1.7 millimetres per year during the 20th century and 3.4 millimetres per year for about the last 20 years

The oceans are the major heat-sink for global warming. As water warms, it expands in volume. This thermal expansion of the ocean has been the major cause of sea level rise in the 20th century.

Other contributors to sea level rise are the melting of glaciers and ice sheets from Greenland and the Antarctic continents.

3. Average world temperatures haven't risen by anything much in the last fourteen years.

Yes, but you’re a realist Joe : )

Copy this link to your browser and click the graph:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/112435942355572461782/posts/3VkBXqgC9mk

In statistical terms, you have to separate the ‘noise’ (natural variability) from the ‘signal’ (climate change) you are trying to measure. A 30 year period is nominally required, 14 years is really not long enough.

Consider this; 1998 was one of the hottest years in recorded history, so was 2010/11. 1998 in El Niño, 2010 in La Niña. This should tell you something about trends.

FYI

• The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for June 2012 was 0.63°C above the 20th century average of 15.5°C. The fourth warmest June since records began in 1880.

• The Northern Hemisphere land and ocean average surface temperature for June 2012 was the all-time warmest June on record, at 1.30°C above the average.

• The globally-averaged land surface temperature for June 2012 was also the all-time warmest June on record, at 1.07°C above average.

Your last 2 questions Joe;

Life does not end in 2100. We have to adapt to a warmer and wetter world, it would be prudent to slow the rate of increase. Yes/No?

Thank you, Bonmot,

1. 0.9 degrees, on average. As you write, some regions have experienced higher rises. Which suggests to a fool like me that some regions must have experienced lower lises, or none at all perhaps. But 0.9 degrees on average.

2. Sea-level rises must be much more to measre, what with tectonics, and coastal rise following on from the Ice Age or uplift, as in the case of the east coast. 20 cm, eight inches, certainly may not be evidenced by erosion of beaches, since the sand has to go somewhere, but probably can be measured by, say, rise in algal or marine-growth lines on sea-walls, that sort of thing. Or gradual swamping of low sea-walls or berms or groynes, or whatever. For all that, eight inches sound a bit much. Areas can get swamped for other reasons too, such as land submergence, as in Pacific atolls.

Yes, I suppose as water warms, it expands in volume (although we learnt in shool physics that it didn't). But from 0 to about 2 degrees, we learnt, it decreases in volume. Oops, fodder for your case :)

And this past June was "The fourth warmest June since records began in 1880" ? The other three warmer Junes were when ? 1998 and twice more since then ?

As you write, "it would be prudent to slow the rate of increase. Yes/No?"

Of course. Switching to renewables, and paying higher electricity prices if that is what it takes. Creating algal blooms or whatever to suck CO2 out of the oceans. Culling whales to allow more plankton to grow, or whatever. As I wrote,

".... there are a range of remedies that might mitigate the awful effects of Global Luke-Warming .... , from nuclear power to tree-planting to switching of the kitchen light, etc. Yes ? No ?"

Most governments seem to be coming around to doing something, even China and maybe even, one day, India.

[TBC]

Bonmot

[continued]

I guess what gets up the noses of many people though, Bonmot, is this suspicion that somebody, for their own ends, is crying 'wolf'. And that is why we ALWAYS need freedom of expression for all the sceptics and doubters and assorted fools who don't want to get kicked in the nuts, whether by politicians or by 'experts', or by their useful idiots.

Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a thousand schools of thought contend. Seriously.

Cheers,

Joe

:)

I see bonmot has wandered in from his exalted place and made some declarations about various terrifying consequences of AGW which are happening right now; one is sea level; Houston and Dean [2010] have provided the definitive paper on sea level rise; they say:

"Without sea-level acceleration, the 20th-century sea-level trend of 1.7 mm/y would produce a rise of only approximately 0.15 m from 2010 to 2100; therefore, sea-level acceleration is a critical component of projected sea-level rise. To determine this acceleration, we analyze monthly-averaged records for 57 U.S. tide gauges in the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) data base that have lengths of 60–156 years. Least-squares quadratic analysis of each of the 57 records are performed to quantify accelerations, and 25 gauge records having data spanning from 1930 to 2010 are analyzed. In both cases we obtain small average sea-level decelerations. To compare these results with worldwide data, we extend the analysis of Douglas (1992) by an additional 25 years and analyze revised data of Church and White (2006) from 1930 to 2007 and also obtain small sea-level decelerations similar to those we obtain from U.S. gauge records."

So, sea level rise is DEcelerating not ACcelerating and that is consistent with trends for the last 100 years and contradicts the predictions of AGW sea level rise into the future.

Here you go, cohenite,

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/is-sea-level-rise-accelerating/

Loudmouth,

Darwin's point didn't mention any boundaries about what people say. I have never advocated controlling free speech. You are adept at skewing things to suit your agenda....and I see you remain quite happy to go with the manufactured inferiority..."....Which suggests to a fool like me..."

Still, carry on. As you point out, free speech rules, as does your freedom to dismiss information from people who understand climate better than yourself.

"...this suspicion that somebody, for their own ends, is crying wolf..."

"...but ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..."

- especially when there's a conspiracy theory in the air.

bonmot, the Rahmstorf 'rebuttal' of Houston and Dean was, in turn, rebutted here:

http://www.jcronline.org/doi/full/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-11A-00008.1

Do keep up.

Oh, sorry, that was Poirot; you look the same in the steamy air of the greenhouse.

Hi Poirot,

I certainly don't dismiss what someone writes - witness my responses to your constipated friend Bonmot above.

But at last, something has come out ! 0.9 degrees temperature rise (wow!) and 8 inches (20 cm) sea-level rise, in a century. Okay, we've got something to run with. So, assuming the rate of these rises is increasing over time, how quickly is the rate of increase in these factors increasing ?

And what do we do about it all ? What is being done now, and what are we learning that might work ?

Or as proper professional Leichhardt/Carlton-based latte-sipping observers of the world, is our role to describe and complain about how terrible it all is, not to try to change it for the better ?

What do you propose, Poirot, to change it for the better ? See, I'm assuming you're not one of those latte-sipping wa.nkers, that you have ideas :)

Cheers

Joe

Goodness me, loud mouth, you really are as arrogant as you appear.

"..Witness my responses to your constipated friend Bonmot above."

To be sure, loud mouth, your response wasn't constipated - the opposite in fact. That may be an example of the "confidence" of which Mr Darwin spoke.

You're an interesting psychological study. You've got so many tags on yourself - that, added to your sarcasm, basically guarantees your mocking style.

What's constipated about a climate scientist such as bonmot respectfully answering your questions?

That's what you said you wanted - and when you get it you respond with barely disguised scorn.

Joe, you’re no fool but you persist in saying you are – I find this perplexing.

Anyway;

1. Yep, some regions will be better off – most econometricians think the globe will be worse off.

2. Methinks sea level rise is a conundrum for you (and Anthony Cox). Perhaps you could look here:

I suggest you look here:

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_links.html

plus the embedded links, e.g.

http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/

and its embedded links.

3. Yes, 1998, 2005, 2010

4. Yep, on the button.

However, there are some ‘fake-sceptics’ out there, some vested interests, some political ideologues, some ‘whatever’, that for whatever reason … just don’t want to move forward.

Freedom of expression is one thing, but deliberately distorting, misrepresenting or dumbing down the author’s “ordinary people” is despicable, imho.

5. “Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a thousand schools of thought contend. Seriously.”

I agree … but discard the poison or the ‘weeds’ - most people don’t even know what they are.

Given your latest remark, you're definitely not going to be part of any solution and like Anthony Cox, you keep your head fixed firmly in the sand and your butt directly pointed upward ... emitting a more powerful GHG than CO2 : ) smile!

As to you saying I'm (metaphorically) "constipated" ... thanks 'mate', I'm not going to waste any more time on you or your mate, R'shole!

Bye.

Loudmouth,

I was just having a look back at a post of yours in which you stated"

"Oy, I look forward to the time when the majority of people are university graduates, across every field, men and women, Black and White and everything in between, and that they can speak with the authority of their expertise, with each other, and realise the need to explain their theories to the rest of society in a respectful fashion."

Such honourable sentiments...

"...and that they can speak with the authority of their expertise, with each other, and realise the need to explain their theories to the rest of society in respectful fashion."

"Witness my response to your constipated friend Bonmot."

Respect works both ways. I can't believe you responded in such a manner to someone taking the time to seriously address your questions.

So much for your concocted morality....it has no substance.

This 24-hours thing is annoyng, isn't it ?

Bonmot, thanks for a good laugh ! At last, some actual evidence, after days of polite asking: after all, he who asserts must provide evidence. So thanks for that.

The trend line in one of your sea-level-rise graphs was drawn to go inexorably and uniformly up - but that's how they can be drawn. On a slightly closer look, it seems clear that yes, it seems that sea-levels rose from around (from memory) 1972 to 2000, then flattened off, and actually seemed to decline over the last three or so years. In other words, two intersecting trend lines could be drawn, the later one at a lower angle. Or even three trend lines, the latest one negative.

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Thank you, Poirot, for just so ever slightly missing the point yet again.

But isn't it nice that we can converse in a civilised way on issues over which we disagree, keeping insults to a minimum ?

Of course, there is a Principle involving ad hominems that you should take note of:

* He/she who resorts to ad hominems has given up on his/her argument.

In spite of this, I DO think there is some AGLW going on - perhaps not enough to get hysterical about - and that there are many remedies and initiatives which can be employed to diminish its effects. I don't look forward to some Armageddon for our grand-children - I would much rather put some effort, and even my own money, into finding ways to minimise, and even reverse, the effects of CO2 and other AGLW gases, to change the world for the better. But feel free to sit back and wring your hands :)

And I do reserve the right - the right that everybody has - to speak freely about these issues, to raise questions, to cast doubt if necessary, and not to take the pontifications of some soi-disant Public Intellectual as gospel truth.

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth,

"He/she who resorts to ad hominems has given up his/her argument."

Thanks for the tip on the ethics of debate, but if I'm going to seek advice on the finer points of argument, I won't be looking in your direction.

"Bonmot, thanks for the good laugh! At last, some actual evidence, after days of polite asking...."

There was nothing particularly polite about your "polite asking" - which was, for all intents and purposes, a stunt.... as is evidenced by your subsequent ridicule.

Your ever-present tone of mockery and faux self-deprecation form the basis of your "technique", which you seem to regard as cutting-edge "clever". It appears that you have no idea how to debate in a candid manner.

Here's an article on the tension between argument and debate:

http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-science-and-policy-the-tension-between-argument-and-debate-8761

Poirot I'm still trying to get bonmot to comment on Houston and Dean's reply to the Rahmstorf and Vermeer paper [which you linked to at RC] on Houston and Dean's first paper about sea level rise being perfectly normal and showing no AGW influence, but no luck; maybe you'd like to apply your intellect to finding any loopholes:

http://www.jcronline.org/doi/full/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-11A-00008.1

Thank you, Poirot, for raising the art of hurling ad hominems to a more genteel level.

But the intention of ad hominems is to avoid the issues once the fragility of one's arguments has been exposed, and I commend your superior ability to do just that.

In my defence, I did ask Bonmot repeatedly, but courteously for some answers and it did take him/her around four days: I thought I might have to go around to his/her place with a poo-stick, but eventually he/she got it out, for which I am grateful.

So now we have an idea that temperatures have risen nearly a degree in a century, and sea-levels by something between two and eight inches.

Australia may well go over to solar power in the next few decades, it is being reported today. What impact might this have on the production of CO2 ? I hope this is the sort of thing that the carbon tax is funding - I'm certainly happy to pay more for my electricity if this is the case.

If government policies can be devised that successfully combat CO2 production, etc., what might be the impact of sea-level rise in coastal areas ? Is it possible that the effects of AGLW can be successfully contained by the year 2100 ?

Or does that go so much against the Deep Green notion of Inevitable Apocalypse (because we're all such Consumerist b@stards and deserve it), that we shouldn't talk about that sort of thing ?

Or will it become just a storm in a Carlton soy-chai-tea-cup ?

Cheers,

Joe

Hey r'shole, some of us have a life other than responding to your every whim, every question - the answers to which can be easily found with just a smidgen of effort.

If it is any of your business to know (it isn't) a very dear and close family friend had a massive heart attack.

If you really want to learn, to be part of the solution, use the brain your dear late partner in life so admired. From what you have displayed to me (and as Poirot has noted) you are losing the plot, can't see the big picture anymore.

If you think that ad hominem, so be it. As far as I'm concerned, both you and cohenite can whistle Dixie, I have more important things to do.

Adieu!

Thank you, Bonmot, I hope your friend is recovering well. Remember the good times, they are so precious.

Joe

"Thank you, Poirot, for raising the art of hurling ad hominems to a more genteel level."

The pity is, Loudmouth, that your sneering insincere style is designed to provoke such a reaction....your choice.