The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > A short response to Robert Manne's A Dark Victory > Comments

A short response to Robert Manne's A Dark Victory : Comments

By Tim Florin, published 6/9/2012

Repetition of the oft-made assertion that there is scientific consensus about the cause of global warming does not make it true.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. All
Ah, truth!

I was fortunate to have the following letter to the editor published in The Age on Monday...as its lead letter.

In the media, truth can be seen as the clear barrier to journalists being “kept in the (political) loop”, and there seem to be too few to dare risking that loss.

With regards,

Brian Haill,

Frankston.
……………..
SEPTEMBER 4
Repeat it often enough and a lie becomes a truth
The problem is the lazy journalism we witness every day when politicians go unchallenged

WE STILL struggle, some 2000 years on, to answer Pilate's question: "What is truth"? For too long now, lies have not been challenged; it's still "unparliamentary" to even use the word in the national Parliament, let alone call anyone there a liar (''Read all about it: journalism has a future!'', Comment, 3/9). This should change.
The problem is the lazy journalism we witness every day when politicians go unchallenged as they repeat long-discredited claims. I long to hear a journalist at a news conference to one day say: "Excuse me, Prime Minister, that's just not true and you, and we here, know that. Why do you persist in saying it?" The reason, of course, although the prime minister (especially) and other offenders will never admit, is that if it's repeated often enough a lie comes to be regarded as the truth.
Brian Haill, Frankston
Posted by Sydney, Thursday, 6 September 2012 8:23:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bravo Tim Florin!

Excellent stuff. And this just after I read this rubbish today -

Herald Sun "Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) chief executive Dr Megan Clark says scientists these days are working in a 'fundamentally different' environment that makes it difficult for them to properly inform public debate."

Read that to mean dificult to tell porkies.

And then later in the article -

"She said the CSIRO was taking a step back to ensure it was clearly communicating with the Australian public about the issues 'they need to hear about'."

Go figure out exactly what that means.

But I do like her phrase "they [the public] need to hear about".

What about telling us the real science like it is and not just what we "need" for her purposes?

It's all way too much like Gillard telling us that "we must eat our vegetables". A bit like they're coming from the same place.

Like I said before, bravo Tim Florin!

My only criticisms are; 1 - earth is dirt, rock, soil but Earth is the proper noun that is the name of the planet we inhabit. Please show respect; and 2 - the link to the list of scientists has had an accident and is now broken. Someone put a space in "scie ntific". Fix that and the link will work fine.

Cheers all.
Posted by voxUnius, Thursday, 6 September 2012 9:17:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good article; AGW, as a theory, is dead and buried, despite it being based on certain scientifically valid principles; the primary reason why it has been disproved is that it was driven by ideological imperative and that does not make for good science; the methodology of GW was also fatally flawed; it relies on modelling and when observational evidence contradicts the modelling the modelling is preferred; astounding!

On the issue of the consensus, as though that were a legitimate criteria for determining scientific truth, I would challenge anyone to find a scientist who is not government employed or funded who supports AGW.
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 6 September 2012 9:33:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have a lot of admiration for James Lovelock but I feel that as he has aged, so has a certain amount of dementia crept in. This is a man who now says that nuclear power is the only saviour for the world. And what is it to be saved from?
Why global warming/climate change of course.
Of Patrick Moore, I have not knowledge except memories of his TV appearances, talking about astronomy, not a subject that has any bearing on AGW.

Here is a list of some prominent persons who do not get an airing on our ABC's Science Show but who are either sceptical or who believe that the AGW – carbon dioxide story is poppycock

In answer to the above, the link takes you to a wiki page that states;

"The page "List of scientists opposing the mainstream scie ntific assessment of global warming" does not exist.

A figment of Tim Florins imagination perhaps?

I am sorry that a man who probably was and is a brilliant medical doctor, physician, and Professor of Medicine but is out of his depth on the subject of AGW. And why not. We all have opinions about it and a very small percentage of us has any real scientific knowledge of it.
What is apparent to me and anyone else who takes the time to investigate, is the amazingly rapid melting of the Arctic sea ice plus the Greenland ice cap and also disturbing changes in Antarctica.
I would throw in the extremes of weather that is happening world wide but I know I would be howled down and told that "there is nothing unusual going on, it has all happened before and there is no proof that this is to do with AGW.
Posted by Robert LePage, Thursday, 6 September 2012 10:05:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks to voxUnius. I now have a wiki page that states as below.
So there is obviously some controversy on this list.

"This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia general sanctions. See the description of the sanctions."
Posted by Robert LePage, Thursday, 6 September 2012 10:27:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was howled down on another thread for linking to Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

seems its ok for some and not for others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

for balance, of course :)
Posted by bonmot, Thursday, 6 September 2012 10:27:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a blessing to see a measured, science-based repudiation of the endless hype over "tackling global warming". The planet may or may not be warming up. It often has. All on its own. It has never been scientifically demonstrated that running around in panic like chooks with our heads cut off will make a jot of difference.
Posted by EmperorJulian, Thursday, 6 September 2012 10:41:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have little time for Robert Manne, but I did read <i>A Dark Victory</i> - and found it somewhat unconvincing; a waste of time.

However, this Forum article and most of the comments are evidence not of science but of wilful avoidance of science.

No wonder it was rejected when first submitted elsewhere.
Posted by JohnBennetts, Thursday, 6 September 2012 11:53:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The CSIRO used to be highly respected for its scientific work, and deservedly so. Sadly, politicisation of the organisation, particularly with regard to AGW, has tarnished its professional reputation -- so much so, that its governance ought to be reviewed.
Posted by Raycom, Thursday, 6 September 2012 11:57:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert LePage and Bonmot

Wikipedia is a doubtful source on activist issues and it is known that it was very strongly biased towards the global warming side of th argument, at least until recently. (If you want to check this perhaps just google..)

Anyway, although there are scientists who strongly doubt the global warming story (and I know there are as I have spoken to them) this is, or should be, quite irrelevant to the debate as should be any supposed consensus.

This whole subject, in effect, is dealing with gigantic forecasting system and the analysis of forecasting systems is a business subject (its in marketing). Those marketers will tell you that the only real test of a forecasting system is whether it has made successful forecasts, not how many forecasters support it or whether it conforms to an orthodxy.

So what's been the forecasting success of these systems? This massive question has gone entirely unanswered or has been answered with complete lack of rigour, or with what are essentially back-testing exercises.

Basically the whole area has to be overhauled, the scientists who have managed to get us into this ridiculous position through their lack of udnerstanding of the subject, have to be given their mardching orders and a new lot (statisticians would do at a pinch) brought in to work through the mess.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 6 September 2012 12:10:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tim, welcome to the world of conspiracy theorists. You are arguing, in effect, that the overwhelming majority of scientists who actually work in the area of climate science, have somehow decided that:
(a) their scientific reputations do not matter, they will simply say and publish things that are not true because they are paid to do so; and
(b) they will not be found out.
The incontrovertible fact is that the world's climate is changing. Of course it has done so for billions of years and will probably do so for billions more, long after our species is extinct. The consensus, still, is that human intervention is responsible for the rate of change, and almost none of it for the better.
But let us say for a moment that all those scientists may be wrong. Is that a risk we can afford to run? How could it be argued that reducing the level of CO2 emissions is bad? Isn't the onus on skeptics such as yourself to make an argument that we should stop the research?
Posted by James O'Neill, Thursday, 6 September 2012 12:11:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ Raycom:

What politicisation?

What aspects of CSIRO's management are in need of review?

Here's a link to the latest annual report. Almost certainly, you are not familiar with it or with the work done by CSIRO - few are. Do you actually know anything about the organisation, or are you just following a trend?

I, for one, have been impressed by the work of CSIRO and disturbed by the decade-long drive away from science and concentration only on development of applications for commercial purposes. The balance, IMHO, has been lost.

But, don't hold back - read the report, visit the web site... check out some actual... y'know... facts... then perhaps return here with something meaningful.

Here's the report:
http://www.csiro.au/en/Portals/About-CSIRO/How-we-work/Budget--Performance/Annual-Report/Annual-Report-2010-11.aspx
Posted by JohnBennetts, Thursday, 6 September 2012 12:17:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ Curmudgeon, do you have a problem with the author's link to wikipedia?

A policy response to adaptation/mitigation of global warming should be discussed/debated.

The scientists themselves can discuss/debate the nuances of global warming well enough.

However, just about every 'Tom, Dick and Harry' layperson considers themselves experts in the whole range of the 'climate sciences'.

.

@ JohnBennetts, as you appreciate, ideologues have "politicised" the issues, not the scientists.
Posted by bonmot, Thursday, 6 September 2012 12:32:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am convinced that one has to have a unique sensibility set to be an AGW believer.

For example, Bonmot complains <<I was howled down on another thread for linking to Wikipedia>>

This is that HOWL DOWN ! <<Where's the science? You're now resorting to Wiki?>>

But what makes it particularly amusing is that that *howl down* complaint comes from one who is fond of referring to his opponents as <<precious petal>>

Yep! AGW believers are a funny bunch
Posted by SPQR, Thursday, 6 September 2012 12:39:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
on dear another article by a flat earther. Tim must be taking a break from curing cancer. To let all the climate scientist know they are doing it wrong.
The smoke compaines were always able to find doctors who would say that it hasn't been proven that smoking causes cancer, good days eh Tim.

Have a bex and a lie down flat earthers.
Posted by Kenny, Thursday, 6 September 2012 1:36:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What was interesting about Tim's essay was, that unlike most/all of those who propose that global warming and climate change are either not real and/or caused by human activity, Tim admits that ever-expanding business as usual is not an option.
By contrast most/all of the usual suspects more or less propose that every thing, including human population should keep on expanding for forever and a day.
Which of course just aint possible.
Posted by Daffy Duck, Thursday, 6 September 2012 2:23:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I am convinced one has to have a unique sensibility set to be an AGW believer."

It's not a matter of "believing", SPQR.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/23/climate-change-believe-in-it

"Which brings me to the question, should you believe in climate change? The first point to make is that it's not something you should believe in or not believe in - this is a matter of science and therefore of evidence - and there's plenty out there..."

Vicky Pope - senior scientist at the British Met Office.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 6 September 2012 2:25:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I too read Robert Manne's essay in The Monthly and felt moved to write a rejoinder. You can read it on my website: www.donaitkin.com

Manne proposes that because he doesn't understand the science and must therefore believe somebody, we must all follow his example, and follow what he understands to be a consensus (though he doesn't profess to understand the science on which such a consensus might be based).

Somehow that doesn't strike me as convincing.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Thursday, 6 September 2012 2:45:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Classic symptoms: Only see what you want to see, eh SPQR?

No SPQR, that is not the thread I was referring to, although I can understand why you made the mistake.

Since you raise it, there is plenty of science on Wikipedia, much more in the footnotes and references - for those who have the capacity to go there of course. Most don't, SPQR.

Nevertheless, if this article's author can go to Wikipedia, it seems rather disingenuous (if not hypocritical) that others should be remonstrated for doing the exact same thing.

I guess that's just the way things are though, you and your fellow travellers stuck in the mud and deaf, dumb and blind to what is real - preferring to pretend that all is sweet if only the boogeyman will go away.

Sorry to prick your balloon SPQR, only progressive thinkers and doers will make our Earth a safer and more egalitarian home to live in.
Posted by bonmot, Thursday, 6 September 2012 2:54:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don Aitkin,

The agreement or so-called consensus happens to be among people trained in the various areas associated with climate science. You say that Manne "...must therefore believe somebody...." Well, glory be, if he chooses to believe climate scientists.

The fact is that this whole issue has been converted into a political one, because those who luxuriate in the status quo, do not want to lose the reins...it's growth, growth, growth - and let's deny the veracity of those who are more likely to understand the science.

Judging by your view, we should toss out scientific opinion in all areas if the ordinary layman is going to ignore and attack overwhelming agreement by scientists on future issues.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 6 September 2012 3:09:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There has never been a consensus. Oreskes is either deranged or dishonest or both, and had a lot of dishonest backers, particularly Wikipedia, the staff of which behaved disgracefully.

Over 31,000 scientists signed a petition asking the US Senate to take no acion on AGW until there was some scientific basis established , to show that it warranted any action. Freeman Dyson is a notable signatory, and the petirion may be viewed at:

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Robert Manne is well known for his irrationality. A fervent believer in the fiction of the “Stolen Generation”, he has been repeatedly challenged to, and failed to, produce a single instance of a stolen aboriginal child. Similarly, AGW backers fail to produce any science to show any measurable influence of human activities on climate. Manne mendaciously dodges the issue.

The AGW scam is dead.

“Some of the preeminent scientists involved in promoting global-warming alarmism have been disgraced and discredited, after being caught in flagrante in unethical and illegal activities. Even before the 2009 "Climategate" e-mail scandal, many leading scientists who had earlier been true believers in man-made global warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW) had begun jumping ship and joining the AGW skeptic side. Since then, the defections have turned into a veritable flood, making this one of the great untold stories of the major establishment media, which continue to trumpet the alarmist propaganda”

The whole article is an excellent summary of the collapse of this attempted fraud:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/7mvumju
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 6 September 2012 4:40:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bonmot and Poirot, the Heckle and Jeckle of the climate debate, entertain once again; bonmot says:

"only progressive thinkers and doers will make our Earth a safer and more egalitarian home to live in."

Hilarious!

And then, just as you think it couldn't get any funnier Poirot wheels out the consensus argument, again.

Still, we can only stand so much mirth and this nonsense will, hopefully, be swept into the garbage can of apocalyptic finales lived through, a long list, after the next election.

No doubt bonmot and Poirot will still be crusading for the cause and have their coal trains already picked out to which they are going to chain themselves to.

Some prior notification from them would be good as I can then plan a picnic and watch the protest unfold from a safe distance; and later maybe wander down after the arrests and hand out my work card to the great unwashed/concerned so they have adequate legal representation for their day in court.
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 6 September 2012 4:50:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Can somebody tell me why there is so much venom being propagated by those who are opposed to the idea of AGW. Why can't you engage in reasoned debate without all this cant. How about looking dispassionately at the evidence before you come up with irrational conclusions.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Thursday, 6 September 2012 5:02:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot and Kenny and others

As has been pointed out many times now.. your fabled scientists are actually dealing in business subjects.. forecasting is a business subject, not a science one and its clear that they've stuffed it up without realising it (look at my earlier post).. and then done really amateurish thing like say they are certain of the results (anyone who knows about forecasting would never say that).

As for the conspiracy/concensus point, the best analogy is that of Freudian psychiatry. Even when Fraud and his disciplines kicked off their brand of psychiatry a few brave souls pointed out that ther was no clinical proof for his theories? The few strong personalities at the centre of its all (Freud and Jung and others)simply assserted they were right because they had observed a few patients and carried on. Because their views held a certain mystery and attraction they dominated for many years. It took medical science decades to get rid of Freudian treatments.

Similarly current climate theories hold consdierable attraction for certain individuals and, as scare stories attract funding, the whole thing has taken on a life of its own. It will make a fascinating case study in the history of science. Now the tide is turning a lot of the supporters who are scientists are falling away..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 6 September 2012 5:08:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
leo and co take your tin foil hats off and read a few science journals, and no listening to alan jones on the wireless or reading a right wing web site doesn't count.
Posted by Kenny, Thursday, 6 September 2012 5:10:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@VK3AUU: "Can somebody tell me why there is so much venom being propagated by those who are opposed to the idea of AGW. Why can't you engage in reasoned debate without all this cant. How about looking dispassionately at the evidence before you come up with irrational conclusions."

I've been looking at the evidence nearly every day now for about five years, courtesy of Watts Up With That (winner of the Science Blog of the Year twice running and the single most popular climate science site by a factor of ten or so). I can't say I've always been dispassionate, because some of the claims put forward by AGW alarmists are infuriating and others are just bloody hilarious. But somehow I think that by 'the evidence' you mean 'MY evidence'. So prove me wrong; how many WUWT posts have YOU read?
Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 6 September 2012 5:11:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What evidence would that be VK3?

There is no scientific basis for the assertion that human emissions have any measurable effect on global climate.

If you know of any such science, please let us know.

The only known bases for the support of AGW are ignorance or dishonesty.

That is the simple fact, hence a rational conclusion.

Happy, now, VK3?
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 6 September 2012 5:16:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Can somebody tell me why there is so much venom being propagated by those who are opposed to the idea of AGW."

More humour; must be tongue in cheek surely.

AGW isn't an idea; it's an ideology; a rotten ideology. For me the best representation of the science and rationale for AGW is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIsritzu1og

"venom being propagated by those who are opposed to the idea of AGW."

Mate, you are out to lunch.
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 6 September 2012 5:34:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here's a link I'm sure you'll all enjoy.

"How do people reject climate science?"

http://theconversation.edu.au/how-do-people-reject-climate-science-9065

Apparently we should be on the lookout for "...cherry picking, conspiracy theories, comments magnifying the significance of dissenters (or non-experts) and logical fallacies such as non sequiturs."

Go 'em all here.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 6 September 2012 6:03:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That should be "Got 'em all here". (And we have them in spades)

Just noted Jon J's hilarious reference to WUWT winning the Science Blog of the Year - twice running!

Well, whoopy-do! Shame the guy isn't a scientist. Isn't he the one who said he'd back Muller whatever conclusion he came to?

Strange how all the "skeptics" have disowned the "genuine skeptic".
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 6 September 2012 6:17:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps readers may recall the predictions of the IPCC Chair, a renowned transport engineer, that the Himalayan glaciers would all have melted by 2035.

The Tibetan Plateau is around 15,000-20,000 feet above sea-level. The snow-fields of Australia are what ? three to five thousand feet above sea-level ?

Didn't it occur to anyone that, if the Himalayan glaciers are going to melt in the next twenty five years, then likewise the Australian snow-fields would vanish in what ? the next five years ?

If some renowned scientist makes a prediction, then there would be corollaries associated with that prediction. If one takes, let's say, the melting of the Australian snow-fields as a corollary of the melting of the Himalayas, then as they say, pari passu, if melting is to occur at region A, then it must be occurring at region B as well, and at roughly the same rate.

Is that happening ? Is the snow-line retreating up Mt Wellington or Mt Buller ? At what rate ? This season has been a bumper one for skiers, I'm told.

Scepticism is an honorable course for anybody claiming to be following any sort of scientific approach. Not cynicism, or denialism, but scepticism. I am proud to put myself forward as a sceptic, and to suffer the consequences.

Now I'll wait for the ad hominems from those with no valid arguments.

Cheers,

Joe

:)
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 6 September 2012 7:03:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poroit, I have just read the article by John Cook that you reference. It should be obligatory reading for all commenters although for the reasons Cook sets out it is unlikely to alter one iota the invincible ignorance displayed in so many comments.
Posted by James O'Neill, Thursday, 6 September 2012 8:46:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo Lane, you seriously are not going to rely on the Oregon Petition? The overwhelming majority of signers know nothing about climate science. They are MD and vets, engineers and retirees. For some odd reason engineers are particularly well represented. For goodness sake, at least one dead person signed the petition. I wonder how he did that?

If consensus is important, you need the people who know something about the topic. When you ask them, 97% agree that human activity is affecting the climate. They do this for very good reason. The trail of evidence is there. CO2 was demonstrated more than a century ago to be a greenhouse gas. The mechanism behind this is well understood. The amount of carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere has increased dramatically since the industrial revolution. The atmospheric temperature has also increased. 8 of the 10 warmest years on the instrument record have occurred in the last decade.

What we don’t know is exactly how warm it is going to get if we do nothing about it and exactly what impact that will have on the biological ecosystems on Earth and on humans. I doubt it will be pretty. But that is OK, lets go on believing in petitions that dead people can sign, rather than in facts.
Posted by Agronomist, Thursday, 6 September 2012 9:59:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"obligatory", eh, James; the believers in AGW would like to make a lot of stuff "obligatory", wouldn't they?

Cook is a joke; his mate Lewandowsky has just done his survey on the conservative/Denier mindset; you know the one which says "Deniers" are prone to believe in conspiracies like the Moon landing was not real.

What a joke! The man who first walked on the moon, the great Armstrong, was a "Denier"; are you telling me he didn't believe he walked on the moon. That would be more viable then accepting your little end of the world crusade, AGW, is a lie, wouldn't it?

Cook links to this rubbish to support his contention that the Stratosphere is cooling, a necessary requirement for AGW to be real:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2002GL016377.shtml

The Stratosphere hasn't cooled since 1996:

http://acd.ucar.edu/~randel/SPARC_revised.pdf

Now, how can that be; the Stratosphere has not cooled for 17 years despite, allegedly, AGW going full steam?
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 6 September 2012 10:03:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Agronomist,

That's an interesting argument: "When you ask them, 97% agree that human activity is affecting the climate."

At the last Census, something like 73 % of all Australians believed in a god of some sort, or gods. As an atheist, I'm not so sure that proves that there must be a god, or gods.

Wouldn't you agree ?

Just putting it out there :)

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 7 September 2012 12:04:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I tired to give this a good go, I really did... I went as far as this

...

"b) "The CSIRO got from the Federal Government $A2.8 billion over four years in 2007 (from the Rudd Labour government)" much of which was directed to climate science according to the press release.

If the critical reader concedes from this, that I may have a point, then he or she may be asking cui bono: why would the Big money be on the side of AGW research?"

...

and through my hands up (figuratively, I am not that demonstrative), the quote was "directed to climate science" and the author turned that into "big money on the side of AGW research"...

The money is on "Climate Science", for the same reason the money is on biology, paleontology, geology, astronomy, evolution and a plethora of other "sciences". Stop shooting the messenger just because they are giving you a message you don't like.
Posted by Valley Guy, Friday, 7 September 2012 12:07:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Agronomist: the '97%' meme has been exposed as nonsense so many times in so many ways that the only thing it shows is the ignorance about the issues of the person who quotes it. In AGW terms it makes you equivalent to the Christian apologist who claims 'Hitler was an atheist!' (I don't think even runner is trying that any more).

I'm not even going to bother to tell you where you can find out how wrong it is, because Google is your friend: but if you want to appear with any credibility at all, I suggest you find out.
Posted by Jon J, Friday, 7 September 2012 5:57:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>> Stop shooting the messenger just because they are giving you a message you don't like. <<

But that's what they do Valley Guy. In reference to AGW, ever since the IPCC was first instigated.

Just look at the comments on this piece. OLO's usual suspects prancing around like a pack of hyenas snipping and sniping at the merest hint of a message they don’t like.

Sheesh, even the mention of Wikipedia is like testing the water with your toes – a school of piranhas circling and wanting to strip you to the bone.

Yes, this site is full of it Valley Guy - cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias and motivational reasoning.
Posted by bonmot, Friday, 7 September 2012 7:37:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth, you clearly failed to understand the point I was making. If you want to get an idea of how scientists view the evidence for a particular theory, you survey the specialists in the field, not random people on the internet or the street. As you yourself have pointed out; random people believe all sorts of things. You don’t survey the religious right if you want to get an idea of how strong the consensus for evolution is among evolutionary biologists.

When the evidence is assessed for whether experts in climate science agree with the tenets of anthropogenic climate change, very strong agreement is found http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract Those people who disagree, like Anthony Watts and Andrew Bolt, have much lower levels of expertise.

And for those like Jon J who wish to rely on the University of Google for their evidence, I am afraid I can’t help them.
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 7 September 2012 9:11:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<< But that's what they do Valley Guy. {shoot the messenger] …[the] … usual suspects prancing around like a pack of hyenas snipping and sniping at the merest hint of a message they don’t like>>

Perspective, Bonmot, Perspective

Your messenger is telling us that if we buy his bottle of snake oil [the carbon tax] it will solve all our ailments [drought, flood, bushfire, the spread of infectious diseases…]. Is there any wonder many want to tar and feather him!
Posted by SPQR, Friday, 7 September 2012 10:06:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Whatever they are denying, denial movements have much in common with one
another, not least the use of similar tactics. All set themselves up as
courageous underdogs fighting a corrupt elite engaged in a conspiracy to
suppress the truth or foist a malicious lie on ordinary people. This conspiracy
is usually claimed to be promoting a sinister agenda: the nanny state, takeover
of the world economy, government power over individuals, financial gain,
atheism.

Denial is a defense mechanism in which a person is faced with a fact that is too painful to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. The subject may deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether (simple denial), admit the fact but deny its seriousness (minimisation) or admit both the fact and seriousness but deny responsibility (transference)
Posted by Robert LePage, Friday, 7 September 2012 10:30:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ Robert LePage,

<< Denial is a defense mechanism in which a person is faced with a fact that is too painful to accept…>>

Ah, but, just maybe, the real denialists are those who believe that climate change is all about CO2 – for they are in denial that other factors may play a primary role
Posted by SPQR, Friday, 7 September 2012 10:38:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert LePage

Denial as a defence mechanism! Look, sorry but where have you been.. The sceptics by and large have nothing invested at all in the debate.. they don't have an ideological conviction and there are no careers, jobs or funding on the line. There is no money at all - or at least very little - on the denial side. They just get impatient with the nonsense.

On the global warming side, however, there are multi-billions in funding, lengthy careers and jobs all tied up in convincing people that the world is about to end. No wonder they get passionate..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Friday, 7 September 2012 10:55:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The message of crisis has played itself out. Those likely to be swayed by it are already swayed. The only ones listening already know. The question has turned from “Crisis? What crisis?” to “OK, so now what?” When we now talk about crisis it’s become critical to also talk about where we go from here. Otherwise, people get pushed toward extremes such as numbness, panic, or boredom – not really the responses we are after.

There is no precedent for what we are facing. We are confronted not merely with a rapidly changing climate, but with a host of other pernicious issues. Along with dependence on fossil fuels and the many facets of the environmental crisis, there is militarism, war, terrorism, the continued threat of nuclear holocaust, poverty, racism, and population growth.

What is required if we are to address the issues confronting us at root level is a “Great Turning”—a shift from a life-denying worldview and society to a life-affirming worldview and society—and there is no precedent for it. Nothing that has come before, and certainly no single-issue campaign, has come close to requiring such a sweeping and fundamental shift in our thinking and behaviour. However big we make the enemy, if we make the crisis we face about an enemy “other,” we over simplify things and miss the root cause.

I challenge anyone to watch the first ten minutes of last night’s Catalyst program on the ABC to not come away with a sense of dread, these problems cannot be resolved easily, ranting and raving for or against is too late, we all need to move on and solve the issues at hand.
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Friday, 7 September 2012 11:48:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You really can't help yourself can you, SPQR?

Only seeing what you want to see that is.

I did not even mention carbon tax but nice try at changing goal posts, make that playing fields.

In fact, if you had understood my other post, I delineate the science from adaptation and mitigation measures.

That is comprehending perspective in any sense of the word, SPQR - you just don't get it.
Posted by bonmot, Friday, 7 September 2012 12:08:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is where I have been; There are many more where this came from but this example should suffice to make the point that the corporate world is the puppet master pulling all of your denialist's strings. The amounts stated are a drop in the bucket for them.As you can see they promised to stop, meaning they are admitting that they are in the business of funding climate change skeptics.
What more does it take to convince you?
"ExxonMobil promised in 2006 to stop funding climate change skeptics after it was criticized by the Royal Society for giving money to researchers who were “misinforming the public about the science of climate change”.
In its 2008 corporate citizenship report, published last year, ExxonMobil repeated that it would cut funds to several groups that “divert attention” from the need to find new sources of clean energy.

ExxonMobil donated a total of $9 million (£5.5million) to environment-related groups in 2008.
Posted by Robert LePage, Friday, 7 September 2012 12:45:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We can chew gum and walk. We can reduce our carbon emission, while prospering the population!
We can add value and inner contentment and personal enrichment to each and every life, without making the already obscenely rich even richer; or indeed, the very richest corpses ever buried in any grave yard?
We can grow a sustainable economy without creating more poverty or disadvantage; but rather the very opposite1!
We can do this while maintaining zero population growth just by the simple expediency of ending/attacking poverty in all its guises and forms wherever we find it.
We can loosen the hold of, bottom dwelling myopically focused energy cartels, on our economies and economic outcomes?
Simply by substituting high emitting energy choices, with much lower ones!
[No possible harm can come from that?]
Preferably the ones the Greens never ever seem to want or accept, because they may cost less than current alternative options and therefore walk out the door, to prosper the least amongst us?
And that clearly won't do?
Particularly when their goal seems to include, creating a depopulated/de-industrialised world, where the only elites, will be patently parasitical Green Acolytes?
A lower carbon future?
Why not?
A world where there is more common use green space and trees?
Why not? Who amongst us wouldn't want that?
A world where we survive or not, depending entirely on fickle nature?
Hang on! Ever see just what that very artisan supported agrarian lifestyle has created in Ethiopia and parts of sub Sahara Africa? Thanks, but no thanks.
We humans have invariably solved population pressure via endless migration.
And there are likely millions of earth style unoccupied planets out there in just the visible firmament?
And, like our land based forbears, it really is only a matter of time, before we discover how we might traverse the unimaginable distances, taking such lessons as already learned with us on that next journey or frontier.
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Friday, 7 September 2012 1:50:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Curmudgeon (and Robert)

>> The sceptics by and large have nothing invested at all in the debate.. they don't have an ideological conviction and there are no careers, jobs or funding on the line. There is no money at all - or at least very little - on the denial side. <<

You are right Mark, "denialism" is a defense mechanism - defending the indefensible.

The 'Business-As-Usual' crowd have huge investments in denying and/or delaying action on climate change.

Remember George W?
Posted by bonmot, Friday, 7 September 2012 2:15:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhosty

Dream on.
Posted by VK3AUU, Friday, 7 September 2012 2:26:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Robert LePage

You appear to have shot yourself in the foot (but that’s what comes from riding shotgun for the AGW bandwagon!)

You haven’t provided evidence for << the corporate world [being] the puppet master pulling all of your denialist's strings>>.
On the contrary, you have provided evidence that “environment-related group” are the ones into coercion and censorship.



ExxonMobil is an ENERGY supplier.
ENERGY = petroleum products AND renewables

In 2002, it was among a consortium of four who agreed to invest $225 million over a decade or more. Into the Global Climate and Energy Project, whose mission statement is: “ to conduct fundamental research on technologies that will permit the development of global energy systems with significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions” –I applaud that!

In 2009, it invested $600 million investment in algae-based biofuels --and I applaud that

But why would it need to be beholding to the <<The Royal Society >>?

And why would it need to donate << $9 million (£5.5million) to environment-related groups in 2008>>?

You recite the AGW mantra about << the corporate world is the puppet master pulling all of your denialist's strings>>.
But your own words show that the real manipulators are <<environment-related groups>>.

Get that foot wound looked wont you,ay!
Posted by SPQR, Friday, 7 September 2012 2:51:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, sorry, Agronomist, I have trouble giving blind obedience to authority, I know that is a defect on the totalitarian left and to its self-appointed public intellectuals. My granddad was a Wobbly, an Anarchist, so I like to think that slavish obedience to bullsh!t does not come easily, but I'm open to persuasion like anyone else.

Just a couple of things: accusing people of being part of some conspiracy (as some other contributors are doing on this thread) is merely a slightly more sophiticated form of insult and brow-beating, of ad hominems.

Get something straight: capitalism will make as buck out of anything it can, including the switch from reliance on petroleum products to relaince on renewables - certainly as long as their are public subsidies to do so. To be sceptical about AGW is therefore not necessarily to be in the pocket of Wall Street.

Come to think of it, to promote myths about AGW may be precisely a sign that someone is in the pocket of the more forward thinkers of Wall Street.

When I see the snow-fields of the Australian Alps start to disappear, and the sea-walls around our coastlines come under constant battering from rising seas, I'll start to take some of this AGW rubbish seriously.

What do the data tell us ? Sea-levels have risen a couple of inches in a century. Temperatures have risen 0.8 degrees in a century.

As Poirot put it so characteristically, and with all the sophistication and depth of the current student left, 'Whoopy-do !'

Is extreme weather the new fad ? Have we had a cyclone as bad as Tracey since 1974 ?

Extreme temperatures ? I believe the hottest temperature ever recorded in Australia was at Cloncurry, back in 1916.

No, Agronomist, take heart - the sky isn't falling.

Cheers,

Joe

:)
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 7 September 2012 3:07:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist, are you suggesting that the people who signed the Oregon Petition have as little expertise as the head of the IPCC, a railway engineer who defended the baseless IPCC assertion that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035?

Or as little expertise as the governing body of the Royal Society, which had not one climate scientist when it issued the ludicrous and unsupportable statement about the effect of human emissions on climate?

Will you accept the authority of 48 top scientists including 7 astronauts writing to NASA about its support of unproven climate science:

“We feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate,” they wrote. “At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.”
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/washington-secrets/2012/04/astronauts-condemn-nasa%E2%80%99s-global-warming-endorsement/469366

Support of the AGW proposition can only be based on ignorance or dishonesty.

There has been no warming for 14 years, and the warming which occurred before 1998 is .8 of a degree, less than one degree.

We are in a cooling trend at the moment, which started 2000 years ago, so forget global warming:

“researchers have now been able to use the data derived from tree-rings to precisely calculate a much longer-term cooling trend that has been playing out over the past 2,000 years. Their findings demonstrate that this trend involves a cooling of -0.3°C per millennium“
http://www.uni-mainz.de/eng/15491.php
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 7 September 2012 3:30:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth,

"...something like 73% of all Australians believed in a god of some sort...."

I can only reiterate Vicky Pope's point that it's not something you should "'believe in or not believe in' - this is a matter of evidence - and there's plenty out there."

It's not a matter of faith, but of evidence.

Also, if you take a peek at John Cook's article, you'll likely recognise a few of your own tactics - especially this one:

"Another method of avoiding the consensus of evidence is through the use of logical fallacies. The straw man fallacy is confirmation bias applied through logical argument, misrepresenting an opponent's position by focusing on their weaker arguments while ignoring their stronger points."

"Extreme temperatures" - It's the increased frequency of extreme events that is the signifier here, not your fanciful straw men.

SPQR,

Exxon and the Koch Brothers are amongst the biggest financial supporters of climate "skepticism"...and it's not so surprising that an oil company would be looking at profiting from all that algae caused by chemical fertilizer run-off.
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 7 September 2012 3:46:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Following your logic about engineers Leo, doesn't leave much left from the Oregon Petition.

Astronauts? Come to think of it, how'bout plumbers, teachers, economists, "scientists", GP's, yada yada yada? They gotta know more about it than a "railway engineer" even - not that post-grad stuff has any meaning, hey?

I spose being a chairman (head/leader) of any organisation has its pitfalls though, not least being damned if you do and damned if you don't.

You did get one thing right though (albeit you don't understand long term natural variability and the intervening bumps and troughs caused by other drivers) - we are headed for an ice age - in thousands of years time.
Posted by bonmot, Friday, 7 September 2012 3:52:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,

<<Exxon and the Koch Brothers are amongst the biggest financial supporters of climate "skepticism"...and it's not so surprising that an oil company would be looking at profiting from all that algae caused by chemical fertilizer run>>

In the inimical words of Sheldore the Conqueror : “There’s just no pleasing you, is there, Poirot?”
http://bigbangtrans.wordpress.com/series-3-episode-03-the-gothowitz-deviation/

Talking of good lines, loved this one from Loudmouth:
“As Poirot put it so characteristically, and with all the sophistication and depth of the current student left, 'Whoopy-do !”

Have a good weekend!
Posted by SPQR, Friday, 7 September 2012 4:08:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Any progress on that link to the voodoo doll, SPQR?
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 7 September 2012 4:11:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth, you have apparently still failed to get my original point. But it may not be worth going over again. The second point I made was the reason so many climate scientists hold the same view is because that is where the evidence points. I spelt out some of the more obvious pieces of evidence in my earliest post.

I am surprised that an average sea level rise of 18 cm and an average temperature rise of 0.8 C in the last century does not worry you. You must live divorced from the real world. The averages may not sound much, but it is the variation on top of the averages that is going to cause the problems. An extra 1 C on a 29C day when wheat is flowering is going to reduce food production. An extra 18 cm on a storm surge could be the difference between life and death.

Leo Lane, yes lots of the people who signed the Oregon Petition had less expertise than the head of the IPCC. At least one of them was dead when they signed. But that comparison is largely irrelevant. The people signing the Oregon Petition were not relying on climate expertise to inform their judgement. Rajenda Pachauri relied on the advice of the hundreds of authors and reviewers of the IPCC documents all experts in climate science.

So Leo, tell me. Why should I listen to an astronaut about climate science? Why should their opinion be better than that of a climate researcher who has published extensively on the topic in the peer review literature? Or indeed be better than my own opinion? What important expertise do they have that I don’t? Other than agreeing with your poorly formed opinion.

Of course there has been warming in the last 14 years http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif but if you pick the right starting and ending points and squint in just the right way you can pretend it hasn’t happened.
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 7 September 2012 4:27:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Agronomist,

Thank you for your advice. I checked out that graph you referred to and although I squinted and strained, I couldn't get it to go up. Then I rotated it (well, actually, I leaned my head at 90 degrees, looking like a village idiot) and guess what ! It went up ! Yes, if you rotate the page 90 degrees, the average temperature goes up !

Isn't science wonderful ?!

Sea-levels have risen eight inches ? Really ? Or only eight cm ? Different systems of measurement are so confusing, aren't they ?

Hi Poirot,

"It's the increased frequency of extreme events that is the signifier here, not your fanciful straw men."

I wonder how you measure the 'frequency of extreme events', like storms, flash-floods, etc. I wonder if anything like extreme events ever happened in Australia before the 1990s, or were ever recorded in Aboriginal folklore or early settler literature, like Banjo Paterson's or Henry Lawson's stories. Has Australia ever had droughts, like the recent one ? Hmm, that's a hard one.

Gosh, it probably has: 1892-1899, 1901-1904, etc., etc. Isn't that in one of our national songs, 'for flood and fire and famine, she pays us back three-fold' .... 'of droughts and flooding rains .... ' etc. etc.

Poirot, we're the continent par excellence of extreme weather events and always have been.

Cheers,

Joe

:)
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 7 September 2012 4:50:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth,

What part of the term "increased frequency" don't you understand?

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120803_DicePopSci.pdf
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 7 September 2012 6:18:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you, Poirot, for James Hansen's article, in which he maintains his earlier reputation.

Correct me please if I'm wrong but I must comment on his focus on wildfires in western US as evidence of AGW: they could have been correlated with the depletion of ground-water, standard summer heat-waves and - as in Australia - the build-up of understorey: a fairly incendiary combination, I'm sure you would agree. Just ask the people who experienced the 2009 fires in Victoria. Associating wildfires and AGW directly is a bit of a stretch.

See ? It's possible to put forward arguments without resorting to backhanded ad hominems, Poirot, which don't actually refute anything :) I may be wrong but like many contributors here, I am honestly trying to tease out issues and any possible defects in the arguments of people like Hansen.

Now you can tell us about sea-level rise along the Bangla Deshi and Egyptian coasts ?

Cheers,

Joe

:)
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 7 September 2012 11:20:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth,

"I am honestly trying to tease out issues and possible defects in the arguments of people like Hansen."

Yes, I'm well aware that you like to hold yourself up as some sort of noble ad hominem-free zone - even as you go merrily along constructing your tinder-dry straw men, as in:

"Another method of avoiding the consensus of evidence is through the use of logical fallacies....by focusing on their weaker arguments while ignoring their stronger points."

Good job on that particular tactic in your last post - any comments on the rest of Hansen's paper?

Oh and I suppose this is you "not" employing ad hominem?

"As Poirot put it so characteristically, and with all the sophistication and depth of the current student left..."

Added to the fact that most of your posts virtually drip with sarcastic and patronising contempt for your opponent. But you don't do that, do you Joe? Only you opponents resort to ad hominem....yeah, sure!
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 8 September 2012 9:08:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As I mentioned in relation to the petition signed by 31,000 scientists on the lack of scientific basis for AGW, one of the signatories is a leading world scientist, Dyson Freeman.

The warmist scientific editor of The Independent engaged in an email exchange in an effort to have Dyson deviate from his stance. Dyson said:

“Among my friends, I do not find much of a consensus. Most of us are sceptical and do not pretend to be experts. My impression is that the experts are deluded because they have been studying the details of climate models for 30 years and they come to believe the models are real. After 30 years they lose the ability to think outside the models. And it is normal for experts in a narrow area to think alike and develop a settled dogma…..To say that the dogmas are wrong has become politically incorrect. As a result, the media generally exaggerate the degree of consensus and also exaggerate the importance of the questions………..Unfortunately the global warming hysteria, as I see it, is driven by politics more than by science. If it happens that I am wrong and the climate experts are right, it is still true that the remedies are far worse than the disease that they claim to cure ……………………………..I blame The Independent for seriously misleading your readers. You give them the party line and discourage them from disagreeing.”

Read it all at:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/letters-to-a-heretic-an-email-conversation-with-climate-change-sceptic-professor-freeman-dyson-2224912.html

On the question of dishonesty or ignorance, Agronomist has aligned himself with the likes of bonmot, Poirot, Kenny as dishonest.

Geoff of Perth, Robert le Page, James O’Neill might still have the benefit of being designated ignorant
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 8 September 2012 9:41:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth, I wasn't offering you any advice. However, if you wish to look like the village idiot, be my guest. It is not my fault you are unable to read a simple graph. But that does not concern me, because others will look at the graph and see how wrong your statement was. That is all I need to achieve. Job is done, I think.
Posted by Agronomist, Saturday, 8 September 2012 9:45:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo says: “On the question of dishonesty or ignorance … yada yada yada

Leo may as well lump the New Zealand High Court as dishonest and/or ignorant with the rest of us too:

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8529498

Ok, Freeman Dyson is 90, but he is right in one respect - global warming hysteria is driven by politics more than science.

That is why you get the likes of Leo's Lavoisier Group, cohenite's Climate Sceptics Party, and Gina Rinehart/Andrew Bolt's game plan (for example) pushing the 'business as usual' barrel.
Posted by bonmot, Saturday, 8 September 2012 10:34:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo Lane, I suspect you mean Freeman Dyson? Now tell me, what is his expertise in climate science? Is it greater or lesser than the 7 astronauts you referred to earlier as experts?

So long as you continue to fall into the argument from authority fallacy, I will continue to point out the failure of your position
Posted by Agronomist, Saturday, 8 September 2012 2:49:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>I wonder if anything like extreme events ever happened in Australia before the 1990s, or were ever recorded in Aboriginal folklore or early settler literature, like Banjo Paterson's or Henry Lawson's stories.<<

Said Hanrahan

(apologies to John O'Brien)

"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,
In accents most forlorn,
Outside the church, ere Mass began,
One frosty Sunday morn.

The congregation stood about,
Coat-collars to the ears,
And talked of stock, and crops, and drought,
As it had done for years.

"It's looking crook," said Daniel Croke;
"Bedad, it's cruke, me lad,
For never since the banks went broke
Has seasons been so bad."

"It's dry, all right," said young O'Neil,
With which astute remark
He squatted down upon his heel
And chewed a piece of bark.

And so around the chorus ran
"It's keepin' dry, no doubt."
"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,
"Before the year is out."

"The crops are done; ye'll have your work
To save one bag of grain;
From here way out to Back-o'-Bourke
They're singin' out for rain.

"They're singin' out for rain," he said,
"And all the tanks are dry."
The congregation scratched its head,
And gazed around the sky.

"There won't be grass, in any case,
Enough to feed an ass;
There's not a blade on Casey's place
As I came down to Mass."

"If emissions don’t drop this month," said Dan,
And cleared his throat to speak -
"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,
"If emissions don’t drop this week."

A heavy silence seemed to steal
On all at this remark;
And each man squatted on his heel,
And chewed a piece of bark.

"We want an ETS, we do,"
O'Neil observed at last;
But Croke "maintained" we wanted two
To put the danger past.

"If we don't get a wind farm, man,
Or solar to break this drought,
We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,
"Before the year is out."

TBC
Posted by Tony Lavis, Saturday, 8 September 2012 3:00:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In God's good time down came the rain;
And all the afternoon
On iron roof and window-pane
It drummed a homely tune.

And through the night it pattered still,
And lightsome, gladsome elves
On dripping spout and window-sill
Kept talking to themselves.

It pelted, pelted all day long,
A-singing at its work,
Till every heart took up the song
Way out to Back-o'-Bourke.

And every creek a banker ran,
And dams filled overtop;
"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,
"If this rain doesn't stop."

And stop it did, in God's good time;
And spring came in to fold
A mantle o'er the hills sublime
Of green and pink and gold.

And days went by on dancing feet,
With harvest-hopes immense,
And laughing eyes beheld the wheat
Nid-nodding o'er the fence.

And, oh, the smiles on every face,
As happy lad and lass
Through grass knee-deep on Casey's place
Went riding down to Mass.

While round the church in clothes genteel
Discoursed the men of mark,
And each man squatted on his heel,
And chewed his piece of bark.

"There'll be bush-fires for sure, me man,
There will, without a doubt;
We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,
"Before the year is out."

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Saturday, 8 September 2012 3:01:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist, I wouldn't be too harsh on Dyson:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson

Scroll down to Global Warming where he acknowledges AGW is real, contrary to what Leo asserts, but ...

Oops, that damn Wikipedia again!

Oh well, this is Dyson on Wikipedia;

"Even in the noisiest system, errors can be reliably corrected and accurate information transmitted, provided that the transmission is sufficiently redundant.

That is, in a nutshell, how Wikipedia works. ... Science is the sum total of a great multitude of mysteries. It is an unending argument between a great multitude of voices.

It resembles Wikipedia much more than it resembles the Encyclopaedia Britannica."
Posted by bonmot, Saturday, 8 September 2012 3:45:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The debating has as usual degenerated into mild (so far) abuse and total disregard of valid points used in argument.
At least one of the persons involved has for some reason given a link to a perfectly good graph and says that it does not make sense to him.
I do not want to descend to the levels of vehemence sometimes used but I wonder if he can not see the graph for the truth it clearly tells ( of an ascending trend of temperature) them he should consult an optician at the first opportunity.
I would thank the person who was solicitous for my foot health and assure him that I have not "put my foot in it" or shot my self either there or anywhere else.
Posted by Robert LePage, Saturday, 8 September 2012 4:09:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Look again, Robert, it dips over the last few years. Since about 1998.

Thanks, Tony, that puts things into perspective.

Of course there has been global warming over the past century - sea-level rise of 2 inches, and temperature rise of 0.8 degrees. The questions that immediately arise are:

* are these changes cataclysmic an should we head for the Tasmanian highlands ? Are the changes exponential and at what sort of rates ? Will the glaciers be gone by 2035 ? [Sorry, cheap shot]

* how much of this is man-made - and therefore, presumably, up to economy and technology to remedy ? And can capitalism, as the dominant vehicle of both, fix it ? Can incentives be devised (subsidies, tax breaks, etc.) to encourage capitalist firms to do so ?

* how much is natural, cyclical, due to sun-spots, etc., which may more or less self-correct over time ?

I have to apologise that I can't really get all that worked-up about any of this: I remember the 1956 floods on the Murrumbidgee-Murray and I've picked apricots in 46 degrees back in about 1980, and there hasn't been a flood or heat-wave like those since, in my experience. Live in hope.

Like Hanrahan, we find it tempting to pronounce doom and gloom - 'and that there's nothing we can do about it, isn't it terrible, but as sinners, don't we deserve it' - that sort of stuff. But as I noted above somewhere, capitalism will try to make a buck out of anything (lock up your grandmothers) not because it is Good and Pure, but precisely because some capitalist or other will always be on the look-out for the main chance. Even Marx noted its revolutionary potential in that regard, and for that reason.

And why aren't we painting our rooves white, to reflect some of that solar energy back ? Just a thought - it probably shows clearly what a dill I am.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 8 September 2012 5:24:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth,

"...it probably shows clearly what a dill I am."

I know you meant that last remark sarcastically, but....
....................

"Look again, Robert, it dips over the last few years..."

Perhaps this will explain it a little better:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 8 September 2012 7:08:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you, Poirot, but there are, after all, lies, damned lies, statistics and statistical representations like trend lines and bell curves.

And your graph still show a dip over the last few years, and seems to be levelling off over a longer period, and getting flatter too: perhaps instead of a straight-line trend line, from point A to point B, a five- or ten-year rolling average might avoid this sort of distortion. I recommend all readers to click on it and check it out carefully.

Perhaps what might be occurring - from a layman's point of view - is a combination of long cycles of fifty to seventy years, with smaller cycles, of six or seven years each imposed on the longer cycles. In other words, much to the horror of so many of us here, that the long-term curve is in fact levelling off, perhaps over the next ten or twenty years ? So what are we going to do in the absence of an Armageddon ?! Don't we deserve one ?!

IF AGW, AND an accelerating trend, wouldn't one expect to see a large proportion of recorded incidents BELOW that trend line ? i.e. a concave line, that was inevitably trending upwards, at an increasing rate ? That it would not be flattening out (or ever-so-slightly convex), but that those little mini-trend-lines would be getting further apart ?

Just asking. Please try to respond, if you intend to, with some civility: please no insults, just an explanation. Insults after all, mean that you have NO explanation.

:)
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 8 September 2012 7:58:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth,

"....Please try to respond , if you intend to, with some civility: please no insults..."

The impute of the above is that I am habitually uncivil and insulting to you.

I reject that assertion.

Just another part of your debating "technique" - and, when it's all boiled down, that's really all you've got.

Cheers

: )
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 8 September 2012 8:20:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When you're ready, Poirot :)
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 8 September 2012 8:51:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>And why aren't we painting our rooves white, to reflect some of that solar energy back ? Just a thought - it probably shows clearly what a dill I am.<<

>>"...it probably shows clearly what a dill I am."

I know you meant that last remark sarcastically, but....<<

Well that was uncalled for. Painting rooves white probably wouldn't help very much but the principle is sound: increasing albedo helps cool the planet. One of the important feedback mechanisms that plays a part in climate change is that snow and ice have a higher albedo than water: less albedo means more warming means less ice means less albedo etc.

It works the same way in reverse. One roof won't make much difference but think global act local and all that. Poirot: if you're not up the ladder first thing tomorrow morning I'll have reason to suspect that your heart's not really in this whole caper.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Sunday, 9 September 2012 1:53:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tony Lavis,

I'm aware of all that.

Loudmouth has a tactic of indulging in sarcastic self-deprecation....my reference to the "dill" quote was connected with his apparent inability to make sense of the graph.
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 9 September 2012 6:59:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't want to have to paint my roof white – the moss on the crenellations and flying buttresses of the castle's main wing looks nice – and I think of it as carbon capture technology.

But the concept of trends seems to make logical sense when considering climate change as opposed to changes in the weather…

Leo Lane presented us with an opportunity (with citations) a few pages back…

"We are in a cooling trend at the moment, which started 2000 years ago, so forget global warming:
“researchers have now been able to use the data derived from tree-rings to precisely calculate a much longer-term cooling trend that has been playing out over the past 2,000 years. Their findings demonstrate that this trend involves a cooling of -0.3°C per millennium“"

There are also seems to be general agreement (thanks Joe) of a temperature increase in the last century of around .8°C.

So if my arithmetic is correct – to get back to where we were over 2000 years ago when we can all agree there was no anthropogenic global warming – over the next hundred years we need to see the average temperature drop around 1.4°C.

Now I don't think that the Himalayan glaciers will have disappeared by 2035 – after all, it's taken them the last 50 years to reduce on average by 20%. But I do think it's a big ask to prove a trend by expecting no further increase in temperatures and to rely on around 4000 years of negative trend ("… a cooling of -0.3°C per millennium“") during the next century.

Mostly because none of us will be alive to see the result.
Posted by WmTrevor, Sunday, 9 September 2012 9:45:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<if my arithmetic is correct – to get back to where we were over 2000 years ago when we can all agree there was no anthropogenic global warming – over the next hundred years we need to see the average temperature drop around 1.4°C…Mstly because none of us will be alive to see the result>.

Speak for yourself WmTrevor!

The singularity is just around the corner and I intend to upload my self to a Cray Cascade supercomputer (purely for the enrichment of humanity) and be around to continue the battle with the Bonmot’s and Poirot’s of that period, who will no doubt be blaming us for the new cooling trend and campaigning hard for a new tax on renewable energy sources to encourage use of coal and oil.
Posted by SPQR, Sunday, 9 September 2012 10:17:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Perhaps what might be occurring - from a layman's point of view - is a combination of long cycles of fifty to seventy years, with smaller cycles, of six or seven years each imposed on the longer cycles. the long-term curve is in fact levelling off, perhaps over the next ten or twenty years*

Well yes it might but then again it might be that there is an even longer cycle with the over all trend still rising.
One thing I will concede is that all the facts are not known but if there is not some attempt at insurance then in the event that the pro AGW are right then we are going to be perhaps too far down the track to recover.
I am of the opinion that we are close if not at, the tipping point but I will agree that is just my opinion.
If we return to the very hot, dry conditions experienced during an El Nino, we will be exposed to bad bush fires. If someone who is studying this says we should prepare for a bad fire, it would be stupid to argue and ignore the warning.

One consideration that is not factored in is population. We are at 7 billion now and there is no way that the present rise in population is going to change, so we are headed for another billion within about 12 years.
The emissions from this extra number will be added to what we have already and this will make the rise even more higher.

This will be exacerbated by the use of coal seam gas, even more coal than is being used now.
Posted by Robert LePage, Sunday, 9 September 2012 10:35:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Poirot, think I've figured the dip out, at least from Joe's perspective:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/ArcticEscalator.gif

Guess it's those there damn trend lines, again?
Posted by bonmot, Sunday, 9 September 2012 11:56:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you, Bonmot, that's a very interesting and convincing curve. It's a pity that Poirot's graph wasn't also subjected to a curve rather than a straight-line - it would show a curve going the other way. But for all that, let's employ the Precautionary Principle.

I'm certainly not saying that there is no global warming. But cause and effect, cause and effect -

* Hypothesis 1: [primary] causes: capitalist production has over-used fossil fuels, therefore effects: the over-production of CO2;

* [secondary] cause: rising CO2 in the atmosphere, therefore effects: increase in temperature;

* [tertiary] cause: increase in temperatures, effects: rise in the temperature of oceanic waters;

* [quaternary] cause: increase in ocean temperatures including in the currents etc. around the Arctic ocean, effect: erosion of the Arctic and Greenland ice-shelves each summer. i.e. at the end of a lot of anterior processes, some minimising and some magnifying earlier effects.

My point to Poirot is that the rate of increase in temperatures seems to be slowing down, especially if we fitted a curve rather than a straight line to those data.

A corollary of that is that the rate of increase in oceanic temperatures may be decreasing - oceanic temperatures are rising at an ever-slower rate. A corollary of THAT is that, while melting of Arctic and Greenland ice-caps/shelves/shields will continue, it will do so at a decreasing rate, and eventually stabilise.

Meanwhile, governments will be putting funds into renewables, so if that is in any way effective, and GW is not just some sort of natural cyclical phenomenon, we should start to see some consequences of those interventions over the next few decades. Hopefully, years rather than decades.

So economic production - production of CO2 - increases in temperature (0.8 degrees over a century) - increases in oceanic temperatures - warmer waters around the Arctic and erosion of ice-sheets etc. each summer.

[TBC]
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 9 September 2012 12:51:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Loudmouth has a tactic of indulging in sarcastic self-deprecation....my reference to the "dill" quote was connected with his apparent inability to make sense of the graph.<<

Yeah, but more importantly: have you painted your roof white yet?

>>The singularity is just around the corner and I intend to upload my self to a Cray Cascade supercomputer (purely for the enrichment of humanity) and be around to continue the battle with the Bonmot’s and Poirot’s of that period, who will no doubt be blaming us for the new cooling trend and campaigning hard for a new tax on renewable energy sources to encourage use of coal and oil.<<

I can't be having with all this new-fangled technology myself. I'll just do things the old-fashioned way and brew myself an elixir of life. Hope to see you in a few hundred years - although not as much as I hope to see the Bonmot and Poirot trying to explain the lack of roonation 50 years hence.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Sunday, 9 September 2012 6:11:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To continue (curse this 4 posts in 24 hrs rule!):

So: Arctic melting and erosion are very much derivative effects of capitalist production, AND as an indicator, a canary down the mine, of CO2 production from the use of fossil fuels. As such, there will probably be a very long lag between reducing CO2 to acceptable levels and the stabilisation of the Arctic and Greenland.

So a switch from fossil fuels to renewables which themselves do not consume vast amounts of fossil fuels in their production (such as wind towers) is necessary to gradually cut back the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to a manageable level. I don't know how much fossil fuels are used in the production of solar panels etc., relative to their production of energy, but they seem to be the way to go.

Pity about wind towers, I think they are beautiful. I keep meaning to drive over to that restaurant near the Grampians and sit and watch them for a few hours, maybe come back the next day. Beautiful but probably bloody useless on balance.

Now: Poirot, with respect, slagging someone does not refute, or even come to grips with, what they are saying. How about from now on, we both agree not to slag each other, be sarcastic with each other or otherwise talk past each other ? If you put forward an hypothesis, I'll try to take it apart seriously, with no cheap shots or snide remarks, and you do the same for me. A deal ?

Seriously: Bonmot's graph - the line DOES dip after 1998. Your graph - it IS convex, not concave, suggesting a slowing-down in the rate of temperature rise etc. If an actual curve was fitted to the data, say a five- or ten-year rolling average, it would not be rising. Isn't that so ? I'm certainly not saying that that means the end of GW, but it does indicate that it may not be out of control.

Of course, that dip DOES bring the link between CO2 production and temperature/sea-level rise into question....

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 9 September 2012 6:46:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I dunno, Loudmouth. You just accused me of slagging you because I call you out on your irritating style. Your imputations that I'm uncivil and insulting are your way of slagging - maybe we should just avoid each other.

bonmot,

Thanks : )
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 9 September 2012 11:46:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's entirely up to you, Poirot.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 10 September 2012 12:03:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth, you must be squinting again. It reminds me of the old rhyme about the donut. You have your eye firmly on the hole. If you take you focus off the noise in the graph, you would see the trend better. It is the long term average you need to look at. Before you carry on about the fact that it hasn’t gone anywhere for the past few years, I will point out that this has happened several times in the past 30 years – indeed it has gone down on occasions – only to begin its inexorable rise again. That is the influence of La Nina periods.

Any claim that the curve will continue down based on some notion that it should be concave is simply more bull. There is a powerful mechanism, where the physics and chemistry are well understood, that will drive the temperature up further.

And finally, just to deflate the no warming for the last 14 years claim, I took the data since 1998 and plotted a trend line through it. The slope is upwards at 0.9 degrees per century. The same average rate for the last century. All this focus on the rather unusual 1998 reminds me of another old saying about 1 swallow not making a summer.
Posted by Agronomist, Monday, 10 September 2012 10:23:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Agronomist,

Thank you for clarifying a few points. But are you saying that the current rate of increase in temperatures, i.e. since 1998, is no greater than the rate for the twentieth century as a whole ? 0.9 degree/century ? There is no acceleration, no exponential growth ? That any presumed growth has levelled off ? Even though CO2 production is rising ?

I'm open to persuasion, but only from evidence. If you assert, then you must prove. It's not up to me or anyone else to do it for you. Accusations of 'bull' are not really congenial to persuasion.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 10 September 2012 10:49:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joe, it's a common fault of the so called “climate sceptics” to confuse short-term “noise” (natural variability) with the long-term “signal” (AGW).

Some people here deliberately obscure this inconvenient fact of time series statistical analysis. This demonstrates to me how little they understand statistics or how much they want to deliberately distort or misrepresent it.

Take your pick; cognitive dissonance or confirmation bias – in either case, they want to find a reason to not believe in the science.

Poirot’s link to the graph ‘what sceptics think and what realists think’ is correct. The ‘sceptics’ are not looking at the long term trends; they deliberately (or in their ignorance) highlight short term noise. Indeed, the typical purveyors of “cherry picks” start and finish at points to suit their beliefs (motivational reasoning).

So you want curves, Joe – how about this?

http://tinyurl.com/Joe-Curves

BTW, that black curve was statistically computed by BEST (I told you about them previously but perhaps you have forgotten). BEST was headed by Professor Muller, that climate sceptic (in the scientific meaning of the term) who is now considered a 'fake' by the usual suspects who once held him up so high in their esteem of him.

Joe, you don’t have to believe in AGW or how serious it is. However, if the likes of the Tony Lavis’s of this world are anything to go by - sipping whatever they’re sipping or smok'n whatever they’re smok'n, we should be alarmed – about inaction and slumping into a warm and fuzzy haze.

A different type of alarm to the likes of the UN Security Council, who are concerned about our energy use/abuse, or food and water security, etc. as we head towards a 10 billion population in about 40 years’ time.

Sheesh, even this lot were concerned then:

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2007/2007-04-16-05.asp

More so now:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/may/20/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism

Avagoodweek :)

PS: your last comment. Joe, been over it before and there's much in the literature and it's really not that hard to do your own homework.

You either just don't get it or you just don't want to. My guess, the latter :(
Posted by bonmot, Monday, 10 September 2012 10:57:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you, Bonmot. Hansen's Curve is still puzzling: of course, the dip in the last few years doesn't mean much in the longer term, except that it hardly confirms the AGW hypothesis. I'm more concerned about why the curve itself is slightly convex - rather than concave, or VERY concave - over the years since 1970, years of rampant CO2 production.

I admit to having little statistical knowledge, but at least I can see whether or not a graph is going up or down, or a trend is accelerating or decelerating. And of course one can fit a line to data as one chooses, it depends on the averaging involved. In Hansen's Curve, I'm puzzled why there seems to be a decline in average temperature during the period 1940-1970, not generally years of economic stagnation and minimal CO2 production. I guess there is a time-lag in the effects of CO2 on temperature, but if so, why the dip since 1998 ? Why not an accelerated rise right since 1970 ? i.e. a concave curve ?

Of course, I may be just showing my ignorance here, but I'm trying to honestly understand what are very complex processes. And I don't want to be conned with some appeal to authority: the authority of the IPCC generally and Pachauri in particular with his predictions about glacier extinction over the next 23 years - when even the NSW snow-fields seem to be doing fine (or am I mixing weather and climate here ?) - are hardly confidence-building.

Yes, AGW is probably an issue but currently, on my scale, it ranks somewhere along with same-sex marriage and population-explosion, storms in tea-cups, yada yada stuff, no big deal. But as a voter, I'm willing to be persuaded properly.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 10 September 2012 2:22:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joe, perhaps you want to see the trees instead of the forest.

This may sound tedious but it is a point that you seem unable to appreciate (even when you admit to having little statistical knowledge - and not least in time series analysis):

Nevertheless, I will try and explain once more, writing slowly:

The bumps and wiggles (concave or convex) is “noise” – natural variability.
The AGW “signal” (unnatural variability) is superimposed on this noise.

The noise must be filtered out to see the relatively long term trend.

When you do this, the long term trend is up, despite the bumps and wiggles and despite your eyeball.

Global Warming does not mean the globe will warm every year.

As far as increasing ‘heat trapping’ greenhouse gases go, they will likely increase exponentially, unlike temperatures.

The black curve is not “Hansen’s curve”, it is from Professor Muller’s BEST (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature) analysis. You have been given the detailed links before.

For your post 1940 query; it is well known to people that do inquire of the records in the literature, that aerosols had a cooling influence. Environmental pollution laws were less robust then.

You say “of course one can fit a line to data as one chooses, it depends on the averaging involved”.

No Joe, you obviously didn't understand my previous comment, and it really is becoming tiresome.

You don’t want to “conned with some appeal to authority: the authority of the IPCC generally and Pachauri in particular”?

Ok then, appeal to the amateurs and wannabes - there's plenty around here.

Should I expect someone who has such an abiding interest in things you have raised know at least the issues, workings and resultant resolutions of the IPCC? Of course!

As to the NSW snow-fields; have you actually seen the trend since the 60’s? Bumps and wiggles Joe.

I’m a voter too, Joe – but I'll be voting on issues that's progressive for future energy policy, amongst other things. On my scale, I will be dead when those decisions will come back to bite, or not : )
Cheers
Posted by bonmot, Monday, 10 September 2012 4:29:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth, I don’t know why you expect to see acceleration of temperature increase over such a short period. Given the noise, you would likely need 60 or more years of data to identify acceleration of the rate of warming. Perhaps the important thing to take away from the short analysis I did is that the underlying rate of warming is still present despite the sceptics choosing to focus on the unusually warm 1998 as a starting point. There is no slowing of growth. The slope for the period from 1998 to 2011 is slightly higher than the rate for the preceding century.

The period from 1940 to 1970 cooled slightly because of several factors. Firstly, the heavy period of industrialisation with high sulphur emissions produced sulphur aerosols that scattered sunlight reducing the amount of energy reaching the Earth. Clean air acts enacted gradually reduced the amount of sulphur aerosols in the atmosphere. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature4.php Secondly, volcanic eruptions, notably in 1963, had a cooling effect. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century.htm Thirdly, a relatively quiet El Nino period. http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/ElNino-LaNina/

There are many factors that impact on weather and whether this year was warmer than last year. The reason for a focus on CO2 is because it is not cyclical as most other factors are and it is long lasting.

Feel free to maintain your focus on the hole, Joe.
Posted by Agronomist, Monday, 10 September 2012 7:54:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, Agronomist, what's a doughnut without the hole ?

So ....... the effects of CO2 are not cyclical .... if the next decade or two are colder/warmer or wetter/drier, AGW is responsible. If the Himalayan glaciers are to vanish by 2035, when roughly might we expect to see the end of skiing in the Australian Alps ? 2015 ? 2020 ? 2025 ? Roughly. [Sorry, cheap shot about Pajauri and glaciers - they're hard to avoid in CIA/sceptical/denialist circles].

Temperatures increased over the past 14 years at roughly the same annual or decadal rate as in the previous century - 0.84 degrees. There is no acceleration ? No exponential growth ?

Okay, I'll bite - WHY aren't we researching to find environmentally-friendly aerosols to pump into the atmosphere, and cool it, like what was happening in the fifties and sixties ? My god, I AM a dill !

And governments around the world - and capitalist chancers - are all sitting on their hands and watching it all happen ?

Thank you, Agronomist.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 10 September 2012 8:58:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy