"Salvo three...."

Resting on what....?

Not much.....

http://m.livescience.com/39957-climate-change-deniers-must-stop-distorting-the-evidence.html

" It happens every six years or so: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) publishes its assessment of the current state of scientific understanding regarding human-caused climate change. That assessment is based on contributions from thousands of experts around the world through an exhaustive review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and a rigorous, several-years-long review process. Meanwhile, in the lead-up to publication, fossil-fuel industry front groups and their paid advocates gear up to attack and malign the report, and to mislead and confuse the public about its sobering message.

So in the weeks leading up to the release of the IPCC Fifth Assessment scientific report, professional climate-change deniers and their willing abettors and enablers have done their best to distort what the report actually says about the genuine scientific evidence and the reality of the climate-change threat."

"In reality, the IPCC has strengthened the degree of certainty that fossil-fuel burning and other human activities are responsible for the warming of the globe seen over the past half century, raising their confidence from "very likely" in the previous report to "extremely likely" in the current one. The IPCC expresses similar levels of certainty that the Earth is experiencing the impacts of that warming in the form of melting ice, rising global sea levels and various forms of extreme weather."

http://theconversation.com/ipcc-report-will-make-no-difference-in-culture-of-denial-18588

"The debate has not been about the science since the early to mid-2000s. Then, climate denial moved beyond the industry funded lobbying campaign it had been in the 1990s and became entrenched in the new right-wing populist movement. This was represented by the Tea Party in the United States, and has subsequently been taken up by elements of the Liberal Party in Australia."

Don, what is the takeaway message from all of these salvos? Is it simply that we should all read widely on climate change and each somehow arrive at a personal ‘opinion’? If so, don’t worry, because that’s exactly what has been happening. But I’m not sure it’s useful.

I am a scientist and my buddies naturally tend to ask for my ‘opinion’. To one vigorous sceptic I responded:

“I don't think it is really legitimate to have an 'opinion' on 'global warming', any more than it is to have an opinion on, say, the first law of thermodynamics. To my mind, it is not rational for the lay person simply to say climate change is all nonsense. All we can do is watch the debate and the supporting evidence and see how it pans out. It will take a while. In the mean time there will be scaremongering, exaggerations and general mischief-making.

The one thing that I do venture my opinion on is that renewable energy cannot replace fossil fuels and it will not be a simple matter to stop generating all this carbon dioxide. In fact I think it's impossible even to slow down, until the population starts to decline and people all over the world are satisfied with a constant standard of living. That's a mighty big ask.”

I wrote that on 27 January 2007. I would write pretty much the same thing today.

A little more on the pre-IPCC AR5 release blitz:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/misinformation-blitz-IPCC-2013.html

Have to agree with Poirot!
I wouldn't be very surprised to discover the Author of the OPINION piece is an employee of, or a consultative to the fossil fuel industry, and therefore has a vested interest in damning any and all contrary reports?
I also agree with Tombee, that we simply cannot just stop using fossil fuels!
Where are the viable alternatives?
Hydrogen sourced from NG perhaps, and retailed for somewhere north of $6.00 a cubic metre!
Limited range and quite expensive, battery powered cars, recharged overnight with coal-fired power?
Or we could run everything on ethanol, always providing we could make up the energy deficit this would create, along with the widespread starvation we would impose on large parts of the world's poorer populations?
And, that would also effectively reduce those same populations? Jawol?
Conversely, we could transfer much our energy demands to NG powered ceramic fuel cells.
This would stop NG Co2 emission.
And the ceramic fuel cell's 72% energy coefficient, would produce the world's cheapest energy; and, electric vehicles with vertically unlimited range.
The companion creation of algae farms, with coal-fired power stations, will in a relatively short space of time, reduce their Co2 emission to zero; and, provide countries like ours with total fuel self sufficiency, all while effectively halving our transport emission.
None of these things will have a negative economic effect, just the opposite!
Except for the fossil fuel industry! Hence all the fuss and or palpable hysteria?
Let's simply listen to the science and set about with the remediation of human induced climate change.
It's not a problem, but rather a blessing!
Who needs to be welded to a price gouging fossil fuel industry, that is progressively destroying formerly robust economies, with their extraordinarily exorbitant profit demands!
Who needs to condemn our children or their children to an uninhabitable world?
Rhrosty.

Rhosty, Don Aitkin is a distinguished academic and former VC of Canberra Uni. He's retired. He's not retained by the fossil fuel industry, and I think you owe him an apology (not that he's asked for one).

All of you wiseacres might be prepared to write him off, but I don't think others with a consideration for facts and judgement would.

An oblique criticism of Don.
I see that Don is the author of What Was It All For - The Reshaping of Australia.
Henry Giroux has of course been asking the same question for many years re the condition of the USA body politic, and thus by extension the entire world including of course Australia, where the disease that he describes its about to be ramped up by the new "conservative" government in Canberra.
His latest essay is titled Beyond Savage Politics and Dystopian Nightmares.
Welcome to the future - 1984 combined with Brave New World.

Of course the same people/outfits the Republican Noise Machine) that have created the situation described by Giroux are effectively the same people/outfits that have created and funded the well organized climate-change "sceptics" blitz machine. The right-wing think tanks and/or the Republican Noise Machine as described by David Stockman. The Koch brothers for instance.
Of course the IPA is the Oz version/franchise of this Noise Machine. John Roskam recently confirmed this.

3 shots in the form of 'opinion' are fired at mainstream science leading up to the release of AR5.

For the semblance of balance why not fire 3 shots at the contrary science?

A true agnostic would be able to do both.

AR5 will stand by the science, despite opinion pieces published on sites like this.

I would add this to the editor's sage advice:

All of you wiseacres might be prepared to write the AR5 off, but I don't think others with a consideration for facts and judgement would.

With the ABC and Fairfax doing such a good job of boosting the IPCC boosters, I don't see any reason to go searching for pro-IPCC material. Happy to publish if it turns up, and not, if it doesn't.

I'll judge the IPCC on what it contains, when I see it. Previous reports aren't encouraging, but you never know.

Frosty, D. Duck,

Yes/no:

Have world temperatures risen by barely a degree in the last century ? Yes/no ?

Have sea-levels risen by barely two inches in the last 120 years ? Yes/no ?

Have world temperatures more or less plateaued in the last sixteen years ? Yes/no ?

The questions would stand, even though the questioner is Murdoch himself, or anybody else. It's not a different world for you and for 'deniers', it's all the same world that we share. So if temperatures or sea-levels go up or down, they do so whether you or I or anybody wants them to.

So what might your answers be ? If yes, then I suggest another question, assuming that ALL the rises have been caused by increases in man-made CO2 emissions:

Can global warming, if it's occurring, and at the above rates, be countered by human activity, massive tree-planting and increased irrigation of crops (plants love CO2, and the more CO2 in their environment, the more efficiently they use water), and by more use of renewable energy ?

I know it's fun to run around like headless chooks, particularly if we can show that Murdoch and capitalism are to blame for it all - b@stards - but is it just possible that we can do something about it ? Whatever 'it' is ?

Come to think if it, capitalism already is - or is General Electric a socialist plot ?

Joe

Hi Don,

I feel OLO owes you and many other wrtiters an appology. We now have so many self indoctrinated proselytisers on OLO that any meaningfull debate is snuffed out within 10-15 posts.

Their modus operandi is to first shoot the messenger, then to share with us their adopted opinion, start link wars with their favourites, to abuse, string together platitiudes, lack the ability to rationalise, offer no original thought on any subject and refuse to acknowlege even when they are proven wrong,.

We have recently experienced posters who don’t even read the links they provide and simply snipe from the sidelines rather than contribute and intellectual content.

It’s a modern syndrome that seems to defy any explanation other than the possibility that we have created an entire generation of twitter/facebook level Googleheads.

I offer no appology for others but for me, I am sorry that your skills, professionalism and stimulation of debate have been stunted by cretins.

GY, please consider ways to get the debates back to an intellectual level beyond year six

Anyone interested in the AGW debate should have a look at the creationist talking points website. The operation and practices of the two groups is identical and general from the same conservative context. The fact is that the author (history) and nobody else on this site have any expertise that would allow them to review the material let alone have a valid opinion.
The fact that you can go on the net and find a few climate scientists how don’t think AGW is a problem should not led people to the misunderstanding on the state of the fields view on the matter.

A similar search on evolution, smoking, relativity, quantum mechanics, homosexulaity and even geology will find scientist who disagree with the mainstream scientific consensus.

This is why this debate has been referred to as the rights war on science; it has become a political obsession to disprove all these new fancy ideas.

Get use to it guy’s, reality has a left wing basis!

spindoc,

Link wars?

"I offer no apology for others but for me, I am sorry that your skills, professionalism and stimulation of debate have been stunted by cretins."

I offered a link to an op-ed written by Michael Mann - climate scientist, Professor and Director of Penn State Earth System -on the release of AR5

I don't see any other opinion here from a climate scientist (except perhaps one)....it's all layman opinion, including that of the author who isn't a climate scientist.

He refers to Curry and I refer to Mann.

Why am I wrong to do that (through a link) - and why is it right for him?

Neither of us are climate scientists.

Ok, Graham - this is your site and if you don't want to search or publish material that goes against your leaning, so be it.

Of course, the inference then becomes if one really wants to see or read alternative views (to that of Don Aitkin, for example) - don't come here (because you won't find it unless it turns up) - go to the ABC or Fairfax instead.

That type of polarising attitude is not very constructive, in my humble cretin opinion - but there you go.

Not mentioning any names of course. BUT, I just loouve it when people cut & paste slabs from some left leaning website as *their contribution* to a thread.

And I love it even more when --as is often the case -- you ask such persons a simple question; a question that you would think any AGW true believer should know the answer to, like the one bracketed below:

<<Loudmouth: "So you're prepared to agree that temperatures have risen barely an inch in a century..."
[unnamed poster]: "You know next to nothing about this complex subject..."

[SPQR]Just answer the question, [unnamed poster].
Surely it's either yes of no!
YES or NO?>>

And when confronted with such, they dodge and fudge then run for cover.It makes you wonder about their real motivations,ay?

SPQR,

You forgot - he then referred to unnamed poster as "sweetie"(as is his wont - and which he reserves for women around here)

Simplistic questions from Loudy don't address "climate science".

Neither do your answers, sweetie :)

Joe

I think it is good to get all sides of debates and opinions.

On global warming and link to human activity, I think it is fair to say that most sane govts recognise the above, albeit they struggle for answers in a world dominated by growth, growth, growth.

‘morning Poirot,

You cite that you refer to Mann and Don refers to Curry and then ask what you are doing wrong?

My point is that the overall tactics being adopted by both sides of the contest are stunting debate, as evidenced by the shrinking number of responses. Of about 130 articles listed, only 15 have made it beyond 30 posts and about 87 never made it past 20.

Whilst I have not done any analysis of topic content, it does seem to cover the same broad spectrum. So is this because we no longer have opinions on these topics? Is it because we no longer wish to debate them? Are we seeing a stronger polarization of ideological perspectives or are the principles of debate being compromised to the extent that posting is truncated?

This is On Line Opinion, as such, opinions should be formed and expressed and substantiated with whatever evidentiary material is relevant.

Too often we see links being posted as substitutes for considered opinion. In the case of this article, like so many others, Don has written three articles based upon three other researchers. He has formed his opinion and provided the background to his pieces.

Many responses simply provide a “link” to make their case. This tactic is lazy and does not represent a considered or valid opinion. This is just the reincarnation of medieval jousting fought by designated “champions”, this is what is meant by “link wars”.

Other growing tendencies include;

Motive Questioning- When sound evidence against the proposal is presented, the motivation of the presenter is questioned, shooting or denigrating the messenger.

Adopting "loaded" language - characterized by "thought-terminating clichés". Words are the tools we use to think with. These "special" words constrict rather than expand understanding. They function to reduce complexities of experience into trite, platitudinous "buzz words". (Sometimes described as “The Rhetoric Engine”)

Elitism, claiming a special, exalted status, a special mission to save humanity like saving the Planet. Implying that the supposedly exalted ends justify means.

A polarized us-versus-them mentality, which causes conflict on OLO and with wider society.

Cont’d

Cont’d.

Inducing guilt feelings- In order to justify compliance. We are all made to feel guilt for destroying the planet and destroying the legacy of our grandchildren.

Crisis Creation - Employing tactics to create or deepen confusion, fear, guilt or doubt, the created and overstated impending doom.

All The Answers - Provide simple answers to the confusion they, themselves, create. Provide simplistic solutions produced or "approved" by “our” supporting opinions. (Links).

Attacking Independent Thought - Critical thinking is discouraged and blind acceptance demanded.

Totalism - "Us against them", strengthens groupthink identity. Everyone outside of group lumped under one label such as “deniers”.

Blind acceptance - The orthodoxy is accepted and rejection of logic is driven through complex lectures on incomprehensible doctrines.
There is only a single orthodoxy, so here is yet another “scientific” report supported by a “PowerPoint” graphic of the “Hockey Stick” from a “reputable” source.

Creating a false sense of righteousness - By pointing to the shortcomings of the outside world and other perspectives. Opposers are “Flat Earthers”, “Deniers”, have no intelligence and are mentally ill.

Remapping reality - single orthodoxy, simplistic solutions, the orthodoxy is right so opposition must be evil and exclude external reality.

Poirot, these techniques have become increasingly common on OLO. They have not been learnt, they have been adopted from the ideology. They are all attributes of belief systems and as such, no alternative is viewed as legitimate, good, or useful.

IMHO, it is the widespread adoption of such tactics that is destroying meaningful debate here on OLO and in wider society. Which is precisely why they were developed in the first place, to defend the belief system against external reality.

When you ask << Why am I wrong to do that (through a link) - and why is it right for him? >>.

The answer is because Don offered three reasoned and considered articles based upon research from three separate authors. You just post links, avoid responding to content like the plague and variously use the tactics outlined above.

You are killing the debate you don’t even want others to have.

Hi Spindoc,

Yes, your point about Motive Questioning:

I've been working for some time on old documents relating to Aboriginal policy and practice here in South Australia, and put it on a web-site. I found, for example, that the Aborigines Department in the nineteenth century (in fact, up to the 1930s), had only one employee: the Protector. He sent out stores of all sorts to around sixty depots, at any one time. One person, sixty depots.

Yet the current paradigm requires a belief that "Aboriginal people were herded onto Missions."

On Missions, staff numbers were rarely more than three or four - the teacher, the farm overseer, the missionary-superintendent-storekeeper-medical officer. Not much time for 'herding'. And no Mission ever had a 'people-proof fence' that I know of.

I was speaking to a friend, who used to lecture in Aboriginal history here, and mentioned this. She was quite shocked and asked, "But why ? Why would they have so many ration depots ?" Then she suggested the unthinkable - "Are you saying that the policy at the time was [horrors!] humanitarian ?" I hadn't thought of it like that but said, "Well yes, probably." She said "I don't want to hear any more !" and turned away. One less friend.

But her gist, I think, was that if one cannot find a motive, an acceptable motive, then something didn't actually happen. And since one cannot entertain the notion that whites then could be humanitarian, then none of it happened like that.

When some information is traumatic, I guess we all switch on our "Motive Questioning" in order to preserve our current views. I recall when I was doing some research into incomes in an Aboriginal community thirty years ago, and found that the median income there was equal to the Australian median, I was so traumatised that I threw in my study and applied for a Taxi Licence. I didn't want to know. I contemplated suicide. Where to turn ? How to fit this information into my paradigm ? But reality rules.

[TBC]

[continued]

Things happen that we can't explain and which conflict fundamentally with our existing say of thinking and traumatise us. We try to rationalise them out of existence. But they happen regardless. But surely the rule should be that if one's 'theory' conflicts with reality, reality has to prevail, you have to develop a new 'theory', or paradigm.

Or maybe I've read, or mis-read, too much Karl Popper :)

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Point taken Graham and appropriate apologies tendered.
Sorry Don.
Rhrosty.

Hi Jo,

A great example and it correlates well with one of the examples I offered. Your point about ones own “theory” or perception about how things “may be” is entirely valid, it’s also sad that your reality in this case proved to be so powerful, traumatic and potentially destructive. Glad to hear that you punched through regardless.

Imagine however, if your “theory” had been based upon a very public declaration of your ideology? Imagine how impossible it would have been to even consider allowing reality in, especially if everyone else knew you had nailed your colors to the mast. That public declaration makes it almost impossible to work your way through it.

This is the power of self indoctrination, this is why it is almost impossible for some to rationalize without facing what they perceive to be self inflicted humiliation. They do not see recognizing a different reality as a heroic and courageous act of liberation. Rather they are inclined to anger, sniping, personal attacks, provocation, vilification and trivialization.

This is I think, one of the main reasons for such diverse, well developed and ideologically “shared” defense mechanisms. They have become second nature, generally work quite well in avoiding reality and easy to throw into a debate like hand grenades to ward off the daemons.

Unfortunately for many, the tactics are increasingly well understood and they often result in them “pulling the pin, then throwing the pin”.

Reality rules OK? But only if one is prepared to consider it eh

spindoc,

"The answer is because Don offered three reasoned and considered articles based upon research from three separate authors. You just post links, avoid responding to content like the plague and variously use the tactics outlined above."

Ahem....AGW is an extremely complex subject. We have 350 words for each post in articles and a limit of four posts per day on this forum.

I'm not a climate scientist (and nor is Don Aitkin - or most of the people who comment here)

Don posted a series of "one page" articles as salvos against the then upcoming IPCC report, promoting the views of a few scientists who disagree with the consenus.

I offered various "reasoned and considered articles based upon research" to counter the three "salvos", each from prominent trained experts in the field.

And you criticise me for somehow killing the debate?

Are you suggesting that all OLO is good for is the untrained inexpert blather of the regulars who contribute to comments?

Because that appears to be what you are suggesting.

Don Aitkin relied upon the views of the scientists he chose to demonstrate a view. He didn't write a detailed analysis of AGW himself to make his point.

Why is it wrong for me to do the same?

Poirot, it isn't wrong at all.
We can all pick and choose which scientists, if any, that we like to demonstrate what we think about the causes and effects of climate change or global warming.

At the end of the day, it is all still theories as far as I am concerned .
We may never work out all the answers to climate change.

I am still not totally convinced that humans can actually affect the world's climate, and even the scientists are still only 95% sure, at this stage.

The fact remains though, that the climate is always going to change, and that any pollution caused by humans, or their animals, does not help us.

I, for one, would prefer to err on the side of caution and go with the scientists, rather than those who believe in invisible beings in the sky!

I have written a short essay on my website about what I mean by referring to myself as an
'agnostic', and some of that is relevant to the discussion here.

Tombee asks what the take-home message was intended to be. My view is that the overwhelming message we get from government, the NGOs and organised 'climate science' is that we are doomed (etc). I am not a climate scientist at all, but it has been a serious study of mine for six years now, and I have a read a great deal. You don't have to be a laboratory scientist to read in this field. It is based on temperature and other weather data, and the data are publicly accessible. You and anyone else can play with the data and see what you think. A great deal is known about the data, as well.

I thought I could provide a useful counter to all the pressure coming the other way by summarising what three most eminent scientists have said that is different. You don't have to agree with them. I just think that it is hard ever to see the counter-orthodoxy stuff in our media.

And, for Poirot, I wrote a long and well-researched paper about global warming several years ago, which he can find on my website under Writings. Nothing in that paper has been disproved by what has happened since it was written.

Poirot

It's okay for you to do the same if you're talking to someone who accepts your appeal to absent authority as a method of knowing what is in issue.

It's not okay if they call you on it, ask you to show reason and evidence for your view, and all you do is
a) assume that there is a problem of catastrophic global warming that policy can improve,
b) purport to prove it by appeal to absent authority, and
c) personally vilify anyone for questioning it.

But that's the whole issue, isn't it? And you've never made any contribution but endlessly repeating those logical fallacies, have you?

We know that the IPCC has "confidence". What they don't have is DATA to justify it.
Emissions have continued and have risen, but temperatures haven't. All the warmists' models are WRONG.

Notice how, at no stage, do any of the warmists offer any actual reason or evidence for their view? All they ever do is what Poirot has done.

All we need to know to understand the entire belief system, is to understand that all the "scientists" she's referring off to, are using the same methodology of knowledge that she is!

The dialogue looks like this:
Warmist: "We need to save the planet from impending catastrophe caused by man-made global warming that policy can improve."
Skeptic: "Where's your evidence?"
Warmist: "Denialist! Paedophile! Child-killer! You belong in prison!"
Skeptic: "What's your reason?"
Warmist: "Denialist! Child-molester! You dare to question authority?!"
Skeptic: "Prove policy benefits outweigh the costs?"
Warmist: "Denialist!"

That's it. That's the entire discourse in a nutshell. Further requests for evidence or reason just meet with the same nutty response, at all levels from the seriously snout-in-the-trough high priests who privately admit the failure of their theory is "a travesty", down to the useful idiots who uncritically support this corrupt and anti-human junketing.

Thanks Don,

My wish here was not to impugn you.

You're entitled to your opinion as much as the next man.

As I pointed out to spindoc, it's difficult to argue against skeptic argument in the limited space available here, and also to introduce aspects better articulated by people who actually have some expertise in the various field associated with climate science.

My various links were to that end...noting that MSM does "not" cover the intricacies in detail. People who come to this thread are obviously interested in the subject, so I presented those inks for their perusal.

I've found this paper on your site - http://www.donaitkin.com/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/climatechange/The%20debate%20over%20AGW.pdf

Is it the one to which you refer?

Hi Poirot,

<< My point is that the overall tactics being adopted by both sides of the contest are stunting debate >>.

You said you << offered various "reasoned and considered articles based upon research" to counter the three "salvos", each from prominent trained experts in the field>>.

You did not.

You posted a link and an extract full of vilification and abuse conforming precisely with the defense mechanisms I have listed. “ professional climate-change deniers”, “climate denial”, “the new right-wing populist movement”, the “Tea Party in the United States” and “elements of the Liberal Party in Australia”.

Your links also contradict each other. The first insists it is good science from IPCC experts, then your second link contradicts this and says it has not been about science since the mid 2000’s? Which of your links would you like deleted?

Interestingly, none of the articles from Don Aitkin or the authors quoted, contain anything even close to abuse, name calling or vilification. So why do your links?

These comments Poirot are not “reasoned and considered articles based upon research” they are simply motive questioning (shooting the messenger) and abuse. You did exactly what I accused you of,

You just post links, avoid responding to content like the plague and variously use the tactics outlined previously.

So why are you so defensive? Why do “feel the content” rather than actually “reading “ it?

I suspect you do this because you “believe” in CAGW. Belief and faith are emotional human domains and must be defended, whereas skepticism has no position, it is just not persuaded by your belief. It has absolutely nothing to defend.

You confuse the committed position of a believer with the agnosticism of a skeptic. A believer is pro-active, the agnostic is passive. Skeptics are happy with their neutrality and do not therefore need to engage in the deniers syndrome because there is no pre-requisite.

Cont’d

<<"Denialist! Paedophile! Child-killer! You belong in prison!">>

LOL

Spot-on Jardine , you nailed it.

On a related note, Warmists are very strident in their criticism of anyone who challenges the official IPCC line if they are not an anointed climate scientist. Yet when you look the "team" of the oft linked to Skeptical Science warmist website: http://www.skepticalscience.com/team.php
you'll find it chockablock with luminaries like these below:



Rob Honeycutt "Rob's claim to fame is being the founder of the popular pack and bag company Timbuk2."

Bärbel Winkler "lives and works in Germany. She has always had a lot of interest in environmental issues and has been active as a volunteer at the local zoo"

Hoskibui, "full name Höskuldur Búi Jónsson is a geologist in Iceland."
Remember how they poo-pooed Pilmer because as a geologist he wasn't competent to speak on climate issues!

Doug_bostrom "1958 model, background in broadcast engineering and management, wireless telemetry, software architecture and authorship with a focus on embedded systems, TCP/IP network engineering, systems integration".

Fair enough, boys.

Like ozdoc noted, it's pointless trying to promote the overwhelming scientific consensus around here.

It all boils down to the politics of "skeptics" versus supporters.

There's no detailed physics available here...there's only argument as to motive, etc.....with you fellas accusing tens of thousands of scientists of being part of a fraud,

spindoc, you and your cohort are disingenuous from the outset with your references to religious jargon, such as "believers", "agnostic" etc.

So, apologies for putting up articles by trained climate scientists who defend the thousands of scientists who contributed to AR5. I know how much that sort of expertise rankles people here.

I'll leave you to yourselves, a little world where everyone confirms each others' bias and science takes a back seat.

Cheerio : )

Cont’d

As a skeptic I need some very simple answers. Why have global temperatures not gone up in response to increases in atmospheric CO2? Why did the IPCC’s models fail to predict this? Where has the heat gone if CO2 is the cause of warming? And why have all the IPCC’s “forecasts” failed to eventuate?

And your explanations for these are what precisely? Non scientist to non scientist of course.

The best we get from the AR5 report is that the IPCC has “increased it’s level of confidence that humans were changing the climate” (I doubt anyone would disagree human contribution or that the climate has been changing for millions of years. Is that what a Trillion $$’s gets us?)

And from your link we have a stunning raising of their confidence from "very likely" in the previous report to "extremely likely" in the current one”. So the only thing that has increased is “their level of confidence”? Based on what, predictions or empirical ?

If it helps you understand what I need to move from skeptic to believer, I have just read the technical specification for the Airbus A380, that it’s performance expectations have risen from “very likely” to fly, to “extremely likely”.

Don Aitkin’s article pointed to Judith Curry’s issues on the “questions of uncertainty” and a list ten specific uncertainty concerns. Having read them I share those concerns, call it my skepticism.

You again avoided the content, offered no answers to those concerns or even indicated whether or not they were valid concerns, you just posted the adoption of snide vilification by others.

It is interesting that when you are squeezed just a little, you turn out to be just another doom peddler, go to pieces, dig holes and then fall into them.

This from your last post;

<< Are you suggesting that all OLO is good for is the untrained inexpert blather of the regulars who contribute to comments?>>

Madame Poirot, either you forgot to exclude yourself or you just tagged skeptics as “untrained inexpert blatherer’s”

Can’t resist can you?

At first glance, a rise of just 0.9C may not seem much of a problem?
This is not alarmist, but rather history repeating itself!
You see, a rise of just 2C is enough to start melting the formerly frozen tundra; releasing enough methane to force ambient temperatures up to 5C
The paleontological record describes a 5C warmer world, where impossible storms of unheard ferocity, whipped the world.
The entire food chain relies initially on plant life to survive, and if climatic conditions won't allow it to grow!?
Much of the ice melt has been mostly limited to sea ice thus far, and that is why we haven't seen much of a "significant" rise in sea levels.
However, if we should lose the Greenland ice sheet, we could see rise of around a metre or more!
That would adversely affect most of Australia, with most of the population hugging the coast; and, from whence we generate around 70% of our economy.
Yes we can do something about it!
We can absorb more carbon from the atmosphere than we produce.
All we need to do just that is the widespread creation of algae farms. Very low water use algae farms that would not just save the Murray, but vastly prosper it!
Algae absorb 2.5 times their body weight in Co2; and literally double that body weight and absorption/oil production capacity every 24 hours.
No tree or other plant type can come close to matching that!
Some algae are up to 60% oil, with some types producing ready to use jet fuel or diesel, which is child's play to extract!
As one might expect, the fossil fuel industry and all its various proponents, employees/paid consultants, shareholders, and royalty earners, I believe, are threatened by that, and continually claim, this is something reserved for the far distant future.
Ideally, when we've run out of fossil fuel; and or, they've gained control of most/all algae production? Hello!
Rhrosty.

Rhrosty,

Since you seem to have such an excellent grasp of such matters, would you consider answering the simple questions I posed on this thread. If you can answer these you might convert a number of skeptics like myself in one hit.

Why have global temperatures not gone up in response to increases in atmospheric CO2?

Why did the IPCC’s models fail to predict this?

Where has the heat gone if CO2 is the cause of warming?

And why have all the IPCC’s “forecasts” failed to eventuate

Hi Rhosty,

You're spot-on with your comment:

" .... The entire food chain relies initially on plant life to survive.... "

Indeed - plants love CO2. Glasshouse growers pump it in to encourage growth AND improve water efficiency. Sixty-odd years ago, some bloke in the US studied CO2 uptake in a crop of corn (maize). He found that CO2 levels around/above the crop were very high first thing in the morning - as one would expect (i.e. no photosynthesis during the night without sunlight), then a rapid removal of it during the day, and measurable growth in the plants during that time, then in the afternoon, the CO2 levels had dropped below a certain point, I don't know, maybe 50 ppm, and growth stopped.

Your comment ?

Joe

http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/26/the-relentless-increase-of-ocean-heat/#more-13098

"Well, I haven’t worried very much about this sequestered heat. Without having done the arithmetic, I figured that the actual temperature increase when averaged over the global ocean is probably pretty small. Further, with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it is not easy to get much of that heat back to surface.

Well, Lubos Motl has done the arithmetic in this post Ocean heat content: relentless but negligible. This is a good post, check it out. The punchline of his calculations: the heating in the layer 0-2000 m translates to 0.065 C +/- 20%. His calculations are essentially confirmed from this ARGO page where they confirm that since the 1960s, the warming of that layer was 0.06 °C.

So, can anyone figure out why 0.06C is a big deal for the climate? Or how all that heat that is apparently well mixed in the ocean could somehow get into the atmosphere and influence weather/temperatures/rainfall on the land? Or is sequestering heat in the ocean a fortuitous ‘solution’ to the global (surface) warming problem?"

Poirot

As has been pointed out ad nauseam, "science" does not consist of:
- ad hom
- circular argument
- appeal to absent authority
- not publishing data, and when asked for it
- resisting freedom of information requests
- hiding data
- saying you "lost" data
- refusing to publish code used to analyse data
- sneaky tricks like *reversing the signs* of temperature measurements
- citing thermometers in urban heat islands and imputing the measured higher temperatures to man's sin
- open-ended credulity in authority
- other flagrant manipulations of data and corrupt behaviour
- consensus
- groupthink.

Science ALWAYS rests on the data, NEVER on the technique you are employing and have NEVER defended, of looking to mere authority.

Therefore that is not "science", and you are deliberately lying, and the reason we know you are lying, is because you can't be doing it ignorance, because you've been called on the same flatly incorrect methodology over and over and over and over again in here. And you just keep repeating it.

Notice how NOTHING that Poirot says in this or any other thread offers any evidence or reason whatsoever for the proposition she is contending for?

Well guess what? That's not some kind of coincidence. All the warmists up to the highest levels share exactly the same methodology.

They have nothing, and never have had, but the $79 billion of money that government has stolen from the productive class to pay for this massive fraud.

Then when finally unable to defend their mendacity, Poirot has the gall to claim it's all a matter of opinion.

Well just because you don't care about honesty and truth, doesn't mean everyone is the same - especially not the large numbers of people who would be killed by the warmists' infantile deluded faith in total government control of everything.

Thank you JKJ

As the other Poirot said in "One-Two-Buckle-My-Shoe":

"I am methodical, orderly and logical; and do not like to distort facts to support a theory."

"The case is dried - and cut, Inspector."

Alice

An interesting thread, one that reminds me of the furore over whether or not smoking caused cancer. In that situation the Cigarette Companies lied continuously just as the Fossil Fuel Industry is currently lying.

Eventually it was proven that smoking did cause cancer but there are still deniers and the same will occur over global warming.

As I said recently, profits will always take precedence over prudence and there will always be idiots who 'think' the earth is flat and extreme weather events are not a warning sign!

Notice how David G does not actually provide any evidence or reason to support his belief that there is a problem of catastrophic man-made global warming that policy can improve?

Follow your own advice David. Follow the money. Governments have poured $79 billion into the global warming industry knowing that fools would use exactly the same methodology as you are using - looking uncritically at what government (not "science") is saying. They pay only for science *in favour of* the hypothesis. Answer this David: at what taxpayer-funded climate institute does a skeptic apply for work. That's right, governments pay NOTHING into critical analysis of the hypothesis which $79 billion has failed to find any evidence for, and destroy the careers of scientists who dared to question it. Government spending on global warming hysteria is in the ratio of 3500:1 of Big Oil, much of which is on renewables anyway.

That's where the so-called "consensus" is coming from. Governments have simply paid their dependent technicians to cook up global warming, and they've dutifully done it. The IPCC is not a scientific, it's a political body.

Let's get one thing straight. Emissions have risen to unprecedented levels while average global temperatures have not risen significantly in 15 years.

You are wrong David, and it's as simple as that. If you were right, the theorists you uncritically crawl to, would have to the predictions right.

The skeptics, UNPAID, unpicked the knitting of the warmist so-called scientists, and found it riddled with every kind of facile malfeasance.

And what is the answer of the warmist zealots to the truth they have no interest in?

"We don't have the data but if we did, it would prove what we adhere to regardless."

It's pathetic, it's sick, it's mediaeval, it's stone age thinking.

Got that peer-reviewed paper proving man-made catastrophic global warming yet fellahs? Not group-think. Actual data.

Why are you so zealous in your denial of global warming, Jardine? Why the desperation that you have to be right? Do you have shares in mining companies?

People who think in black and white are usually lacking in intelligence. Intelligent people usually keep a watching brief on developments in any issue and use their own intelligence to guide them.

Looking at the data including the most recent Report and seeing some of the horrific, severe weather events that have occurred during the last decade convinces me that there is a problem that is developing.

Shouldn't we err on the side of caution? Wouldn't that be smart?

No evidence, ho hum.

Notice how you assumed what's in issue, appealed to absent authority, confused weather with climate, ignored the fact that government has spent 3500 times more than mining companies, attempted to rely on personal abuse, and conveniently ignored the fact that even the IPCC admits that the globe hasn't significantly warmed in 15 years despite all its (wrong) predictions.

Let's face it, you're not the slightest bit interested in the truth or you would have noticed your superstitious belief system is corrupt and baseless.

At least the Big Banks are cheering on your pet policies because they want to make corrupt billions selling tax receipts in fake socialist markets which communists like you will later blame on unregulated capitalism. You don't even have that excuse. Sheer fatuous gullibility is all you've got.

It drives you into a fury, doesn't it, Jardine, the fact that you can't make people hold your extreme black and white views?

I think it's time you made an appointment to see a shrink, see if you can get help for your inability to see shades of grey.

Trying to insult me (a real waste of your time) is not helping your cause. You just sound like a ratbag rather than a rational human being!

OLO attracts a lot of black and white thinkers who are entirely incapable of thinking broadly or entertaining the possibility that most things in this world do not fit into black and white categories, humans least of all!

You love control don't you Jardine? You also love certainty even when there can be none as evidenced by this stage of the contentious global warming issue!

You look to stats to give you certainty when even a child in high school knows that stats can be made to prove virtually any proposition or its exact opposite.

Our world is filled with uncertainty, Jardine!

Get over it, old chap!

Hi David,

When you write:

"You love control don't you Jardine? You also love certainty even when there can be none as evidenced by this stage of the contentious global warming issue! "

I think they call that 'projection', David :) Jardine is suggesting precisely that there ISN'T all that much certainty, and that the whole issue is far more nuanced than just black and white, either-or, single-cause, up-down, etc.

For example, there is something to be remarked about no signifiacnt global warming in 15-16 years, even though the CO2 levels have risen by what ? - 30 % ? So perhaps there are other factors, it's not all either-or, black or white.

And as well, the rise in temperature don't seem to be irremediable. Just watching one program on our ABC tonight, the bloke points out that we grow three times as much food across the world as fifty years ago. Population hasn't tripled.

So just as innovations have achieved amazing things in food production, isn't it quite likely that innovations, by capitalist companies, each always out to make a buck by ceaselessly innovating wherever possible, can do something similar in terms of ameliorating global warming ? Perhaps, with no temperature rise in 15-16 years, they already have.

Bite my tongue ! Capitalists never do anything good for the world, even unintentionally, I should wash my mouth out !

But they might. Like GE's wind-towers and Big Solar's solar panels and arrays, etc. Could it be that, in order to make squillions, capitalism might counter global warming ?

Just a thought. From out of left field, you might say.

As for control, I suspect that it's the authoritarians among the Left who crave certainty. It might explain their softness vis-a-vis Islamist 'certainty'. Just another thought.

Joe

Poirot,

Your link didn't work for me. The title of the paper I wrote and referred to was 'A Cool Look at Global Warming'.

As applies to Jardine K Jardine and like minded souls here:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gish%20Gallop

No wonder real scientists don't bother with opinion sites like this anymore.

As for The Forum on IPCC related topics - we've heard it is not a balanced site. The author of this article knows this, exemplified in his 3 metaphorical attacks before the release of AR5.

David G,

If the IPCC can’t provide the answers, why are you trying to?

It’s quite simple, the questions you need to answer are;

Why have global temperatures not gone up in response to increases in atmospheric CO2?

Why did the IPCC’s models fail to predict this?

Where has the heat gone if CO2 is the cause of warming?

And why have all the IPCC’s “forecasts” failed to eventuate?

If you can’t answer these questions, go to the AR5 report, if they are not in the AR5 report, do you know better than the IPCC? If you don’t, why don’t you take a long walk on a shot pier?

You and your ilk have been granted the stage to make your case and have variously all taken your wickets home, not one of you has bothered to make your case. If you can’t answer the questions, why are you giving us such a hard time?

Answer the questions or abandon your belief.

Spindog, I wasn't aware that I was trying to provide answers to global warming!

I suspect that global warming is problematic and I am watching the debate and the science and the weather closely. That's all!

Unlike you and Jardine, I don't claim to have all the answers. Then I'm not a scientist and I suspect you're not either and neither is he.

As I asked of Jardine, why is it so important that you and he are right? Can't you handle uncertainty? Is it causing your world to fall apart?

What if there is no God? What if Abbott ends up being a dumbcluck? What if there is a nuclear war soon?

How will you adapt?

You won't!

"Denial that experts selected by an organization (i.e. the IPCC) with substantial infiltration by 'big green' are objective arbiters of climate science."
I am supposed to take a statement like that seriously. It is clearly a biased remark that only serves to denigrate the IPCC. Who are these big green infiltrators ?

Sorry Don you are not being agnostic you demonstrating a serous bias in favour of those who dispute AGW by re posting such comments.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Why have global temperatures not gone up in response to increases in atmospheric CO2?
They have
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/debunking-the-persistent-myth-that-global-warming-stopped-in-1998-20130927-2ui8j.html

Why did the IPCC’s models fail to predict this?
See first answer.

Where has the heat gone if CO2 is the cause of warming?
Most of it goes into heating the ocean a only a small fraction goes into increasing surface temperatures.

And why have all the IPCC’s “forecasts” failed to eventuate?
See you in 2100 then we can decide if the IPCC's forecasts were correct.

“I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence,” Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot…

http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/29/top-mit-scientist-un-climate-report-is-hilariously-flawed/#ixzz2gKa69skm

”They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claimed it was 95 percent sure that global warming was mainly driven by human burning of fossil fuels that produce greenhouse gases. The I.P.C.C. also glossed over the fact that the Earth has not warmed in the past 15 years, arguing that the heat was absorbed by the ocean.

“Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean,” Lindzen added. “However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans.”

“However, it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability,” Lindzen continued. “Thus, they now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified.”

Also note this critique: http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/ipcc-in-denial-just-so-excuses-use-mystery-ocean-heat-to-hide-their-failure/

Alice

David G

If you've been following the debate closely, then show the IPCC's working for how it reached it's figure of "95%" confidence that it's right, even though all its predictions have been wrong?

If you've been following the science closely, then where's ONE peer-reviewed article proving either:
a) the existence of the tropospheric hotspot by TEMPERATURE measurements, and
b) catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

If you've been following the science closely, then answer the questions:
Why have global temperatures not gone up in response to increases in atmospheric CO2?
Why did the IPCC’s models fail to predict this?
Where has the heat gone if CO2 is the cause of warming?
And why have all the IPCC’s “forecasts” failed to eventuate?

You? Following the science? Ha! You have answered with NOTHING BUT personal vilification.

"why is it so important that you and he are right? Can't you handle uncertainty? Is it causing your world to fall apart?"

Your questions only make sense if you overlook the fact that all the money that has been spent on the global warming religion has been confiscated under compulsion. *If* everyone who claims to believe it's true and valuable, had shown willing to bear the costs of the research and the response themselves, there would be no issue.

But the exact opposite is true, isn't it?

In the last century the socialists killed over 100 million people after their belief system was shown to have *no rational basis*. They simply ignored that fact.

But if the policies of the warmists were carried out, they would cost the lives of many many many more millions than that, for the same reasons - statists with religious zeal, ignoring the fact that there's no rational basis for their beliefs, and presuming from unfalsifiable assertions a general right for government to take over any and every aspect of production!

Forget interrogating my personal motives - answer the questions or admit you can't!

More 'gish galloping' from jkj

http://www.omg-facts.com/Interesting/The-Gish-Gallop-Is-The-Debating-Techniqu/53793

Firstly, notice how ozdoc has not supplied any data or reason to support the hypothesis of catastrophic man-made global warming?

Notice how he didn't actually make any coherent statement in support of the proposition.

Notice how he hasn't answered any of the questions which prove the warmists wrong?

Notice how he doesn't admit he can't answer them?

What do we get? A link.

Follow the link and...

"Gish galloping" is supposedly "The person drowns the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent can’t possibly answer every falsehood in real time."

Notice how there's no question of David G or anyone being called to answer "in real time"?

Notice how ozdoc doesn't give any *reason* for, or *identify* any alleged half-truths, lies or straw-man arguments on my part?

Notice how his post is either irrelevant to the topic of global warming, or assumes it's true from outset?

Come on guys. Got that evidence there yet? No, not dishonest links to irrelevance and fallacy. Evidence.

It's really pathetic and you can only wonder what motivates them. It's obviously not truth or science otherwise they wouldn't keep answering in nothing but fallacies and evasions.

You come across as a shrill, jkj.

AGW is not catastrophic, yet.

JKJ,

"Notice how he doesn't admit he can't answer them?"

(I'm surmising that he's the only contributor to this thread who can answer them.....but why would he bother?)

ozdoc
Wow. More ad hom and equivocation. How very persuasive.

So now "the planet" and "our grandchildren" aren't at risk after all? Looks like there's no need for government to try to control all the oxidation and reduction reactions in the world after all?

Poirot
Why would he bother when warmists don't bother with evidence? Mere sycophancy towards the powerful satisfies your standard of proof.

What a pathetic snivelling lying corrupt doomsday cult you people belong to.

jkj, calling you shrill is not adhom. An example of adhom is;

"What a pathetic snivelling lying corrupt doomsday cult you people belong to."

Jardine K. Jardine, you can rant and rave all you like but at the end of the day, no one really cares.
Not least those with real names with real credentials who contribute in real ways in real forums.

Bed-time advice jkj: don't distort what other people say.

JKJ,

"Wow. More ad hom and equivocation. How very persuasive."

You're rather a rabid hypocrite, aren't you.

I don't as a rule read your posts these days as they all resemble each other ad nauseam - no matter what the subject at hand.

But let's take alook at the inimitable style of "Mr Let's Complain About Ad Hom".

"What a pathetic snivelling lying corrupt doomsday cult you people belong to."...(thanks ozdoc)

"Come on guys. Got that evidence there yet? No, not dishonest links to irrelevance and fallacy...."

"It's really pathetic and you can only wonder what motivates them. It's obviously not truth or science otherwise they wouldn't keep answering in nothing but fallacies and evasions."

"Well just because you don't care about honesty and truth, doesn't mean everyone is the same - especially not the large numbers of people who would be killed by the warmists' infantile deluded faith in total government control of everything"

"Then when finally unable to defend their mendacity, Poirot has the gall to claim it's all a matter of opinion."

"That's it. That's the entire discourse in a nutshell. Further requests for evidence or reason just meet with the same nutty response, at all levels from the seriously snout-in-the-trough high priests who privately admit the failure of their theory is "a travesty", down to the useful idiots who uncritically support this corrupt and anti-human junketing."

"Therefore that is not "science", and you are deliberately lying, and the reason we know you are lying...."

Great stuff, JKJ, almost solid ad hom and sundry blather....next to no science.

Hi Jardine K. Jardine,

Apologies. Poirot is only new at this, she still thinks whoever makes the most noise wins the debate. She hasn't gotten to chapter yet which explains that what you say has to make sense.

Ditto Ozdoc

Cheers

Poirot, ozdoc

Ad hominem means personal insult *in substitution of* rational argument, not *in addition to* it.

Your argument is ad hominem because you haven't provided any rational basis for your belief that there's catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. All you've ever done in answer to anyone's request for you to prove it, is abuse them for not believing what you believe and refer off to other people who share the same belief as you.

My *argument* is not ad hominem because it doesn't *rely* on the personal insults. It stands independently on the merits of the fact that the IPCC admits that the globe hasn't warmed for 15 years while emissions rose at unprecedented levels, and therefore all its theories and all its models are wrong. Unlike your insults, mine are *in addition to*, not *instead of* rational argument.

This means that your entire argument is only this: "there is catastrophic anthropogenic global warming because Jardine K. Jardine is a bad person".

That's the level of snivelling half-witted credulity that underlies the ENTIRE global warming argument, because if this were not so, its proponents would answer the criticism of their case, by actually joining issue on the defects in the data and their theory, not by merely squarking "Someone somewhere else said it's true and you're bad for not believing it!" which is all you've got and all you've had.