Gotta beat taswegian, gotta beat taswegian...and be the first of possible 500 comments heading this way.

Beautiful Graham.

Fungo I'm flattered that you keenly await my comments. You might notice I never have anything to say about religion, child photography or indigenous issues.

Back to LB vs GW. The link is unsustainable demand for fossil fuels which creates a correlation.
1st process; FF --> GW
2nd process; FF -->gasolene price hikes -->mortgage defaults-->LB
This view is widely held in the US if you look at energy blogs. Basically people who couldn't really afford a mortage drove to their low paid jobs in gas guzzlers. When their weekly fuel budget went up 50% they defaulted. Mortgage linked financial derivatives imploded. So yes there is a connection between sub-prime and climate change.

First, I think, we need a concise explanation to origins and effect of 'subprime'...cnn surprisingly produced a good one...

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/01/29/economic.crisis.explainer/index.html

the key/initiating pathway was creation of 'mortgage-backed securities'...led to banks aggressively seeking housing loan clients...increasingly digging into 'high-risk' buyers from 1990's whom in past used to be refused...then selling on whole mortgage/buyer/repayment onto faniemay/freddie mac and gang...whom sold it to investors whom made lot of 'lazy-money'...but whole thing required a ever increasing house value...when that stopped...crash...

of course article fails to mention other certain essential ingredients like creation of 'life-debt-workers' whom required almost a whole life of time of hard work to pay off...essentially a working-slave...and what the hell the goverments were doing when this sector growth/size eclipsing other financial sectors...and on...yeah wealth production by manipulation of market, than wealth by producing consumer needed manufacturing...supported at highest levels of government bureaucracy...and now no media is identifying these rouge organized operators...

and this article is trying to link two dissimilar areas, financial-climate...and each with complex materially relevant factors...but understanding of basics will help is my hope...for illuminating discussions...

sam
Ps~bottom line-no market is going to be sustainable unless the 'workers' are able/create a balanced meaningful life...and which judged by each individual themselves...so any economy that recognizes this higher need and creates flexible work opportunities...with lower 'worker debt load'...is going to grow slower but sustain it long term...and exclude get-rich-quick rouge operators affecting economy too mucy...

The models used by the climate fanatics are now thought to be as useless as the financial models referred to by Graham.

I think the funniest thing I read in relation to the climate models was, a scientist was explaining how his climate model works and how many variables had been included in his climate model and how it predit doom and gloom. He was speaking for about 5 minutes when someone interupted him.

Does your model accurately predict past temparature?

There was a long silence .... then he said " we are working on that one"

It was one of the funniest thing I read ever

At the risk of re-opening old issues may I mention 'Sensitive dependence on initial conditions' (chaos theory). Modelling is useless for the economy and the climate because both are chaotic systems.
If you are going to lend money to a person who cannot afford to repay it there is going to be a problem. If we pump carbon into the atmosphere there is going to be a problem. That is all the modelling that can be done. In both cases the extent of the problem is unknowable so it all comes back to a subjective assessment of risk.

Graham is spot on with the bit about feedback effects in climate models. The actual direct effect of CO2 is comparatively limited - or at least is not open ended. There is a saturation effect. The climate models depend on feedback - mostly they assume that the additional temperature resulting from the CO2 will affect cloud cover, and that change in cloud cover will further increase temepratues and so on. The assumption is a little beter than a guess, but not much. There is virtually no direct evidence for it. Yet we are basing major government policy on these models without nailing down that basic point.

The financial modellers have even less excuse for their behaviour. Financial models have been shown to be wrong frequently by circumstances. the real surprise is that many professionals were surprised.

Curmudgeoun, the "many professionals were surprised" by their wrong financial modelling because they were fed lies for years about how clever the dumb system was meant to be. They saw pundit after pundit praised as demi-gods, however mediocre (backtrack Krugman too, or read into his actually high regard for this monetarist rubbish and bail outs), and propellor-headed twits given Nobel prizes (and the USD1 mill with them) for the "innovative financial instruments" of the derivatives scam. Of course they were surprised, because they believed only their own rubbish. Such professionals even admired the sick system's idiot and degenerate guru Greenspan; no wonder really, given that Sir Alan had his recent book pushed unashamedly and expensively, as if he had nothing to do with this mass crime.

And we have to really, finally re-educate people against those extra, post-disintegration lies which keep pushing this nonsense about "sub prime caused the system to crash", as if the whole problem was caused by a minority of poor people not paying their house loans! Graham's article even specifies that the modelling scams of derivatives trading involved fake and silly assurances that the packaged debt was somehow a valuable "commodity" or even "asset". That's the point about the "sub-prime crash": it was the result of collective self-deception by delirious lenders in a system that had no relationship to reality.

Remember: the derivatives bubble bloated into QUADRILLIONS of fake USD "value". That's truly "funny money" - does not exist, cannot exist, and should not exist. It must be written off, NOW. Then we can hold trials for those who created the filthy beast.

Notice how AGW-ers fall for such silly misinterpretations of the financial system's disintegration, just like they fall for the rubbish about CO2. Whether or not that was the intended "litmus test" of Graham Young's article, such responses prove the compatibility of these two major falsehoods and sources of disaster.

As I've said on OLO before, in AGW/ETS we're expected to believe the same circles of oligarchical decadents who not only benefited from the derivatives scam - they even conceived and designed it!

Graham Young you are spot on. Suppose a cap and trade system is implemented and companies that have billions of carbon credits on their balance sheets as assets suddenly find that the credits are worthless we will have another sub prime morgage crisis to cope with.
Boethius.

"So it is with global warming. Other methods of evaluating the risks, like reviewing the historical record, suggest that nothing happening at the moment can't be accommodated,"

really? you're qualified to say that? that's the accepted scientific position?

"but the models say otherwise,"

you're really claiming the modeling is in disagreement with the historical record? that's the accepted scientific position? or, are you claiming some superiority for your magic envelope?

"and the weight of money and ambition has gone behind the models. As a result, we in the West are caught up in an environmental bubble economy where everyone is spruiking climate change."

so who should i trust: a scientific community of thousands of qualified professionals, working with the real science and debating each others' work on a daily basis? or, a political hack who happily slurs a whole profession without a shred of evidence?

Here's some from that real world of those "working with the real science and debating each others' work on a daily basis", bb:

1) Guy Le Blanc-Smith, retired CSIRO Principal Research Scientist:

"I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, let alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion? I contend that those professional scientists and advisors that are knowingly complicit in climate science fraud and all that is derived from it will continue to be exposed by the science itself".

2) William Kininmonth, head of the Australian BoM National Climate Centre 1986-1998 and Australian delegate to the World Meteorological Organization's Commission for Climatology 1982-1998:

"AGW is a fiction and a very dangerous fiction".

3) Bob Carter, paleoclimate scientist James Cook University and ex-chairman of the ARC's Earth Science Panel:

"Many distinguished scientists refuse to participate in the IPCC process, and others have resigned from it, because in the end the advice that the panel provides to governments is political and not scientific".

[sorry to b repetitive folks - I typed the above at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8409&page=0. There are many more such quotes]

The truth is that one cannot accurately model a system as complicated as the weather or the global economy until one knows what ALL the variables are beforehand and how they interrelate with one another. The fact such systems are manifestly evolutionary, episodic, chaotic and have lots of dependencies should be enough to make people suspect that predicting their behaviour accurately over the long run is nigh on impossible. (In the case of the economy, system behaviour is complicated by human psychological factors which come into play which are often irrational.)

That, of course, doesn't prove or disprove anything in relation to the global warming debate. It just shows that man's intellect isn't sufficient to answer the question of which path the evolution of a system will take.

Computer modelling cannot possibly be accurate because we don't know all the variables which affect climate or how they interact.At best it is an educated guess.We could not get the world economy right knowing full well the effect of too much credit.We rely on so called economic experts who are often wrong,yet see scientific experts as being the word of God and thus infallible.There is a real disconnect here between logic and reality,which many stubbornly refuse to see.

RobP and Arjay
Are you saying in your posts that modelling is useless for chaotic systems (I hope that I got that summary right)? If it is what you are saying I agee.
Beyond that is the best we can do is to make a subjective assesmsnt of the risk of doing nothing as apposed to doing something?
What we do know is that every little thing we do will have an effect on the outcome even if we do not know what that outcome will be. At least lets understand that whatever guess we make it is a guess and keep mindless dogma out of it.

Graham… I hold a similarly skeptical view of computer modeling as you and have given voice to my skepticism repeatedly on this site, much to the annoyance of the AGW zealots.

I base my skepticism not on any paucity of experience but, similar to yourself, on the experience of three decades of working, still currently, with computer models (most currently my major client still does not understand when I tell them it takes a while to “shake-down” and shake-out” the anomalies and miss-assumptions and errors in the multi-entity business model I am putting together for them) and I work in an environment which has modeled for centuries (Accounting) the affairs of commercial undertakings.
GIGO remains the issue: a bad projection of future “Sales” activity translates to a garbage cash forecast.
And

Like you say - “As a result, we in the West are caught up in an environmental bubble economy where everyone is spruiking climate change.”

“How much will it cost to clean-up the AGW modelling mess in the world?”

Less, if sanity prevails and we steer a course which addresses the root problem, “population explosion” instead of dancing around pruning the limbs of personal liberty and individual choice.

Taswegians ‘cause and effect’ offers an interesting perspective, want to think more on that

I think what could be another contributor (I suspect it is multi-causal)

The exploding growth in superannuation / 411 funds desperately looking for investment returns, the “real business world” not being able to satisfy the demand, leading to the spin-merchants inventing what amounts to little more than a ponzi scheme to mop up that spare cash –

now is that not what Bernard Madoff was doing?

Breakfast awaits will return later….

Having returned from breakfast and read the rest of the responses may I humbly compliment you all for your skeptical insight.

Not slight intended in not referring to every one of them
Daveiy “That is all the modelling that can be done. In both cases the extent of the problem is unknowable so it all comes back to a subjective assessment of risk.”

Absolutely agree

Curmudgeon “Yet we are basing major government policy on these models
without nailing down that basic point.”

Spot on

And

“Financial models have been shown to be wrong frequently by circumstances. the real surprise is that many professionals were surprised.”

Agree at one level, disagree at another,

it depends on how well the modeler and the professionals understands what is being modelled.

Imho, based on my direct experience, most bankers have little understanding of accounting and most CEOs, whilst being able to eloquently address concerns over EBIT, still grapple with the simplest of balance sheets.

Boethius’s early warnings of the dangers beckoning anyone thinking of dealing in any carbon credits futures market .

Mil-observers valuable highlighting of eminent scientific detractors of AGW and their scientific opinions

Rob P and Arjay both identifying the short comings of modeling anything, the selective limitation of variables when no real significance or interrelationship has been thoroughly assessed.

So fella’s where to from here..

And to add to what Graham is asking (how much will it cost to clean up the AGW mess)

How do we re-route the train off the tracks of AGW, without overturning it completely ?

Have been researching CC for over a year now and still can't make much sense out of the debate. Seems to be more common sense in this forum than all the rest put together, good stuff. A wise old mentor I once knew said to me when trying to break out of circular and emotive debates, "follow the money!"

In relation to the ETS, What is it? what does it do? Who uses it? What are the benefits?

What is it? It is a legislative framework for charging carbon emitters for the privalidge.

What does it do? It transfers funds from carbon emitters to the government.

Who uses it? Governments.

What are the benfits? More money goes into general revenue for possible distribution to approved recipients.

Conclusion; if it looks like a tax and smells like a tax, it probably is a tax.

"Are you saying in your posts that modelling is useless for chaotic systems (I hope that I got that summary right)? If it is what you are saying I agee.

Beyond that is the best we can do is to make a subjective assesmsnt of the risk of doing nothing as apposed to doing something?"

Daviy,

You could accurately model a chaotic system, but only if you knew what the "equation" was that governed the system's behaviour. This is the bit we don't know, because our experience and knowledge just isn't good enough. So, it's very easy for experts to do their modelling based on the wrong model as Col rightly points out. (The great thing about peer review, is that if a prominent scientist does get it wrong, the whole scientific field will know about it and learn from the error.)

Beyond that, the best thing I think humans can do is to look carefully and objectively at the observed data (not the derivatives as they could already be contaminated by incorrect assumptions) and look for trends, anomalies and indicators etc that might be pointing to important links and relationships between variables.

The term "risk assessment" is bandied around a bit too much for me. It's what people say when they are only positioning themselves. It's no substitution for the real work that needs to be done.

Once a promising way forward has been found, there have to be some bold moves taken. For example, Louis Pasteur took a big risk in treating a rabies patient with a vaccine. If he had failed, his whole career and works would have come down, but if he had nothing the patient would have died like all the others before.

So, at some point, a leader has to take the reins (and the risks) and have a go at fixing the problem.

mil-observer, your quotes are neither here nor there, twice-over.

first, your quotes do not indicate anything about the nature or strength of scientific consensus. you know as well as i the media game of taking "both sides", to quote "both sides" in equal measure, irrespective of the quality of the arguments or the numbers in support. this can, and does, give hugely undue weight to vastly minority positions.

secondly, your quotes are no backing for young's vacuous, know-it-all nonsense, where he happily slurs a whole profession of fundamentally good and honest people. ironically, young is coming across exactly like a postmodern clown, the type who derides the power and integrity of science exactly because in their heart they know the explanatory power of science.

i have no intention of debating the science. i am technically trained, which means i know enough to know exactly how little i know. i do not know the science of climate modeling.

but i do know personally a number of the scientists. and i know they are by and large people of industry and integrity, working as hard as they can to figure out what's going on. i don't know if they are right, but i know that they are honest. young's slur on them is disgusting.

i am happy to have scientists battle it out. and, by and large i trust the scientific community to do this with honesty and respect, on the basis of the arguments. i believe the majority of denial scientists (for want of a better term) are sincere in their beliefs. i respect them. what i cannot stomach are arrogant amateurs such as young. he is a bug.

finally, your quote about the IPCC process being political. the climate scientists i have talked to agree entirely, and have similarly expressed great frustration. *however*, notable for them was that the role of government in the process meant that the predicted effects of warming have been *watered down*. Why? exactly because these governments were scared to face up to the economic and social and (thus) political consequences of the predictions.

Good article, totally agree that the models are rubbish, at best a curiosity, at worst they are deluding a huge number of the population who don't think any further than the "daily news cycle" spin of the government of the day.

I have worked with models, flight motion and weapons engagement, the number of variables is huge, we always dreamed of having the kind of computing power the weather bureaus' have. Even with all that computing power, they cannot predict a month ahead, it really is extraordinary to believe anything that is predicted beyond that.

I've also worked extensively with the scientific community, and I found they are like every other part of the community. Good and bad, clever and not so clever, some better at administration than technical work. They all tend to have mortgages, and a desire to improve themselves and their lot. To see some vicious backbiting and politics, outside of universities, it's hard to match to the scientific community.

I'm not happy to just leave scientists to "battle it out" without constant oversight and auditing of motives. If you have ever seen a scientist when they think they have a big grant or project in sight, you'll know what I mean - the amount of funding now being poured into studying the effects of AGW, is certainly turning heads and a lot of self justification is going on.

Certainly they would be idiots to ignore the spray of cash in their direction. Ethics are great, but difficult to pay the mortgage with. They are ordinary people and are not stupid when it comes to making a buck .. they are not saints as some folks like to imagine.

What they say and do, should certainly be questioned, just as scientists paid by Big Oil are suspect, so are scientists paid by green organizations and governments. The skeptics will starve since there is no funding for finding things are not "Code RED!"

Graham is dead right these two things are closely related and its not just through the inappropriate and uncontrolled use of computer based models.

Krudd and his mates got into Govt partly on the claim that they are global warming converts, and were prepared to sign up to Kyoto.

Rann as the incoming President and a State Labor Premier was pressing all the buttons he could, and with other Premiers played every game in the book. Large Grants to research institutes, (Brooks at Univ Adelaide) and paying the CSIRO to do Climate change reviews in each each State that emphasised the dire nature of it all etc( heavily qualified of course, so that no one could be sued).

After they got in, the Garnaut (being a good mate of the "in" clan) Report comes out saying we have to spend up big, over the next yonks or else we are all doomed.

It might be another economic barnacle on the back side of progress, but who cares, we are in.

So the gullible masses were set up for having to pay out big time so that Kruddites can meet their election promises, and commit to spending on an ETS, that will have no effective outcome. In fact it is probably the worst cost benefit of all time.

Well it wasnt going to be a problem with the huge surplus that the previous Govt had prudently squirriled away.

But then along comes the GFC.

Whoaaa---- we are in deep do do.

Cant have two economic barnacles running at the same time and go into deficit inside 12 months of winning govt. Not a good look at all is it.

Climate science and Govt funded scientists all over the world and particularly the USA ( funny about that isnt it, eg NASA GISS) are as self serving as the Wall Street financiers, the only difference is the scale.

At the end of the day the only people who pay for all this are you and me -- the mug tax payers.

Graham,

Your article is not a fair assessment of the AWG models and the links with their cousins the Market predictions, the Lehman Bros collapse or Col Rouge’s accounting modelling.

Actually there isn’t three model models any more than there are three types of motor vehicles. In fact even in each of the three areas mentioned there are many different types of models. For simplicity sake one can equate the models in the three areas as trying to compare different versions of vehicles. (like comparing a Ferrari with a bus and 200 ton ore truck).
Apart from the factor that all three are models their structure/complexity and what they’re trying to achieve is very different.

It is also misleading to say that Climate Models because of some lack of precision in some outputs (due in part to lack available data or aggregation/informed estimates, complexity etc) that the results are an example of what you refer to as GIGO (BTW this is an industry Acronym not a technical term). Neither is it accurate to therefore summarily dismiss MOST of their outputs. MUCH of this data is comparatively accurate at least for some predictions to be meaningful.

If you read the latest posting to realclimate.org.com You would see discussions that clearly indicate that in terms of the complexity all models have flaws but when taken in aggregate on the most contentious area they do approximate the observable data. i.e. are scientifically pria facie. Most accepted scientific papers have a statistical reliability factor.

Absolute figures when working with highly complex (aggregations) are only possible from a statistically significance basis rather than absolutes. There are always new factors that come to light. This I presume why there is always disagreement amongst scientists and a reluctance to make absolute predictions or give absolutes.

My experience at code cutting in Accountancy tells me that accuracy is far more achievable given that the most significant variables are known. Market trends analysis modelling failures are often in the ‘wetware’ (the brains) of those who over estimate the current modelling nature/capabilities in 'chaotic' environments.

Exmaninator

You are talking complete nonsense.

GCM's have no skill of any practical value at all.

Read this:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3086

Bigmal, re your link.

It's worth repeating:

With all serious respect to the Koutsoyiannis et al paper: the authors do not appear to know very much about either the TAR or the AR4.

Looking at the statistics of local temperature and precipitation is useful but picking just a few long records and comparing to the nearest individual grid cell/s is not sensible.

The differences in topography an local micro-climates are probably large and will make a big difference.

A better approach would have been to look at aggregated statistics over larger areas. This has been done by Blender/Fraedrich and others.

The most curious aspect of this paper’s reception in the blogosphere is that the authors use the surface station records which in all other circumstances the 'denialists' would be condemning as being horribly contaminated.

You can't have it both ways. Ergo, you guys just cherry pick data, start/end times, and mine-quote to deliberately distort and misrepresent what is really happening.

I suggest you study the science instead of reading only that suits your preferred stance on the issues - but that ain't going to happen, is it?

Suggestion: Just do a search on the GRL for TAR and AR4 models (my guess is you wouldn't even know how).

Big mal,
Who is Steve McIntyre what are his qualifications experience etc?
The abstract is dated and leaves doubts about methodology. But then again this proves my point that there will always be doubt in scientific conclusions.

Now you read my site the two main people are profs of Climate and have a peer reviewed paper in Nature. A peer review publications search shows that these two have higher standing academic standing in the topic of Climatology. What does this ultimately show ? Your guess is as good as mine. I’m claim to particular expertise in Climatology or Modelling theory over than I’ve cut code in business modelling.

If you read the site you will find other climatologists discussing this issue and they agree their are problems but make the same point I did.

I understand the perception that if the modelling is deficient therefore AGW is too. To me the issue isn’t tat cut and dried.
All I was saying was that GY's argument seemed to be:

Seemed to be linking all modelling in one big bucket which is misleading.
• Making Lehman’s failure due to primarily to modelling failure therefore AWG modelling failures are the same cause and effect which isn’t true. Modelling is but one minor aspect in the conclusion i.e. AGW
• ‘Throwing the baby out with the bath water’. There is far more to AGW than questionable modelling results.
• Seemed to be pushing the commonly held fallacy that science is cut and dried an if it's not then it's trash.
As to me believing in AWG I admit I do with reservations BUT I don’t believe the sceptic/denialists modis opperandi of wait until the science is bullet proof is sensible/prudent. There are also other pragmatic interwoven issues that add to my disquiet to ’business as usual’ attitude.
If you have better insights i.e. Skills in climatology I welcome your comments.

It is beyond me how AGW believers constantly label people who want to see scientific proof as skeptic/deniars.Most true scientists are skeptics.The scientific community itself is divided on the influence of CO2.There is no real dispute about the fact we are causing some climate change,it is a matter of degree and what is really causing it.

Penny Wong just the other day bagged a new Australian concept of capturing carbon and said that she would not be financing on the grounds of it being unproven science.If Ms Wong truely believed in the influence of Co2 why did she not at least investigate an Aust concept?

This is exactly what AGW in relation to carbon is,unproven science;yet Penny Wong is willing to destroy an economy on the basis of her own flawed argument.Stupendously illogical.Are the lunatics running the asylum?

RobP
My understanding is that chaotic systems can be pridictive if 1) the exact value of every factor is know at the exact moment the model is started and 2) and the formulae is know precicely for every single factor at the exact moment the the model is started. 3) Every step of the model must be run because each step relies on the step before. Other may (and probably do) know more about choas than I do. Theoretically modelling may be possible for weather and economy in the future but at this time it is not practical. When I am talking about economic modelling I am not talking about interest rate and future value equations that sometimes get passed of as 'modeling'
Forget the dogma and false assertions. We do not know what the outcome will be. See my article http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8341 if you are interested in my full arguement.
Basically we do not know but we have choices. Doing nothing is a choice and so is doing something. This is democracy at work? We have choices, we make them, that is what we do. At the moment the vote seems to be going the way of cleaning up the planet. If cleaning up the planet is 'wrong' we will never know. If doing nothing is wrong we will know, but it will be too late.

Penny Wong assured us two years ago that " the science is settled". Dear me. Boethius.

bushbasher: I don't enjoy stating the irony, but your "neither here nor there" response smacks of flippant dismissal or even "denial".

I do not re-send those quotes merely to muddy the waters with some polarization of common garden "scientific debate". Those quotes amount to DISSENT, whether we call it political, professional or academic dissent, it is a case of professional, experienced scientists claiming to recognize falsehoods and fraud on a large scale. It is not some hand-wringing dispute about whether the models really work, or whether the ice-core samples and meteorological balloons have been studied properly, etc. The quotes represent open DISSENT and, despite their courage and integrity, those who made these quotes have been accorded relatively little recognition, publicity and authority in the public, policy, and budgetary contexts.

Young's article does not, by my reading, depict such a generalized community of scientists at all; point out the quotes for me if you still disagree there.

You cannot deal with these cases of stern, open and unambiguous dissent - for which my above quotes are but mere samples - except by making inevitably politicized claims about the self-interest or vested interests behind those quoted. Of course, any such claims must involve allegations of unethical or corrupt conduct, reinforcing this debate's overwhelmingly political context.

Therefore, your generalized assertions about "scientists" and some presumed consensus around AGW have very little credibility in the face of such clear professional and/or political dissent.

mil-observer, if you so, so little enjoy to state the irony (?), it might be best to wait for occasions when there is irony to state. i neither dismissed nor denied your quotes. one of them, to the extent i could, i expressed agreement with. your quotes were just no help to young.

"You cannot deal with these cases of stern, open and unambiguous dissent - for which my above quotes are but mere samples - except by making inevitably politicized claims about the self-interest or vested interests behind those quoted."

huh. i thought i did exactly that. saying that i respect the majority of denial scientists wasn't enough of a clue? if there are claims of falsehood, i'm willing to have the scientists fight it out.

but you cannot cavalierly join "fraud" and "falsehood". you cannot equate academic dissent with a charge of fraud.

i know of no evidence of fraud, and more importantly i know of no evidence that any particular case of fraud delegitimizes the whole field. two of your quotes suggest nothing of the sort. i have no idea what le blanc-smith is charging, or what is his evidence for that charge.

bb: to call them "denial scientists" for a start! That's "respecting them"? Their scientific expertise and judgement hardly qualify them as "deniers" - a label that is patronizing, trivializing and - it seems - intentionally marginalizing.

The three quotes cover:

1) Le Blanc-Smith's direct assessment of AGW "fraud". His comment is very clear. You claim to "have no idea what he is charging", but that would suggest that the "denial" is yours in this case;

2) Kininmonth's description of AGW as "a dangerous fiction". In normally understood concepts of science (and academic pursuits of the humanities too), "fiction" posing as research implies clearly a creative, dishonest and fraudulent quality.

3) Carter's description of IPCC advice as "political not scientific", again implying clearly a fraudulent process, because the IPCC's overlords instead claim specifically scientific authority and credibility.

Your very pedantic effort here echoes that of Q&A, who avoids the substance of the commentator's quotes to try finding a technicality to seem in control and "one up". That's either inadvertently confused and compromised, or just plain sophist a.k.a. a "fraud".

A further tick to Young's article: the fraud of derivatives-based debt trading and hedge-betting mirrors the fraud of AGW and its derivatives-compatible spinoff in ETS.

Yes Mil-Observer,imagine a carbon credit economy.Our govts make a fortune in what is really a tax and the large corporates will sell us carbon credits that may well be worthless.Just another pyramid ponzy scheme whereby,those at the bottom lose everything.

I just don't trust Al Gore.He is too slick to be believable.

Daviy: "Modelling is useless for the economy and the climate because both are chaotic systems...In both cases the extent of the problem is unknowable so it all comes back to a subjective assessment of... the risk of doing nothing as apposed to doing something? What we do know is that every little thing we do will have an effect on the outcome even if we do not know what that outcome will be. At least lets understand that whatever guess we make it is a guess and keep mindless dogma out of it."

Could someone translate this for me?

Daviy,

I read James Gleick's book, Chaos, some years ago and was fascinated by it. I also liked the ideas you put forward in your article. They were in the same vein as Gleick's.

The way I see the AGW vs denialists debate is as being as complicated as chaotic behaviour itself. In fact, it is like the experiment conducted on ants, where food sources were placed at two points equidistant from an ant's nest. As I remember it, the behaviour always seemed to follow a pattern where an ant scout would discover one food source and somehow alert his mates who would then follow. Meanwhile the other one stayed unknown. Eventually, another ant scout would find the second source, and a similar pattern of following the leader would ensue.

Anyway, getting back to whether a chaotic system can be accurately modelled or not, I agree it can so long as the exact equation and the variables' starting values are known. However, based on my uni maths background, I also know that there are lots of equations that simulate chaotic and other complex behaviour. You just have to look at all those different fractal diagrams to see how many there are. How would a scientist know which was the correct one to use? The whole process of modelling a chaotic system is really trial-and-error.

However, I expect that someone will eventually make some kind of breakthrough.

I am surprised that nobody has pointed out to Graham that stochastic models don't work on envelopes.

Everyone heard the ABC Thu Jan 29, 2009 3:25pm AEDT

Heatwave a sign of climate change: Wong

Federal Climate Change Minister Penny Wong says the heatwave gripping south-east Australia is part of what scientists predicted would happen.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/29/2477433.htm

bugsy, please try to keep up: as i pointed out earlier, it's a magic envelope.

mil-observer. i don't take young seriously. but, perhaps mistakenly, i took your posts seriously. fraud is a serious accusation. you describe as "pedantic" my questioning of exactly what you meant? that is absurd. in fact, your flippant use of the term in reference to my posts suggests i have good cause to be "pedantic".

now:

1) my term "denial scientists" was not in any way meant to be pejorative. i tried to acknowledge at the outset that the term was clumsy. i can see one might think i meant "in denial", though everything esle i wrote makes clear that i didn't. in fact, i meant something akin to "denying the majority position", which i think is correct and contains no value judgment on either the majority or the minority.

2) i do not automatically interpret "dangerous fiction" as akin to fraud. i would think of thomson's plum pudding and descartes' vortices as (non-dangerous) fictions, though they are definitely not frauds.

but it doesn't matter. if kinimonth is charging something more serious, it will also be covered by my remarks on le blanc-smith.

3) the ipcc is an inherently political process based upon the science. it is not the primary research. it is not the modeling. and even on its own terms, even if on political terms the process is far from perfect, that is not in any way automatically fraudulent.

4) le blanc-smith's comment is indeed clear. but it is not precise, and as it stands it is pointless to debate. the charge is so overwhelmingly broad that there is no way to respond.

the question is, what are the specific examples of fraudulent acts to which le blanc-smith alludes? and what is the evidence that these acts were fraudulent?

yes, yes, i know it's pedantic of me to ask for evidence of serious charges. forgive me: i'm just built that way.

RobP,
If others in this forum had read Gleick's book, Chaos, maybe we could start looking for answers instead of arguing what scientist do and do not know. I understand that scientist look for answers and usually find more question. The science will never be settled untill something physically happens to settle it. Whatever decissions are made on climate change they will be made with incomplete infomation. That does imply lack of respect for science, it recognises that all science is a work in progress. I didn't dare mention fractuals, that really would confuse fungochumley.

...Or even FRACTALS daviy.

I will let you have that one fungochumley,

Billie quotes Penny Wong telling us that the current heat waves are definetly a sign of AGW.We have always experienced weather like this is the past.I remember heatwaves in the 60's in sydney that would last for a week at temps over 40 deg C.Currently in the northern hemisphere they are experiencing record cold temps.

Whenever statistics are done you knock out the highest and lowest scores to remove distortions.The current weather in Adelaide and Melbourne is caused by high pressure systems pushing desert air over the coast.Central Australia this time of year is well above 40 deg C
consistantly.So is central Australia getting hotter or are these just unusual configurations of high pressure systems?

Penny Wong is proving to be very irresponsible in making such unsubtanciated statements.

Arjay
It is indeed a pity that there isn’t a better word for differentiating levels of ‘sceptic’, even dictionaries offer several alternative meanings.

It one thing to say :
• I have my doubts aspects of AGW
• To be fully convinced that AGW as presented needs more proof
• The proof doesn’t fully support AGW theories
• And AGW doesn’t exist. All evidence that says it does is hog wash.
All four claim sceptic status and are therefore claim they are reasonable.
The 4th version to me isn’t sceptical it is simply flat denial.
One can be questioning or even hold doubt but to be sceptical one MUST have an open mind.

Those of the 4th persuasion are split between GW doesn’t exist and those who chant it is due to natural causes. Both these fail to offer a scientific convincing/provable coherent alternative. Their best efforts are fragmented and a bit like [PE] potentially important for understanding the mechanisms but doesn’t change the basic premise of evolution.
Journalists live/act in a world sensationalism…the problem is science is most often a grindingly slow accumulation of highly qualified advances (rarely journalist friendly). Realclimate com has a good discussion of this.

Even after 150 odd years aspects of evolution are still unclear i.e. there are currently those who maintain change is gradual (traditionalists) and those who maintain change is in steps (punctuated equilibrium [PE]).That is the nature of science nothing is cut and dried for long.
The 4th optionalists are analogous to the evolution denialists (intelligent design) in that :
• They both need to offer a scientifically plausible alternative.
• They both usually have ulterior motives for their denial.
Modelling chaotic situations is inherently inaccurate but in climate they are still regarded as scientifically useful as tools not necessarily as absolutes. Hence previously stated prima facie starting points. Again AGW is more than just models denialists tend to focus on that and miss the herd of elephants in the room

bb, you pretend to seek "evidence of specific charges" as if sitting here in scientific judgement over scientists' political dissent around AGW. That's pompous, and contextually and argumentatively dishonest, because I quoted those three scientists to prove emphatically that anti-AGW science does exist against fraudulent claims of some "consensus" ("there is no debate", "the science says", etc.). By contrast, your very demand seeks to shift attention from straightforward scrutiny of your own fraudulent claims and implications about "AGW consensus" and "an entire profession" (scientists).

Modern definitions of "denial" imply pejorative meaning e.g., "Psychol. an unconscious thought process whereby one allays anxiety by refusing to acknowledge...existence of certain unpleasant aspects of external reality or of one's thoughts, feelings, etc.: now often in the phrase 'in denial'." Again, for you to deny such clearly pejorative current meaning in this context confirms again your dishonesty here. If an old scientific theory (AGW) is already discredited, but pro-AGW scientists and supporters persist with it as if still valid, then those people deserve the pejoratives here i.e., as "frauds" or, at least, as just victims of that deception.

Unlike your claimed precedents of "scientific fiction", Kininmonth obviously did not refer to a single, isolated scientific theory in his relatively recent comment describing AGW as "a dangerous fiction". AGW is far beyond one very early, discredited theory - anthropogenic CO2 increase as cause for planetary warming - and into vast convolutions and permutations of that early theory in efforts to sustain the unsustainable. Such AGW contrivances as "feedback loops" are like ingestion of very old regurgitation. Ice core data proved unambiguously that earth's warming increased CO2 emission, not the other way around - a no-brainer given living organisms' basic perspiration processes in that respect.

We could refer also to past scientific frauds like Descartes' vortices and "effluvium", or Newton's alchemy and various (failed) plagiarisms, but all these are properly the stuff of mysticism, not science - or mere poses of exclusive and esoteric sophistication and certain social connections. You seem quite taken with mysticism and argumentative conjuring tricks yourself: perhaps you're "just built that way" too?

hoo boy! where to begin ...

m-l:

1) you quote one or more guys charging fraud. i have absolutely no idea why you think it is "pompous" or "argumentatively dishonest" to attempt to find out exactly what this charges means and whether there's any substance to the charge.

2) you quote "there is no debate" and "the science says" and "agw consensus". not only did i not write any of this, i wrote nothing which even remotely implied such a stance.

so, you blatantly and wholly misrepresent me, manufacturing pseudo-quotes to help. and then you see fit to lecture me on my "fraudulent claims and implications"? well played, sir, well played!

3) i explained to you the meaning i intended with "denial scientists" and i acknowledged, twice, that the expression was not ideal. i promise to use whatever group term you wish. just, for christ's sake, please stop bitching.

4) i explained to you both my understanding of the word "fiction", and why it was irrelevant here what Kinimonth meant by the word. yes, i know you don't get it. i'll live with the disappointment.

mil-observer, i'd love to argue with you further ...... no, that's a lie. i've had all that i can stomach. just one last word of advice: look up the definition of "fraud". if you're ever visited by descartes' ghost, he's gonna be pissed.

now, please excuse me. it's late, and i have stuff to do back on planet earth.

bb, your anecdote about scientists you have talked to, and the government's supposedly "watered-down" treatment of AGW fraudsters' predictions on warming effects, all betray your actual position on AGW - pretences and fake argumentation cannot hide that. Young's own dissent on this is a correct position, because he obviously identifies the deep corruption that has compromised science so widely. "Corruption" can be another term for "fraud", and Young's generalized attack is thereby warranted. You pretend to defend the innocent and sincere against unfair association, but your argumentation - and your anecdotal pro-AGW sleaze -are both here on record to reveal your own fraudulent positions and mere tactical method of "debate".

Several of my own quotes are on record here too, but obviously meant only to associate your actual pro-AGW sleaze with the regime of non-debate and stifling of uncompromised dissent. So you try yet again the trickery of calling some apparent technicality as "blatant misrepresentation". I made no such, but your insincerity now does just that: self-misrepresentation against your own stated anecdotal concerns about "scientists you know" (and my quote marks too)!

Garrett and Wong themselves use "denial" as simple pejorative (you did too, of course, but with a big dollop of sleaze a la "not that there's anything wrong with that").

Anyway, here's part of Young's Marohasy reference for a laugh, explaining our original meaning of FRAUD in this AGW context:

"...bankrupt merchant bankers, Lehman Brothers, invested heavily in the politics of climate change. The bank released two reports last year on the issue broadly embracing and promoting the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Agenda including emissions trading.
...
On the issue of the Stern report and the associated controversy over discount rates, Lehman Brothers again come down on the side of those promoting immediate action against global warming backing “the correct ethical position” over what many would consider prudent economics.
The Lehman Brother’s report acknowledges the assistance of Dr. James Hansen, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and advisor to Al Gore."

Lehman, Hansen, and hedge fund owner Gore: swindlers and frauds

Q&A

"With all serious respect to the Koutsoyiannis et al paper: the authors do not appear to know very much about either the TAR or the AR4."

As a self outed scientist you seem to be seriously lacking in the intellectual skills one would normally associate with a discipline requiring rational thought.

First there was your immature and petulant outburst cum dummy spit on a previous thread.

Now you show that you dont read what is put in front of you and then have the temerity to suggest that others dont.

There is clear evidence that Koutsoyianis and his team do know their way around the IPCC documents etc, and there is a clear conclusion that is being made by them, namely that GCM's have no worthwhile skill.

You will also note that the date of his paper/presentation of 2008 is after the last IPCC assessment, so therefore it is new stuff.

Now as a practising scientit in some govt funded bolt hole somewhere, you know the drill. Go and write a paper for Peer Review in a journal of your choice, that shows that Koutsoyianis and team are wrong.

If you cant, then had back your degrees, and go and get a proper job.

If you do, I look forward to reading it.

You are right to raise the limitations of computer models, but linking the credit crash to climate modelling is stretching things a bit.
Without the models we would be totally in the dark as to why certain things are happening.
The scientists using theses models are *very* aware of their limitations! They know about over-fitting, they know their model does not have all the factors and chaos will make any "predictions" wrong. But that is not how the models are used. Thousands of model "runs" over various time periods using different real-world inputs *may* produce a result that can be published.
Both the anti-AGW brigade and the looney-Green factions annoy me as they both play fast and loose with the science. Lets leave the "what's happening" to professional scientists and then we can all argue the "what to do about it".
GW *is* happening, and is due in part to human CO2. The changes may affect entire countries and will occur faster than common sense would suggest.
BUT
We may have been heading into an ice age. Climate change *is* inevitable whether we initiate it or not. We may have rushed things a bit, but we would have had to face some climate change. We *might* have saved ourselves from global cooling, we might not. If this idea appeals, keep in mind we *might* be setting ourselves up for a runaway greenhouse effect and end up like Venus...
Pretty comforting, or scary depending on the scenario.
This is why we need un-political science. (Bush/Howard would punish funding based on results. IPC reports have so far been very conservative because no-one would believe the results! It took a major surprise in the form of ice shelves disintegrating before the fear allowed more dangerous predictions to be published.) We need science independent of business (think big tobacco science or "creation studies" institutes. They poison the published records with targeted publication)
Without the science free, we cannot make the correct political decisions. The common enemy is untruth, not GW or anti-GW.

Ozandy

Completely agree with the idealistic sentiment expressed.

In the real world of the how things are being handled right now however it will be very hard to achieve.

Too many barnacles of vested interest in the scientific fraternity, as well as everywhere else.

Too many examples of outright bias and incompetence,eg Mann, Hansen, Gore for starters.

Too many examples of where the IPCC has been less than honest.

Too many issues where the IPCC has conveniently over looked or treated very inadequately issues of relevance.

Too many jobs for the boys eg Garnaut and the UK version that preceded it under similar circumstances.

Too much blatant political involvement and shenanigans.

Too many quite inacceptable practices enabling those in priviledge position to make huge profits eg Gore.

Not enough oversight by the review arms of govts to verify that the processes are in accord with best practice standards etc.

Too many glaring holes in the so called scientific method for it to be sanctified as a reliable way of reporting on the outcomes of huge sums of public monies.

Its no wonder that parallels can be easily drawn between the Wall Street failures and the blind faith being placed on GCM's by the alarmanistas

bigmal. I appreciate where you are coming from.
We are living in a cynical time.
Some GW "fanatics" are indeed turning this into a war and in war time there are profits to be made. Some have jumped on the GW bandwagon because it's trendy or the next "green" thing, some just for the business.
Don't think for a minute that it is *all* hype and BS though. Having read about climate science for many years and having an interest before it hit the spotlight I am finding that the level of BS about the facts, from both sides quite alarming.
Rather than approaching the truth, this political style ambit arguing is useless when it comes to complex real world issues. It is the tactics of power, not truth.
I don't like science and scientists being vilified because of what others do with their work, or due to gross ignorance of the actual science. At the moment a genuinely interested spectator would probably be forced to choose a "side" based on political alignment, because the public discussion is so far away from the real issues.
If there is real data and real science out there to be heard, it should not be drowned out by opinions of amateurs.
Plenty of time to argue about what to do, but first we need to see what is happening.
Reminds me of the story of a ship that ran aground because the lookouts were fighting over the telescope. We can be petty when we are safe. (Yes I know politics is child-level behavior. we can dream)

All this argument about the science. I would like to make a few comments and ask the scientists participating in this debate for their response.
Richard P Feynman said to a group of students in one of his published lectures that just because something wasn't scientific doesn't mean it is not true, only that it is not scientific.
Science, as I understand it, involves discovery by vigorous investigation by following certain rules. In the strictest sense it is the testing of a hypothesis against a null hypothesis to determine a degree of probability. Having done that the scientist has done his/her duty and it is then open to everyone to discuss the findings. The scientist is the detective, not the judge and jury.
Scientifically all things are probabilities until an event becomes actual. With the scientific evidence availably my view is that there is a global warming problem. But that is not a certainty. I trust that the scientist on both sides have done the best they can (but being a scientist is no guarantee of being free of bias).
One of the problems is that the weather pattern and the economy are chaotic systems and that means for practical purposes unpredictable at our level of understanding. For the scientist this is very difficult because not only does modelling fail but past data can be deceptive.
If you take a passage of weather patterns from part of the data it seems to indicate one thing, but take another passage of data and it indicates something else. Nobody knows for certain what it all means.
As an example for a short time recently the ocean currents stopped flowing. That is cause for real alarm if it is a trend but it may have been a one off event.
Scientists are the detective, not the judge and jury. We are placing too much pressure on scientists to play God and saviour, and negating our own responsibility to make the best choices we can from often confusing information.
As a final comment may I suggest cognitive dissonance as a substitute for denial?

Utter rubbish Graham. What more can I say? Were Lehman Bros' models - if indeed they really relied on models - pier reviewed? Were these models the same ones used by umpteen other institutions that have now gone to the wall or have had to be bailed out? Are you an economist, a scientist engaged in a field relative to the climate change debate or both? Are you neither of these? What is your motif for your campaign against the now well recognized body of evidence in support of climate change?

You are right Graham.

Physicists and mathematicians truely are a weird bunch.

My son who has a degree in applied science, mathematics and a few of his mates I were enjoying an evening of tv together. During one program a joke was told.

'Physics student: Did you hear about the farmer whose chickens wouldn't lay eggs. He employed a physicist to report.

Maths student: What happened?

Physics student: The physicist reported the chickens layed eggs but they needed to be spherical and kept in a vaccum.

Besides the actors my son was the only one to laugh.

I laughed at his reaction. He said it was a very funny joke but he was surprised I had laughed so hard at it.

I explained the reason for my laughter and he explained the joke. That took 30 very interesting minutes ... I still don't know why it was funny.

That I took as typical of physicists and Mathematicians? Why would anybody trust them?

Kulu “What is your motif for your campaign against the now well recognized body of evidence in support of climate change?”

Would that be a similar “body of evidence”

to the “body of evidence” which was used to describe a certain group of executives as

“the smartest men on the room”

A decade ago?

Nothing is certain about climate change, least of all the modeling.

History would suggest “climate” is in a constant state of “flux” (change)

But the causes for such change are non-specific and speculative

Keith I understood your sons joke… very good… doubtless he also has something to say about bumble-bees

It's funny that you mention bumblebees Col, because that old stupidity about them not being supposed to be able to fly started with a back-of-the-envelope calculation. Weird.

Thank you daviy. Good luck to you. May I suggest non-fear based openmindedness as substitute for cognitive dissonance.

See that non-elected Greenpeace set to defy democratically elected government. ABC happy to publicise. Full support of Prof David Karoly - "academic".

Deft call there, fungo! A very useful point in mentioning that the "fear" factor rears its ugly, irrational head again with the AGW mania. Trying to justify cognitive dissonance is about as bizarre as justifying phobia (whether "Islamo-" or other).

While we have such a conciliatory mood, I should add that environmentalism itself has brought us so much that's good and necessary. Whether researching and countering the effects of toxic spills, unreplaced deforestation, sea and river chlorination, land salination, lead oxide and CO pollution, etc., environmentalist activism has deserved much credibility - and private and public sector funding.

But Ozandy's own position here too rather seems to err on a startling, conspicuous case of cognitive dissonance. Ozandy, you say: "the common enemy is untruth", but you claim with unambiguous confidence: "GW *is* happening, and is due in part to human CO2". For starters, there is a massive problem accepting that non-scientists claim *scientific* authority on AGW. That is already an obvious corruption of an important process, whether such non-scientists are finance sector apparatchiks like World Bank's Stern/Garnaut, or party hacks like Wong/Garrett, or bits of both like Goldman/Lib swindler Turnbull. When authorities of such influence start calling the tune - like on "Iraq WMD" - we can very reasonably expect an increasingly corrupted sector of scientific research (like in state intelligence after the efforts of Blair et al).

That is why this purported environmentalist issue - AGW - arouses such impassioned opposition and criticism like my own. Valid environmentalist causes naturally arouse our sympathy and concern. But when enough scientific and political dissident opinion can alert us to an apparent hijacking of environmentalism by a cynical, misanthropic hoax, then we should all start to pay serious attention to the actual substance of both the scientific and political debates before us.

Cognitive dissonance, by contrast, will get us all overwhelmed and left for dead by the ambitious, cynical opportunists.

"There are some "back of the envelope" models of what happens with increases in CO2...Or slightly more complex ones.... Neither requires a computer, just a pencil and a sheet of paper, plus some advanced maths. While both predict temperature rises, there is nothing too scary about them.

To get the scary temperature rises requires GCM (general circulation models) which run on computers and are programmed with positive feedbacks."

But hang on. I think you're seriously misrepresenting things here. Both back of the envelope and GCMs actually give the same answer (about 3C rise for a doubling of CO2). What the GCMs do is estimate how this temp rise might be distributed, and the implications for precipitation patterns, ecosystems etc. This is where the scary bits pop out.

And if by 'historical' you mean the geological record, there are plenty of geoscientists (eg Andrew Glikson) who say far from 'nothing happening at the moment that can't be accommodated', rather the record indicates the potential for much worse than the GCMs predict.

Hi fungochumley
Nice to see you are still around. Your've been so quiet I thought you must have given up and gone home.

Spot on, fungochumley, as usual.

Col Rouge,

Good for you. But there was a sequel and it is perhaps more apt to Grahams musings.

That evening in our midst was a quiet and rather intense Med Student. She belately added to the joke.

She pointed out the farmer was a Business Grad who had made millions on stock market speculations. He also was an avid animal protectionist. Any way apparently he'd bought his chickens at a local produce auction to save them from a fate at the Colonels.

As soon as he'd received the physicist's report he rang the local RSPCA for advise as to whether making chickens spherical and putting them in a vaccuum would cause pain. They recommended a vet. The vet turned up inspected the chickens and asked the farmer why he wanted spherial chickens and why he wanted them kept in a vaccuum.

He told of the physicist's report.

Her perplexed look turned to one of contrived horror, to hide her laughter, as she asked what sort of brainless idiot would ever think cockerels could be made to lay eggs?

keith, you're an odd fellow that appears to keep like-minded company.

Daviy,

"As an example for a short time recently the ocean currents stopped flowing. That is cause for real alarm if it is a trend but it may have been a one off event"

Dont be so silly. As long as the earth rotates, and the winds blow the currents are not going to stop, period.

bigmal

The mechanics are that the sea cools and sinks at the poles drawing water in from the equator. As the surface flows from the equator the cool water on the ocean bed flows to the equator to be warmed so that it rises and again get drawn to the poles. This is how the oceans stays aerated. If the flow stops the seas will stagnate and sea life will die. The seas rising is one of the inconveniences of GW. The possibility of stagnant dead seas is one of the disastrous possibilities. The winds also follow the same equator/pole circulation patterns. Is there anyone who can explain the mechanics better than I can?
This is a long way from the original article but I think it needed to be answered.
The GW debate is not just about rising seas and hotter weather although you could be forgiven for believing this because of the lack of publicity the real issues get. The real issues include dead stagnant seas turning to acid. High levels of rain, but it will be acid rain originating from the dead seas. No fresh drinking water. And it goes downhill from there.
I hope the 'do nothing' brigade understand the consequences of getting this one wrong. I am not saying they are wrong. In fact I sincerely hope they are right.

Daviy (I have been preoccupied elsewhere).

Your last comment is wrong (bigmal is part right).
We will be in deep poop if the THC (ocean conveyor belt) stops, but only alarmists are suggesting this will happen anytime soon - it won't.

If you want to learn more about these systems, you could start here:

http://www.oceanmotion.org/html/background/ocean-in-motion.htm

I will try to engage with this thread later

Some more quotes from "the science of reviewing peers", etc.:

Dr Phil Chapman, geophysicist, astronautical engineer and first Australian to become a NASA astronaut:

"All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead. It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake".

David Packham, ex-CSIRO principal research scientist, senior research fellow in a Monash University climate group, and an Australian BoM officer:

"The global warming monopoly is seriously bad for science".

Dr Art Raiche, ex-CSIRO Chief Research Scientist:

"It is my strong belief that the CSIRO has passed its use-by date. The organisation that bears the name of CSIRO has very little in common with the organisation I joined in 1971, one that produced so much of value for Australia during its first seven decades. ...consider the Garnault report, possibly the longest economic suicide note in Australia's history. It is based on the dire predictions of CSIRO's modelling programs".

Q&A
I hope you see from my posts that I am not being pedantic on this one. It is a complex area and full of more questions that answers. I gave the worst case predicted. What is wrong is for bigmal to call an idea 'silly' when many scientists say the cessation of ocean currents is a real possibility.
'Stefan Rahmst, a professor of ocean physics at Potsdam University in Germany believes the chance of an ocean current shutdown is 30%.'
http://www.esnips.com/doc/550cad66-5d45-4a1e-8a0f-a571fc711531/Global-Warming--Ocean-Currents

The major pattern for both wind and ocean is between poles and the equator.

Acting like a conveyor belt, the current transports warm, surface waters toward the Poles and cold, deep waters toward the Equator.
In the Atlantic Ocean, these warm surface waters push northward, releasing heat into the atmosphere and becoming cooler and denser. As they do, the waters sink and flow southward in the deep ocean. http://oceanmotion.org/html/impact/globalwarming.htm

As with the wind there is the macro and the micro. There are also 'spirals' in the wind (micro) patterns as the move from the equator to the poles (Macro). Both the wind and the oceans rely on temperature differential from equator to poles to keep them going.
See also.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0627_050627_oceancurrent.htm
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/oceans.htm
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12457&tid=282&cid=9206

This is a complex issue. Getting back to the original article. The opposing views of scientist may depend on the models the scientists are using. And of course if any of the models have any degree of validity.

In the debates I take part in on global warming I am careful to make my position clear. On this issue I do not know. Nobody knows. It is all judgment on limited and imperfect information. I hope that soon somehow we will have definite information one way or the other so we could work together to do what needs to be done (or not done). Until then I will work with the worse case in the hope that my fears are unfounded.

In the meantime bigmal, please be careful that you understand the issues before calling anyone or anything in this debate 'silly.

Daviy,

Even the references you provided,(the ones that work that is) skim over the wind effect.

They refer to the powerful effect of the winds on the southern oceans but take it no further, as far as I can tell.

Commons sense dictates that unless and until they can deal with the earths rotation and winds (and the effect of the Andes etc ) then they havnt done their job.

All the rest is very interesting but I do note that it involves very long time scales.

mil-observer refers to an interesting comment regarding global cooling.

I attended a seminar given by a climate scientist back in 2000 (just before global warming became flavor of the month) who made the observation that the Earth was most likely to recede into a period of global cooling.

His address was sober and objective unlike most of the debate around today. A sideline to his talk was that the atmospheric heating effect of modern industry would to some degree offset a period of global cooling in the near-future.

That was the last time I ever heard anything along these lines - maybe because any scientist who does so will be branded a heretic in the current climate.

Bugsy

Why ... thank you.

I do despise the much too common, today, spirit of conformity, the snide and open criticism of those who think differently from the norm.

It's no wonder I live in isolation on a yacht.

But it's ok I've warned my neighbours ... if they upset me ... I will simply sink them.

bigmal.
My knowledge of wind patterns comes from the study of metrology for my commercial pilot license, and the practical use of this knowledge in flight planning. I am not a scientist.
As I understand air flows parallel to the equator are rotational. Hence fly high or fly low depending on direction.
The flows equator to poles are temperature driven. This comes about because the upper air at its highest point, (the equator) move outwards, sinking and cooling as it goes towards the lowest point (the poles) with some of the air dropping along the way. At the poles the upper atmosphere air drops and makes it way back to the equator at low level in the characteristic wavy patterns you see on the weather map, becoming warmer as it does so. At the equator the warm air rises and then continues back to the poles.

Both air and water are fluids and follow the same basic characteristic and flow patterns. The modification to the flows of each by interaction with the other is irrelevant because if one stops they both stop. The engines are rotation and temperature.

If the equator/pole temperature gradient becomes zero (unlikely) the north/south flows stops for both air and water. If that happens, or suffers a significant decrease (possible) we are in real trouble. This is why in GW (or Global cooling) distribution of temperature is more important than temperature. The ice caps melting are an inconvenience, decreasing temperature differential potentially catastrophic.
Things are, or they are not. What you consider 'common sense' makes no difference to anything. Things remain as they are, or as they are not.
My objection to your post was not that you had a different view but that you should deem yourself capable of making the judgment about who is 'silly'.
In this debate there are many different views and possibilities, and nobody yet knows what is correct and what is not. I have a particular view at this stage (which could change) but I am not about to insult anyone who has differing view, or call their views 'silly.'

Daviy

I am not going to go searching for the references, but when scientists were making great headlines, as they do prior to a funding bid, the claim was made that the atlantic current was slowing down and we are doomed.

It was later revealed by more sober analysis by others more mature in the field that:
a) they had made a calculation error
b) any notion that it would cease was a nonsense for precisely the reasons I have stated.

I am well aware of the elements in your dissertation above and it doesnt change the basic fact that the currents are not going to stop, no matter what else may or may not happen, whilst the earth rotates and there are winds, of all sorts.

Chaos is not an insurmountable problem in modelling. There are two ways of handling it. One is to model it in intricate detail, which is how we handle turbulence. Turbulence is a highly chaotic phenom, yet if you want to predict how an aircraft wing, turbines or a water pipe lining will perform you need to be able to predict it. We model it pretty well now. The second way is to take the 1000' view and regard it as random and uniform. Thus while we can't predict how a molecule of water will travel in white water, we can still say very accurately how fast the body of water will travel down the stream bed as a whole. And while we don't have a clue as to what each molecule in air is doing, we can safely predict the pressure they collectively produce on a surface as them bump into it.

As for Graham's parallel between financial models and climate models - it seems like a pretty long bow to me. I am not sure the financial melt down was caused by financial models, it seems more like a social phenom to me. What was happening was clearly a mass delusion. How it would end is so bloody obvious in hindsight. The models were just one of the props used to prop up the fantasy long after it should have collapsed. It is not like their limitations weren't well understood either, it was more a case of them those limitations being ignored when it was convenient. And it isn't like this is a once off - the dotcom bubble, Holland's tulips look remarkably similar yet didn't involve models.

As for the climate models - well unlike the financial crisis this really is about the models themselves. The vast bulk of the climate scientists say they have climate models that work. As far a I can tell, there is no way for a lay person to know without becoming a climate scientist himself. About the only thing the two situations have in common is they make me feel dammed uncomfortable.

Daviy

Scientists are pedantic by nature and training. People not familiar with a particular field of science who make specious claims about what they have read somewhere sometime, who then either take it out of context or worse, deliberately distort the essence of the argument, lose credibility.

Graham uses a false dichotomy in his article to promote the fallacious proposition that somehow there is a link between the demise of Lehman Brothers and global warming. Astounding.

The problem with Young’s article is that with one bold stroke he tarnishes all modelling.
[Aside: This is not unusual for Graham; he has also done this with the so called hockey stick, labelling it a hoax/fraud when he knows there are many climate proxy reconstructions from various different sources showing similar trends to the MBH98 hockey stick, the substance of which has withstood critical review]

There are quite a few climate models and each provides a tool to further understanding the complexities of climate – and they are getting better all the time. As a previous commenter said, you don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. People who criticise the models without understanding how and why they are used also lose credibility. It would help rational discussion if they at least did some preliminary homework, like found here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf

But they don’t.

These same people often say the models can’t predict the weather next week. Point is, they are not used to predict weather (noise), they are used to show the expected trend. This is what the robust models are showing in hindcasts. To liken GCM’s to economic models shows a complete lack of understanding.

Having said that, I do think econometricians can give better input to the (dated) Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES) for the IPCC, but that is not at issue in Young’s article and would probably conflate the thrust of the article out of bounds.

Thanks for the links, however my work involves coupled ocean/atmosphere/land climate systems. I am well aware of what you are trying to say about the THC, but it is pedantically wrong.

Hi Q&A
My article 'Is Glaobal Warming the real problem?' http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8341&page=2 does cover 'noise' and treads and the way chaotic models tend around attractors and so long term trends do emerge. The problem (as I see it) with the 'Von Neumann' type modeling is it attempts to model noise. People want to know the weather for next Sunday's BBQ or the price of shares next Thursday, while scientists may be looking for trends.
In my article I say the real problem is the transitive nature of the climate system.
I tried in comments on this article (maybe unsuccessfully) to bring in notion of changing temperature differentials without going into transience. Transience seemed to be getting to far away from the article, although the economy could be a transitive system (accounting the abrupt switch?).
I would appreciate comments on the idea that the biggest danger is not that of the inconvenience of global warming but that weather pattern might switch to another set of rules, as expressed in my article.
What are you comments about the reports in the popular press that unexpected temperature differentials in the Indian Ocean are the cause of the droughts in Eastern Australia? I don't think it was put in those terms but that is what I understood. If this is a factor is it noise, or is it a trend?
Also elsewhere I expressed the view that that the position of scientists is that they are the detectives who (pedantically) uncover the evidence, but the lay population wants scientists to be judge and jury, as well as detective. This amounts to wanting scientists to play God and take responsibility for everything. You comments?
The problem of professional language. I know that things I say to another professional in my field (when I am being pedantic) could have a different meaning to what a lay person might think it means. Is there any chance of scientists working pedantically and explaining generally so lay people understand?

"I tried in comments on this article (maybe unsuccessfully) to bring in notion of changing temperature differentials without going into transience. Transience seemed to be getting to far away from the article, although the economy could be a transitive system (accounting the abrupt switch?).

I would appreciate comments on the idea that the biggest danger is not that of the inconvenience of global warming but that weather pattern might switch to another set of rules, as expressed in my article."

As a layperson in the debate, I think Daviy's is a very important point to consider when using climate modelling to make long-term predictions (which is exactly what politicians need when making the best decisions on how to craft their long-term policies).

It could well be that scientists are so deeply embedded in the minute details of their work that they are blind to the possibility that it could all get annulled tomorrow if a new dominant climatic paradigm suddenly emerges. In everyday parlance, they can't see the wood for the trees.

Daviy uses the word "transitive" to explain the phenomena, while I earlier used the word "episodic". However, they are referring to the same thing.

Hi again Q&A
Looking back through my article I found this response from yourself.

'We have only one test tube to experiment with and we are conducting an experiment that has never on Earth been tried before - it would be prudent to tread carefully.
This in itself explains why the smart and intelligent different "isms" of the world are working together in the lead-up to Copenhagen later this year. Unfortunately, economics muddy the waters.' Q&A

I don't see anything that indicates that you disagreed with the hypothesis in my article that the weather is transitive and could possibly flip to a 'dead sea' system. Am I misreading you post? Have you changed your opinion since then? Or was my way of attempting to explain my position to bigmal too clumsy and you did not relate it to my article?
I would be happy to find I am wrong on this (and other) issues surrounding GW, but I have yet to see anything to indicate it is not a possibility. I have consistantly used 'possibility' in my articles and posts because the only certainty I have with GW is that no one is certain.
I look forward to you response. It is unfortunate that I have now used my two posts so any ongoing comments on my part will have to wait until tomorrow.
Unfortunately economics do muddy the waters. All technological changes bring economic changes. Our response to GW will be no different.

Yes RobP. There are some very thorough studies of climatic cycles derived from solar activity and orbital patterns; since reading them I regard the galactic side of meteorology far more important and causal than most of the terrestrial part of it.

Ice Age cometh - odds on. That's quite apart from AGW being bunkum.

But the unexplored link between AGW and "GFC" (a silly term - I much prefer monetarist systemic disintegration) is the long-planned ETS. The actual functional and ideological link would be found in projections for carbon trading / credits / swap, and their tie-in to a system meant to sustain the toxic, useless derivatives scam that's kept Greenspan's various stinking bubbles going since '87.

That was the main drive behind ETS and, I would add as fair assessment of the main players' motives: the main drive behind the World Bank men's sponsorship of AGW, along with the now-standard media push in that direction from mainstream press "environment reporters", and editorials.

So, after having requested no "further dialogue" with me, then chucking a major wobbly and trying to shout down dissent in an online forum with polite comments like:

"for once in your FOLO life, fhut the suck up ... watch and learn." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8421#133950

Q&A returns to try to convince us he is by nature and training a pedantic, patient and humble man of science, superior to the rest of us mere mortals, something he seems to need to spend most of his space here pointing out, yet failing to demonstrate. Believe him, he is not, as could be suspected, a control freak with a doomsday computer. Apparently, "we" don't understand "the science" and have no credibility, and yet...

"The problems we (humanity) are having is not about science. There is more at stake."

Hmmm, the problems YOU seem to be having Q&A is with humanity. Damn those people muddying the waters. If only they'd all do as they were told by ME. Yet, even as far as fhutting up goes, it seems I haven't.

Daviy, you raise many issues.

1. You talk of probabilities. I respect Rahmstorf, but quoting scenarios of catastrophic climate change out of context doesn’t help, although I do understand why some do (just watch the Heartland Institute and their up-coming New York sermons).

I agree, it would be useful to model the ‘transient’ nature of climate, particularly wrt continental and regional scales (Keenlyside, Yamagata and Vinayachandan does). However, this should not be confused with the “transitive nature of the climate system” that spans millennium or geologic time spans. Btw, I have not seen any economic model that when you input observed empirical data, that you can hindcast the Great Depression. GY erroneously compares modelling climate trends to modelling short term noise.

One (not the only) consequence of global warming is the increase in extreme weather events. It is not a matter of the “weather pattern switching to another set of rules”. Put another way, the science (physics, chemistry, etc) of GW is very well understood. What’s not settled is the minutiae – there will always be debate (and progress) in the scientific community.

2. As to the ‘popular press’ reports. This is an ocean-atmosphere coupled system that does impact on extreme weather events, and evidently more on the extreme conditions we have been experiencing here in Australia. The ocean component (Indian Ocean Dipole – IOD) is being felt more significantly by the atmospheric component (Equatorial Indian Ocean Oscillation – EQUINOO). It is complicated, because the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is linked by the cells of the Walker Circulation.

See:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7124#109767

3. Scientists can only present the evidence; it is for others to decide what to do in light of the evidence. However, many people wrongly compare the AGW orthodoxy to judgements in criminal law – it is not. The weight of robust evidence supports the theory, but it takes only one robust counter-hypothesis to overturn it – this hasn’t been done, not Galactic Cosmic Rays, Sun-spots, Milankovitch Cycles, negative feedback forcings, volcanos, or even some people’s arcane gas-bagging.

cont'd

cont'd

4. You raise an excellent question regarding education because there are problems with oversimplification. The IPCC reports (while arguably conservative) are good, even for the layperson. Nonetheless, more can be done by other bodies – and it is, by international science academies, government departments and teaching institutions.

Unfortunately, many people get their ‘expertise’ from the ‘popular press’ whose journalists quite often take things out of context or get it wrong altogether, for whatever reason.

I have repeatedly asked here on OLO how we could disseminate the science better, and no one but no one has been able to proffer anything better than the IPCC.

5. “'We have only one test tube ... Unfortunately, economics muddy the waters.”

My opinion has most definitely NOT changed. I get ‘bagged’ by AGW alarmists and the out-right ‘deniers’. I am encouraged when something like the following lobs in the inbox.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42E2fAWM6rA

6. I hope you were able to re-visit the thread fungochumley linked to. I think sustainability issues are crux. Ludwig articulates much better than me, and Jeff Harvey especially on environmental, ecological and economic matters.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/windschuttle_hoaxed.php#comment-1367266

I am still learning, others still have their head stuck in the mud.

________

One thing Daviy, I feel very uncomfortable with governments and economies around the world repeating the mistakes that have lead us to this in the first place, trying to prop up a system that has clearly failed. Cognitive dissonance IanC, yes. We should be looking towards a new paradigm, imo.

I don't have the answers but am willing to learn and contribute where I can. Problem is, so many are denying the root cause in the first place.

Q&A
It looks as though there are some things we will agree on but other we will not.
As a scientist what is you opinion on how oil was formed in the first place? I have read so many differing accounts from scientists including the differing climatic conditions that must have existed (dead seas etc.). If it where necessary for our planet to re-absorb the carbon would flip back into that pattern?
I say possibility and you say probability. The two are far from the same. If I say it is possible I am not putting numbers on it. Probability immediately assigns a number to argue about.
You respect Rahmstorf? Here is something from Rahmstorf

The unexpectedly rapid change in Arctic sea ice and other climate processes suggests that the climate reacts more strongly to a given amount of global warming than scientists have calculated. As a result, risks from future climate change are likely greater than scientists have generally believed, and existing climate change projections might best be viewed as the minimum changes that humanity should expect.

In trying to find out the science involved the only thing that I can say is that the infighting amongst scientists is worse than tom cats on the prowl. And they all talk on behalf of science as if their opinion speaks for everyone.
For every scientist that emphatically tells me one thing I can find another scientist who will emphatically tell me the exact opposite. And all have been scrupulously pedantic. At the moment the infighting amongst scientist on this issue is worse than Einstein and Bohr at the Solvay conferences.
Why can't scientist just say they don't know and then get on with finding out?
Bottom line is 'Trust me, I am a scientist' just doesn't work for me, no matter who the scientist is.
Q&A, these comments are not aimed at you in particular, but rather a commentary on the generally unhealthy state of scientific communication. The input of science into the debate on GW has been negative. Now both sides can quote the 'science' and confusion reigns

David

1. What is your point in asking me about the formation of oil? My expertise lies elsewhere, so I would defer to those involved in the oil industry. Anyway, as I understand, it takes millions of years under ‘natural’ conditions. The idea of “flipping back” doesn't happen overnight.

You know just as well as I that there are other means of generating oil, albeit ‘oils ain’t oils’. At the end of the day, burning huge amounts of carbon compounds without judicious thought of the consequences is not forward thinking. Corollary: the world’s oceans and terrestrial biosphere cannot absorb quickly enough the amounts of carbon we are currently putting into the atmosphere.

2. Yes, you do talk of possibilities – I read you wrong. Ok, anything is possible. It is possible that the Sun won’t be there tomorrow. It is possible that you will spontaneously combust in bed tonight. It is possible that we will go into an abrupt and catastrophic climate change.

Let me draw an analogy:

It was possible Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld said that if there were only a 1% chance that Iraq had them, they would do all in their power to find and eradicate them. Well, there is a 90 -95% chance that AGW is real and will significantly threaten world peace. We know what Bush & Co did about WMD’s; we know what they didn’t do about the “weathers of mass destruction”.

You recognise scientists talk in terms of probabilities:

“Scientifically all things are probabilities until an event becomes actual. With the scientific evidence availably my view is that there is a global warming problem. But that is not a certainty. I trust that the scientist on both sides have done the best they can (but being a scientist is no guarantee of being free of bias)” sic.

Of course I respect Stefan (you seem to doubt it); he is a brother in arms. He talks in probabilities too. Playing with his ‘what if’ scenarios he comes to a 30% chance of a THC collapse.

Cont’d

Cont’d

You quote Rahmstorf:

“The unexpectedly rapid change in Arctic sea ice and other climate processes suggests that the climate reacts more strongly to a given amount of global warming than scientists have calculated. As a result, risks from future climate change are likely greater than scientists have generally believed, and existing climate change projections might best be viewed as the minimum changes that humanity should expect.”

Daviy, I absolutely agree (so please don’t infer that I don’t).

Further, the THC can collapse if for example the Greenland ice sheets melts, but this will take a very, very long time in humanity’s time frame (it won’t flip) but in the twinkle of an eye in geologic time.

3. You misinterpret “infighting amongst scientists”. Yes, we do have egos (we are normal after all) and we do rigorously debate nuances in scientific circles, but it shows a lack of understanding in likening real scientific debate to cats fighting.

4. No, our opinion does not speak for everyone.

5. Scientists are not asking you to trust them. We present evidence to government policy makers, captains of industry and individuals alike. You deal with that evidence the best way you know how. I have said this in my previous post – I am sorry you do not understand.

6. I’ll ask again:

How do you think the science community should disseminate the science better?

Indeed, can you think of a better way other than the IPCC process (assuming you know what that process is)?

I think we read from the same book, we are just reading different chapters.
Cheers
qanda

Hi again Q&A
'I respect Rahmstorf, but quoting scenarios of catastrophic climate change out of context doesn’t help.'
I took this to mean you thought Rahmstorf was quoting scenarios of catastrophic climate change out of context. If that was not you intent I was mistaken.
My questions about oil where intended to ask your opinion on the climatic conditions necessary. I was asking for an opinion because I understand no-body really knows but with your background I thought it might be within your expertise.
Science seems to be detailed but narrow in lots of little boxes. Who is there to put it all together in a coherent manner in one big box? I think we need generalist scientists with the ability to combine information and communicate the facts to the popular press. A whole new branch of science. It might even help scientist understand what others in different fields are doing.

Well, there is a 90 -95% chance that AGW is real and will significantly threaten world peace. We know what Bush & Co did about WMD’s; we know what they didn’t do about the “weathers of mass destruction”.

From your previous posts I had the impression that you where arguing against GW being a reality (or a high degree of probability). On that I also seem to have been mistaken.
So what is the issue? Whether or not climate change can happen instantly or take a long time? As long as it doesn't happen instantly and we can find a way of fixing GW without too much damage I will be happy.
May I suggest that we agree to disagree on that one issue because it has become far too large for the potential benefit of pursuing it?
Now, how is it possible to get real information out to the general public in a way that can be digested without a Phd?

Daviy

A recent paper by Solomon et al demonstrates that even if we stopped carbon emissions today, it would take a very long time to to get back to where it used to be.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090126_climate.html

In other words, we have a limited window of opportunity to address energy issues and land-use practices, with a view to seriously reducing our dependence on carbon derivative type fuels. We must start now.

Adapting to the inevitable consequences of global warming (already in the pipeline) must occur - this will take decades. We must start now.

I apologise if I have not been clear.

<<how is it possible to get real information out to the general public in a way that can be digested without a Phd?>>

No you don't, I asked you (everyone) the question ... I would like to ask you (anyone) for an answer to what I think is a very important question.

Getting information on CC out to those members of the public who may not posess a Phd is easy.

1. Start by being honest, and from a base of some defendable integrity. So that leaves the UN and the IPCC out in the cold for starters

2. Continue by not getting involved in self promotion with an ulterior motive in mind,ie just to gain a grant or a gong, (like Flannery et al have done, and that Hoegh whats it nob is now trying to do.)

3. Dont exaggerate the situation when there isnt the data to underpin it.

4. Dont have conflicts of interest like Gore and Hansen et al have.

5. The rest is easy.

Q&A,

There is a real problem getting the climate change message out there with sufficient clout to make people react. Awareness is not enough. There are many, many intelligent people who are well aware of the problem and of the urgency with which we need to act... but still they do nothing even if they have kids or grand kids who they KNOW will suffer the consequences. It's hard to understand the apathy.

Perhaps the scientists and conservationists need to recruit some behavioral experts to help get some responses from the massively disengaged public.

Among other things we must somehow convince people that the real risk is to continue supporting the "do nothing" political establishment even if the Greens, the only viable alternative in this country may have some policies with which many disagree. These leftist inclined policies are after all not ones that are likely to contribute to the collapse of civilization as we know it. This cannot be said of the "growth at all costs" policies of our major parties.

The problem with explaining complicated science in simple terms is that much of the detailed analyses and explanations have to be left out and the reader/listener then has to take some statements at face value. The more summarized or simplified the explanations of climate change are made, the easier it is for those intent on undermining the "lesson" to pick holes in it.