Reasons to be a Global Warming Skeptic
(I ended up writing this as a lengthy answer to someone on Google+ — might as well let the world see it.)
Here’s what I’ve said so far:
“There are few skeptics (I can’t think of any, and I’ve been reporting on this for two solid years and an interested bystander for several years before that) who don’t believe there has been significant warming since the Little Ice Age, or that humans contribute to it, or that additional CO2 or other greenhouse gases aren’t probably part of that contribution.”
Unless one is arguing that humans are the only cause of global warming — in which case i’d have to point to that big glowing thing in the sky during the daytime — what I said explicitly includes a human contribution and even a greenhouse gas contribution.
Now, the IPCC AR4 model is rather stronger than that: it insists that anthropogenic, greenhouse-gas forced warming is the dominant — so dominant that it leads the unthoughtful to turn it into “only” — cause of global warming. For conciseness, call that the AGW model. Reasons I don’t find that hypotheses convincing include:
(1) from the start, it has depended on very sensitive statistical techniques to tease a signal out of an overall warming that has been going on for 500 years. Refer back to the famous “hockey stick” charts and then look for one with actual error bars: even in the papers making the strongest arguments for the AGW hypothesis have very wide error ranges — so wide that the AGW component barely exceeds the limits of the technique.
(2) the specific methods used for some of the dominant studies turn out to be mathematically flawed. in particular, the methods of Mann _et al_ turn out to present a clear hockey stick no matter what the input data is, including pure random numbers.
A method that detects a signal when there is no signal is necessarily suspect. At best.
Other examples of questionable parts of these results include:
- the methods used to select data points in the
GCHNGISS data sets — examined carefully, it turns out that the selected points used to compute GAST and regional temps are, to a *very* high probability, the points from the raw data set that lead to the most warming. Carefully read, the descriptions of the analysis even say that’s a selection criterion: they’re selecting data points that fit the models well — but then testing the models by how well they fit the data. - actual site locations turn out to very commonly have poor site placement and site changes that would add significant warming. This warming has not be appropriately compensated for.
- odd ad hoc methods to fit together paleoclimate data and actual temperature measurement, including the famous “hide the decline” patching, and contrariwise the exclusion of recent tree ring data that suggests tree rings may not be as strongly correlated with temperature as we think. The explanations for those exclusions end up looking very ad hoc in themselves.
(3) There is actually extensive literature showing anthropogenic components that are not driven by greenhouse gases. These results have been excluded from the IPCC, often in very questionable ways (cf Roger Pielke Sr’s removal from the IPCC editorial board.)
(4) The predictions of further warming are necessarily based on models. Now, it happens I did my PhD work on Federally funded modeling, from which I developed the NBSR Law (named after the group for which I worked): All modeling efforts will inevitably converge on the result most likely to lead to further funding.
Anyone with a unbiased eye who looks into it will find any number of people who have found that a model that predicts more warming gets funded; a model that predicts relatively less warming gets less funding. Pre-tenure researchers in particular are warned away from results that don’t fit orthodoxy.
(5) The models themselves turn out not to be very predictive. Grossly, you could look at Jim Hansen’s prediction from the 80′s that Manhattan Island would be awash by the 2000′s. More technically, there were a number of models that predicted pretty significant warming, and in fact an increased warming rate, increased 2nd derivative, in the span 1990-2010. In fact, the warming was much smaller than predicted, and the second derivative appears even to have turned negative.
These models are often revised so that after the fact that predict what really happened. This isn’t very satisfactory.
In the mean time, actual observation, as eg with Dick Lindzen’s recent paper, simply isn’t fitting the models very well. As Granddaddy used to say “if the bird book and the bird disagree, believe the bird.”
(6) It’s unclear how the AGW hypothesis can be falsified in its current form. Certainly, anecdotally, there are people who predict that unusual warm spells are a sign of global warming, as are unusual cold spells. Should we have a period of unusually small variation, there are people who have suggested that as an effect of global warming. And in any case, simply observing warming doesn’t allow one to infer the truth of AGW as a hypothesis.
(7) The arguments against the skeptics turn out to be unscientific, and often unprofessional, in the extreme.
These range from the common — “the consensus is” — to the ad hominem, and even to outright attempts to suppress free inquiry.
“The consensus is” neglects the fact that science isn’t decided by consensus, not permanently at least. (At one time, the consensus was that fire involved a special elemental substance called phlogiston; at another, it was that atoms were indivisible and unchangeable; not so long ago, it was that light was a wave in a literally ethereal substance called the “luminiferous aether.” If consensus precluded further testing, we would still believe those today.)
The ad hominems include the way that anyone who ever received so much at a 10 cents off gas coupon from a service station is accused of being in the pay of Big Oil. Sometimes, the ad hominems are frank lies, but they get out into the AGW enthusiast community and are treated as truth.
And, well, anyone who read the ClimateGate files knows about actual attempts to suppress certain authors and papers. Perhaps it’s not fair to call it “conspiracy”, but the fact is that there is clear and unequivocal evidence of collusion and bullying on authors, reporters, and journal editorial boards.
If the AGW arguments are that strong, they don’t need collusion and bullying.
So, this is a very long piece considering I’m not getting paid to write it; let me summarize.
First of all, what *I* said wasn’t what you supposed I’d said. It would be worth considering what else you _think_ you’ve read recently for other cases.
Second, to the extent that I have a position, as I said, I think warming is unequivocal, a human contribution very probable, and the magnitude of that contribution in the face of feedbacks and homeostasis currently unknown and on the very edge of what we can actually measure.
And third, I don’t think the AGW enthusiasts consider the costs and benefits of AGW amelioration versus the other possibilities. If preventing a sea level rise of one meter means dooming future generations in the Third World to sickness, hunger, and darkness, it’s not worth it.
I used to hope that AGW was real, or even warming that was not human caused. Why? I live under a mountain range full of glaciers. Normal temperature variation sometimes results in -40F temps for weeks on end. Nasty weather is normal here, and this is reflected in the sparse ecology we have.
Researching AGW as much as I could, I came to the unhappy conclusion it was just another scam. Evidence does not support any sort of wide spread warming.
As a Michigan resident, I always wonder why people ignore the multiple Ice Ages, the last of which out carved out the Great Lakes when it receded about 8000 years ago. 3500 hundred years ago Lake Michigan was 30 feet higher than it is today. The Sleepng Bear and Nordhouse sand dunes (among others) developed as the lake depth dropped. Egyptians were building pyramids during this time. It really wasn’t that long ago and us dastardly humans played no part in that ‘climate change’…..kinda doubt we are now.
Charlie, your views are well-reasoned and respectfully stated (although the evidence is cherry-picked).
What’s a major problem for American conservatism is that no candidate having similarly well-reasoned and respectfully-stated views can make it through the Republican primaries.
That’s why the present leading Republican candidates are waffling, flip-flopping, or nut-jobbing.
As usual, The Onion is utterly merciless in pointing this out.
————————————–
White-Hot GOP Race Down To Two Mentally Ill People,
Person Who Lost Nomination Last Time
URL: http://www.theonion.com/articles/whitehot-gop-race-down-to-two-mentally-ill-people,21196/
You’re citing The Onion now John? Seriously?
Patrick, The Onion reaches more voters (young voters, swing voters) than PJM/Tatler.
And when the The Onion editors find a weakness in a campaign platform, they are merciless.
So Gov. Perry is sure to face an updated version of this famous Onion satire.
So the governor had better be ready for it.
Life outside the primary bubble is plenty different from inside the bubble.
——————————————————
Bush: “Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over”
URL: http://www.theonion.com/articles/bush-our-long-national-nightmare-of-peace-and-pros,464/
Changing the subject are we, Johnny?
Snork, it’s no secret that my dream race would be Eisenhower versus Clinton. Two science-respecting candidates, from different parties, with different ideologies, who governed similarly. And the country prospered under both.
For me, sanity and brains beats ideology and slogans, and that’s how I vote (as do plenty of folks).
Obama’s war record is satisfactory. When it comes to the American economy, my present opinion is that no candidate, and neither party, has a much of a clue — America finds itself in a seriously adverse economic position, that has been decades in the making, in a globalized economy that offers no easy path to prosperity for any nation.
So if the election boils down to pure slogan-shouting and mutual smearing then (along with many Americans) I’ll be tearing my hair out in frustration and anger.
In which case, my present plan is to write-in Kinky Friedman and Al Franken, and hope for the best.
Since you brought up Ike, from his 1961 farewell address (most famous for the “military-industrial complex” quote):
Ike foresaw the IPCC and the seven-peckered billygoat it was to become. He warned us. Here we are.
That’s a very decent quote, Snork. Thank you.
Eisenhower’s presidential science advisor, James Killian, wrote a very good book about those years titled Sputnik, Scientists, and Eisenhower: a Memoir of the First Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology.
The lesson-learned is that in science-and-technology centrist policies often work best. Looking back, pragmatic administrations like Eisenhower’s and Clinton’s were (in my view) outstandingly effective at right-sizing governmental roles in key American enterprises like the space program (Eisenhower) and the Human Genome Project (Clinton) … by carefully applying good judgment on a case-by-case basis, rather than falling-back on knee-jerk ideology.
And indeed, America prospered under both administrations.
John, there are more people reading porn at this moment than the Onion. That doesn’t make porn a reliable source.
If the porn supported the AGW hypothesis, Dr. John would consider it a reliable source.
John, you know, when I’m listing reasons for skepticism, a complaint that I’m “cherry picking” is pretty silly.
Similarly, when I’m talking about my reasons, complaining about the scientific knowledge of political candidates is a red herring. But what the hell — why don’t you tell me about Obama’s scientific credentials? Al Gore got through “Rocks for Jocks” with a D as I recall, so you probably don’t want to go there.
The truth is that most politicians are lawyers, sophists by inclination and training, happy to argue either side. That’s not the issue here.
Charlie, when I compare your account of the “hockey stick” with (say) Wikipedia’s account (with is far longer, to be sure), it definitely appears that your essay left out three key points:
(1) most studies have confirmed that the hockey stick is physically real,
(2) allegations of fraud were investigated and the scientists were cleared, and
(3) hard-nosed military and business leaders now are betting that AGW is real and accelerating.
For me (3) tips-the-balance. Because admirals and CEOs are tough to fool.
Brands of skepticism that “conveniently” skip these three key points are weak.
Admirals and CEOs appreciate the hockey stick is real … and its blade is growing bigger.
————————————————–
Hockey stick controversy
URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
Looks like you won. The authority of Wikipedia has spoken…
Actually, John, the Wikipedia article specifically mentions the same points I did. The stats support the conclusion that the 1990s are a lot warmer than the Little Ice Age and comparable to the Medieval Warm Period. Von Storch’s reply to the noise-inputs tests is essentially that since the method shows signal if there is signal, it doesn’t matter if it shows signal when there is no signal. That is, technically speaking, nonsense. Hans is a good guy but he’s just wrong.
Now, you might have a look at the discussion page on that article, as the neutrality and factual correctness is under some dispute and there are sanctions being applied.
Charlie, I commend to your attention today’s Ars Technica (a popular weblog of science) … it’s all about how scientists react when they are publicly, humiliatingly shown to be wrong in their most cherished beliefs.
Namely, they admit they were wrong and move on.
The reason the hockey-stick haven’t gone away is simple: it wasn’t wrong. After more than a decade of attacks, the hockey-stick has just gotten stronger … as part of the ever-mounting evidence that shows clearly that AGW is real, serious, and accelerating.
———————————–
Scientists sequence Black Death bacteria DNA, admit they were wrong
URL: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/08/scientists-sequence-black-death-bacteria-dna-admit-they-were-wrong.ars
John, not all scientists have the honor to go away when they’re publicly proven wrong.
Or have they used nuclear weapons on the Fukushima reactors yet?
I haven’t seen you publicly recant that prediction yet either, John.
So nice of you to disprove your own point. I’ve got that comment bookmarked, I’ll throw it back in your face every chance I get, by the way.
LOL … link all yah want ConservativeWanderer … `cuz those predictions came true (including the one you linked to).
Charlie has always respected the engineers of IEEE Spectrum … and in recent weeks those IEEE engineers have been publishing plenty of material on TEPCO’s gross technological incompentence, corruption, dishonesty, and dereliction of duty … and also plenty of information on the immense scale of the TEPCO’s now-revealed triple radiation disaster, which has contaminated huge swaths of central Japan.
Heck, it ain’t Charlie’s fault that PJM/Tatler editors rashly believed TEPCO’s radiation-level reports … which were later revealed to be “accidently” 1000X too low. “We’re sorry about that, so very sorry!” said TEPCO’s corporate executives.
Say, when’s PJM/Tatler going to do some followup stories … on lessons-learned for American conservatism from Japan’s radiation disaster, regarding corporate accountability?
I mean, does anyone still trust anyone these big corporations say?
————————————
Japanese Nuclear Agency and Utilities Tried to Manipulate Public Opinion
URL: http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/energy/nuclear/japanese-nuclear-agency-and-utilities-tried-to-manipulate-public-opinion
Okay, John, point me to the story where they used a nuclear strike on the Fukushima reactors as you predicted.
That’s the one that you said had to happen, and it never did. Your credibility is shot until you either prove that they did it or retract that prediction… as you said a good scientist would do when proven wrong.
Don’t bother linking to stories about manipulating public opinion, you know–or should, if you’re 1/10th as smart as you think you are–that’s not what I was talking about, I made it as clear as possible. And everyone else here knows that too. Show me where that one specific prediction:
came true and then you can claim that you were absolutely correct.
Or you can continue to spin and move the goalposts and do everything else trolls do, and be a laughingstock around here.
ConservativeWanderer, the story you linked to said the “vaporization option” would *NOT* happen … and it didn’t. So what exactly are you frothing about?
Do you somehow imagine that TEPCO/Fukushima’s gross technical incompetence, shameless corporate dishonesty, and utter dereliction of duty is being unfairly criticized?
ConservativeWanderer, you will find mighty few folks, in any political party, who agree with *THAT*.
TEPCO had core-on-the-floor at Fukushima starting on day one … they lied flagrantly about it … PJM/Tatler editors foolishly believed TEPCO’s lies … and even now PJM/Tatler has never discussed the lessons-learned associated to believing those TEPCO lies.
The point is, AGW is just TEPCO/Fukushima all over again … but slower, worse, and global.
Grappling with these harsh realities is a major challenge for conservatism and liberalism alike. That’s why denialism … is … futile.
Aint’ that right?
John, among the many disappointments in your comments are the outright prevarications. No, you did not say the “vaporization option” would never be used — you instead asserted that it was the only conceivable reason that the US military would be going to Japan’s assistance and that many physicists must have had the same idea.
Now, the actuality of it is that anyone who seriously contemplated that notion was — not to put too fine a point on it — an idiot, as that would be about the best possible way to ensure that it did turn into Mega-Chernobyl.
It’s not that I think you’re an idiot; I don’t think you seriously considered that idea for an instant, much less any other physicists. But don’t imagine I am.
As far as a Fukushima follow-on, I have thought about it, but there are only so many hours in a day and I’m involved in writing a book, some television, and in a very early-stage startup. If I were to do so, though, it would include some things like today’s Fukushima radiation report, which shows undetectable radionuclides in the water and dose rates back down into microSieverts at the monitoring positions in the plant.
LOL … provide the links, Charlie. If the phrase “only conceivable” appears in any of them, I’ll be surprised!
`Cuz my predictions were accurate right-from-the-start … per today’s WSJ:
Oh, those nutjobs at the Wall Street Journal … what lies about TEPCO’s incompetence will they spread next?
And is AGW any different? Not really … it’s just slower.
—————————————–
Japan Finds Radiation Spread Over a Wide Area
URL: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904332804576540131142824362.html
John, you specifically said the “sole technical answer” was a nuclear strike.
“Sole” means only, there’s only one, there are no other options, etc.
A nuclear strike didn’t happen.
You were, and are, wrong.
The fact that you refuse to admit your error tells me and every reasonable reader here all they need to know about you.
You’re a legend in your own mind, aren’t ya?
Heck, John. While you’re at it, why not invoke the authority of Bill Nye the Science Guy?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/30/bill-nye-is-the-anti-science-guy-when-it-comes-to-global-warming-and-hurricanes/#comment-732440
I mean, Bill’s the Science Guy. He couldn’t possibly be wrong, could he? He has a white lab coat, and nerd glasses, and a BS in mechanical engineering, and he’s just got to be right. Right? Or should he get back together with John Keister and start doing stand-up again?
Really? I guess if you use the same approach that Mann et al did, you will get a hockey stick even with random numbers. Also, read Montford’s book about how the AGW proponents will not share their data, how they colluded to oust an editor from a journal, and how they touted results that were statistically not different from zero. The proponents also seem to ignore the CERN results, and they have ignored the fact that the major greenhouse is water vapor and not CO2, that temperature is related to CO2 as a logarithm (so that the same absolute increase in CO2 has less and less of an effect on temperature), and that the human contribution to CO2 is very marginal so that any human effect on the temperature of the earth is extremely marginal. Finally, I think they are avoiding NASA’s recent finding that there is a lot more heat escaping into the atmosphere than previously thought, and that would act to mitigate even further the effect that humans have on the temperature of the earth.
Who could possibly know more about climate science than admirals and CEOs? I’ve spent a fair amount of time looking at Stephen McIntyre’s blog, and I try to follow Bjorn Lomborg’s work. They both strike me as honest. They may be mistaken. Leaving smarmy comments and posting links to things like “Lindzen’s Illusions!” isn’t going to convince those of us who are convinceable. I’ve seen Lindzen use reductio ad Hitlerum before, so I can’t say I have much respect for him. I can’t comment on his actual RESEARCH, because it would involve a large amount of time figuring it out. Anyone who has seriously looked at the Climategate documents will know that everything the folks at the CRU was doing wasn’t 100% good science. Of course, Lomborg agrees that warming is mostly driven by us humans, and we should do something about it, namely, investing in R&D on technologies that don’t put as much CO2 into the atmosphere. This seems eminently more reasonable than any of the various economic carbon schemes out there.
John, since the hockey stick first came out, the conclusions drawn have changed from “see the massive inflection that proves CO2 driven warming is the only cause of overall warming” to “see, the temperature really has gone up until it’s about as warm as it was in 1000AD.” You’re right, admission of being wrong is a good thing; I commend the honest climate researchers who have contributed to the change.
I would like to thank Mr. Martin for being a voice of reason. We do not need more “global warming is the biggest hoax evar!!!” and “all you climate deniers are racists!!!!” rhetoric. It may make some people feel morally or intellectually superior to others, but it does not advance anyone’s understanding of how our world works. Snide remarks and pointless insults are not part of the scientific method.
You’re a physicist, so I suppose you have access to the actual numbers. Therefore, please tell us how much greenhouse gas (including CO2) has been introduced to the atmosphere by volcanoes in the last ten years? How much is this more than all the greenhouse gas emitted by humans in their entire history? Finally, if volcanoes have spewed out more CO2 in the last ten years than humans have in the last 50,000 why hasn’t the global temperature soared? Why do you and your ilk have to “hide the decline”?
I have no doubt that the hockey stick graph is reasonably accurate. The range of error makes it almost useless but I do not doubt that the temperature of the earth has changed within the last few hundred years.
The hockey stick graph merely provides evidence of climate change only, it is not evidence that CO2 is the cause.
I don’t know why it gets so much attention.
cheers
Where are these alleged studies that support the Hockey Stick.
Real life statisticians have examined the methods used and declared them invalid.
The author of the tree ring study that is used to create the hockey stick has declared that they cannot be used as a proxy for temperature.
Hundreds of other studies have proven that the MWP was at least as warm as current temperatures.
Allegations of fraud were investigated by friends and collegues of the accused, who also stood to lose research grants if they found any problems with the Hockey teams work.
CEOs who stand to make lots of money from govt grants and policy changes, unsuprisingly support govt programs that will make them even richer.
So there I was, on the beach in Sandusky, Ohio, whistling the Grosse Fugue while trying to recite the various laws of thermodynamics in Latin and you’ll never guess what happened. Oh, you will, will you? Well, not in this instance. A line of ants started to do the conga on an old conch shell. Itwas right out of a Busby Berkeley movie. What, said I? I’ve never seen anything like that before. But then I remembered. I’m a Physicist (that’s a certified smart guy for those of you who haven’t noticed or don’t respect your betters) – I should know. And then I did – it’s another manifestation of Anthropogenic Global Warming. It’s man-made because never before have ants done the conga. And it was hot out besides. So I grabbed the conch and ran off to the local branch of the United Nations. (That’s a long run from Sandusky.) And I told them, “Hey, I’m a physicist. I just got proof of global warming. Gimme a grant!” And I waved the conch at the them with all the ants doing the conga. “That again,” they said and waved me away. “We’ve been seeing that all week. It’s a manifestation of global cooling.” “Oh,” I said and slumped away. Just my luck. But the UN guy stopped me. “You’re a physicist,” he said. “Would like a grant for global cooling?” Well, I felt a little taken aback, but I have to admit I accepted. Hard times, you know, even for physicist. Would you like a beer?
As much as I believe in “climate change” as a matter of geological and historical record (not as a newly discovered evil created by capitalism) the AGW supporters completely lost me when Phil Jones, director of the CRU said that he had lost or destroyed the original temperature data used to create his models. For what it’s worth, he also admitted that the globe hadn’t warmed at all in 15 years, which his (completely unfalsifiable) models didn’t predict anyway. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/
I’m no scientist, but even I know that if you can’t check someone’s source data, you can’t check their answers (imagine if I simply asked you to figure out how I arrived at the number 139. There are a lot of ways to get there, without the source, though, you’d have to guess. But I don’t have to tell you this, you’re “a physicist.”)
AGW supporters also lose me when they suggest that massive social and political control is the only fix to this problem, especially in light of what Al Gore recently said about corn-based ethanol. Now, I’m not shocked that politicians make political decisions, but I am shocked that a scientist, looking at the accumulated evidence of thousands of years of human interactions would conclude that they are the best repository for rational action to solve anything other than the next election. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572404575634753486416076.html
“Phil Jones, director of the CRU said that he had lost or destroyed the original temperature data used to create his models.”
I guess he should have said his dog ate it. That would have been more believable.
I take it you haven’t read Montford’s “The Hockey Stick Illusion” or Steve McIntyre’s website “climateaudit.” After reading either of these two, Montford is easier, you will see that there is no reason to believe the Hockey Stick graph or the so-called work behind it.
In addition, it is the rare physicist who so blatantly commits the fallacy of appeal to authortiy. Science is not and never will be an arena for authority.
Charlie, Richard Lindzen just gave a presentation for a meeting of the ACS this past weekend, and his slide show goes into pretty good detail, but essentially he’s saying the same thing as you are:
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/acs-2011-lindzen.pdf
Thing is, he homed in on the real critical issue, which is feedback. That’s the kingpin of the whole dispute. Everything else is either uncontroversial, or peripheral.
And FWIW, there are actual greenhouse deniers, as becomes evident if you spend any time at all on Judy Curry’s blog. They’re the 9/11 truthers of the climate debate.
Snork, you’re right, I should have said “serious skeptics”. Truther/Birther/JFK conspiracy theorists are always with us.
AGW is being tested as we speak. The world is not and will not reduce CO2 levels to the degree demanded by Warmists.
So the experiment continues.
I am most curious to find out how the Warmists will explain the null result. Likely the Sun will be blamed and the Goddess Irony will do a Snoopy Dance.
What will replace AGW as the new crisis that can only be fixed with World-wide Socialism?
My bet is on human-caused mass extinction.
“If the AGW arguments are that strong, they don’t need collusion and bullying.”
Excellent article Mr. Martin. The line quoted from your article is the first reason red flags went up for me long ago. I watch in amazement as this debate unfolds and the AGW alarmist use every con-trick in the book to push their agenda. In the public arena this has never approached a scientific debate. Looking at the data and theory is important….if you can get past the transparent scam that AGW is and treat it as a serious hypothesis.
The hypothesis is not falsifiable because the actions they advocate are a means to an end that has nothing to do with climate change. It’s proponents are either evil, or stupid enablers of the evil.
Which one are you Aphysicist?
Readers of this blog might think there is some slight scientific aspect to AGW theory. Well, if Trofim Lysenko was a scientist, that might be the case. If you read the list of quotes by the leading enviro-nuts at
http://www.green-agenda.com/
the political aspect of AGW propaganda will be made very clear.
The website
http://www.climatedebatedaily.com/
has a list of all relevant websites and provides a running list of links to articles for and against, since it is managed by one AGW guy and one sane person.
The most popular skeptical blog is Wattsupwiththat, by Anthony Watts. See the essential site list at climatedebatedaily.
The bottom line is simple. CO2 is ~0.04% of the atmosphere and the human component is ~0.01%. To make a trace gas important you have to postulate positive feedback to an absurd degree.
Moreover, if you read about dimethylsulfide feedback at, for example, the CO2science website maintained by the Idso group, you will learn that nature provides strong negative feedback that the AGW people don’t even consider.
As a final irony, the solar-terrestrial aspect probably indicates a developing analog to the Dalton Minimum (~1800 to 1820) which means cold weather. (or Maunder Minimum, which means little ice age) And the recent CERN results are another nail in the coffin of AGW, the dead theory walking.
Climate Debate Daily is indeed a terrific site! Lively and fun to read, with all points-of-view respected. Highly recommended.
In the long run, both sides can’t be right … and in the short run, the world’s hard-nosed CEOs and military leaders presently are betting with the scientific consensus, against the skeptics. And that’s my bet too.
That’s because folks who read both columns of Climate Debate Daily figure out pretty quickly that the scientists are holdin’ aces and the skeptics are holdin’ deuces.
That’s why nowadays the AGW skeptics are hoping for a miracle “on the flop”, and the smart money is betting on the scientists!
————————————
Climate Debate Daily
URL: http://climatedebatedaily.com/
LOL … Suthenboy, I reckon your brand of conservatism classifies folks who respect both the Eisenhower and Clinton administrations as “stupid enablers of evil”.
Just call us “SEOE” for short.
—————————————–
The Climate Debate: REP’s Perspective
Republicans for Environmental Protection
URL: http://www.rep.org/news/GEvol12/ge12.3_climate_debate.html
Straw man, John. Five yard penalty and loss of down.
You see, the problem with the left and right seeing eye-to-eye on things is almost impossible. Its two different cultures that have developed. Even our vocabulary has changed over the years. For instance: When Obama claimed he never heard his “spiritual mentor” of twenty years say anything like “God damn America,” we in the conservative camp call that a “lie.” Also we would refer as a lie when Obama claimed he never knew Bill Ayers when, in reality, Obama worked directly with him for years in Chicago. And when Hilary Clinton says she was shot at upon her arrival in Kosovo (when in reality she was presented with flowers from little girls), we conservatives refer to such a claim as a “lie.”
On the other hand when liberals view George Bush’s decision to overthrow Sadaam Hussein because . . .
1. Sadaam tried to assassinate a former US president,
2. He had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people,
3 He was known to be attempting to build a nuclear bomb. When the UN tried reveal evidence of this, Sadaam ended up play hide the sausage–for ten years!
4. He was responsible for literally millions of dead–of both the Iranians and his own people,
5. He was known to be attempting to fund terrorist attacks against the West, and–despite the claim that he wasn’t connected to al Queda–was now known to have met with their representatives (to what end, we still don’t know), and
6. He had defied the peace agreement that led to the end of the first Gulf War by, not least, shooting at coalition aircraft.
. . . the left uses the word “lie” in reference to his justification for going to war. This word “lying” we conservatives have only recently discovered means “telling the truth” to liberals.
So if only we could exchange dictionaries, I think we might find we actually could agree on quite a lot.
Now, in all seriousness, I think we all could agree that we would best be served if we could get off oil. And despite the straw man arguments of the left, nobody–not even nasty conservatives-likes importing and burning oil. So in reality, it doesn’t so much matter if there is AGW or not because we agree (if, perhaps, for different reasons or at least different weights of reasons.)
The real problem, from a conservative point of view, is the left’s insistence on using wind, solar, geothermal–what-have-you, when these would result in costs so damaging the world’s economy would be reeling for decades. Conservatives may not love nuclear, be see as the ONLY realistic solution to the problem. As long as the left continues to deny reality, we will never get off oil and continue to be subject to every nut-case potentate with an oil well and, okay, even possibly turn Maine into South Beach.
You have to understand and then tell others of your kind that sitting around a Bunsen Burning dreaming of a happy place of windmills and tulips while singing Kumbayah will not–despite the left’s firm grasp of “science”–make a hand purse out of a sow’s ear.
(If you fail to understand anything I have written here, I can provide a dictionary upon request.)
Keith, my German systems engineering colleagues have assimilated the same information as you, but they have reached precisely the opposite conclusion.
A key point is that Germany does not intend that China dominate them … neither scientifically, nor technologically, nor through sustained trade imbalance.
—————————–
The Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems
URL: http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/welcome-to-the-web-pages-of-the-fraunhofer-institute-for-solar-energy-systems
Thank you for your referencing of the German company that is trying to figure out a way to make alternative energy viable. I had no idea anybody was actually trying to do that.
You might want to check out the latest in applied science. One being the super wind farm off the coast of Wales. Apparently, that project will require a lifetime of subsidies that I worked out would mean one trillion dollars PER YEAR if, hypothetically, the US were to replace all our foreign oil with wind power. And since you claim to be a scientist, I assume you could look that up, do the necessary conversions, and arrive at your own figure.
Or that Spain recently found out that their green revolution was bankrupting their country and had to cut the green-dream a little short.
Now I know what you are going to say:
1. “But it doesn’t all have to be wind power but a mix a various alternative power sources.” To which I would respond, the line of argument is a shell game. Have you ever heard of an alternative energy source that was substantially more efficient than wind power?
2. “When industry starts mass producing the components of windmills, their price will fall dramatically.” While this to a degree is true when it comes to turbine blade design and mass production, the rest of the turbine–and the really expensive things–the generator, its assembly and tower are already mature technologies that we shouldn’t expect anything other than incremental increases of efficiency in cost and design. And labor sure isn’t getting any cheaper.
3. “Science will prevail and find a way to make it work.” I would completely agree. With plenty of time. And, what the hell, time is something we’ve got plenty of, right? But I find it rather hard-hearted of a person who believes the world is about to turn into pot of over-boiling goo to take such a lackadaisical view by claiming you’re willing to risk the fate of the earth on a MAJOR breakthrough to come around in the next . . . well, you tell me how much time we have.
John, you’re making another unwarranted assumption: that I’m somehow opposed to alternative energy. I’m not. I just note that it’s not economically viable in most cases. There’s also a problem that, from the Massachusetts offshore wind farms to the Mojave thermal solar projects, no alternative energy is acceptable either, at least when it becomes potentially viable.
It’s a little like looking at Jim Hansen’s history. First, he was a “Population Bomb” enthusiast, and along with Paul Ehrlich proposed that there had to be a new way that the experts could control the impending collapse of society from overpopulation. Then he was on the “coming ice age” bandwagon, which absolutely required a new governing body composed of scientists to save us from the coming ice age doom. Now he’s onto AGW, and pushing for extranational — and extralegal — bodies to enforce CO2 emission limits, composed of experts, and ensuring that we are saved from the doom of AGW that we’re incapable of understanding.
After a while, it just starts to look like the main thing Hansen wants is that extranational body with extralegal powers. The reason for it seems to be secondary.
Charlie, when I go to Pubmed and search for Dr. Hansen’s articles, what I read in those articles bears no resemblance to your narrative. Hansen’s actual conclusion (linked below) is this:
Frankly, Hansen’s conclusions seem to be pretty much the same as those of PJM/Tatler posters like Keith. So the reason Hansen is demonized here in PJM/Tatler is unclear to me.
By the way, the top five years of Arctic ice-melting have been the 5 years after Hansen’s 2006 article “Global temperature change.”
Read Hansen’s 2006 article, then go to “Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis”, and judge for yourself who called it right. Hansen’s scientific predictions have held up. Skeptics’ non-scientific predictions look weak.
That’s why top admirals and CEOs are on-board with the science nowadays.
And that’s why skeptical shibboleths, flailing, and smears look lame and weak.
——————————–
Global temperature change
URL: http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14288.long
As I said, John, don’t take me — or the other readers — for idiots. Google “James Hansen Paul Ehrlich” and don’t imagine we’re dumb enough to think that PubMed indexes things that wildly out of its area of interest.
Here’s the link … I agree that it’s interesting reading.
Definitely Hansen’s better at climate science than public relations.
——————
Hansen’s own words …
URL: http://fromjameshansen.blogspot.com/2010_03_01_archive.html
Funding Urgently Needed:
At the park where we walk our dogs,we’d been noticing some of our dogs getting into more fights than usual and wondered why. We decided to collect data about dogs and see if anything in the data could help us understand why.
We collected data from thousands of dog owners around the world. We received data on dogs currently owned as well as data that some had accumulated going back 100 years or more.
We created a computer model of a dog and the variables that would influence a dog’s behavior. We fed the vast amount of collected data into the computer and ran it through the computer model.
Our computer model tells us that if humans don’t change, in less than 50 years all our dogs will be vicious, snarling beasts. Less than 50 years!!
We need funding from governments world-wide to help us in our work to stop this from happening. Billion$$ of dollars are needed.
We went to dog experts,those who have at least published 50 ads in dog expert publications,and showed them the results from our model – the consensus is this is a serious problem.
No more debates. We KNOW why our dogs are behaving badly *and* we know things will get worse unless we all act NOW.
Does anyone know what agency we can present our findings to so we can start work on solving this problem — before it’s too late and all our dogs turn on us?!?
Oh — unfortunately, due to a slight computer glitch all our data has been lost.
Also, until we have some of those billion$ we can’t show anyone our computer model because we’ve put so much time into building it we’re afraid someone will steal it and get credit for it.
We do have some nice graphs showing how this problem has been increasing — with other graphs showing that it will get worse.
;-}
‘LOL … Suthenboy, I reckon your brand of conservatism classifies folks who respect both the Eisenhower and Clinton administrations as “stupid enablers of evil”.’
They could also be classified as just plain stupid.
Very entertaining discussion thread. Good work Charlie, thanks.
“a physicist”:
You linked to the Onion. That’s it. You’re done. Go away now.
That’s like those pot-smoking morons who say “I get my news from the Daily Show.”
In order to tell a joke it’s necessary to streamline the information and come at it from one highly exaggerated angle. That’s the essence of humor. It’s impossible to tell a joke and deliver fair, fully inclusive information.
Seriously: you’re done.
What “physicist” and the other promoters of CAGW and government control of energy supplies don’t want anyone to know is that “climate scientists” are not actually scientists.
A scientist is someone who follows the Scientific Method. That requires allowing independent verification of one’s work by making the raw data, computer codes, algorithms, etc., available to anyone who wants to know if the claims made are accurate. “Climate scientists” keep their data and methods secret as POLICY – they are not scientists.
Steve McIntyre at ClimateAudit for years – even before Climategate – exposed this policy by the leading lights of the CAGW movement: Michael Mann and the Hockey Team, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Lonnie Thompson, and all the core IPCC “lead authors”.
The reason for the policy of secret data and methods has become clear when they are discovered (like Mann’s “CENSORED” ftp directory) or forced out (like Briffa’s Yamal data by a Royal Society publication) – the raw data is cherry picked, then massaged with phony statistical methods, or just literally turned upside down. Phrases like ‘short-centered PCA’, ‘Yamal’, and ‘Upside Down Tijlander’ are infamous among those who have dared take an honest look behind the “climate science” curtain.
“The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science” by Andrew Montford is a very readable history of the CAGW movement up to the release of the Climategate emails.
Andrew Russell – You’re absolutely right, and the book should be an eye-opener for those proclaiming the truth of AGW because of the science. BTW I would go further than you about how to describe the individuals involved. They’re not scientists, they’re thugs.
Also, BTW ‘hide the decline’ involved a clever use of charting. Briffa’s tree ring data indicated global cooling after 1960, even though the earth was apparently warming. (I say ‘apparently’ because the temperature data themselves are suspect.) In any event, what Briffa did was have a chart with a lot lines including his tree ring charted against temperture through, I think, sometime in the 1980s. His particular tree ring line ends in 1960 but you can’t notice it because of all the other lines. Had his line been charted beyond 1960, it would have shown a decline in temperatures. That was what ‘hide the decline’ was all about.
“Reasons to be a Global Warming Skeptic”
Let’s see:
1) NASA has found that far more heat escapes the Earth than predicted by climate models in the last month.
2) Europe’s CERN facility has demonstrated that cosmic rays provide seeds for clouds in the last few weeks.
Neither of these recent scientific results have factored in any Anthropogenic Global Warming (AKA Anthropogenic Global Watermelonism=AGW) predictions. Watermelonism=green one earth environmentalism on the outside and red communism on the inside.
A Physicist says “The reason the hockey-stick haven’t gone away is simple: it wasn’t wrong”
Which is an utterly discreditable stance. [Actually, I have to report that this scientist is laughing while trying to be serious!]
No one can read, for instance, “The Hockey Stick Illusion” and come away with respect for either Mann, the hockey Stick itself, or paleoclimatology. It is as sound as crop circle science. The Royal Society;s poster child, the 2008 prize winning author of “Six Degrees,” Mark Lynas, has threatened to read it, as posted on his blog. But Georgia Tech climatologist cautioned him about doing so: your friends will disown and hate you.
Either A Physsicist is not a scientist or else he lacks honesty. To close, let me quote scientist who is or has both:
“….[M]ost scientists are reluctant to speak out on topics which are not their field. We tend to trust our colleagues, perhaps unreasonably so….However, ‘hide the decline’ [from the Climategate emails about Mike Mann's Nature trick, referring to the chief author of the Hockey Stick himself] is an entirely different matter.’ This…is a straightforward and blatant breach of the fundamental principles of honesty and self-criticism that lie at the heart of all true science.
“….The recent public statements by supposed leaders of UK science [ie, Sir Paul Nurse, Nobel Laureate and president of the Royal Society - the UKs National Academy of Science], declaring that hiding the decline is standard scientific practice are on a par with declarations that black is white and up is down.
“–Jonathan Jones, Physics Department at Oxford University, Feb 23, 2011. (judithcurry.com)”
I uphold Enlightenment values: the Truth will out.
This is a well-written article and pretty much summarises my own view.
To add a little more detail, we could mention the recent paper by statisticians McShane and Wyner, who say that the proxies are not significantly better than random numbers and that “climate scientists have greatly underestimated the uncertainty of proxy-based reconstructions and hence have been overconfident in their models”.
Regarding IPCC exclusion we could note the resignation from the IPCC of Chris Landsea in response to exaggerated claims and politicization within the IPCC, that made his continued participation impossible. His letter can be found on the web.
I also did a PhD and postdoc on modeling. My version of the law would be that the results of the model will always turn out to confirm the preconceived opinion of the people doing the modeling.
And to expand on your last point, if the case for AGW was really strong, they would not need to ‘redefine the peer-reviewed literature’, but also they would not need to ‘hide the decline’ and engage in devious statistical procedures to exaggerate the warming.
If “A physicist” was really a physicist, he would not be constantly trying to de-rail the thread from science into politics, nor would he get his information from The Onion, or even more laughably, wikipedia.
A.Citizen, the reason for the bad behavior of dogs is certainly man-made global warming making them hot and more irritable!
ARP, John is actually a physicist, or at least does physics for a living. Within his field, which is not climate modeling, he’s done some decent work. In medical imaging.
I cannot grasp the mentality of professional scientists who believe that the best way to change people’s minds is by sneering at them. This is why I do not understand Richard Dawkins. Anyone who tells you that there is nothing to Climategate has either not spent any time looking at the actual emails that have been discussed as controversial, or is lying. Of course, this does not mean that the Earth is not warming, or that humans are not contributing to the warming – it just means that some climate scientists engaged in dishonesty. Ask George Monbiot. People who say that there was nothing to Climategate are the equivalent of Michael Moore telling us that Cuba has a better healthcare system than we have, and they should take their cherrypicking accusations elsewhere.
If more persons were aware of the principles that govern scientific investigation, we wouldn’t be rhetorically albatrossed by this completely fictitious “issue.” We certainly wouldn’t allow politicians to impoverish us on that basis.
“After a while, it just starts to look like the main thing Hansen wants is that extranational body with extralegal powers. The reason for it seems to be secondary.”
Precisely.
Charlie Martin has written an excellent article.
The thing that always struck me from the Climategate episode was not the snarky emails or the second rate politiking but rather the snippets of code from the so-called ‘models’. Poorly documented, fudge-factors everywhere, spaghetti logic – basically crap. That anyone would believe anything these guys put out is ridiculous. As for how science works, as a practising scientist, I know that the term ‘consensus’ is meaningless in a scientific context. Consensus is a political term. In fact, science only makes progress by overturning dominant beliefs with facts. There is nothing as inconvenient to the consensus as a well-controlled experiment.
I think it is most effective to break the AGW thesis into four parts and make it clear that I believe in two of the four, but strongly doubt the other two. The four parts are:
1. CO2 concentration in the atmosphere are rising, human activity has much to do with it.[Agreed]
2. Rising CO2 will cause some warming in the atmosphere. [Agreed]
3. CO2 induced warming will be amplified by increase water in the atmosphere. This is speculative, mainly based on models. The actions of cloud and precipitation could easily counteract the positive feedback of water vapor in the model and attenuate CO2 caused warming. I am very skeptical that the models have the feedbacks right, an opinion shared by a number of highly qualified meteorologists and climate scientists.
4. Warming will be huge disaster for the planet and is the biggest danger we face. We need to act now to stop this. This part of the litany is pure b.s. The worst junk science is in all the articles and papers and claims that attempt to show how bad warming is or will be. From the polar bear to hurricanes to arctic ice to aliens will attack us if we don’t do something, there are many failed claims.
Hey – the polar bears aren’t doing so bad. In the 1950s, the population was estimated to be 5,000, and now it’s estimated to be 25,000. So is a warming earth a good thing for the bears, or a bad thing?
Feh.
AGW is so 2006.
The New Crisis will be Man-Induced Mass Extinction (MIME).
Humans will cause the mass extinction of “ecologically critical species” in “critical ecosystems” producing an avalanche of ecological collapses all over the world.
We will all die.
Even Santa and the Elves.
Only one thing can save us.
Destroy Capitalism and install freedom-loving Socialism.
All one really has to do is point out how it is that every single one of the IPCC/Fellow Travelers “predictions” are catastrophic and involve runaway positive feedbacks (e.g. oscillating out of control). And that’s nonsense, the dynamical system that is our weather and climate tends towards negative feedbacks (e.g. dampening out any feedback trends).
8/27 Financial Post: “New, convincing evidence indicates global warming is caused by cosmic rays and the sun — not humans.
The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates…The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.
The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research…The hypothesis that cosmic rays and the sun hold the key to the global warming debate has been Enemy No. 1 to the global warming establishment ever since it was first proposed by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a 1996 scientific conference in the U.K. Within one day, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, “I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible.” He then set about discrediting the theory, any journalist that gave the theory credence, and most of all the Danes presenting the theory — they soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials…
This is sort of what the Catholic Church did to Galileo – You will believe, yes believe, in AGW, or off with your funding!! Sheer thuggery.
I’m a bit dismayed about how computer models have come to be more important than actual observations and so I offer a formal statement of the Scientific Computer Modeling Method.
The Scientific Method
1. Observe a phenomenon carefully.
2. Develop a hypothesis that possibly explains the phenomenon.
3. Perform a test in an attempt to disprove or invalidate the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is disproven, return to steps 1 and 2.
4. A hypothesis that stubbornly refuses to be invalidated may be correct. Continue testing.
The Scientific Computer Modeling Method
1. Observe a phenomenon carefully.
2. Develop a computer model that mimics the behavior of the phenomenon.
3. Select observations that conform to the model predictions and dismiss observations as of inadequate quality that conflict with the computer model.
4. In instances where all of the observations conflict with the model, “refine” the model with fudge factors to give a better match with pesky facts. Assert that these factors reveal fundamental processes previously unknown in association with the phenomenon. Under no circumstances willingly reveal your complete data sets, methods, or computer codes.
5. Upon achieving a model of incomprehensible complexity that still somewhat resembles the phenomenon, begin to issue to the popular media dire predictions of catastrophe that will occur as far in the future as possible, at least beyond your professional lifetime.
6. Continue to “refine” the model in order to maximize funding and the awarding of Nobel Prizes.
7. Dismiss as unqualified, ignorant, and conspiracy theorists all who offer criticisms of the model.
Repeat steps 3 through 7 indefinitely.
What boggles my mind is why there was any doubt to begin with that the sun the dominant factor? Is it human arrogance or simple stupidity?
And now they’ve been forced to revert to some descriptor called “Climate Change?” That is Onion worthy in itself.
Thank you for an excellent article, Mr. Martin.
A few other points that may be worth mentioning:
The IPCC Chair, has acknowledged that the IPCC’s “main customer” is the UNFCCC [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change] (pls. see Of climate change bosses and climate change bullies).
There is no reading of the articles of this “Convention” that can be construed (by any stretch of the English language!) as anything other than reaching towards a pre-determined outcome. A simple search through their most recent (58 page) “Budget” reveals that the UNFCCC is far more concerned with the implementation of “mechanisms” than with “scientific assessments”.
As for the so-called “scientific consensus” (overwhelming or otherwise) it is worth noting in the past year, there are some “climate scientists”, amongst those in the inner circle of the chosen, who do not subscribe to the concept. Mike Hulme is one example (Pls. see Honey, I shrunk the consensus!). More recently, IPCC insider, Richard Klein wrote:
Mind you, he was labouring under the illusion that all 194 governments participated in the “approval” process – when in fact (as in the case of the recent SRREN report) in at least one instance (and I’m inclined to suspect many others), it was less than 50% of the eligible “national delegations” who actually participated in the process.
To make your point another way, hro001, the IPCC process is all about governments coming to terms with three sobering facts:
(1) AGW is real
(2) AGW is serious
(3) AGW is accelerating
Coming to grips with these three sobering facts ain’t easy. It’s good news that the world’s tough-minded military leaders, business CEOs, religious leaders, engineers, and scientists all are making solid progress.
Obviously, American conservatism has a considerable way to go, to catch up.
But this will happen. Because denialism is … futile.
As the Pope (for one) understands, eh?
——————————-
The Pope gets down with climate change
URL: http://www.grist.org/list/2011-05-11-the-pope-gets-down-with-climate-change
Only if one were intellectually dishonestly inclined to misreprepresent – and divert from – that which I actually wrote, “a physicist”. But you knew that.
I have become convinced that you, A physicist, AKA SEOE, are actually one of the PJM writers here under an alias. Your goal seems to be to poke us readers with a stick because your arguments are provocative yet completely unconvincing.
Your writing skills are too good for someone who would draw the such inane conclusions. Your debating skills better than someone who would build arguments solely on pronouncements, emoticons, and appeals to authority. ( The pope for god’s sake; I sense that one is aimed at me ) .
Until you can present an argument that I can take seriously, I will assume that you are simply playing devil’s advocate.
You are doing a pretty good job, too good. Thats what gave you away.
Suthenboy, my thinking is very considerably guided by the Pope’s. We respect the methods of science: math, physics, experiment, observation … linked by reason. We have care for future generations. We believe that all humans are created equal, and should have equal rights under the law. We treasure the creation of all life, and know that humanity cannot survive unless that creation survives too.
The Pope created a commission to advise the Church — The Pontifical Academy of Sciences — and he respects that commission … as do I. The Pontifical Academy has concluded that AGW is real, serious, and accelerating. The Pope believes the Pontifical Academy … as do I.
What has PJM/Tatler’s “peculiar” brand of conservatism presented, that compares in dignity and wisdom and foresight and moral commitment, to the analysis of the Pope and his Pontifical Academy?
Nothing.
——————————-
Vatican science academy looks at climate change
Catholic News
URL: http://www.cathnewsusa.com/2011/05/vatican-science-academy-looks-at-climate-change/
Would this be the same pope that is silent on the epidemic of back-alley abortions in latin america? Silent because in all those countries abortion is illegal; i.e. the governments are towing the line and bringing up that subject might make them lean towards legalization. Instead the church rails against abortion in the U.S. because it is legal here. It is all about shaping policy, babies be damned. Never mind that more babies are aborted in latin america in a month than in annually in the U.S.
The same pope who leads an organization that persecuted Galileo and has fought science tooth and nail every single time science made verifiable discoveries contrary to catholic dogma?
Experts and popes aside, no amount of appeal to authority will prop up a failed argument. Stop appealing to authority and come up with a sound argument.
Oh s#!t. I let you do it to me again. Ugh.
I spent a major part of my time back in 2007-2008 studying this issue closely. Reading papers, AR4, reading blogs, participating in discussions at DotEarth and Watts, and following Real Climate and climate Audit. A Physicist is using the same old arguments everyone was using back then, and not even the good ones. Have I taken a trip in a time machine?
I’ve noticed since Climate Gate in late 2009, though it didn’t start happening right away, more ‘skeptical’ science has been allowed into peer-reviewed journals. Climate Gate did have an impact if only to shame the journals into opening the doors a crack. And a lot of interesting work has been allowed the light of day.
If one doesn’t pay attention to the current ground truth (more radiation leaving our planet than the models projected, basically no rise in global temperature for the last 15 years, clouds, which aren’t in the models, having a huge effect on temperatures and cloud seeding facilitated by cosmic rays modulated by the sun, the ocean phases switching to a new regime, etc.) one falls far behind in arguments and will be seen as merely an activist, not an informed participant in the debate.
As it stands, the only argument from the catastrophic-we-must-do-something-now warming side which carries much weight with me is ‘we have to save the planet; it’s the only one with chocolate’.
You wrote:
There are few skeptics (I can’t think of any, and I’ve been reporting on this for two solid years and an interested bystander for several years before that) who don’t believe there has been significant warming since the Little Ice Age, or that humans contribute to it, or that additional CO2 or other greenhouse gases aren’t probably part of that contribution.
Well, we’ve certainly warmed up since the Little Ice Age. Humans contribute to it? Define “contribute”. If you mean “contribute in a significant way”, I’ll take the other side of that argument.
The weather is full of a huge number of negative feedback loops. CO2 up -> plants grow better -> C02 down. Given that there was a significant temperature up spike 1900 – 1950, and a significant drop from 1950 – 1970, but that there was more industrial activity / year 1950 – 9170 than 1900 – 1950, I certainly do not see any real reason to believe that human industrial activity has a significant impact on global temperatures.
Suthenboy’s and Syl’s and Greg Q’s points would be interesting … if they weren’t dead-wrong on their so-called “facts”.
The Pope and his Pontifical Commission reviewed the evidence carefully … and were convinced.
Of course, the Church always *DID* plan hundreds of years ahead … and can’t be bought.
Whereas ideology-first politicos plan a few weeks ahead … and are cheaply bought.
Hmmmm … which would *YOU* trust?
———————————
Climate Change: How Do We Know?
URL: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Well, you know, the Pope IS a sucker for chocolate.
Very good article. There is one other scientific point that refute their gloom and doom scenarios:
“Water levels will rise and ice in the oceans melt.” Frozen water (ice) occupies more volume than liquid water. As the ice cap and icebergs melt, the water level would go down. Also, warm air holds more water than cold air. Warmer air would cause and hold more evaporation and water levels would also go down.
That’s not really how glaciers work. Glaciers don’t melt much, they sublimate (evaporate). It doesn’t matter if the temperature rises or even falls, what matters is that it has stopped snowing at the head of the glacier. Once it stops snowing, the glacier stops growing and sublimation takes over. The glacier disapears just like ice cubes shrink in your freezer (they don’t melt, they evaporate). The antarctic is the largest desert on earth, it doesn’t snow there much anymore. It evaporates every day no matter what the earth’s temperature does, even if it gets colder. It evaporates in quantities much greater than all of the melting combined. It moves directly from ice phase to water vapor and ends up in the atmosphere. It can rain somewhere else or snow again at the top of the glacier but melting is not that important to glaciers. So yes it will disapear eventually and the oceans will rise as a result. Due to evaporation, the melting componant is insignificant. Unless it starts to snow there again, any glacier is a goner.
You don’t hear alarmists talk much about sublimation, they only talk about melting. I don’t know why.
I’m not even buying that there has been much of any global warming ever. The ice ages and little ice ages only prove it got cold in the northern hemisphere. Anyone got any data on what was going on in Autralia or Antarctica about that time?
Almost every piece I read on global warming cherry picks data. As far as imknow no one has found the earth’s anus and stuck a thermometer in it. (They’ve no doubt stuck one in Uranus. But that’s a different story.)
>the methods of Mann _et al_ turn out to present a clear hockey stick no matter what the input data is, including pure random numbers.
This statement is incorrect. McIntyre & McKitrick generated 10,000 red-noise datasets, and then *selected* 100 (1%) of those that had the most hockeystick-like shapes for Principal Component Analysis. They then found that PCA indicated hockeysticks in these data 99 times out of 100. Well, duh.
But that’s a long way from saying hockeysticks are generated from all data. The truth is, PCA generates hockeysticks from hockeystick data. Just as it should.