Continuation of the older threads. Please scan those (even briefly) to see whether your point has already been dealt with. Let me know if there is something worth pulling from the comments to the main post.
In the meantime, read about why peer-review is a necessary but not sufficient condition for science to be worth looking at. Also, before you conclude that the emails have any impact on the science, read about the six easy steps that mean that CO2 (and the other greenhouse gases) are indeed likely to be a problem, and think specifically how anything in the emails affect them.
Update: The piece by Peter Kelemen at Columbia in Popular Mechanics is quite sensible, even if I don’t agree in all particulars.
Further update: Nature’s editorial.
Further, further update: Ben Santer’s mail (click on quoted text), the Mike Hulme op-ed, and Kevin Trenberth.
jay (985) — If you would care to carry out a useful little calculation, first extend the ln(CO2) data in
http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Correlation.html
back another 13 years (that is, starting in 1867 CE) by finding the Law Dome data at the NOAA Paleoclimatogy web site.
Second, find the linear trend that best fits the ln(CO2) data from 1867 CE until any convenient data after 1996 CE.
Third, calculate the value of R which best fits
Ta(t) – Ta(1880) = (R/ln 2)[ln(CO2(t-13)-ln(CO2(1867))]
for the GISTEMP temperature anamolies from 1880 CE to the present
This fits a particular linear two box model of climate and the value of R ought to be of some interest. To whet your appitite, it is close to 2 K, in appropriate agreement with an equilibrium climate sensitivity of about 3 K.
Max # 1000: Asks “What do others here think?”
I think the following from James Connaughton, former head of the Council on Environmental Quality under GW Bush (and not someone I ever thought I’d quote regarding climate change) demonstrates how far the real world has left you behind:
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-12-16-george-w.-bushs-man-in-copenhagen
Rick Brown (1002)
There are two separate topics here, Rick.
The one I addressed (1000) has to do with the public perception and trust in climate scientists following the Climategate leaks. Those that have been acting as advocates rather than scientists are obviously seen as having lost their scientific objectivity, as Michael Gerson of the Washington Post put it. This ties to the topic of this thread.
The second, which you addressed (1002) has to do with the validity of the climate science, itself. This is a far more complex topic.
Some of the science is certainly valid: Arctic sea ice has shown a declining trend since measurements started in 1979, for example; sea level has shown a long-term rise since tide gauge measurements started in the 19th century; globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperatures have shown an increasing trend since around 1976, which seems to have briefly stopped around the end of the millenium; etc.
The projections for the future are a bit more dicey. Those that go out to the year 2100 are even more questionable.
But that is not the topic here, Rick. It has more to do with the impact of the leaked emails on the perceived credibility of the climate scientists involved.
Max
Just out
AIRS satellite data shows positive water vapor feedback
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2009-196
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/
Is not gong tohelp the credibilty. Recently released it shows the CRU crew cherry picked Temperatures that were the ones subject to urban warming from all thr Russian data.
[Response: So now the Telegraph thinks that a random think-tank in Russia with no experience in dealing with met data is a credible source? Then why not mention that the HadCRU and the ‘throw it all in together’ IEA analysis show basically the same 20th C trend? Especially over the most recent 50 years upturn? Hmm…. I wonder why not? – gavin]
Also, on Arctic Ice,NASA report
(http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_aerosols.html ) concludes that aerosols have caused much of the atmospheric warming in the Arctic since 1976.Their scientist’s quote is “We will have very little leverage over climate in the next couple of decades if we’re just looking at carbon dioxide, if we want to try to stop the Arctic
summer sea ice from melting completely over the next few decades, we’re much better off looking at aerosols and ozone.”
Max 1003:
You phrased your question in #1000 in different ways, but I was responding to the first “. . .how the general public perception may have changed as a result of the Climategate leaks.”
Absent legitimate public polling on the topic, it seems ill-advised to speculate as to the perceptions of the general public. However, I find it instructive that Connaughton, who was in the midst of the obfuscation and inaction of the Bush years, didn’t jump at the opportunity to claim that the leaked emails have undermined public confidence. He’s apparently moved on, perhaps you should as well.
manacker says: 16 December 2009 at 3:28 PM
Congrats to Max for dinging #1000!
“Gerson’s last sentence tells it all.”
You need to go back a bit further than Gerson’s last sentence, instead scrutinizing several decades of his career, which has been spent deeply entrenched in the defense of partisan ideology.
Then ask yourself, “Who is this man Gerson, and why would I look to him for an objective assessment of something entirely outside of his realm of expertise and which at the same time is of central import to the partisan platform he’s been paid to construct and defend?”
Gerson gives away his blinkered ignorance with “Some of these scientists are merely activists…”, apparently oblivious to the fact that those he’s referring to have extensive records of peer-reviewed publications, those publications having been scrutinized by a far wider circle of professionals. Does Gerson propose that the reviewers vetting this science are all “merely activists” as well?
It seems almost unavoidable for pundits to develop the sort of intellectual laziness and complacency so nicely illustrated by Gerson’s screed. After all, their work is not peer-reviewed, they’re rarely if ever held accountable for mistakes, and in fact, unlike those in the scientific community, they can simply make up stories and publish them, something that almost invariably truncates the career of a scientist if one should be so foolish as to do that.
I’m sure you can find somebody more coherent and of better utility for carrying your banner, Max.
Max(989)
You use “warming cycle” and “cooling cycle”, neglecting the “warming trend”. Based on the energy balances, material balances, etc., climate models found the “trend” which could not attributed to the “cycles” in the past temperature record.
The radiative force of CO2 is already proven, the increase of CO2 concentration is already observed, then the energy balances in the atmosphere can’t be stationary. Your statement using only “cycles” and neglecting “trend” is biased from the beginning.
thanks
Monbiot meets Plimer http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2009/12/15/2772906.htm
Plimer is a slimy bastard. Monbiot pins him down on a direct lie and he rambles off in a random direction then accuses Monbiot of a lack of manners for trying to pull him back to the question.
I still think Monbiot has over-reacted to the CRU emails but nonetheless his position on that gave him cover for taking on Plimer without that being a major distractor.
Just to annoy you at RC, I will have to support Max a bit.
At the heart of this whole issue is trust. How can we uneducated laymen believe in the conclusions made by eg scientists at RC? I have a PhD in chemistry but when it comes to climate, what choice do we have but believe these gyus? Well, none….
But: they are also asking a lot, since their conclusions have pretty far-reaching consequences for our lives. Therefore, there are more demands on them.
And no doubt the emails and unpleasant demeanour often visible support the idea, that general public is only the necessary evil, that needs to be “tricked” into believing that there is no other way….
MR SH (1008)
You write:
You use “warming cycle” and “cooling cycle”, neglecting the “warming trend”.
Yes. There was an underlying warming trend since 1850 of 0.04degC per decade.
Max
MR SH (1008)
The observed warming and cooling cycles with the underlying warming trend as mentioned are the observed record. Nothing more – just the facts.
I have not “used only cycles” and “neglected trend”, as pointed out in earlier post.
You stated:
I mentioned the observed increase in CO2 concentration and the observed changes in temperature over the several observed warming/cooling cycles without getting into the GH theory and the “radiative force of CO2”.
The CO2/temperature correlation over these many multi-decadal oscillations is non-existent.
Without a robust correlation, the case for causation is weak, regardless of the GH theory, because it shows that there must be other stronger forcing factors at work.
This is actually being confirmed with the current cooling since end 2000, which is being attributed to natural variability (a.k.a. natural forcing factors) that is more than offsetting all-time record increases in atmospheric CO2.
This is not to say that the radiative forcing of CO2 is not correct; only that the observed record shows that other stronger factors are playing a more important role in driving our climate than IPCC assumes.
Max
[Response: Yet another leap in logic to an unsustainable conclusion. You really are very good at that. – gavin]
Rick Brown (1006)
You wrote:
Here are results from a poll conducted by the Triangle Business Journal from 5-15 December
To the question:
http://triangle.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2009/12/14/daily28.html
Another pre-Climategate poll by the Pew Research Center showed a significant drop in the number of Americans who believe global warming is happening, is human-caused, and is a serious problem.
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-10-23-poll-finds-sharp-rise-in-global-warming-skepticism
The recent (pre-Climategate) Science Museum poll showed that less than one-third of UK respondents felt that global warming was a serious problem.
No polls are 100% conclusive, but I believe that Climategate has caused a shift in those who believe that human-caused warming is a problem.
The perceptions of the general public appear to be changing.
Max
re: manacker and “public perception”
Max’s disingenuous play here is to tell the public what their perception is based on a single op-ed he likes. He repeats statements about scientists’ credibility, cutely quotation-marked for faux objectivity, in order to reinforce the impression given by those statements. In a typical debating trick, a statement he first non-committally presented as public perception (that some scientists have been acting as advocates rather than scientists) has suddenly morphed into fact at #1003.
Of course, these are only my perceptions.
manacker, aka Max #969, go to your nearest spreadsheet, and plot the following data points:
x_1,y_2 = (1, 10)
x_2, y_2 = (2, 57000000)
Ask your spreadsheet program for a trend line with equation and R-squared. You should get something like this:
y = 6E+06x – 6E+06
R-squared = 1
You have in other words a perfect correlation.
Substitute in any pair of numbers in the above. As long as x_1 < x_2 and y_1 < y_2, you will get R-squared = 1.
“Statistically significant” is not a noise phrase. If you have a data analysis that does not pass a test of statistical significance, you can’t call it a trend. To call a trend, you need enough data points that you are not just picking up a short-term deviation from the longer-term nature of the data.
Since you like looking at short-term variations without checking statistical significance, try this. Average October-November temperatures from GISStemp from 1998 to 2009 (November 2009 recently showed up), and do a regression. What you get is a trend of 0.028C per year (2.8C per century), R-squared 0.49 (i.e., 70% of the variance is explained by the correlation). Statistically significant? Who cares. The results look scary. Max, should I rant on about how this proves that global warming is real, or should I stick to standard scientific practice of checking if a result is significant before I make anything of it?
Max(1012)
I understand you deny the radiative forcing of CO2 and its warming function.
All here know there are so many factors causing temperature change as well as the various relationships with various lags and different time-constants. In such a dynamic system, even in a linear system, a simple correlation between a certain input x(t) and the output Y(t) without lags often gives weak value not because there is no relation but the oversimplified “model” is wrong.
Joe #1010:
Do what I do.
I have a PhD in computer science and no experience in climate science. I try to understand what I can of what I read here and in the research literature, and to my own independent debunking of denialist literature.
My conclusion? If there was a serious case against the mainstream, it hasn’t been unearthed by the denial crew. On the contrary, their approach is shabbily dishonest. They cherry pick, wilfully misunderstand basic techniques of data analysis, tell outright lies, rely on ad hominem attack to substitute for facts and argue against straw targets (e.g. that climate scientists attribute all temperature variation to CO_2). See the link above to the Plimer-Monbiot exchange on Australian TV.
I would like to believe my scientific understanding is sufficient to tell whether the mainstream is doing likewise. The CRU emails certainly are not evidence of that: individuals venting in a private conversation, words taken out of context.
If you don’t recognize an anti-science campaign when you see one, you probably also thought smoking was good for you.
Joe says: “But: they are also asking a lot, since their conclusions have pretty far-reaching consequences for our lives. Therefore, there are more demands on them.”
Oh, so you would make the standards for scientific truth more stringent if it has implications we don’t like? Somehow, I don’t think that is going to be adopted as a tenet of the scientific method. Scientific truth is scientific truth. You can take 90% CL to the bank.
I believe that the science is probably ok although I have not studied it more than reading blogs like this.
But hey philip: you as computer guy should know that computer models predicting future are always wrong. The only question is: how much wrong? And we all know the answer: nobody really knows until we wait and find out. So maybe…. maybe not….
“If you don’t recognize an anti-science campaign when you see one, you probably also thought smoking was good for you.”
Hah, this was a prime example of weak argumentation. Analogies never work.
A new SwiftHack controversy is doing the rounds on the blogosphere, to do with a Russian Institute of Economic Analysis “think tank” report claiming that CRU fiddled the Russian data. Currently it’s being used by James Delingpole of the Telegraph and his ilk.
See Deltoid for more on why the claims are “misguided” to say the very least:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php
Oh, I don’t know, sometimes models work quite well.
Phillip #1009:
I agree with of your comments about Monbiot overreacting over the whole CRU scandal, but also within the context of that debate how it meant that the CRU e-mail was not the topic of the debate which it could easily have become.
I thought Jones was poor allowing Plimer to ramble on without answering the question. But I think Monbiot was completely right not to engage with any of the furphies Plimer spouted whilst avoiding answering the questions relating to the content of his book. If it had been me, I would have had a hard time not engaging and calling him out on so many of the issues he raised, but Monbiot did, and in terms of the debate Monbiot demonstrated on just the few issues to do with Plimers book that they did discuss Plimer could not back up the claims he made. The reason so few of the problems with Plimer’s book were addressed were because Jones allowed Plimer to waffle on for far too long whilst he evaded the questions.
Monbiot’s approach to the debate was an interesting learning lesson for me. More so than the issues addressed. My former supervisor from 1989 at UNSW demolished Plimers book in the Australian enough for me to know what was what with its content.
Kevin
Philip Machanick wrote in 1017:
Joe responded in 1019:
A bit more than an analogy.
In comment 594 I gave a list of five public relations “think tanks” that were involved in both the tobacco and AGW disinformation campaigns — plus some analyses of strategies common to both campaigns. In 602 I gave a list of twelve more organizations, in 653 I gave some of my own analysis as to why there is this commonality, and in 822 I have included a link to a specific document where a PR firm recommends that to Philip Morris that an organization called TASSC (The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition) that they are creating should be devoted not only to smoking, but global warming, nuclear waste desposal, biotechnology, eco-labeling for EC products and food processing and packaging so as to get funding from other industries and not make it appear that TASCC is strictly a tobacco front organization. Incidentally, they put global warming at the top of the list, not me.
Do try and keep up…
Joe, you claim to have a PhD in chemistry, and say you only read blogs. How is this working out for you professionally?
Even the magazine put out by the American Chemical Society has covered climate change.
http://climateknowledge.org/figures/Rood_Climate_Change_AOSS480_Documents/Thacker_Travails_Santer_Interview_EnvSciTech_2006.pdf
Perhaps you missed it; coverage is spotty– the same ACS magazine fired their science reporter the following year: http://www.frontgroups.org/node/267
Joe wrote: “How can we uneducated laymen believe in the conclusions made by eg scientists at RC? I have a PhD in chemistry but when it comes to climate, what choice do we have but believe these guys?”
You don’t have to have the specialized knowledge and skills that are required to DO climate science, in order to UNDERSTAND climate science.
As a reasonably intelligent and reasonably educated layman, who has had a lifelong interest in all the sciences but no specific scientific training, I don’t find it at all difficult to distinguish between the conclusions arising from actual climate science being done by actual climate scientists, and the denialist pseudo-science and outright lies spewed by ExxonMobil-funded cranks, frauds, liars and dupes.
If you have a PhD in chemistry, then you most certainly have the brains to understand the basics of the science of anthropogenic global warming if you make the effort. There are plenty of resources accessible through this very website that can get you off to an excellent start. There is no need to “believe” anything on faith. No climate scientist is asking you to “believe” anything on faith.
It’s the dishonest deniers who pretend it is a matter of “belief”, and who promote the idea that “we uneducated laymen” are incapable of knowing for ourselves what is going on, and who generally go on from there to tell us that we shouldn’t “believe” Al Gore because he’s fat, but we should “believe” Rush Limbaugh because he’s … well, he’s fat too, but he’s “conservative”, so believe him.
PS to 1023 above
In relation to 653, here are some searches people might want to try:
site:http://tobaccodocuments.org “global warming” (194)
site:http://tobaccodocuments.org dioxin (169)
site:http://tobaccodocuments.org ddt (244)
(112)
site:http://tobaccodocuments.org asbestos (1070)
(169)
Two more items for the list given in 1026…
site:http://tobaccodocuments.org “nuclear waste” (90)
site:http://tobaccodocuments.org “acid rain” (229)
You know, the “Al Gore is fat” meme, irrelevant as it is to anything of real importance, is annoyingly outdated, too.
Sharon Begley reports that as of October 2009: “. . . the extra weight . . . is nowhere in evidence.”
http://www.newsweek.com/id/220552
Recent photos agree with her. But then this idea comes from the denialosphere, where no idea ever dies (or even ages.)
Just saying.
Timothy Chase, thanks for pulling this all “denialist links” (pun intentional) together. It’s important that folks realize how much effort goes into creating “doubt.”
“But that is not the topic here, Rick. It has more to do with the impact of the leaked emails on the perceived credibility of the climate scientists involved.”
A key point. Public perception is all that the more seriously motivated (trillions of dollars cash flow hanging in the balance) contrarian parties have to work with, since the scientific part of the discussion is effectively closed off.
So, the financially interested will take what they’ve got and work with it. Focusing on trivialities to do with data is apparently the best course available, which does not bode well in the long term for industrial contrarians. Eventually the public will see the big picture and become inoculated against distracting twaddle of the CRU type.
That’s probably why we’re seeing a general retreat and retrenchment in new positions from those with money at stake, temperature-based carbon taxes and the like. Ultimately defeat is inevitable, clearly the same amount of money is not going to flow in the same directions as before, so now it’s a matter of delaying things long enough to at least realize some fraction of revenues previously expected. We’ve seen this sequence before with fluorocarbons and tetraethyl lead.
Parenthetically I can’t help but laugh when I picture whatever interests commissioned the CRU episode gnashing their teeth, victims of Tiger Woods’ inconveniently timed bending of the fenders of his Escalade. That single event will have sucked some of the air out of the synthetic CRU “scandal” which was already crippled to start with, lacking as it did any real opportunity for further development by the press.
“You need to look at the SSU records (and successors) or the radiosonde data to see the fingerprint of CO2 increases. But you know that already. -gavin,908”
So, let us look at the Radio-sonde records from the Hadley Centre, from 1958 to date. The easy way is to quote from their “frequently used charts” which show no cooling in the lower stratosphere from 1995, and which display much the same result for UAH and RSS satellite data.
The harder way is to down-load their ASC11 file, monthly series. In this they quote altitude in equivalent pressure, hectopascals (hpa), and the lower and mid stratosphere ranges from 300 hpa to 30pa, approximately 30,000 to 80,000 feet.
For the first two altitudes (300 hpa and 200 hpa) the trends over 51 years are warming (not cooling) at 1.3 and 0.035 degrees C per decade, respectively.
The higher altitudes do show overall cooling trends, but, the trends ceased some time ago. Since CO2 concentrations have been increasing steadily, and the two are said to be related, it is a fair question to ask when the cooling trends ceased to be significantly different from zero.
The answers are as follows:
150hpa (44,000 feet) no significant cooling for 20 years.
100hpa (53,000 feet) no significant cooling for 16 years.
50hpa (66,000 feet) no significant cooling for 15 years.
For the highest level quoted, 30hpa (79,000 feet) the overall cooling is much greater at 0.57 degrees C per decade, but there has been no significant cooling for the past 9 years.
Does this smudge the fingerprint, Gavin?
Thanks for commenting, secular
I just wanted to make the point about predicting future with computer models. There are uncertainties! There is no other way to say it.
On the other hand, it is a given that H20 and CO2 absorb electromagnetic radiation in the infrared range. No question about that.
Ladbury:” Oh, so you would make the standards for scientific truth more stringent if it has implications we don’t like? Somehow, I don’t think that is going to be adopted as a tenet of the scientific method. Scientific truth is scientific truth. ”
You are overstating the “scientific truth” here. Like I said earlier, the models and theories can be scientifically sound by current standards, but they may still turn out to be wrong. Only time is the ultimate test.
Anyway as I said earlier, I am no expert in the field. So thanks for comments and I will keep following the conversation.
Doug Bostrom (999), nothing annoys a witch hunter more than a suspect who stubbornly refuses to cower.
You must have forgotten that Switzerland also secretly holds a pile of ill-gotten gains for the bad guys. Now that I’ve reminded you (no thanks necessary) you can throw that on Max’s ad hominem pile, too.
BTW, I owned a few shares of Exxon a number of years back (before they were Exxon-Mobil) and I had a close neighbor friend 30 years ago who was a VP-Production with Mobil. Sure wish I could find a way to wash this ugly taint off.
I thought the interesting thing about the Gerson op-ed (and we’ve tangled before) was that upfront he didn’t deny the science. That’s huge. Yeah he had to get digs in over tone and the so-called high priesthood, but still, that’s a far cry from Imhofe et al. Manacker may want to change his poster boy.
Ray, I went to my bank and gave them a paper showing IPCC’s 90% CL and they didn’t add one penny to my balance! Where did I slip up?
dhogaza (1021)
For a good treatise on why they usually do not work well, particularly if they cover a long period, read The Black Swan, by Nassim Taleb.
Max
#1031 Fred Staples:
Randel et al. (2009) updated the analysis of observed stratospheric temperature variability and trends on the basis of satellite, radiosonde, and lidar observations. Their research reveals that temperature changes in the lower stratosphere show cooling of ~0.5 K/decade over much of the globe for 1979–2007. This cooling of the lower stratosphere did not occur in a straight line but as two downward steps in temperature that are coincident with the end of the warming associated with the El Chichon and Pinatubo volcanic eruptions. Significant warming events occurred in the stratosphere following the volcanic eruptions of Agung (March 1963), El Chichon (April 1982) and Mt. Pinatubo (June 1991). To avoid a significant influence on trend results, data were omitted for two years following each eruption in the analysis. In the global mean, the lower stratosphere has not noticeably cooled since 1995. This is no surprise because ozone levels are increasing which should be causing a warming trend.
In the middle and upper stratosphere there was mean cooling of 0.5–1.5 K/decade during 1979–2005, with the greatest cooling in the upper stratosphere near 40–50 km. Ozone concentration above 35 km is minimal so ozone depletion is much less a factor at these levels than cooling due to CO2.
The 11 year solar (sunspot) cycle also influences stratospheric temperatures. Randel et al. also observed statistically significant positive values near ~0.5 K in the lower stratosphere for both sets of satellite data and for the different radiosonde data sets with a maximum value of ~1 K in the upper stratosphere.
Model calculations suggest that the upper stratosphere trends are due, about equally, to decreases in ozone and increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases. (Ajavon et al., 2007)
Randel, W. J., et al. (2009). An update of observed stratospheric temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 114, D02107, doi:10.1029/2008JD010421.
Ajavon, et al. (2007, February). Scientific assessment of ozone depletion: 2006. Retrieved from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Earth System Research Laboratory Chemical Sciences Division Web site: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/2006/report.html
Thank you, Phil, 958. It looks convincing, but I am not really convinced. The data is based on long run trends, around 0.5 degrees C per century, through the long climb out of the Little Ice Age, down from the forties peak to 1997, and up, sharply up, about 0.4 degrees C, from 1999 to 2002. (Similar increases have been seen before, but they have always fallen back, equally sharply)
It is the validity of that sharp increase which needs to be tested.
You can see the issue in the Hadley radio-sonde data plotting mean trends across the atmosphere from 1958 to 2009, 1979-2009, and 1958 – 1978.
The ’59 to’78 trends are negative at all levels – no warming anywhere in the atmosphere.
The ’59 to 09 trends are positive in the troposhere, around 1.5 degrees per decade, and most of that increase derives from the ’79 to 09 period, which exhibits the same trends.
So, it is trend changes in the satellite era that need to be tested, around a mean of 1.3 degrees per decade, and it is the adjustments (if any) in the last ten years which are crucial.
Stratospheric Cooling illustrated here:
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/greenhouse_gases.html#stratospheric_cooling
Secular Animist (1025)
Let’s analyze your statement:
“dishonest deniers” is a judgmental label to put on those who happen to disagree with your personal viewpoint, SA, and smacks of an “ad hom”; try substituting with “rational skeptics” (as they call themselves)
“pretend” (“make believe with the intent to deceive”) is also judgmental, as it introduces the intent to deceive; try “suggest”
“we uneducated laymen” is a belittling putdown of yourself; it is not only the climate scientists with their PhD’s that can understand what is going on; any interested and intelligent person can study the data and make up his/her own mind; replace with “interested laymen”
“we shouldn’t believe Al Gore because he’s fat” is a new twist on things, which really has nothing to do with the debate; “we shouldn’t believe Al Gore because he has twisted the science to grossly exaggerate the impact of anthropogenic warming in order to frighten people” would be a more correct phrase.
I would eliminate the whole phrase starting with “but we should believe Rush Limbaugh…” as it has absolutely nothing to do with the ongoing debate surrounding AGW.
Your sentence now reads:
Even with the “upgrade” the sentence is still basically wrong.
Skeptics are those who are usually cast into the role of “believers” (in anti-scientific “creationism”, anti-Darwin “intelligent design” beliefs, etc.) by those who support the premise that AGW is a serious threat.
The elitist argument “only a climate scientist can judge the validity of the science and hence the projections” and its extensions: “2,500 scientists can’t be wrong” and “the science is settled” have been made by those who support the premise that AGW is a serious threat. I have not seen this argument used by those who are skeptical of the AGW premise.
I am personally rationally skeptical of the premise that AGW is a serious threat, but I can accept that others (most likely the majority on this blog site) may have a different view on this.
That is what makes a debate based on a rational discussion interesting.
Max
Rod B says: 17 December 2009 at 1:48 PM
[Blah]
The fellow in question is not a suspected witch, he’s an intriguing specimen, conspicuously so.
I’m fascinated by RC for a couple of reasons. One is emotional; my irritation with what I see as pernicious degeneration compels me to comment on occasion, a largely pointless or at least fruitless effort. At the same time, I’m intellectually teased by what I see as a typical case of an interest group conscripting a bunch of volunteers to help them do business, much akin to the firearms industry here in the United States.
When I step back and set aside my annoyance I still find many of the comments here astounding in terms of utter incompetence and lack of preparation or effort they display.
What’s arguably more amazing is the level of persistence and what for lack of a better word coming to mind I’ll call “diligence” a tiny handful of posters here exhibit.
There’s a huge gulf between the former and latter group, a gap as large as the difference in proportion by population.
The “witch” you refer to is a great example of the really fanatical, quality grade of the second group.
Clearly there are some underlying societal differences between these groups. I’ve been looking at what little (and extremely flawed, I’m afraid) public demographic data is available for this site as well as ClimateAudit. I wish better data was publicly available; I don’t think anything I’m seeing is remotely useful in drawing conclusions about the general characteristics people frequenting either site.
Still, what I think I see is what is effectively a rabble, headed by an elite. “Headed” actually is not the right term; I don’t think there’s much if any organized guidance. More, it’s sort of a monkey see, monkey do affair. Plausible though ultimately irrational ideas are spawned by the elites of the group and then repeated by the rest.
That’s not to say there no actual “skeptics” in the strict sense of the word; I do see the occasional trace of real skepticism here, but far more I see what can be bundled and broadly headed “contrarians”.
Those contrarians appear to subdivide, or at least that’s what I think. In one group a lot of innocent but naive and often lazy persons, on the other a few better informed individuals with some motivation to mount a spirited but fundamentally flawed defense of an untenable position. Why do they do it, that’s what I wonder? Undoubtedly some of them do so for commercial reasons, but does that leave anybody else, and if so, what’s their purpose?
MR SH (1016)
You wrote:
You understand wrong in that case.
I have no qualms with the GH theory, which tells us that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 should cause a theoretical temperature increase of around 1°C, all other things being equal.
As we are currently seeing since the end of 2000 (and the Met Office has conceded), all other things (i.e. natural forcing factors) are NOT equal, thereby more than offsetting the 0.2°C warming projected by the models as a result of all-time record increases in CO2 to result in a net observed cooling of 0.1°C over the period
There’s the rub.
Max
Max — six points out of 160. Reason?
Philip Machanik (1015)
You gave me a lecture in statistics and then asked:
Your ranting does not prove anything, Philip, but sure, the Earth has warmed since the record started, so “global warming is real”. You don’t have to prove that. The observed temperature record, with all its warts and blemishes, proves that.
It tells us that there were multi-decadal warming/cooling cycles (approx. 60 years per total cycle), with an underlying warming trend of 0.04°C per decade over the entire 159 years of the modern HadCRUT record.
Were human GHGs (principally CO2) involved in this gradual warming trend? Probably.
Do we know everything there is to know about the many possibly cyclical natural forcing factors that impact our climate? Of course not.
Were natural forcing factors (some known, some as yet unknown) involved in both the trend and the cyclical oscillations? Most likely.
Do we know how much warming was caused by each forcing factor? Not yet.
Can we realistically project what is going to happen to our climate in 100 years based on the knowledge we have? Of course not.
Max
To 1004 Carlo. You wrote: “Just out
AIRS satellite data shows positive water vapor feedback”
Fascinating observations but I’m not sure how they show a positive water vapor feedback since one could also argue that the increase in water vapour content could be due to some other source of heat such as through natural multi-decadal oscillations. Mojib Latif in his WCC3 presentation asked: “How much did internal decadal variability contribute to the warming during the recent decades?”. It is CONCEIVABLE that a source of heat such as from the ocean would have increased the global temperature
leading to higher water vapour content, more greenhouse effect, a heating of the troposphere and a subsequent cooling of the stratosphere. That POSSIBILITY has not been excluded from what I have read so far on climatology.
Mark A, York (1034)
No need to change the reference to the Gerson op-ed.
I can agree with most of what he has written.
Can you?
Max
“I can agree with most of what he has written.
Can you?”
Gerson, speechwriter for George Bush. Publicist of miles-long fantasy tunnels stuffed with WMD, cynical manufacture of public fear in pursuit of foreign military adventures, etc.
Partisan hack.
Nope, not my go-to-guy for reliable guidance on important policy choices. As an established purveyor of misguidance with drastic consequences, everything he writes needs to be verified for truth. Why bother reading his work when there are plenty of authors without such damaged credibility?
On BBC “Point of View: Clive James reflects on the media coverage of man-made global warming and the need for minds to be open”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qng8
Hank Roberts (1043)
You wrote:
Please be more specific, Hank.
Max
A “Far Northern Perspective on Climategate and Copenhagen”
http://alaskareport.com/news109/x71362_copenhagen.htm
Max