It won’t have escaped many of our readers’ notice that there has been what can only be described as a media frenzy (mostly in the UK) with regards to climate change in recent weeks. The coverage has contained more bad reporting, misrepresentation and confusion on the subject than we have seen in such a short time anywhere. While the UK newspaper scene is uniquely competitive (especially compared to the US with over half a dozen national dailies selling in the same market), and historically there have been equally frenzied bouts of mis-reporting in the past on topics as diverse as pit bulls, vaccines and child abductions, there is something new in this mess that is worth discussing. And that has been a huge shift in the Overton window for climate change.
In any public discussion there are bounds which people who want to be thought of as having respectable ideas tend to stay between. This is most easily seen in health care debates. In the US, promotion of a National Health Service as in the UK or a single-payer system as in Canada is so far outside the bounds of normal health care politics, that these options are only ever brought up by ‘cranks’ (sigh). Meanwhile in the UK, discussions of health care delivery solutions outside of the NHS framework are never heard in the mainstream media. This limit on scope of the public debate has been called the Overton window.
The window does not have to remain static. Pressure groups and politicians can try and shift the bounds deliberately, or sometimes they are shifted by events. That seems to have been the case in the climate discussion. Prior to the email hack at CRU there had long been a pretty widespread avoidance of ‘global warming is a hoax’ proponents in serious discussions on the subject. The sceptics that were interviewed tended to be the slightly more sensible kind – people who did actually realise that CO2 was a greenhouse gas for instance. But the GW hoaxers were generally derided, or used as punchlines for jokes. This is not because they didn’t exist and weren’t continually making baseless accusations against scientists (they did and they were), but rather that their claims were self-evidently ridiculous and therefore not worth airing.
However, since the emails were released, and despite the fact that there is no evidence within them to support any of these claims of fraud and fabrication, the UK media has opened itself so wide to the spectrum of thought on climate that the GW hoaxers have now suddenly find themselves well within the mainstream. Nothing has changed the self-evidently ridiculousness of their arguments, but their presence at the media table has meant that the more reasonable critics seem far more centrist than they did a few months ago.
A few examples: Monckton being quoted as a ‘prominent climate sceptic’ on the front page of the New York Times this week (Wow!); The Guardian digging up baseless fraud accusations against a scientist at SUNY that had already been investigated and dismissed; The Sunday Times ignoring experts telling them the IPCC was right in favor of the anti-IPCC meme of the day; The Daily Mail making up quotes that fit their GW hoaxer narrative; The Daily Express breathlessly proclaiming the whole thing a ‘climate con’; The Sunday Times (again) dredging up unfounded accusations of corruption in the surface temperature data sets. All of these stories are based on the worst kind of oft-rebunked nonsense and they serve to make the more subtle kind of scepticism pushed by Lomborg et al seem almost erudite.
Perhaps this is driven by editors demanding that reporters come up with something new (to them) that fits into an anti-climate science theme that they are attempting to stoke. Or perhaps it is driven by the journalists desperate to maintain their scoop by pretending to their editors that this nonsense hasn’t been debunked a hundred times already? Who knows? All of these bad decisions are made easier when all of the actually sensible people, or people who know anything about the subject at all, are being assailed on all sides, and aren’t necessarily keen to find the time to explain, once again, that yes, the world is warming.
So far, so stupid. But even more concerning is the reaction from outside the UK media bubble. Two relatively prominent and respected US commentators – Curtis Brainard at CJR and Tom Yulsman in Colorado – have both bemoaned the fact that the US media (unusually perhaps) has not followed pell-mell into the fact-free abyss of their UK counterparts. Their point apparently seems to be that since much news print is being devoted to a story somewhere, then that story must be worth following. Indeed, since the substance to any particularly story is apparently proportional to the coverage, by not following the UK bandwagon, US journalists are missing a big story. Yulsman blames the lack of environmental beat reporters for lack of coverage in the US, but since most of the damage and bad reporting on this is from clueless and partisan news desk reporters in the UK, I actually expect that it is the environmental beat reporters’ prior experience with the forces of disinformation that prevents the contagion crossing the pond. To be sure, reporters should be able and willing (and encouraged) to write stories about anything to do with climate science and its institutions – but that kind of reporting is something very different from regurgitating disinformation, or repeating baseless accusations as fact.
So what is likely to happen now? As the various panels and reports on the CRU affair conclude, it is highly likely (almost certain in fact) that no-one will conclude that there has been any fraud, fabrication or scientific misconduct (since there hasn’t been). Eventually, people will realise (again) that the GW hoaxers are indeed cranks, and the mainstream window on their rants will close. In the meantime, huge amounts of misinformation, sprinkled liberally with plenty of disinformation, will be spread and public understanding on the issue will likely decline. As the history of the topic has shown, public attention to climate change comes and goes and this is likely to be seen as the latest bump on that ride.
Antarctica can’t TOTALY melt in some decades , but in centuries / millenia
“In media relations Al Gore has done more damage in shaping public opinion then all the skeptical blogs combined. He says the dumbest things…”
Funny, plimer says that the Sun is made of iron and he’s not damaging the denialist cause.
Funny, Beck is saying that climate scientists should kill themselves and he’s not damaging the denialist cause.
But Al Gore has done damage by explaining to people in terms they understand the science.
Yeah.
Right.
You prattle on about tarzan.
Me tarzan?
You cheeta.
SecularAnimist (425) — Already done. Read Mark Lynas’s “Six Degrees” and Peter D. Ward’s “Under a Green Sky”.
Frank Giger, #436:
You confuse me. You seem to recognize the difference between facts and hysteria, yet you say that your “skepticism came from outrageous claims by pro-AGW activists and politicians.” So… you had an emotional reaction to people saying things you didn’t want to hear? And that froze your brain up so that facts no longer mattered?
First, why don’t you have that same emotional reaction to the idiocy you see from the anti-AGW activists and politicians, which to me looks rather more nefarious and transparently self-serving (i.e. oil money)?
Second, why does it matter at all? Facts are facts. How can you be skeptical if you understand the facts, no matter what other people are saying around you?
I myself am frustrated beyond belief at the number of people that have come in here swinging baseball bats in anger, as if the people here, or Gavin, or anyone else committed some heinous crime by doing science.
The facts are very clear for anyone that bothers to learn.
The facts are also very easy to muddle for anyone that doesn’t bother to learn, and there are lots of people eager to do the muddling.
You do not get a free pass in saying what amounts to “I’m skeptical because Al Gore made me that way.” That’s a cop out.
And on tobacco… well, you expose your roots by, once again, watering an issue down to dollars. Everything is “my wallet” and money in modern America. What about the millions of people that needlessly died painful deaths of cancer, because an entire industry was able to fool the public and control the politics for decades, when they knew that what they were doing was downright evil? And in the end, if you want to talk dollars and cents, it cost us all small fortunes in health care costs for those people.
Isn’t there an important lesson somewhere in there?
Laura Bailey (429)
Congratulations, you have identified an anthropogenic effect of CO2 for which there are no skeptics or deniers. And more importantly you are trying to do something real about it. Your Ocean Temperature Regulatory System sounds like an anthropogenic reversal project we can believe in. Much more likely to affect the climate in a positive direction than all the cap-and-trade nonsense and unworkable legislation.
You are climate scientists who are actually taking direct action. Veerabhadran Ramanathan, one of climate science’s giants, will devote the rest of his career to Project Surya – his attempt to distribute 3 Billion clean burning cooking stoves to Indian mothers and, perhaps some day, to Chinese users also. This brown cloud pollution abatement projectshould be clear to the most skeptical Joe public and will collect real climate data that should make climate statisticians blush with its accuracy.
Lots of luck and hope that some of our more active posters would also become active doers.
“447
arthur says:
18 February 2010 at 4:36 PM
David B. Benson : Vikings were living there with crops and animals seems sufficent proof to me that there was less ice then than today”
How come that is so convincing when you weren’t there?
Read up. Actually, here’s someone doing the reading for you.
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/22/vrKfz8NjEzU
PS they adapted to the climate by dying of…
“444
John Peter says:
18 February 2010 at 4:15 PM
Stop right where you are and set aside a couple of brain cells for the following statement: there is no such thing as a private e-mail.”
Yes there is.
Privacy is a social and legal construct.
I can just walk into your home while your wife and you are getting it on.
No privacy whatsoever.
But you’ll still have me arrested as an intruder or at least a peeping tom (hey, your wife reflected those photons out into the street where there’s NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY!).
426: Lucky Dog wrote: “For me the key questions of AGW supporters are not: Why do you believe that mankind is warming the planet? or What evidence do you have?. The key questions are: How is it now possible for mankind to understand with certainty how this planet’s global climate works? What scientific breakthroughs occurred – and when did they occur?.
I would really like to see a reporter/ author publish the story of how it became possible for mankind to understand with certainty how this planet’s climate works. After all, that would have to rank as one of mankind’s greatest scientific achievements and the story should be told – if there is a story to tell.”
The story has been told over and over and over.
Read Spencer Weart’s web page http://www.aip.org/history/climate/ on the Discovery of Global Warming, or his book of the same name. If you want something slightly more mathematical than Weart try Bob Archer’s http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/ .
Read the books mentioned in the sidebar. Go to the “start here” link above and read. There are literally thousands and thousands of articles that led to the current understanding of climate. This work began in the early 19 Century and continues to this day.
“450
Lynn Vincentnathan says:
18 February 2010 at 4:45 PM
That’s also the time in U.S. history when the difference between the rich and poor as the least.”
You’ll also notice that the messiest and least efficient countries have a tendency to be the ones with the greatest disparity between rich and poor.
They also tend to have the worst human rights, the lowest standard of living (adjusted to mean wealth), lower education standards than their peers and poorer general health (except amongst the few rich who get THE BEST care).
They also have the loudest voices complaining about rights etc being trampled on by attempts to solve a global problem globally.
PS The US are now downwind of China and now are experiencing acid rain and its’ deleterious effects on lumber woods.
They’re now complaining about pollution.
Green eco nazis that they are!
“447.David B. Benson : Vikings were living there with crops and animals seems sufficent proof to me that there was less ice then than today-I agree apon doubting (skepticism is essential in science) , do YOU have any reliable proof that Greenland had MORE ice in AD 1000 than today?”
No, the Norse didn’t settle in areas that were glaciated, then or now. Their eastern and western settlements, near present-day Narsarsuaq and Nuuk respectively, are in low coastal areas that were vegetated and glacier-free at the time, as they are today. The ice sheet lies inland from their settlements.
When the Norse first arrived they chose valleys with good grazing and some wood. Over the following centuries, grazing reduced vegetation and soil particularly on more marginal upland terrain, making the settlements less resilient when the climate was harsh.
Sea ice was of more direct concern to the Norse than the ice sheet. The Viking Age expansion that created the Greenland colonies was facilitated by years with relatively little sea ice; the abandonment of Norse settlements in 14th and 15th centuries occurred as sea ice was making travel and other aspects of their life more difficult.
It’s all a grand story, with other chapters on the Thule Eskimo expansion. But no one ever lived on the ice sheet.
#386 Bob reply to Jimbo
“Jimbo –
Do you work, or have you ever worked, in a job where e-mail is a primary form of communication? If so, how would you feel about having every single word you’ve ever typed into an e-mail, in any context or mood … shown to other people, or better yet, everyone on the planet…”
———
I have worked where e-mail (after talking) is the secondary form of communication (you should get out more more).
What I feel should not come into it. If I commit a crime and am caught by the police I will feel bad, but my feelings should not get me off the hook. The public interest demands that I am caught and put on trial to face punishment. Don’t you agree Bob?
Example: Nigerian 419 email scammers get caught and are punished by the Nigerian authorities. Would you defend them as having their privacy invaded because the authorities hacked into their email account and prosecuted them? Would you complain if the hacker was a concerned citizen hacker who leaked the scammers private correspondence?
CFU #452 Excusing bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. Alex I’ll take adolescent arguements for $800. Double-Jeopardy – category – Straw Man !
Sweet..
Well, now I’ve seen it all. Richard ‘global warming will reduce mortality on balance’ Tol has accused a real scientist of sloppy work. I have a request for you Richard: should your work-related private correspondence ever be subpoenaed, FOIA’d or otherwise requested at the point of a gun, please wantonly delete and plead fat finger. If it’s hacked/stolen, investigate the possibility of a ransom.
I think I speak for most admirers of economics when I say we just don’t want to know what currently passes for thought in the field.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2454318/posts
…………another Weather Channel veteran, says NASA exhibits “a clear bias toward removing higher-latitude, high-altitude, and rural locations” from its sample. Andean weather gauges, for instance, are overlooked, while regional temperatures now are “determined by interpolation from stations hundreds of miles away on the coast or in the Amazon,” D’Aleo says. He compares this to calculating Minneapolis’s average temperature by reading thermometers in St. Louis and Kansas City.
[Response: This is nonsense. – gavin]
Don’t know about Bob, but yeah, I really hope those asshats who stole the CRU mail are caught by the police (who are working on it), and put on trial to face punishment.
Meanwhile, everyone knows where Jones is, and he hasn’t been charged with any crime.
PS read up on the definition of straw man.
Like most denial dittos you get it wrong.
Kate7 says:
“…………another Weather Channel veteran, says NASA exhibits “a clear bias toward removing higher-latitude, high-altitude, and rural locations” from its sample.”
Which tells you how little D’Aleo knows about how the temp series is constructed. Removing stations in high latitudes (cold places) will NOT make it look warmer; what gets used is the anomalies. Since the poles are warming faster than the rest of the planet, removing stations from those regions will make the anomaly smaller, not larger.
CFU (457) You are very much in error. There is no expectation of privacy in emails. Many, many courts have so found.
Besides how is the server to process spam without looking at each and every one. How do I check for viruses on my systems.
If you expect privacy in your emails, you are a fool. Read the link (if you have time) You might learn something.
no hard feelings, just calling a spade a spade.
Jimbo on law: “What I feel should not come into it.”
But what *society* feels should.
Or are the only laws those that get carved on stone blocks in remote mountains?
“If I commit a crime and am caught by the police I will feel bad, but my feelings should not get me off the hook.”
OK.
But the logical disconnect here you’re hoping nobody will point out is that
a) The CRU emails show no crime committed
b) The hacker broke the law unless someone has proof of who it was and that their actions were deliberate
c) Just because you CAN break the law doesn’t mean you must prove you haven’t
Jimbo, it is illegal to speed past a schoolyard in 1989 except that the statute of limitations for such a crime has now passed and we don’t have any cam footage.
Therefore Jimbo is guilty of speeding in a residential area.
It is indeed unfortunate that the science of climate study has come to be so politicised. There is much at stake. However much of this damage also falls to a group of leading climate scientists that chose to drag it into the political realm to begin with. To resort to rhetorical tactics of advocacy and name calling places them dead square in the sites of politics. It diminishes science. What were you expecting to happen?
Sad to say but the saying that comes to mind is “what goes around, comes around”
stickery
[Response: Care to substantiate that? – gavin]
CFU (457)
There is no expectation of privacy in emails
None, even lawyer/client. Courts have spoken.
System administrators need access to handle virus’s, spam etc.
If you expect privacy in that environment you are either foolishly taking risks or, more likely, uneducated
sorry, the real world is tough
Hi,
I realise that this may not be the best thread for this, so apologies.
I’m involved in a discussion with an acquaintance about the surface temperature data. The question we’ve got is regarding how new or old stations are integrated into the dataset. I’ve tried to look through the web for info but found googling and searching realclimate to be of little use. Any relevant references, preferably to peer-reviewed papers or other detailed sources would be much appreciated.
Here’s my understanding: Temperature anomalies are what is interesting to climate science. We take a baseline period (this is done for each station, correct?) and then measure the temperature anomalies from the station. The anomalies are then collated, averaged out with different weightings and form the global temperature anomaly graphs that we see.
But how are new stations put in line with older stations? For example, let’s say we have a new station in a fairly remote location, where there haven’t previously been any temperature measurements. A set of measurements are taken over a few years and averaged out to form a baseline (right?) and then anomalies can be measured. But we surely can’t simply add a 0 anomaly for the baseline period into the global temperature network? Wouldn’t that serve to pull the average anomaly down? As would all future anomalies, as they would be less than the global anomaly, unless there was massive warming in that one place. And how would we relate this to the standard baseline used for the global anomaly graph (say 1979-1990)?
Or what if we found an old data set, that seemed fairly reliable but was truncated in 1950. Would this be integrated? And how?
Thanks for your time.
I can’t understand why so many climate scientists come off as being arrogant.
After all, they’re only getting their honesty, integrity and motives challenged 24/7 by the opposition.
No reason to be so touchy.
Jeez!
arthur — There is good evidence for less ice right now in Greenland that at any time in several millenia. However, it would take some effort to relocate on the web, so fear you will have to do so yoourself if you doubt it.
By the way, those settlers were Norse, not Vikings. There are many resources available to read about the two Greenland settlements. Jared Diamond has a chapter about those colonies in his “Collapse”, but there are much more thorough accounts.
No, the emails are expected to be private.
They are private communication.
Just as your telephone conversation or your bedroom.
“468
John Peter says:
18 February 2010 at 5:47 PM
CFU (457) You are very much in error. There is no expectation of privacy in emails. Many, many courts have so found.”
Yes there is expectation of privacy.
In the US, I believe it’s the fourth Ammendment.
In the EU, you’ll find it in the declaration of rights.
In USSR (!) you’ll find it in their declaration of rights.
And in China.
Yes, even in China.
@ 446 Comletely Fed Up.
I can’t make head nor tail of your post.
Perhaps I misunderstand. Perhaps your humour escapes me.
Or perhaps I was not clear in what I posted.
Meanwhile, while I wait your reply, a measure of the skills of the Met Office, was that they recently located. Given the choice of Aberdeen on the east cost of drizzly Scotland, or sunny Exeter in the south-west, they chose Exeter.
Can you
re 404 Ken W says:
Re. All world-wide national academy of sciences agree that human-caused climate change is happening.
Richard Steckis (350),
Why link to an op-ed piece that references another op-ed piece, rather than link to what the actual Polish Academy of Sciences says? If you read either their latest 2009 annual report or their 2007 position statement (released after IPCC), you’d see that they clearly are on-board with the other Academies in accepting that AGW is a significant concern.
Their annual report (English version) is here:
http://www.english.pan.pl/images/stories/pliki/publikacje/annual_report/annual2009-net.pdf
Their position statement (you’ll need to use a translator) is here:
http://www.aktualnosci.pan.pl/images/stories/pliki/stanowiska_opinie/2008/stanowisko_pan_131207.pdf
Thanks Ken W, I was looking for this. It would have indeed been weird, if not bizarre for a national academy of sciences to not acknowlege proven reviewed, peer-reviewed juried published science since 1824 that has stood the review test of time. I will add this reference to my list…great job, thanks.
On another note…a few years ago, I was talking to a Cuban scientist at the place I use to be. We compared notes. Then he said something shocking.
He said…”you know…you and I have somthing in common…and something different too.”
I said, “okay…what?”
He said, “both of us are not allowed to talk politics when we are publicly presenting science to the public.”…I said, “yes”. (I would have been called in by higher ups real fast if I had…and, yes, it did indeed happen to me on several occasions while I was there, not to mention lots of personal warnings).
Then he said, “but we are different, too. I personally can talk science in public in Cuba…but you cannot in the United States.”
[edit – please stop spamming the thread with off-topic links]
470stickery,
That is a simplictic explanation to why climate science has become politicised. I think the true explanation is elsewhere, since most climate scientists try hard to not be political. The explanation, I think, is that the focus is too much on the basic science and that climate politics needs basic science to be legitimized. As a concequence, sceptics attack the science due to political reasons. So yes, climate scientists are a cause to the politication, but it is not their intention to politicise. politics is of course crucial as cause, climate change is tied to the energý system, a very political issue, so there is really no way to avoid politication of science.
John Peter — there’s this little law called The Electronic Communications Privacy Act that you might want to know about.
Jimbo, 461, and John Peter, 468:
We have serious laws, and social foundations, that go back to the origins of this country, concerning rights and privacy. As much as today’s neocons would like you to believe that we should abandon all rights in favor of the strict and unfettered enforcement of the law, there are still limits on search and seizure, intrusion, due process, self incrimination, and the like.
You can’t make me incriminate myself. You cannot make my wife testify against me. You cannot tap phones just because you think you might find me committing a crime (you need strong evidence, and then a court order, first).
Yes, if someone can show due cause, the police can come in, confiscate my computer and my papers and what not. If they have other a priori evidence that a crime has been committed they have a wedge with which they can violate my privacy.
But until then, no, my e-mails are mine, no matter where I sent them from. This is basic privacy rights. Period. It’s not arguable. If you do argue for it, you should go live in the old Soviet Union.
Now, as far as CRU… if someone had strong evidence of a crime, and followed due process, they could possibly have gotten hold of the e-mails.
Seeing as how, even with the e-mails, there is no such evidence, how can you possibly justify having someone steal them?
It was an invasion of privacy, period. My e-mails are mine. Their e-mails are theirs. You can’t just say that because it’s a new medium, or because you personally wanted to see them because you don’t like their position on an issue, that it is not subject to two hundred year old conventions of social and legal contracts.
#469 reply to Jimbo from Completely Fed Up
_____________
But the logical disconnect here you’re hoping nobody will point out is that
a) The CRU emails show no crime committed
REPLY: They do; the good Dr. Jones was only saved because of the statute of limitations on the FOI requests. As for the rest of the emails I am amazed you have come to conclusions before the outcome of the inquiry.
b) The hacker broke the law unless someone has proof of who it was and that their actions were deliberate
REPLY: I don’t quite understand your sentence but I’ll give it a try. How do you know it was a “hacker”? Proof of who it was remains to be seen. “and that their actions were deliberate” – !!!!???? What do you mean here?
c) Just because you CAN break the law doesn’t mean you must prove you haven’t
Sorry Completely Fed Up but you have me stumped on (C); can someone help?
And finally we have:
Jimbo, it is illegal to speed past a schoolyard in 1989 except that the statute of limitations for such a crime has now passed and we don’t have any cam footage.
Therefore Jimbo is guilty of speeding in a residential area.
REPLY: NO COMMENT
___________________
Completely FedUp please take a long cold shower and try to come up with something a little stronger and stay off the beer.
Bob said:
“You confuse me. You seem to recognize the difference between facts and hysteria, yet you say that your “skepticism came from outrageous claims by pro-AGW activists and politicians.” So… you had an emotional reaction to people saying things you didn’t want to hear? And that froze your brain up so that facts no longer mattered?”
When EVERYTHING is blamed on Global Warming, yes, my brain “freezes up.” Add in a nice dose of Marxist rhetoric to go with the solution (Capitalism is to blame! We need less Capitalism and redistribute the wealth! Less products for sale! Ban the SUV!) by activists and yeah, I’m highly skeptical of the whole shebang. I knew German Environmental Minister Tritton was lying when he blamed Hurricane Katrina on Global Warming in general and President Bush in particular (with a nice rounding of anti-American sentiment to top it off). Yet he was cheered until people died. Then a lukewarm statement saying he was correct in his words but inappropriate in timing.
Remember the IPCC got a Nobel Prize for Peace, not Science. Think about that.
I am likewise skeptical of anyone who says the climate isn’t changing and we shouldn’t plan for squat.
Do I have my hand on my wallet? You betcha. Call me any name you desire, but I like my standard of living, and will not apologize for it. Plastics rule, as does modern medicine, electricity, transportation systems that bring me food from around the world, and a host of services and goods that are the rival of any time in history.
Good grief, read a blog or two on the pro-AGW site. “Eat only locally produced foods.” Really? Wow, thanks for the malnutrition, eco-warrior! Hey you guys in Kansas, hope you took pictures of citrus, as you won’t be allowed anymore up there!
On tobacco, education is effective in curbing tobacco use. Taking huge sums of money and throwing it away does squat. Where tobacco prices are the highest in the nation, so are grey and black market cigarettes.
So explain to me how throwing a couple hundred million USD to Mugabe is saving the environment? It will make for great emails when the Carbon Credit money swamps Nigeria – I grow tired of the dead petro-dollar executive. How many trillions of USD worth of aid do we have to throw at Africa before we realize that the governments there are just going to blow it on themselves and hardly a darned thing is going to change?
On the Ozone hole, let’s remember who was pretty much producing CFC’s exclusively: the West. China still makes them, and will continue to so long as the USA continues to bribe them to reduce production. Also remember that there was a ready made substitute to CFC’s that was plentiful, easy to implement, and didn’t cost any more to manufacture.
On acid rain, a very limited, specific region of the USA was effected, and yes, cap and trade worked. Because it was limited to a very tiny, targeted part of the economy. Coal plants were not allowed to swap emissions with a non-existent plant in the Congo or the Sudan. Nor was a huge open market developed overnight with the primary companies dealing with commissions of sales the very people that were behind the cap and trade.
Lindzen takes it to the Global Warmers. A fine lecture that gets to the truth of the matter.
http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/Lectures/Colloquium/100210Lindzen/index.htm
418, flxible: If your “particularly well-documented snow anomaly in Vancouver” refers to the Olympic situation, I can assure you it is NOT an anomoly and here it hasn’t been reported as such, … .
Quite right, and I wish that I had put the word “anomaly” in quotes. However, particular events have often been claimed to be results of global warming in some media or another (Hurricane Katrina was followed by some academic meteorologists predicting that the next two years would be even worse because of Global Warming). A few years of below average snowfall on the east coast and in England led to predictions that snow would be a thing of the past.
We just get these swings in politics and reporting all the time. Here at RealClimate I have read posts claiming that civilization will crash and agriculture will be devastated by 2030 — but the science does not justify such a claim. AGW predicts about a 0.2C rise by 2030, and about 40mm sea level rise, each of which is much less than the normal random variation.
#293 – Jim, if you think Nikola Tesla “did a little work for Westinghouse” you have a lot to learn about the man.
He invented just about all the major parts of AC electricity – the generators, motors, transformers, control systems, etc.
He had radio controlled boats decades ahead of commercial radio use. He researched extremely high voltages with the famous “tesla coil”. A “tesla” is a basic unit of magnetic field strength. He demonstrated unwired power distribution through the earth.
Edison was a cheap hack given to theatrics. For example, while he tried to commercialize a DC system he convinced authorities to put a convict to death by electrocution. With AC power, to prove how dangerous it was.
Tesla was a true scientist and inventor. Pity he didn’t care any more for money – he’d have received far more credit in his day, and had more research funds to put to use if he had.
#474 “There is good evidence for less ice right now in Greenland that at any time in several millenia.” Any idea of the depth and age of the Greenland ice sheets David?
384
SecularAnimist says:
18 February 2010 at 10:58 AM
“Please tell us all about how humans of those times evacuated hundreds of millions of people from flooded coastal cities while at the same time they dealt with the complete collapse of agriculture that feeds billions of people.”
Evacuate? It is going to happen that quickly? Don’t be silly. Populations move as and when appropriate. Your comment about agriculture is similarly non-sensical.
391
flxible says:
18 February 2010 at 11:30 AM
“Richard Steckis – I can see where your source might love to jump on it as meaning the entire Polish Society is “retracting”, even though it’s but one of many subcommitees, and even they didn’t actually dispute climate change. ”
That is not the point. No on in their right mind would dispute climate change. Climate always has and always will change. The PAS report gives some balance to the argument as to the agents of change. Specifically they state that ignoring the influences of the atmosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere and cryosphere as interacting forces along with human influences gives a biased and wrong interpretation of climate.
#450 Lynn Vincentnathan is wrong on history and wrong about the present. There were lots of conservatives in the late 60’s–that’s how Nixon became President. Since then, more millionaires (more billionaires for that matter) have been created that at any other time in US history. As for the present, a big chunk of the rich seem to be on the AGW side. The sociology of this debate is complex. Every time one side or the other tries to oversimplify or to stereotype their opposition they lose ground
Stickery re. 470 “””However much of this damage also falls to a group of leading climate scientists that chose to drag it into the political realm to begin with”””
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Why don’t you ask any US climate change reporter what happened to their scientist sources (publishing climate scientists whose work held up over time) about six years ago when the scientists were asked to comment on science issues… (much less politics- which they would not publicly have done anyway-except perhaps lightly for two senior scientists who had effective immunity due to their positions in my opinion)…I was there.
The sources effectively dried up like leaves in the hot autumn wind. Ask yourself why…and this was for scientific subjects, forget politics.
This situation is like putting a black plastic bag over the public’s head…and then slowly tying it shut.
CFU (457)
Stay OT, I’m addressing expectations of privacy in email. Other forms of private communication are protected (lawyer, wife,etc.,) but not email. So wife can whisper to you and you can expect privacy but once she puts it in an email it is no longer private/privileged. If you want to spend $100K to contest it in court, you might win – but then again you might lose not only your expectations but also the $100K.
BTW. Finally nowhere in the US constitution does the word privacy appear. Specific 1st and 4th amendment case law have established what rights we enjoy. E-mail privacy is not one of them.
Rattus Nonvegicus (481) Same problem, ECPA applies to government spying, not email communication. You might try to use it to protect yourself by not allowing email evidence to be used against you but again at great expense to you and you might lose.
This is not about legal, it is about expectations. I find it surprising that not just one, but two technologists would expect the impossible. Expectation of privacy means no one is supposed to know. Well you can’t send an unencrypted email and expect that it might not be read by others. Too much nitty-gritty of reliable computer communication requires human intervention, copies of your emails are stored in heaven knows where, in order to deliver messages – yours included. So I repeat, if you want privacy – encrypt.
From a good discussion of internet privacy at http://www.netatty.com/privacy/privacy.html
“The right to privacy in Internet activity is a serious issue facing society…Since no formal law exists within cyberspace, Internet users can find recourse only through the applicable laws of their own government…Avoiding the seizure of communication in transit is less a legal problem than a technological one. There is software that can provide privacy protection for the individual Internet user. Hardware exists that can prevent very sophisticated industrial espionage. Of most concern to the common Internet user is protection of email. The most famous encryption software is PGP, created by Phil Zimmerman…”
@413 Hotrod:
A lot of people say they have been put off by exaggerations. Maybe it’s just they cannot conceive of climate having an effect on the world. For example, using the threats you’ve given, are you saying that you don’t agree that a hotter climate isn’t already threatening polar bear populations, or that malaria could extend its boundaries with increasing heat and humidity, or that the deltas in Bangladesh might not have more frequent and worse flooding as sea levels rise?
I don’t know if or how these threats have been exaggerated in the popular press you follow, but it makes logical sense for a warmer earth to pose such risks, and we have barely started to see the effects of warming yet.
Why do you think most of the world is concerned and taking action? What sort of things do you expect to happen as our earth heats up more and more?
While the last three RC posts have been very useful, I hope the group can get back to discussing the science, as opposed to dealing with the trash. I’d kind of like to read RC’s take on the following research:
New research announced:
“Warmer Planet Temperatures Could Cause Longer-Lasting Weather Patterns
“It is anticipated that in a warmer world, blocking events will be more numerous, weaker and longer-lived,” Lupo said. “This could result in an environment with more storms. We also anticipate the variability of weather patterns will change dramatically over some parts of the world, such as North America, Europe and Asia, but not in others.””
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100218125535.htm
and a study (I think it’s “in press”):
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ article.cfm?id=still-hotter-than-ever
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~tingley/mean_variance.pdf
The primary focus of the paper appears to be showing a link between warmer temperatures and greater variation. The conclusion for recent warmth:
“According to the proxy records, the 1906-1990 period is warmer than the medieval period, but the spatial variability is not significantly different within the two periods.”
I found the following line to be quite interesting:
“If, as expected, surface temperatures continue to rise in the future, we expect, based on past trends, that the spatial dispersion of the surface temperature distribution will likely increase as well.”
Figure 1 caption:
“Bottom panel: an increase in both the mean and the standard deviation leads to much larger areas of high temperatures, with a small (relative to the upper panel) reduction in the areas of low temperatures.”
RE #417, Don, you are so lucky! I’ve been somewhat following http://www.ClimateArk.org and the Sacramento Bee is one of the few U.S. newspapers that has done well in its consistently good reporting on climate change. The NYT and Christian Science Monitor are also pretty good.
Other than that, there aren’t many other good news sources. But it might not only be that newspapers are funded by ads (big biz), but also having to cut back on reporters — the science reporters going first. Here’s an interesting article about the problem:
Covering Climate Change (note, the author quotes Gavin): http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6373
I’m trying to establish an Environmental Studies Program at my Univ (they have an Env Sci Program, but one needs some 12 courses in sciences to even take their courses). It would be a broadly interdisciplinary program (a minor) for non-science majors, and my wish list includes a course on “Environmental Journalism.”
When Larry King said re the Haiti Earthquake that he thought is very strange for an earthquake to occur in a tropical area, I though OMG this is very basic grammar school science… sliding tectonic plates (tho I’m from Calif, so I guess we get that with mother’s milk). Then when he said the same thing some 4 days later, I thought OMG OMG, no one corrected him. BTW, I looked up on my old atlas and there is the edge of a tectonic plate edge near Haiti, and also one near Indonesia.
The situation is very dire here in the U.S. — and conservatives politicos want to reduce funds to higher ed — why? Bec people might become educated and vote them out. And as for the students — well, they seem just fine with dumbied down edu; they seem more into into Senior Prom than classes.
It’s bad, very bad.
29. when they crank through petabytes of climate simulations and find no reliable temperature records.-
Balasz
Exactly!
#474 David, The Norse are a good reference for some parts of mainly West Greenland, there is not very much evidence of them further to the West. Paleo Inuit are far more interesting, their settlements, what is left of them, lie exactly where ecosystems are livable today, none on the tougher to live NW coast of the Canadian Archipelago, none to my knowledge. This is extremely significant, in this case archeology reveals an arctic climate mainly unchanged for at least 5000 years. Vast swats of new Arctic lands are becoming climatically milder, livable for those who can stand the long night.
Lynn Vincentnathan (450)
Oversimplified perhaps, but a succinct statement of the demographic economic structure of the developed world.
Where I hang up is your link between AGW and your description. As you say, in our world the disadvantaged will follow the lead of the advantaged, so if the advantaged embrace AGW, the disadvantaged should also.
I fail to see why any of advantaged would deny AGW? Many of them see lots of self interested opportunities in the ravages of Climate Change. Just as the disadvantaged suffered the most in New Orleans after Katrina, the global disadvantaged will be hit the hardest by Climate Change as we now see it.
The advantaged decide the degree of mitigation of AGW, Copenhagen “decisions” are projected to cost upwards of a billion African lives. The advantaged paid (and will pay) very little for whatever degree og AGW mitigation they decide to support.
Seems like a good deal for them following right along your demographics model.
I’m reminded of a 60’s story about a starving hunter and his dog. The hunter whacked off the dog’s tail, roasted it, and threw the bones to his hungry dog – who licked his hand in gratitude.
keep up the good work
Let’s clarify this debate. The most important claim of the AGW theory is actually a subset of the theory: let’s call it *Tipping Point Theory.* This is the theory advanced by scientists like Hansen, bloggers like Romm, and celebrities like Gore.
If there was no TPT, there would be no passionate discussion of AGW theory. So let’s proceed from this obvious point.
It is not a “distraction” to want to know how good the evidence is for TPT. Indeed, if TPT is wrong or exaggerated, then there is absolutely nothing to worry about with respect to increasing temperatures due to carbon dioxide.
Here is my challenge to the –less prolix– climate scientists here: tell us why we should believe that TPT is a good theory, and why the catastrophic outcomes of that theory are highly likely. Explain and persuade.
If you cannot explain why Tipping Point Theory is the best, most necessary and most evidence-backed part of AGW theory, then we should not be having this discussion.
Start justifying TPT now.–
Gavin, you should do a post on TPT and invite all experts to weigh in. After all, if there is no really good evidence for TPT, then there is nothing to worry about. So let’s roll with this: it focuses the discussion.