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.
Did you guys hear about Swedengate? It’s real dynamite!
http://obehindrad.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/swedengate/
Greetings!
The Guardian strikes again:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall
Re J. Warner’s post on Siddall, that’s the self-correcting feature of science in action. This would never be observed in “blog science,” where the paleoclimate record is both “unreliable” and also shows that “the Medieval Warm Period was hotter than today.”
Otto provides some comic relief:
You’ve captured the denialist tone perfectly. You should post at Denial Depot — viva Poe’s Law!
wilt@696 – Part of everyones problem concerning the “Vancouver” Olympics is the nominal location – the outdoor events are actually mostly at Whistler where Feb weather is quite different – in fact the problem at Whistler is usually too much snow all at once or fog. The lower elevation, south facing venue [Cypress], closer to Vancouver, has suffered a bit more than usual this year and that’s what makes for the headlines. Obama just didn’t consider that a balmy temperature in Vancouver proper, where all the events are indoors, is great for the tourists to enjoy the city, but his Veep should have reported on that, having been there. :)
I think I am “normal”. I think I am reasonably intelligent and I know that I am not in the pay of big oil (or anything similar). I have taken an above average level of interest in the AGW (i.e. I read the press and both sides of AGW blogosphere) than Joe Soap – and I am a sceptic.
Why? Well its hard to put my finger on it. Maybe its the inbuilt reactionery in me. Maybe its tired cynism as a result of the “establishment” getting it wrong so many times on so many subjects. Maybe its alarmism per se or being subject to cries of “wolf” so often by the establishment. I don’t really know to be honest.
As was discussed in other threads, the MSM likes to deal in soundbytes and sensationalism. Whilst RealClimate doesn’t do this and does often temper overstated headlnes in the MSM – many in the alarmist camp are quite happy to allow overhyped stories and statements to go uncommented upon (a new phrase that I have just invented).
The sceptics have their poster boys and the alarmists have theirs. Unfortunately, and not by design, the likes of Al Gore and Pachauri have become the alarmist poster boys and they don’t, rightly or wrongly, hold up to scrutiny very well and have both been savaged in the MSM recently. In their cases it is “live by the sword (i.e rise on a wave of pro publicity) die by the sword (fall by the same MSM going in the oposite direction). Other leading experts such as Michael Mann and Phil Jones have suffered, rightly or wrongly, a change of perceived reputation which is not helpful to their cases.
To try and get to the bottom of my sceptiism, I guess its things like CRUgate, Himalaya, Amazon, hurricanes, cost of natural disasters, etc “gates”. Whilst Gavin will always indicate and illustrate that these are issues to do with genuine mistakes or presentation around the “fringes” and doesn’t change the science – it “feels” like the science has changed.
In summary, I “feel” that
i) that the Hockey stick is just plain wrong
ii) that the temeprature records appear too subjective (i.e. they are created using proxies that are, at best, “indicators” rather than accurate records) and that there appears to be a whole lot of adjustments and homoginisation of other record sets.
iii) The raw data doesn’t seem to show much happening other than a gradual warming where nothing exceptional seems to be happening – it “feels” like it is only adjusted data that shows scary outcomes.
iv) I work in IT and have been involved in computer modelling and I of course know that models will produce outcomes based upon the informaion entered. I believe, although I don’t know this, that none of the modelling that has been around for any length of time has acually been close to predicting what has actually happened over the last 10 to 15 years in global temperatures. As discussed elsewhere, Phil Jones recently said something to the effect that there hasn’t been any statistically significant warming since 1995 (or was it 1998?).
I read conflicting articles on sea levels, sea temperatures, sea ice, Greenland farming, average temperatures, etc and they appear (wrongly you would say) to cancel each other out.
Somehow, I have ended up forming the following views without any scientific capability!:
Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick is wrong
Sea levels are only rising by a couple of mm per year if at all – nothing than cannot be adapted to overtime.
There is reasonable doubt about the global temperature records (re adjustments for UHI for instance) and lots of errors in when, where and how these adjustments are made.
And then there is the establishment thing. In the UK, our Prime Minister told us we would have a referendum on the EU Constitution), ho told us he had ended “boom and bust” economics. He told us we were best placed to deal with a recession. He told us we would be the first western country out of recession. He also told us lots of other things where, with the benefit of hindsight, he was completely wrong – or he lied.
He (Gordon Brown), is currently telling me that there is a consensus, the debate is over, if I don’t believe him I am a “flat earther” or a “denier” (with all of the undertones that that carries).
Sorry, I don’t believe him and maybe I am just too plain stubborn to believe the rest of it – or dont want to.
I am aided by the MSM climate in the UK which seems to now be in attack mode and I am seeing scientists failing to put across convincing arguments and being called to account in ways that we have not seen before.
I witness the ineptitude of very, very clever people displaying virtually no common sense. As an example, the inquiry into the UEA and its “Independent panel”. An “independent panel” that included Campbell and Boulton? Didn’t they see it comming? Didn’t they stop to think what the MSM and the blogosphere would have to say about the alleged independence of the panel? They demonstrate crushing naivety in this area – maybe they are just as dumb in some of their other assumptions – maybe like UHI adjustments or the integrity of tree ring data?
I have taken enough of your time and than you, in advance, for allowing this platform for my musings.
Charlie Chutney says: the likes of Al Gore and Pachauri have become the alarmist poster boys and they don’t, rightly or wrongly, hold up to scrutiny very well…
In what ways, specifically, do Gore and Pachauri not hold up to scrutiny?
Rod, exactly whare did I slip a decimal in #653?
maybe I am just too plain stubborn to believe the rest of it – or dont want to. – Charlie Chutney
Exactly right, Charlie, exactly right. Some would say this is too important a matter to let your personality characteristics, or wishful thinking, get in the way of an objective assessment of the evidence.
Charlie Chutney says: 22 February 2010 at 11:12 AM
That’s a remarkable litany of peripheral matters you mention.
What about the physics?
699, 700 Rod B, commenting on:
653, Ray Ladbury: Thus if we look at the increase from 1910-1940, from roughly 295-395, that’s a factor of 1.03.
There’s a typo: what is written as “395” ought to be “305”. Even now CO2 is not 395ppm.
Charlie Chutney@708,
You know, I’ve read through your post twice and I’ve not found anything to indicate that you really understand the science. I understand that you are a layman, but the posts on this site are written for laymen like you. I’m wondering why, if you are a skeptic as you claim, you haven’t tried to understand the science, rather than relying on the media or politicians, who can pretty much always be relied upon to get the science wrong.
Really, your post looks like you are trying to convince yourself that there is nothing to worry about. If that is really your goal, that’s up to you, but at least have the decency not to gird the mantle of skepticism.
First, I wonder if you could tell me how all of your -gates have changed any of the science.
Has it cast doubt whether it’s warming? No. There are 4 independent temperature datasets–2 terrestrial and two satellite, and all 4 show consistent warming. If this wasn’t enough, you have a couple of trillion tons of ice that has gone missing over the last 5 years or so, along with tons of phenological data going back hundreds of years in some cases. So it certainly is not reasonable to doubt that it is warming.
Has it cast doubt that the cause of the warming is a greenhouse mechanism? Again, no. We have seen simultaneous stratospheric cooling along with the tropospheric warming–a trait that is diagnostic of greenhouse warming. There are also other traits–polar amplification, seasonal effects, etc.–all of which point to a greenhouse mechanism.
Has it cast doubt on the fact that the extra CO2 is from human activity? No way. The isotopic and other evidence is overwhelming here.
Has it cast doubt on whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas? No.
How about CO2 sensitivity of the climate? No. There are still over a dozen independent lines of evidence that all favor a CO2 sensitivity of 3 degrees per doubling and preclude a sensitivity as low as 2 degrees per doubling.
So, none of the basic science has changed.
You contend:
i) that the Hockey stick is just plain wrong
OK, fine. Don’t like Mann et al.’98. There are a couple dozen other reconstructions that look pretty much the same.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/progress-in-millennial-reconstructions/
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/past-reconstructions/
Even borehole records all by themselves show a hockeystick.
You contend:
“ii) that the temeprature records appear too subjective (i.e. they are created using proxies that are, at best, “indicators” rather than accurate records) and that there appears to be a whole lot of adjustments and homoginisation of other record sets.”
OK. There are, as I said, 4 independent temperature records. constructed with very different measurements and algorithms. What do you suppose the chances are that all of these records would yield the same trends if they were all wrong? And even then, there’s all that melting ice, earlier springs. There are even very picturesque examples:
http://arnoldia.arboretum.harvard.edu/pdf/articles/1893.pdf
You say:
“iii) The raw data doesn’t seem to show much happening other than a gradual warming where nothing exceptional seems to be happening – it “feels” like it is only adjusted data that shows scary outcomes.”
Clearly this is not true, since the melting ice and phenological data also support rapid warming.
iv….
OK, why not actually look into what the models say.
Try as I might, I can’t find any evidentiary basis for your “skepticism” and I don’t understand how you can be a skeptic if you don’t look at the evidence.
You say: “I have taken enough of your time and than you, in advance, for allowing this platform for my musings.”
This site is so much more than a “platform for … musings”. It is a tremendous resource to learn about the science. I am hoping the skeptic in you will prevail and you will actuall start trying to learn the science–there are plenty of people here willing to help.
You say
Charlie Chutney inadvertently makes the problem we face crystal clear:
It really sums things up … and then
You have no scientific capability. Yet you declare Mann’s work to be wrong. How D-K of you.
dhogaza (688)
Thank you for your most complete answer.
The Skeptic Science article and comments are quite good. I have downloaded Mann’s paper which I intend to study after I have worked my way further through the excellent SS comments.
Not only do I already have a different and more correct view of the MWP/Hockey Stick bruhaha, but I expect to learn much about Climate Science data.
Thank you very much.
706: Charlie, rather than relying the media and blogosphere I recommend that you read some books on the subject. Science books. I recommend Spencer Weart’s book “The Discovery of Global Warming” as a starting point, then move on to David Archer’s Global Warming: UNderstanding the Forecast. After having read those two books you’ll begin to have rudimentary knowledge of the science.
> Charlie Chutney
> both sides
> feel
> IT
Charlie, this may help:
http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2009/10/rant-about-stupidity-and-coming-civil.html
“706
Charlie Chutney says:
22 February 2010 at 11:12 AM
I think I am “normal”. I think I am reasonably intelligent and I know that I am not in the pay of big oil (or anything similar)… and I am a sceptic.”
Well, as long as you have a reason.
“Why? Well its hard to put my finger on it. Maybe its the inbuilt reactionery in me. Maybe its tired cynism as a result of the “establishment” getting it wrong so many times on so many subjects. Maybe its alarmism per se or being subject to cries of “wolf” so often by the establishment. I don’t really know to be honest.”
Ah, so you don’t.
Unfortunately, this DOES seem to be “normal”, however this is hardly intelligent.
“I witness the ineptitude of very, very clever people displaying virtually no common sense. ”
Like yourself.
Where is the common sense in saying “I don’t think the science is right, I don’t know why”?
“Somehow, I have ended up forming the following views without any scientific capability!:
Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick is wrong
Sea levels are only rising by a couple of mm per year if at all – nothing than cannot be adapted to overtime.”
Yes, you would require no scientific ability to come to those conclusions.
Again, this is not considered intelligent thought.
“iv) I work in IT and have been involved in computer modelling and I of course know that models will produce outcomes based upon the informaion entered.”
Did you know about this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langton's_ant
Did you put in that it would attain a stepwise pattern that moves and repeats?
You’ve been in computer modelling and you don’t know the first thing about it.
“698
Septic Matthew says:
21 February 2010 at 6:06 PM
681, Completely Fed Up: Check for yourself:
During my walk today I determined to download the 4 reports of the IPCC (AR4), so your prompt was most timely.”
And..?
FCH “The other way around?”
Yes, the other way round.
As in “not the way round you had it”.
You posit that when someone against AGW “gets it wrong” then they get called a denier.
WRONG.
100%.
Then you say that the press jumps on it, whereas the AGW gets something wrong and they’re proposed as truth in MSM.
WRONG and the OTHER WAY ROUND.
200%.
“690
Septic Matthew says:
21 February 2010 at 1:29 PM
676, Completely Fed Up: So squirrels have a NYSE that collapses? That Spider Monkeys have banking systems that lend out toxic assets and then bet that they are toxic?
Like every other species, they suffer dramatic population swings; ”
This is not an economic recession, however.
So they aren’t natural.
Humans create them.
flxible, no verdanity.
“Other trees were just sticks with greenery on compared to the sylvanic verdanity of this tree”
From T Pratchett in “Science of Discworld 2”, though I knew the word before I read that.
http://www.randomhouse.co.uk/catalog/extract.htm?command=search&db=main.txt&eqisbndata=0091888050
706 Charlie Chutney (great name!): thanks for an excellent summary of the unease that many thinking people feel as they try to follow AGW issues.
In summary, I “feel” that
i) that the Hockey stick is just plain wrong
Then don’t worry about the Hockey Stick. Look at the temperatures since the mid-1800’s. There is a clear trend upward over that time period.
ii) that the temeprature records appear too subjective (i.e. they are created using proxies that are, at best, “indicators” rather than accurate records) and that there appears to be a whole lot of adjustments and homoginisation of other record sets.
Yes, but separate record sets tend to show the same trends.
iii) The raw data doesn’t seem to show much happening other than a gradual warming where nothing exceptional seems to be happening – it “feels” like it is only adjusted data that shows scary outcomes.
It is true that much of the concern about AGW is what will happen if current trends continue, versus what is observed today. I would prefer to see more effort expended on current environmental problems, many of which require multi-state and non-governmental solutions. If I were emperor of the world, we’d be working more on adaptation than on mitigation. But many of the current environmental problems that will lead to greater human misery will be exacerbated by temperature increases. And those problems are inextricably linked to climate change: land use patterns are a factor in global temperatures and in carbon emissions, and vice versa.
iv) I work in IT and have been involved in computer modelling and I of course know that models will produce outcomes based upon the informaion entered. I believe, although I don’t know this, that none of the modelling that has been around for any length of time has acually been close to predicting what has actually happened over the last 10 to 15 years in global temperatures. As discussed elsewhere, Phil Jones recently said something to the effect that there hasn’t been any statistically significant warming since 1995 (or was it 1998?).
Others here can answer this better, but my impression is that the temperature trends over the last 10 – 15 years are within the range of possible model outcomes, though trending toward the low end. As variables get better understood, the models are adjusted and their predictive abilities increase. It will be useful to see more regional and decadal applications of the models, as those will help policy-makers develop adaptation strategies.
Don, sorry if this comes out condescending, but that was a better statement than I expected of you.
I disagree with several things there but they are merely disagreements.
> 680, 685, 721
You absolutely sure you knew that word even before Pratchett made it up?
You may have a documented case of anticipatory neologism.
Google’s dictionary search tool will tell you what the rest of the world thinks. Consensus reality can sometimes be a useful reference.
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Averdanity
I’d say that most people are profoundly ignorant and are most likely to remain so until the earth has been transformed into a tortilla chip.
Charlie Chutney wrote: “… I am a sceptic.”
That’s funny because there is not a single word in your entire comment that suggests you are the least bit skeptical.
Rather, you seem ready and willing to embrace and believe in any pseudoscience or sophistry that comforts your self-described “inbuilt reactionery” bias. That’s not a foundation for “skepticism” — it’s a foundation for gullibility. The kind of gullibility that is easy prey for deliberate deceit.
A person who says as frequently as you do in your comment, “I feel that such and such is true” to precede assertions about climate science that a relatively effortless and quick investigation would show to be simply and plainly false, may be many things, but a “skeptic” is not one of them.
I know this won’t get published and that is not my intention.
I’m quite sure that you hear this several times per day but I still have to throw my penny’s worth in.
Muzzle CFU! He may be right but he is also a complete ass and is doing the board more harm than good.
The science challenged among us do not need to be derided and ridiculed at every step of our attempt to understand and learn.
Do yourself a favor and either tone him down or completely block his ability to respond.
Wes Van Bramer
@727 Wes, I confess I usually skip over CFU’s comments. I know that sometimes he or she has useful information buried in there, but the way it’s expressed is too offputting, and I’m not sure it’s always that reliable in any case.
Toning down would be a good option, thinking (and checking) before posting would be another good option. Resisting the impulse to respond to every post would be another good option.
Just my view.
“725
Susan says:
22 February 2010 at 2:56 PM
I’d say that most people are profoundly ignorant ”
I have no problem with that. There’s SO MUCH to know.
But I would call Charlie a great example of “proudly ignorant”. Ros the same.
PROUD of the ignorance, and unwilling to change it.
This would be depressing if this were all, but it isn’t.
They’re not worried about telling people what they don’t know about.
Look, if you don’t know, or don’t want to know, keep out of the discussion.
You’re pissing in the pool. What’s worse, you’re saying you HAVE to be allowed to.
PS Hank, TP didn’t make it up.
“You may have a documented case of anticipatory neologism.”
If so (I doubt you, Hank), this wouldn’t be the first time.
1) Beat Boxing. 1982. UK. Wales. School. Me. Beat Boxing. NEVER heard of it as that, this was something I made up
2) Adaptive binned audio compression. 1991. UK. University. Someone asked how I’d do that. Some years later, Sony ATRAC recording uses that same method
But verdanity is a word from before TP wrote it.
Unless he wrote about it in the early 80’s.
CFU (729)
More and more about less and less
CFU (729)
Or less and less about more and more
Your choice
Ray, re #653, 395/295 = 1.34, not 1.03. So the ln should be 0.32, not 0.033. Or am I missing the whole thing?
Ray, re your reply to Charlie Chutney in #712: this is just pro forma to keep it on the table. While your choice of words is probably correct, viz a sensitivity of 3 degrees per doubling is favored, “favored” is indicative but not substantial evidence. My position is and has been that the sensitivity at higher concentration values is as much conjecture as evidentiary.
718, Completely Fed Up: And?
The summary contains some bad reporting, misrepresentation and confusion.
It might be worthwhile for some AGW promoters to rewrite it to adhere more closely to the science in the other 3 parts.
About projections, I’ll leave them to your imagination. Some day you might want to investigate the evidence for them.
708, Ray Ladbury: Rod, exactly whare did I slip a decimal in #653?
I think I fixed this in my 711: ln(395/295) = 1.34.
Check and see if I am right. Thanks.
“The summary contains some bad reporting, misrepresentation and confusion. ”
Which are..?
Now compare with your #668 post?
Or The Daily Mail (http://deepclimate.org/2010/01/11/mojib-latif-slams-daily-mail/) ?
PS don’t include the already worn out Himalaya one, m’kay.
@ 727 & 728
I don’t agree. CFU is simply calling a spade a spade. The most blatantly ignorant deniers and trolls should be kept on a short leash. What good can possibly come from letting them repeat the same old tired nonsense over and over and over? There are other arenas for that… So IMO, keep it up CFU, though try to be as civil as possible.
It’s hard for me to keep civil. I expect more from people. If they’re interested enough to complain about AGW science, why are they uninterested in understanding it? I *know* they can think clearer than is evidenced by their postings. They’d just rather not. In case they can’t complain about AGW science.
And the “noob” postings are far too often now people who later turn out to be here to deny AGW and one new poster recently left thanking the RC team and the posters here trying to educate them (the carrot) for giving them lots of data that can be viewed in multiple ways.
“Multiple ways”. Quote.
Strange phraseology.
It’s not good of me to wallop so freely, but then again, those complaining never complain on WUWT or on timesonline blogs about abuse there “ruining their argument”. I cannot therefore take it as real criticism since it’s applied with fear and favour. Such criticism should be equally applicable.
When someone comes along with a question that doesn’t seem to be in the Start Here list, if I know the answer and nobody else has done so yet, I will answer the question straight.
But these events are often forgotten, because sarcasm at the idiocy of others is more attention-worthy.
And it’s both why I use it and why denialists hate it.
You’re ALLOWED not to know the science. That’s PERFECTLY fine.
Work on how it could be countered then, what mitigations are politically valid. Etc.
Or learn the science. “Start Here” has a few links. Heck, read the IPCC reports (so many complaints about how they don’t have anything other than CO2 there, where if they HAD read it, they’d know that was not true. They’re just parroting).
But don’t expect to have some marvelous new insight that tears it all down. Ain’t gonna happen.
But when someone DOES come along to frighten you with either “we’ll be put in the stone age!” or “we will be fried to a crisp!” you’ll then know both are hyperbole.
And if politicians try to subvert the climate mitigation for pork barrels for their friends you’ll know enough to spot the most egregious examples. Likewise when a politician over-eggs the uncertainties, you’ll likewise know when he’s pulling something.
Excellent and reasonable question posted at comment 669 by benG. Pity about the poor response.
CFU: >>>”Do you tell your mum she’s won an Erlich award?”
No, no, no, good grief, no. Our mums never come close to real apocalyptic or doomsayer predictions. You have to doom much bigger than one child, hundreds of millions at least, and it has to be inevitable or very nearly so to approach Ehrlich’s highest doom or the “Complete collapse of global agriculture in no more than 40 years.”
benG (669) — If there were but at most a handful of humans, then the globe would continue to slowly cool, on average, towards the next attempt at a stade about 20,000 years from now. There still would be various decadal and centennenial minor ups and downs in one region or another. Please do read, in this regard, climatologist W.F. Ruddiman’s popular “Plows, Plagues and Petroleum”.
(741)Jimmy Cranium says,
“Excellent and reasonable question posted at comment 669 by benG. Pity about the poor response.”
It was answered in the inline response by Gavin: “The best estimates (second panel) that we have made indicate that, yes, the last half of the 20th Century would have cooled in the absence of human factors”
http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/fig-9-5.jpg
Rod B. @735–yes, I made a typo. SM is correct–it was 305 rather than 395.
WRT the definition of “favored”–I mean the most probable value. The remarkable thing is that ALL the different lines of evidence favor (roughly) this same value.
CFU, would you be opposed to maybe reserving the venomous strikes for those who deserve it–e.g. trolls, those who raise unsubstantiated allegations of fraud against working scientists or those who REPEATEDLY raise long-since slain zombie arguments.
I find most others can be helped at least somewhat.
741 Jimmy Cranium said, “Excellent and reasonable question posted at comment 669 by benG. Pity about the poor response.”
The response that it is likely, but not certain that it would have cooled seems like a reasonable response. Please explain your comment, or (and I can’t resist this) are you just a talking head?
>Jimmy Cranium
> pity
Look again. Responses often come after some time passes and are posted inline, as was done there. What more could anyone say to that kind of question? Think of any comparable situation and ask how better it could be answered without being able to mount a scratch planet and rerun the experiment?
https://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=2806#comment-161913
(Ray Ladbury, card-carrying member of the IPCC WG2-led worldwide conspiracy to grind humanity under the iron boots of soclalist-warmist-alarmist-ism)
I second this. It’s also a pity about the friendly-fire casualties, CFU. I no longer read your posts, the tone is tiresome.
Tiresome, I know. But Canadian columnist Lorne Gunter has just upped the stakes in the anti-science WhateverGate libel contest.
http://deepclimate.org/2010/02/22/lorne-gunter-again-and-again/
The headline and deck from Lorne Gunter’s op-ed piece in Sunday’s Edmonton Journal say it all.
Climate alarmists feeling more heat
But discredited data-fudgers have too much at stake to give up now
Once again, columnist Lorne Gunter, Canada’s answer to George Will, has launched an outrageous, libelous attack on climate science and climate scientists. And, once again, his diatribe is remarkably free of any actual facts, and contains several clearly erroneous assertions and accusations. Gunter does manage to maintain balance in one way, however; he gets off a number of whoppers about each of the two most cited global temperature repositories, the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia (CRU), and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA.
The only surprise is that this tripe has appeared in the Edmonton Journal, rather than Gunter’s usual haven in the anti-science newspaper of record, the National Post.