climate change, free speech, latest
Comments 349

a look at the “97.4% of climate scientists” meme?

by Sapere Aude as part of our “dissident denial” series

c

c

On 4 February, 2017 the Daily Mail published an article entitled: “World Leaders Duped by Manipulated Global Warming Data”.

“…The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.

Eight years ago, the “Climategate” scandal enjoyed some brief exposure. A large cache of emails had been discovered (possibly hacked into) at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.

The mails revealed that in 1997, in the runup to the Kyoto Climate Change Conference, a similar manipulation of data had taken place relating to the 1995 global climate report from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). The original report contained statements from scientists to the effect that there was no risk of a CO2-caused climate catastrophe.

On the Jesse Ventura talk-show of 19.12.2009, Dr. Ben Santer, lead author of the IPCC reports, admitted that he had deleted from Chapter 8 of the 1995 report those sections which had explicitly denied the claim of human-caused climate change. On the show he was confronted by Lord Monckton (a leading so-called ‘climate denier’) about the changes he had made.

Monckton: “After scientists had submitted their finished draft, Santer came and rewrote parts of it – specifically where, in five different places, it had been explicitly stated that there is no provable human effect on global temperature. I have seen a copy – Santer went through the draft, deleted the relevant parts and wrote a new summary … which remained as the official conclusion”.

Santer: “Lord Monckton has pointed to cuts in this chapter … and there were cuts. In order to preserve harmony with the other chapters, we dropped the final summary”.

Because the original 1995 report had already been signed by more than 100 scientists, Santer had to quickly find new signatories for the amended (falsified) report. Santer was just then in a conference in Kassel, Germany and he had no chance of quickly finding another 100 scientists to sign the amended report. However, at that time Kassel University was the home of the Center for Environmental Systems Research. Its head, Professor Joseph Alcamo was responsible for looking after climate affairs in Germany on behalf of the UN, UNEP and the IPCC. On 9 October 1997, Prof. Alcamo sent an email to his assistants, who were waiting in Kyoto, telling him to secure the required new signatures for the falsified report. The email was discovered in November 2009 among thousands of other emails at the CRU Institute at the University of East Anglia. The key parts of the email are reproduced below:

“I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500 signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a different story.

If the report comes out only a few days before Kyoto I’m afraid that the delegates we want to influence won’t have any time to consider it. We should give them a couple of weeks to take note of it.”

Simultaneously, Greenpeace activists were also working to get signatures on a document of their own to influence the media, using a tried-and-tested technique for signature gathering: Don’t read the fine print — just sign! To showcase their campaign, Greenpeace was organizing a media event ahead of the Kyoto meeting to display the document signed by concerned “scientists.”

Alcamo continued:

“If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have it a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spread the word about the Statement. On the other hand, it wouldn’t be so bad to release the Statement in the same week, but on a different day. The media might enjoy hearing the message from two very different directions”.

These two high-profile cases should surely raise some doubts about the truth of what has frequently been hyped as the ‘greatest threat humanity faces’ – the threat of runaway global warming. Are we dealing merely with a few minor ‘touch-ups’ to official reports and the views of a small minority of dissenting scientists – or is the whole story of global warming/climate change an enormous scam?

We are told ad nauseam that global warming is “settled science”; that there is an overwhelming consensus among scientists as to the reality of human-caused global warming. Figures such as “98% of scientists”, even 99.5% according to ex-president Obama, are routinely trotted out. Anyone who questions this “truth” is immediately vilified as a dangerous “climate denier” – one of the many derogatory accusations hurled at Donald Trump.

But President Trump was not always a ‘climate denier’. In December 2009, Trump and three of his children signed a letter to President Barack Obama (the letter was also signed by dozens of business leaders and was published as an ad in the New York Times), calling for a global climate deal:

“We support your effort to ensure meaningful and effective measures to control climate change, an immediate challenge facing the United States and the world today. If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet”. [Emphasis added].

The day after announcing his candidacy for the GOP presidential nomination, Trump appeared on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show (17 June, 2015), where he said that he is “not a believer in man-made” warming, adding:

When I hear Obama saying that climate change is the No. 1 problem, it is just madness”.

And in early December of that year he criticised the Paris climate summit, saying:

While the world is in turmoil and falling apart in so many different ways … our president is worried about global warming. What a ridiculous situation”.

(At the conference, President Obama urged world leaders to agree to an ambitious deal to combat global warming).

During a campaign speech at the end of December Trump said:

So Obama’s talking about all of this with the global warming and the – a lot of it’s a hoax, it’s a hoax. I mean, it’s a money-making industry, ok?”

In January 2016, after Bernie Sanders had criticised Trump for his earlier suggestion that global warming was a hoax invented by the Chinese, Trump expands on the idea that ‘climate change’ is a “money-making industry”:

I think that climate change is just a very, very expensive form of tax. A lot of people are making a lot of money …”.

And in September, some six or so weeks before the presidential election, but at a time when the contenders are already choosing their “transition teams”, word is leaked that Trump has chosen Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute to head the transition at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Ebell had previously accused climate scientists of “manipulating and falsifying the data”.

On the same day, Trump’s campaign manager tells The Huffington Post that Trump “believes [climate change] is naturally occurring and is not all man-made”.

What is the truth?

One of the most quoted percentages of scientists who support the IPCC’s claims is 97.4% – a remarkably precise figure.

We have to ask: 97.4% of what?

It cannot be 97.4% of all the scientists in the world – how could all of them have been canvassed? Perhaps 97.4% of ‘climate scientists’? But there are relatively few of these. Today’s “climate scientists” are primarily biologists and geologists and mathematicians and physicists who happen to have brought their varied scientific training to bear on the issues of weather and climate.

A figure that is not so often quoted (almost never, in fact – suggesting a deliberate suppression of unwelcome data) is that of the 31,487 scientists (more than 9,000 of them with a Ph.D.) who have signed the following petition letter to the US Congress:

“We urge the US government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, and any other similar proposals.

The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other greenhouse gases, is causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and/or the disruption of earth’s climate.

Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric CO2 produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth”. [Emphasis added]

The signatories support the Global Warming Petition Project. The website explains that:

The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists.”

It should be evident that 31,487 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,029 PhDs – are not “a few.” These scientists are convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.

To the 31,487 signatories of the Global Warming Petition Project we must add the 4000+ scientists (including 72 Nobel Prize winners) who have signed the “Heidelberg Appeal”: an appeal (issued to coincide with the opening of the UN-sponsored Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992) against “an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress, and impedes economic and social development” and “against decisions which are supported by pseudo-scientific arguments or false and non-relevant data”. [1]

Another document urging caution was circulated among reputable scientists in the wake of the Kyoto Climate Conference. This document is known as the Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change. The document expressly states the following:

“As the debate unfolds, it has become increasingly clear that — contrary to the conventional wisdom — there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide. In fact, most climate specialists now agree that actual observations from both weather satellites and balloon-borne radiosondes (i.e. weather balloons) show no current warming whatsoever — in direct contradiction to computer model results.” [emphasis added].

Among the signatories of this declaration are scientists from NASA, the Max Planck Institute, one of the former Presidents of the National Academy of Sciences, and many members of the American Meteorological Society. These people are not lightweights in the field of science.

Clearly the so-called “consensus of scientists” so often referred to is not a consensus at all. But the many voices of dissenting scientists have been drowned out – at least until recently – by the constant repetition by politicians and the media of the ‘human-caused global warming’ myth, and by biased sources such as Wikipedia, which uses the “climate denier” slur to attack anyone who challenges the official myth.

If the 97.4% figure were correct, one could reasonably assume that the 31,487 scientists who have signed the petition must represent a large part of the 2.6% of scientists who, according to the 97.4% claim, oppose the consensus view. However, that immediately reveals a problem with the calculation. If 31,487 is 2.6% of the grand total of scientists who must be assumed to have expressed an opinion on the matter … then that grand total is in the order of 1,180,000 scientists.

Did someone really canvass nearly 1.2 million scientists worldwide? There is no evidence of that. It is, however, known that in 2009 a paper by Professor Peter Doran and graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmermann of the University of Illinois in Chicago was published based on a survey Zimmermann had sent to 10,257 earth scientists, with two questions. Answering the questions was expected to take no more than two minutes:

  1. “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
  2. “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

[Note that the second question already presumes what was left open in the first question i.e. change. Note also that the second question is too vague to be scientific …. what does “a significant contributing factor” mean? Is a 1% or 2% contribution “significant”?].

3,146 of the scientists replied (a 30.7% response rate). Of those, 82% answered “yes” to question 2.

Only 77 of the scientists polled identified themselves as “climate scientists”. The student singled out the 75 of them who agreed that human activity was “a significant contributing factor” in changing global temperatures.

Coincidentally, 75 is precisely 97.4% of 77. But 75 out of the original 10,257 is a risible 0.73%!

As might be expected (for example, from its track record of routinely describing any challenge to suspect modern dogmas as “conspiracy theories”), Wikipedia reveals its bias in favour of the establishment’s “global warming” myth by claiming that the Doran and Zimmermann paper shows that “active climate researchers almost unanimously agree that humans have had a significant impact on the Earth’s climate” – when the original wording, as noted above, was that human activity was merely “a significant contributing factor”. Predictably, the article fails to mention the selection process involved – or the vastly higher number of dissenting scientists who signed the petition.

In a 2013 paper published by the Institute of Physic’s IOPScience and cited by NASA, University of Queensland climate communication fellow John Cook also stated that 97 percent of scientists who took a position on global warming agreed that humans were the primary cause. According to Cook and his co-authors:

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW [anthropogenic global warming], 97.1% endorsed the consensus that humans are causing global warming”.

However, a peer review of Cook’s paper by David Legates (a former state climatologist and professor at the University of Delaware), published in the April 2015 issue of Science and Education, debunked the 97 percent consensus figure. Legates pointed out that only 41 of the 11,944 academic papers Cook examined in his meta-analysis (0.3%) explicitly stated that most of the global warming since 1950 was caused by human activity:

It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when in the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%”.

Cook’s paper was also criticized by other scientists for what they said was a number of methodological errors. In a book published by the Heartland Institute and entitled Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming, its three authors stated:

Probably the most widely repeated claim in the debate over global warming is that “97% of scientists agree” that climate change is man-made and dangerous. This claim is not only false, but its presence in the debate is an insult to science.”

Despite the general media support for the IPCC’s claims, there have been notable exceptions – as shown by the Mail on Sunday quote with which I began. More than six years ago, on 13 October, 2012, the same paper published another surprising article with the headline: “Global warming stopped 16 years ago [i.e. around 1996] reveals Met Office report quietly released

” … The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 … there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures … This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years. […] The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.”

The article included a graph (see below) which charts the fluctuations in average global temperature between 1997 and 2012. There are peaks and troughs, but the significant finding is that the average global temperature in 2012 (just half a degree above the world average of 14C) was exactly the same as in 1997. That pattern has continued to the present, with warmer and colder years, but no average increase.

graph provided by the Daily Mail in 2012

graph provided by the Daily Mail in 2012

Even more surprisingly, on 11 December, 2016, another British newspaper – the Sunday Express – published another remarkable article with the startling headline: “World on BRINK of MINI ICE AGE: Fears sparked as solar activity reaches new low. SOLAR ACTIVITY has reached its lowest point since 2011, prompting fears the Sun has reached its solar minimum early.

The writer explains:

“If the Sun has reached its solar minimum early, it could mean we could be in for a prolonged cold period. Images captured by NASA between November 14 and 18 shows that there are barely any sunspots. NASA says that solar activity has dwindled at a much faster rate than expected following a peak in 2014. The Sun follows cycles of roughly 11 years where it reaches the solar maximum and then the solar minimum.”

2014 was a year with record high temperatures. It was touted by the ‘climate change’ lobby as proof of man-made global warming. The Express article may well have puzzled many of its readers since it would have been the first time for many or most of them that global temperature had being linked to sunspot activity and sun cycles. But this was not a new suggestion. In 2002, an issue of the magazine Science included the editors’ “prognostications for next year’s hot research topics. Such as:

What is happening to the world’s store of ice?
What exactly is the sun-climate connection, now that “researchers are grudgingly taking the sun seriously as a factor in climate change” and in “triggering droughts and cold snaps.”

They could have added a whole bunch more, such as: Why is the atmosphere not warming appreciably in contrast to all model predictions? Why the disparity between temperature trends of the atmosphere and surface? What’s happening to CO2?”

Piers Corbyn is the older brother of Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the British Labour Party. He runs a very successful long-range weather forecasting business which has consistently proven to be more accurate than the ‘official’ meteorological offices such as the UK’s Met Office. Corbyn based his predictions on solar cycles and sunspot activity. He has been challenging the ‘global warming’ swindle since at least 2008. In September of that year he posted an “initial response” to the BBC’s “Climate Wars” programme, in which he stated:

“..This ‘Climate Wars’ production is a shameful and desperate effort from the BBC’s ‘green religion department’ to shore up the failing theory of CO2-driven Global Warming and Climate Change….”

“..The piece – and the Global Warmers camp in general – while pretending to be objective, skilfully avoid applying sound science and provide no answers to the mounting evidence which refutes the crumbling Global Warming theory. It puts lipstick on scientific fraud – but it remains fraud”.

The website’s ‘mission statement’ includes the following:

“WeatherAction supports True-Green-Policies to defend biodiversity and wildlife and reduce chemical and particulate pollution, and points out that CO2 is not a pollutant, but the ‘Gas of Life’ (plant food).

WeatherAction defends evidence-based science and policy-making. WeatherAction completely supports campaigns for geo-ethical accountability and CLEXIT (Exit from UN Climate Change Deals) and is against data fraud and the political manipulation of data and the so-called ‘scientific’ claims now dominating climate and environmental sciences. Evidence shows that man-made climate change does not exist and the arguments for it are not based on science, but on data fraud and a conspiracy theory of nature.”

If Corbyn and the many thousands of scientists now speaking out about the ‘climate change’ fraud are correct, how and why did a situation come about in which the world was told that it faced an imminent catastrophe if CO2 emissions were not drastically cut?

How many trillions of dollars, pounds, euros etc. have been spent promoting the urgent need to “reduce our carbon footprint”. And why would scientists and politicians lie on such a scale?

The origins of “the great climate fraud” will be examined in a further instalment.


349 Comments

  1. MoriartysLeftSock says

    @Sorry Not Buying It

    You talk a lot about the scientific method and how you read peer reviewed papers to avoid the oversimplifications of the media; you also accuse me of “scientific gaffs”; but then you say stuff like this that makes me not take you seriously at all:

    “Though of course the amounts in terms of percentages of the whole atmosphere are very small. 400 parts per million. With such tiny fractions it’s very hard to offer certitude.”

    As you should know by now, it isn’t the concentration that is important, but the total MASS of carbon in the atmosphere.

    You’re suggesting that C02 would have the same impact on the environment whether it’s 4ppm or 400ppm, providing the “total mass” remains constant?

    How exactly do you see that working?

    [I’m ignoring the repeat ad homs; hope you don’t mind]

    You also keep talking about “certitude”; then you switch to “the scientific method”, which ISN’T about certitude but the cumulative convergence of evidence and whether it points in one direction or another.

    You’re getting confused I’m afraid. I mention “certitude” in the context that YOUR certitude is unwarranted, not that certitude is required. I don’t say certitude is part of the scientific method.

    You talk about AGW being a mere “hypothesis”, then later you mention “theory” (in the context of evolution) as opposed to “law” – yet earlier you said that there are indeed compelling reasons for CO2 as an important radiative forcer/greenhouse gas, which one would think would at least bump AGW to the level of theory instead of mere hypothesis.

    No there is not yet sufficient data to assert AGW as a theory.




    0



    0
  2. Meanwhile, I’d be curious to see how many AGWers drive vehicles with internal combustion engines (or charge their Teslas with electricity from coal-burning power stations)… and consume on a Western Level of environment-damaging consumption. Personally, I’d be delighted to see private cars banned from most parts of the city, and people like me (who walk, or take public transport, everywhere) given substantial tax breaks. I’d like to see fossil fuels phased out entirely… not because of C02 (regarding which there is no proof of danger, still) but because of all the other direct and corollary toxins, erosions and degradations of Life. I’d like to see us all buying lots less bullshit, and energy-gorged tech, and living simpler lives. We don’t need even a quarter of the plastics or conflict minerals we consume as though they’re birth rights. We don’t need sweatshop clothing or Monsanto-supporting pseudo-foods. Why not focus on the Big Picture, and a broad range of reforms, instead of a TPTB-sponsored scare-fad…? If we phase out fossil fuels, the red herring of C02 becomes a moot worry, eh? Because it’s criminally absurd that an unthinkably vast, virtually-infinite source of nearly-FREE energy, at the center of this solar system, isn’t being adequately tapped. Any excuses for the ambiguous state of Solar Energy Tech, today, can only be disingenuous at best; we know WHY it’s been stunted. Why do we stand for it?




    0



    0
    • One of the worst examples of the people who acknowledge acceptance that global warming is man made is set by those who spout it whilst driving around in massive gas guzzlers ‘cos they’re cool and wouldn’t dream of wasting their money on eco friendly alternative forms of reducing their carbon footprint when there are so many wonderful ways to spoil themselves on the latest technology or handbag with matching shoes. Their answer when asked whether they should be contributing to lowering that foot print? “Well what can I do, I’m only one person?” or “There aren’t enough of us to make a difference, so why bother?” I can’t tell you in words, just how stupefying such responses are. It’s far worse than being a denier, they at least have good reason to ignore what they consider to be a flawed science. I must look like my elevator doesn’t go all the way to the top, when I stand with my jaw on the floor catching flies with a very vacant expression on my face, on hearing such excuses for doing absolutely nothing about what they believe in. I usually manage to get my jaw re engaged but not the vacant expression which seems to linger for an inordinately long period of time thereafter.




      0



      0
    • MoriartysLeftSock says

      Well, I’m a Warmish Lukewarmer. And I ride a bike and put a brick in my toilet tank, and don’t fly anywhere that can be got to by less fuel-extravagant means.

      But I am pretty sure the Goldman Sachs and Al Gore breed of alarmists don’t plan to allow any carbon restrictions to apply to them




      0



      0
      • Excellent, MLS! How would one start applying pressure, do you think, to get some timetable started re: phasing fossil fuels entirely out….? While boosting APPLE-style leaps-and-bounds Solar Energy Tech improvements? Because why quibble over C02 when it’s fossil fuels wreaking terrible ongoing (ramifying) environmental damage with or without AGW?




        0



        0
        • MoriartysLeftSock says

          Sadly I’m not optimistic. Genuine research into renewables is patchy. Scams and get-rich-quick schemes predominate. Only nuclear currently provides a viable large scale replacement for fossil fuels, unless we want to see a massive and potentially civilisation-threatening decay of living standards and infrastructure, and nuclear is a worse potential pollutant than hydrocarbons in many ways.

          If the C02 question had not been hijacked by cowboys and opportunists we’d have far more chance of getting a rational deployment of funds for research. The Green movement has been completely played by the clever use of the wrong sort of alarmism into backing stupid and expensive over sensible and cheap.

          Thi is why I want to see a realistic understanding of the issues. less panic and more sense.




          0



          0
          • “Genuine research into renewables is patchy.” Which must be by design; with such a huge potential market, where’s the competition/ innovation….? Squelched by the same forces pushing alarmism, imo: a vicious circle designed to keep things profitable (and under control) for a closed circle of players.




            0



            0
            • Sorry, Not Buying It says

              “Squelched by the same forces pushing alarmism, imo”

              Errrr…no. The “alarmists” are the ones pushing governments to invest in renewables, and have met with real success in Scandinavia (where a far, far greater portion of total energy production is from renewables) and have been stiffled in the US where the government has consistently FAILED to invest in renewables AGAINST the wishes of the very people you blame for this lack (note also in Scandinavia, public opinion and government policy is far more acknowledging of the reality of AGW than in the US). When governments DO invest in renewables, you whine “they’re taking my tax dollars away over a fad!” When private enterprise invests in renewables, you whine “See?! This is proof that AGW is a for-profit scam!” When there’s not ENOUGH investment in renewables you whine “It’s the fault of the alarmists! They just want to keep the profits among a small circle of players!” (i.e. those at the very forefront of increasing investment in renewables are, to you, the ones who somehow want to…keep enriching big oil)

              Your misdiagnoses are becoming disgusting.




              0



              0
              • “Your misdiagnoses are becoming disgusting.”

                Your use of the OTT-propaganda-vocabulary (“disgusting”? why not “despicable” like that other feller? Do you two ever appear in the same comment thread at the same time, btw…?) is becoming blatant. Or, as you might put it, “repulsive” or perhaps “satanic” or “pustulant”…?

                Why not stick to “facts” (as you see them) and “logic”? You undermine your case with those rhetorical hissy fits.




                0



                0
    • Sorry, Not Buying it says

      “and people like me (who walk, or take public transport, everywhere) given substantial tax breaks”

      Seriously? You had to smuggle THAT in? You’ve shown the petit-bourgeois content of your outlook on multiple occasions, but this is becoming silly.

      As for solar energy, it is certainly a very important component of transitioning away from fossil fuels and one that can surely be developed much further, but it’s doubtful that it represents the panacea you make it out to be. It also comes with serious corollary costs having to do with toxins, and is green only in a relative sense. Ultimately, the real solution will come from reorganizing the way that societies consume resources, and that has to do with replacing capitalism with a production and social system based on the fulfillment of human needs rather than endless accumulation.

      “Any excuses for the ambiguous state of Solar Energy Tech, today, can only be disingenuous at best; we know WHY it’s been stunted.”

      The ambiguous state of solar energy tech is the result of a lack of investment by institutions that you think are devoted to maintaining the climate change “myth” – except when they’re funding climate-denialism. Oh, by the way, try this on for size: the Chinese are the heaviest investors in solar energy, and the Chinese are FULLY ON BOARD with the standard narrative about climate change. So please tell us: what ulterior motive do you see here? The Bastards That Control Everything are stunting solar energy (but want to “push” the climate change “myth” on us), while the Chinese are heavily investing in solar energy (but ALSO want to “push” the climate change “myth” on us). Let me guess: you “don’t know” because you’re “honest” about the “limitations of your knowledge”. Great! Thanks, in advance, for the for the “insights”.




      0



      0
      • Well, Sorry, old chum, your talent for missing the point, spinning things self-servingly and garbling perfectly-logical assertions from your “opponents” will serve you well if you’re looking to make a living as a shill/troll! I won’t fall for the trick of trying to untangle and unpack the mess you’ve made of my perfectly good comments (giving you the opportunity to garble, tangle and obscure even more)… I’ll just wish you well! Your job is to hinder discussion and polarize the debate and make a general mess of the threads and you’re about 30% there! Luckily, the discussion isn’t limited to this thread and you’ve got a helluva big job ahead of you if you want that bonus…! Good luck!




        0



        0
        • Sorry, Not Buying It says

          “Well, Sorry, old chum, your talent for missing the point, spinning things self-servingly and garbling perfectly-logical assertions from your “opponents” will serve you well if you’re looking to make a living as a shill/troll! I won’t fall for the trick of trying to untangle and unpack the mess you’ve made of my perfectly good comments (giving you the opportunity to garble, tangle and obscure even more)… I’ll just wish you well! Your job is to hinder discussion and polarize the debate and make a general mess of the threads and you’re about 30% there! Luckily, the discussion isn’t limited to this thread and you’ve got a helluva big job ahead of you if you want that bonus…! Good luck!”

          Worthless retort. NONE of that came anywhere close to an argument.




          0



          0
          • Come back to gum up the rest of the threads, eh? Get to work, Man/Woman! Dangerous amounts of clarity were poking through….!




            0



            0
      • “As for solar energy, it is certainly a very important component of transitioning away from fossil fuels and one that can surely be developed much further, but it’s doubtful that it represents the panacea you make it out to be. It also comes with serious corollary costs having to do with toxins, and is green only in a relative sense. ”

        Sounds suspiciously like an argument from the Fossil Fuels industry…. or the Nuclear. There is no source of energy on the planet that comes close, in magnitude, to the energy provided by the Sun itself, though all the fossil fuels on Earth come to us, in the end, via the Sun.

        The “toxins” associated with producing solar panels with today’s tech is obviously an issue to be addressed with the kind of innovations possible in a field of research that isn’t being sabotaged by the competition. Solar energy comes in a myriad of forms… it isn’t limited to the electricity-generating-panels we know today.

        Sorry, old chum, I’ve never encountered a genuine Green Type who was so ambivalent about Solar Power (the obvious panacea for our energy needs)… I think your mask is slipping.

        Are you here to shill for Fossil Fuels… or for Nuclear?




        0



        0
        • Sorry, Not Buying It says

          “Sounds suspiciously like an argument from the Fossil Fuels industry…. or the Nuclear.”

          Only to someone who thinks in absolutes and who believes in panaceas.

          “There is no source of energy on the planet that comes close, in magnitude, to the energy provided by the Sun itself, though all the fossil fuels on Earth come to us, in the end, via the Sun.”

          Irrelevant for two reasons: 1) I was talking about the effects of heavy metal contamination; 2) what matters isn’t the magnitude of the source, but the magnitude of what we can EXTRACT.

          “The “toxins” associated with producing solar panels with today’s tech is obviously an issue to be addressed with the kind of innovations possible in a field of research that isn’t being sabotaged by the competition. Solar energy comes in a myriad of forms… it isn’t limited to the electricity-generating-panels we know today.”

          Fair enough; I don’t disagree. I’m saying that you shouldn’t hop onto a panacea.

          “Sorry, old chum, I’ve never encountered a genuine Green Type who was so ambivalent about Solar Power (the obvious panacea for our energy needs)… I think your mask is slipping.”

          You do know that solar energy isn’t the only form of renewable energy, right? We need a series of new technologies, not only solar. Maybe we need more of solar than anything else; that can’t be predicted in advance, though. We’ll have to see what’s technically and socially possible. You seem to want to skip over such considerations and instead bow at the altar of a silver bullet. I can’t help you there.

          “Are you here to shill for Fossil Fuels… or for Nuclear?”

          No, you are. After all, you’re an AGW denier who aligns himself with the same forces making it difficult to bring more renewables online.




          0



          0
          • “You do know that solar energy isn’t the only form of renewable energy, right? We need a series of new technologies, not only solar.”

            List the ones that make better sense than solar, please. I’m sure wind power/ sea-based turbine can be fine supplements. But what could possibly best Solar?

            “No, you are. After all, you’re an AGW denier who aligns himself with the same forces making it difficult to bring more renewables online.”

            Nah, either you’re just not sophisticated enough to catch the nature of the con (the AGW industry, as is, in no way works toward the total replacement of Fossil Fuels) or, yeah… you’re part of the nonsense. Nuclear and Fossil Fuels are both prohibitively and necessarily toxic for very different reasons; Solar is only toxic to the extent that the tech’s development has been stunted (powerful Oil Bastards at work, eh?) for half a century. A vast energy source at the center of the Solar System that’s always on… it’s a no-brainer, as they say. Yeah, a space-based operation seems in order. It’s do-able. And we can no longer live with the Eco-System Killing Fossil Fuel/ Nuclear curses.




            0



            0
    • I agree almost entirely [em]. The almost [em] refers to the big problem of ‘de-industrialising’ developed economies, and conversely of attempting to prevent ‘undeveloped’ economies from achieving even a modest level of comfort and self-sufficiency. It’s not too difficult for individuals or smaller groups to ‘drop out’ and ‘go green’ (live off the land etc), but for the vast majority in the cities it’s simply impossible. Using only solar energy for heating etc may be possible in Florida and southern Spain, for example, but people in much colder places – like Scotland, where I live, and certainly anywhere much further north – would freeze in the winter without oil or gas (or electricity generated in large power stations). Of course it’s possible to imagine a ‘clean, green’ way of living for everyone on the planet. But getting from here to there – whether it’s ‘undeveloping’ our unsustainable industrialised societies or sustainably developing the poor ones – is by no means easy. Has anyone even attempted to map out how it could be done – without removing two-thirds of humanity, as some apparently believe is necessary?




      0



      0
      • Paul! The main form of Solar would have to be from satellites in Geosynchronous orbit, probably, sending energy (microwaves? laser?) from the constant high noon of space. Supplemented by the diurnal, cloudless-skies-willing varieties.

        Re: moving two-thirds of Humanity. that’s the Evil Eugenicist’s dream. With the will, the conversion from one energy format to the other would be no more implausible than the conversion of farmland-to-super-highways was (or the conversion to Internet Infrastructure). Thirty years? Forty? The major obstacle is the Very Powerful Fossil Fuel Lobby, which is, of course, also “The Government” and The (Petro-Dollar) Economy. Hard to make things happen that THEY are against (whether or not they pretend they’re “for” these things).




        0



        0
        • I didn’t suggest it wasn’t possible … just that I’m not aware of any detailed study or proposal as to how the transition could be made. The basic requirements are food, water and shelter … sounds simple, but a convincing experiment would need to involve a largish city (minimum 100,000, preferably 2-300,000) – like a massive “Eden Project”.

          In colder climates, food production would be the biggest problem. I know there are some very clever integrated systems, but they mainly use hydroponics, which I don’t like (though presumably better hydroponically produced food than starvation …).

          It would have to be a government-funded project – a kind of “Great Leap Forward” (but we know how that turned out …) – possible in a centrally planned state like China.

          I read today that the Tory government has slapped a huge tax on solar panels. Is this TM following in the footsteps of MT – to force nuclear down our throats?




          0



          0
          • Well, obviously, initially you’d be gradually phasing Fossil Fuels out while phasing Electric-via-Solar in. It would happen over a period of decades… it wouldn’t be a matter of abruptly starting from scratch, like all the great paradigm shifts in housing, communication, transportation and energy we’ve seen from the 18th century forward.

            “… just that I’m not aware of any detailed study or proposal as to how the transition could be made.”

            That’s exactly the point: such studies or proposals, if attempted, are only ever undertaken to show how Solar fails… because such a change is the last thing TPTB want. I’m merely saying, overall, that we shouldn’t buy the absurd notion that Solar is still at a relatively primitive stage of development for natural, innocent, inevitable reasons. It has been, and will continue to be, sabotaged, for quite some time. The Empire is based on Oil.




            0



            0
  3. Jen says

    My sole contribution to the climate change is this: Does anyone know how much of anthropomorphically caused weather and climate change is due to wars around the planet, especially wars where DU weapons are used and uranium oxide and other chemical compounds (that may trap heat) are released into upper as well as lower atmosphere levels?




    0



    0
    • MoriartysLeftSock says

      Short answer – no.

      We just don’t know enough about natural variables to have much idea of what specific manmade activities (if any) will have enough impact on climate to make a perceptible difference. But one thing is for sure war does degrade and pollute our environment dangerously. Though I doubt this will factor largely in the MSM discussion of “climate change”.




      0



      0
      • Sorry, Not Buying it says

        “We just don’t know enough about natural variables to have much idea of what specific manmade activities (if any) will have enough impact on climate to make a perceptible difference.”

        Not according to science.




        0



        0
        • MoriartysLeftSock says

          I’m very puzzled. In previous comments you have admitted there are huge levels of uncertainty about how the climate works. You have admitted we don’t know the extent C02 acts as a forcer, you have admitted we don’t know the extent solar activity influences climate. You have admitted we don’t know what caused the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Ages. You have admitted we don’t know how much human activity may be responsible for the warming.

          So, why do you reflexively respond to me when I say exactly the same thing by claiming “science” has all the answers??

          How do you rationalise these reflexive rejections of the uncertainty on the one hand with your own acknowledgement of the uncertainty on the other? It’s as if you have been so trained to see uncertainty as an enemy that you have to reject it – even when you also know it’s true!




          0



          0
          • Sorry, Not Buying it says

            “I’m very puzzled. In previous comments you have admitted there are huge levels of uncertainty about how the climate works.”

            You’re puzzled because you don’t pay attention (to me OR to the science. Proof of that is in this statement: “Given that C02 is only 400ppm and methane is 1800ppm the idea that C02 is the most potent greenhouse gas is counter-intutive and needs to be established pretty firmly.” Such BASIC errors – which you then try to laugh off by introducing other ones – mean that you’re not interested in the science, only in how you can weave together an “argument” to appear contrarian): I said that there are uncertainties about the RANGE of change that is predicted, but that the DIRECTION and overall TREND of these changes holds across the board (and is actually what we see). Each of the scenarios has a probability estimate attached to it, but that continued warming per se will happen is a near certainty. If anything, the models have been too OPTIMISTIC in that they have underestimated the rate of change.

            “You have admitted we don’t know the extent C02 acts as a forcer, you have admitted we don’t know the extent solar activity influences climate.”

            You keep using the slimy evasion of “know”. Do you mean in the sense of absolute certainty? Well, tough, you’re not going to get that. Science rarely delivers absolute certainty about anything. Otherwise, what DO you mean? Again, the rate of change has been alarming, and has been UNDER-estimated by the models. This actually lends them credence, because the modelers bent over backwards to make whatever predictions the models would make on the conservative side – but you take this discrepancy as “proof” that the models “don’t work”!

            “You have admitted we don’t know what caused the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Ages.”

            I said no such thing, because I didn’t even talk about these phenomena.




            0



            0
            • MoriartysLeftSock says

              MLS responds to Sorry Not Buying It

              You’re puzzled because you don’t pay attention (to me OR to the science. Proof of that is in this statement: “Given that C02 is only 400ppm and methane is 1800ppm the idea that C02 is the most potent greenhouse gas is counter-intutive and needs to be established pretty firmly.” Such BASIC errors – which you then try to laugh off by introducing other ones

              I did apologise for writing 1.800 as 1800. I don’t remember any other errors being pointed out to me, but I can be a bit vague, so if I’ve forgotten I apologise for those too. I THINK the underlying point is correct though. Water vapour is by far the most potent greenhouse gas.

              you’re not interested in the science, only in how you can weave together an “argument” to appear contrarian)

              I am extremely interested in science. In fact I am FASCINATED by science and would much rather talk about science than insult my opponents for daring to take a different view.

              Shall we both agree to do that? Talk science and avoid ad hominem?

              I said that there are uncertainties about the RANGE of change that is predicted, but that the DIRECTION and overall TREND of these changes holds across the board

              I am preeety sure that’s not what you were saying elsewhere, but, as I said, I can be vague, so apologies if I have misremembered.

              But if that is what you said – what did you mean? Specifically, what does “the DIRECTION and overall TREND of these changes holds across the board” mean in relation to our discussion of the current warming?

              Each of the scenarios has a probability estimate attached to it, but that continued warming per se will happen is a near certainty.

              My initial response to this as a scientist is to ask you how you can possibly make such a claim absent any clear proof for a) what is causing the warming and b) how the earth’s numerous systems will respond to the warming.

              If anything, the models have been too OPTIMISTIC in that they have underestimated the rate of change.

              You have made this assertion before. What models are you referring to? I can’t evaluate this claim unless you provide some source for the relevant models and their predictions.

              Are you saying there are alarmist models from 20 years ago that predicted less warming than we have experienced?

              You keep using the slimy evasion of “know”. Do you mean in the sense of absolute certainty? Well, tough, you’re not going to get that. Science rarely delivers absolute certainty about anything.

              Well, agreed, absolute certainty is unobtainable, but we generally require a pretty high degree of certainty before we accept a theory or a law. Most currently accepted scientific precepts have been established by repeated observations and survived numerous efforts at refutation, as per the scientific method. They have earned their right to be regarded as theories or laws. Manmade global warming has not acquired that degree of evidence. It’s merely a hypothesis. It’s one I happen to support, but I don’t pretend it’s anything more than that.

              It’s very worrying to see the proper scientific method overturned in favour of hysteria and McCarthy witch hunts of scientists who are merely trying to assert proper standards of scientific objectivity. This is NOT science but politics. The lay population has been rallied into supporting sloppy science and our nonsensically inflated claims for reasons I have yet to understand.

              And they have been told to regard any scientist who tries to maintain the proper methods as some sort of evil-doer. This is Luddism masquerading an environmentalism. No good will come of it.

              Again, the rate of change has been alarming, and has been UNDER-estimated by the models.

              Again, you need to source this remarkable claim.

              This actually lends them credence, because the modelers bent over backwards to make whatever predictions the models would make on the conservative side – but you take this discrepancy as “proof” that the models “don’t work”!

              Not only do I not do that, but I have no idea what models you can possibly be referring to. Please tell me about this research.

              “You have admitted we don’t know what caused the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Ages.

              I said no such thing, because I didn’t even talk about these phenomena.

              My mistake. I was sure you admitted we don’t know the cause of these events. I must have been wrong.

              But do I understand from your reply that you think we DO know why the MWP and LIA happened?




              0



              0
              • Sorry, Not Buying it says

                “I did apologise for writing 1.800 as 1800.”

                Please don’t insult everyone’s intelligence. Here’s what you actually wrote:

                “Given that C02 is only 400ppm and methane is 1800ppm the idea that C02 is the most potent greenhouse gas is counter-intutive and needs to be established pretty firmly.”

                That wasn’t a typo, but an instance of ignorance on your part. Why are you now trying to brush it off as a typo, as though you could substitute 1800ppm with 1.800ppm and still maintain the meaning of that sentence? Here, let’s try it:

                “Given that C02 is only 400ppm and methane is 1.800ppm the idea that C02 is the most potent greenhouse gas is counter-intutive and needs to be established pretty firmly. ”

                See how that doesn’t make sense? Therefore, you’re lying.

                ” I THINK the underlying point is correct though. Water vapour is by far the most potent greenhouse gas.”

                Except that it’s reliant upon an already existing temperature change to get it going. CO2 and methane can be emitted without there being an already existing temperature change; water vapor takes place as a RESULT of temperature change.

                “Specifically, what does “the DIRECTION and overall TREND of these changes holds across the board” mean in relation to our discussion of the current warming?”

                That the planet is indeed warming up, that this is manifested in a long-term trend, and that this trend has been predicted to keep going (which it has).

                “Are you saying there are alarmist models from 20 years ago that predicted less warming than we have experienced?”

                Well, yes, and you’d know that if you paid any attention to news reports about new findings that surprise even climate scientists.

                “Manmade global warming has not acquired that degree of evidence. It’s merely a hypothesis. It’s one I happen to support, but I don’t pretend it’s anything more than that.”

                You “support” it? Get real. You’ve provided nothing but denialist tropes, AGAINST this “mere hypothesis”. How does that add up to “support”?

                We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (this has been known for many decades), a conclusion derived from both basic thermodynamics and chemistry AND from actual experiments; we KNOW that humans have been pumping enormous quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere for decades; we KNOW that the Earth’s geochemical cycles can’t absorb all the excess carbon that civilization has been emitting; we KNOW that this excess carbon is due to human-related emissions, as shown by the carbon isotopic fractionation; we KNOW that when we measure the amount of carbon and calculate its radiative content, that it constitutes a huge amount of energy retained in the system; we KNOW that the Earth has, overall, been heating up for the past decades in the midst of this increase in CO2 and that this is completely outside of human historical ranges and is completely inconsistent with natural records dating back half a million years. So putting all these pieces together, you still want to PRETEND that there are no clear, excellent reasons for saying that, yes, humans are indeed almost certainly responsible for the patterns we’re seeing today. You still want to PRETEND that science works by providing a single “proof” for something, rather than asking whether pieces of evidence from disparate phenomena convergently point to the same thing (by your logic, evolution is merely a “hypothesis” rather than a well attested natural process because “no one has seen” birds evolve from dinosaurs). Sorry, I just don’t have that much FAITH in the virtues of ignoring the scientific method.

                “This is NOT science but politics.”

                Politics is EXACTLY what you’re partaking in.

                “And they have been told to regard any scientist who tries to maintain the proper methods as some sort of evil-doer. This is Luddism masquerading an environmentalism. No good will come of it.”

                This is pure caricatured garbage. The “Luddism”, if anything, is on your end, given your very weak grasp of the basics of the scientific method. Only someone afflicted with a sophomoric conception of science as something that provides singular “proofs” for phenomena could ignore that theories are built upon the convergence of evidence and indirect inferences made from said evidence. Please, tell me how much “certainty” would be enough for you, and how we could possibly get to it. Because nothing within the scientific method that you pay lip service to would suffice for that.

                “Again, you need to source this remarkable claim.”

                I presume you don’t read the news and therefore never read climate scientists being quoted. Not my fault.

                “But do I understand from your reply that you think we DO know why the MWP and LIA happened?”

                No. I haven’t looked sufficiently into these to comment.




                0



                0
                • MoriartysLeftSock says

                  Here’s what you actually wrote:
                  “Given that C02 is only 400ppm and methane is 1800ppm the idea that C02 is the most potent greenhouse gas is counter-intutive and needs to be established pretty firmly.”
                  That wasn’t a typo, but an instance of ignorance on your part. Why are you now trying to brush it off as a typo, as though you could substitute 1800ppm with 1.800ppm

                  Yes it really is a stupid sentence. I don’t know what else to say. I do know the composition of the atmosphere though, and my real point was the percentage of water vapour which I managed to omit altogether.

                  Therefore, you’re lying.

                  Friend, I have been more than courteous about your many and baffling science gaffs, and I’ve declined to respond in kind to your rudeness. But if you want to continue talking to me please stop insulting me and focus on the far more interesting topic of climate change.

                  Unless of course you find insults easier than science?

                  “Manmade global warming has not acquired that degree of evidence. It’s merely a hypothesis. It’s one I happen to support, but I don’t pretend it’s anything more than that.”

                  You “support” it? Get real. You’ve provided nothing but denialist tropes, AGAINST this “mere hypothesis”. How does that add up to “support”?

                  I’m afraid what you call “denialist tropes” is just the real state of the real science. It’s complex and NOT settled. There is good evidence for C02 as a climate forcer, but none of that evidence has been tested in a real world setting, so we can’t know for sure how the experimental observations translate into actual observation. The actions of other atmospheric gasses, the potnetial leaching of Co2, the actions of water-vapor and the impact of such small concentrations of C02 in such a complex system are all unknowns.

                  So it would be erroneous for me to say “Co2 is a major climate forcer”, but quite true for me to say “C02 may be a major climate forcer. and I am inclined to think it will be shown to be in the future.” However it’s also entirely possible I may be wrong.

                  Many scientists who are basically of warmist persuasions object to the manner in which science has been dumbed down and oversimplified. No one benefits from this. The evidence doesn’t support certitude. And people should not be persecuted for reminding their colleagues of that.

                  We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (this has been known for many decades), a conclusion derived from both basic thermodynamics and chemistry AND from actual experiments;

                  Well, it’s not quite that simple. There are those who derived differing results from experiments over the centuries, and there are climate scientists today who maintain C02 is not a major greenhouse gas. They may be in a minority, but we can’t forget that in the past minority views have turned out to be correct. Science isn’t a democracy, and shouldn’t be.

                  I personally agree that there is good evidence for C02 as a greenhouse gas. I just object, both ethically and scientifically, to those who hold a different view being discounted and derided like 16th century heretics. These guys likely know more about the science than most of the people denigrating them. It’s disgraceful.

                  But there is another aspect also. Simply because C02 has behaved as a greenhouse agent in laboratory experiments doesn’t mean it will do so in he real world to the same extent. And no, this isn’t just “denier” quibbling. It’s a very valid scientific point. The history of science is full of laboratory observations disproved by real world application.

                  we KNOW that humans have been pumping enormous quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere for decades;

                  Yes we do.Though of course the amounts in terms of percentages of the whole atmosphere are very small. 400 parts per million. With such tiny fractions it’s very hard to offer certitude.

                  we KNOW that the Earth’s geochemical cycles can’t absorb all the excess carbon that civilization has been emitting;

                  No, we don’t. It’s theorised, but not known. One of the major problems many scientists have with the presentation of this issue in the media is the way in which no distinction is made between shades of certainty. The things we do know for sure ( eg – there’s more C02 in the atmosphere/ it’s getting warmer) are presented alongside things we only assume or theorise about (eg – the rate of decay/absorption of C02 in the earth’s systems, or the positive feedback loop associated with methane and water vapour), and NO attempt is made to distinguish between them. The cumulative effect of this is highly misleading.

                  we KNOW that this excess carbon is due to human-related emissions, as shown by the carbon isotopic fractionation;

                  We don’t know it. We infer it from experimentation. I think it’s a reasonable deduction. It’s not a certain fact.

                  we KNOW that when we measure the amount of carbon and calculate its radiative content, that it constitutes a huge amount of energy retained in the system;

                  You will have to explain what you mean by this. I can’t translate this sentence into terms that mean anything to me. But do remember carbon is an extremely common element, and it has ben present in the atmosphere in times past at hugely greater concentrations than now with no observable ill-effects. It’s not plutonium or mercury. It’s not a poison. It’s the stuff of life. The mere fact of it being in our atmosphere in increased amounts is not – per se – a problem. if we think it may be doing something dangerous we need to establish this with observation.

                  we KNOW that the Earth has, overall, been heating up for the past decades in the midst of this increase in CO2

                  It would be more true to say we have evidence the earth has been heating up for about the last 100 years, if not slightly longer.

                  But this is where things become particularly complicated and have been particularly over-simplified by the layman press. We need to look at the current warming in the perspective of a world that has been continually warming and cooling since time began. In times long past the temps were often much MUCH higher than now, in more recent times (the last few million years) we’ve had a fairly long cooler period, interspersed with glaciations.

                  And within these long cycles we can see shorter cycles of warming and cooling. The most recent of these were the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age.

                  In the MWP temps were potentially warmer on average than now in most f Europe. in the LIA they were much colder.

                  The MWP ended around the 13th century and temps cycled rapidly downward for the next few hundred years. . The LIA saw ice fairs being held on the frozen Thames well into the 17th C, before temps began to cycle up again around about the turn of the 19th Century.

                  Some climate scientists believe the current warming is simply a continuation of the thaw following the LIA. Others think this is probably true, but may be augmented by the increasing C02. Others are convinced natural cycles have nothing to do with the current warming. The fragmentary evidence we have is capable of many interpretations.

                  That’s a more accurate – if less brief – summary of what we know about the current warming.

                  and that this [warming] is completely outside of human historical ranges and is completely inconsistent with natural records dating back half a million years.

                  No, we don’t know that. There is no data available to draw such sweeping conclusions, and even those scientists who suggest it as a theory would hesitate to say we “know” it.This is yet another example of the media exaggerating and simplifying the complex debates within the discipline.

                  Some studies claim to show the MWP to have been warmer than now. There’s anecdotal evidence in the records of a sudden and catastrophic tumbling of temps in the high Middle Ages as the MWP gave way to the LIA. Further back in prehistory we simply do not have enough data to establish how quickly the climate cycled through its changes. We can only see the broadest of changes over eons. But those changes involved warming and cooling of many times greater magnitude of anything humanity has witnessed recently.

                  One thing we know is that climate is always changing.

                  This does not rule out manmade C02 as a forcer, and does not rule out the possibility of extreme warming as a result. But that possibility can only be assessed within a realistic understanding of the climate’s known and still unknown cycles.

                  So putting all these pieces together, you still want to PRETEND that there are no clear, excellent reasons for saying that, yes, humans are indeed almost certainly responsible for the patterns we’re seeing today.

                  Well, I hope I’ve helped you to see that you had a very incomplete and oversimplified reading of climate history, and that the complexities and uncertainties are real, and not a chimera dreamed up by wild-eyed deniers.

                  (by your logic, evolution is merely a “hypothesis” rather than a well attested natural process because “no one has seen” birds evolve from dinosaurs).

                  No, evolution is a Theory – viz it has a large amount of data to support it, but not enough certitude or simplicity to be confirmed as a Law.

                  And no, ye gods, I’m not a creationist, I am merely telling you how science actually works.

                  Sorry, I just don’t have that much FAITH in the virtues of ignoring the scientific method.

                  I see – so why do you ignore it quite as persistently as you do?

                  The “Luddism”, if anything, is on your end, given your very weak grasp of the basics of the scientific method. Only someone afflicted with a sophomoric conception of science as something that provides singular “proofs” for phenomena could ignore that theories are built upon the convergence of evidence and indirect inferences made from said evidence.

                  You do enjoy the word “sophomoric” don’t you. But I am getting just a little bit tired of these abusive riffs. Why don’t we employ the scientific method you endorse so enthusiastically and talk about – science, not my personal failings as a human being.

                  Please, tell me how much “certainty” would be enough for you, and how we could possibly get to it.

                  I will gladly tell you that. I will consider CAGW or AGW to be a Theory and therefore broadly true when it has robustly been confirmed by repeat predictions, been proof against falsification and continue to fit the data better and more consistently than any other competing hypothesis.

                  In other words, when it conforms to the definition of a theory defined by the….oh, what is that phrase…?

                  Oh yes – the scientific method.

                  I presume you don’t read the news and therefore never read climate scientists being quoted. Not my fault.

                  No. I don’t. I read scientific journals, peer-reviewed papers and books to get information on climate change. Because the climate science presented in the MSM is oversimplified and often dishonest hackery, written to communicate tropes and memes to people with no discernible scientific literacy.

                  I haven’t looked sufficiently into [the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age] to comment.

                  Ah I see. I suggest you do. And try to read a bit more widely than the Guardian for you science fix. There’s a lot more data and a lot less dumbed down fear porn if you go to the actual literature.

                  [edited by Admin for typo at request of author]




                  0



                  0
                • Sorry, Not Buying It says

                  You talk a lot about the scientific method and how you read peer reviewed papers to avoid the oversimplifications of the media; you also accuse me of “scientific gaffs”; but then you say stuff like this that makes me not take you seriously at all:

                  “Though of course the amounts in terms of percentages of the whole atmosphere are very small. 400 parts per million. With such tiny fractions it’s very hard to offer certitude.”

                  As you should know by now, it isn’t the concentration that is important, but the total MASS of carbon in the atmosphere. We’re talking many billions of tonnes. The majority of the atmosphere is nitrogen. You’re offering – sorry to use these word again, but they’re entirely appropriate here – sophomoric, denialist tropes that rest on personally incredulity (“I can’t IMAGINE how such small concentrations could add up to such a large effect. Therefore, they likely don’t.”

                  You also keep talking about “certitude”; then you switch to “the scientific method”, which ISN’T about certitude but the cumulative convergence of evidence and whether it points in one direction or another. You talk about AGW being a mere “hypothesis”, then later you mention “theory” (in the context of evolution) as opposed to “law” – yet earlier you said that there are indeed compelling reasons for CO2 as an important radiative forcer/greenhouse gas, which one would think would at least bump AGW to the level of theory instead of mere hypothesis.




                  0



                  0
          • MLS is entirely correct that we (scientists) cannot say anything with certainty about the causes of variations in weather and climate. The 1995 edition of The New York Public Library Science Desk Reference has this to say about “Global Warming”:
            “There is no real consensus concerning the increase in global temperatures. Some studies have show that the world’s average temperature has risen by 0.5 degrees C since 1600. Other studies have noted a 0.3 degrees C rise in mean surface air temperatures in the past 100 years. It is unknown [em] whether the rise is part of the Earth’s natural climate cycle or a result of the greenhouse gases from human activity.
            Solid evidence for greenhouse warming has not yet been found, though there is agreement that atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is increasing. But warming is difficult to determine: Natural fluctuations in local climate, and even the world climate, are common, and climate conditions have been recorded for only a short period when compared to the millions of years the world’s climate has existed. Though researchers are using supercomputers to examine the global climate, the number of variables needed to determine a general circulation model of the Earth’s atmosphere is enormous” [blockquote].
            This is only to restate what has been said innumerable times in this thread and by the very many scientists who have been courageous enough to challenge the myth of human-caused climate change.




            0



            0
  4. I’m afraid that your information on the Global Warming Petition Project (GWPP) is wrong. The number is repeatedly often because it supposedly counters the actual overwhelming consensus based on 200 years of theory and mountains of data that industrial climate disruption (my preferred term for AGW) is real. And contrary to what you believe, 31,487 is actually a “few” people when you compare it to the number of people who meet the GWPP organizers’ absurdly broad criteria.

    First, just having a Bachelor’s of Science (or higher) degree doesn’t make one a scientist. Having a degree, working in a scientific field, getting your climate science published in journals, etc. – that’s what makes someone a scientist. The GWPP is a list of doctors, engineers, veterinarians, and other mostly non-scientists who are not climate experts. The number of actual climate experts is probably less than 200.

    After all, would you expect an mechanical engineer to know how to place a dental implant in someone’s jaw, or an oral surgeon to know how to design a suspension bridge? Of course not. So you shouldn’t expect all these non-experts to have informed opinions on climate science either.

    Second, even if you accept the GWPP’s obviously absurd criteria for a scientist/climate expert, the GWPP’s signers represent 0.25% of the people who could have signed the petition (as compared to graduation data collected by the US Department of Education since 1970). That’s a tiny minority. If you compare the number of signatures to the number of people working in the GWPP’s chosen occupations, the signers represent 0.44%, still a tiny minority (as compared to Bureau of Labor Statistics data for 2013). And the minorities remain small when you compare the signatures by category to the US membership of professional organizations like the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Physical Society, the American Chemical Society, and the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers. (source: http://scholarsandrogues.com/tag/gwpp-bls-doed2015/)

    However you look at it, the claim that the Global Warming Petition Project somehow disproves the overwhelming scientific consensus on the causes of global warming is false.




    0



    0
    • MoriartysLeftSock says

      But as a scientist I’m appalled at the use of consensus in place of data. Science doesn’t measure a theory by how many scientists believe it, Science is about data not belief.

      The data is what it is. And it’s ambiguous. Which is why there are so many shades of opinion.

      And look at the wording of so many of the “consensus” statements. carefully worded to try and wring agreement from those who don’t agree!

      One scientists will sign a statement claiming a “significant” human impact on global warming because he feels sure his models demonstrate CAGW is a high probability.

      Another will sign the same statement because he thinks the evidence is good enough to show a reasonable likelihood of CAGW

      Another will sign the statement because – while he doesn’t accept the CAGW theory – he still thinks human impact on climate i likely to be large enough for further study and exploration.

      Yet another will sign it simply because he thinks the situation calls for a benefit of doubt.

      The appearance of “consensus” is achieved by making the wording as vague as possible so that many different shades of opinion can find it acceptable. The “consensus” masks as much disagreement as it demonstrates agreement. In that sense it is pure politics, not science.




      0



      0
      • MoriaritysLeftSock, consensus has a place in science. It always will, and it should. We don’t have to re-prove the existence of gravity or the wave nature of light before we calculate trajectories of propelled objects or how much a He-Ne laser beam will diffract when it hits a knife edge. There is so much data underlying those positions that they’re accepted as fact.

        And that’s ultimately what a scientific consensus is – a consensus of opinion based on the mass of underlying data. And at this point, the data is truly overwhelmingly in favor of the reality of industrial climate disruption (my preferred term). I’ve been studying and writing about climate for over a decade, including replicating some of the key papers on my own when something about the math pegged my bullshit detector, and everything I’ve studied says that climate is changing, that greenhouse gases are the culprit, and that the changes will be disruptive to human society and global ecology.

        A great paper that talks about the evolution of scientific consensus and how science about once controversial topics proceeds is Shwed and Bearman, “The Temporal Structure of Scientific Consensus Formation.” Based on what they found, there’s been a consensus on the existence and causes of climate disruption since the early 1990s.

        As for the vaguesness of the questions, that issue has been addressed indirectly by the fact that there have been something like 8-10 unique and independent attempts to assess the consensus of scientific opinion regarding the causes of industrial climate disruption. Each of them used differing methodologies and the measured consensus was as low as about 90% and as high as fractionally below 100%, with the mean being about 97% (IIRC). That’s replication, and it’s the gold standard in science. Most scientific questions are lucky to have one, maybe two attempts at replication performed – this question has been replicated over and over and over again.




        0



        0
        • MoriartysLeftSock says

          1) Observation by repeat experiments that establish a given law or theory is NOT the same as “science by consensus.” We all know that 2+2=4. But this is not a “consensus”. We haven’t all agreed to believe this. We all know it, because it is demonstrated to be a fact. Newton’s Laws of thermodynamics can be confirmed by observation. We haven’t just all got together and agreed they’re probably true! Numbers of scientists who believe something is not evidence for it being true. Period.

          2) This claim of “overwhelming “ evidence is so often made, and always in abstract. The “overwhelming” evidence is never detailed or defined or sourced. Where is the overwhelming evidence? Where is the research that removes all the numerous ambiguities that were still there last time i checked? Where’s the data on forcing, which proves the current warming is not associated with solar activity? Where’s the data that refutes the possibility c02 increases as a response to warming and not as agent of warming? Where’s the data on past non-anthropogenic climate cycles which shows this current warming is not simply a part of these cycles?

          Of course the climate is changing. But where is the proof it has anything to do with human activity?

          I wholly support the hypothesis of man’s affect on climate. There’s reasonable evidence, if largely inferential evidence for this. But I deplore the anti-science and media trolling that tries to make this plausible hypothesis into a certainty.

          If you’re genuinely a scientist you must know it is a falsehood to claim anything about AGW is accepted as “fact”. Shame on you for saying that.




          0



          0
          • First, I’m not a scientist. I’m an electrical engineer who works in aerospace. But I have a masters degree in optics and communications, which combined to give me a decent background in stuff like the physics of IR absorption by the atmosphere and enough statistics (albeit rusty at this point) that I can follow most statistics in climate papers. I will not claim to be an expert, however.

            We can say 2+2=4 is a fact because that’s math, and 100% certainty with positive proofs are possible in mathematics. But we can’t say that the Laws of Thermodynamics are “facts.” They’re scientific laws, which are merely theories that have been tested thoroughly and found to always be predictive and reproducible under the specific conditions they apply to. But they’re still subject to revision if we learn something new. That happened with Newton’s Laws of Motion when Einstein came along and proposed relativity.

            But yes, actually, scientists have largely agreed that the Laws of Thermodynamics are probably true. We don’t bother to test them any more except under extremely weird circumstances precisely because they’ve been right so many times. Based on the data, scientists have agreed that the Laws of Thermodynamics are “true.” That decision is a consensus, based on the data. The same kind of consensus has formed, although not anywhere near as strong as the consensus of the “truth” of thermodynamics, about industrial climate disruption.

            You asked for evidence, so here you go:

            Modern warming cannot be due to solar heating because the sun would be heating the stratosphere more than it would be heating the troposphere. The exact opposite pattern is observed (tropospheric heating with stratospheric cooling), which just happens to match the expected pattern for greenhouse gases.

            Carbon dioxide is an IR absorbing gas because of its atomic structure (IR photons are absorbed and converted into phonons, or quanta of vibration). This means that adding a LOT more CO2 to the air MUST make it more opaque to IR. This has been observed both satellites and ground stations.

            We know the CO2 in the air is increasing (a la the Keeling Curve), and by measuring the change in isotopic ratio (C12 vs C13), we know that the change MUST be coming from a source that is or was alive. There isn’t enough change in terrestrial biomass to produce the observed increase, and we know it’s not coming from the ocean (the other possible source besides burning fossil fuels) because the amount of dissolved CO2 in seawater is increasing (ocean acidification, or, if you prefer, a reduction in ocean alkalinity).

            We have measured a corresponding drop in global oxygen that corresponds with the increase in CO2, which means that the source of the CO2 is burning fossil fuels. And it doesn’t hurt that we know pretty well how much oil, coal, and natural gas is burned every year, and we can directly calculate how much CO2 all that combustion creates. All that CO2 has to go somewhere by conservation of matter, and it’s been tracked – it’s mostly going into the ocean, some is going into greening the biosphere, a tiny bit is reacting with rocks, and the rest is hanging around and pushing up the Keeling Curve.

            As for prior cycles, astronomers know where we are in the Milankovic cycles, and based on those we should be cooling down to another ice age right now. But that’s not happening.

            The fact that climate is changing is irrefutable. The fact that it is due to greenhouse gases is due to the IR properties of those greenhouse gases (which have been observed and are well understood according to quantum mechanics). The only greenhouse gas that is strong enough, resides in the atmosphere long enough, and exists in high enough concentrations in the atmosphere today to produce the observed effects is CO2.

            There are literally no other alternatives that have any credibility at all. Every alternative hypothesis to AGW has been falsified. Every. Single. One. So even if you don’t think that the evidence I mentioned above is enough, the fact remains that industrial climate disruption is the only theory that fits all the data. And as Sherlock Holmes once said, “Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” Industrial climate disruption is that truth.




            0



            0
            • MoriartysLeftSock says

              You asked for evidence, so here you go:
              Modern warming cannot be due to solar heating because the sun would be heating the stratosphere more than it would be heating the troposphere.

              Oh please. If only we knew enough to make such pronouncements. The climate is a coupled nonlinear chaotic system remember. Even if we had 2,000 years of good observation data we could not make specific statements such as this. Ask any climate scientist to put his reputation behind that claim. They won’t.

              The evidence for a correlation between sunspot activity and global climate is very good. The precise way these variations interact with other variations, such as the accumulation of greenhouse gases is an ongoing exploration, and some interesting work is being produced

              http://www.pas.rochester.edu/%7Edouglass/papers/PLA_Sun_II_in_press.pdf

              Anyone who tells you we “know” anything much as yet is a liar or a fool.

              The exact opposite pattern is observed (tropospheric heating with stratospheric cooling), which just happens to match the expected pattern for greenhouse gases.

              Indeed, it’s consistent. But that’s all it is. It’s a very small window of observation of a chaotic system which responds in long and short cycle to pressures and forcings we are only beginning to comprehend, and many of which we still have no idea about. It’s not possible to offer any more than conditional observations at this time

              Carbon dioxide is an IR absorbing gas because of its atomic structure (IR photons are absorbed and converted into phonons, or quanta of vibration). This means that adding a LOT more CO2 to the air MUST make it more opaque to IR. This has been observed both satellites and ground stations.

              As an engineer you must know you can’t quantify the effect of one force on a complex system unless or until you know all the other forces in operation. We DON’T KNOW THAT YET. So we can only best guess the impact of increased Co2. We can’t know anything .

              [Since I’m not disputing the increase of C02 I won’t bother responding to your points about that].

              The fact that climate is changing is irrefutable.

              Yes it is.

              The fact that it is due to greenhouse gases is due to the IR properties of those greenhouse gases (which have been observed and are well understood according to quantum mechanics). The only greenhouse gas that is strong enough, resides in the atmosphere long enough, and exists in high enough concentrations in the atmosphere today to produce the observed effects is CO2.

              Again you are making HUGE leaps of assumption based on the idea we know far more about the climate than we actually do. I blame popular science blogs and the media for this widespread misapprehension. Their simplistic summaries of “global warming” have made everyone believe the climate is pretty much figured out, and only Big Oil scientists are claiming uncertainty. Absolute nonsense. Look at the IPCC reports. You’ll find very few claims of certitude there. Non-scientists don’t seem to understand the difference between a probability and a certainty, or that even a high confidence prediction on very limited data is still little more than a guess.

              Every alternative hypothesis to AGW has been falsified. Every. Single. One.

              This is what you get from reading popular science blogs. Brian – even the IPCC does not claim anything like the degree of certitude you seem to think is being stated . It’s position is cited here:

              “It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.”

              “Extremely likely that more than half”, is a long way from “every alternative hypothesis to AGW has been falsified” isn’t it. In fact the IPCC is accepting that an unknown amount of the current warming could be, or even probably is, due to those “alternative hypotheses” you claim are impossible.

              You see the disconnect between the popular idea of climate science and the reality expressed by the IPCC? This is the problem we all live with.




              0



              0
    • Simple response: there is no “overwhelming scientific consensus on the causes of global warming”. The incessant repetition of a lie does not make it a truth, despite what Goebbels said. There has been no global warming since about 1998. The “hockey stick” was pure invention – in real terms a blatant fraud. Satellite data (the most reliable) contradict both weather station data and computer models (the GIGO phenomenon). The ‘great climate change lie’ is sustained by dishonest scientists and governments and others i.e. by those who stand to gain financially or otherwise from it.




      0



      0
      • Paul, you’re wrong. Flat. Out. Wrong.

        First, the hockey stick is present in pretty much all the data that exists – boreholes, stalagmites, ice cores, as well as tree rings. And multiple independent reconstructions, using improved statistics, all show the same thing – the hockey stick is not an artifact of the analysis method, but is embedded in the data itself. As for whether it was a “fraud,” Penn State and the National Science Foundation both investigated those claims after Climategate and both found that claims of fraud were unsubstantiated.

        Second, satellite data does have greater geographic coverage than surface stations, but most satellite experts disagree that it’s the most reliable. Microwave sounding units used to indirectly measure the temperature of the atmosphere at various altitudes are subject to far more sources of error and bias than surface stations are, and so satellite data is inherently less accurate. The fact that the data sets of RSS and UAH are both based on the exact same raw data and yet have often shown opposite atmospheric trends (which UAH has had to adjust more to match RSS than the other way around – and RSS shows warming) should make you immediately distrust anyone who claims that satellite data is “better.”

        And third, if you have to resort to conspiracy theories to make your point, you’ve already lost.




        0



        0
        • MoriartysLeftSock says

          The hockey stick is most definitely NOT present across the board. It was a blatant and quasi-fraudulent contrivance by Mann et al, the product of poor methodology and conflating data from different sources. Not only did it controversially omit both the MWP and the LIA, but it used flawed programming that produced hockey stick-shaped spikes even from random data. It’s no longer used as a reference in serious studies.

          https://www.technologyreview.com/s/403256/global-warming-bombshell/




          0



          0
          • MLS, you are also incorrect about the hockey stick. Even if the original methodology was fatally flawed (and it wasn’t, regardless of what you and others might think), the hockey stick has been replicated using alternative and improved methodologies, additional proxies, and on and on and on. But so you don’t have to take my word for it, here’s links for you:

            Boreholes
            Huang et al 2008 (look at Figure 2, specifically the spike at the 0 years BP end of the figure) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL034187/full
            Pollack and Smerden 2003: http://ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/smerdon/Pollack_and_Smerdon_Journal.pdf

            Stalagmites
            Smith 2006: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1329/pdf

            Ice cores
            Oerlemans et al 2005: http://spordakost.jorfi.is/data/fraedigreinar/Oerlemans_2005_science.pdf

            Shrubs
            Weijers et al 2013: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stef_Weijers/publication/235341966_Reconstructing_High_Arctic_growing_season_intensity_from_shoot_length_growth_of_a_dwarf_shrub/links/54a7ea3b0cf267bdb90b2ddf.pdf

            Alternative methodologies
            Barboza et al 2014: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.3260.pdf
            Marcott et al 2013: https://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Marcott%20et%20al.,%202013,%20Science.pdf
            Ljungqvist et al 2012: http://www.clim-past.net/8/227/2012/cp-8-227-2012.pdf
            Kaufman et al 2009: http://denverclimatestudygroup.com/OTHER-MISC/ArcticCoolingScience200909041236.pdf

            The hockey stick is in the data.




            0



            0
            • MoriartysLeftSock says

              WTF Brian?

              NONE of those links express any support for the Mann et al (1999) Hockey Stick.

              NONE.

              Your first link specifically references the “controversy” of Mann et al (1999) IN ORDER TO DISTANCE ITSELF FROM IT. The graphs in this link are NOT Hockey Sticks specifically because they include the MWP and LIA which Mann et al ignored.

              Your second link DOES NOT REFERENCE THE HOCKEY STICK (Mann et al 1999) AT ALL. It does not even cover the same period as that covered by the Hockey Stick. Why did you link to it?

              Your third link only briefly mentions the Hockey Stick (Mann et all 1999), and again it draws attention to the fact it was anomalous due to its removal of the MWP and LIA. NONE OF THE GRAPHS AT THIS LINK PORTRAY HOCKEY STICKS.

              Your fourth link has NO REFERENCE TO THE HOCKEY STICK AT ALL, and (again) its graphs do not portray hockey sticks, nor do they cover the same time period covered by the Hockey Stick. Again – why did you link to it, since it does not support your contention?

              Your fifth link has NO REFERENCE TO THE HOCKEY STICK AT ALL, and (again) its graphs do not portray hockey sticks, nor do they cover the same time period covered by the Hockey Stick. Are we seeing a pattern here?

              Your sixth link does at least contain one graph that superficially resembles the Hockey Stick, though it is not Mann et al (1999) and does not reference it. The resemblance is derived from the fact this figure also eschews the MWP and LIA, which is still a contentious and debatable thing to do.

              Your seventh link can’t be opened.

              Your eighth and last link – again – DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY REFERENCE TO THE HOCKEY STICK AND NONE OF ITS GRAPHS PORTRAY HOCKEY STICKS.

              Why have you spammed all these links in “support” of your claim when none of them support your claim at all?

              Are you so uninformed about the science that you don’t understand what you are linking to?

              Or are you cynically assuming no one will follow your links and hoping you will seem to have proved your claim when actually you’ve shown your claim to be false.

              You’ve shown Mann et al (1999) IS discredited and is no longer in use!




              0



              0
            • Did you just get “busted,” Brian? 7 out of 8 times? 7 out of 8 times only because one link failed? And then who would bother following up that failed reference after your previous 7? Unless MLS is the one who purposely misrepresenting your sources. When I have the time, I’ll have a look, too.

              Not very good for your “integrity” as a poster of comments if nothing you linked to “proves” what you clearly contended they support, i.e., that contrivance by Mann et al known as the hockey stick.

              Excusable if you don’t understand what you are linking to. But it’s called “lying” if you do.

              So which is it, Brian? Tell me before I have a look for myself.




              0



              0
            • Thanks for the links, I investigated all but one of them, which does not work. I recognized several of them and had them already downloaded, but then my laptop crashed and I did not have Word backed up. Lost the lot. Here are the ones that linked:
              3 Science 325, 1236 (2009); Darrell S. Kaufman, et al. Cooling Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic
              Clim. Past, 8, 227–249, 2012 http://www.clim-past.net/8/227/2012/ doi:10.5194/cp-8-227-2012 © Author(s) 2012. CC Attribution 3.0 License. Climate of the Past Northern Hemisphere temperature patterns in the last 12 centuries
              The Annals of Applied Statistics 2014, Vol. 8, No. 4, 1966–2001 DOI: 10.1214/14-AOAS785 c Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 2014 RECONSTRUCTING PAST TEMPERATURES FROM NATURAL PROXIES AND ESTIMATED CLIMATE FORCINGS USING SHORT- AND LONG-MEMORY MODELS By Luis Barboza∗,1 , Bo Li†,2 , Martin P. Tingley‡,§,3 and Frederi G. Viens¶,4 Universidad de Costa Rica∗ , University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign† , Pennsylvania State University‡ , Harvard University§ and Purdue University¶
              INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY Int. J. Climatol. 26: 1417–1424 (2006) Published online 3 May 2006 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/joc.1329 SHORT COMMUNICATION RECONSTRUCTING HEMISPHERIC-SCALE CLIMATES FROM MULTIPLE STALAGMITE RECORDS
              Borehole climate reconstructions: Spatial structure and hemispheric averages Henry N. Pollack and Jason E. Smerdon

              Explore this journal >
              Previous article in issue: Quantification of subsurface heat storage in a GCM simulation
              Next article in issue: Interannual memory effects for spring NDVI in semi-arid South Africa
              View issue TOC
              Volume 35, Issue 13
              July 2008
              Climate
              A late Quaternary climate reconstruction based on borehole heat flux data, borehole temperature data, and the instrumental record
              Authors
              S. P. Huang, H. N. Pollack, P.-Y. Shen First published: 4 July 2008Full publication history DOI: 10.1029/2008GL034187View/save citation
              Cited by: 10 articles
              Citation tools




              0



              0
              • MoriartysLeftSock says

                None of his links support his claim. I took the trouble to explore them all.

                His claim the hockey stick is still valid is not sustainable, because it has been abandoned by all serious climate scientists after the faulty maths was exposed.

                I don’t say this as an opponent of AGW. I”m NOT, as I apparently have to keep repeating, an opponent of AGW. I’m an opponent of bad science and bogus claims.

                It’s so frustrating to read non-scientists who can’t tell the difference between good science and snake oil airily claim that anyone who questions any part of the AGW mythos – even those parts that are now officially rejected by all sides – are peddling nonsense.

                The nonsense in this case is the claim the Hockey Stick is still regarded as valid. It patently and demonstrably is NOT, and that much is proved by reading Brian’s own links!

                BTW why did you post that garbled extract of nothing much? Most confusing and unhelpful.




                0



                0
        • I “liked” your comment, for reasons I have already given in an earlier comment. I don’t think you’ll get anywhere with “facts” and “truths” with certain people on this subject, it would appear that lies and misrepresentations have replaced honest responses to genuine queries, but I wish you luck. The problem, as you have pointed out, is that much of the strategy these days in denying the man made GW theory is the promulgating of generalizations based on one aspect only and even within this deceit, there are the “omissions” either deliberate or just not taken into account, even though no correlation is possible on such threadbare argument. but it does win grants and attract prestige if it sits on the right side of the fence. I know this because I have been obliged to point out the egregious nature of such research, based entirely on refuting only one element of the whole, which in most cases, actually fails to do, but the resultant claims of the “hail the victorious” brigade, usually drown out any true and well (as in honest) founded scientific facts. The real muddy reality of the 97.4% “meme” as Sapere Aude likes to refer to it as, is indeed muddy, just not quite in the one sided way he portrays it.
          As I said. Good Luck.




          0



          0
          • MoriartysLeftSock says

            Forgive me but you seem stuck in a version of reality that is now about twenty years out of date. I have friends on both sides of this debate. And I know who gets the big bucks and the TV exposure. It really isn’t any longer the denialists.

            There is far more money to be made in conducting a study that promotes climate alarmism than in promoting climate “denialism”. This is a simple fact. I don’t suggest this should not be the case, I happen to support the general hypothesis of AGW, and the alarmist interpretations of feedback need to be explored. But it’s simply untrue that alarmism is a poor, underfunded and overlooked discipline. On the contrary it’s worth millions of dollars in grant funds and attracts some of the most prestigious sponsors.

            If you want to feel overlooked, try getting a mainstream media station in Europe to fund or even air a program that questions any part of the alarmist narrative!

            And do please try to get beyond the idea this is a bogus debate with idiots and shills one one side and heroes on the other. It’s silly and frankly insulting to the many good people who work in this area.




            0



            0
            • MLS: “And do please try to get beyond the idea this is a bogus debate with idiot an shills one one side and heroes on the other. It;s silly and frankly insulting to the many good people who work in this area.”
              I have already stated that several times had you been reading the comments and not entirely locked in your own argument. Your comment and insulting attack is rather redundant given your current investment in this debate.
              I will repeat again what I made clear earlier, there are people on this site currently lying(or presenting argument without context) in order to promote their side of the argument and that makes a mockery of “debate”. The man made GW side may have delivered lies when they promoted their theory (Al Gore certainly misrepresented certain facts)but the deniers are no better when they do the same. If you can’t get your head around this simple truth then perhaps you have reason to be so defensive?
              No-one benefits when trust is betrayed, because trust is earned and once lost, is difficult to recover again. I once would have battled long and hard to promote the man made global warming agenda, but the many deniers who felt betrayed by the lies, had good reason to close their ears to me only to follow the lies being perpetrated by the denialist camp. So the debate comes full circle until no-one is sure any more, which is lie and which is truth. If you don’t like the heat, then get out of the kitchen, but don’t do the high and mighty and act like a sanctimonious twit. Now we have proponents of the same side bitching and railing against each other, who needs enemies when we have friends like these? Get over yourself.




              0



              0
              • MoriartysLeftSock says

                People lie. That isn’t an excuse for refusing to listen to both sides of a debate.

                What lies are being spread on this forum? What truths do you see being concealed?

                Let’s discuss the state of the data and not hide behind generalised arguments for failing to engage




                0



                0
    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      No it doesn’t-faked ‘pseudo-science’. So the OFFGuarian is now the On Daily Mail. Unbelievable!




      0



      0
  5. Moriartys Left Sock says

    My thanks to those who took the trouble to answer my earlier questions. I think the resulting conversations were helpful. I have a couple of new questions.

    1) How do current temperatures compare to
    a) the Medieval Warm Period (now renamed the “Medieval Climate Anomaly”)
    b)the Little Ice Age
    c) most of geological history (viz – are we currently above or be;ow average)

    2) What caused the Medieval Warm Period
    a) solar activity
    b) increased CO2
    c) we don’t know

    3) Is the relation between climate fluctuation and CO2 levels
    a) a good observation of correlation with some accompanying physics to suggest causation
    b) a debatable observation of correlation with some debatable physics to suggest causation
    c) completely proven to be causation

    4) Is the relation between climate fluctuation and solar activity
    a) a good observation of correlation with some accompanying physics to suggest causation
    b) a debatable observation of correlation with some debatable physics to suggest causation
    c) completely disproven to be causation.

    5) is the theory that current warming will be catastrophic
    a) a speculative theory based on speculative observation
    b) a very well-supported theory based on accepted and observed natural systems
    c) not a theory at all but a proven fact

    6)What does “settled science” mean in this context?
    a) catastrophic manmade global warming is a proven fact and proven facts in science don’t need to be debated any more.
    b) catastrophic manmade global warming isn’t a proven fact but should be treated as one so we can take precautions just in case it does turn out to be true
    c)just a way of presenting censorship of science as something scientific.




    0



    0
    • Well done MLS. Now we are entering the real debate, but be warned, there are very few absolutes in a science that can only be, at best, well intentioned and at it’s worst, deliberately misleading, but you are at least doing the right thing by asking questions. Although I choose to believe in the man made GW theory, it in itself can never prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is factually correct in it’s analysis and sometimes the answers leave you with even more questions. I know, I chased the subject matter down for many years and still am no closer to being able to state without reservation that the MMGW is beyond question the whole truth and nothing but. Keep asking questions – always.




      0



      0
    • Great series of questions, yet again.

      And none can really be answered without some serious investigation of the scientific literature.

      And I believe each question raises ‘contentious issues’ within various branches of specialization within the overall field of climatology and much else besides. To take but one of the issues you raise: climate fluctuation and solar activity, which cannot be sorted out without tapping the expertise of specialists in solar physics, astronomy, geology, paleontology, ecology, and the list goes on, and on. . .

      To answer these questions, in my estimation, will require years of diligent research on my part, either that or access to someone with credentials or an experience equivalent to that of a Phd. in climate science, and who has done his or her best to dispassionately distill the mass of conflicting data from each of the relevant specialized fields of study down to a series of itemized probabilities corresponding to each of your questions.

      You will have to wait a while for me to return with well considered answers for any one of your questions. On the other hand, I have a sense already that the overall science of climatology is only really beginning to get a sense of the daunting complexity of what it needs to know to be able to say, “we know.” I’ll leave it at that, and I’m copying and pasting your questions as a guide and reminder of where I might fruitfully direct my personal efforts to glean if only a very imperfect understanding of this sprawling subject that we call climate. Many thanks.




      0



      0
  6. Seriously don’t like the way Admin & Catte interact with website, I’ve never come across it before. LOL even in their ijon70 got it right & I agree with them; “Sorry, I have neither time nor patience for dealing with crap. You either stick to “because facts should be sacred”, or publish provably false, completely unverified nonsense like the above. Can’t have the cake and eat it. I could spend hours dissecting every sentence of this bullshit and showing why it’s wrong, as I have done on occasions, but there comes a time when you just accept that someone is wrong on the Internet. It’s just that I don’t need to waste time reading stuff coming from a source that assumes the posture of moral superiority only then to prove that for the sake of stoking an argument it will sacrifice fundamental journalistic integrity.” and
    “OK, that was a brief acquaintance — I started reading OffGuardian a few weeks ago because Syria, today I’m stopping reading it because the above crock of brown, smelly substance. I’m sorry, but these lies and distortions have all been extensively debunked, for a long time now. Do yourself a favour, subscribe to something like Skeptical Science, wait a a few months, accumulate knowledge, compare sources. Maybe even — gasp, shock — talk to actual climate scientists. There’s a lot of patient, kind guys among them who will gladly explain why what you propagate is nonsense. In the meantime, if you publish this, you’ll publish any bull. You have just miraculously sunk a hundred feet beneath rock bottom. Good bye.




    0



    0
    • Maybe even — gasp, shock — talk to actual climate scientists.

      As we said last time you made the (exact) same suggestion, we are talking to climate scientists and a couple of them are indeed posting in the comments.

      Goodbye and thank you for your contribution.




      0



      0
    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      Exactly! Sapere aude is, of course, a fake name, for Monckhausen by the look of this vile, omnicidal, pile of excrement. Every dirty denialist lie, regurgitated in the name of-cheques from the fossil fuel industry? Hatred of future generations? Utterly, utterly, despicable.




      0



      0
        • I fear he’s (or she’s) just an actor; no one can be that unrelentingly (cartoonishly) OTT, from start to finish, can he/she? An actor and sock puppet of another avatar already participating in the threads, I suspect. Someone among the AGWs was feeling impatient with merely sticking to the AGW talking points…?




          0



          0
  7. Jim Porter says

    Just saw an apt cartoon – What if it’s a hoax and we create a better world for nothing – haha




    0



    0
    • That’s assuming that the world we would make as a result of “climate action” would be quantifiably better. Can we take that for granted?




      0



      0
      • Jim Porter says

        Agreed – it all depends on who is driving the direction and this particular subject is entrenched in BIG money. Any change in direction taken too quickly at the moment could have just as many negative ramifications as positive as there are so many people, businesses and governments who are so deep in the present shape of things (one example, car sales – changing to electric could destroy billions in existing stock). There are thousands of things that change would effect but it will come, so be prepared for it.




        0



        0
        • Mulga Mumblebrain says

          Obviously you are either ignorant of how dire our situation is, or are a denialist pretending to accept reality. Unless we TOTALLY decarbonise as fast as possible, catastrophic climate destabilisation will wipe us out by 2050. Going slowly because some capitalist might be annoyed is a recipe for mass suicide, or, more correctly, mass homicide.




          0



          0
          • Jim Porter says

            This is when politics overtakes science – I never said go slow, I said going too fast will have ramifications, so being aware you can plan against the negative. It is not just a few capitalists who would be effected, it is everyone as this subject is so much a part of the fabric of our society. It needs governments to actually take control but as the capitalists own those governments, I don’t see what is necessary to happen, happening. In all my other posts here I have said as such. 2045 is what I have read for all the graphs to intersect and the world is no longer able to be a good habitat for the human race, but no-one in power is listening so all I can do is point in the correct direction.




            0



            0
      • “What if all the conspiracy theories are one big conspiracy to distract everyone.”

        You mean what if Watergate, Gulf of Tonkin, Enron, Iran Contra, the Madoff/Goldman Sachs episode, BCCI Bank Scandal, Teapot Dome and the Black Sox Scandal, et al, had never happened…? Erm, what’s your point? Something to do with Time-travel? Those and thousands of other conspiracies happened, and the various “conspiracy theories” associated with each (nb: even the “mainstream” and/or false, Gov-supported, conspiracy theories regarding 9/11, Boston and 7/7, and so forth, are conspiracy theories) were either accurate in the first instance or not. You might just as well ask, “What if Geology is one big conspiracy to distract everyone?”

        Perhaps you’re so acculturated to the Cointelpro function of the term “conspiracy theory,” as a debate-stopping pejorative (like “Commie” or “Libtard”), that you no longer understand the meaning of the term in plain English. “Conspiracy,” in the sense we are using it, has a legal definition and a considerable part of the criminal justice system is concerned with it. A “conspiracy theory” is a (wait for it) theory about a conspiracy, nothing more or less.

        I’m interested, however, I must admit, in this burgeoning little meme… various commenters trying to wave us away from topics of concern by claiming they’re “distractions”. (Some of you are even trying to frame “Pizzagate” as a “distraction from greater crimes”! And what exactly is a “greater crime” than raping/torturing (and, possibly,) killing children?). Who came up with that one? It’s not as brilliant as the “Flat Earth” super-toxin but it appears to be catching on.

        Just another day in the Propaganda Field…




        0



        0
    • Maybe he should have stuck to teaching his students physics like he was paid to do & then refrained from calling a colleague a “house negro” & he wouldn’t have been dragged through court over a racist slur & end up in debt for over $1million dollars.




      0



      0
      • Rancourt is a radical in the classic (late-’60s) sense and radicals often suffer difficulties within the context of the mainstream institutions people like you appear to rely on for a sense of the Normal. Rancourt’s use of the term “house Negro” was justified (if a little risky) and his greatest “crime” was teaching his students to learn to think. And, btw, shouldn’t you be leaving harmless comments over at The Guardian instead of flailing around over here, out of your depth?




        0



        0
    • ultra909 says

      It seems obvious to me that the use of the word “denier” to describe anyone who is not full retard on the Catastrophic AGW bandwagon is a deliberate rhetorical device to conflate such people with “Holocaust denial”.

      And we all know that’s beyond the pale, right? Clever psychology.

      Except that basically makes it an ad hominem, which means they don’t have an argument.




      0



      0
      • I said “Essential reading” & provided a link about the dark money. Someone has investigated the dark money funding climate change contrarians, where’s the “they don’t have an argument” in that.




        0



        0
      • Mulga Mumblebrain says

        Actually, calling the rabble of knowing liars and disinformers and moronic dupes ‘denialists’ is utterly apt. The Holocaust that anthropogenic climate destabilisation will cause will kill orders of magnitude more people than all the victims of the Nazis. And these are victims who might yet be saved, but the climate destabilisation denialists are doing their vile worst to ensure that they are NOT saved. Moreover the truth of anthropogenic climate destabilisation and the details are better understood than the facts of the Nazi Holocaust. You are WORSE than Nazi Holocaust deniers.




        0



        0
    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      Looks like a few quid of that dark money has found a home at OffGuardian.




      0



      0
    • Hmmm, I got a “your connection us not private” warning when I clicked the link…!




      0



      0
      • I didn’t follow the link, either, although it’s probably safe to do so if you don’t enter any information at that site, and then again even doing so would probably not result in any difficulty. Better safe than sorry, I guess.

        But to address the issue of Margret Thatcher and the very real role that she played (and why) in raising AGW as an “urgent international issue” to be raised sort of runs along this line (and I think it is a line that is very plausible):

        Mrs Thatcher is now often considered to have been a great UK politician: she gave her political party (the Conservative Party) victory in three General Elections, resided over the UK’s conduct of the Falklands War, replaced much of the UK’s Welfare State with monetarist economics, and privatised most of the UK’s nationalised industries. But she had yet to gain that reputation when she came to power in 1979. Then, she was the first female leader of a major western state, and she desired to be taken seriously by political leaders of other major countries. This desire seemed difficult to achieve because her only experience in government had been as Education Secretary (i.e. a Junior Minister) in the Heath administration that collapsed in 1974. She had achieved nothing notable as Education Secretary but was remembered by the UK public for having removed the distribution of milk to schoolchildren (she was popularly known as ‘Milk Snatcher Thatcher’.)

        Sir Crispin Tickell, UK Ambassador to the UN, suggested a solution to the problem. He pointed out that almost all international statesmen are scientifically illiterate, so a scientifically literate politician could win any summit debate on a matter which seemed to depend on scientific understandings. And Mrs Thatcher had a BSc degree in chemistry. (This is probably the most important fact in the entire global warming issue; i.e. Mrs Thatcher had a BSc degree in chemistry). Sir Crispin pointed out that if a ‘scientific’ issue were to gain international significance, then the UK’s Prime Minister could easily take a prominent role, and this could provide credibility for her views on other world affairs. He suggested that Mrs Thatcher should campaign about global warming at each summit meeting. She did, and the tactic worked. Mrs Thatcher rapidly gained the desired international respect and the UK became the prime promoter of the global warming issue. The influences that enabled this are described in Figure 1 and the following paragraphs.

        You can read the whole of the paper from where that was lifted here or here.

        As I wrote about that piece, “I do not necessarily agree with everything that Richard Courtney has to say on climate per se, but I think that his summary of the politics behind the rise into public prominence of “global warming” as a pressing issue pregnant with catastrophic consequences needs to be acknowledged and taken into account and further pursued.

        The piece is titled: “Global Warming: How It All Began”




        0



        0
        • ultra909 says

          Was exactly the same text. Not sure what is going on with the dodgy SSL certificate. Use one of Norm’s links instead.




          0



          0
          • And now I notice that the second link I provided, which should direct to John Daly’s blog doesn’t work. And that is why, when I find what to my mind is an interesting piece of info., I copy and paste albeit ensuring that links to the place of origin are prominently displayed. That way I always have the article, whatever may happen to it elsewhere.

            But yes, that is a good piece of analysis by Courtney. Glad you reminded me of it.




            0



            0
        • Mrs. T was already planning a way of cutting off the subsidies our coal mining industries were getting – because they weren’t making any money and she had a landslide victory because the coal industry was the root cause of the crippling strike action with everyone and his uncle coming out on strike. There was criminal bodily harm taking hold, so she took hold of the reins. The global warming argument was just the excuse she needed to pull the plug, so she always had a vested interest in promoting GW as man made. Nothing she said at that time must be taken out of the real context of her agenda. I certainly wouldn’t want her on my side if I wanted any credibility.




          0



          0
          • Mulga Mumblebrain says

            A truly moronic ‘argument’. Two hundreds years of science and observation, plus the total concurrence of ALL the Academies of Science of the planet, negated by a puerile argument based on Thatcher’s desire to destroy the coal mining unions in the UK. Are you really this stupid?




            0



            0
            • As a proponent of man made global warming I find it irksome that someone like you with your insulting and arrogant deliberate attempts to belittle others for their beliefs, are on the same side as me on the matter in question. You are a dazzling example of the wrong kind of support the subject needs. Please decide to become a denier, it would help our cause immeasurably to be without you as the voice of reason.




              0



              0
  8. Sorry, Not Buying It says

    The best thing that can happen if the global warming people are correct and we act is that we save the world. The worst thing that can happen if YOU guys are wrong and we don’t take action is social and ecological disaster. But it seems that all too many people are banking everything on whether we can be “certain” before they’ll get behind taking action. It’s the equivalent of facing a loading gun, but rather than moving your head out of the way you instead postpone doing so pending more “confirmation” even though you’ve already determined a 95% probability that there is a bullet in in the chamber. It’s weird that so many people are willing to play Russian roulette with civilization just to get back at “the establishment”.




    0



    0
    • “It’s the equivalent of facing a loading gun…”

      Inaccurate analogy. It’s much closer to facing a guy who says he has a gun in his pocket, and if you don’t sign this, and this, and that legal document, things could get nasty.

      If there were a referendum on curtailing industrial development in the already-over-developed West, I’d vote on it tomorrow. If there were a binding referendum on clean air and clean water that would mean fewer conveniences and higher prices but a greener, quieter world: they’d get my vote in a heartbeat. Legislation to strictly monitor and control biotech monsters like Monsanto: all for it. Abolish private autos in “urban zones”: yes! Tax the hell out of fossil fuels and finance the solar energy tech they’ve been deliberately retarding for 70 years? Fuck yes.

      But what they want, instead, is for the world to enter into a scheme of arcane fiddles, mumbo-jumbo and heavy-hitter-favoring-loopholes involving a kind of Wall Street for “Carbon Credits” and unknown powers of control and enforcement (I’ve mentioned before that it’s not hard to imagine the “Humanitarian Interventions” of 2025 being supposedly environmental in nature)… knowing what I know about the world and the bastards in control of it, I’d have to be a child or a fool to go along with the propaganda and expect the best as a result.

      When a stranger starts pressuring you, with increasingly chill-facade-cracking urgency, to take a sip of his drink (Kool Aid, as it happens), do you shrug and shallow? Well, maybe you do.




      0



      0
      • Sorry, Not Buying It says

        “Inaccurate analogy. It’s much closer to facing a guy who says he has a gun in his pocket, and if you don’t sign this, and this, and that legal document, things could get nasty.”

        I got it right the first time. Climate change scientists don’t have the power to threaten governments and people, so it’s your analogy that fails.

        “But what they want, instead, is for the world to enter into a scheme of arcane fiddles, mumbo-jumbo and heavy-hitter-favoring-loopholes involving a kind of Wall Street for “Carbon Credits” and unknown powers of control and enforcement (I’ve mentioned before that it’s not hard to imagine the “Humanitarian Interventions” of 2025 being supposedly environmental in nature)…”

        Like I said before, you got the last part comically backwards. It’s countries who would protect their environments against the encroachment of Western capital that are likely to be under the gun of military intervention. As for the rest of what you said: it’s relevant to the extent that capitalist “solutions” to anthropogenic climate change are indeed arcane and favor Wall Street – but that doesn’t mean we don’t need to do something REAL about it. What you’re saying is the equivalent of “Global poverty isn’t real because corporate-linked NGOs are the means through which people in the West engage with this so-called ‘poverty’.” POVERTY IS A HOAX, PEOPLE! STOP DRINKING THE ELITIST KOOL-AID!”

        “knowing what I know about the world and the bastards in control of it, I’d have to be a child or a fool to go along with the propaganda and expect the best as a result.”

        Who said you have to “expect the best”? But then, you offer no solutions whatsoever in any case, just despair, wallowing and helplessness. Your entire world-view is defeatist and axiomatically takes whatever exists as something that serves elite interests. Even if a genuine grass-roots movement of the masses bringing forth real solutions and fighting for real change made headway, you’d dismiss it as phony because their leaders haven’t been assassinated (and are therefore on the pay or are part of a controlled opposition, just like Marx, Lenin and Castro were for you).

        “When a stranger starts pressuring you, with increasingly chill-facade-cracking urgency, to take a sip of his drink (Kool Aid, as it happens), do you shrug and shallow? Well, maybe you do.”

        Poor analogy. A proper analogy would be a parent getting increasingly frustrated and impatient with its petulant child.




        0



        0
        • “I got it right the first time. Climate change scientists don’t have the power to threaten governments and people, so it’s your analogy that fails.”

          We’re being threatened with supposed “extinction”, no? The Boogieman, in this case, is nothing short of Apocalypse. But there is no proof that it’s more than a scary story designed to elicit the desired response (hysteria).

          Anyway, all the rest of your responses are written from the perspective of someone who believes (but does not know) that the science is settled on this matter; it’s precisely like arguing with a Jehovah’s Witness: fun up to a point. Then the circular logic becomes tiresome.

          Neither of us has proof; we aren’t scientists; no one is in possession of equipment up to the task of measuring the supposed effects you’re alarmed about and I’ve shown your Faith has a serious down side. That’s all any logical commenter can hope to do.




          0



          0
          • Mulga Mumblebrain says

            At least here, StAug, you drop the pretense and show yourself as simply another fanatic denialist. In fact anthropogenic climate destabilisation is proceeding far faster than the most pessimistic IPCC Reports, and will, if creatures like you continue to win, cause human extinction and that of most higher life on Earth, this century. Whether you are just a liar, or a Rightwing ideologically-driven moron, is irrelevant-you are an enemy of Life on Earth.




            0



            0
            • “you are an enemy of Life on Earth”

              Hilarious! No hyperbole there, eh? Am I dealing with the B Team now? Do go on…




              0



              0
            • “you are an enemy of Life on Earth.”
              Whose life? The Syrians, Iraqis, Libyans, Serbians, Donbass ethnics?
              Or are we talking Orangs, gorillas, snow leopards?
              Climate deniers are not necessarily the enemy of Life on Earth, unless they have been actively promoting the many wars that certain “civilized” cultures of the larger economies, who by the way, are the ones who contributed the most to global warming, if we accept that it is man made. Whilst I acknowledge the man made science as having merit, I do not “KNOW” that they are, without doubt, correct.
              Do you expend as much vituperation in denouncing the 1% money hoarding or the constant warmongering by the “civilized” Atlanticists?
              I haven’t noticed you on any sites where life and death in war torn countries is being discussed, so you obviously do not consider the lives of those who are living now as important as this one debate you have focused your energies on.
              Got news for you, if we ever get a handle on how to take power from the above mentioned holocaust investors, we might still have a planet to save, for it is they who wield the power and the direction of our debate. If the US/UK/NATO manage to start another war, the planet may survive but we won’t. The upshot being, deal with what we can and must change, because if we fail on that score, then any argument for or against man made CC is moot, we won’t survive long enough.




              0



              0
          • Sorry, Not Buying it says

            “We’re being threatened with supposed “extinction”, no?”

            Please don’t twist words. You know exactly what I’m talking about.

            “The Boogieman, in this case, is nothing short of Apocalypse. But there is no proof that it’s more than a scary story designed to elicit the desired response (hysteria). Anyway, all the rest of your responses are written from the perspective of someone who believes (but does not know) that the science is settled on this matter; it’s precisely like arguing with a Jehovah’s Witness: fun up to a point. Then the circular logic becomes tiresome.”

            Translation: you have nothing to counter what I’ve actually said. Just accuse me of having “faith” and then walk away.

            “Neither of us has proof; we aren’t scientists; no one is in possession of equipment up to the task of measuring the supposed effects you’re alarmed about and I’ve shown your Faith has a serious down side. That’s all any logical commenter can hope to do.”

            You’ve shown nothing of the sort, only CLAIMED that you have.




            0



            0
            • Dude, I missed you! Your bumbling team member (“Mulga Borat”, I think; intern?) was making a total mess of it! So, where were we? Ah, yes: your unfounded certainties. Your unwillingness to admit that all you “know” about the topic is what you read from partisan, non-objective (deeply vested) sources… like all the rest of us. Lovely. Feel free to pile more passionate opinions atop the stack we’ve already amassed. It will neither help nor hurt but you’ll enjoy venting a bit more, I’m sure.




              0



              0
              • Sorry, Not Buying it says

                I’m sorry that you have such a religious aversion to Earth systems science and mistake it for “partisan, non-objective sources”. Truly, I am. In any case, you’re still holding an empty bag. That can’t be laid at my door, unfortunately, regardless of whether you choose to childishly skulk around and designate people as “Borat”.




                0



                0
                • “Earth systems science” of which you are a leading Scientist, right, Sorry? Or are you just a punter with an opinion like the rest of us? Laugh




                  0



                  0
                • Sorry, Not Buying It says

                  We GET IT, StAug: you neither know nor believe anything, and are committed to keeping the world proletariat in the capitalist death-trap with your perpetual pessimism and proud agnosticism about everything. Earth systems scientists are themselves mere “punters” in your book.




                  0



                  0
        • Mulga Mumblebrain says

          I find the denialist lie that they accept the truth of anthropogenic climate destabilisation, but oppose any concrete action to prevent it because the financial parasites are hovering, looking for opportunities to suck blood, utterly unconvincing. We have to do something, anything, everything, or we are history.




          0



          0
        • The 1% “own” this planet including commerce, government, military, science etc. etc. How can we make any kind of decision on the way forward, when a) we cannot decide whether the science is even accurate, b) that governments, owned by the 1% will deploy fair and just practice in committing to a resolution of a problem that many perceive does not even exist – because the science is overly confusing, c) that it is worth the price that must be paid, usually by those who have the least and d) if we cannot even control the incessant attacks(wars) against those countries who stand in the way of the 1%’s who in their pursuit of their own agenda pay no heed to the carnage they leave behind.

          Please also note, that vast swathes of the population on this planet have a vested interest in a future, but are not, generally, the ones who have contributed to that future many of us believe is in jeopardy, furthermore, many of those same people will not have a future regardless of any decision made by those in power, simply because they will not live that long.

          Until we can reign in the activities of the 1%, hellbent on murder and mayhem and retarding the fortunes of the poorest, (who will, by the way, always be poor under the current reign of terror), whose future do you imagine, we will be threatening? Yours and mine – possibly, the poorest who have nothing to begin with, – unlikely, those who already have a degree of prolonged benefits awaiting them, most assuredly.

          That is why we must make adjustments that all will benefit from, not just the “civilised” and the affluent.

          The future for so many is not in the hands of the promoters of man made GW, however grandiose their vision might be, (because there really are two sides to the coin) but it lies with those who have wealth and power and as always, those who have contributed the least to the threat, must pay the highest price, as several people on this site have astutely pointed out. Setting aside the implementation of survival strategies necessary to halt the global warming catastrophe, if it were even possible, do you imagine that the war mongers would leave anyone alive to enjoy it? Unless we can halt the power mad war hawks, we may yet see a different kind of apocalypse. What use then, in preparing for a planets demise by one means, if the most immediate threats are ignored which result in the same end?




          0



          0
    • There is no loaded gun. There is no global warming. In fact, we are apparently heading into a significantly cooler period. But industrial civilisation has done and is continuing to do immense harm to the planet and to its ‘life-support’ systems (especially clean air and water). It has also brought immense benefits. Just about everything we tend to take for granted in our lives is a result of advanced technology and engineering. Try living in a mud hut somewhere where you have to spend three hours a day getting water and looking for wood to cook whatever meagre food you have. Actually, even people as poor as that are often doing terrible harm to their environment by cutting down the trees.
      It’s not an either:or situation. We should be taking much greater care with the natural resources of the earth. But we should be doing it for the right reasons – out of a sense of responsibility to life, not because we have been lied into believing that one particular consequence of our way of life – the liberation of CO2 from burning fossil fuels – will cause disaster. There are far more important issues – such as dealing with that other manufactured fear cycle: inventing a new enemy/re-inventing an old one (Russia) > need to increase so-called ‘defence’ spending i.e more weapons manufacture > greater danger of war > less money to spend on helping to solve global famine, disease and poverty. According to UNESCO, 1.75 billion people are without adequate drinking water. A programme in India showed that it costs just $4 per person per year to provide clean drinking water. UNESCO reckons that it would cost around $10 billion a year for ten years to provide clean water for everyone who does not have it. This about 1.2% of global military expenditure (also 1% of what is spent on illegal drugs every year).
      The climate change scam is not only a pernicious lie but it has distracted attention from far more important issues. We don’t need to ‘cure’ global warming because it isn’t happening. But we do need to cure the disease of militarism and the appalling neglect of the world’s poorest people.




      0



      0
      • Mulga Mumblebrain says

        Paul’s is a really slimy, but familiar, denialist trope. Deny the greatest of all ecological disasters, and PRETEND to be more concerned about lesser, if still dreadful, ecological crises. A despicable, but as I said, well-known, denialist canard.




        0



        0
      • Sorry, Not Buying it says

        “There is no loaded gun. There is no global warming. In fact, we are apparently heading into a significantly cooler period. ”

        Errr…no. We’re not “apparently” heading into a cooler period.




        0



        0
  9. Moriartys Left Sock says

    I’d like to pose a couple of questions to those here who believe the theory of man-made global warming is “settled science”

    (and no I am not a “denier, “ I am, if anything, a warmish lukewarmer).

    1)Do you believe we know enough about how climate works to positively exclude all other sources of warming beside carbon-forcing? Do you – for example – believe we know what caused the Medieval Warm Period, or the numerous Ice Ages?

    2)To be able to know this we would need to have sufficient data on every other force that influenced climates in the past so that we could exclude all of it. Do you know where this data is and how we acquired it?

    3)Do you have any idea how many other potential climate-forcers there are? Do you have data on why none of these are relevant?

    4)Do you understand why the current warming is predicted to be catastrophic? Do you consider this is a well-supported theory in terms of data?

    5)Do you understand that many scientists accept some but not all of the CAGW theory? That the polarisation you read about in the media is not really representative of the reality?

    6)Do you think it might be better if everyone calmed down and tried to discuss the science as if it were science and not articles of faith in a very strange religion?




    0



    0
    • Finally, a category into which I can finally pigeonhole myself with respect to the whole AGW thing: “warmish-lukewarmer-ism.” Thank you for sorting out that part of my identity. I was lost, but now I am found.

      Good questions, by the way.




      0



      0
    • Moriartys Left Sock says

      And lo and behold – none of the loudest voices here has even tried to answer my little questions!

      Please- everyone who has posted here about how the data is beyond all doubt and only idiots could not realise this – answer my questions. You know about the science, right? You read all the research papers, didn’t you?

      You didn’t just read a few headlines and jump on a bandwagon…did you?




      0



      0
      • Sorry, Not Buying It says

        “You didn’t just read a few headlines and jump on a bandwagon…did you?”

        Your sophomoric statements make it seem that this is perhaps what you’ve been doing, what with your claims about how “only” CO2 is a significant factor for climate modelers.




        0



        0
    • Sorry, Not Buying It says

      “1)Do you believe we know enough about how climate works to positively exclude all other sources of warming beside carbon-forcing?”

      Who told you that only carbon forcing is meant to be significant? CO2 isn’t even the most potent greenhouse gas; the importance of CO2 is that it’s building up in the atmosphere and that it’s indeed a greenhouse gas. But there are other gases that humans are also emitting. CO2, however, seems to be the overall most important one.

      “3)Do you have any idea how many other potential climate-forcers there are? Do you have data on why none of these are relevant?”

      Who said they’re “not relevant”? Some climate forces are acknowledged as negative forcers. This doesn’t mean that the overall trend and direction of change is still in the positive forcing side of the equation.

      “4)Do you understand why the current warming is predicted to be catastrophic? Do you consider this is a well-supported theory in terms of data?”

      The scenarios that are presented all have probabilities attached to them. The scientists aren’t saying that the effects will DEFINITELY be catastrophic, only that there’s a high chance of them being so, especially if the absolute volume of carbon emitted into the atmosphere is not reduced. Does anyone want to chance it on the basis that the models might be wrong? Because if YOU’RE wrong, the consequences are potentially extremely dire. If the global warming people are wrong, then the consequences are that some Westerners were inconvenienced. That’s spilled milk as far as I’m concerned, and certainly when compared against what may well transpire if the worst case scenarios play out.




      0



      0
      • Moriartys Left Sock says

        Who told you that only carbon forcing is meant to be significant?

        I believe it was in a previous comment, someone said that all natural forcers had been eliminated as a potential cause for current warming, and that therefore only manmade C02 could possibly be causing it. It’s a fairly oft-repeated claim among lay alarmists.

        CO2 isn’t even the most potent greenhouse gas;

        Yes I know, which is why I don’t think the case for manmade warming has yet been proven. What surprises me is that you know this and still believe the case is proven.

        the importance of CO2 is that it’s building up in the atmosphere and that it’s indeed a greenhouse gas. But there are other gases that humans are also emitting. CO2, however, seems to be the overall most important one.

        Given that C02 is only 400ppm and methane is 1800ppm the idea that C02 is the most potent greenhouse gas is counter-intutive and needs to be established pretty firmly. What research have you read that puts this beyond doubt for you?

        Who said they’re “not relevant”? Some climate forces are acknowledged as negative forcers. This doesn’t mean that the overall trend and direction of change is still in the positive forcing side of the equation.

        What does this statement mean? I can’t find anything in it that applies rationally to anything I aid or any of the science behind current climate theories. No one is disputing the climate has warmed. What I am asking is where the research is that shows manmade C02 is the sole or major cause.

        But since you accept Co2 may not be the sole or major cause, I assume you must also accept we don’t know one way or the other. Viz – C02 may turn out to be a major forcer, or may turn out to be a minor one, and the current warming may have an entirely different and non-man-made cause?

        The scenarios that are presented all have probabilities attached to them. The scientists aren’t saying that the effects will DEFINITELY be catastrophic, only that there’s a high chance of them being so, especially if the absolute volume of carbon emitted into the atmosphere is not reduced.

        Well in fact “the scientists” aren’t saying anything that homogeneous are they? Some are saying the case for a certain amount of manmade warming is beyond doubt. Some are saying there still some doubt, and some others are saying there is no evidence for manmade co2 as a forcer at all.

        My question is – given the uncertainties and range of opinions you now acknowledge, why do you conclude that manmade global warming MUST be accepted as both real and dangerous by any reasonable person? Surely these levels of uncertainty make it quite reasonable to have doubts?

        Does anyone want to chance it on the basis that the models might be wrong? Because if YOU’RE wrong, the consequences are potentially extremely dire. If the global warming people are wrong, then the consequences are that some Westerners were inconvenienced. That’s spilled milk as far as I’m concerned, and certainly when compared against what may well transpire if the worst case
        scenarios play out.

        Well firstly, I’m not claiming manmade c02 won’t cause CAGW. I’m just not entirely convinced it will, because the data is (as you admit) too inexact at this time. Your question, though, assumes that reducing carbon emissions would be easy and therefore a reasonable precaution in the face of uncertainty. But is that true? And what if it’s not easy? What if cutting carbon emissions means food shortages, reduced life quality, power rationing, huge tax hikes, many human deaths?

        How much pain and suffering would be justified in order to achieve a cutback in carbon that might not be necessary?

        Isn’t a discussion of risk and benefit essential here?

        How probable is the worst case CAGW? 20%? 50%? 80%? Isn’t something we need to know before evaluating a response?

        These are reasonable questions




        0



        0
        • Given that C02 is only 400ppm and methane is 1800ppm the idea that C02 is the most potent greenhouse gas is counter-intutive and needs to be established pretty firmly

          You wouldn’t have that problem if you paid attention to your units.

          Methane is measured in ppb not ppm.




          0



          0
          • Moriartys Left Sock says

            Oh dear. Well that’s a garbled sentence all right. Should say “and methane is 1.800ppm and water vapour is around 10,000ppm….”




            0



            0
            • Sorry, Not Buying It says

              Water vapor isn’t technically a forcer, because it relies on other factors to get it going and is very sensitive to these other factors. What it does do is to magnify what the forcers are already doing.




              0



              0
        • Sorry, Not Buying It says

          “I believe it was in a previous comment, someone said that all natural forcers had been eliminated as a potential cause for current warming, and that therefore only manmade C02 could possibly be causing it. It’s a fairly oft-repeated claim among lay alarmists.”

          But not non-lay alarmists? Because that’s what we’re talking about here: what do the data actually show and have the scientists gotten it right? Or aren’t we talking about that?

          “Given that C02 is only 400ppm and methane is 1800ppm the idea that C02 is the most potent greenhouse gas is counter-intutive and needs to be established pretty firmly.”

          The concentration of atmospheric methane is 1,800 parts per billion, not million. Therefore, it’s 1.8 parts per million, compared to 400 ppm for CO2.

          “What does this statement mean? I can’t find anything in it that applies rationally to anything I aid or any of the science behind current climate theories.”

          You said: “Do you have data on why none of these [other forcers] are relevant?” Since no scientist is claiming that other forcers “aren’t relevant”, this is a mute point. Many “lay alarmists” also publicize the role and increasing importance of other greenhouse gases such as methane.

          “Viz – C02 may turn out to be a major forcer, or may turn out to be a minor one, and the current warming may have an entirely different and non-man-made cause?”

          It’s possible, but not at all likely given the evidence and the basic physics.

          “Well in fact “the scientists” aren’t saying anything that homogeneous are they?”

          Their estimates of the severity of change differ, but the important point is that all the estimates point to significant change and that this change is through increased release of CO2 and other GHGs. Like I said, the different scenarios have different assumptions attached to them and differ in the magnitude of changes that they predict, but they all have a clear signal of a particular kind and direction of change.

          “My question is – given the uncertainties and range of opinions you now acknowledge, why do you conclude that manmade global warming MUST be accepted as both real and dangerous by any reasonable person?”

          Because 1) the preponderance of evidence points to it; 2) the consequences of ignoring this threat could be catastrophic. I’d rather wager that the scientists are right and that we need to do something rather than twiddling my thumbs with the excuse that the scientists might be wrong.

          “I’m just not entirely convinced it will, because the data is (as you admit) too inexact at this time.”

          So in other words, you want to keep waiting to be “certain” (whatever that means), by which time the horrible effects will have happened. Then the only excuse you’ll have left is “But I wasn’t sure!”

          “Your question, though, assumes that reducing carbon emissions would be easy”

          It assumes nothing remotely like that.

          “and therefore a reasonable precaution in the face of uncertainty.”

          The problem is much, much worse. I don’t see fossil fuels being reduced to the extent they need to be within the framework of capitalism, so what’s really required is systemic change, not just some new laws and regulations. This goes well beyond a mere “precaution”.

          “And what if it’s not easy? What if cutting carbon emissions means food shortages, reduced life quality, power rationing, huge tax hikes, many human deaths?”

          These things are a certainty if nothing is done. Something doesn’t need to be “easy” for it to be BETTER than doing nothing, if the consequences of doing nothing are dire.

          “How much pain and suffering would be justified in order to achieve a cutback in carbon that might not be necessary?”

          The right question is: how much pain and suffering are you willing to risk just for the easy option of not doing anything? People are ALREADY suffering and feeling pain, especially in regions of the world that lack food security, or island nations that are experiencing rising sea levels. It’s ironic that you mention food shortages. It’s actually climate inaction that threatens to bring us more and more food shortages. Industrial agriculture of the sort that we have is completely unsustainable, for one thing. It threatens biodiversity, it threatens the livelihoods of small-scale farmers, it threatens aquatic ecosystems with nutrient and chemical run-off, it is highly fossil-fuel dependent, and it requires massive infusions of energy, water and land.

          “Isn’t a discussion of risk and benefit essential here?”

          Yes, and it should start by looking at what’s already happening.

          “How probable is the worst case CAGW? 20%? 50%? 80%?”

          Even a 5 percent risk would be far too high.




          0



          0
          • Catte says

            Even a 5 percent risk would be far too high.

            I appreciate the argument, but – going with this 5% risk for the moment – don’t we need to discuss how much the world should do to avoid something that has a 95% chance of not happening? Should we at least understand what the risk/benefit ratio is before signing off on this? Aren’t you worried these “precautions” could become just another avenue of exploitation by the 1%?




            0



            0
            • I can assure you with some degree of certainty that the 1% have already capitalized on the disparate ramifications of this debate. I really don’t think it would matter whether the man made GW “truthers” had got it right or the alternate “truthers” could prove their case. The 1% will always be one step ahead of the rest of us. I made a comment earlier whereby I explained that many of those who were advocating the man made argument whilst buying up and otherwise acquiring Africa’s rich coal reserves, which makes them a liability in every sense. I don’t know with any degree of certainty that man is responsible for the current GW situation, with the poorer countries struggling to find the means of “catching up” with the rest of the world, unless their was a consensus to support such countries with vast funding(which is never going to happen)I couldn’t require them to consign themselves to further poverty anyway. I see it as a situation in which we all must make our own decision and commitment but accept that if we make the wrong choice it will either doom us all or have no effect on our fate. Of course, I am speaking as someone who has the means, however limited, to make that choice, St. Aug has ably demonstrated that not everyone is lucky enough to have that choice. In the end, it all boils down to perspectives and means, the 1% will always have both.




              0



              0
            • @ Catte I agre with u 1 million % The Climate change debate has been manipulated by and for the anglo-zionist oligarchs. Look at their proposals CARBON TAX and floating it on the stock exchange. Weather and Climate change totally different things. The facts that the polar caps r melting is scientific evidence and this alone is effecting the weather patterns thru out the world. The other angle is what most third world leaders have been arguing for at least since the 80’s that the anglo-zionist r using and formulating arguments with regards to climate change in order to hamper third world development and guarantee the western WASP exceptionalism stays supreme.




              0



              0
              • Sorry, Not Buying it says

                “The Climate change debate has been manipulated by and for the anglo-zionist oligarchs. Look at their proposals CARBON TAX and floating it on the stock exchange.”

                By this exact same logic, climate denial is manipulated by and for the “Anglo-Zionist oligarchs” (use the proper term, please: capitalists), since the fossil fuel industry has invested heavily in spreading denialist claims. It should be clear that whether or not a phenomenon is taking place is entirely independent of how capitalists interests take advantage of a debate. Capitalist interests are investing in solar energy; they’re also investing in fossil fuels. Furthermore, capitalist states have been dragging their feet for decades about taking serious action towards climate change, and conservative administrations have have tried to suppress the possibility of such action. Your stance is therefore hyper-reactionary Jew-baiting one that reduces world events to the machinations of “Zionists”, thus obstructing the structural and historical processes of capitalism-imperialism and its inherent dynamics and letting these off the hook (the trick for you, presumably, is to just get some NON-Anglo-Zionist capitalists in there). The irony is that while you rail against the “Anglo-Zionists”, you also become their tool by adopting canards that suit them and their interests.

                “Weather and Climate change totally different things. The facts that the polar caps r melting is scientific evidence and this alone is effecting the weather patterns thru out the world.”

                The polar ice caps are melting because of anthropogenic climate change. Also, lots of things “effect” weather patterns throughout the world. The important thing is to understand the long-term processes and the main phenomena that drive these.

                “The other angle is what most third world leaders have been arguing for at least since the 80’s that the anglo-zionist r using and formulating arguments with regards to climate change in order to hamper third world development and guarantee the western WASP exceptionalism stays supreme.”

                Yes, capitalists will always try to run things in a capitalist way. That’s an iron law of history. And guess what: it has no bearing whatsoever on whether climate change is happening or not. The leaders of the Third World that you cite have also been begging the large capitalist states to do something REAL about climate change and to share the burden of fighting it. Unlike you, they haven’t been denying it, because they can see the effects much better than you can from your air-conditioned room or office in the West: rising water stress and rising food insecurity.




                0



                0
            • Sorry, Not Buying it says

              “I appreciate the argument, but – going with this 5% risk for the moment – don’t we need to discuss how much the world should do to avoid something that has a 95% chance of not happening? Should we at least understand what the risk/benefit ratio is before signing off on this? Aren’t you worried these “precautions” could become just another avenue of exploitation by the 1%?”

              Yes, I am. That’s why I advocate for revolution, not just reform of the exploitative capitalist dictatorship. As long as capitalism is maintained, the “1%” will find avenues for exploitation regardless of whether we do anything substantive about anthropogenic climate change. We have to get rid of this system to close of ALL avenues of exploitation, without exception. There’s GOING to be massive disruption, one way or the other; it’s up the international working class to decide who gets most disrupted: the world’s masses, or the gang of parasites who own and control nearly everything.




              0



              0
        • Mulga Mumblebrain says

          Good God, Moriarty-you are a moron, or deliberately appealing to ignorant morons. The argument that CO2 is ‘only’ 400 ppm and therefore unimportant, is cretinous. Anyone awake during high school science lessons knows how stupid this canard is.




          0



          0
    • Response to your questions:

      1) Yes and yes

      2) Yes. You need to read the climate modelling literature. Admittedly that is not an easy task as it spans hundred of highly technical papers published over many decades. But it exists

      3) The error of the models so far has all been mostly on the side of being too conservative and the newly discovered components of the system have mostly made things worse. For example, nobody predicted such drastic warming of the Arctic and such a rapid collapse of sea ice in the Northern hemisphere. As another example, ice sheet dynamics is modeled quite crudely (because it’s very complex) and with assumptions that do not match the known historical rates of melting from the end of the last Ice Age.

      4) Because it will lead to massive worldwide famine (quite some time before it lead to an inundation of coastal cities). And mass famines tend to lead to deep political instability. Which is not a desirable thing in a nuclear-armed world. That sort of thing. Longer term we have the issues with sea level rise, of course

      5) That cannot be answered without being more specific regarding what “some but not all” means

      6) You are correct that it has become a religion and this is preventing us from a sober discussion of the reality. The problem for your skeptical point of view is that the reality is actually much worse than what the mainstream description of it is, and that would be true even if there was no global warming problem whatsoever. The mainstream environmental position, which has become wedded to the “liberal left” political ideology and then given birth to a secular religion of token environmentalism, is that we can just carry on business as usual, we will just power it with renewables. Which is basically as delusional as the right-wing denial that there is no problem.

      And it completely ignores the rest of the sustainability crisis, of which AGW is only one, and probably not even the worst component. There is also the exhaustion of non-renewable resources (fossil fuels, mineral ores, etc.), exhaustion of renewable resources such as fresh water, topsoils, and fisheries (they are in principle renewable, but the rate at which we are using them currently significantly exceeds the rate of renewal), destruction of ecosystems everywhere, and an ongoing mass extinction, Even without global warming, the combination of these converging crises means a collapse of industrial civilization with 100% certainty in the coming century or two.

      The underlying cause of all these crises is the same — a combination of unrestricted population growth and a socioeconomic system that depends on perpetual economic growth (which means a perpetual growth in resource consumption). But you cannot have infinite growth in a finite system because of those pesky things called the laws of physics.

      You do not adequately address that situation by switching to renewables (which isn’t even physically possible due to scalability and reliability issues and the sheer size of global energy consumption, which, on top of that all, is projected to grow by an order of magnitude in the next century), the only way to solve it is by a global program for gradual but drastic population reduction (if we can get global population down to the low hundreds of millions over the course of this century, that would go a long way towards making a real difference) and by doing away with the economic system predicated on infinite growth, instead moving to a steady-state one.

      And once again, that would be the conclusion even if there was no AGW crisis whatsoever, the other problems are severe enough on their own, and much more difficult to deny, because they do not depend on mathematical modelling of a complex system that nobody fully understand because it is a giant labyrinth of differential equations, they depend on a couple simple equations and on fundamental physical laws (of conservation of energy and matter and the laws of thermodynamics), and you have to be a complete lunatic to deny them.

      Thus the whole “But was there a pause in warming for 15 years or not, and was there a conspiracy to hide it?” debate is an exercise in futility, as the answer to it in no way changes the situation, no matter what the answer is.




      0



      0
      • Moriartys Left Sock says

        My responses to GM’s replies…

        1) Yes and yes

        So, “yes you believe we know enough about how climate works to positively exclude all other sources of warming beside carbon-forcing? And yes, you believe we know what caused the Medieval Warm Period, or the numerous Ice Ages?”

        That’s very interesting. Can you tell me where you found this information? And – most importantly – what did cause the MWP and the ice age? The last I talked to my climatologist friends there were still nothing but competing theories about that. If it’s finally been solved they’d love to know. So would the IPCC, who also seem to think we are still in the theory stage there.

        2) Yes. You need to read the climate modelling literature. Admittedly that is not an easy task as it spans hundred of highly technical papers published over many decades. But it exists.

        So you are saying there are papers published that claim to explain every other force that influenced climates in the past and that prove none of them are causing the current warming?

        That’s amazing. I’ve been reading scientific journals for years and never seen anyone making such bold claims. Not even Michael Mann himself claims we understand every natural climate forcer.. Where did you read these papers? Who authored them? Can you link to them?

        3) The error of the models so far has all been mostly on the side of being too conservative and the newly discovered components of the system have mostly made things worse.

        Well now that’s not true is it? Some of the early models were predicting an end to snow by the early 21st C. Parts of the Carribbean were supposed to be under water by 2015. The models have been consistently revised downward as the predictions failed to transpire in the real world. That’s not an indictment of course. Computer climate models are notoriously hard to calibrate – because (I think you’ll find) we actually do not know very much about the natural climate forcers at all.

        For example, nobody predicted such drastic warming of the Arctic and such a rapid collapse of sea ice in the Northern hemisphere.

        Yes they did. Sea ice was predicted to be all but gone by now in the early models.

        As another example, ice sheet dynamics is modeled quite crudely (because it’s very complex) and with assumptions that do not match the known historical rates of melting from the end of the last Ice Age.

        Are you saying the models are of necessity crude, because if so I agree with you.

        4) Because it will lead to massive worldwide famine (quite some time before it lead to an inundation of coastal cities).

        No, you misunderstand. I realise why extreme warming might be catastrophic. I am asking why the current warming is predicted to become extreme. We know C02 levels of the past were far higher than now but they show no sign of the positive feedback loops that are assumed in the CAGW models. Do you know why the modelers have factored in these huge positive feedback systems when there’s little evidence for them in nature?

        That’s an important question because without these feedback loops being keyed in the warming predicted by the models is not extreme or dangerous at all.

        So, why are the positive feedback loops assumed a priori?

        5) That cannot be answered without being more specific regarding what “some but not all” means

        Well a small amount of Google will tell you that. Some scientists believe in the models that predict catastrophic warming from manmade C02 emissions. Others believe that is possible but unlikely. Still others claim the case for any manmade warming has yet to be made. And others yet again believe there can be no case for manmade warming because c02 is not in their view a potent enough forcer.

        There are real and reputable scientists who hold all of these views and all shades in between.

        6) You are correct that it has become a religion and this is preventing us from a sober discussion of the reality. The problem for your skeptical point of view

        …My view is lukewarm, not skeptical, but actually I agree with many of your comments about the other and often overlooked forms of environmental degradation. I don’t subscribe to the catastrophist and rather human-hating theories though. In fact I see them as symptomatic of a collective human psychological problem. We can’t seem to find a way to like ourselves can we. But should be dissuaded from falling into the delusion of believing the world would be better off without us. We are as much a natural product of evolution as anything else in this planet and have as much right to exist as the beavers and elephants and all the other creatures who change their environment to suit their needs. Balance and harmony i all we need.




        0



        0
        • Mulga Mumblebrain says

          Moriarty, your ‘…my climatologist friends’ is pure, unadulterated, confabulation. Only the really lowest denialist pretend that they know ‘climate scientists’ who blow the whistle on the Great Climate Change Conspiracy. What a vile creature you are.




          0



          0
    • A.M. Wooster says

      I am not a climate scientist but I have some understanding of science. I cannot answer all of your questions but I have some observations that I would like to make.
      Is it possible that the medieval warming was caused by the rapid industrial development of both China and India that took place at that time and the massive clearing of forests to make rice paddies that also took place at the same time? The Chinese were certainly producing enormous quatities of porcelain that must have taken really massive quantities of wood to provide the very high temperatures required while the Indians and also the Arabs were developing an iron and steel industry that likewise must have used a lot of wood. At the same time as both countries were cutting down trees they were both making huge rice paddies out of what had been forest. Rice paddies produce large quantites of methane. Could these two factors have had the effect of warming the climate? I don’t know but I have never seen them discussed which stikes me as a bit surprising.

      At the same time, I have no idea at all as to what influence , if any, the civilizations in the Americas may have had on the composition of the atmosphere.

      About CO2 being “a fertilizer”. Well it may well be, but that is not its only effect. It also modifies the pH value of the oceans and that in turn determines how easy it is for shelled creatures to make their shells and at 400ppm it is getting dangerously close to the point where many creatures, notably krill, will be unable to make shells. I think it is obvious, that for this reason alone, it is necessary, essential even, to limit drastically the production of CO2.

      As to what made ice ages: Very large Volcanic eruptions have been blamed for some, the dust and smoke resulting from very large meteorite strikes have been blamed for others and as noted in the article the Sun’s output varies in a cyclical manner.

      Do I understand why the results are said to be potentially catastrophic?
      Yes. There are huge quantities of methane locked up in the frozen tundra of the arctic regions which are moving into the atmosphere as they thaw. This provides a powerful positive feedback loop, as methane is a greenhouse gas which is 25 times more powerful than is CO2. In addition there are other huge deposits of methane hydrate at the bottom of deep parts of the oceans which will become unstable and dissociate into methane and water if the temperature of the sea rises to 5 degrees C. There is also a large amount of Methane dissolved in a layer of the Pacific which will also probably bubble out if the temperature of the layer in which it is at present held gets too warm. These form two more, potential positive feedback loops. Oh and BTW the arctic ocean region was 50 degrees above average for the time of year on 04/11/2016. As the ice. melts the albedo of the Earth goes down and more of the incident radiation from the Sun stays on Earth instead of being reflected back into space.

      Then there is the melting of the ice caps. if it all melts it is going to cause at the very least flooding on a huge scale. It may also, I should think, quite likely cause massive eathquakes as the crust of the Earth adjusts to the new distribution of pressure that would result. There is enough ice , that with thermal expansion as the sea warms up, to raise the sea level 80m. That looks like a catastrophe to me.




      0



      0
      • Moriartys Left Sock says

        Is it possible that the medieval warming was caused by the rapid industrial development of both China and India that took place at that time and the massive clearing of forests to make rice paddies that also took place at the same time?

        Well since we have almost no data for what caused the MWP it has to be possible it was somehow caused by human activity. But that’s the point – there’s no data to substantiate whether the current warming is due to human activity either. We an see from observation that the earth’s climate is in constant flux, following cycles of warming and cooling over decades, centuries and millennia that we barely understand. These cycles overlap and mesh like cogs in a machine. Given this the probability has to be quite high that the current warming is following one of these cycles – probably a continuation of the warming following the end of the Little Ice Age.

        There is literally nothing to show that this warming is unnatural or dangerous or any different from the other periods of warming and cooling the earth has have experienced.

        Having said that, it’s also true that C02 is a greenhouse gas, and therefore it’s possible that manmade C02 is involved in the current warming. However, even if this is true, there is no reason to suppose this will result in the catastrophic heating predicted by some computer models.

        There are huge quantities of methane locked up in the frozen tundra of the arctic regions which are moving into the atmosphere as they thaw. This provides a powerful positive feedback loop, as methane is a greenhouse gas which is 25 times more powerful than is CO2.

        Yes, this is the theory. But it only a theory. And one not well-supported by observation. There is little evidence for such a positive feedback loop in past climate cycles- even when C02 levels were tens of times higher than today. A different, and possibly better supported theory holds that increased water-vapour would produce more cloud-cover and therefore act to limit warming.

        The important thing is that everything is theory and based on very small amounts of data. The models are just guesswork punched into a computer and then run for X-number of cycles. It’s a GIGO system at worst and a guess-o-meter at best.

        And remember – the earth has had NO ice caps for much of its history. Periods of ice cover like ours are as much the exception as the rule.




        0



        0
        • Fair and balanced response to MLS which suggests you have a methodical approach to information. It’s a shame that more scientists don’t follow your example.




          0



          0
          • Mulga Mumblebrain says

            Mohander, your boot-licking groveling to Moriarty is nauseating. That you prefer his truly ignorant lies and distortions to the science of climate destabilisation, elicited by real scientists and peer-reviewed in real journals, shows you to be an ignorant idiot.




            0



            0
            • Your cheap and demeaning insults are an offence perpetrated in the belief that you are able to repudiate ALL the deniers claims. The science that Global Warming is man made is something I believe in, but unlike you, I am aware that the current available studies do not prove conclusively that the assumptions adopted are based on absolutes, neither side of the debate can make that claim. It is your kind of insulting ignorance that makes life for those of us promoting man made global warming that much more difficult. Do the planet a favour and go play with the traffic on a four lane highway and please stop trying to hinder constructive debate, you are nothing more than a bombastic liability.




              0



              0
              • Mulga Mumblebrain says

                Cut the specious verbiage, Mohander. You’re the plainest denialist, denying that he is one, and covering his trail with nonsense. There is no even near equivalence between denialism and the mountain of climate science research and the mounting evidence from reality. ‘Absolutes’ are not required, you fool-just probabilities, and the probability of Near Term Human Extinction caused by anthropogenic climate destabilisation grows by the day, thanks to swine like you.




                0



                0
    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      Moriarty, EVERY one of your points has been investigated and explained, more and more completely, since climate science began about 200 years ago with Fourier and Tyndall. If you really are so ignorant as not to know the details of the science, then perhaps you’d be better off at the Daily Mail or some similar dung-heap. If, however, as I suspect, you are just a denialist disinformer, then you are quite a nasty specimen.




      0



      0
  10. Here is something that I think anyone who is not a professional in a particular field of scientific research, whatever it may be, and even if one happens to be a professional in a given field of science, should keep in mind, because it places an emphasis on a “fact” that tends to be elided and forgotten but that has enormous implications for the manner in which any scientific consensus, in our capitalist context, becomes THE consensus — I’m quoting in full the epilogue to a study by Peter Duesberg, Claus Koehnlein and David Rasnick, and titled, “The chemical bases of the various AIDS epidemics: recreational drugs, anti-viral chemotherapy and malnutrition,” an “epilogue” that might well have justifiably been titled, “What’s Wrong with the ‘Peer-review System,’ Anyway ?

    Quote begins:

    Epilogue

    5.1 Why is AIDS research not free to investigate non-HIV hypotheses?

    The probable answer to the question, why HIV-AIDS researchers do not study or fund non-HIV-AIDS theories, lays in the structure of the large, government-sponsored research programs that dominate academic research since World War II (Duesberg 1996b). Such programs favour individual investigators who contribute to the establishment a maximum of data and a minimum of controversy. However, if individual researchers move into new directions, that threaten the scientific and commercial investments of the establishment, the establishment can impose various sanctions via the “peer review system”. [Norm’s emphasis] The most powerful of these are denial of funding and of publication.

    The peer review system derives its power from the little known practice of governments to deputize their authority to distribute funds for research to committees of “experts”. These experts are academic researchers distinguished by outstanding contributions to the current establishment. They alone review the merits of research applications from their peers, and they have the right to elect each other to review committees. Outwardly, this “peer review system” appears to the unsuspecting government and taxpayer as the equivalent of a jury system – free of all conflicts of interest. But, in view of the many professional and commercial investments in and benefits from their expertise, and even of the rewards from their universities and institutions for the corresponding overheads and partnerships – all legal in the US since president Reagan – ”peer reviewers” do not fund applications that challenge their own interests [Norm’s emphasis] (Duesberg 1996b; Lang 1998; Zuger 2001). Since “peer review” is protected by anonymity, does not allow the applicant personal representation or an independent representative, nor a say or even a veto in the selection of the “jury”, and does not allow an appeal, its powers to defend the orthodoxy are unlimited. [Norm’s emphasis] The corporate equivalent of academia’s [“]peer review system” would be to give General Motors and Ford the authority to review and veto all innovations by less established carmakers competing for the consumer.

    Even the professional journals and the science writers of the public media comply with the interests of government-funded majorities because they depend on their monthly “scientific breakthroughs”, the lucrative advertisements from their companies, and the opinion of their subscribers. For example, an early precursor of this article was written in response to an open invitation from a pharmacology-journal over 3 years ago. But, after considerable pressure on the journal from anonymous “AIDS experts”, the editor requested a reduced article, which was neither accepted nor rejected. Instead, the editor simply dropped all further correspondence. Subsequently, the editor of a prestigious German-based science journal invited another precursor of this article 2 years ago, which received two favourable reviews in short order. But before the manuscript could be revised, the editor informed us that the publisher was concerned about losing subscribers if our paper were published and ceased all further correspondence. It is this passive resistance that can grind down even the most determined truth seeker.

    However, the mere potential to resolve the agony of AIDS by alternative hypotheses, such as ours, should be sufficient reason to replace the medieval “peer review system” by a modern jury system without conflicts of interest and with rights for representation and appeals of the applicant. If the current, unproductive AIDS establishment objects, because AIDS-science is too complex to be understood by non-HIV-AIDS scientists, funding should be withheld until the AIDS establishment finds ways to explain the complexity and merits of its expertise to other scientists.

    quote ends.




    0



    0
    • I don’t know where you find these gems, but this one in particular could either nullify every claim by both sides of the man made climate debate or elevate them to their own perceived lofty heights. Cracking up with this one.




      0



      0
      • Indeed, you are quite correct. But the upshot is that Duesberg et al. highlight exactly what is currently the state of the “peer review” vetting process in pretty much the entire field of scientific research, excepting, perhaps, the fields of engineering proper.




        0



        0
        • Exactly, so the Peer Review System needs to be overhauled and have rules instituted and show due diligence to apply their judicious responsibility without favor or hindrance – fat chance methinks.




          0



          0
            • Does that mean I can stop taking my Statin tablets? Mind you, last time I did that I ended up in Papworths with a heart attack and my first stent(don’t recommend it-either of said). Shame, because I still keep forgetting to take them. Oops.




              0



              0
              • Mohandeer, I don’t know that you should be on the Statin’s or not. I’m on an anit-coagulant because, well, without it my clod clots, and twice I’ve been hospitalized for a “major P.E.” There is no underlying genetic marker for what ails me — it is, as they say in the business, idiopathic. But the clotting does happen, I do have a ‘condition,’ so I’ll keep taking the anticoagulant. However, my doctor wanted me to start taking Statin tablets, and after some throrough reseach, some of which is referenced on my blog, I opted not to. I don’t have an underlying heart condition, and so called “high cholesterol” is proven to be unrelated to cardio vascular disease. On this issue, it may very well be that I know something my physician does not. He’s been wrong about things before. Who hasn’t? But I’ve strayed off topic, haven’t I? Apologies to Admin as ready to hit the “send” widget.




                0



                0
                • The consultant who fitted the stent gave me such a ticking off, scared the bejeebers out of me and I don’t want to get on the wrong side of her any time soon. Phew! Strewth, but she should come with a medical warning attached to her!




                  0



                  0
                  • I was lucky. There was nothing they could do for me but send me up to palliative care and wait and see if I’d come through, so I didn’t have to suffer the distemper of any overworked medical personnel, and how they are overworked!

                    Oddly, I wasn’t at all perturbed by the prospect of possibly dying, but the dyspnea was rather severe and in itself anxiety inducing, as I understand it, an uncontrollable physiological reaction.

                    (We sound like old people, don’t we, I mean going on about our ailments and all?)




                    0



                    0
                    • I am old(before my time)physically dysfunctional but not quite senile. I too while being rushed in an ambulance having been told I was having a heart attack was curiously indifferent except for my dogs at home(I was genuinely worried what would happen to them and that Gracie would be found a good home. The heart attack helped me put my own mortality into perspective and rather relieved me of the fear of dying, my sympathy is for the living, because for many, that is the real battle – one day at a time and often losing that battle simply because they are too poor to change their circumstances. Pity the child born into poverty rather than my sheltered if not luxurious life of readily available food, medical care and safety. Sometimes I come across as rather maudlin, not for myself so much as all those who rely on people like me and yourself to care about them.




                      0



                      0
  11. The above article is not well researched at all.

    My issues with this article are;

    The Daily Mail as a source for anything.

    The Daily Mail also known as The Crazy Mail, & Daily Heil is not a good source of news or any information let alone science, it’s a trash newspaper along the lines of your Murdoch rags.
    https://www.skepticalscience.com/this-is-why-daily-mail-unreliable.html

    Dr Bates
    https://www.skepticalscience.com/bates-knew-people-would-misuse-accusations-to-attack-climate-science.html

    Climategate
    https://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

    Over 30,000 scientists
    Maybe the reason that the figure is not often quoted or almost never is because it is misleading.
    http://www.snopes.com/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/

    Lord Christopher Monckton
    If the author had bothered to do proper research they would have found that Lord Christopher Monckton is not what he claims to be. He is not a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication & has been asked to “desist from claiming to be a Member “without the right to sit or vote” ” by the UK parliament. Monckton has no science qualification & he is not a Nobel Peace Laureate. The only qualification he has is he was born rich & is a clown.
    https://climatecrocks.com/2011/07/18/monckton-im-a-member-of-parliament-ive-cured-hiv-there-is-no-climate-change/
    https://skepticalscience.com/docs/Monckton_vs_Scientists.pdf

    David Legates
    David Legates has close ties with Willie Soon.
    “Legates and Soon have authored numerous papers together, including a controversial 2007 “polar bear study” that was partially funded by Koch Industries. Legates was the co-author on four of the 11 papers that Soon received fossil fuel funding for – and failed to disclose in the paper.”
    https://insideclimatenews.org/news/23022015/guide-willie-soons-climate-research-funded-fossil-fuel-companies

    “The Union of Concerned Scientists and Greenpeace have “cited Legates’ ties to several groups that have supported or emphasized skeptical stands on climate change while they also received regular contributions from ExxonMobil,” including “the National Center for Policy Analysis, which has received about $421,000 from ExxonMobil, and the George C. Marshall Institute, which received $630,000.” The Competitive Enterprise Institute, “which also once listed Legates as an adjunct scholar, received more than $2 million from ExxonMobil at a time when the company was publicly fighting climate change policies.” All three institutions have published works by Legates

    Heartland Institute
    The other issue with this article is The Heartland Institute.

    “Heartland’s funding over the past decade has included thousands of dollars directly from ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute, but a large portion of their funding ($25.6 million) comes from the shadowy Donor’s Capital Fund, created expressly to conceal the identity of large donors to free-market causes. The Koch brothers appear to be funneling money into Donor’s Capital via their Knowledge and Progress Fund.”
    http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/09/09/heartland-institute-nipcc-fail-the-credibility-test/

    https://www.desmogblog.com/koch-industries-extensive-funding-climate-denial-industry-unmasked

    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-skeptic.html#.WLV1fY9OKUl

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/fossil-fuel-funded-report-denies-consensus.html

    The 16 year hiatus claim debunked.
    https://www.skepticalscience.com/no-warming-in-16-years.htm

    Climate Change deniers don’t need a bigger voice they have one & plenty of funding to go with it.

    I question who Sapere Aude is, whether Sapere Aude is their real name or a pseudonym, what their credentials are & who is funding them. The name strikes me as odd for some reason.

    Judith Curry is wrong & also gets some money from fossil fuel industry.
    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Judith_Curry

    Something makes me suspect this offguardian article has been written by your usual denier, probably paid to come here & bring their denying trolls along to offguardian to troll anyone who disagrees with the views in the article.

    We don’t need to debate the deniers anymore, the debate is over.




    0



    0
    • Moriartys Left Sock says

      Oh dear. Scientists refute data not people. A fact is a fact regardless of who supplies it and a lie is a lie even if our best friend tells it to us.

      There are numerous peer-reviewed articles available that question all or part of the CAGW hypothesis. I agree with some of them, not with others. Beyond the rather oversimplified science of popular media there are all kinds of nuanced opinions on this matter. Because that’s how real science works.




      0



      0
      • Mulga Mumblebrain says

        Moriarty, a truly villainous denialist like you talking of ‘real science’ is vicious nonsense. You are a disinformer, pure and unalloyed, nothing more.




        0



        0
        • Mulga, you need better programming. Your algorithm is unintentionally comedic. I’m starting to read your comments to myself with a “Borat” accent.




          0



          0
          • I imagined him to be an unkempt bearded loser living in a squat with nothing else to do except take his anger out at the rest of the world for his own failings by name calling and generally being a total prat with extreme nuisance value.




            0



            0
            • The Bearded Bellicose Borat Bot! If that’s an actual person I imagine him/her wearing a preposterous hat, for some reason




              0



              0
              • Mulga Mumblebrain says

                Denialist liars in what the Yanks call a ‘circle jerk’, all ‘pissing in each others pockets’ with admiration at what arrogant, duplicitous, clever little swine they are. This garbage discredits this whole site-it’s like the worst of the Murdoch denialist sewer.




                0



                0
                • What a wonderfully persuasive argument, Borat! Your many facts + ice cold logic = a chastening experience. I’ll just watch in awe as you save the world with spit and vituperation. Thanks!




                  0



                  0
                  • I loved you response to grumble mumble or whatever pseudonym he has taken and couldn’t stop laughing. Made my day – thanks.
                    M.




                    0



                    0
              • Well a hat would keep his brain cell warm.
                Knitted with holes in it to ensure everyone knows his “creds” or a “rasta man” type with the accompanying dreadlocks?




                0



                0
    • Moriartys Left Sock says

      By the way I am certainly not a “denier.”

      I don’t deny the climate has warmed.

      I don’t deny it may be due to the increase in carbon in the atmosphere, since carbon is known to be a greenhouse gas.

      I don’t deny that if the worst case scenario of positive feedback man-made warming is true we might be in a lot of trouble.

      I am just scientifically literate enough to know what can be ascertained through science and what is simply guess or conjecture or – sometimes – snake oil.

      I am aware we don’t have enough knowledge of climate to be sure of the extent to which carbon is a major forcer.

      I am aware we can’t tell at all whether the recent warming is man-made in part or at all.

      I an aware that science literacy in the general population is so poor they are easily duped by pseudoscience or exaggerated claims and that this has encouraged well-meaning climate scientists to simplify and exaggerate as a means of catching public attention. They meant well, but the result has been anything but good.




      0



      0
      • Just start with one simple fact: there has been no warming for the past 19 or so years. Therefore the fundamental claim of the scaremongers is false. From that it should be obvious that CO2 has a minuscule effect on temperature. There have been times in the past when CO2 levels appear to have been 200 times as high as at present – but the planet did not overheat. The graphs show that CO2 levels always rise AFTER a temperature rise, not before – so there is no causal link between CO2 and temperature. That’s all the science you need to know.




        0



        0
        • Mulga Mumblebrain says

          Paul, you’re an example of the truly deranged denialist fanatic. The last three years have successively been the hottest ever recorded, yet you have the psychotic impudence to say the world has NOT warmed for 19 years. You show yourself to be the vilest of the vile.




          0



          0
      • Mulga Mumblebrain says

        Moriarty, you deny being a denialist, then spew a string of denialist canards. Despicable.




        0



        0
        • My goodness but you are the epitome of despicable. Calling someone trying to engage in reasonable debate despicable is very much the pot calling the kettle black whilst throwing stones at anybody and everybody from inside your glass house. Careful you don’t scrape your knuckles on your way home to your cave tonight.




          0



          0
          • M, there’s something a little off about our new friend “Mulga Mumblebrain”… almost Bot-like. The generic pool of ad hominems deployed in generic sentences… and the awkward insertion of each name of each target for attack… plus the pre-packaged AGW talking points wedged in with the ad hominems… it all seems seems rather formulaic, eh? If that isn’t software, it’s someone who isn’t much more clever than software, doing a very poor job of simulating a passionate opinion.




            0



            0
            • A bit like the ‘phone bank operators ringing numbers over and over again(as in what I describe as nuisance calls) then reading from a pre-determined script with the hope of a hit in order to boost heir earnings? The lengths some of them will go to when they get a “No thank you” are quite extraordinary and outright dishonest. The bullying, threatening and general insidious way in which they operate?
              It did occur to me that the performance was just a tad OTT(over the top), so you may be onto something there.
              Was I as bad as this vicious little creature? Lord above, I hope not. How would you like him on your side of the debate, instead, me and mine have that particular pleasure – what a liability he is proving to be. I wish Admin would interject.




              0



              0
              • No, M, you were/are a Human Being with a Passionate Opinion… big diff. But I think “Mulga” is good to the extent that it he/she/it shows how the OffGuard will tend to attract infiltrators… maybe the standard term “shill” even works. We should all be on our (off)guard(ian)…




                0



                0
                • Shill is probably a close approximation. If someone wants to persuade others to their point of view, it is rather redundant if in doing so they not only insult and reduce the argument to mud slinging and alienating those you wish to “inform”. Possibly deliberate, in this particular case.




                  0



                  0
          • Mulga Mumblebrain says

            You’re not ‘trying to engage in debate’, you mendacious pustule. You and you little cabal of really smarmy denialist scum are simply having fun peddling the most moronic denialist canards, and congratulating each other on how clever you are. Considering that human existence is in deep peril, that makes you truly evil swine.




            0



            0
              • @STAug,

                I think Mr. Mumbler makes a point: you are a pustule. I guess that settles that. AGW is real and catastrophic and upon us. How else to explain your “pustulence,” StAug?

                And then there are all those other things that you are if it weren’t for the “fact” of AGW. Your “denial” is the “climactic fact” that proves the disaster.

                You have been “comeuppanced.”

                And Mumbler has another point: you don’t ever engage in debate, because you don’t ever agree with everything people who engage with you believe as the Gospel Truth. And that is the Gospel Truth about you, StAug.

                And how dare you deny that you know for sure that AGW is not happening, not any more than you know whether it is happening. Really, it is just so enraging to try to have a level headed exchange with you.

                And just to clarify something to the both of you: a “canard” is a “duck,” so in the manner in which you are using the word, it doesn’t make any sense to me. Agree with me or be damned.




                0



                0
                • Damn! DIRECT HITS! (now excuse me, I really must go emit some Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere… I’m on a rather tight schedule… Manhattan needs to be under water, like, YESTERDAY)




                  0



                  0
    • Ad hominem attacks fail to address the issues.

      No doubt the AGW promoters will find an attack to level at each and every scientist that challenges their hypothesis. But that does not constitute making their case in any way.




      0



      0
      • Ad hominem attacks. If you’re referring to my comment about ‘Lord’ Christopher Monckton it’s a statement fact he is a fraud & a clown with plenty of evidence to support that fact.




        0



        0
        • Please respond to evidence with counter-evidence. Tell people why you believe the science is so settled there can be no valid criticism of any part of it. This will help a discussion. Ranting about individuals will not.




          0



          0
          • Mulga Mumblebrain says

            The denialist cabal you are giving space to are NOT producing ‘evidence’- they are regurgitating long discredited lies, in the most arrogant, even snide, manner. You have turned this place into a simulacrum of the Daily Mail or any Murdoch sewer. Why? And don’t give me crap up ‘freedom of opinion’-this issue is far too important to allow malicious disinformers to hide behind that canard.




            0



            0
            • That’s right, Borat! No more of this “freedom of opinion” nonsense! Let’s all just snap out of it and jump in line behind you! Your opinion is LAW. To disagree is pure insolence.




              0



              0
            • So are many of those promoting man made argument. There is no right or wrong when both sides are lying.




              0



              0
        • It is a pseudonym. Many of our writers use them as there can be a real price to pay for saying things deemed unacceptable in our increasingly surveilled age. But please (this is the third time of being asked) critique the article not the author.




          0



          0
          • Mulga Mumblebrain says

            What crap! What ‘price’ do denialists pay? Much more likely is that they are paid, by the fossil fuel industry. Are you?




            0



            0
        • Mulga Mumblebrain says

          Well done Deborah, to fight these vile hypocrites. I’m interested in their mob tactics. Is this the usual clientele here, or has the Daily Mail got a surplus of Dunning-Krugerites determined to cause human extinction, so just loaned a few to this place? Either way it is truly DESPICABLE to see lies, idiocies, long discredited disinformation etc, all still being regurgitated, with a slimy veneer of a criticism of a ‘carbon industry’ that doesn’t exist, and the usual denialists’ lying denial that they are deniers.




          0



          0
    • “In 1991 the Shell oil company produced a half-hour film, Climate of Concern, for showing in schools and universities, that set out the dangers of climate change, apparently with unnerving accuracy.”

      Anyone wondering why Shell Oil would produce a “prescient” half-hour film, for showing in schools and universities, against the practise generating its own profits? One would almost think TPTB are playing the game at a level above most of our heads…




      0



      0
      • Tim Groves says

        “In 1991 the Shell oil company produced a half-hour film, Climate of Concern, for showing in schools and universities, that set out the dangers of climate change, apparently with unnerving accuracy.”

        Only with “unnerving accuracy” if you are a Guardian journalist. As every honest person over 30 should be able to testify, the climate has not changed perceptibly since 1991 beyond its fluctuations over the normal natural 60+ cycle. No countries or regions have changed their Koppen climate classification. Miami’s climate has not migrated to New York, Dr. James Hansen’s 1988 prediction that the Westside Highway in Manhattan would be underwater by 2028 looks unlikely to materialize, our children DO know what snow is, and it is still quite futile to attempt to grow avocados outside next to the south side of Hadrian’s Wall.

        Climate 101:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6ppen_climate_classification




        0



        0
      • Maybe because Shell and the other oil companies would actually stand to gain when governments raised the price of fuel to discourage drivers? I’ve read a suggestion that the Yom Kippur war was engineered to produce a temporary shortage of oil, thus raising the price and making it economic to start exploiting the North Sea oilfields.




        0



        0
        • Indeed, quite often, several nefarious goals are achieved with one deception. What the Radicals need to develop, that the Right has been profiting from for quite a while, is the tradition of the Thinktank to come up with these chess moves. The Radical Internet is a vast, disorganized Thinktank, of a kind, but a focused effort (with the Randoms filtered out) would probably work wonders.




          0



          0
  12. So, to recap: The same “Scientific Consensus” supporting Magic Bullet Theory, and the notion that steel-frame buildings can melt and collapse owing to office fires, and that the essential ingredient in rat poison is perfectly safe (even health-giving) as an added ingredient to a national water supply, and that there’s not enough evidence to justify a large-scale study of the possible link between certain vaccines and Autism… the same “Scientific Consensus” that, not long ago, argued that smoking cigarettes was good for you… is also asserting “Global Warming… erm… Climate Change”… and some of us trust this without a bit of skepticism? Interesting.

    I suspect there’s an “Original Sin” component in the “AGW” narrative that the misanthropists (antiquatedly-gendered term, I know) among us find appealing (cue: Biblical Flooding). It’s not as though we’ve made our own measurements/observations and plugged these into our own climate models and therefore agree with the “consensus”… it’s just feels right, eh? Which is how the most effective propaganda works. It just feels right.

    But where’s the “97%” of Scientists alarming the hell out of us over Monsanto? (Crickets)




    0



    0
    • Sorry, Not Buying It says

      You’re saying that the Chinese have been duped (they’ve signaled that they’ll continue to lead the world on climate action, with or without US help) while Trump got it right. Sorry, but do you really believe that?




      0



      0
      • I’m not privy to the Machiavellian maneuvers of intra-governmental schemes, so I can’t say any more than you can whether the Chinese are “in on it” in exchange for certain advantages. Which “sides” are the various governments on? We have no way of knowing. But Climate Alarmism would certainly be a good way to scare the world’s Serfs into acquiescing to a New Global Control System (aka a “NWO”).

        I’m not as settled on one view of the atmospheric realities, or another, as I am fascinated with the mechanism of getting people to believe, passionately, in a theory they can’t have any natural sense of without promptings. Again: how many of us are amateur climatologists, with home made weather stations in our backyards, for whom the AGW is merely a confirmation of our own growing fears? It’s a wholly artificial scare. A function of Propaganda.




        0



        0
          • The real point being: neither of us can possibly know. And I’m fascinated with people who Believe without being able to know.




            0



            0
          • BTW How’s the home made weather station in your back yard holding up? Data still flowing…? Laugh




            0



            0
            • Sorry, Not Buying It says

              “The real point being: neither of us can possibly know. And I’m fascinated with people who Believe without being able to know.”

              It’s okay, you’ve made it clear on many occasions: you neither know nor believe anything.




              0



              0
              • “It’s okay, you’ve made it clear on many occasions: you neither know nor believe anything.”

                Not being a faith-driven zealot, I tend to be honest about the limits of my actual knowledge. It’s probably less fun than clueless self-righteousness (right?) but, oh well! I can live with that.




                0



                0
                • Sorry, Not Buying It says

                  Being honest about the limits of your knowledge emphatically isn’t the same thing as strategic nihilism and helplessness in the face of concentrated wealth and power. Your individualist, life-stylist “people just have to DECIDE to stop feeding the system” is a dead-end to nowhere and is even less of a threat to the system you rail against (but have no real prescriptions against) than the revolutionaries that you’ve denounced as “paid opposition”.




                  0



                  0
                  • “Being honest about the limits of your knowledge emphatically isn’t the same thing as strategic nihilism…”

                    I’m no version of Nihilist and you’re no version of good at reading, I’m afraid.




                    0



                    0
              • By the way: I’m still curious about the data flowing in to your private weather station(s), the obvious source of your certainty. I may not agree with your interpretation of the info but I can admire your industriousness in the search for the unambiguous truth. Unlike so many Dupes, hypnotized by Mass Media, you’re using primary sources.




                0



                0
                • Sorry, Not Buying it says

                  “I’m no version of Nihilist”

                  Perhaps “defeatist” would be a better term. I’ll be generous and let you pick.




                  0



                  0
                  • You’re a born propagandist, Sorry. A born propagandist! As long as you’re not a professional (are you?) that’s okay, I guess.




                    0



                    0
              • That’s not entirely fair. Just because someone does not agree with your point of view, doesn’t mean he is not entitled to that view. You can do better than this. Use your arguments in a constructive way, your judgments will have better authenticity if you remain focused on the argument and article.




                0



                0
          • Kevin Morris says

            ‘SO they’re either duped or in on it’

            I reckon the comment ignores human nature and the bandwagon effect. SCience isn’t the isolated search for the truth that scientists would have us believe. Scientists must attract funding for their research, much of which comes from commercial bodies which may or may not have political or commercial axes to grind. Scientists know areas that are ‘safe’ and will attract funding and they know too areas of endeavour that might be accused of being ‘unscientific’.

            A few years ago Luc Montaigner gained a Nobel Prize for his research on the aids virus. Part of his research demonstrated the virus’ ability to ‘communicate’ elecromagnetically with other viruses. He was asked if his work had validated claims by homoeopaths that microdoses of homoeopathic were capable of influencing cells in the body. He was careful to state that whilst he couldn’t support all the claims of homoeopaths, Yes, his research suggested that microdoses could influence cells.

            The roar of outrage from the scientific ‘community’ was deafening. Montaigner meanwhile took up a post in China claiming that scientists in the West had become too intolerant. It is tempting to suggest that the west’s loss will prove to be China’s gain.




            0



            0
            • Sorry, Not Buying It says

              “Scientists must attract funding for their research, much of which comes from commercial bodies which may or may not have political or commercial axes to grind. Scientists know areas that are ‘safe’ and will attract funding and they know too areas of endeavour that might be accused of being ‘unscientific’.”

              This ignores that scientists who switch to the side that pleases the fossil fuel industry are often much more handsomely rewarded. It’s easy enough to “attract funding” for your research whatever your view on global warming, and those willing to find the naysayers are not at all short on cash.

              “It is tempting to suggest that the west’s loss will prove to be China’s gain.”

              The Chinese government is fully on board with the standard scientific narrative about global warming. Why are you talking about homeopathy?




              0



              0
              • Moriartys Left Sock says

                There’s a bit of over-simplifying in the meme that the “fossil fuel industry funds everyone (yes absolutely EVERYONE) who questions the most extreme versions of the CAGW theory.

                How well does this idea stand up to any form of analysis? For one thing it assumes there is some form of separation between the billionaires who make their money from fossil fuels and the billionaires who don’t. But come on, we know that’s naive and silly. The people who own the fossil fuel industry are also making money out of alternatives (lapping up the grant funds and tax breaks), nuclear, weapons manufacturing, banking, and every other form of exploitation.

                The point is the 1% always diversify and always run both sides of the game. The fossil fuel industry funds climate alarmists as well as “deniers.” The interesting question is ‘why?’




                0



                0
                • Sorry, Not Buying It says

                  “There’s a bit of over-simplifying in the meme that the “fossil fuel industry funds everyone (yes absolutely EVERYONE) who questions the most extreme versions of the CAGW theory.”

                  There’s no need for them to do this. They only have to fund SOME of the naysayers in order to provide a scientific veneer for their claims, and then they sit back and watch as petit-bourgeois elements in the West act as their ideological shock-troops. Third World peoples living in arid regions where there are serious problems with food and water security, and peoples living in coastal regions and small islands, however, don’t have the luxury of waiting for chauvinist constituencies and right-wing politicians in the West to get their act together, which is why they’re rather more anxious to see substantial action instead of luxuriant denial-wallowing.




                  0



                  0
                • The 1% always hedge their bets and will use every opportunity that presents itself to make money while making monkeys out of the rest of us – no matter which side we’re on. Imagine having subsidiary companies all moving in the direction of where the money is, that affords them a lot of scope while we are all busy looking in a different direction.




                  0



                  0
    • Sorry, Not Buying It says

      “he same “Scientific Consensus” supporting Magic Bullet Theory”

      Hilarious coming from someone who thinks in terms of technological panaceas.




      0



      0
      • “Hilarious coming from someone who thinks in terms of technological panaceas.”

        Very efficient, there, Sorry! You managed to make very little sense and be untruthful in one pointless (long-after-the-fact) comment! Top marks!




        0



        0
        • St. Aug.
          There are people on both sides of this argument who are both dishing out misinformation, lies and information taken out of context. Anyone, but most especially those purporting to be scientists, trying to demolish the arguments of people quoting “facts” by using lies, is as the title of this article suggests, merely supporting their own “meme”. Such people are not just dishonest but a disgrace to their supposed profession. The whole point of this article was to expose the sundry lies being proffered to support one side of the argument over the other. It is not helpful when those who have a vested interest in supporting one side of the argument over the others, to lie in support of their position. Notice that several who are making pronouncements (on both sides) in several cases, are not giving links to their arguments, probably because the links would lead to a less than honest analysis. The fact is, that neither side can lay claim to having all the facts, it’s just not possible. When I say ALL the facts, I mean just that.
          The only “truths” that have any validation are those based on personal choice of whether or not to believe one side of the argument over the other. As you know, I am a proponent of the man made side, but unlike some who are posting, I do not “know” with absolute certainty, whether I am on the right side of scientific fact.
          Read Naomi Klein’s “This changes everything” and learn who really had vested interests in denouncing the man made argument. Also consider the flip side of the debate. It was known from the first draft of the submission of the man made theory that 123 scientists refused to sign up for it. Firstly, they were aware that there were flaws in the presentation and as such, could not be certain that the science proved beyond doubt, that man was indeed responsible. Secondly, if the science was not spot on, they realized that if they signed, it would be handing over to the elites, the wealthy and the self serving, great power, to be used or abused. They, quite rightly, had no faith in such people, that the theory would be used to unfavourably discriminate against economies who still had unplumbed resources, like that of Africa. The powers that be, might well have instigated boycotts against countries, desperate to drag themselves out of poverty, which would weaken their chances and diminish the global interests of those countries who, for the most part, if we are to accept the “man made” argument, have already used so much of their resources, that they were the main contributors in the first place. No-one, with any realism, would trust them to “do the right thing” with respect to other economies.
          Therefore, if we accept that neither side can prove their argument, except with lies, misinformation or facts taken out of context, or facts based on information that is less than 100% reliable – because we(mankind) weren’t even around – then the arguments cease to have any real validation – either way!
          I must accept the fact that I follow my own path, as I have done, with the full knowledge that others may not be in a position to do the same. Those of us who have the means to make a choice, should do so, but it would be wrong to dismiss those who do not have that choice, until the argument can be settled one way or the other. As stated earlier, the people who accept the man made side of the argument, who still cannot make the effort to do what they can are far more culpable than those who still question the science. You once told me, that there are many people, whose circumstances are so incomparable to yours and mine, that such considerations like that of reducing their carbon footprint, are risible given their situation. I suggest, therefore, that we follow your reasoning and allow those who have a choice to make it, without being judgmental of those who are unable to meet the challenge and leave the two sides to argue among themselves. Those who are still trying to discern the truth, should be permitted to do so, but as the article intimated, without the respondents lying their socks off. I will not entertain argument from those who lie(there is one in particular, who has joined the fray and I know him of previous, he has no boundaries except to promote his own agenda). It ends up as a mud slinging match. This article, has not so much put the cat among the pigeons, as invited dishonest representation of facts, which really should be sacred.
          Regards,
          :)M




          0



          0
          • “I will not entertain argument from those who lie…”

            M! Yes, exactly. Some are just normal people locked, for personal reasons, in ATTACK MODE and have no desire to contribute to an actual debate or conversation. Others are Disinformation Bots, here to muddy the threads beyond comprehension. It’s not difficult to see who is what…




            0



            0
    • Kevin Morris says

      The problem with empiricism is that it observes and reports what it sees. It is left to others to reach conclusions. There is little doubt that after the mini ice age centred on the 1820s, temperatures have risen, but the whole argument about whether the rise is man made is another issue entirely.




      0



      0
    • If you allow empirical science to dictate your thinking on the wrong side of the future of this planet you are virtually guaranteed to be accused of pimping a political agenda, because a future for those still to be born is really not that big an issue for them, whether it is a mere possibility or otherwise.




      0



      0
  13. Something more pertinent to the what this post is about and that I’m stealing from Judith Curry, from a piece titled, “RICO!, which everyone should read:

    Quote begins:

    [. . .] the consensus on human caused climate change is not as overwhelming as you seem to think. See my recent blog post The conceits of consensus, which includes a detailed analysis of an extensive survey of climate scientists (not to mention extensive critiques of the Cook et al. analysis).

    Third, the source of funding is not the only bias in research, and the greatest bias does not necessarily come from industry funding, see these posts:

    Conflicts of interest in climate science

    Is federal funding biasing research?

    Industry funding and bias

    Industry funding: witch hunts

    Scientific integrity versus ideologically fueled research

    quote ends.




    0



    0
  14. Kevin Morris says

    A few years ago- since 2008 I listened to a news report on the BBC about global warming which came out with the usual guff about the trend being ever upwards but it added a strange comment, the exact words I fail to remember. It claimed that we were in for either ‘two’ or ‘three’ cold winters but nevertheless these were simply a slight aberration and the trend was still upwards. Now the strange thing was that the next two winters were very cold- unseasonably so nowadays and I remember driving up a pennine road in May and seeing snowdrifts well above the level of the cars.

    Now my question is: How on earth could the weather during two winters be predicted well over a year beforehand? I have often wondered whether this item on the BBC should really have got through and what do the people who shape the news agenda know that we don’t? I enjoy conspiracy theories and whilst I take very few as gospel there are a lot of stories about the HAARP project in Alaska, apparently installed by BAe and used by America to influence the world’s weather. It may be utter nonsense of course but still to this day I really do wonder how the BBC could possibly have known that we were in for these cold winters a considerable time before they happened




    0



    0
  15. Jim Porter says

    Who cares about why it’s changing – surely we should just be prepared to deal with the changes. Sadly, a lot of science has been hijacked by money and you always have to check who is funding what before you can trust anything. I quite like the wind and solar technologies for power production (decentralises production) and higher efficiencies in the use of that power. All the problems we get from global warming could be fixed if all governments took responsibility and paid for it (I remember when the thinning ozone layer in the southern hemisphere had a solution that would have cost £50 million but no single government would cough up and they even argued over who caused most pollution to have caused the problem in the first place). Always money.




    0



    0
    • Catte says

      Pretty obviously though, the reason why the warming is happening dictates what (if anything) should be done about it.




      0



      0
      • Jim Porter says

        Not necessarily so, the example I gave was to build a solar powered ozone producing factory floating (using balloons) in the stratosphere which would ‘mend’ the ozone layer. The polluters and farting cows could continue trying to destroy the ozone layer but the factory would continue to mend it. I understand that it would also be advantageous to stop polluting but the people responsible for that never listened to reason before, so I think ‘just clean up after them’ (like you do with children!).




        0



        0
  16. “If you want the truth about an issue, would you go to an agency with political appointees?” — climatologist Dr. John Christy

    In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” ― Galileo Galilei

    Forget the politics, whether of the business lobbies fighting over taxpayer funds or of the bureaucratic scientific “consensus” manufactured by careerists on the make. Look to the data.

    If a hypothesis, like “anthropogenic global warming,” explains everything, it explains nothing. The world is more complicated than our vaunted “climate consensus scientists” make it out to be, and we have some way to go yet before we really have a handle on all of the complicated climate related interactions in our world, which isn’t to say that we don’t understand some of them . . .

    As merely one example of many of the “tabloid media hyping climate doom” prognostications, see this: Climate Change Threatens the Survival of Coral Reefs.

    Then compare that with this: Coral bleaching debate by Jim Steele

    Without a thorough understanding of a) your (proxy) data and b) an army of actual experts carefully collating and cataloging mountains of such “understood” (proxy) data from around the world (a work that is still very much in its infancy) and c) without a theory taking into account all actually known factors making for climate and average temperature — YOU CANNOT KNOW THAT THE WORLD IS IN A WARMING OR EVEN A COOLING PHASE.

    “Oh, but the “ice” is disappearing,” you say. It’s an easily observable “fact.” Really? Let’s have a cursory look at that: Is Antarctica’s Climate Change Natural or CO2 Driven? There Is Absolutely No Consensus

    But more later, eh, not to give it all away at once and to overwhelm . . .




    0



    0
    • Sorry, Not Buying It says

      Oh God, don’t tell me YOU’RE also a denier, Norman. One would think that a Marxist would be immune to the oil-industry backed petit-bourgeois First Worldist fad of climate denial.

      I took special issue with this whopper:

      “Without a thorough understanding of a) your (proxy) data and b) an army of actual experts carefully collating and cataloging mountains of such “understood” (proxy) data from around the world (a work that is still very much in its infancy) and c) without a theory taking into account all actually known factors making for climate and average temperature — YOU CANNOT KNOW THAT THE WORLD IS IN A WARMING OR EVEN A COOLING PHASE.”

      Actually, you can easily do that: you can simply MEASURE temperature around the world (measuring temperature really isn’t that hard to do) over the course of many years, and plot the long-term trend. You can also plot the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere over the same time period, and you can measure the isotope fractionation of this carbon to see whether the prediction of a greater mass of C-12 from anthropogenic releases holds true (it does, by the way). The equivalent increase in CO2 in the atmosphere that has been seen over the past decades is something that normally takes thousands of years. Now we see a temperature and CO2 concentration anomaly that hasn’t been seen for at least hundreds of thousands of years, smack bang in the midst of an industrial age, and we’re supposed to believe it’s just pure coincidence that it’s happening now.




      0



      0
      • Umm, so “measuring temperature around the world isn’t that hard to do”? Really? How many weather stations would you need to get a decently reliable answer? Where would you site them? It so happens that by 1960 there were some 6000 stations around the world (not a lot if you want to get a good global average). By 2010 the number of active stations was down to around 1200 and most of them were sited in or near urban areas and predominantly in North America and Europe. Almost none in either polar regions or the tropics. So how accurate would the information be? It;’s very interesting that the IPCC prefers ground-based stations – because the data they produce is closer to their (absurd) projections. Satellite monitoring is vastly more accurate and covers a much greater surface area – and it contradicts the IPCC scenarios.




        0



        0
        • Sorry, Not Buying It says

          “By 2010 the number of active stations was down to around 1200 and most of them were sited in or near urban areas and predominantly in North America and Europe.”

          Dropping the other measuring stations had, if anything, the effect of making warming appear to be LESS severe.

          “Almost none in either polar regions or the tropics. Satellite monitoring is vastly more accurate and covers a much greater surface area – and it contradicts the IPCC scenarios.”

          Not when you remove the bias of the stratosphere.




          0



          0
          • Can you tell readers about the ‘bias of the stratosphere?’ It sounds as if it may be significant.




            0



            0
            • Jim Porter says

              Ozone absorbs ultra-violet radiation and warms up so the stratosphere is warmer than the top of the troposhere – as ozone depletes, the temperature in those areas is less than it would have been – it all just confuses the data. (or at least the interpretation of the data)




              0



              0
                • Jim Porter says

                  Temp. gradients in different layers of the atmosphere – measured by high altitude balloons, ozone layer absorbs ultraviolet radiation (I thought this was accepted, well known fact). CO2 and methane destroy ozone. Go out in the sun in NZ and Australia and get extra special burns compared to UK summers (more UV getting through, thinner/non-existent ozone layer). So…. looking from space you will see different temp. layers. Surface temps. under thin/non-existent ozone layers will be higher than they would be with ozone absorbing that energy. Checkable science. Higher temps. in specific areas will produce higher temp differences which feed the weather. Stabilising world average temps. does not preclude more violent weather patterns when ozone is thinned in specific areas – this is exactly what seems to be happening. So, theory formed from facts.




                  0



                  0
      • Moriartys Left Sock says

        @Sorry Not Buying It

        But what if some trends are upward and some not? If 90% of locations show zero warming and 10% show warming then the net average shows warming. But how much sense would it make to say it actually indicates “global warming”?

        This is a real issue and not simply one of semantics. Obtaining an accurate idea of global temperature is extremely difficult.




        0



        0
        • Jim Porter says

          This is also a side effect of thinning ozone layers in places – this causes warmer surface temperatures and so temperature differences increase and give storms more energy. Overall temperature averages could be unchanged but the weather becomes noticeably different.




          0



          0
        • Sorry, Not Buying it says

          “If 10% of locations show zero warming and 10% show warming then the net average shows warming.”

          True, and also irrelevant, since it isn’t “10% of locations” that show warming, but actually MOST of the locations in which there are measuring stations. Yes, some show little or even no change (or change in the opposite direction), but on the whole, they do.

          “But how much sense would it make to say it actually indicates “global warming”?”

          Also irrelevant, though of course it WOULD be relevant if we saw a pattern like what you’re talking about.

          “This is a real issue and not simply one of semantics.”

          Ironically, the semantics are all coming from your end, and the real issue is what the measuring stations actually show, even if it’s the issue you want to talk about.




          0



          0
      • Hey,

        Look. I’m not a knee-jerk denier. If you want my very Marxist take on the issue — and no, I’m not being facetious in calling it “Marxist” — my reply to you is a short piece that I’ve posted online here

        And if you do a search at my blog under the word “climate,” you should come up with some very interesting papers and content by a number of “scientists” who know something about what they are talking about.

        I also recommend that you read Jim Steele’s piece, Coral bleaching debate. Among other things, it underscores that a lot of what has been interpreted as evidence of “global warming” is anything but. You should also visit his website, as it is an excellent archive of original analyses by Steele. Really, it is an education.

        Regards,

        –N




        0



        0
        • You might at least offer an opinion before giving up the ghost. Just because you don’t agree with this particular OffG’s post, doesn’t mean you have the right to judge all their very good articles. That’s a bit unfair. Name calling to the degree you have doesn’t advance your case at all. Stay and put your own thoughts down. I am among many commentators (on the other side from me in this particular article) who are intelligent and considerate and whose opinions I have learned to respect. At least read some of the comments, many have valid criticism and if you cannot give a come back then perhaps you are not able to contribute. That’s not the fault of OffG.




          0



          0
            • “Sorry, Not Buying It” was the one threatening to leave forever, so I assume M was addressing him/her. This reply-system gets incredibly confusing by the fourth round of replies…




              0



              0
              • Aye. Not yet done reading every reply posted while I slept. I was puzzled (but kinda figured it really was intended for someone else).




                0



                0
                • Incidentally, N: more than once, perusing the material on your website, I’ve wished that comments were possible! Why not…?




                  0



                  0
                  • Why not? It is because I would rather be spending my time trawling the internet for the pleasure of availing myself of other people’s insights than moderating comments, that is to say, having to deal with trolls and such.

                    On the other hand, though there is some consistent traffic, it’s moderate, so it is unlikely that would have to deal with a whole lot of comments, let alone the occasional piece of bait.

                    Perhaps I should reconsider . . . I’ll give it a think . . .




                    0



                    0
                    • I’m in sympathy with your feelings on all that, certainly. But, still… yeah. Give it a think!




                      0



                      0
              • Sorry, Not Buying It says

                ““Sorry, Not Buying It” was the one threatening to leave forever,”

                Please, show me where I was “threatening to leave forever”.




                0



                0
            • Some prat just rubbished the article without making any useful contribution – why post the comment in the first place if he didn’t have a point to make? Can’t find him now, but no N. it wasn’t for you – pranny. I don’t care which side of the argument you are on, at least you take the matter seriously to want to investigate it. Besides which, what makes you think I’d be so polite if it were you. Big grin right now.




              0



              0
        • Mulga Mumblebrain says

          Of course you’re a denier, Pilon-and an impudent one in having the gall to deny it. Steel’s denialist garbage relies on the usual impertinent denialist claim to know better than the scientific community who are the experts in the field, in this case reef scientists. Meanwhile the Great Barrier Reef is bleaching again, and most Pacific reefs are bleached, and many are stone dead, while odious liars like you pretend that it is not so,




          0



          0
            • Well, Mulga Borat may not come to us overburdened with persuasive rhetoric or information of any kind, but I’ll bet she/he’s fun at a party! He’d probably “canard” the hell out of the place!




              0



              0
              • I visualize him as being somewhat comatose at his kind of party, something which the other guests at the party would be extremely grateful for.
                “overburdened with persuasive rhetoric or information of any kind” – you do know it’s wrong and very naughty to mock the afflicted don’t you? But by golly, it’s fun.




                0



                0
    • Husq. thanks for the link. Drax in Yorkshire is one of the companies who until recently was using lignite coal with pellets from the US in their Biomass production. I wrote to them for data ie whether they had carbon capture figures and whether the forests they were using in the US were protected or (their claim was that for every tree chopped down another was being planted). Needless to say, I did not get a response and I seem to remember that Drax have since announced they are closing down their Biomass “green” energy production.




      0



      0
  17. The climate has always changed naturally. Is man having a significant effect on the climate? Are we heading for more warming or cooling? There are hundreds if not thousands of climate experts and scientists (independent from fossil fuel funding) who disagree with the IPCC which only investigates man made climate change ignoring all natural causes. Some astrophysicists believe we are heading for a cooling period due to reduced solar activity.
    The science is far from settled and the so-called 97% consensus that AGW is “catastrophic” has been debunked many times. Most skeptical scientists agree that man is having just a small impact on the climate. Even Nuttycelli and the rest of the AGW zealots at skepticalscience and The Guardian do not say that 97% of scientists think that man is having a “catastrophic” affect on the climate, they just say man is having “an” affect.
    “Catastrophic” global warming is just a theory from computer models most of which have been wrong when compared with current data. The most accurate temperature readings are from satellites and balloons which have shown no statistically significant warming for the last 23 years. Scientific institutions have cherry picked the data from particular weather stations or sea water through tanker engines to falsify the evidence and to back up their “belief” and “theory” and “funding” that there is global warming.
    Man has always adapted and new forms of energy which do not pollute are replacing fossil fuels which is good news. Instead of fighting against the harmless, life giving gas CO2 the world should have been concentrating on REAL pollution.
    We all want clean air to breathe and clean water to drink and there are many clean air laws around the world prohibiting the amount of carbon particulates in the atmosphere, more stringent laws would be welcome. The term “carbon” is deliberately used to confuse the issue between carbon particulates and CO2. CO2 only accounts for 0.04% of our atmosphere. Man made CO2 only accounts for 4% of all CO2. Termites omit more CO2 than man does. The amount to which CO2 is a green house gas is a matter of scientific debate and whether we have reached saturation point. CO2 is a harmless, life giving gas which we all need to survive. An increase in CO2 follows natural warming. Excess CO2 increases crop yields. Trees convert CO2 to oxygen. The climate may be changing and man may be having a small effect (deforestation, geo-engineering, pollution etc) but it is NOT a reason to give the un-elected UN huge powers to control CO2 (ergo all human activity) that governments around the world can use and abuse to their own advantage.
    I return to my original point that there are hundreds if not thousands of climate experts and scientists (independent from fossil fuel funding) who disagree with the IPCC and the public should therefore be wary of all this “catastrophic” scaremongering until the climate scientists have resolved this once and for all without political and monetary interference.




    0



    0
    • Those that are concerned about the environment and who have been paying attention understand that the biggest benefit for US air quality since the 1970s has been the boom in natural gas use.

      Natural gas has much cleaner emissions than coal or biofuels and does not carry the hazards of nuclear.

      Natural gas is cheap and abundant.

      Co2 emissions are not harmful to health but the “global warming” swamis make nuclear out to be the preferred alternative after admitting wind and solar will never work.

      It was a bait and switch scam from the start:

      https://alethonews.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/three-mile-island-global-warming-and-the-cia/

      https://alethonews.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/bait-and-switch-climate-alarmists-have-religious-conversion-to-pro-nuclear/




      0



      0
    • Sorry, Not Buying It says

      “The climate has always changed naturally. Is man having a significant effect on the climate? Are we heading for more warming or cooling? There are hundreds if not thousands of climate experts and scientists (independent from fossil fuel funding) who disagree with the IPCC which only investigates man made climate change ignoring all natural causes.”

      Wrong. The IPCC cites models that take into account the contributions of natural forcings and compares them to empirical findings. Only by factoring in anthropogenic contributions can we account for what we actually see. I seriously don’t know where you get the idea that the ICC “ignores all natural causes”. This is not only not the truth, it’s the exact opposite of the truth.

      “Some astrophysicists believe we are heading for a cooling period due to reduced solar activity.”

      Yet the world clearly hasn’t been “cooling”. If there is indeed reduced solar activity contemporaneously with rising average temperatures, then this is itself evidence for anthropogenic climate change since the Earth is getting warmer. Unless we can account for this through natural processes on Earth, then the only thing left is human-caused phenomena as the culprit.

      “Instead of fighting against the harmless, life giving gas CO2 the world should have been concentrating on REAL pollution.”

      This is a Red Herring. That something is life giving in one context doesn’t mean that this designation is appropriate in all contexts. Try eating only apples every day. Apples are “life giving”. Does that mean that eating only apples is good for you?

      “We all want clean air to breathe and clean water to drink and there are many clean air laws around the world prohibiting the amount of carbon particulates in the atmosphere, more stringent laws would be welcome. The term “carbon” is deliberately used to confuse the issue between carbon particulates and CO2. CO2 only accounts for 0.04% of our atmosphere.”

      This is an argument from incredulity: “I can’t imagine how such a small percentage of CO2 could be harmful, therefore it isn’t.” What matters isn’t the concentration as much as the total MASS of CO2 since CO2 interacts with infrared radiation in a different way to nitrogen. By invoking the concentration, you’re falling back on the worn-out “CO2 is a trace gas” argument, as though something being present in “trace” amounts automatically means that it is “harmless”. The US EPA LIMIT for arsenic in water is 0.01 parts per million. Would you drink water with 10 parts per million of arsenic? What about 20? It’s only a trace amount, even with those higher concentrations! Go on, take a sip every day if you think trace elements and compounds can’t have profound effects.

      “Man made CO2 only accounts for 4% of all CO2.”

      Also a Red Herring. Humans indeed only emit a small fraction of the entire CO2 that cycles through the Earth’s geochemical system, but the relevant point is that since humans are emitting EXTRA CO2 at a rate faster than it can all be reabsorbed back into the system, this leads to an increasing mass of CO2 in the atmosphere over time.

      “Excess CO2 increases crop yields.”

      Sure, with all things being equal. But the increased mass of CO2 in the atmosphere means that all thing are not equal. For one thing, global climate change has meant more drought in many parts of the world, placing more strain on available water sources, including in already arid parts of the world facing food insecurity. The timing of rainfall is also affected by climate change, which can mean more heat stress or more flooding. Interactions with pest organisms can also change when plants are raised on more CO2, and some pests even prefer such plants.




      0



      0
      • Moriartys Left Sock says

        Wrong. The IPCC cites models that take into account the contributions of natural forcings and compares them to empirical findings. Only by factoring in anthropogenic contributions can we account for what we actually see

        This is typical of the pseudo-science peddled to lay people on this subject. The climate guys justify talking this nonsense because it will help to get people on board with what may be essential policy changes, but no serious scientist on either side would dream of saying such things when talking to other scientists.

        You see, this statement of yours is basically saying “well we know about how much warming we’d get from solar fluctuations, el Nino effects and so on and when we factor those in we still have warming that can only be explained by man-made factors.

        Do you know why this is nonsense? Every climate scientist does. it’s because we emphatically do NOT know how much natural climate fluctuation we can expect from natural forcers. How could we know that at this stage when we barely understand what those forcers are?

        Climate science is in its infancy. Accurate observations have been possible for less than 100years, and that is a blink of an eye in climate development terms. Our methodology for examining ancient climate can tell us something about fluctuations, but almost nothing about why they happen. Even the Co2 correlation is uncertain. And as for solar activity – we are only beginning to understand its impact. The extent to which greenhouse gasses work witht each other and with solar activity, and possible other factors still less well understood is merely in he theory stage right now.

        This is the accepted truth in climate science, it’s just elided in public from a mistake belief that the public needs to be convinced by overstated and simplistic memes rather than complex truths.




        0