598

Review: Unprecedented Crime

The unprecedented crime Peter Carter and Elizabeth Woodworth refer to in the title is that of willfully causing global temperatures to rise, through greenhouse gas emissions, to levels already causing large-scale loss of life while threatening human survival and that of countless other species. They might with equal accuracy speak of crimes, plural, when those who from positions of authority either actively aid key offenders or, by failing to hold them to account, betray the trust placed in them.

This is the unique selling point of Unprecedented Crime: a closely argued insist­en­ce that, under existing laws and without recourse to new ones framed specifically to outlaw ecocide, we could indict corporate and governmental bodies identified without hyperbole by the authors as guilty of crimes against humanity.

Think about it. Ninety-seven percent of scientists in relevant disciplines are telling us climate change is real, is man-made and is taking us all, meaning humanity and other advanced life forms, down a roller coaster of environmental catastrophe. Not in some distant sci-fi dystopia but on a timescale measured in decades, years even. Given this, the scale and extent of denial – literal in the case of ‘sceptics’ in the pay of Fossil Fuels Inc; de facto in that of governmental cowardice and venality – are staggering. Why then, with the stakes so high, would we not view the perpetrators as guilty of crimes of a magnitude surpassing anything the world has seen – even in history’s darkest moments?

This is the premise of Carter and Woodworth’s case. Like any good scientist, they start with observable phenomena, as indicated by their opening chapter: Extreme Weather Around the World. From here they proceed, again as scientists do, to set out in Chapter Two the underlying drivers; in this case a heightening of earth’s natural and life-optimal greenhouse effect, to unnatural and decidedly sub-optimal levels, noting along the way a 1990 assertion by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that as a matter of certainty:

Emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. These increases will enhance the green-house effect, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface temperature.

But that second chapter does more than set out the science. It locates the birth of a small and decidedly non-scientific cabal, of pretty much the most powerful vested interests on the planet – aka the fossil fuels industry and its financiers – and charts their success in casting doubt on that IPCC certainty:

In 2010 a landmark book, Merchants of Doubt, showed how a small group of prominent scientists with connections to politics and industry led disinformation campaigns denying established scientific knowledge about smoking, acid rain, DDT, the ozone layer, and global warming.

Written by Dr. Naomi Oreskes, Harvard science historian, and NASA historian Erik Conway, Merchants was reviewed by Bill Buchanan of The Christian Science Monitor as “the most important book of 2010,” and by The Guardian’s Robin McKie as “the best science book of the year.” It was followed by the 2014 documentary of the same name, also widely seen and reviewed.

The research showed how the disinformation tactics of the tobacco companies in the 1960s to undermine the scientific link between smoking and lung cancer served as a model for subsequent oil company tactics suppressing climate change science.

Following the U.S. Surgeon General’s landmark report on smoking and lung cancer in 1964, the government legislated warning labels on cigarette packages. But a tobacco company executive from Brown & Williamson had a brainwave: people still wanted to smoke and doubt about the science would give them a ready excuse.

His infamous 1969 memo read: “Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.”

Here’s the thing. People exercised by a terrifying possibility, whose avoidance or mitigation will necessitate – or can be portrayed as necessitating – inconvenience and pain, will be receptive to the counter-view that it’s all hogwash, or at the very least that the doomsayers are overegging things. So eagerly receptive, in fact, that they won’t look too closely at the motives of those advancing such a counter-view. Nuff said, save that Unprecedented Crime: Climate Science Denial and Game Changers For Survival’s spotlight on dirty tricks and systematic strong-arming – their attendant corruption of body politic and informed debate constituting a crime in and of itself – does not make for the most relaxing of bedtime reading.

Three subsequent chapters make the case against an unholy trinity whose crimes of commission and omission would place them in the dock, under existing laws, in a saner and less mendacious world. The headers speak for themselves: State Crime Against the Global Public Trust … Media Collusion (a chapter of particular interest in light of the recently published Media Lens book on media corruption by market forces) … Corporate and Bank Crime …

Chapter 6 discusses Moral Collapse and Religious Apathy. Well well. Search in vain for a “thou shalt not trash Planet Earth” message in Quran, Veda or Bible, but these and other revered texts from our pre-industrial past have much to say on injustice. The meek, you see, are not to inherit the earth after all. Rather, the world’s poorest – their carbon footprints negligible – find themselves at the front line of climatic catastrophes already underway as a result of corporate greed in the Global North. Here’s a snippet from the early pages of John Smith’s Imperialism in the Twenty-first Century, reviewed here, on this aspect of the matter. Having opened with the collapse of an eight-storey textile factory in Dhaka, killing 1133 workers, Smith goes on to say that:

Starvation wages, death-trap factories and fetid slums in Bangladesh typify conditions for hundreds of millions of workers in the Global South, source of surplus value sustaining profits and unsustainable overconsumption in imperialist countries. Bangladesh is also in the front line of another consequence of capitalism’s reckless exploitation of living labor and nature: “climate change”, more accurately described as capitalist destruction of nature. Most of Bangladesh is low-lying. As sea levels rise and monsoons become more energetic, farmland is inundated with salt water, accelerating migration into the cities …

I’ve a reason for citing this. Part Two of Unprecedented Crime: Climate Science Denial and Game Changers For Survival moves from naming the guilty to setting out what is to be done. In doing so the authors introduce the only note I take issue with in the entire book. Chapter 10, on Market Leadership, opens with this:

Much has been written about the constraining effects of capitalism, globalization, and the debt-based economy on a clean energy transition, saying that we must begin by addressing these root issues.

Although these structural impediments may be slowing the potential pace of renewable energy growth, the climate emergency allows us no time to fix the economic system first.

For reasons I’ve gone into elsewhere – here for instance, and here – I shudder at such strawman argument. Few on the left say “fix capitalism then climate change” but many, me included, see scant prospect of stopping or even slowing this and other effects of capitalism’s destruction of nature without taking on what the authors rightly refer to in the above extract as “root issues”. The two fights are one and the same. The underlying cause of climate change is capitalism’s inbuilt addiction to growth: its constant and tyrannical drive to create ever more stuff for us to buy; its demand – no less imperious for that sly obeisance to the God of Choice – that we continually cast out the old to make room for the new and, by this and this alone, breathe life into falling profits in an endless cycle of boom and bust. Moreover, there’s only one irrefutable reply to the mantra that measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions are – like measures to rein in the lucrative death-for-profit industries – “anti-job”. That is to push back at such slick and circular ‘reasoning’ by placing wealth creation for human need, not private profit, firmly on the table.

So say I. But where does this leave the likes of me? Do we withdraw in a sulk from collaboration with those who see things otherwise while sharing our horror at the criminal insanity unfolding before our eyes? Hardly. Climate breakdown, this book reminds us, leaves no room for sectarianism. Red and Green must find common cause. To that end we should differentiate two forms of collaboration: on the one hand rainbow alliances whose shaky, lowest common denominator foundat­ions require dilution upon dilution of principle, only to implode at the first real test of solidarity; on the other hand working alliances, united fronts, in which no dilution of principle is called for. Just shared recognition of a common goal, and willingness to engage with all who are prepared to work towards it.

To that end, Unprecedented Crime offers a resounding rallying call. It sets out with admirable clarity the nature and scale of the problem, offering a novel but logically flawless way of viewing that problem with the urgency necessary for confronting it with adequate resolve. It lays out the basis for a program of concrete demands in the here and now: demands around which an opposition movement can coalesce, demands with which to win over the undecided as well as those who have given up on hope and demands with which to counter the lies of denialists and the delusions of those who still believe we have time on our side.

Unprecedented Crime – Climate Science Denial and Game Changers For Survival can be ordered here:  https://www.claritypress.com/Carter.html or in England from Amazon.  It has a Foreword by Dr. James Hansen: former top NASA climate scientist, probably the world’s best-known climate scientist and the man who blew the whistle on climate change to Congress in 1988. Dr. Peter Carter, is an IPCC expert reviewer

SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN

If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.

For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

598 Comments
newest
oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Antonym
Antonym
Nov 14, 2018 2:07 PM

Nov.14 2018: Climate contrarian uncovers scientific error, upends major ocean warming study
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-climate-study-error-20181113-story.html

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Nov 14, 2018 6:36 PM
Reply to  Antonym

To quote from the article, for those who will refuse to follow the link: Quote begins: “Co-author Ralph Keeling, climate scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, took full blame and thanked Lewis for alerting him to the mistake. “When we were confronted with his insight it became immediately clear there was an issue there,” he said. “We’re grateful to have it be pointed out quickly so that we could correct it quickly.” Keeling said they have since redone the calculations, finding the ocean is still likely warmer than the estimate used by the IPCC. However, that increase in heat has a larger range of probability than initially thought — between 10 percent and 70 percent, as other studies have already found. “Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that’s going on in the ocean,” Keeling said. “We really muffed… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Nov 14, 2018 7:41 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

So Lewis’ maths is good (this time). So what? Following on from the thread below: The upshot is that the lower bound for ECS is anchored at 1.5 C. The upper bound can be changed by Curry on a whim to 3 C, (higher) OK …4.5 C. Cutting the carbon budget by 25% is ruled out, though (by Lewis’ maths). That means we burn the carbon budget for 2 C …and hope that is not in fact the carbon budget for 4.5 C. It might be, that is what the peer/consensus (her term) says …shall we try and see? We get to burn more carbon: because burning carbon raises all the indeces of human welfare (including environmental welfare). I’m not sure where this ad hoc, “tellytubby” pseudo-science argument is coming from …but I do know where it leads. And who it empowers. Which is all the more intriguing, given the… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Nov 14, 2018 6:43 PM
Reply to  Antonym

Link not available in EU.

Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell
Nov 12, 2018 7:17 AM

Off-Guardian : “Facts really are sacred”

and they have deleted all of my comments showing event relationships …

Just as I thought, this place is not what it claims to be.

MG

Antonym
Antonym
Nov 12, 2018 1:32 PM
Reply to  Mark Gobell

Most labour intensive spamming I’ve ever seen; longest posts too.

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Nov 11, 2018 9:28 PM

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Nov 11, 2018 9:33 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

P.S. It was my intention to share the whole lecture, and not have the video start at 13 minutes and some . . .

binra
binra
Nov 11, 2018 11:24 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

My first sense of when the AGW went ‘mainstream’ was that its demonstrable failure in time would bring about a huge backlash against corrupt science that would throw the baby out with the bathwater. However, since then I have educated myself to discover that this is nothing new and that narrative continuity is soon reinstated in the population, somewhat like the ‘Men in Black’. But I note the actual state of scientific activity is increasingly socially irrelevant – apart from the technologism that drives and sustains our corporate powers and dependencies. Sexing up the ‘science’ documentaries has reached orgasmic proportion for teletubby science. The idols of scientific ideals are like the gold that isn’t in the bank and doesn’t back the money supply. But the faith in it is… too big to fail. Social (and geo or global) engineering in search of narratives to push it along. Or more likely,… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Nov 14, 2018 5:41 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

Norm You do not have to answer to me, or even reply to this: but I’m trying to understand your POV on AGW – given your normal anti-capitalist stance. I can’t. I don’t get it. Lindzen is a liar, well known for cherrypicking his data. And no, I am not going to get into a pseudo-scientific debate …he’s right in as much as this is a purely political issue. Purely political. So let’s drop the quasi-scientific camouflage? AGW boils down to a capitalism v humanism debate: the carbon bourgeois fake-left and even faker-right versus the Rest. By the Rest, I have detailed, here and elsewhere, that amounts to 80% of humanity and all of biodiversity that is under the threat of carbonist cannibalism. Ordinarily, we would agree on this? Lindzen, in quite a disgusting faux solidarity with the suffering, inverts the issue. Those that are under threat of having their… Read more »

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Nov 14, 2018 8:00 PM
Reply to  BigB

There is scientific truth, and then there is, under the sway and at the behest of capital, the politics of how science is conducted. Lindzen is, in my opinion, accurate in his description of how the politics of science, which is more of a hindrance than a facilitator of ‘scientific discovery,’ weigh upon the business — in the literal sense of that term, i.e., the ‘business’ — of climatology, and by implication, of course, upon the business of all science as it is pursued and funded in a world dominated by the interests of capital. And that is the reason why I posted the video, to try to get the ‘believers’ to pause and think a little about why it might be that in the mainstream press ‘global warming’ is all the rage. Lindzen offers a few salient clues. Is AGW real? I don’t know. I don’t think anybody knows.… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Nov 15, 2018 10:23 AM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

Norm You must have noticed that I have repeatedly said that $$$$ = carbon. Expressed slightly more scientifically: Output: global GDP (expressed as $$$$tns) = input: energy (hydrocarbons: measured in megatonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe)) …which correlate at near enough a ratio of 1:1 (R2 = 0.99072). The world economy is an energy economy. Carbon consumption = capitalism. PROFIT = CARBON. The two are not separable. The separation of present and future effects of profit valorisation are nominal and notional. Therefore: the future effects of burning carbon are real and tangible: as death, destruction, and dehumanisation NOW. AGW is a variable, which, if you accept (as you do) the current violence of capitalism, it becomes in effect, inconsequential. Capitalism will kill us anyway, AGW or not. Carbon consumption is becoming more and more costly, even if you bracket off AGW …due to EROI. That cost will (already is) becoming an… Read more »

Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell
Nov 9, 2018 11:43 AM

Japan : The 2011 Tōhoku earthquake & tsunami and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster : Israel : Moshe Dayan Moshe Dayan : ‘Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.’ * See also :Japan : The 2011 Tōhoku earthquake & tsunami and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. https://off-guardian.org/2018/10/22/review-unprecedented-crime/#comment-137063 See also : Nuclear fission : Lise Meitner and the To-hoku Earthquake & Tsunami and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, Japan. https://off-guardian.org/2018/10/22/review-unprecedented-crime/#comment-137216 See also : Related : Nuclear fission : Otto Robert Frisch and the WW2 nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, Japan. https://off-guardian.org/2018/10/22/review-unprecedented-crime/#comment-137219 * On February 24, 2010, it was reported that Japan had offered to enrich uranium for Iran. Japan Offers to Enrich Uranium for Iran https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/10221-japan-offers-to-enrich-uranium-for-iran Report: Japan offers to enrich uranium for Iran http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3853864,00.html yandex.com search : Fukushima Israel https://yandex.com/search/?text=fukushima%20israel&lr=104986 * Japan : The 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami and : Japan : Fukushima Daiichi nuclear… Read more »

Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell
Nov 8, 2018 5:59 PM

Nuclear fission : Lise Meitner and the To-hoku Earthquake & Tsunami and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, Japan. See also : Japan : The 2011 Tohoku earthquake & tsunami and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. https://off-guardian.org/2018/10/22/review-unprecedented-crime/#comment-137063 * Japan : The 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami on 11 March 2011 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami and : Japan : Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster on 11 March 2011 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster * Lise Meitner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lise_Meitner Lise Meitner ( 7 November 1878 – 27 October 1968 ) was an Austrian-Swedish physicist who worked on radioactivity and nuclear physics. Meitner, Otto Hahn and Otto Robert Frisch led the small group of scientists who first discovered nuclear fission of uranium when it absorbed an extra neutron; the results were published in early 1939. Meitner, Hahn and Frisch understood that the fission process, which splits the atomic nucleus of uranium into two smaller nuclei, must be accompanied by an enormous release of… Read more »

Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell
Nov 8, 2018 6:23 PM
Reply to  Mark Gobell

Related : Nuclear fission : Otto Robert Frisch and the WW2 nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, Japan. See also : Japan : The 2011 Tohoku earthquake & tsunami and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. https://off-guardian.org/2018/10/22/review-unprecedented-crime/#comment-137063 See also : Nuclear fission : Lise Meitner and the To-hoku Earthquake & Tsunami and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, Japan. https://off-guardian.org/2018/10/22/review-unprecedented-crime/#comment-137216 * Otto Robert Frisch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Robert_Frisch Otto Robert Frisch FRS ( 1 October 1904 – 22 September 1979 ) was an Austrian physicist who worked on nuclear physics. With Lise Meitner he advanced the first theoretical explanation of nuclear fission ( coining the term ) and first experimentally detected the fission by-products. Later, with his collaborator Rudolf Peierls he designed the first theoretical mechanism for the detonation of an atomic bomb in 1940. * Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki During the final stage of World War II, the United States detonated two nuclear… Read more »

binra
binra
Nov 9, 2018 8:50 AM
Reply to  Mark Gobell

Mark; If your examples of date arithmetic gives ‘signatures’ to events – if I got that right – who or what might be the nature of the power to synchronise such timings and what significances do you draw or seek to communicate? Or are you hoping someone else will in some way tell you? The inference is of malign influence from a higher or dimension of which we only experience effect and assign it causes in the realm of effects – or the physical dimension. This can of course be associated with magic, but anyone using a tool can become identified or in a sense possessed by their toolset, and so the most ‘powerful’ may simply be conduits for a sense of powerlessness that is then compelled to act as it does. The idea of free will is inverted in the idea of magic – as it is in the… Read more »

binra
binra
Nov 9, 2018 9:29 AM
Reply to  Mark Gobell

(A) …lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. – Joseph Goebbels I thought of this quote (I saw on SOTT yesterday) for the name similarity and the theme – but truth is perceived as enemy by mind-investment in the lie as the measure of its own act or intention. Truth doesn’t attack or destroy lies. Truth being itself true, is the condition in which untruth is undone. Hence the protection of the lie by the mind-investment in attacking it and thereby assigning or sacrificing truth to it. As for Goebells – he… Read more »

Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell
Nov 9, 2018 12:18 PM
Reply to  binra

Hello binra Thank you for your interest. There’s a lot to parse in your posts, so it might be a tad more productive and certainly a lot clearer if you have any questions, to ask them one a at time so that I can answer them one at a time. I’ll take one of your points, since you mention “magic”. Please see these posts and the links therein : jamesfetzer.org : Thomas Muller, Observations on the Squirrel Hill Synagogue Shooting (Updated) MG : https://jamesfetzer.org/2018/10/thomas-muller-observations-on-the-squirrel-hill-synagogue-shooting-updated/#comment-42119 Quote : “All false flag events, faux terrorism, mass shootings etc., use a scheduling system that relies on the use of kabbalistic numbers to define the Y, M, W & D relationships between events.” winterwatch.net : Re-Examining the Untimely Death of a President’s Son: John F. Kennedy, Jr. MG : Holocaust narrative : Anne Frank and the murder of JFK Jr. https://www.winterwatch.net/2018/11/re-examining-the-untimely-death-of-a-presidents-son-john-f-kennedy-jr/#comment-7640 MG : Re: “belief… Read more »

binra
binra
Nov 9, 2018 6:32 PM
Reply to  Mark Gobell

I was interested in what moves you. I have my own sense of the world not being actually as it is be-lived to be, where the beliefs of a mind-capture* by deceit are effectively protected from exposure or indeed healing.(mind capture*or indeed of a mind-split of dissociation from true relation as the demand for unconsciousness). Tesla’s birth – being one of your date sum examples (I did follow one of your links) doesn’t fall under the same framework as a planned event – at least not to the date. I used the term ‘magic’ because it is part of the nature of the cultural background of the secret societies – is it not? A hypnotist can elicit a blister from a cold needle believed hot, placebo can work as well or better than pharma, and a cancer diagnosis can kill – even if it turned out later to have been… Read more »

Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell
Nov 8, 2018 5:51 PM

Thanks for your response Admin.

Most odd. I thought those “gremlins” were all dealt with during the revamp ?

Great shame they are still occurring …

I keep copies of everything I post, so should I submit it again ?

Will it get through this time ?

I had to wait over 24 hours for the previous post to appear …

MG

axisofoil
axisofoil
Nov 8, 2018 12:46 AM

Fisherman weighs in.

https://youtu.be/IFbACPh2xPA?t=143

BigB
BigB
Nov 7, 2018 2:38 PM

Admin: Yes, there is an identifiable “eugenicist phalanx” that congregate around Mikhail Gorbachev. I call their agenda ‘corporate commoning’ – which leverages the myth of the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’. We are too stupid to look after the aquifers: so Nestle and Coca Cola will do it for us. Monsanto, Cargill, and Syngenta will care for the arable land. Rio Tinto the mining for minerals. Fucking frightening. There is another major trend of faux deglobalisation – they even have a terminology …’glocalisation’. This is the Soros Play to fracture the nation state into borderless (for them and their money) federations; smaller polis-municipalities and ‘resilient’ city-state metropolii …under a ‘Global Parliament of Mayors’ (Sadiq Khan clones). These fractured and atomised communities would be vassal (neo-feudal serfdoms) to an inverse totalitarian corporatocracy: infiltrated right down to the high ASI-surveillance street scene. (Statistics and information control are technochratically crucial). They know resources are… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Nov 7, 2018 2:41 PM
Reply to  BigB

Flip! It came in at the top again, Admin. This was a reply to you from yesterday.

binra
binra
Nov 7, 2018 3:31 PM
Reply to  BigB

I do not feel doubt is divisive if it is recognised as such and brought to curiosity. But if doubts are glossed over or forced down, then coercion is operating instead of a living communication. I feel that you grossly underestimate the capacity of corporate capture to astroturf any movement they so choose in any institutional arena and do so as a complex mimicry of life. I hold that there IS certainty at the level of   being   that is beyond the scope of the mind of ‘define, predict and control’. And the error of any who seek to use it is always that of the attempt to USE truth as a weapon. Can that last phrase not sink in? Certainty is falsely gotten by setting against something that seems irrevocably evil. But such a one NEEDs the evil to support the power that then rides out to save the day.… Read more »

Admin
Admin
Nov 4, 2018 5:35 PM

I’m going to move your comment as it’s evidently a reply to flaxgirl

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 4, 2018 11:34 AM

As Philip and a friend yesterday have pointed out: it’s a waste of time arguing online – you need to get onto the decision makers. I guess we recognisers of the problem would have been better devoting our discussion to solutions rather than wasting time trying to argue with those who are impervious to the scientific facts and criticality of the situation. These are the headings under the last chapter of the book, “Evidence of the climate emergency” —Why More Global Climate Change is “Locked In” —The Escalating Arctic Emergency —Multiple Arctic Feedbacks —The Arctic is Emitting the Three Main GHGs —Evidence Arctic and Amazon Carbon Sinks Have Switched to Carbon Sources —Still Accelerating CO2 Rate of Increase Has Recently Reached Levels Unprecedented in Earth’s History —Methane Concentrations —The Multi-Faceted Oceans Emergency —Ocean Surface Warming Dooms Coral Reefs —Ocean Heat —Ocean Deoxygenation —Ocean Acidification —The Sea Level Rise Emergency —Human… Read more »

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Nov 4, 2018 3:42 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

It has been shown to you and everyone here that: 1. the earth has not warmed in the past 18 years 2. the claims the “missing heat” is in the oceans is purely a theory 3. the theory of CO2 as a major climate forcer remains unproven and is in competition with other theories that are equally or in some cases a lot more plausible. 4. even it it’s true the idea it will lead to catastrophic temperature rises is based on a further completely speculative and evidence-free hypothesis of positive feedback loops that most climate scientists do not accept. These undeniable facts, which you yourself have been forced to accept one after another, combine to show there is at best inconclusive evidence for manmade global warming and absolutely NO evidence for a coming climate catastrophe. Which raises the question why the media suppresses all this data and tries to… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Nov 4, 2018 5:40 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

Indeed , Flax: the internet debate is a waste of time. The real debate has moved on (elsewhere) to policy and mitigation. I tried to do the same and was largely ignored. Phillip’s article proposed the same, the merging of “red and green” – ditto. Against which we have ascientific opinions masquerading as science. And political debate masquerading as scientific debate. Among which I note that it’s not CO2 – a response to which demands a rewrite of the laws of physics; and that, in fact, we are about to enter and Ice Age – a pseudo-scientific theory which was debunked when I was a teen …but it is still doing the rounds. Championed by those that argue from quasi-scientific exceptionalism and mythology: that they know better than the ‘theory’ that shows consilience, convergence and consensus that CO2 IS the major driver of AGW (>95% – and I’m definitely not… Read more »

binra
binra
Nov 4, 2018 8:16 PM
Reply to  BigB

The same kind of arguments were brought up for the cholesterol theory (aka the statin fact – though that goes far deeper than milking the sick and making them sicker). The Cochrane controversy is not involved with ‘climatology’ or meteorology but the corruption of science in the medical field is of such an order as to call the whole ‘peer review system’ and institutional integrity into question …. seriously. Insofar as the AGW agenda operates the means to persist the poisoning of the Living for the sake of very ingenious deceits then your sentiment at the end fits well enough. But it is a diversion into personal SATISFACTION of hateful vendetta and this is a sweet baited hook to those who just want to be pointed at something to kill – metaphorically, legally or literally. There never was a debate or at least the freedom for debate was lost to… Read more »

Antonym
Antonym
Nov 3, 2018 11:09 AM

Public Release: 31-Oct-2018: Earth’s oceans have absorbed 60 percent more heat than previously thought . Princeton University https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-10/pu-eoh103118.php

Sounds scary, not? Quotes:
Scientists know that the ocean takes up roughly 90 percent of all the excess energy produced as the Earth warms

“Imagine if the ocean was only 30 feet deep,” said Resplandy, who was a postdoctoral researcher at Scripps. “Our data show that it would have warmed by 6.5 degrees Celsius [11.7 degrees Fahrenheit] every decade since 1991

Back to reality: the oceans are on average 12,100 feet deep, 400 x more. So the “warming” is 400 x less, resulting in 0.01625 C per decade which gives 0.0486 C increase since 1991.
Not just non scarey, more of a non event.

Moriartysleftsock
Moriartysleftsock
Nov 3, 2018 12:20 PM
Reply to  Antonym

It’s even worse than that, Antonym. They aren’t even trying to measure actual temperature of the ocean. They’re monitoring something called APO (“atmospheric potential oxygen”). Based on the theory that a warming ocean would release more APO they are estimating an amount the oceans may have. warmed. They admit APO is also increased by burning fossil fuels, so they make a guess at how much of the increased APO is due to that and anything over they guess may be due to theoretical ocean warming. In other words there is no data produced to actually show there is any ocean warming at all. The “heat sink in the sea” hypothesis is at this point little more than a desperate attempt to explain why global temps have been stagnant since around 2000 while CO2 has continued to rise. These facts are unacknowledged in the media, which continues to pump out scare… Read more »

Antonym
Antonym
Nov 3, 2018 1:17 PM

The CAGW con- census is getting desperate: 0.01625 C per decade is only 0.001625 C per year. About impossible to measure, more than error margins, but worse – not alarming. Desperate situation calling for desperate measure(ments). In stead of taking a neutral trace gas like Argon they opt for all present O2 which is involved in many giant natural processes and cycles: lack of hockey stick blade with Argon?

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Nov 6, 2018 7:28 PM
Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Nov 6, 2018 7:35 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

I guess that with that link I could have quoted part of the author’s conclusion: The findings of the Resplandy et al paper were peer reviewed and published in the world’s premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media. Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results. Just a few hours of analysis and calculations, based only on published information, was sufficient to uncover apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations. Moreover, even if the paper’s results had been correct, they would not have justified its findings regarding an increase to 2.0°C in the lower bound of the equilibrium climate sensitivity range and a 25% reduction in the carbon budget for 2°C global warming. Because of the wide dissemination of the paper’s results, it is extremely important… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Nov 6, 2018 9:15 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

What’s the point you are making Norm? I refer you to AtomsSanakan’s (?) reply on Curry’s blog. One bad paper does not undermine peer review, the results of which we rely on every day. Nor does a bad paper mean a conspiracy, or undermine the consensus theoretical model. We undermine science at our peril. Is it perfect, or even optimal …no. Science could be vastly improved by including the excluded observer (second order cybernetics) and introducing the First Person experiential …which is happening. Until that scientific revolution unfolds, science as it is is all we have. BTW: did you read the post (Rand Corporation …that’s the Rand Corporation!!!) where Curry admitted her Lewis/Curry upper ECS limits were too low …and arbitrarily added a few degree to match the peer/consensus (her term)? Is that scientific? What does that say of peer review when you can change parameters on a whim? Perhaps… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Nov 6, 2018 11:21 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

Norm: Having read the post in more depth, I came across these caveats: ”Assuming I am right that Resplandy et al. have miscalculated the trend …” ”How might Laure Resplandy have miscalculated …” Lewis castigates the press for blithe acceptance of unchecked results (that may well be right, it wouldn’t be the first time his maths and parameters have been criticised). His supporters, with blithe acceptance, rush to push his unchecked analysis (that may well be wrong, are you certain the mistake is Resplandy’s?) The upshot is that the lower bound for ECS is anchored at 1.5 C. The upper bound can be changed by Curry on a whim to 3 C, (higher) OK …4.5 C. Cutting the carbon budget by 25% is ruled out, though. That means we burn the carbon budget for 2 C …and hope that is not in fact the carbon budget for 4.5 C. It… Read more »

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Nov 7, 2018 2:48 AM
Reply to  BigB

“What’s the point you are making Norm?” Something along the lines of: “Lewis castigates the press for blithe acceptance of unchecked results (that may well be right, it wouldn’t be the first time his maths and parameters have been criticised). His supporters, with blithe acceptance, rush to push his unchecked analysis (that may well be wrong, are you certain the mistake is Resplandy’s?)” Doubt is everywhere and on every side, and not merely on this perticular issue in connection with that of climate change more generally. And if one bad paper doesn’t invalidate the peer review process — which, by the way, is a process by ‘consensus,’ and thus inherently political in the sense that careers and funding very much do depend on the ‘terms of reference’ currently dominating ‘those who do the reviewing’ — it only takes one good piece of analysis to undermine it in the long run.… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Nov 7, 2018 3:03 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

Doubt is a given: after 560+ comments …doubt is the only certitude. My point all along, is rather than have a pseudo-scientific debate that none of us understand (some say they do, but frankly, I have my doubts). The way out seems to me to be humanist …to employ radical responsibility and a universalist Existentialist Humanism to choose the best result for the super-majority. The best result being Life and the end of the megadeath purveyor of global carbon capitalism. I do not know about you, but I do not want Nic Lewis having an elevated say in the future of life. How about we (humanity) decides? Wouldn’t that be novel?

binra
binra
Nov 7, 2018 4:01 PM
Reply to  BigB

In the attacks on cholesterol as the villain, its role as healer was undermined – (Not to mention its vital roles in the body), all kinds of toxic interventions piled in as the basis of an industry born of the narrative – (Ancel keys as the PR poster boy), and the emergence of surrogate makers instead of clinical diagnosis. Where levels are decided by which to then initiate pharmaceutical interventions. the goalposts, can and are then moved – to capture or ‘medicalise’ ever more people – as part of conditioning them TO sickness management (the Medical State). With the whole thing backed by funding, regulatory capture and applied disincentives for non compliance. Meanwhile dietary advice promotes sickness – with a sense of moral brownie points for depriving ourselves of good fats and an ongoing ignorance of very substantial dangers from refined sugars, and carbohydrate overload. This is one among many… Read more »

axisofoil
axisofoil
Nov 7, 2018 11:59 PM
Reply to  BigB

It is the force which keeps in balance the contention we experience which must fist be defined. This force will also control that narrative.
You’re approach would be common sense. Sense is not common. Addressing a definition of common sense would simply facilitate the ever elusive ‘force’ again. It is rather like that ’enigma within an enigma’ It counters our every move because it is us making each move.

binra
binra
Nov 8, 2018 10:08 AM
Reply to  axisofoil

I read your post and felt a prompt to feel and write into ‘common sense’. If the reader finds the journey too abstract relative to the concrete, jump to the last three paragraphs. (We have to learn to ‘see’ the world, and likewise have to relearn to see beneath appearances – if we are moved to question a private sense of dispossession). Sensing and making sense are two facets of one process or movement of being. or rather one thing can seem to become two – and oppositional or out of alignment. Sensing is receptive, and meaning is the the extension or projection of what is received. It is how you know you have received and in this sense Descartes was correct. In this sensing is undifferentiated or direct knowing of light as felt being. The light of awareness shines upon and though the objects of its own reflection. We… Read more »

axisofoil
axisofoil
Nov 8, 2018 12:15 PM
Reply to  binra

So tell me, honestly. When you take over the world, are you going to exterminate us all or keep some of us around for amusement?

binra
binra
Nov 8, 2018 1:54 PM
Reply to  axisofoil

There is no ‘taking over’ the world but in delusion, and you cannot get rid of or escape yourself but make a world of such delusion and suffer it as real. Of course you can follow your joy. Or you may sacrifice yourself to a false god instead. To make joy conditional upon conforming others or your world to your demands is not a real relationship with others, your world or your self. The meek shall inherit the Living Earth because only the release of distorting bias to a true receptivity can share it. You cant really ‘share’ illusion so much as mutually self-reinforce each other. Shared being is not a ‘getting or a doing’ so much as a letting that does through us. This makes no sense to the mind in power struggle and so nothing truly sensible can or does get through to such a set of mind… Read more »

binra
binra
Nov 8, 2018 3:41 PM
Reply to  axisofoil

I’ll meet you in honesty when you choose to extend it. While you emulate a machine ‘intelligence’, or conditioned reaction, as an automaton or golem you have no substance from which to engage.And so there is no ‘you’ – no presence and nothing but a snark pretending to be a post. Such a lack of presence is the condition that not only invites self illusion and subjection, (also known as unconsciousness) but demands it. While running as if in grievance and opposition. Huh? Seems like a familiar pattern. Someone said once that an unquestioned life is not worth living – but is it better said that worth, to be uncovered must be extended (shared) to truly live? You can of course get your identity from the Mall or the Military Industrial complex – but this is always up to you. You don’t have to react as if your thinking is… Read more »

Antonym
Antonym
Nov 9, 2018 1:28 PM
Reply to  BigB

2018-10-31 New study estimate ocean warming using atmospheric O2 and CO2 concentrations. We are aware the way we handled the errors underestimated the uncertainties. We are working on an update that addresses this issue. We thank Nicholas Lewis for bringing this to our attention.

http://resplandy.princeton.edu/

BigB
BigB
Nov 7, 2018 12:20 AM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

BTW: those empowered by carbon, the Lords of Carbon, are the very upper echelons of the global possessing classes that ensure humanities enslavement. Their very edifice, the exploitative hierarchical superstructure, is an edifice built from carbon consumption. Capital = carbon. Capitalism = carbon (carbonism). Accumulation = carbon. Growth = carbon. Exploitation = carbon. Dehumanisation = carbon. Violence = carbon …can I stop yet? Humanity has a very small outside chance of wresting the levers of power away from the Lords of Carbon by de-carbonising and negotiating a neo-optimal egalitarianism with the desolated earth. A transversalised egalitarianism without the hierarchical superstructure cannibalising the life from the foundations of nature. It is by no means certain that the earth IS still in a recoverable state to support us. Everyone just assumes that it has the resilience to recover. Anyone, like me, who dares suggest it might not, especially if we keep pushing… Read more »

binra
binra
Nov 7, 2018 12:49 PM
Reply to  BigB

Desire and willingness for true can and shall save us from error – but not while the error is protected and defended with the status of truth. That any forms of the search for truth can be subverted to (personal and political) assertions of truth is the nature of the ‘ego’ or psyop of deceit. Where BETTER to hide the intent to persist a private power agenda than in noble causes? And failing that in the zero-tolerance (denial) seeking of the power against designated ‘evils’ threats and enemies of the state – including of course the antichrist of the denialism that DOES NOT support your ego. You can conflate your self-image with a protector of the one true faith, the Living Planet or the Last Hope for Humanity – but its a ruse by which to interject a personal sense of control instead of SIMPLY aligning in love of life… Read more »

Antonym
Antonym
Nov 7, 2018 2:13 AM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

Nic Lewis: I wanted to make sure that I had not overlooked something in my calculations, so later on November 1st I emailed Laure Resplandy querying the ΔAPOClimate trend figure in her paper and asking for her to look into the difference in our trend estimates as a matter of urgency, explaining that in view of the media coverage of the paper I was contemplating web-publishing a comment on it within a matter of days. To date I have had no substantive response from her, despite subsequently sending a further email containing the key analysis sections from a draft of this article.

Typical response in climate “science”: ignore those auditing your work and bath in the praise of syncopates. That’s fine for social media but not for Science.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 4, 2018 10:46 AM
Reply to  Antonym

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/if-carbon-dioxide-makes-u/ It will be difficult to slow or stop this global warming, thanks to the oceans, which are warming as well. Currently, the amount of infrared heat radiated back to space is slightly less than what we absorb from the sun due to the increase in greenhouse gases. This excess energy slowly warms the oceans. Although it takes them a very long time to heat up, once they have they will release more infrared radiation and the Earth will emit as much back to space as it receives from the sun. But the planets surface will be warmer, because a larger fraction of that infrared will be blocked by the blanket of greenhouse gases. Thus, we can expect about another 0.5 degree Celsius of warming even if the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were to stop increasing today, which is unlikely as we continue to burn coal, oil… Read more »

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Nov 4, 2018 11:12 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

Preface all your above comments with “I believe…” (or rather “SkepticalScience told me…”) and there’s nothing wrong with it. 1. Ocean warming – as Antonym and I discussed yesterday, there is currently NO direct evidence of any significant ocean warming at all. It’s purely theoretical at this stage, and guesstimated through proxies. The theory is put forward in order to explain why there has been no detectable global warming for the past 18 years. The idea is it HAS been warming but the sea has captured all of the “excess” heat. Like I said, no evidence the sea is in fact warmer, or at least sufficiently so to explain the “missing” heat. And even less evidence for why the oceans would act in this way. The most important thing to take away from this though is that there has been no detectable warming for 18years.. True fact no one denies.Not… Read more »

Elizabeth Woodworth
Elizabeth Woodworth
Nov 5, 2018 12:58 AM

Good explanation.

axisofoil
axisofoil
Nov 3, 2018 3:43 AM
Moriartysleftsock
Moriartysleftsock
Nov 3, 2018 12:39 PM
Reply to  axisofoil

That article only shows that PCR is no scientist and has the usually wooly grasp of the data that non-scientific climate hysterics always have. He’s all over the map, God bless him, stumbling from one garbled misrepresentation to another. What in God’s name is a “heat extinction” event? The warmer periods on earth have been associated with increased animal life. It’s the glaciations that are the anomalies and which threaten extinctions. The temp on earth is currently colder than at almost any time in its entire existence. Someone tell this chap we are in a period of unprecedented glaciation, with succeeding ice ages coming thick and fast. We are just lucky another one hasn’t kicked off yet. Unless the remote possibility of CAGW turns out to be true, heat is not our worry, cold is. The disgraceful thing is that the climate scientists themselves know that 90% of the AGW… Read more »

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Nov 2, 2018 12:03 PM

Reply to flaxgirl about the falsification of data perpetrated by Jones et al and openly admitted in the Climategate emails https://debunkingdenialism.com/2011/12/27/an-open-letter-to-libertarian-climate-change-denialists/ “Hide the decline” when read in its original context, has to do with the decline in growth of trees from certain high latitudes. The scientists simply replaced this data with thermometer data post-1960 because of human emission of nitrogen, which makes some of the tree ring data diverse (and decline) compared with temperature data from thermometers. Yes.They replaced the tree ring data, which didn’t show warming, with surface temperature data that did show warming, and pretended the surface data was tree ring data. That’s data falsification, as PSJ has already told you below. It is in fact scientific fraud. Doing this is perfectly reasonable because of the “divergence” problem. What? If the data “diverges” from your theory it’s “perfectly reasonable” to falsify the data to make it fit your… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 12:45 PM

OK, point taken, MLS. It was fraudulent.

Nevertheless, the skeptics did not explain it as it is. They still misrepresented it because they inferred that “decline” related to temperature.

SGibbons
SGibbons
Nov 2, 2018 12:57 PM

Steven Jones also lied about cold fusion and about thermite in the WTC. He’s also a climate skeptic, who comments here under a thin disguise, as do Tony Szamboti, David Griffin and other Truthers. At least Griffin doesn’t lie about climate change. Jones will lie about anything his paymasters tell him to lie about.

Antonym
Antonym
Nov 1, 2018 12:09 PM

Addition: 15 years before 2017 = “good” data – a period with a clear warming trend – unlike the preceding 15 years, which gave “bad” data, level or cooling, hence the choice of year. CAGW language.

Antonym
Antonym
Nov 1, 2018 11:38 AM

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently made an report called SR15 of which the following is part: http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf
Page 1: an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response
to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty

Little Science, much politics.

Page 5 , footnote 5: Present level of global warming is defined as the average of a 30-
year period centered on 2017 assuming the recent rate of warming continues.

Their climate is now “defined” by 15 years of data and 15 years of speculation. Even less Science.

Remember how the “consensus of Economists” failed with their predictions in 2008?

PSJ
PSJ
Nov 1, 2018 3:07 PM
Reply to  Antonym

I wonder what “eliminate poverty” means in real non-manipulated language. I don’t think, given, the tenor of current government, we can assume it’s anything we’d readily agree to!

I’m baffled how people can not see the way this issue has been hijacked by the Bill Gates & Agenda 21 crowd who preach anti-human anti-freedom doctrines in the name of saving the planet. To me this is as worrying as the drift to war. It’s anyone’s guess which will get us all first.

I have serious doubts about how much longer any of us will be free to air our non-mainstream opinions at all.

binra
binra
Nov 3, 2018 10:03 PM
Reply to  PSJ

It is all doublespeak.
Enforce poverty to prop up (sustain) the unsustainable.
Everything evil works a face of respectability excepting when it needs to give itself a foil.
But always and only at the level of forms of asserted and associated meanings.

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Nov 1, 2018 1:58 AM

A reply to flaxgirl I once again can’t post in the correct place I am not a “believer” Moriarty. I hate being accused of being a believer. I hate to break it to you flaxgirl but you are perhaps the most absolute believer I have encountered on this forum. You have incredibly strong convictions based often on the flimsiest evidence. You watched “Everything is a Rich Man’s Trick” and believed everything in it. You listened to Dammegung (sp?) claiming he’d talked to a 1% insider and believed everything he said to the point it changed your entire view of the world and you suddenly “realised” no one died on 9/11 or at Sandy Hook or in the Boston bombing, or maybe ever, I don’t know. You are absolutely a believer but you tell yourself your beliefs are “facts” and “logic” and you decry everyone who doesn’t share your view, which… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 1, 2018 4:56 AM

Of course, CO2 was massively higher in the past than it is now but that was very much in other times when the earth was very, very different. Now a “mere” doubling of the CO2 level from the start of industrial times (around 280ppm) is predicted to be catastrophic. We’re at 400ppm and that is already very dangerously high in the current earth situation. No doubt, Moriarty, the climate scientists agree wholeheartedly with a number of the figures you present above – the difference is they interpret them differently. They look at the context in which those figures existed and the context is now – and that is crucial to the argument. I completely reject that I have very strong beliefs based on the flimsiest of evidence and you are a shocking strawmanner. I believed Ole Dammegard when he said that an insider told him that the power elite justify… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 1, 2018 5:49 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

Actually, you’ve just prompted a thought. Just as the tobacco companies and the oil companies have blamed the customer, perhaps the perpetrators of the 9/11 hoax will defend themselves – if they’re ever charged – with: “Well, we TOLD you. We didn’t show you any terrorists boarding planes; we told you they were lousy pilots, especially little Hani, who we also told you did the amazing manoeuvre into the Pentagon; physics clearly precludes steel frame skyscrapers from crashing to the ground in perfect symmetry due to fires or 200 ton airliners penetrating those massive buildings. How could terrorists pop up alive, how could a pristine passport flutter to the ground from that fireball and, if it was so pristine, how could we get the name wrong initially? How could you possibly believe the miracle survivor stories with alleged survivors not showing a scratch – they were an obvious hilarious joke.… Read more »

writerroddis
writerroddis
Nov 1, 2018 10:15 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

“Of course, CO2 was massively higher in the past than it is now but that was very much in other times when the earth was very, very different.” Indeed, flaxgirl. When we say “the planet is under threat from human activity” – or as I say, “from capitalism” – that’s shorthand. The Planet will shrug off anything we throw at it. The pedantically accurate version is that “the planet’s recent capacity to support human and other advanced life forms is under threat from capitalism”. By “recent capacity” I refer to the fact homo sapiens sapiens has been around some 140,000 years, while bipedal hominids – common acestors to us and other great apes – have been walking the earth some 6 million years. Temperatures in the Devonian or other prehistoric age are therefore a red herring. Our 4.7 billion year old Earth has seen five mass extinction events, most recently… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 1, 2018 10:43 AM
Reply to  writerroddis

SHU – So is the outcome settled?

writerroddis
writerroddis
Nov 1, 2018 10:51 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

Far from it. We’ve won an important victory with ramifications for the entire sector but two fights remain, the most wide ranging in ots implications to be decided this month, 15-16th.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 1, 2018 11:22 AM
Reply to  writerroddis

Best of luck.

BigB
BigB
Nov 1, 2018 1:25 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

Phillip: you are a breath of fresh air. Good luck in your trials and tribulations. Stick it to the Man on the 15th …from me. Here’s to small victories.

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Nov 1, 2018 11:26 AM
Reply to  writerroddis

The Planet will shrug off anything we throw at it. Indeed it probably will.Though a full scale thermonuclear war would probably wipe out most forms of life on land. The pedantically accurate version is that “the planet’s recent capacity to support human and other advanced life forms is under threat from capitalism”. By “recent capacity” I refer to the fact homo sapiens sapiens has been around some 140,000 years, while bipedal hominids – common acestors to us and other great apes – have been walking the earth some 6 million years. Temperatures in the Devonian or other prehistoric age are therefore a red herring. But why do you believe human beings can’t survive in a warm world? If we put aside all the CAGW-posited issues of positive feedback and runaway warming (which remain highly contentious and promoted only by extreme believers), why would a couple of degrees of warmth and… Read more »

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Oct 31, 2018 9:13 PM

@BigB (reply to comment way down this thread which doesn’t allow reply) Suffice to say, your “literally dozens” of scientists have access to peer reviewed literature to make a case No, they don’t. Or at least not equal access. With the current grip that AGW hysteria has on things it’s virtually impossible to get a aper accepted to any major journal that questions it. There is however a considerable wealth of earlier papers and other data. What I’m interested in is – have you read any of it? What surprises me, when one side accuses the other of conspiracy …is why it does not click? What if both sides are playing us? What if propaganda is binary? What happens while we argue …the status quo of dehumanisation, death, and destruction happens. The corporatocracy benefit either way from culturally induced doubt. What do we do? That all depends on our perception… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Nov 1, 2018 8:55 AM

MLS The topic under discussion is corporately introduced doubt: which you belatedly interject to deny the existence of. May I suggest you read the article, and the comments, before commenting? In the meantime, a sound, epistemic (and now circular) thesis has been put forward that the only reason NOT to act against AGW is culturally manufactured doubt. The science, per se, is not in question. In the balance of probability, erring on the side of an environmental humanism, there is sufficient consensus, and the science is sufficiently settled to concur with a politics of action. Against that, the main cultural stasis is a consciously constructed politics of doubt. So before you even start, that is where we were. No one says there are not outlying opinions. Access to the peer review journals is a separate issue. Rather than a frankly asinine reference to a Green God conspiracy: and money in… Read more »

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Nov 1, 2018 11:39 AM
Reply to  BigB

@BigB To sum up your post without the fog of verbiage: “Moriarty, you are talking about something I don’t want to talk about, so under the guise of a “reply”, I will ignore everything you say, and continue asserting the a priori certitudes that your comment has specifically shown to be erroneous”

If you want to address anything I actually wrote in the above comment I will be happy to continue the discussion.

BigB
BigB
Nov 1, 2018 1:08 PM

No, we’re done. Comments like the one you just wrote to Phillip kept me up at night, after visiting ‘Judy’s’. Your concepts, if not your heart and soul, are fossilised in carbon. I replied to everything you said with humanity. When you find yours among the paleo-fossils, we may speak again. In the meantime, we are talking about different planets and different humanities. In different languages. It’s not all about you and yours: there are other lives and other lifeforms you would willingly sacrifice to burn carbon. Only, what are you going to do when your precious carbon runs out? It won’t, but it will become an ever increasing drag on the economy. Another cost to add to the inhumanity of carbon capitalism. BTW: I must have made at least three comments to clarify the AGW v CAGW issue you choose to manipulate. No one was talking about CAGW until… Read more »

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Nov 1, 2018 2:01 PM
Reply to  BigB

Professors of logic and dialectic could use this reply of BigB’s to illustrate how struggling debaters hide their lack of data. It’s textbook. Trick 1 – AD HOMINEM Your concepts, if not your heart and soul, are fossilised in carbon. I replied to everything you said with humanity. When you find yours among the paleo-fossils, we may speak again. In the meantime, we are talking about different planets and different humanities. In different languages. Trick 2 – DIVERSION USING REAL OR ASSUMED MORAL OUTRAGE It’s not all about you and yours: there are other lives and other lifeforms you would willingly sacrifice to burn carbon. Only, what are you going to do when your precious carbon runs out? It won’t, but it will become an ever increasing drag on the economy. Another cost to add to the inhumanity of carbon capitalism Think for a moment. How is this a rational… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Nov 1, 2018 8:38 PM
Reply to  Editor

Thanks Admin! 🙂

binra
binra
Nov 3, 2018 10:52 PM
Reply to  BigB

A current sense of probability is an entirely different notion than ‘belief’. That Climate is cyclic – as well as being affected by extreme events (Cataclysms in the past – as in the end of the younger Dryas, is simply obvious to me. The idea that carbon dioxide gas is the cause of a ‘runaway’ process of warming with catastrophic results is possible to assert in a ‘science’ that is more politics than science. The history of science is a political history – not in terms of party politics but of the engineering of the social order. A consideration of action to take with regard to the despoiling and degradation of Life on Earth is no more caused by CO2 than (so called good or bad) cholesterol causes heart disease . Yet that has been an official consensus that initiated adverse health for millions – while making vast profits for… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Nov 1, 2018 8:21 PM

MLS I answered your alternatives question with an honest ‘I do not know’. I do not know because it is unclear what corporate carbon capitalism will leave. Probably not very much. Possibly nuclear ash. All the more reason to find an alternative before its too late. Not a reason to carry on regardless. If you will keep making the preposterous claim that eco-fascists like me are too stupid to distinguish between AGW and CAGW: and if you will predicate your counter-claim on such unsound reasoning …it makes it all the easier to refute. I can simply refer you to my comment of the 28th when I wrote: The main issue is Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS to Doubled CO2): which is the range of temperature rise we can expect. There is a broad consensus for 3 degrees; with outlying support for (CAGW) ranges of 6-10 degrees; and a lower range around… Read more »

binra
binra
Nov 3, 2018 10:34 PM

Surely the term ‘manmade climate change’ is an inflation. To allow for a potential human effect within a changing climate is better stated. There may also be any number of other related or less related contenders – such as the bovine effect and the microbiota effect. Not mentioned here yet – perhaps is the definite intent of largely secret technologies to effect weather – which is not climate – but could play a part in – for example – diverting the jet stream or hurricanes (Ionospheric heating). The spraying of nanoparticulates into the atmosphere is another unacknowledged technology that could be anything or many things that affect weather which is used all the time to push the climate fear. They could also be stealth vaccines. I also sense that as a Living System – (which is an oxymoron – but may have to suffice) – Earth is not responding in… Read more »

axisofoil
axisofoil
Nov 3, 2018 11:58 PM
Reply to  binra

“The spraying of nanoparticulates into the atmosphere is another unacknowledged technology that could be anything or many things that affect weather which is used all the time to push the climate fear. They could also be stealth vaccines.”

Do you care to elaborate?

binra
binra
Nov 5, 2018 12:46 AM
Reply to  axisofoil

‘Geo engineering’ as the criss-cross sky patterns of con/chem trails has not so much been overtly denied as ignored. Under the aegis of the ‘climate change imperative’ at least some of this activity has to some degree been acknowledged but as far as I know – without any public oversight or accountability. So something – we know not what – is being done at great expense – we know not why for reasons we are not told. When governments or corporations tell obvious lies, people speculate as to what really happened, but when the whole issue is ignored it makes those who ask open questions seem like the dissonant ones. I have seen a patent for a delivery system for nanoparticulate application of vaccines from the air. Aluminium is one of the particulates that is reported as fallout from ‘jet trails’ that stay in the air much longer than a… Read more »

Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell
Nov 5, 2018 8:58 AM
Reply to  binra

March 2017 : New cloud type : Homomutatus After years of various denials that what folk were in the sky, did not exist, ( if they bothered to “look up” and most seemingly do not ), last year the WMO and the UK’s Met Office announced updates to the International Cloud Atlas to include 12 new cloud types. One of them was named : homomutatus Twelve ‘new’ types of cloud finally gain Met Office recognition https://weather.com/en-GB/unitedkingdom/weather/news/twelve-new-types-cloud-gain-met-office-recognition-named/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropogenic_cloud But by far the greatest number of anthropogenic clouds are airplane contrails (condensation trails) and rocket trails.[3][4] Gallery: all the new clouds officially recognised by the Met Office https://www.wired.co.uk/gallery/cloud-formations-met-office-weather Homomutatus Persistent contrails (of the Cirrus family of clouds) are formed over a period of time under the influence of strong upper winds. They grow and spread out over a larger portion of sky, and eventually take on the appearance of more natural cirri-form… Read more »

binra
binra
Nov 5, 2018 8:43 PM
Reply to  Mark Gobell

Back in the nuclear power no thanks 70’s a friend had a badge ; “Mutate now, avoid the rush!” I don’t actually see the evidence for mutations forecast from radioactivity (say in wildlife around Chernobyl). But I do see the erasure of consciousness before my very eyes. Fear works a large part of this, and if fear is contagious then guilt is toxic. Who is learning to look at the triggers for guilt or fear so as to not be under their spell? If the ‘spiritual’ aspect of direct awareness is out of range (blocked by thinking) – then improve the communication of the body-mind. There is a lot coming up now about the role of the micro-biome in the sustaining of life and function – and of the communication of the emotional being to epigenetic effects. I keep finding more that I had never heard of – such as… Read more »

PSJ
PSJ
Nov 1, 2018 3:18 PM
Reply to  BigB

From what I read Moriarty’s Left Sock has made a counter point to your claim of culturally induced doubt, namely that culturally induced certitude is of more use to the PTSB.

I find that a very insightful point, actually.

In my own personal experience I have witnessed a good deal of cultist thinking. I have never witnessed it to focus on doubt. As M’sLS says, it works by inducing certitudes, and as a corollary, forcing a gulf between those who “believe” and those who don’t. Cults work by uniting people inside a cocoon of false belief and by telling them that those who don’t believe are not simply wrong but “different”, benighted, lost.

The cultist message is always built round the idea of warning the brethren against listening to outsiders preaching doubt. I have literally never witnessed a cult that warned against certitude!

mog
mog
Oct 31, 2018 4:30 PM

Read this as a ‘Parthian Shot’ if you like. I don’t regard myself as ‘retreating’ as such (although I won’t hold it against anyone who does), rather that the unfolding of this debate on the subject matter of this book, and the interjections from OffG contributors has encouraged me to look for a different forum to discuss current affairs. Horses for courses. Disagreements with ‘Admin’ and Catte have centred predominantly on four things. Firstly a conflation regarding the question of whether or not there is a ‘debate’ about the veracity of AGW, or if in fact there is ‘consensus’. There clearly is a debate here, and on the internet generally, and in the halls of power and in the media (especially the Right wing media), and some contributors to that debate are indeed scientists. There clearly is not anything resembling a meaningful debate within the huge, worldwide community of scientists… Read more »

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Oct 31, 2018 7:15 PM
Reply to  mog

An anecdote about science: Today, at this very moment, Einstein’s theory of relativity is believed to be beyond dispute. Why? Because an expedition by Eddington and Dyson in 1919 “proved” what Einstein’s theory predicted would be the case: that light passing through a powerful, spherically arranged gravitational field would bend to the contours of that field. Unfortunately, there is a slight problem with this presumption: no one with the competence to do so since the time of the promulgation and acceptance of that result put forth by Eddington and Dyson has ever bothered to review the details of the manner in which that result was obtained, no one, that is to say, except for one such scientist, a Canadian physicist, Dr. Paul Marmet. Marmet has published a very succinct and accessible critique of the Eddington and Dyson “experiment,” and his critique is ’empirically’ and ‘logically’ irrefutable, and yet it continues… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 1, 2018 7:35 AM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

I agree with what you say about consensus. Massive consensus has so often been proved wrong. I, myself, hold a very unpopular view among both those who believe 9/11 was the work of 19 terrorists armed with boxcutters and those who think it was an inside conspiracy. I believe the evidence shows very clearly that death and injury were staged. And just as man-made climate change made immediate sense to me before I knew anything of the evidence as soon as it occurred to me that the perpetrators had targeted truthers with special propaganda to ensure they maintained their belief in death and injury (even if it took me 4 years of study to get there) it felt as if it was just a matter of confirming what struck me as making so much sense. Of course, the perps would not have killed and injured the people when they could… Read more »

binra
binra
Nov 1, 2018 9:16 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

Yes. This sort of thing is not the exception but the rule.
And can be observed in individuals as in group identities.
The ‘model’ as a basis of identity, and control serves a different function than that of genuine relationship.

But no one can ‘get through’ to those who see as the ‘model’ dictates – unless of course its dis-integrity breaks down the capacity to give it allegiance – and then there may be a background stirring of a discontent that initially tends to reinforce the attempt to defend and reassert the model through narrative manipulations and of course open coercion and targeted hatred.

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Oct 31, 2018 8:21 PM
Reply to  mog

Oh don’t dress it up Mog. You feel threatened by arguments that cast doubt on something you believe in deeply. It makes you uncomfortable and you want to blame everyone for it but yourself. Your language is acutely dishonest. You claim you support free speech on one hand and deny it on the other with qualifiers. Free speech has limits? And what are they exactly? Your comfort zones? I too have read through this thread and I see the admin bending over backwards, excruciatingly and unnecessarily in my view, to qualify every single intercession with “I’m not claiming either side is correct” etc. I see them actually supporting the call to action on climate which you say they don’t. I see Catte saying she’s a Green and wants to see action on AGW. How orthodox does this site have to be in order to appease you? Do they have to… Read more »

mog
mog
Oct 31, 2018 9:13 PM

I’ll thank you for nothing.
As for OffG, I have thanked them, on numerous occasions, and I thank them again here.

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Oct 31, 2018 9:18 PM
Reply to  mog

I didn’t suggest or expect you to thank me. But at least you have the grace to thank these guys who give us this platform. You could also not misrepresent their editorial policy in future.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 1, 2018 7:45 AM
Reply to  mog

There’s just one thing I disagree on, mog. To my mind, the key point about 9/11 is that death and injury were staged and I think the concerted, ongoing effort that has gone into the truther-targeted propaganda campaign supports that view, namely, the high-profile loved ones and workers who promulgate suspicion of government/knowledge of controlled demolition while at the same time speak of their loved ones/colleagues who perished in the buildings. Not a single loved one of the 265 passengers who allegedly died in the planes though is agitating for an inquiry as far as I know. Shouldn’t they be asking questions about how the multi-trillion dollar defense machine managed to fail four times in one day regardless of whether they recognise controlled demolition or faked plane crashes?

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 1, 2018 8:01 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

Not to say I don’t completely understand what you say are the key points. I just think regardless of anything else the key point is that death and injury were staged.

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Nov 1, 2018 11:43 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

Gosh, Mog, one of your paragons of reason thinks 9/11 was staged! Ouch, that’s gotta be embarrassing 😉

writerroddis
writerroddis
Nov 1, 2018 11:41 AM
Reply to  mog

Excellent mog; though we need to be superhumanly careful to stay respectful – which in the main you do – when (a) this site is a great resource thanks to Catte et al; (b) this debate has run its course since the anti AGW camp here is not the problem. Rather than waste time seeking to change the minds of a tiny minority with no more power than you or me, we need to focus on the inaction of corrupt leaders and media who tend to agree climate change is real and man made, but at every turn prioritise “economic growth” – heroin to capitalism – over curbing greenhouse emissions.

binra
binra
Nov 3, 2018 10:09 AM
Reply to  writerroddis

Why not simply extend respect as you would yourself receive. What is superhuman about that? If you are offended in your brother – why? People do not all see the world the same and this can become our strength when we open in desire to uncover why, by listening, instead of framing them as invalid heretical or enemies for not supporting the idea or cause that YOU are choosing to believe, invest in and give power to. Collective power under fear is hierarchical obedience to a top down dictate but a shared integrity of honouring communication is a collective willingness in shared purpose. The former can align actions or denials as acute instances of applied force but only the latter can grow a true cultural expression. You pronounce your personal summary of the ‘debate’ as a waste of time, (A debate that never was or could be – because it… Read more »

Kathy
Kathy
Oct 31, 2018 2:34 PM

It is an interesting observation on the subject of climate change. That we the people are encouraged by the elite classes to embrace a collective guilt over something we have very little ability to change. Whether man made or a natural phenomena. Those in the world who really care with the most passion about the planet being so damaged by pollution. Are the ones who embrace this guilt and responsibility the most. Even sadly I fear, to the point of falling out and calling out for voices to be silenced on this site. The ones who encourage and keep reinforcing this guilt and fear are the ones responsible for the harm and damage being done. And they are the ones who could choose to stop the destruction of the environment and polluting if they were of a mind to. They could create models of sustainable living but don’t. They make… Read more »

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Oct 31, 2018 11:55 AM

Pertaining to this issue, there is the phenomenon of ‘climate change’ per se, and then there is what is very much the unsettled ‘science’ of ‘climate change.’ ‘Climate change’ is something that has always happened and always will. This we know as a certainty. The ‘why(s)’ and “wherefores” of ‘climate change,’ even in the absence of human influence, however, is something we do not know either on the whole or in detail. How, then, can we “measure’ the impact of mankind’s influence on it? You cannot get a measure of the latter without first having a measure of the former. Period. I know the latter as ‘fact.’ If it were not a fact, then there would be no reason, among others, for the following line of inquiry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ But even if AGW were the most pressing issue of our times — and I claim no position one way or another,… Read more »

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Oct 31, 2018 12:30 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

And something I only just came across and that some may find relevant to the discussion:

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 1, 2018 7:56 AM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

Norman, this is what Ari Jokimaki has to say about Svensmark. I haven’t watched your video and only skimmed the article and comments – just to say that it may be worth looking at both sides if you believe that Svensmark has a valid argument.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/analysis_of_svensmark_reference_list.html

Antonym
Antonym
Nov 1, 2018 8:03 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

Reply in flaxgirl style:

When you name a single point that you believe supports (or even could support) the argument against significant effect of cosmic-rays to climate please name it. Until that time your insistence that a debate exists is not justified.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 1, 2018 10:48 AM
Reply to  Antonym

So Antonym, how do you relate cosmic-rays to the steep global temperature rise of the last 100 years, assuming you accept that rise – or do you have a quibble with it?

Antonym
Antonym
Nov 1, 2018 11:19 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

You don’t study replies made to you and therefore keep on making wrong assumptions about them, or the people replying you, resulting in a endless and meaning less repetitive word stream.
I for one give up talking to a brick wall.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 1, 2018 11:32 AM
Reply to  Antonym

I’m afraid the data does not support the cosmic rays/cloud-seeing theory, Antonym. You’ll need to pull out another skeptic argument. I’m sure you’ve got a number still to go.
https://skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Nov 1, 2018 11:49 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

I was wondering what God had to say about cosmic rays! Aren’t we lucky flaxgirl that John Cook (aka “The Word of the Lord”) is so reliable, so honest, so completely infallible that all we have to do is run over to Skeptical Science and consult the oracle to know the Truth.

Any resemblance between you and a brainwashed cultist who simply believes his/her leader without question is entirely coincidental.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 12:36 AM

I think what I object to most in argument is derision. Not that I’m never guilty of it myself but only in small doses.

Your derision is simply complete rubbish and is the kind of argument that turns me right off skeptic argument regardless of content.

John Cook started Skeptical Science. It is now run by a number of people. The article I quoted was by someone other than JC. I just realised! His initials are JC. How about that? Some other skeptic derided him for his Christianity.

The fact that I admire SS does not make me a brainwashed cultist. That is an absurdity. Can you not see how utterly pointless and false what you say is and how you undermine your credibility with it. It is pitiful.

LadyDi
LadyDi
Nov 2, 2018 3:06 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

LOL hilarious that you can with a straight face complain about derision when you have been charging all over this thread sneering at anyone, even the mods on this site who doesn’t 100% agree with you, screaming “show me the evidence” and then refusing point blank to the point of lunacy to even read any of the evidence you’re shown! All you do, whatever evidence anyone quotes is find something on that ONE SINGLE website that you think refutes it. Mostly it doesn’t refute it because it’s a dumbed down junk site. But you don’t notice, you don’t even bother to read the posts by the people you are talking to, or follow the links, you just run off to Skeptical Science to find something you can tell yourself proves you’re right and slap it down here going “seee!!”. It’s totally mad. Can’t you think for yourself? Can’t you even… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 4:05 AM
Reply to  LadyDi

Skeptical Science is simply the goto website when debunking skeptic arguments on climate change, the curator of all the arguments if you will. It presents them clearly and concisely. If you can suggest a better site to go for debunking arguments, please do.

I hate the idea that people interpret what I do as sneering and deriding. Can you please let me know where you think I do this?

binra
binra
Nov 5, 2018 12:27 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

Yes, if you can keep up the pretence of an engagement you can elicit a slip by which another reveals their personal frustration in a leaky gut feeling given form in sarcasm. Now throw your whole weight into a righteous attack to back out of an argument you were never really engaged in anyway. I have been accused of being an AI bot or something similar simply because I do not write to a machine intelligence but to a conscious attention and intention. But the nature and pattern of a manipulative intent is not obscure but is well documented and easy to learn to spot – whether a personal resort seeking to appeal for sympathy (or induce antipathy), or a highly trained operative. That the ‘Terminator’ might not be a physical robot, but a program running in the guise of human behaviours puts humanity into the need to discern the… Read more »

binra
binra
Nov 2, 2018 5:19 PM

Yes – I see this is a step into an awareness of the Electrical nature of the Universe and the release of a gravitational model – which will also find gravity to be a by product of electrical charge relation and not itself a universal absolute. (We will also release Big Bang, expanding Universe, Black holes and dark matter and dark energy). I cant believe that ‘insider’ science is not already well aware of this, but the model for the mainstream is a model of containment and entrainment – and the role of fake science is then to purvey narratives that support or are used to support political and commercial interests under a mask of fighting evils or discovering cures. The other side of the coin is that humanity may not be ready or willing to accept disclosure. If truth were openly shared, illusions would not require global defence systems.… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 11, 2018 12:40 AM
Reply to  binra

This is old now but it irked me so I’m responding now. One thing I’d like to point out, binra. You say that I say I “take offence”. I didn’t use the word offence. I said I object to derision. The two words have quite a different force and I wonder if there’s a slight sexist overtone in your saying I take offence – as if, as a woman, I can’t cope with derision from other commenters, mostly male. Of course, I wouldn’t be arguing endlessly on these pages if I couldn’t cope with it. While I admit that I might be derisive on the very odd occasion (and using only very few words) that is an extremely different matter to be constantly arguing with people where you have to wade through a paragraph (sometimes two it seems) of derision to get to the point. I’m only interested in the… Read more »

binra
binra
Nov 11, 2018 9:52 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

You are free to notice when you feel irked,and can use the experience to notice the demands or conditions you have set that others or yourself are failing to meet. I have not reread through what we have said in response to each other or to the points raised, but I write to illuminate choices being made – such as framing ‘irk’ in terms of denialist or time-waster. What would happen if we addressed the issue without assigning invalidations to the other’s intent? Of course it is possible to intend to deny the voice or acceptance of the meaning of another, and indeed to deny to others what in fact we are doing and saying. But this can merely be illuminated or reflected without assigning (our own) ill intent or malign motives. I don’t know you are a woman – though your commenting name suggests so. I meet you (and… Read more »

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Nov 1, 2018 11:55 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

The LIA (Little Ice Age) is ending. Temps are rising back to pre-LIA levels. What caused the LIA? No one knows, but it coincided with very low solar activity. Is this correlation a proof of cause? No, but it’s good evidence. Is the rise in CO2 causing the recent warming or is that just correlation? We don’t know.

Are you going to listen to any of this, do some research that doesn’t involve asking Skeptical Science to tell you what to think?

Not. A. Chance. God might be cross with you if you depart from doctrine.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 5:30 AM

I use SS because it conveniently curates all the skeptic arguments and provides clear and concise debunking of them. Doesn’t it make perfect sense to use it? If you can debunk the debunking by SS by all means go ahead. If you can suggest another website I should consult please recommend it. Of course, trusty old SS is right there with a critique of the LIA skeptic argument. https://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age.htm “The Little Ice Age remains for the present the subject of speculation. The most likely influence during this period is variable output from the sun combined with pronounced volcanic activity. We know that from the end of the LIA to the 1950s the sun’s output increased. But since WW2 the sun has slowly grown quieter, yet the temperature on Earth has gone up. The sceptical argument that current warming is a continuation of the same warming that ended the LIA is… Read more »

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Nov 2, 2018 11:09 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

“The Little Ice Age remains for the present the subject of speculation. The most likely influence during this period is variable output from the sun combined with pronounced volcanic activity. We know that from the end of the LIA to the 1950s the sun’s output increased. But since WW2 the sun has slowly grown quieter, yet the temperature on Earth has gone up.Taken in isolation, the LIA might cast doubt on the theory of climate change. Considered alongside the empirical evidence, model predictions and a century of scientific research into the climate, recovery from the LIA is not a plausible theory to explain the observed evidence and rate of global climate change.” This is a bit different from the “AGW is proved, the science is settled and everyone who doesn’t believe is a heretic!” angle you and the other brave crusaders on here have been taking isn’t it. Even supposing… Read more »

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Nov 2, 2018 11:17 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

BTW, when I mentioned the LIA I said this to you:

Are you going to listen to any of this, do some research that doesn’t involve asking Skeptical Science to tell you what to think?

Not. A. Chance. God might be cross with you if you depart from doctrine.

How hilarious is it that in response you post a quote from Skeptical Science! 😀

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 12:13 PM

MLS, I’m not sure why you wouldn’t expect me to go to SS as it’s the debunking go to. I’m not a scientist. Why would I spend hours researching a claim you make when I can just go to SS. I’ll return with what they say and leave it up to you to debunk them. Now I’ll respond to your alleged debunking of SS. This is what the scientist you link to, Ilya Usoskin, says elsewhere: https://www.mwenb.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Blog-Ilya-Usoskin-def.pdf Although the present knowledge remains poor, in particular since most of the climate models consider only the direct TSI effect which is indeed quite small, I would intuitively and subjectively say that the solar influence was an important player until mid-20th century, but presently other factors play the dominant role. However, such time-delaying processes as e.g. ocean heating, are not straightforwardly considered. It is also interesting to note that SS use Usoskin’s work… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 1:03 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

And just to add. Of course, I’m no scientist but if it were solar activity wouldn’t you tend to expect just a higher temperature without so much feedback and climate change than if CO2 were responsible? With just more sun there wouldn’t be so much heat trapped in the atmosphere causing greater concentrations of water vapour, seemingly the greatest feedback. Wouldn’t just greater solar activity produce quite different results which would be of less concern?

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Nov 2, 2018 4:45 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

Dear flaxgirl, I think you inadvertently failed to emphasize in Usokin’s quote what the quote itself insists upon, something which also coincidentally the so-called gaggle of ‘deniers’ in this thread have been at pains to highlight for you. Rather, the proper emphasis in Usokin’s quote should read as follows: “Although the present knowledge remains poor, in particular since most of the climate models consider only the direct TSI effect which is indeed quite small, I would intuitively and subjectively say that the solar influence was an important player until mid-20th century, but presently other factors play the dominant role.” See how that works: one quote, two very different readings, You want to emphasize as ‘fact’ that “the solar influence was an important player until mid-20th century, but has since not been.” But Usokin is not asserting this as fact, but as a question that needs to be properly investigated, i.e.,… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 8:26 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

As a response to MLS’s response I think my highlighting is perfectly valid, Norman.

Climate scientists are uncertain about many aspects of climate change which they readily admit to, however, they are certain enough that the rise in CO2 is causing dangerous warming and climate change. That is sufficient for me. It may not be sufficient for you but it is sufficient for me.

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Nov 2, 2018 9:11 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

Right. The climate scientists in your camp don’t really understand the link between the many different aspects of solar activity and the earth climate system, but they know they can discount them in an era of rising anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Fascinating logic.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 9:15 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

As I just said, Norman, this is what they say.
“Considered alongside the empirical evidence, model predictions and a century of scientific research into the climate, recovery from the LIA is not a plausible theory to explain the observed evidence and rate of global climate change.”

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 8:35 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

Just to clarify.

You want to emphasize as ‘fact’ that “the solar influence was an important player until mid-20th century, but has since not been.”

What I want to do is show that the scientist that MLS links to is in agreement with what SS says in terms of solar influence being influential until mid-century. That is all.

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Nov 2, 2018 9:20 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

Um, if what SS says in terms of solar influence being influential until mid-century, but thereafter being negligible, as a matter of “fact,” then you fail to show that the scientist that MLS links to is in agreement with what SS contends: she is not making a statement of “fact;” she is pointing to an issue that must be further investigated before any ‘rational’ stance can be adopted in relation to it.

So which is it: does SS assert as “fact” that although solar activity was influential until the mid-20th Century, it no longer is; or does it assert, as Usokin does, that all of this is as yet unproven speculation?

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 9:30 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

Just to point out Ilya is a man’s name.

My response was very much to MLS’s claim below and really needs to be considered in that context. I’m not going to discuss the matter further.

“But at the moment there is provisional hard evidence that CO2 is NOT a major climate forcer and that recent warming has been due to the activity of the sun.

See the ice core study here http://cc.oulu.fi/%7Eusoskin/personal/lrsp-2008-3Color.pdf

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Nov 2, 2018 9:51 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

Okay, she’s a he, and it’s not Usokin, but Usoskin.

So what’s the problem with the ice core study?

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 10:06 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

I didn’t even look at it. My point is that Usoskin says that he thinks solar influence diminished mid-century (even if he’s not sure about it) – SS says the same thing (without expressing the uncertainty). MLS rejects that with the link to Usoskin’s study (but who says elsewhere as I’ve shown that he thinks the solar influence reduced mid-century). This is it – I’m not discussing it further.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 8:46 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

And just to add further:

From SS:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age.htm
Considered alongside the empirical evidence, model predictions and a century of scientific research into the climate, recovery from the LIA is not a plausible theory to explain the observed evidence and rate of global climate change.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 9:13 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

And just to add further again:
The certainty that scientists have on the rise of CO2 being a dangerous climate forcer is sufficient for the oil companies. Their lawyers, despite the willingness of the denialists they have happily funded to support their case with their argument, ignore them and do not defend their case using any doubts on the matter. Not at all.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/mar/23/in-court-big-oil-rejected-climate-denial
“From Chevron’s perspective, there is no debate about the science of climate change.”

They are using the same defence that the tobacco companies used: it’s the customer’s fault.

No skeptic, so far, has given me a possible explanation for why an oil company would not use doubt on CO2 causing a dangerous rise in temperature to defend their case, when so many of their supporters are willing to help them to use it.

Perhaps you can offer a reason, Norman?

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 9:39 PM
Reply to  Editor

But surely to defend their case it would be much better for them to claim they are not responsible for causing sea level rise because it’s uncertain what’s causing it rather than blaming it on the customer? They’re defending a very serious case here which will lead to others – lots of others perhaps. They stand to lose colossal amounts of money. I very much doubt the possibility of green-energy subsidies would be playing on their minds here – although certainly it might elsewhere. Do you understand the seriousness of the case?

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 9:58 PM
Reply to  Editor

I guess you wouldn’t understand the seriousness of the case because, if it’s the same Admin, you think the children’s legal case against the US government is a psyop. Please read this article and then confirm whether or not you still think it’s a psyop.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/03/kids-sue-us-government-climate-change/

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 10:16 PM
Reply to  Editor

When I say the case is serious what I mean is that they may suffer greatly. Nothing to do with ethics. My goodness! If Big Oil is accepting AGW it’s because it sees a way to profit from it either directly or indirectly. Period. That’s an assertion with zero evidence. What about, they’re in a corner? Do you think that’s a possibility? They’re in a corner and they’re struggling to come up with something – so they blame it on the customer as the tobacco companies did – but not very successfully. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/mar/23/in-court-big-oil-rejected-climate-denial “That argument didn’t work for the tobacco industry in the past, because they knew of the health risks associated with consuming their products, yet engaged in campaign to manufacture doubt to convince people to keep smoking. Ultimately, a federal judge found the tobacco industry guilty of fraud to further a conspiracy to deceive the American public about… Read more »

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Nov 2, 2018 10:04 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

“Perhaps you can offer a reason, Norman?”

Actually, I’d rather talk about how lacking an adequate understanding between solar activity and climate isn’t in anyway problematic for the assertion that only CO2 can be responsible for the climate change of today. Can you explain it to me?

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 10:10 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

I’ve already quoted it twice. This is what SS says. They are not presenting all the evidence right here for what they say obviously. But this is what they say. If you want to argue the case with them go ahead. I’m not saying on more on it.
Note: “recovery from the LIA is not a plausible theory” refers to renewed activity by the sun.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age.htm
“Taken in isolation, the LIA might cast doubt on the theory of climate change. Considered alongside the empirical evidence, model predictions and a century of scientific research into the climate, recovery from the LIA is not a plausible theory to explain the observed evidence and rate of global climate change.”

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Nov 3, 2018 2:49 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

Your quote explains nothing. And it is clear that the position you embrace is as I first claimed it was: “You want to emphasize as ‘fact’ that “the solar influence was an important player until mid-20th century, but has since not been.” However, the situation is rather as follows: what is not well understood, as Usoskin and many others aver, is how solar activity in its various “transient nonstationary (often eruptive) processes” — to borrow a phrase from Usoskin — impinges on climate. Climatologists don’t know, even if only in approximate terms, the real extent or mechanics of that influence. But if the influence of the sun on climate is poorly understood — and it is — and it is yet obviously significant for the evolution of climate — and it is — then how can the unknown approximate magnitude of this influence be presumed to be negligible in comparison… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 3, 2018 5:28 AM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

Norman, I’m afraid I reject your claim that I want to emphasize “fact” and what I wanted to emphasize was the agreement between the scientist MLS quoted and SS (though there is the difference that the scientist expressed uncertainty about what he thought whereas SS presented what they said more as fact – which is only reasonable because SS writers are more climate-as-a-whole-focused and are more knowledgeable about all the other factors that tend to indicate it is not solar activity causing warming while the solar scientist’s interest is narrower).

I just had a very depressing conversation with a friend who informed me of very clear indications of climate change that are evident right now and it seems completely ludicrous to keep on arguing the subject.

binra
binra
Nov 3, 2018 6:09 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

Assuming you are being entirely open in your communications here, I suggest that you are under the nocebo effect. A similar thing an happen to those being told by ‘authority’ that they have a life threatening disease – ie: cancer – and that “nothing can be done” (except a load of toxic and carcinogenic ‘treatments’ to buy some time). This is the result of giving power away as if the ‘experts’ are your protection rather than one of many information possibilities. Now others can tell you a story that completely undermines your Spirit – and you accept it! The first need in all such matters is not a scientific debate – but a self-honesty of spiritual intention, purpose and decision. All sorts of things deceive and destroy the lives of all sorts of people because they are already disposed to believe what they are told. In this case there are… Read more »

binra
binra
Nov 4, 2018 10:48 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

Because energy CONTROL was always what power was about and the key people in the oil companies are in with the ‘winners’ – as you believe yourself to be. Your case all along is that you just ‘knew’ CO2 AGW was true and hold it obvious and seek and find only what supports you which is to a large degree the so called debunking of any other view. You have your reward – that is – you are doing what you want because you wanted to. Now you have the test of whether it truly fulfils. I feel that we all have a desire to align in a greater sense of purpose and worth than the false thinking of the world gives us – and so can believe we find it in the denial and overcoming of the false. I have no difference with anyone as to the understanding of… Read more »

Mark Gobell
Mark Gobell
Nov 2, 2018 9:55 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

In reply to flaxgirl re: Chevron’s position on CC : Money. Money. Money. Chevron : Climate Change we proactively consider climate change in our business decisions https://www.chevron.com/corporate-responsibility/climate-change Chevron shares the concerns of governments and the public about climate change and believes that encouraging practical, cost-effective actions to address climate change risks while promoting economic growth is the right thing to do. At Chevron, we believe that managing climate change risks is an important element of our strategic focus to return superior value to stockholders. Although we cannot forecast exactly what will happen in the future, we believe Chevron’s governance, risk management and strategy processes are sufficient to mitigate the risks and capture opportunities associated with climate change. Throughout our long history, we have shown our resilience through our ability to adapt to changing conditions in the marketplace, and we will continue to adjust our business as needed to effectively and… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 10:43 PM
Reply to  Mark Gobell

Of course, the oil companies say all that bullshit

This doesn’t work for their court case. They’re defending themselves in court over what they have done in the past up till now – all the puffery about what they’re about now means nothing in the court case. They stand to lose millions, if not billions. They are in a corner and they’re using the same weak argument the tobacco companies used.

binra
binra
Nov 3, 2018 6:41 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

Would it not be more plausible for any powerful vested interest to employ every kind of ‘futurology’ so as to position for it and where possible shape it and where not to spread assets and liabilities so as to be in the dominant position when the flip is allowed to flop. there are always sacrifices but these are token to the management of perception of those who perceive in terms of past associations rather than present discernment and discriminations. But this ‘Climate’ business is far bigger than the wealth or influence of oiligarchs – being a kingpin for the reframing of corporate and national law under ‘energy’ debts (guilt). No less insidious is the framing of also apparently scientific medical ‘guidelines’ that become instituted in national a corporate law. Globalism is not being held back by the Trump card – but served by a perfect diversion. I see global governance… Read more »

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Nov 3, 2018 3:49 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

MLS writes:

“And SS is deliberately sloppy with the data. Sun activity is decreasing NOW, but it didn’t start decreasing in the 1950s. In fact recent ice core studies (see link below) on isotope proxies have shown the sun was at a 1200 year peak of activity in the late 20th C – which exactly coincides with the period of warming between c.1950 and 2000.

Since that time the warming has all but halted, and this coincides with the sun entering a new period of low activity.”

The following graph by Dr. Leif Svalgaard corroborates MLS’s assertions:
comment image

Source: HERE

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Nov 2, 2018 4:27 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

Depending on whose interpretation of the summary of experimental results you read, the CLOUD experiment at CERN would appear either to support or not support Svensmark’s hypothersis. Go figure. In the post to which you link, we read the following: “Surely reviewers competent to review the paper would be aware that the CLOUD project doesn’t support Svensmark’s hypothesis? But if one takes the time to visit the CERN website to have a look at the latest update related to CLOUD, the summary of results does indeed, at least in part, lend support to Svensmark’s hypothesis. To quote the relevant bit: “The results also show that ionisation of the atmosphere by cosmic rays accounts for nearly one-third of all particles formed, although small changes in cosmic rays over the solar cycle do not affect aerosols enough to influence today’s polluted climate significantly.” [My emphasis. Source: here] But I guess that the… Read more »

binra
binra
Nov 2, 2018 8:40 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

‘Skeptical’ originally or properly indicates an unwillingness to accept but by definition open to the possibility of being persuaded. Much skepticism these days is in fact cynicism covering over a blind or unquestioning gullibility. Cynicism is hate that seeks to prove or force its rightness by undermining any other view. And so sneer and smear and smugness accompany its appeals to ‘authority’ and its willingness to bully when it feels that power is at its back. While having no conscious sense of behaving in such a manner – for they are more than ‘right’ – they are empowered to deny in the Name of THE Moral Necessity of our Time. Would a blank cheque of signing into the whole raft of global regulations that are in place for ‘combating’ Climate Change under a false pretences be a crime similar to that rolled out immediately from 911? Unlike Norman – I… Read more »

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Oct 31, 2018 1:50 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

More to consider:

LadyDi
LadyDi
Nov 2, 2018 3:11 AM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

I can 100% guarantee flaxgirl did not watch this video.

binra
binra
Nov 2, 2018 12:04 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

The way we use words often sets thm in polarised or false meanings – by being set in associations of other word-meanings. So profit can become a dirty word. No one does anything or has any motivation to do anything but that in some way they believe it profits them to do so – as they define themselves in that moment or situation to be. The last part is the significant part to our understanding and acceptance of freedom. If we define ourselves in lack and fear of loss, we will think and act to avoid loss, to shore up or armour against risk and ally or invest ourself in forms of power and protection aginst threat. All of that is a movement in being that isolates and divides. I can call it the ego – but it is belief or set of beliefs about ourselves and therefore about others… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Oct 30, 2018 9:45 AM

So, to sum up: Judith Curry refers to a non-existent peer/consensus as a peer/consensus; defers to a non-existent peer/consensus as a peer/consensus; bows to a non-existent peer/consensus as a peer/consensus; raises the upper limit of her ECS estimates to a non-existent peer/consensus as a peer/consensus (twice); which brings her estimates well within the non-existent peer/consensus as a peer/consensus; which confirms the non-existent peer/consensus as a peer/consensus …but there is no peer/consensus: because (with little or no reference to empirical data) you say so? Got it. Though apparently, Ms Curry (who has reviewed quite a lot of empirical data and made her own models (with a retired financier)) disagrees with you. She seems to think the ‘no true scotsman’ scientific community DO have a peer/consensus. Which renders anything I may have said in a different context as irrelevant to this particular conversation. It also renders your own POV problematic. On what… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Oct 30, 2018 9:48 AM
Reply to  BigB

That was obviously a reply to Admin.

Antonym
Antonym
Oct 31, 2018 8:46 AM
Reply to  BigB

Data? Yes, only if they would have been archived properly with public access! But that didn’t happen in Climate science: https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/#comment-783918
There is a deliberate (and thus dishonest) game being played by a number of paleo climate scientists of hiding inconvenient data a) fully from public view, or b) to exclude then ex post if they do not show the desired trend. Too many climate science publications allow non disclosure of underlying raw data : Science and Nature don’t.

Antonym
Antonym
Oct 31, 2018 1:55 PM
Reply to  BigB

Try this about getting raw data out of climate scientists dead hands: http://www.passionforliberty.com/2013/08/19/climategate-coverup/

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Oct 31, 2018 9:33 PM
Reply to  BigB

Of course there’s a consensus, measured by volume anyhow. That’s never been a point of controversy. The controversy is about the manipulation of the figures claimed and of what the consensus is about. It’s the same problem yet again of a complex scientific issue being dumbed down and simplified into a quasi-lie. 97% of climate scientists do NOT think the sky is falling. A majority believe in some degree of CO2 forcing and therefore some degree of human influence on recent warming. There is no majority consensus on the question of CAGW (“catastrophic manmade climate change”). You and many lay people think of AGW and CAGW as synonyms. They’re not. A consensus about AGW is not a consensus over CAGW. The latter is a minority conviction only. But the most important thing to emphasise is that science is not about consensus. It’s not about opinions at all. It’s about the… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Nov 1, 2018 7:35 AM

I differentiated between AGW and CAGW days ago. No one is conflating them. I dismissed CAGW myself to focus on the peer/consensus for AGW …a consensus you confirm. That consensus has been under discussion for days as a good enough reason to mitigate – not just climate change, but – the root cause of climate change, (and a whole other raft of destructionism) …which is carbon capitalism. In whose defence, you offer a false conflation, and a manufactured green certitude …which I also parsed out of the argument days ago. The only certitude is the event, science is never ‘proven’, we have to act on the balance of probability, there is enough of a consensus (given that we cannot run the real experiment in the lab of the biosphere) to demand system change on the basis of AGW. Look at what you yourself admit to – a consensus for AGW… Read more »

Antonym
Antonym
Nov 1, 2018 7:56 AM
Reply to  BigB

You’ll get more people to agree that:
* dependence on fossil fuel kings like the Gulf ones, the Iranian ayatollahs or Russian or American leaders is not healthy.
* air pollution from diesel, ship bunk fuel etc. is immediately unhealthy, specially for kids and elderly.

* nuclear energy is at present the only non intermittent serious alternative as Germany is going to find out soon at high cost.

BigB
BigB
Nov 1, 2018 10:47 AM
Reply to  Antonym

Getting people to agree within a dualist linguistic framework, with binary logic, and a binary propaganda system creating eternal fissures and sectarianisms …is a separate topic: the epistemics of I am keen to discuss. But not today.

BigB
BigB
Oct 29, 2018 5:18 PM

Earlier today, one of the various people who can access the ‘Admin’ epithet posted this: “May we just intercede to say – well done to Antonym and flaxgirl for discussing some data rather than listing all the reasons the data doesn’t need to be discussed as others have tended to do.” Can I just intercede to say: what a patronising, dismissive and supercilious interjection this is. The data has been discussed, by people called scientists. At least two people have put forward a strong analytic case based on their empirical data. To whomsoever wrote this: just what do you think Mog and I are referring to: strawberry cheesecake? Where I quote Curry saying “I’ll even bow to peer/consensus pressure”: the peer/consensus designation refers to ALL DATA; ALL SCIENTISTS (or at least a significant cross-section that have been personally analysed by Curry). This concept is called meta-analysis, as you seem not… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 30, 2018 4:48 AM
Reply to  Editor

On what basis do you say the debate is not proven – in fact, I’d very much query the term debate – the existence of naysayers does not necessarily mean that a genuine debate exists. You say you’re not anti-AGW but why aren’t you PRO-AGW? Being merely non-anti in this crucial situation is effectively the same as being anti. It suggests you don’t think urgent action is required. What is your basis for saying that the debate is not proven? Is it merely because naysayers exist? What is your basis? Your slogan is “because facts really should be sacred” but I find that what are proven facts are simply not recognised by you as such. In fact, what you seem to promote in regard to a number of phenomena, not just climate change, is the notion that “we cannot be sure” and that it would be premature and wrong to… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 30, 2018 11:25 AM
Reply to  Editor

Yes, but do you yourself know of anything that you think casts doubt on it? Climate scientists say they are sufficiently sure of it that radical action must be taken so when they use the word “proven” they’re simply using the word in a very specific scientific way. Climate scientists certainly do not say, we really don’t know for sure, so don’t worry about, do they? They say most emphatically, act as if it is proven because we’re pretty sure and we’re getting surer not less sure. That is what they recommend. So to talk of it as not being “proven” is meaningless in a practical sense. But regardless of “proven” or not, the only people who are really in a position to question anything are bona fide climate scientists. None of us non-climate-scientists can offer anything that challenges the theory. Certainly nothing has been put forward here to challenge… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 30, 2018 9:35 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

So one is obliged to ask, “Where is the debate whose right you wish to defend?” Where is it? It certainly does not exist on this page and it does not exist in the courtroom where those being charged with being massively responsible for climate change are.

Where is the debate on climate change whose right you wish to defend? If it doesn’t exist then its right to exist surely cannot be defended.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 31, 2018 11:41 AM
Reply to  Editor

There is no debate where there are no valid points on one of the sides. No valid points have been put forward on this page on the non-pro-AGW side so I call that a non-debate. To back up my claim of non-debate (and BigB and others have substantiated their own claims of non-debate), the lawyer of one of the Big Oil defendants in the case of causing sea-level rise is not arguing in court against the climate science, despite a number of climate denialists putting forth their views to support the defendants, he’s arguing it’s the customer’s fault.

Naysayers does not mean debate. For a genuine debate there must be at least one valid point presented by one of the sides. We haven’t seen one so far. Have you got one?

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 31, 2018 9:10 PM
Reply to  Editor

You keep talking theoretically about the existence of a debate – your rationale being that people are putting forth opinions – but you cannot name a single point that supports the argument against AGW. There must be a single valid point on the other side and so far you have not nominated a point you think is. You have come up with one that isn’t though – sea ice level rise in Antarctica. When you name a single point that you believe supports (or even could support) the argument against AGW please name it. Until that time your insistence that a debate exists is not justified. Moriarty has just stated to me that PSJ’s mention of solar fluctuation theory is some kind of argument. Mention of a theory is meaningless. It needs to be stated how this theory contradicts the AGW theory. Also, how on earth would you explain Big… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 1, 2018 1:40 AM
Reply to  Editor

I think we just define scientific debate differently. For me to agree that a scientific debate exists I’d need to recognise a valid scientific point from the other side – if I felt that my knowledge was too limited on the matter I’d simply admit that I was not in a position to claim whether a debate existed or not. If you’re OK that you personally cannot nominate a valid point and you think that people simply offering opinions from the other side means that debate exists then OK. We simply define what constitutes debate on a scientific subject differently. However, I think a very compelling argument against the existence of debate is the fact that the Chevron lawyer in defending his client against the charge of climate change crime says: “From Chevron’s perspective, there is no debate about the science of climate change.” … and instead, Big Oil use… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 31, 2018 9:14 PM
Reply to  Editor

Just to check – do you believe an argument on a scientific subject can be considered a debate when there is no valid point produced from one of the sides?

If you think that a debate can occur on a scientific subject where no valid point is presented on the other side then OK there is a debate. I do not consider that kind of discussion a debate. If you do think that a single valid point must be produced can you please name that valid point for anti-AGW?

binra
binra
Nov 1, 2018 10:55 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

I don’t recognize your ‘debate’ because it isn’t one, only a ‘challenge’ to come out and be framed in criminal association, ridiculed and denied instead of a real exchange. So the claim of unprecedented crime – posits all else in the presumption of guilt for changes in climate – that are extraordinarily complex mixtures of adjusted and modelled and estimated data and diverts from ongoing and actual culpability and evaded and displaced responsibility for a wide range of actually toxic vectors of disease, death and biological/environmental degradation. This moral certainty or guilt-driven crusade works a deceitful agenda and uses all the tricks of the trade that are the signature of a predator manipulation of the frustrated and fearful. Fraudulent or doctored ‘science’ as self-interest under threat or inducement – as in aligning with jobs or funding and business or career opportunity is no different from any other institutional vector of… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 2, 2018 12:25 AM
Reply to  binra

I don’t know how it can be any clearer, Binra. Oil companies being charged with causing sea-level rise due to climate change accept the climate science and use a defence completely unrelated to any doubts about what is causing it.

Many companies are also taken to court for causing pollution, including, of course, oil companies – they always get off lightly though, don’t they? It’s not an either/or situation. Many people concerned about climate change actually focus on health and environmental impacts other than the climate because they know people respond to those areas more. Most people concerned with climate change are also concerned with other environmental problems. In fact, recently I have been more active against coal and coal seam gas than against inaction on climate change – not that I’ve been all that active in regard to anything.

binra
binra
Nov 5, 2018 11:29 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

Campaigning against inaction of ‘climate change’ ays it all. By giving your mind to false and destructive ideas, your mind is not your own – by your own election. But you can choose differently, when you no longer give your self into attempting to change others instead of being yourself. Charging oil companies with causing sea level rise is absurd. But if you can get others to join in such absurdity, you can establish new forms of ‘unprecedented crime’ that of course have all along been intended to justify and make it ‘duty’ to invoke and enact unprecedented forms of punishment. Once humans are de-humanised, it can be no crime at all to treat them as vermin and not only unworthy of love and life but a way to become ‘worthy’ by persecution and killing. If a true account was brought to the law and enacted proportionately then much that… Read more »

binra
binra
Nov 1, 2018 8:37 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

There is no communication between the false and the true, nor indeed can there be a real competition or battle – because illusions battle only with themselves while truth simply is itself. Bringing illusions to truth is their undoing, and bringing truth to illusion is a persistence in a the futility of giving reality to illusion as IF a means to then destroy or overcome it. However we remain capable of recognising and releasing the false within the willingness and acceptance of true. And unable to more than cover over, hide or deny the true – because we do not create ourselves. Denial was set in motion as a self-defence and that self can re-evaluate its need for such defence in the light of who you now accept yourself to be and what you now recognize as the ‘side effects’ collateral damage’ and overall destructive outcome of demonising the ‘other’… Read more »

binra
binra
Nov 1, 2018 12:41 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

I exercise my right to speak into any issued that I am moved to in the way I am moved acknowledging that all actions have consequences. Those who want to outlaw free speech and conform speech compliance to imposed dictate are at best misguided and unaware of its worthiness for protection – especially for those we disagree with. The incitement to a mob and state mandated hate and violence under the banner of a witch hunt for ‘denialists’ is an insidious attack on freedoms that need defending by exercising them, if tyranny is not to be passively accepted. One good reason for ACTING NOW – is that the whole case will collapse if this momentum isn’t forced through. As I said already the agenda is being imposed through corporate transnational organisations upon the national and corporate level and the only need for the population at large is to set up… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Oct 31, 2018 12:08 AM
Reply to  Editor

Admin: I was going to butt out … but then you posted this. I’ve got to ask: have we been talking at cross purposes for days? Do you actually understand the scientific Method? Nothing is ever proven: or even provable. Your post takes the debate full circle: its content was addressed in literally my first reply to Phillip. So, of course AGW is not proven. Nor will it ever be. Neither is general relativity, special relativity, or quantum field theory, or even gravity – science is falsifiable. That doesn’t mean it is not settled or highly verified. To manipulate the seeming uncertainty of science is a SCAM, which is the subject of this debate. The Unprecedented Crime, the Merchants of Doom, the SCAMs paper, and a deconstruction of Curry’s Rand presentation have all been presented as sources backing the thesis that strategic doubt is the corporatocracy’s main weapon to create… Read more »

PSJ
PSJ
Oct 31, 2018 12:46 AM
Reply to  BigB

Curry may not dispute the extent to which Co2 (0.04 percent in the atmosphere) forces climate but plenty of other scientists do. There are some very logical arguments for doubting the ability of something present in such small amounts to significantly affect the climate. They may not end up being correct (we don’t know as yet) but they do exist and are valid. It seems very odd to continue to claim ”there is no scientific debate” in the face of people endeavoring to debate you. There certainly is a scientific debate to be had and such debates happen in many places, just not here apparently, or at the BBC where contrary opinions are banned, or at the IPCC where they are also banned or highly discouraged, or in Nature, which will only rarely countenance papers from skeptical authors (counter to the very principle of scientific inquiry). Apparently the only way… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 31, 2018 2:03 AM
Reply to  PSJ

“Endeavouring”

Key word, “endeavouring”, PSJ. Endeavouring without any success.

Can you offer any explanation at all for the lawyer defending Chevron which has obviously paid a motza to propagandists to spread the “message of doubt” to say in a courtroom where the charge is climate change crime:

“From Chevron’s perspective, there is no debate about the science of climate change”.

Do you think this article provides evidence that Exxon’s own research confirmed they knew about man-made climate change but did not act on that knowledge? If not, please explain.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/two-face-exxon-misinformation-campaign-against-own-scientists.html

PSJ, you have provided nada, zilch, nothing, niente in regard to any actual fact that challenges the theory of climate change.

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Oct 31, 2018 2:16 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

PSJ just pointed you right to something that directly challenges the CO2 theory – the solar fluctuation theory. You are literally ignoring it, looking right past it, while at the same time shrieking in his virtual face that there’s “nada, zilch, nothing, niente”!

What’s going on here? Is something now redefined as nothing if it’s not what we want to see?

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 31, 2018 8:46 PM

Oh dear, Moriarty. The mention of a theory does not challenge the CO2 theory. Do you think that climate scientists are not aware of solar fluctuations and don’t study their influence? Pleeeaaasee.

Please whenever you think something mentioned may challenge the theory go to skepticalscience.com and see what they have to say and then come back here and let me know what you think the validity of the mentioned item is.

Climate myth – it’s the sun
https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 31, 2018 9:40 PM

And just to add.

The anti-AGWers and the climate scientists often actually agree on certain data, however, what the anti-AGWers do is ignore other very important data to make interpretations to suit them.

AGW and climate change, as mog has pointed out, is a coherent theory. There is no other coherent theory to explain the warming happening now. Not remotely. The more they study warming and climate change the more they understand what is affecting what and how it is affecting it and it all points to greenhouse gas emissions (as well as other things we do). The theory is becoming more and more coherent not less so.

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Oct 31, 2018 9:55 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

flaxgirl, your comments are based on a complete misunderstanding about 1) the state of the science and 2) the way science works.

There are currently competing theories of what the major climate forcers are. The two strongest are CO2 or other greenhouse gases and solar fluctuation.

They both fit the observed data very well. Both have their adherents and their critics.

Your man at Skeptical Science tells you only one of these theories makes sense, and even though you don’t believe anyone died on 9/11 and don’t believe anyone died in Sandy Hook you do believe him and his one little website as if it was channeling the voice of God.

For some reason you are sure he and he alone will never lie to you. Unfortunately he is. He’s lying. he is taking one set of theories, simplifying them and selling them as fact.

binra
binra
Nov 1, 2018 10:16 PM
Reply to  Editor

Asserting a belief isn’t lying as such but of course is an investment. One may deal in fake currency or false beliefs while under the wish or belief they are true. So the charge of liar often unwise. Suffering under deceit or self illusion is free of personal attack. However there is always some aspect of a wilfulness or deliberate turning a blind eye in any ongoing participation in giving false witness, false account or misrepresentation – perhaps because it suits us not to know what would trouble us, cost us our social acceptance, our career or simply our own self exposure in a sense of self-betrayal or disintegrity – bringing shame and depression if not directly addressed. A lot of people censor or block information that makes them feel powerless and sick without any sense of perspective or direction. I feel many use the corporate provision of unconsciousness as… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 1, 2018 12:30 AM

I am not a “believer” Moriarty. I hate being accused of being a believer. I accept things as true based on evidence and reason and I keep an open mind as much as possible. From almost the first moment I heard about man-made climate change I accepted it as quite probable simply because it made sense. If there are gases in trace amounts in the atmosphere keeping the earth from being a frozen ball then it only makes sense that massively increasing that amount will have effects. Of course, it’s not guaranteed because we have to look at other things affecting climate and there could be natural thermostatic effects which mitigate the increased warming … or whatever. But the notion that we will create warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere is very, very common sense. It’s just a question of the evidence supporting that common sense idea. And it… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Nov 1, 2018 11:16 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

MLS: this is where the ‘debate’ becomes political. Solar fluctuations as a driver: what can we do about that? Nothing …let’s burn Baby, burn. Believe it or not, there is a broader perspective of humanism and pragmatism. Carbon capitalism is killing life on Earth; there is an undecidable contention on AGW (there’s not, I’m just saying for the sake of it); AGW may be forced by solar fluctuation or manmade activity; or a combination; or by one to the exclusion of the other; OMG, it’s too hard …we can’t decide …science is in its infancy and may be uncertain either way …let’s do nothing and burn more carbon to see …close loop – carbon capitalism is killing life on Earth… This is the stupid, stupid, stupid logic of the anti-dialogue. The way to break the uncertainty is to act from an environmentally pragmatic intervention. Carbon capitalism is killing life AND… Read more »

binra
binra
Nov 2, 2018 9:41 PM
Reply to  BigB

Those who have no acceptance of their own powerlessness can only reinforce it by attempting to control more and more of whatever they have the power to interfere with… So we live in a realm of change – although there may be an inner dimensions for want of better words, that all change is but an expression and reflection of (Universe as Idea). In which case we are identifying in our ‘avatars’ or personality construct. Which is part of our human experience but not the whole. In the always changing we have to stay present, adapt and grow – but in the false security of a static identity – insulated by technology and medication, we sleepwalk into becoming risk averse and hysterically over reactive at any sense of threat – while the owner of the chicken coop – a certain Mr F. Loxy, manipulates such docility and compliance, to appeal… Read more »

binra
binra
Nov 1, 2018 2:39 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

A theory is and always shall be theoretical. Science worthy of the name seeks to disprove its OWN theories. And INVITES a process of self-testing and opening to challenge. Asserted facts are believed theories given, (by some), a status of fact. Of course you can give your reality to anything and have what it gives you in return. But if you are compelled to sacrifice your reality in worship of a theory as fact, then you are consenting to give truth to that which denies your OWN. Why feed the blind troll? or “what does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his Soul?” Is it not because doing so brings you something that you believe worthy or meaningful at some level of your mind? Including perhaps the perfect excuse for placing responsibility for your experience ‘outside’ on others, on a past and on a projected future… Read more »

antonym
antonym
Oct 31, 2018 3:44 AM
Reply to  PSJ

Patrick Moore -co founder of Greenpeace published on ocean “acidification by CO2” and calls it a complete fabrication, as CO2 was 10+ higher in past millennia and life thrived.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 31, 2018 7:18 AM
Reply to  antonym

Antonym, In the Ordovician there was vastly more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is now. This does not mean that high levels NOW are OK because in the Ordovician there was sun dimming. Can you please take onboard the simple fact that while there may have been this or that condition in the past that may in some way resemble what’s going on now, that does not a priori mean it’s OK now. Many factors need to be considered.

Skeptical Science has a response to Patrick Moore’s “Gish Gallop”, of course! Don’t have time to read it now but I will.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/moore-2012.html

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Oct 31, 2018 2:01 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

The claims the sun was dimmer during the ordovician are theory, flaxgirl, not fact. To save you time, all the claims made about past climate and a lot of the claims about current climate are theory, and the science acknowledges this. We have to guess or theorise because we don’t know enough. Our window of empirical observation goes back a maximum of 150 years, which is nothing in geological time. The equivalent of presenting a theory of weather based on the last two seconds of looking out your window. Everything else is climate reconstruction based on ice cores and tree rings. This is not an exact science and there will of necessity be vast differences of interpretation. Wen you read Skeptical Science try to remember this. He’s presenting one set of theories. He’s not presenting proven fact, he’s not even presenting data, he’s presenting a theory of interpretation of the… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Oct 31, 2018 6:47 PM

I’ll agree on one point, MLS – it’s all political now. But that is what Curry stands accused of by me: sowing the politics of doubt and the praxis of inaction with a mythology of swans and fire breathing dragons …dumbed down to confuse the layman and impress the environmentally friendly Rand Corporation. When you look at what she says: she is not far from the peer/consensus (her term) So perhaps you have been played by mythology too? I wrote a comment about ‘proven’: and leveraged uncertainty like Curry practices. The balance of probability is that the consequences of inaction are unconscionable. I also wrote about the Method – perhaps you can critique that? Suffice to say, your “literally dozens” of scientists have access to peer reviewed literature to make a case. If you want to argue the Method is flawed and politicised itself… well, we’ll just have wait and… Read more »

binra
binra
Nov 1, 2018 8:51 PM
Reply to  BigB

Whats’ with the shift to carbon?

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 31, 2018 8:58 PM

You’re just talking through your hat.

It’s a shame that people divide into groups. Those who believe everything told them and those who believe nothing. The percentage of people who use clear reason, logic and evidence to make their judgements seems unfortunately very small to me.

As BigB makes very clear Judith Curry accepts the climate science, she just pretends she doesn’t – sort of.

Can you explain why Big Oil’s legal team in defending their case against causing sea-level rise say:

“From Chevron’s perspective, there is no debate about the science of climate change”

They could use the arguments presented by their climate denialist friends, Monckton and co but they don’t. Can you explain why they would do that?

If you can come up with an explanation why they would do that if the science isn’t settled on AGW I’ll be very, very impressed.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 31, 2018 9:18 AM
Reply to  PSJ

Have you read any of the studies that look at some of the longstanding other potential climate forcers?

Everyone knows about other climate forcers, of course! It is precisely the history of other climate forcers that show us that it is greenhouse gases that are the primary forcers now. The past climate would make absolutely no sense if it weren’t for other climate forcers.

Please provide a single piece of evidence that you think challenges the AGW theory.

binra
binra
Nov 1, 2018 8:16 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

Evidence undermining the asserted case? 1. The expression of the state of mind of those who coercively assert it! Global energy control from global down to granular level? Thanks – but no thanks. I feel a better and truer way than coercive manipulation and enforcement. And I invoke the Spirit of being truly moved as a unifying expression from within – rather than sacrifice or subvert such movement to a private agenda masking as group or global consensus. For a dead letter scientist, there is no ‘within’. The the ‘death of God’ is the death of self. But the management and control of the belief in self-existing data-objects operates as an artificial intelligence of programs laid down to run as the structure through which to open into such experience as ‘otherness’ through which to unfold the quality of re-cognition in form to the recognition of the formless. Even as in… Read more »

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Oct 31, 2018 2:09 PM
Reply to  PSJ

Judith is a lukewarmer. She accepts the reality of CO2 as a major forcer of climate. There are literally dozens, maybe hundreds, of other climate scientists who do not accept this to varying degrees. They are turned into non-people by the Orwellian method of claiming the only opinions that count are the ones that agree with X and then claiming unanimity based on the exclusion of dissent.

BigB
BigB
Oct 31, 2018 4:29 PM

Keep up, MLS: Judith changed her position (unwittingly, but you can check my interpolation). Perhaps you can tell me what her new (interpolated) ECS range of 1.66 – 4.5 C does to her conditional probabilities? Because it seems to weaken her Lewis/Curry outlying ‘climate realism’ low of 1.66 C. Her mid-range is now much higher. I don’t know, but 3 C seems a bit more than lukewarm to me?

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Oct 31, 2018 8:06 PM
Reply to  BigB

How does any of that change the only important thing I said about Judy? She’s a lukewarmer, and she still is even with her revised or whatever guesstimates.

The actual point of what I was saying is, if you care to look, that there are many scientists who don’t accept the reality of CO2 s a major forcer.

I notice I am not the first to say this to you, and yet you never acknowledge it. You just talk about Judy some more. Not sure if this time will be any different, but we can always try.

Will you at least acknowledge there are scientists out there who question manmade global warming and are not convince CO2 is a major forcer? Or are you going to keep ignoring every single point made by the “other side” so that flaxgirl can claim there’s “no debate”?

BigB
BigB
Nov 1, 2018 9:25 AM

How does this change anything about ‘Judy’ …it changes a lot actually. One, she’s not a ‘lukewarmer’ if she accepts the peer/consensus …with an upper ECS limit of 4.5 C. And she did it arbitrarily. She took her own Lewis /Curry estimates, admitted they were low, and added a few degrees. Then presented it with dragons and swans. That’s not science: that’s the politics of doubt epitomised. Which is what I have been saying since last weekend. I also point out that her estimates form the ‘climate realism’ perspective. If you can arbitrarily manipulate the parameters: and present a mythology – how can you take anything she says as ‘science’. The whole politics of capitalist doubt and intransigence falls apart when you pick at it …revealing an anti-life amorality of stasis. A dozen ‘ignored’ scientists versus the fate of life and humanity? How would you weight the subjective Bayesian Calculus… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Nov 1, 2018 10:56 AM

I meant to add that the guesstimate was Curry’s not mine.

writerroddis
writerroddis
Oct 31, 2018 8:44 AM
Reply to  BigB

This is sound epistemology, BigB. Admirably put. To which we can add that if there is significant and credible doubt – and FWIW I dont think there is – we should err hugely on the side of assuming AGW is real when (a) the consequences of getting it wrong are unthinkable and (b) steps to pull back from the brink of climate breakdown also make urgent sense on other fronts.

Btw, I’d like to have played a more active role here but am caught moving house and fighting Sheffield Hallam university at employment tribunal. Its kind of demanding! I do hope – am confident in fact – you, mog and flaxgirl on the one hand, catte and the team on the other, can find a way through this without lasting rancoor. You’re all needed!!!

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 31, 2018 9:19 AM
Reply to  writerroddis

Good luck with your fight and your house move, Philip.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 1, 2018 10:00 AM
Reply to  Editor

You are a champion strawmanner, I’ll give you that, Admin.

Where in any of our argument do we suggest censorship? I just say that for you to claim that scientific debate exists you need to identify a valid point from the other side. If you cannot do that you have no claim to say a scientific debate exists because mere opinion, cherry-picked data and false claims do not count as valid points. But as I said, you define scientific debate differently from me. You think debate exists where people say whatever on each side – that’s scientific debate for you. OK.

binra
binra
Nov 1, 2018 3:38 PM
Reply to  writerroddis

Do you suggest then that any range of plausibly fearful scenarios that – it they should occur – are so dire as to demand believing them and preempting them by reacting as if they are already true? AND that the only way to react is the way the frame of the scenario dictates? This is quite apart from the intent that preys on such fears as the taking of power, by a false promise of power that induces its believers to self-disempowerment. Was the 911 ‘conversion’ another way of tuning in to where the blocked charge of emotionally energy is – in order to capitalise and use it to reach an otherwise hidden target? Why would scientific institutions be any less manipulatable than all of the institutions that had to be coordinated for the ‘911 switch’ into an open lie – forcibly protected? The precautionary principle applies to the intervention… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Oct 31, 2018 8:47 AM
Reply to  BigB

I’ll tell you why, PSJ. Curry is a glorified blogger using a mythology of swans and fire breathing dragons to decide the fate of humanity. Shall I write that again, or does that prospect alone not scare the equivocation out of you? Read what she says: and she has conceded to the peer/consensus …she just doesn’t want any action. She says we don’t know about the climate: but she can tell you the fraction of a degree and the cost benefit ratio of mitigation when it pleases …it’s called selective bullshit. Scientific inquiry is never settled in the way Admin was requiring. We don’t know the why of gravity, and Einstein is still being tested. Any credible work will feed in through the scientific peer review to either verify or falsify hypotheses …the theoretical model will be updated and tested accordingly. And then it will be tested and updated, and… Read more »

PSJ
PSJ
Nov 1, 2018 2:51 PM
Reply to  BigB

I think you skipped most of my post and only read the last paragraph there. My question was why do we regard the solar fluctuation theory of climate forcing as less robust than the Co2 theory? Nothing whatsoever to do with Ms Curry! Maybe the debate has moved on but I would still be interested in an answer to that

binra
binra
Nov 1, 2018 12:48 PM
Reply to  BigB

This is obviously not the case in mathematically programmed models – with other ‘laws’ or constants serving as parameters for the result. The technocratic ideal quantifies everything to serve the model, but this ideal is a human intent or desire for definition, prediction and control. The ground from which such a focus arises is a fearful and conflicted sense of self-chaos. The archetype of Order OVER Chaos is beneath our top-down control psyche/society. Not recognizing that the very act of such a ‘control’ generates and replicates is core belief and thus a self reinforcing self perpetuating negative experience upon which an apparently positive posits itself. Where you choose to posit or accept yourself is your freedom but; “Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil but as a necessity, or even a duty” ~ (Simone Weil). The giving up of a free awareness for a ‘sacred… Read more »

Antonym
Antonym
Oct 30, 2018 7:20 AM
Reply to  Editor

Preaching to the deaf….
The majority of scientists .. are right. The majority of citizens who voted for Hitler, Bush, Clinton, Trump are right. right? Con -census yes.

Peer-review, the process that UAE Climategate prof. James wanted to bend as he wrote in one of those hacked e-mails.

Antonym
Antonym
Oct 30, 2018 12:45 PM
Reply to  Antonym

Jones, not James

Antonym
Antonym
Oct 31, 2018 1:39 PM
Reply to  Antonym

Here are a selection of quotes from the emails stolen from computers at the University of East Anglia. Many involve Phil Jones, head of the university’s Climatic Research Unit. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/6636563/University-of-East-Anglia-emails-the-most-contentious-quotes.html From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999 “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” Critics cite this as evidence that data was manipulated to mask the fact that global temperatures are falling. Prof Jones claims the meaning of “trick” has been misinterpreted From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004 “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” The IPCC is… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Nov 1, 2018 10:24 AM
Reply to  Antonym
PSJ
PSJ
Nov 1, 2018 2:55 PM