Bishop Hill Climate cuttings 45
Dec 15, 2010 Climate: Cuttings Blogging will remain light for the time being, as I try to get on top of the day job and the house ahead of Christmas. In the meantime, here are a few bits and pieces I've noticed recently.
A German meteorologist wonders if we are about to enter another little ice age.
Eric Steig makes some interesting observations about the reliability of the Guardian in the comments at RealClimate:
The Guardian is not exactly a reliable outlet in my experience.
I'm with him on that one.
The Wikileaks cables revealed that the office of Todd Stern, the lawyer who headed the US's negotiating team at Copenhagen, was targeted by a phishing attack. Peter Sinclair portrays these events as "climate scientists subject to cyber attack. (My emphasis)
The AGU appointed green activist Chris Mooney to its board. Even many enthusiasts for the AGW cause were horrified by this politicisation of a scientific body - see the comments in this thread at Bad Astronomy.
A new climate change toolkit for parliamentarians has this startling news:
Climate change can, in many instances, accentuate existing gender inequalities.
This would seem to confirm the widely held belief that we are run by a gang of halfwits.
Cancun ended on a whimper, which one commenter described as a best-case outcome for sceptics. Apparently video of bureaucrats partying at the Mexican beachside was a bit of a faux pas. In the aftermath of the meeting, the House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee will take evidence from DECC's team at the negotiations. If anyone can bear listening to two groups of environmentalists agreeing with each other for several hours, the meeting will be webcast here.
Looking for work? The Science Media Centre are recruiting. Who could turn down the opportunity to work with Bob Ward and Fiona Fox?
Reader Comments (86)
Quote mining par excellence I see there Andrew.
Here's that paragraph in full, which shows that the sentence Andrew has picked out makes perfect sense in context.
"Within the context of developing countries, women and girls tend to be affected by the impact of climate change more so than men for a number of reasons. Women generally have lower incomes, and less access to technology and information than men. They have fewer land rights, and less access to education and health care. Their limited mobility, whether due to economic or socio-cultural factors, means they may be unable to escape from natural disasters, and the social roles ascribed to them mean they may need to take on additional responsibilities to deal with the effects of climate change, for example spending longer collecting water when a local well dries up, or caring for sick relatives if the spread of water-borne diseases increases. This not only affects their quality of life, but also impacts on their ability to partake in other
activities such as education and paid work. Climate change can, in many instances, accentuate existing gender inequalities."
Which is quite a sensible point. Your ridiculing it, certainly does not speak well of you.
This would seem to confirm the widely held belief that we are run by a gang of halfwits.
On the other side of the pond our halfwits are literally crying like babies over the departure of other halfwits that lost in the November election shake-up. I am starting to lose all hope for an effective government run by conscientious and competent adults. Science used to be a refuge for some of us, but now that discipline has been poisoned as well. Where to now?
Sorry everyone for feeding the trollette, but there are far more pressing issues of gender inequalities in developing, or in many cases, non-developing countries, than hypothetical droughts and allegedly climate-change-driven natural catastrophes for which no credible evidence has ever been produced.
Not sure if you are aware, ZDB, but Muir-Wood pulled his bit about AGW increasing natural catastrophes out of the IPCC materials, as it had been misrepresented, and I quote him:
Muir-Wood said: "The idea that catastrophes are rising in cost because of climate change is completely misleading. We could not tell if it was just an association or cause and effect. We did this in 2004 and 2005, which was when there were some major hurricanes. If you took those years away then the significance vanished."
So if we substitute misogynistic fundamental religions for climate change in your quote, we get something sensible. If you care about oppression of women, you should join the Bish in attacking people who use climate change as a diversion to avoid engaging with the real social and environmental issues.
If you care about neglected diseases, here is a charity you can send your spare pocket money to:
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/schisto
David S
Your post has got nothing whatsoever to do with Andrew Montford's grossly misrepresentative quote-mining.
[The point of the section was that climate change affects genders disproportionately. The quote summed up the section precisely. You are trolling. Desist. No more warnings.]
"run by a gang of halfwits."
Based on available observations, I would opine that upon average, the current bunch infesting Parliament haven't enough wit even for that.
"The Guardian is not exactly a reliable outlet in my experience."
The meaning of the word "reliable" is completely different for a Realclimateer.
ZDB Short version: Oh yes it has. (It's panto season, after all.)
Long version: In case you were never taught to read, the quote he "mined" is the last and concluding sentence of the paragraph, and the one that tips it over from being merely contentious into being nonsense. Do you not understand that, if there is no material AGW (as opposed to natural cyclical climate change) then there are obviously no consequences?
Hey... tights is back.
"some climate models have criminally under-estimated solar influence"
A job for the Norfolk police?
David S
"A new climate change toolkit for parliamentarians has this startling news:
Climate change can, in many instances, accentuate existing gender inequalities.
This would seem to confirm the widely held belief that we are run by a gang of halfwits."
Andrew is clearly using the quote to suggest that anyone jumping from climate change to gender inequality is a halfwit. Presumably with a smidgen of aren't-all-lefties-naive-and-obsessed-with-minority-issues thrown in as well. In this instance, it's not about the climate science. It's you who doesn't seem to have a sufficiently good grasp of context to understand that.
The disingenuity on Andrew's part, is that reading that paragraph in full, clearly explains how the effects of climate change can increase gender inequality. Following the internal logic of the paragraph, this is entirely distinct from any quibbles you may have with climate science. If you can't follow that, then you have limited capacity for logical abstraction.
David S: Yes, you should be sorry. You should have sent her to Judith Curry's post on CO2 no-feedback sensitivity: Part II and got her to discuss Tomas Milanovic's writings. That might have kept her quiet for a while.
http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/14/co2-no-feedback-sensitivity-part-ii/#comments
David S
PS She is a true believer (as in religious belief), so accepts that climate change is always bad. She clearly has no scientific training.
"The Science Media Centre are recruiting"
Hey, Zed..!
ZDB do you get daily email updates from Campaign Against Climate Change?
"ZDB do you get daily email updates from Campaign Against Climate Change?"
Dec 15, 2010 at 3:54 PM | Mac
No. This is entirely a solo hobby for me.
Perhaps this is a daft question, but I've been puzzled for some time by one issue that I'd love someone to explain.
The standard "greenhouse effect" is described in the "climate change toolkit" in the usual terms, explaining that without it, the earth would be 30C cooler than at present. This I understand is derived form the black-body temperature calculations that estimate the Earth would be approx -18C on average given the amount of incoming solar radiation. And this is confirmed approximately from satellite measurements that shows that this is the apparent temperature of the Earth from a distance.
Now for this bit I don't get. The upper atmosphere is the part exposed to space, and so is the part showing this average -18C temperature. But using adiabatic lapse rate calculations you find the surface should be approx 30C higher, simply from gas pressure and nothing else.
So how would it be possible to have an upper atmosphere temperature and a surface temperature at about the same value, despite the pressure difference, if for example we have a pure nitrogen atmosphere and no greenhouse effect?
Phil Platt is an immense disappointment to me.
I can not understand how he went so weird.
"PS She is a true believer (as in religious belief), so accepts that climate change is always bad. She clearly has no scientific training."
Dec 15, 2010 at 3:48 PM | Phillip Bratby
A few points here Philip:
- what makes you assume I'm a woman? I'm careful not to give out any personal information at all, including my sex.
- my confidence in AGW being the correct theory, comes from 97% of climate scientists concluding that it is. No matter how much people here cough, splutter, and doth protest too much when presented with that figure. There's never a decent paper suggesting otherwise. It has nothing to do with blind faith.
- you know nothing about my scientific background. I remember you on the Daily Mail explaining how your saviour was some solicitor who claimed false credentials.
- talking of belief, another poster on here suggested that you think the moon landings were faked and 9/11 was an inside job. Is that correct?
First: It is very instructive to learn from tights that any kind of 'context' can be provided at all to a statement like "Climate change can, in many instances, accentuate existing gender inequalities." (yech) and that it is the most heinous of crimes to have robbed such a statement of its precious context.
(Let we forget this in all the brouhaha - the primary purpose of the climate change debate is to drive away sane people and/or reduce their desire for life itself, by such statements.)
Second, the article appears to suggest that if you generally provide for a higher income,make way for more access to technology and information provide for land rights, and access to education and health care and increase mobility, you could lessen the 'impacts of climate change'.
Pardon me, but aren't these the very things, done by men and women, that cause climate change?
One can only guess that the rules for people, and the rules for people of a different gender, are different.
This is what happens when bad policies are implemented by corrupt and inept politicians:
Death of 27 asylum seekers highlights Australia’s immigration problems
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/8203842/Death-of-27-asylum-seekers-highlights-Australias-immigration-problems.html
And the world still wants to believe in this the global warming crap?
Don't feed the troll (broken advice)
1 Aren't you a female?
2 If you believe in some hypothetical consensus based on a flawed questionaire, then you have answered the first part of point 3 and have no scientific background.
3 Your memory is playing up - definitely not me.
4 Definitely not me. I stayed up all night and watched the first moon landing and have never questioned its authenticity. I have never for a moment considered 9/11 to be an inside job. I think you must be on something that gives you a vivid imagination or a false memory.
Hello, Zeds
I don't know about dasBed, but I've just joined the email alert from CCC and its brilliant, it alerts me to read a lot of interesting things. Bishop features prominently there, btw
So how would it be possible to have an upper atmosphere temperature and a surface temperature at about the same value, despite the pressure difference, if for example we have a pure nitrogen atmosphere and no greenhouse effect?
It would not be possible. The greenhouse effect simply raises the temperaure of the surface by increasing the height at which the average infrared radiant surface resides. See Nullius in Verba's post on Physics of the atmospheric greenhouse(?) effect at Judith Curry's blog:
http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/#more-1319
"my confidence in AGW being the correct theory, comes from 97% of climate scientists concluding that it is."
"It has nothing to do with blind faith."
"you know nothing about my scientific background."
too funny, are you here all week?
As far as climate change accentuating existing gender inequalities, one may as well argue that as women are the biggest victims during the recession (with female unemployment hitting its highest level for more than two decades) channelling any funds from UK to third world (or to areas most affected by warming) will quite possibly accentuate gender inequalities in this country.
Meaningless drivel.
Dec 15, 2010 at 4:17 PM | Phillip Bratby wrote
Don't feed the troll (broken advice)
I know it's easy to label me a troll because I challenge opinions here, but am I not the living embodiment of scepticism and freedom of speech to which many of you here subscribe? It's just being used against you, rather than for you, for once.
1 Aren't you a female?
I give away no personal information at all when challenging men in tights. It only takes a tiny slip to give away enough for someone to track me down, especially as everyone already knows the relatively small place I live in. I have no desire at all to find myself the recipient of endless unwanted taxis/pizzas/skips or worse. There are some very weird people out there. Quite a few contributors here give the impression of frothing at the mouth. I don't want that undirect rage focused on me in the real world.
2 If you believe in some hypothetical consensus based on a flawed questionaire, then you have answered the first part of point 3 and have no scientific background.
like I say, the men in tights doth protest too much. The body of work supporting AGW is vast. The body of work refuting it is miniscule. Two different papers come up with the same number, 97% of climate scientists say AGW is the correct theory. It's a good shorthand for how (correctly) one-sided the science is. If you could come up with a good paper which refuted the 97% number, then you'd have better grounds to criticise it. Quelle surprise, there isn't one.
3 Your memory is playing up - definitely not me.
Apologies, I really thought it was. Makes a little more sense. Your head is clearly screwed on backwards, but is at least screwed on. Must have got you mixed up with someone else.
4 Definitely not me. I stayed up all night and watched the first moon landing and have never questioned its authenticity. I have never for a moment considered 9/11 to be an inside job. I think you must be on something that gives you a vivid imagination or a false memory.
good news. This was something suggested by another poster here about you, and I wanted to check its veracity. It seemed a little more plausible after my mistake over point 3, and because those who believe on one conspiracy theory (and let's not mess around here, you certainly do) are more likely to believe in others. Again, apologies if this seemed like a slur, it was a question.
"My confidence in AGW being the correct theory, comes from 97% of climate scientists concluding that it is." Naughty-naughty, someone has been cherry-picking the scientists.
The truth about that '97% of scientists' claim.
Redbone, thanks, I think I get it now.
What's the date on that 97% paper Zed?
"Shredding the “climate consensus” myth: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore
".......represents an average of nearly four skeptical scientists a week speaking out publicly"
How many scientists were in that 97% study, and what was the date of it? losing 4 per week must show a declining percentage no? Are you hiding this decline?
Will you be adjusting your confidence level accordingly?
zbd: Can you tell us what is your definition of a climate scientist?
Your problem zbd is that you believe in a consensus, whereas I look at the science, the hypothesis and the evidence. Based on those factors, I come to a different conclusion from that given by your consensus. Your consensus is that of so-called "climate scientists", whose careers and livelihoods depend on them sticking together, regardless of the scientific evidence, and believing in a false hypothesis.
"Climate change can, in many instances, accentuate existing gender inequalities."
This is true.
"This would seem to confirm the widely held belief that we are run by a gang of halfwits."
This is also true because the halfwits believe that throwing money at climate change will prevent the Taliban (say) from mistreating females more than they already do at some point in the future.
If anyone was half ways interested in reducing gender inequalities in the developing world they would actively promote any development instead of retarding it by imposing emission restrictions or taking funding away from industries that promote development like the cheap production of electricity.
ZDB
what makes you assume I'm a woman? I'm careful not to give out any personal information at all, including my sex.
Given your excellent imitation of a classic "Dumb Blond", we were perhaps misled.
- you know nothing about my scientific background.
Given your excellent imitation of a classic "Dumb Blond", we were perhaps misled.
Let me guess, you are really Brian Cox?
97% of how many, was that again, Z?
And if you do claim to have any scientific knowledge or even understand the English language, you will know that science is not done on the basis of how many self-selected responders to a question answer in the affirmative. As Einstein (you remember him, little guy who turned science on its head) said, it only needs one person to prove a hypothesis wrong no matter how many say it's right.
So whether AGW is right or wrong you are 100% wrong (or maybe only 97%) for believing it just because a number of scientists say it's right. If you've nothing better to do than troll around here and nit-pick why not do a bit of research and come back here and tell us why we are wrong and you are right.
I'll not hold my breath.
zbd can see consensus scientists in action, supressing conflicting science, at http://climateaudit.org/2010/12/15/mckitrick-and-nierenberg-2010-rebuts-another-team-article/#more-12612
If she still believes in the consensus, then she is an [self snip].
There is a god! No, really, there is! And I proved it in exactly the same way as AGW is proven, to ZDB.
First, I assembled a two point questionnaire about the existence of god:
1) Does God exist?
2) Really, truly, honestly?
I distributed this survey questionnaire to all the Catholic priests, Methodist ministers, Anglican vicars, Cardinals, arch-bishops, bishops, The Pope, Prince Charles ("defender of faith") etc, and asked for the recipients to respond promptly.
Of the replies that I received, 100% of all respondents answered Yes to the first question, and 92% answered Yes to the second question.
So there is a clear consensus, among those involved directly in religion and religious affairs, that there is indeed a god and that this is proven beyond doubt.
Following the Schneider et al example in the PNAS, I then widened the survey to include non-clergy, church attendees and non-attendees. The results were interesting.
To the first question, a significant number of those who responded in the affirmative to the question "Does God Exist?" were highly educated in Theology, many with doctorates and many having spoken extensively on the subject (sermons) and having been published (church pamphlets, instructional books on worship etc). Many others were highly educated in religious matters through bible study, church meetings and worship, many of whom had studied the subject since childhood. This contrasted sharply with those who responded "No", who were either lacking in degrees or doctorates, or having degrees or doctorates in subjects which were irrelevant to the subject.
So you can see that it is proven by consensus, beyond all reasonable doubt, that God exists. And so does CAGW.
I rest Zed's case.
@Zed
Since Andrew gives links to all of the 'quote mining' above, I have no problem with it. I can make up my own mind once I have read what is being presented to me. It's not like people simply read what Andrew says as the final word. You seem to be making a non-point. If there were no links, I would be concerned, but this is not the case.
Or at least, that is the way I see it, so I apologise if I get the wrong end of the stick with regards to what you are saying.
Sam the skeptic: "So whether AGW is right or wrong you are 100% wrong (or maybe only 97%) for believing it just because a number of scientists say it's right."
People should not have blind bellef just on the say-so of scientists. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to accept the views of the expert given that the expert will usually, all else being equal, know more about a subject than the non-expert.
We are often dependent on the word of experts in any number of areas of life. Most people do not have the time or expertise to delve deeply into areas outside of their expertise.
So I think the 100 per cent claim is incorrect. It implies that our scientific knowledge is always binary -- we either know or do not know. I don't think this is how understanding works.
Rather, knowledge is a continuum, from lesser understanding to greater, and experts are indispensible to this understanding.
Simon, I have examined the comments of suitably qualified posters at this blog and 97% have stated that zbd is female. So you can see that it is proven by consensus, beyond all reasonable doubt, that zbd is a female.
Mark Twain on 'Consensus'.
...[I]n the drift of years I by and by found that a Consensus examines a new thing by its feelings rather oftener than with its mind. You know, yourself, that this is so.…
Do you know of a case where a Consensus won a game? You can go back as far as you want to and you will find history furnishing you this (until now) unwritten maxim for your guidance and profit: Whatever new thing a Consensus coppers (colloquial for "bets against"), bet your money on that very card and do not be afraid.
There was that primitive steam engine -- ages back, in Greek times: a Consensus made fun of it. There was the Marquis of Worcester's steam engine, 250 years ago: a Consensus made fun of it. There was Fulton's steamboat of a century ago: a French Consensus, including the Great Napolean, made fun of it. There was Priestly, with his oxygen: a Consensus scoffed at him, mobbed him, burned him out, banished him. While a Consensus was proving, by statistics and things, that a steamship could not cross the Atlantic, a steamship did it. A Consensus consisting of all the medical experts in Great Britain made fun of Jenner and inoculation. A Consensus consisting of all the medical experts in France made fun of the stethoscope. A Consensus of all the medical experts in Germany made fun of that young doctor (his name? forgotten by all but doctors, now, revered by doctors alone) who discovered and abolished the cause of that awful disease, puerperal fever; made fun of him, reviled him, hunted him, persecuted him, broke his heart, killed him. Electric telegraph, Atlantic cable, telephone, all "toys," of no practical value -- verdict of the Consensuses. Geology, paleontology, evolution -- all brushed into space by a Consensus of theological experts, comprising all the preachers in Christendom, assisted by the Duke of Argyle and (at first) the other scientists.
Science Media Centre can't be serious about the miserly salary the're offering for that post, and that includes an out of hours fee. It'll go to an environmental 'science' recent graduate with little chance of a real job.
Changing the subject a bit:
"The Wikileaks cables revealed that the office of Todd Stern, the lawyer who headed the US's negotiating team at Copenhagen, was targeted by a phishing attack"
I find this very interesting. I've commented before (on here and elsewhere) that if the Climategate emails were purloined rather than leaked, social engineering - that is, 'phishing' - was an overwhelmingly likely vector.
Step one. ZeBerDee posts a worthless comment.
Step two. Thread completely disrupted.
Score :
ZeBerDee 1.
Montford 0.
Don't feed the troll.
Philip, are you deliberately getting Zeds acronym wrong 'zbd' & if so, would I be out of order in inferring that you are, in a roundabout way, perhaps suggesting that she has a coil fitted ?
I love it when tights comes over to play, but have you noticed how she only shows up when Bish announces that he will be away for a while ? It's one of those situations where you never see them both in the same place at the same time. So I reckon Zeds Dead Bed, Tights, ZDB, zbd, Bish, His Grace & Montford are all one and the same. It's just a cunning plan to liven up the blog when he gets bored.
Steveta UK - You really shouldn't worry about it. The science of climate change is too abstruse for most people to understand.
All scientists who understand the subject all agree that it is real, and that the effects are happening now - can't you just trust them?
Basically, all of us here want to just do what we can to help save the earth from manmade catastrophe (and yes, I do mean manmade, as mentioned in the gender inequality mentioned above - qed), and the important thing is not be deterred by unimportnat details.
At the end of the day, just put your faith in the science and join us on the long march into a green future -):
David C (and others suggesting we should ignore the troll). You are probably quite right, but bare in mind that there can be a spin off benefit: Newcomers to the site will first of all be looking at the most recent posts, it is therefore an ideal (though tedious) opportunity to answer or correct the points it/he/she/they raise. When newcomers see the clear and helpful advice offered to someone even as annoying as ZDB then they are more likely to read on and learn, than to just dismiss this site as another slanging match.
So maybe (just asking) we (by which I actually mean you clever and knowledgeable people) should first of all politely answer any legitimate points the hermaphrodite raises and THEN ignore them.
I'm afraid David C is exactly right. Bed is a troll, pure and simple. Regardless of what she posts, whatever juicy target she offers for either a courteous correction or a well-deserved slap, she should be ignored, totally; sent to Coventry. She adds nothing whatsoever to any discussion she joins. Her only intention is to irritate sceptics and derail threads with snidery and alarmist propaganda, and I am sorry to say that in this she succeeds admirably.
I ask anyone who feels the urge to reply to her to restrain themselves and boycott her posts. She should be placed in isolation to such an extent she finds herself unsure as to whether what she writes is even visible to others.
Any and every response to a Bed post is a win for her and the anti-science campaigners promoting warming alarmism.
Phil D
Phil D
Exactly. There is a difference between honest enquiry, debate, and opposition, and deliberate attempts to disrupt the blog. It's quite easy to spot. Zeberdee is always in the disrupter category, and I'm afraid to say she usually does win hands down.
A funny thread!
It has probably been posted before but SPPI's paper
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/consensus_opiate.pdf
Has the numbers that refer to the famous 97%. They say it is in fact 75 out of 77 actual scientists that they counted as being specialists in climate, and that the questioners had originally asked over 10,000 people of which 31% responded and of those only 157 were climate scientists, but the authors only considered 77 as being 'real' ones, hence the 75 out of 77.
Don't you love the madness of statistics!