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)
"anti-science campaigners promoting warming alarmism."
Dec 15, 2010 at 7:19 PM | Phil D
Now that one really is hilarious. Care to point me to a few (i.e. at least 3) published peer-reviewed papers that show AGW not to be the correct theory?
Claims such as "97% of climate scientists" have no probative value unless you have a control sample - or preferably a few - that tells you what level of support for conformity you should expect.
I would think the number of psychiatrists in Russia who supported punitive psychiatry, and the number of biologists who supported Lysenkoism, was probably similar to the claimed 97%, and for the same reasons. You didn't get to be a Soviet psychiatrist, an agronomist or today a climate scientist unless you toe the line. We saw how this works last December.
If you polled astrologers about their belief in astrology I'd think they'd score close to 100% belief too. The point is that in each case the people being polled have a dog in the fight and cannot be considered to be dispassionate or trustworthy. If climate scientists are the only people entitled to comment on climate science then nobody has any business criticising astrology.
It's interesting though that ecofascists continue to argue, in effect, that the science is settled while also denying they have ever said any such thing.
For all these people getting so worked up about the two different papers which both provide the 97% figure, do you have any papers of climate scientists (i.e. people who publish climate science) which show the consensus to be other than this?
No? Gee, could that be because men in tights are a tiny minority amongst climate scientists?
Re ZDB
I suspect that's true of much of your waking life.
But climate policy will increase gender inequality. Women are generally allowed a more relaxed dress code, men may typically be expected to remain wearing jacket and tie regardless of weather. Or climate. Perhaps linen will replace light woolens in business and banana daiquiris will replace G&T's as the tipple of choice, although proper tonic may help fend off mozzies and malaria. Or the ague as it used to be known around London when it wasn't warmer according to our climate experts.
Or we just end up following the Spanish example and all the proposed green taxes and regulations increase energy and business costs, so businesses close or relocate and there are fewer jobs for anybody.
Or we could look at the politicisation of climate science where bullying is rife, especially if you're in the wrong camp and dare to disagree with the male dominated Team of self-appointed experts. That may discourage women from entering that field of science.
Or it may just get colder, in which case gender inequality could favour women given they typically have higher body fat and thus may survive longer than males when there are power cuts, or they can no longer afford to pay increased energy bills to pay for ineffective windmills. But no doubt Econtricity's founder will manage to get his leccy sportscar even more subsidies.
This is tiresome.
AGW is a theory. Net positive feebacks leading to a high climate sensitivity over a multi-decadal or centennial timescale is an unvalidated hypothesis.
Can we move on please - including you, Zed?
Thanks
Dominic
@ Atomic
There's a special corner of hell waiting for our Dale.
The greatest privately owned subsidy farmer in the nation.
@ Atomic
And I like 'Econtricity'. Was it you who came out with 'Nobel Cause corruption' the other week too?
Amusing.
Wot? Doesn't believe in Global Warming? Put-'im-in-the-desert-and-ration-'is-water!
@ ZedsDeadBed
"Climate change can, in many instances, accentuate existing gender inequalities."
Would any type of change in the climate accentuate inequalities? If the average temperature were to go down in some countries during the next decade would that create more equality between the sexes? What would be the ideal climate from the point of view of improving equality?
The interesting thing about this "consensus" argument is how selective it always is. It is obviously very easy to debunk as a reason for believing anything (pellagra; "redefine what the peer-reviewed literature is"; and the Bish's graphic that shows the consensus is actually around 40- individuals reviewing each other and citing themselves).
Despite this, trolls such as Z always insist on it, but strangely omit to mention who else is in on the consensus. For example, the Mafia, fraudsters, phishers, VAT criminals, and quite a lot of organised criminals generally are part of the consensus that AGW needs to be tackled. People who conspire to evade FOI requests are keen on AGW, as are a lot of proven liars, and the leadership of criminal enterprise Enron were also very keen on the conclusions of climate science.
By all means base your belief in AGW or not on who's in favour, but you need to do it properly and count everybody. If your argument is one from authority / majority, we need to consider who the authority / consensus actually includes. One must be careful not to limit the scope to an unrepresentative sample. If you tot up the number of criminals, freeloaders, and other lowlife who are also heartily in favour of the AGW hypothesis, then you end up with a roll call of thousands of the world's lowest vermin who all think exactly as ZDB does.
If ecofascists found themselves in violent agreement with Nick Griffin on something, they'd presumably ask themselves whether the point in question was a logical or defensible position. Ecofascists seem oddly incurious on this point when it comes to CAGW. Given the history of lies and deceit perpetrated by environmentalists since the year dot, and the left's history of excusing criminality as long as it's the left's criminality, perhaps they're so used to having mainly scum for intellectual company that they're used to it and no longer notice or mind.
ZBD
You wrote:
' 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.'
How very, very arrogant of you to think anyone cares enough here to do that. But given your M.O of insulting anyone who disagree's with you, with low level insults, ad-homs etc perhaps you are going to reap what you sow one day. Try meaningful debate, being polite and learning to agree to disagree. Then perhaps people may take you seriously.
In the mean time you wrote earlier
'Now that one really is hilarious. Care to point me to a few (i.e. at least 3) published peer-reviewed papers that show AGW not to be the correct theory?'
Try here:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
800 peer reviewed papers supporting skeptism of man made global warming. Have a read over christmas and knock yourself out. Failing that how about a book or two - may I recommend 'State of Fear' by Michael Chrichton or 'The Hockey Stick Illusion'
One of the merits for calling zbd out on his beliefs is that Neal Asher has contributed a beautiful post on the illustrious history of the consensus.
Consensus is simply irrelevant. As inconsequential to the truth as our debate about it here. It is, by definition, merely average. And averages, as all mathematicians know, rarely tell very much of the full story. I simply care not for the consensus.
But consensus does have its use. It has proven, as Neal has illustrated above, amazingly useful as a red flag BS alert to all genuine free thinking individuals that something clearly deserves independent analysis.
The concensus says that zbd is a woman. I say that, as delightful a chap as he so clearly is, I simply don't care. But thank you zbd for inspiring Neal to contribute his history of the consensus.
My vote to make the already solid consensus even more robust:
She's a she!
"Try here:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
800 peer reviewed papers supporting skeptism of man made global warming. Have a read over christmas and knock yourself out. Failing that how about a book or two - may I recommend 'State of Fear' by Michael Chrichton or 'The Hockey Stick Illusion'"
Dec 15, 2010 at 8:17 PM | Billy Goat Gruff
Aha. A ha ha ha ha ha!
You can always rely on men in tights to let themselves down. Oddly enough, a quick flick through that list reveals papers that aren't published peer-reviewed papers at all, papers which are decades old, and papers which are peer-reviewed and give support for AGW being the correct theory. You've clearly never even read through them Billy Goat. I guess that's why you failed to name 3 or more papers as per the request. As has everyone else here.
Your other attmempts? A novel and a non-peer reviewed book.
Woeful failure.
Result..... Nottingham court retains common sense.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/14/ratcliffe-coal-station-activists
@Dec 15, 2010 at 6:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterHyperthermania
Wrong,wrong,wrong... ZBD is not the good Bishop.
It's his missus, always picking a fight with him. Best defence when the Moon is full, keep shtum!
ZDB
As expected, you did not engage or read any of them. Instead a superficial dismissal based on what you think you have read elsewhere ... topped off with some stupid guessing.
Funny thing is that I never have seen any argument of substance from you, quite more frequent referals to 'tights' or 'consensus' and other equally irrelevant things.
An I am absolutely positive and 100% certain that you never have read one single paper, peer reviewed or not, that shows how the climate is controlled by the CO2-kno (which is the CAGW-claim).
"An I am absolutely positive and 100% certain that you never have read one single paper, peer reviewed or not, that shows how the climate is controlled by the CO2-kno (which is the CAGW-claim)."
Dec 15, 2010 at 9:39 PM | Jonas N
Here's an idea for you Jonas. Try reading AR4. It's knocking on a bit now, it's three years old and has the odd trifling errors. But it explains how CO2 is heating the atmosphere, and it references to loads of peer-reviewed papers behind it, pretty well as many as you want.
For all your huffing and puffing about whether you think I've read any of Billy Goat's laughable list, I notice that neither he, nor you, are actuable able to provide 3 or more papers (by name) which show AGW to be the wrong theory.
ZDB
Once again. Desist.
"I notice that neither he, nor you, are actuable able to provide 3 or more papers (by name) which show AGW to be the wrong theory."
Dec 15, 2010 at 9:45 PM | ZedsDeadBed
p.s. - there are actually 4 papers out there which loosely fit this remit, all of which I've read. None stand up particularly well to examination. Am I the only one that's heard even of these here? And no, I'm not going to point you to them. Come up with anything, and if I've not read it already, I'll undertake to do so.
Andrew - desist from what - posting here at all? That doesn't seem very open-minded and sceptical.
Right ZDB, as I said: You have never read any one, or set of publications which demonstrate how the CO2-know controls the climate system.
Believe me, plenty of so-called consensus climate scientists think it does. Some even write papers that it should, and how and why. It being a greenhouse gas, and so. But none of them can demonstrate how the central CAGW- (or just AGW-) claim functions. Yes, lots of references in AR4, mention that this is so, and the refer to other references saying the same thing, even that this has been demonstrated somwhere else.
But no! Nowhere is this done. Only the hypotheses is repeated over and over again, sometimes with anecdotal reference to limited empirical observations.
Again, you give yourself away when you claim "pretty well as many as you want" because this is exactly 100% wrong! As I said, all these papers are based or rely on the hypothesis being correct. But that is immaterial. I asked you for the one (or few) that substantiate that claim.
And it was not even a question. I knew beforehand that you hadn't seen such. Maybe you are truly incapable of distinguishing between a phrase with a statement/claim, followed by a [reference in brackets], and actual carried out and documented reserach combined with a proper interpretation of what that data conclusively can be said to show. At least that is the impression you give here ...
This is further corroborated by your eager need to infer all kinds of 'conclusions' about people who do not share your beliefs ..
tights,
... desist from abusing priveleges that have been extended. Your comments are not being deleted. Why don't you use that to your advantage?
You are waving 'consensus' in everyone's face. In order for that to be acceptable as anything meaningful, your audience has to buy into the concept of consensus. They don't.
Things therefore have become tedious. So desist. Change tack. Try something else.
Do you really believe you are the only one capable of abusive language?
Guys, be nice to tights. Mabye he/she will present more forceful arguments in return, than lashing out with ad hominems.
The Bishop refers to an article about whether the weather may be returning to Little Ice Age conditions.
It is worth a revisit to an April 2010 article by physicists connecting the cold UK and Europe winters with a less active sun (but that has nothing to do with climate change!), and the prediction of colder winters ahead.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42298
The article quotes Michael Mann as saying he agrees with the study, and that confirms what he has believed - that the cold winters 300 years ago and the warm weather of 1000 years ago was caused by a variable sun. Hasn't he heard of the hockey stick?
OK, I am with this thread so far. But if climate scientists believe in God...........(brain melts):(
Isn't belief in something from consensus the definition of religious belief?
Phillip Bratby
That is significant to the 0.01 level, two tailed Fishers Test.
Therefore ZDB must be female. Now that that is settled, perhaps I should comb through the last dozen or so threads and we can do a PCA on the data and discover which eigenvector in Truro she lives on. My guess is we will find her hiding behind a root unit on Bristle Cone Way.
My, isn't statistics wonderful! Next thing you know they may actually use it to figure out the climate. Wouldn't that be wonderful.
Here you go, ZDB -- just what you need. Only one quid for five minutes. HERE
'Tis the season to be jolly.
Tidings of comfort and joy...
Etc and, so on, I'm still waiting for an optimistic ending to this CO2 demonisation process.
The 97% consensus, of Ali Baba proportions, has added 40% to the energy budget deficit of my fellow citizens with not one iota of payback!
Apart, that is, for the freebooters, scientific and political, who've pushed their agenda using our cash to enrich themselves.
This winter, like last winter, fuelled by disinformation is well on course to feed the ovens of hypothermia that some, in hindsight, will label the first Holocaust of the 21st century.
I feel nothing but contempt for the anti-science, pro-self cabals who delight in pointing out that Hyperthermia is Climate while Hypothermia is merely weather!
Ignore the odd troll who stumbles upon this site and simply regurgitates the Master's Mantras.
They're caught in the lies of their seduction and are doing the best that they are capable of.
Peace to you Z.
Phill B... Buy an Ipad mate. The touch screen is great for quickly flicking past the Truro Trolls posts! Also works over the the DM where he/she (who give a ****) normally resides!
Zed must be in fawning awe of Naomi Oreskes, the high priestess of consensus and anti-AGW conspiracy theory :)
The warmers on a discussion list I was on were having multiple orgasms about this
Oreskes video
The American Denial of Global Warming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio
(no.. don't bother watching it. It's Orwellian misdirection and twaddle . :) )
She spends a lot of drivel trying to argue ad hom on the basis of tobacconists, however she is doing exactly what she is accusing others of doing..and that is trying "control public perception" of uncertainty. In her case minimize the uncertainty wrt to AGW being "alarming". Heck, it was basically settled science as of 1979, according to Oreskes : )
This is not just hypocrisy, but standard (and often quite effective ) propaganda practice to loudly denounce others (eg as tobacconists.) while doing exactly the same thing that one is purportedly criticizing. Loudly denouncing others ,disarms the audience ...
(moonbat of course does this as standard MO as well )
I've a quite jaded view after all the distortion, dissembling and outright lies I've seen over the years from the AGW cultists, however even I was amazed when I noted that in a publication for the web (basically same timeperiod and content as above video), that Oreskes had actually lifted a graph from climateaudit (McIntyre's site), showing CO2 vs the Hockey Stick, without mentioning that the HS had been debunked convincingly principally by McIntyre.. and the critiques upheld by both Wegman and the NAS technical panel
Oreskes Presentation for web
http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/Presentations/Oreskes%20Presentation%20for%20Web.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/349pk9
(Page 53.. She lifts a graph of CO2 vs Hockey Stick from ClimateAudit (of all places)
Page 54.. She claims this as confirmation of her preferred belief )
The Lady sure has balls!!
Later however, Oreskes ups the ante so much in doing a smear job on Nierenberg, that even William Connolley, the climate gatekeeper of Wikipedia, took her to task : )
Enjoy : )
Nierneberg, concluded: Oreskes is wrong
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/11/nierneberg_concluded_oreskes_i.php
And prompting this from Pielke Jr : )
Lies Posing as History
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4709
cheers
brent
Our Peer Reviewed Paper is Published
http://tinyurl.com/2595vlz
Now, was it not one Bert Onestone, who said "a scientific consensus can be undone by a single fact"?
Using this consensus theory, I can prove anything given enough propaganda time. e.g. I go into my village hall & find 100 people there, & I ask them who believes in fairies living at the bottom of their garden, say 95 people raise there hands. If I then ask who doesn't believe in fairies living at the bottom of the garden, & the remaining five raise their hands, I will have then proven irrefutably that a) fairies do exist & b) they do live at the bottom of the garden! The concensus proved it, & science doesn't enter in to it! QED.
Here's where we're made to go, thanks to the religion of cAWG:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/8205123/500-on-electricity-bills-to-pay-for-green-energy.html
Start buying hot water bottles now, and blankets. we won't be able to afford the heating bills - unless we start doing something about our deluded politicians and their minions in the 'Climate Change' department.
To ZDB,
Reference your comment to Bishop Hill, to whit: "Andrew - desist from what - posting here at all? That doesn't seem very open-minded and sceptical.".
On a personal level, I would urge him to cut you off. The argument for such action is well rehearsed at http://ourmaninsichuan.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/what-lessons-can-be-learnt-from-the-atrocious-troll-management-at-the-daily-telegraph/.
Trolls are to debate as viruses are to the WWW, a denial of service! As such, I consider you to be surplus to requirements. You are not funny, not clever and certainly not a good looker. That's not really surprising considering all the pizzas you have delivered. ;<(
Do you like sex & travel?
Have any of you looked at the Climate Change Toolkit document? Blimey. It was produced by The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association UK Branch (CPA UK), which apparently is an organisation of members of both Houses of Parliament, and "provides opportunities for UK parliamentarians to liaise with fellow parliamentarians across the Commonwealth."
They organised an International Parliamentary Conference on Climate Change (IPCCC), held in London in July 2010.
The Climate Change Toolkit document was created after the conference, as explained in the foreword:
"This Toolkit for Parliamentarians is based on the discussions held during the 3rd IPCCC, introducing the issues to those parliamentarians who were unable to attend the conference and serving as a reminder of the discussions to those who did. I hope that it will prove an invaluable resource for parliamentarians as they approach this complex issue, and will serve to share the ideas and best practices discussed at the conference with the delegates and other parliamentarians from around the world."
The document strikes me as being quite extraordinarily patronising. Here's a little taste:
"The Role of a Member of Parliament in a Westminster-style parliamentary democracy can be split into three core areas of activity, each of which offers opportunities to scrutinise government climate change action:
• through Representation (Constituency and Backbench action)
• through Scrutiny Systems
• through Legislative Processes.
Parliamentarians must balance the need to address climate change with the many other competing priorities, bearing in mind that climate change may impact on many other areas of their work. This balance can only be determined by individual parliamentarians, who know best the situation in their own constituencies and legislatures."
This may be aimed at strange foreign people, but must they really be talked to as if they're five?
BTW, If you don't want to wade through the Toolkit document, but wonder what cunning arguments they use to convince Johnny Foreigner that we're all on the verge of being fried to a crisp, it goes like this:
"The increase in concentration of [...] greenhouse gases caused by human activities means that the greenhouse effect occurs more intensely, leading to higher average global temperatures."
"Although it is difficult for scientists to prove the link between the increase in GHG concentrations in the atmosphere caused by humans and climatic warming, there is such a great wealth of evidence that they consider it “very likely” that most of the observed rise in global average temperatures since the mid 20th century is due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
They then talk about how all the computer models show that current warming is due to us increasing the amount of GHGs. That's the only bit of the "great wealth of evidence" that they tell us about.
And that's it.
Actually all the counted papers are peer-reviewed. There are papers listed in defense of various ones but those are not counted, preceded by a "-" and italicized.
There are over 650 papers published since 2000 on the list.
There are also various papers listed that accept AGW as true but support skeptics arguments against "alarm" thus the title of the list.
As for your request here is one well known one,
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
(International Journal of Modern Physics B, Volume 23, Issue 03, pp. 275-364, January 2009)
- Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Please don't misinterpret the contents of the list in the future.