Bishop Hill CC Question Time
Feb 14, 2011 Climate: other Economics Energy Tonight I was on the panel for a Climate Change Question Time at Strathclyde University, as part of their green week. As the lone sceptic on a panel of five I was somewhat apprehensive about the reception I would receive - one imagines booing and hissing and throwing of eggs - but it was actually all very congenial and polite. I was somewhat concerned to find myself agreeing at times with some of the other panellists, who included a green MSP, a LibDem, an ex-BBC weatherman and an environmental officer from business.
I thought it went quite well on the whole. I managed to tick off the LibDem for extolling the virtues of green jobs, which got a measure of agreement from others on the panel and a laugh from the audience, and I made some criticisms of the Stern report, which I hope may have opened some eyes.
Thanks are due to Linzi at Strathclyde University for inviting me and for organising a very interesting event.
Reader Comments (82)
Would any of those present care to comment, whether in support of this blog or not?
Do you fear for the future, or just your chance of getting a job, or both?
Do people who are sceptical about AGW, risk ridicule?
You've got bottle. Good on you.
Bish, I mean.
(No disrespect to golf charley... ).
BH
Good you got invited and survived a potentially hostile set up. I wonder why the former Glasgow and West of Scotland Technical College feels the need to have a Green week. Do they have a blue week, or a horse week, a fitness week ? Apparently not. They do have a science and engineering week. Doesn't sound very green to me.
BBD
Big sulk!
Despite what many may think, science does teach you to have an open mind and look at others views. You did have some interesting points that did rise a smile or two with this observer. Though I was convinced you would be getting out a tinfoil hat after stating that only a few dozen scientists worldwide actually believed in climate change. The dismissal of the Stern report for the reason that many mainstream economists disagree with it struck me as funny. By that logic, as the overwhelming majority of us scientists actually agree that climate change is happening, you would maybe agree with us.
Neil
A well constrained value for climate sensitivity is ...?
Neil
Thank you for responding.
Are you of an age that you were you shown the Al Gore film "An inconvenient truth" at school, and if so, do you now realise that it was not exactly truthful?
Neil
"only a few dozen scientists worldwide actually believed in climate change."
This looks like a very bad paraphrase, are we sure the Bish said 'CC' and not 'CAGW'?
Well done the Bish for taking part, and well done the organisers for inviting him! Is not shocking that such congratulations are in order for what ought to have been, in a less hysterical atmosphere, a run of the mill, but nevertheless interesting, debate/discussion? The coarsening of public discourse on climate due to the crassness of the IPCC is to be regretted, but I think this blog and the Bishop's fine example in debate, will help us pull away from it.
And, Neil, can you not see that we, the sceptics, do not disagree that climate change is happening? We think it has always happened and we suppose it always will. The points for discussion and clarification are a little more subtle than that. For example, the lack of any clear signal linking recent CO2 rises to atmospheric events, the predictive failures and excesses of climate models and their acolytes, and the counsel from distinguished experts that in the absence of the hypothetical positive feedbacks of those models, that a doubling of current CO2 levels is likely to produce effects that will be very hard to distinguish amidst the variability due to all the other influences on the system.
Thank you very much, Neil, for sharing your perspective. I think John's response is right - that the issues are more subtle than often painted. Here are some other thoughts.
I think your point about the majority of economists vs the majority (apparently) of climate scientists is a good one. I think one problem with climate science is its very porous boundaries. Many people are I believe counted who don't have deep understanding of the really difficult scientific issues - particularly the physics, chemistry and biology of the atmosphere and oceans. It's an incredibly complex system one is trying to make judgments about. I think personally that there's been a lot of peer pressure for many to appear to understand what very few, if any, human beings do.
Economics is also complex but I think is better organised into what is generally agreed (what Thomas Sowell has tried to describe in Basic Economics) and what is hotly disputed (where new Keynesians battle Friedmanites battle the Austrian school, for example). I think because of this, and because the majority of economists have found glaring faults in Stern, the Bishop makes a fair point. But this does I agree depend on my picture of the two fields being along the right lines.
And I accept that it may sound tinfoil-hat-ish to suggest that such a vast field as climate science now is is largely corrupted, because of the influence of politics. Still, one has to look at the evidence to judge this. The Bishop's book The Hockey Stick Illusion is an extremely good place to start.
Thanks again for your feedback.
BBD, buy me a pint and I will tell you, not fizzy lager, do not want to add to global CO2. And climate change is not my direct research field at the moment, though a very important part that must be taken into account. However, I have no idea what you are talking about, I am guessing something that you read in the IPCC report and took as some gospel important thing that you currently have some hang up on. Good for you.
And as for An Inconvenient Truth, no, considerably older. I watched it via the internet that Al Gore did not invent, and I knew that it contained no deliberate or accidental mis-truths whatsoever and agreed with it wholeheartedly. However it did make one or two wee over emphasises which I think is the legal point of view (how you can get lawyers to comment on science is beyond me, I can cite you many instances, so please no legal arguements) . Mind you I was hungover when I watched it. I have no desire to watch it again to be honest.
Oh the former BBC weatherman is in actual fact currently the Met Office chief advisor to the governemt in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and he was the most interesting member of the panel IMHO.
Neil
First highlight – unless intentionally a joke, frightening.
Second highlight – in your first comment you portray yourself as a scientist. Yet the argument about climate sensitivity has sailed by your radar and you actually feel confident enough to be snarky about this on a climate blog. Intrepid.
If you aren’t just pulling my leg, do some reading.
Congrats to all concerned - it shows a degree of balance after all.
Your bravery does you proud Your Grace.
NEIL
AGW is not really happening - most scientists I come across know very little about climate or meteorology, and accept the collective hysteria of the time - which is mostly political and religious environmentalism.
CAGW certainly isn't happening - and only a few scientists in the world are mad enough to believe in it.
Mostly those that started the whole scare off and now can't climb off the demon.
I know a few who were firmly of the faith and are now gradually developing their exit strategy.
The devotees on both sides argue finely developed scientific positions; being a meteorologist I just stick to asking warmists where their evidence for even AGW is??? Have not had good answer yet.
Keep it simple - don't believe the hype. Here is the current situation -
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/01/the-warmest-year-antidotes/
The first two graphs tell it all. (if you are a scientist I don't need to explain the graphs to you). It is obvious that temps are nowhere near the IPCC's best (least) scenario and no unprecedented trend exist. (note the second graph is data provided by that arch sceptic Dr.Phil Jones.
Here a very respected man in the field of climate/meteorology tells you like it is
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/02/the-oceans-clouds-and-cosmic-rays-drive-the-climate-not-co2/
The whole thing has been hyped and is now slowly falling apart, but it will take a while as too many people have a vested interest (perhaps even yourself) in its continuance - all the way from scientists to politicians and companies feeding off the frenzy of £billions of funding.
BBD?
OK, explain it to me. I am all ears. Yes first was a joke, you do do humour don't you?
Second. Yes a scientist, not a climatologist, so explain to me what you mean. Tell me why you have a fetish for this figure. My masters background was localised air pollution and the health impacts though currently researching a different field of public health for my PhD . I know and largely understand the science behind climate change, not an expert by any means, but have more than a nodding acquaintance.
Neil, appreciate your comments, this especially:-
"Despite what many may think, science does teach you to have an open mind and look at others views"
If scientific minds were actually open there could never ever be the claimed “scientific consensus” only a cool logical assessment of the uncertainty within the theory.
Because there has been very few “open scientific minds” climate science has become a very emotive subject. Exactly the opposite of what it should be.
Scientist heal thyself (and quickly please)
He said climate change scientists, hence I chortled muchly.
Look, in contact with a few people about the term CAGW, lost us. AGW Anthropomorphic Global Warming we assume. what is the C? I gave up arguing with deniers years ago, update me on your terminology.
Neil
You are a time waster and I am going to bed. Byee
No, No! Don't chase him off. Neil, you are better off not using that term "deniers"... it is generally used by pseudo-scientific !@@#$%^& with a political ax to grind. It is the mark of a person who has very definitely closed his mind to alternative view points. If you have not visited here before, you may be surprised to learn that a large number of the commentators here have advanced degrees and extensive experience. We may not exactly change your mind, but we may change your perspective.
BBD:
I may waste your time, but can you explain your question. I never heard of these terms, explain them. Or you just hanging on buzzwords you heard.
No Josh, no. Mercy. Not again.
"Second. Yes a scientist, not a climatologist, so explain to me what you mean."
What he means is that sceptics don't generally argue against the idea that climate changes (in fact, we argue that it changes a lot more than the conventional story would have you believe) or against the idea that increasing CO2 makes a positive contribution to the temperature. The big question is over how much of a rise in temperature occurs as a result of a given increase in CO2 - this is called the climate sensitivity - and whether it shows up against the background noise.
Based on the radiative physics alone and keeping everything else fixed, each doubling of CO2 ought to give about 1.1 C rise in surface temperature. The relationship is logarithmic. But everything else is not fixed - changing temperature affects water vapour (not only a powerful greenhouse gas, but also the primary factor in modifying the adiabatic lapse rate), clouds, ice area, wind strength, ocean currents, and many other factors. It is also buried under a range of other contributors that act independently. These factors can magnify or reduce that 1.1 C/2xCO2 by processes generically called 'feedback'. And because we have only a poor understanding of many of the effects involved, we don't really know how much warming a given amount of CO2 might cause.
There have been lots of attempts to estimate it. Here's one of the older and simpler ones. (http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/10/c010p069.pdf) Some of the more recent work by Spencer and Braswell gives similar low figures. On the other hand, most of the climate modellers estimate very high numbers that *treble* the 1.1 C/2xCO2, to give figures around 3.5 C/2xCO2, although none of us have been able to find out how it is justified in detail.
There is another difficulty. Over the 20th century, CO2 rose about 40%, which is halfway to a doubling. So we ought to expect a rise of about half the sensitivity, times feedback, plus or minus input from other contributors. The figure we observe is about 0.65 C, (there's reason to question that number's accuracy given the quality of the data sources, but not that it is almost certain to be positive), which would suggest a sensitivity of about 1.3 C/2xCO2. The discrepancy between this and what the modellers predict is another hot topic, and the subject of a lot of controversy.
These are the questions we are interested in. We don't (most of us) deny that climate changes, or that it has generally warmed over the 20th century, or that the greenhouse effect is real, or that CO2 will contribute positively to temperature. What we dispute is the magnitude, the feedbacks, and the other factors.
That's a very quick 5-minute intro - it all gets a lot more complicated when you dive into the detail. I hope it helps.
Oh dear Neil. You used the D word. Catastrophic. The issue is not that we sceptics dispute that CO2 contributes to the (natural) greenhouse effect. The issue is climate sensitivity, i.e. how much. The relationship between CO2 concentration and 'radiative forcing' is logarithmic. Beer-Lambert Law. Think law of diminishing returns - once more than 300 ppm the effect of doubling CO2 is pretty insignificant. That's why the IPCC play staion modellers have to have positive feedbacks from water vapour, which are based on assumptions, and erroneous ones at that. (Dr Roy Spencer). Do some research. You are just making a fool of yourself here. If you don't want to read, the following 6 part video of Prof. Bob Carter's presentation is a very good place to get a quick overview on why CAGW is bollocks.
Neil - I'm a frequent reader but seldom poster here. Always good to get people on the other side of the dabte posting. CAGW is Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming; basically your normal AGW but with massive super hurricanes, 70m rises in sea level and death to everything on earth bar a couple of cockroaches. To summarise CAGW is the rubbish spouted by your Greenpeaces and Friends of the Earth; AGW by most climate scientists.
I also am not too in favour of the word denier - but not because of its NAZI sympathising background more because I am more a sceptic who is unconvinced by it all but is open to convincing should a reasonable case be made. As a geology masters with a leaning towards paleo-climates I just can't see how the current period is all that much different to previous ice-ages and previous periods within the current ice-age. Alos I remain to be convinced as to why more CO2 warming won't be buffered by the Earth's natural systems as has happened in the past (generally, I believe, through cloud feedbacks). Should something be happening now to override the natural buffering though I also can't see why it is a bad thing when, in general, not being in an ice-age, as we currently are, is beneficial to life on Earth.
If I got a convincing response to these questions then I would be very open to changing my views; but until then I remain sceptical of AGW (but not climate change which is obviously happening and, thankfully, always has done - the only climate change deniers are the Michael Mann followers of the climate science divide who seem to be convinced that until we started burning CO2 climate was static).
Neil, the C in CAGW is for Catastrophic.
Regarding the economic criticisms of the Stern report, they are indeed very basic. For instance, the report uses two different rates of discount (i.e. the different valuation of things now and the same things tomorrow). For economic growth and other similar purposes (like the future costs of mitigating climate change) it uses a regular proxy such as a long term rate of interest (e.g. for 30-yr US Treasury bonds), whereas for the damages we would suffer in the future as a result of climate change he uses a very small rate of discount. The effect of this "trick" is that mitigation costs to be incurred in the future look very small (because they are more heavily discounted with the regular long-term rate of interest) whilst the future damages from CC are just a little bit discounted (because for this particular purpose he uses a very small discount rate).
This is nothing a practicing economist would do. It would get you pitilessly flunked in Economics 101. Very basic indeed. And that is only one example.
The question of climate sensitivity is not a "fetish". It is the key parameter at the very centre of CC: how much would global temperature increase as a result of doubling the preindustrial atmospheric concentrations of CO2. The direct effect of doubling CO2 is small (0.5°C), but there are positive and negative feedbacks that add to or detract from that direct effect. Positive feedbacks reinforce the effect, negative feedbacks dampen it. Orthodox climatology guesses (without much understanding of the matter) that positive feedbacks vastly overwhelm any negative ones, so that sensitivity is not 0.5° but something between 1.5° and 5°, ie three to ten times the direct (greenhouse) warming effect of CO2 alone. The figures are based on a host of assumptions and many fingers crossed because of the various aspects "not well understood" (e.g. the part played by clouds) that may run against such guesses.
sorry - forgot to paste the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
Please watch it, you'll probably learn as much if not more than you did at university.
Nullius in Verba has already corrected my vague remembrance about the direct effect of CO2. It is indeed about 1.1°C. The figure I mentioned (0.5°C) mistakenly comes from the increase in global temperature during the later part of the 20th century. NiV has also given you a more exact explanation of climate sensitivity to CO2 than a mere economist would be able to articulate.
Neil, sorry, that last comment wasn't meant as a dig at you, but at the standard of most universities these days.
Neil writes, “AGW Anthropomorphic Global Warming we assume.”
Wow, first we had the very silly Tim Flannery and the late Robyn Williams predicting that Gaia will manifest herself physically before us, and now Neil reckons that Global Warming will take human form. Will warmer weather be in male or female shape?
Cyclones and Hurricanes used to have the names of people; soon they’ll have the shape, personalities and, no doubt, the temper tantrums of people. “Oh, no, Tropical Cyclone Claude has a severe depression, and a gammy leg!
You know about the "I am Spartacus" campaign and the 10:23 campaign.
Maybe the skeptics should run an "I am Denier" campaign.
We could shoot a B&W documentary-style - clips of people stepping up:
"I was a denier once. Climate change saved my life", "Deniers attacked me on every blog. I was scared", "I was bitten by a denier. My doctor gave me the rabies vaccine and saved my life", "It was a dark night and I ran into a bunch of deniers in the alley."
Fade to black.
"Deniers. Safety is no accident"
John Shade: "For example, the lack of any clear signal linking recent CO2 rises to atmospheric events," (Feb 14, 2011 at 11:01 PM)
Correct, of course, John... but that sentence tripped a subconscious response in my mind that you used the words "atmospheric events" where so short a time ago the appropriate words would have been "catastrophic warming".
This indicates to me that those promoting the general fraud are having some success in taking the "end" out of "dead end" so they can continue their plunderous ride.
Brits are so polite. Or maybe Brits on this site. Reading this forum provided both information and a soothing feeling. (Yes, I am serious.)
"I managed to tick off the LibDem for extolling the virtues of green jobs, which got a measure of agreement from others on the panel and a laugh from the audience..."
From the record employment-sagging US, with a Green obsessed President, you won't get much agreement. Obama's "stimulus" spending on it costs almost a quarter million dollars for each, effectively destroying four average jobs for the moral pleasures i makes.
Spain has arguably done better, destroying only two jobs for each green one.
http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/15604/clinton-concedes-green-jobs-blowback-pending/chris-horner
But at twice our unemployment, the lower baseline from improvement may be deceptive rather than indicative.
As an environmental scientist who can count and add, I say "Basta!" - let's kill the Green Jobs mytho-mania!
Speaking of anthropomorphism,... you guys should see this!
Tosin Abasi (Animals as leaders) plays "Wave of babies"
@deadman
Re Robyn Williams...
You had me sucked in for a very short time :-)
For the benefit of readers here, Neil's mention of a "few dozen scientists" was a reference to my quoting Mike Hulme on the subject of the thousands of scientists who are alleged to have shown that global warming is caused by man. As Hulme pointed out, there are actually only a couple of dozen involved in detection and attribution studies. The remainder of the thousands of scientists are taking their word for it.
Aah, reminds when I posted on the JRef boards. So many opinions, so many idiots who like to believe what they want with no proof.
Or absolute denial, the biofuel arguement was brought out last night by the tinfoil hat candidate. I think you will find we actually produce enough food for at least 12 billion people currently, the problem is in distribution. I would say levels are sustainable, but apparently sustainable is a term that is not understood (hey taking things out of context is great must try more.)
Yes I had problems understanding your shorthand, rule 101 of paper writing is explain acronyms. for example, when referring to members of the United Kingdom Independence Party you would state, Swivel Eyed Loons (SEL.)
I think Neils cognitive Dissonance is showing.. :)
Who hangs out on the JREF board anyway..geez..
I like the way Neil calls himself a scientist,yet.. doesnt appear to know the difference between Global warming and Anthropogenic Global Warming,is unfamiliar with basic acronyms on the subject he came here to lecture us about.. uses ad hominems instead of science, throws in a few logical fallacies like consensus view=the ultimate answer and brilliantly ignores questions and responses that correct his blundering..
Is Neil a AGW sceptic taking the piss..and trying to look dopey..? :)
I know..tell us Neil..how great a Carbon tax will be and how it will fix the weather..just kidding..skip this and get your some lame sarcasm out..
And please start reading about the science of AGW instead of relying on the media to mis-inform you..
And for Neil..here is a great link showing no long term trends.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.776/abstract
"For instance, the long-term trends of indices representing the North Atlantic Oscillation, the tropical Pacific Walker Circulation, and the Pacific–North American pattern are weak or non-existent over the full period of record. The long-term trends of zonally averaged precipitation minus evaporation also differ in character from those in climate model simulations of the twentieth century. Copyright © 2011 Royal Meteorological Society and Crown Copyright. "
Neil, one last attempt. Here's IPCC insider Mike Hulme's statement about the number of actual climate scientists within the IPCC:
"Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields."
[ link to source document at: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/6/11/quote-of-the-day.html ]
The Hockey Team (Mann, Jones, Trenberth, Steig et al) and a dozen or so others are in the engine room and driving the IPCC's AGW bandwagon. The vast majority of other scientists are just passengers who jumped on for career, funding, personal and political reasons (who doesn't want to help save the world, and pay off the mortgage at the same time?)
Cascade theory / the madness of crowds has also played a part; Martin Cohen's essay is worth a read if you are interested in the sociological side of it - http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=409454 - good discussion also.
Here's a more recent and eye-opening interview with former Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/08/patrick_moore_greenpeace_dropout/
Books - well the our host's HSI (Hockey Stick Illusion) goes without saying for explaining the details of how the science has been corrupted.
Peter Taylor's 'Chill - a reassessment of global warming theory' is also a good place to start.
I'm not familiar with Dr Roy Spencer's 'Great Global Warming Blunder' but it is also highly recommended by those who have read it.
There are many other books, but you'll find plenty to read on the web. Lucy Skywalker's site is a great resource. I went along with AGW for 15 years, but began to get suspicious when we stopped having mild winters, and there have not been that many in recent years. Then I started looking at the science and the historical data myself. People soon forget about storms and floods which happened more than 50 years ago, and new generations are easily scared by what are what are effectively very average 'exteme' events, especially when their houses more likely than not, have been built on a floodplain.
Sure the Arctic has warmed a little in the last 20 years, but it did the same in the early 1800s (search for the Royal Society Report of 1817) and also in the early 1920s (search for the Norwegian report in 1922). There are also reports of 17th and 18th century whaling ships which got up to 85 degrees north, long before and much further than Nansen's Fram. So my money's on multi-decadal oceanic cycles, and probably longer term solar magnetic also cycles also - Svensmark's CERN results are due very soon - look up Nigel Calder's blog for more info. But I think the oceans are likely the key factor - the top 8 feet of the world's oceans have as much heat content as the whole of the planet's atmosphere. Which is one of the reasons I don't have much faith in the GISS or Hadcrut global surface temperature datasets. Even if they were not contaminated by UHI and dodgy station selection, homogenisation and bald adjustments, the fact is that trying to tell the temperature of the planet by taking air temperatures is a bit of a joke - it's like trying to take the temperature of a critically ill person by dangling a thermometer 10cm above his forehead. Even the satellites don't solve this problem, they detect the temperatures in the lower troposphere, which addresses the UHI and station selection problems, but not the ocean heat store, lag times with the atmosphere, and cyclic and chaotic changes in surface and deep water currents.
We have increased the atmospheric volume of CO2 from 0.0285% to 0.0385%. As Bob Watson and other alarmists are quick to point out, that is an increase of 30% - quick lets increase taxes on fossil fuels and shut down all our western economies. But a 30% increase of feck all is feck all, and I don't think this strategy has been well thought out at all, considering that the end result is likely to be poverty and hypothermia. (Or how we are going to pay back the Chinese, who will soon have all of our manufacturing jobs).
Have you noticed how cold it gets on clear nights, and how it doesn't on cloudy? That's because water vapour contributes 80% of the greenhouse gas effect, and CO2 only about 7%. It doesn't matter if we increase CO2 levels; virtually all the space-bound IR is already being bounced back by the existing CO2 and water vapour anyway. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/ Sorry, I am beginning to repeat myself.
All I am trying to say is think for yourself, don't just believe what the IPCC says, that's the mistake that Judith Curry made.
Speaking of which, they say we sceptics inhabit the dark side, but the context is an Orwellian world of double-think and post-normal science. Like Judith, come over and be enlightened.
All
Please can we refrain from name-calling.
Neil
Your point about having enough food for 12bn is interesting and not one I've heard before. This would seem to imply huge stockpiles or huge waste. What's the source?
Nullus in Verba; a good summary of the science and the uncertainties. My approach is not to go along with packs but to focus on assumptions which control pack behaviour.
The CAGW panic arose because Sagan's 'two-stream approximation' physics and derivatives predict clouds of all thicknesses have higher albedo when pollution makes droplets smaller. This is supposed to comprise most 'global dimming' hiding AGW.
'Cloud albedo effect' cooling is 1.75 times median raw AGW [AR4]. It's why the modellers assumed high feedback without experimental evidence. By about 2003 experiment showed no evidence of the cooling [except for thin clouds, confusing]. So, the IPCC's assumption of 3-fold amplification isn't justified.
In 2004, NASA claimed enhanced ‘surface reflection’ from higher water surface area in polluted clouds, apparently to keep the cooling in AR4: there’s no such physics.
Look at clouds about to rain, coarsening droplets. Less transmitted light means higher albedo, the opposite of that predicted; the optical physics is wrong. The most logical explanation is that as well as internal diffuse scattering there's substantial direct backscattering [it comes from Mie physics]. As it's switched off by pollution it's another potential AGW, so net CO2-AGW could well be zero until otherwise proved.
Until the physics is corrected, no IPCC model is valid.
I suspect Neil thought this was a good place to come and demolish some “tin foil hat” “swivel eyed loons” and probably now feels a tad foolish not having demolished us “deniers” with his rapier wit and scientific knowledge; not one response that shows understanding at all.
Neil we should give you until 10:10 am to come back with a reasonable response that shows you understand the argument – no pressure! :)
Alexander - yes a fundamental flaw. But even if they had got the optical physics correct, they would still be relatively simply linear models trying to mimic an incredibly complex and chaotic system. The Met Office admitted in the Parliamentary inquiry that they were confident that their climate models were sound because they use the same model on the same platform to produce the 5 day weather forecasts. Enough said.
Your Grace, All? I thought we were all being quite polite, have I missed something? Apologies if so.
That's pretty rude but also fascinating, because you mention proof. Intelligent sceptics judge that no proof has been put forward for high climate sensitivity. Without high climate sensitivity there's nothing to worry about from increases in CO2 in the atmosphere and therefore no reason to try to control man's CO2 emissions. But you seem to have had no idea what climate sensitivity was when BDD mentioned it to you. This, to put it mildly, goes badly with you calling us idiots.
First, who was the tinfoil hat candidate you refer to?
Second, Al Gore is now against biofuel subsidies - and admits that he partly backed them in 2000 to win votes from certain vested interests. His concern, like many of us, is the effect of biofuel subsidies on world food prices and thus the poorest in the world. I'd be interested then if you now count Al Gore as a denier. And I'd also be interested if you deny the impact of biofuel subsidies on food prices and the poor. If so, does that denial, and your disagreement with Al Gore on this point, make you an absolute denier or just a relative one?
I agree with you about explaining acronyms - in my view it was unwise of someone to use CAGW without explaining what this meant. This is a valid lesson to us as we try to engage in constructive dialogue with those not of our persuasion.
Calling members of UKIP Swivel Eyed Loons though lost me. Loons they may be but swivel eyed? Isn't that a known danger with a tinfoil hat, which I'm assuming they also wear?
Or is all this colourful language to convince yourself and your friends that you don't have to look at the science of climate sensitivity, or the hockey stick, for yourselves? That you can just take others' word for it, without proof?
lapogus; good point. However, my intention has been to simplify my criticism of the 'consensus' to a level that most laymen can understand from common sense knowledge, and I think I've succeeded. No-one in climate science has so far come up with a valid rebuttal.
[One guy did reply with 'nuclear winter' proving Sagan's physics and didn't apparently like it when I told him that it was because Mie scattering at aerosol diameters <0.1 micron is essentially isotropic so you don't get direct backscattering when the wave enters the cloud. Won't bore you much more, but because of optical leverage, this physics could better explain palaeo-climate data than CO2. Science is fun when a good plan comes together!]
I think I may have something of a source for Neil's "food for 12 billion" claim. It seems to come from the UN
http://ipsnews.net/africa/nota.asp?idnews=38372
Well, at least it started well with Neil, didn't it?
At least, he's identified a gap in the market, so to speak - the need for a worthy opponent. Someone who doesn't go along at all with all this climate scepticism stuff. After all, don't you think it can get a bit boring and sterile when everybody agrees with everybody else? You know - that we are absolutely and completely right about everything, and that the other lot are completely and absolutely wrong about everything . AND that they're a load of charlatans to boot.
Obviously such a worthy opponent would have a pretty good grasp of climate science basics, recognising the areas of uncertainty. A passing knowledge of statistical analysis would probably be helpful. They'd certainly be well versed in the concepts of climate sensitivity and feedbacks. Clearly, they'd be expected to know what the acronyms commonly in use (by both sides) meant, such as CAGW for example.
They should be able to present their point of view, clearly, rationally, and convincingly. They would, of course, know just what it is that climate sceptics believe, and what they don't, They'd completely avoid the use of all strawman arguments - such as: "climate sceptics don't accept that the climate is changing". They would, of course, also avoid all terms of abuse - such as "Denier". And recognise that they were addressing an intelligent, well-informed, scientific-literate audience (for the most part, anyway).
Oh, and they would have to know how to spell (or be able to use a spellchecker), punctuate correctly, and be familiar with the basics of English grammar.
In other words, what I think we need is a sort of Warmista Anti-Bish to post here.
But failing that, I'd settle for a Devil's Advocate. After all, which of us couldn't put an intelligent and convincing case for the other side, even if we didn't believe in it? Barristers do it all the time in their line of work. Modesty prevents me from offering my services (it's my only fault, you know), as I feel that others would make a far better job of it.
Latimer? Shrub? One of the other usual knowledgeable suspects who post here? We all know who you are.
So, have YOU got anything on at the moment? Fancy being roundly insulted on a regular basis? If the answers are "No" and "Yes" respectively then the position could be yours for the taking.
Gordon Bennett!
You would have thought that people who post here about poor punctuation would at least get the punctuation correct in their comments, wouldn't you?
And they really ought to get names right as well, even if they are keen amateur gardeners.
Now, write out 100 times: Shub's name is Shub, not Shrub!
Your point about having enough food for 12bn is interesting and not one I've heard before. This would seem to imply huge stockpiles or huge waste. What's the source?
I have heard this before, there was a recent govt report on global food supplies which used the growing populations and climate change as justification for allowing GM crops, on the radio 4 Today program they had an Indian scientist reporting than there was a current large food surplus and accusing the report of fabricating a shortage to allow GM crops. Did not catch his name.
Beddington seems to agree with the report
http://www.govnet.co.uk/news/govnet/professor-sir-john-beddingtons-speech-at-sduk-09
The enough food for 12bn figure I have heard before, and don't dispute. But I think it assumes that we can solve all the current distribution and waste problems, not that easy. It may also assume that we eat less beef in the west (iirc it takes something like 16 tonnes of protein (which we could otherwise eat) to produce 1 tonne of beef, and that won't go down well in the USA. Another contributory factor in being able to feed 12bn is that there's a hell of a lot of good land in Africa that is not being farmed efficiently (or at all) - although having watched the BBC's recent documentary on the future of agriculture (which was good), the Brazilians will soon be on to that one and making good progress.
But what worries me is the fact that the Russians and North Americans both used to have big stores (6-10 months worth of supplies) of wheat, such that they could help each other out in the event of a failed harvest (at least in theory, the cold war may have made the practicality more difficult). But afaik there's no storage or spare capacity now, and rice prices also shot up a year ago because demand outstripped supply in various Asian countries.
This is something the UN should be working on, as leaving it entirely to the free market will mean that the poor will go hungry. And there are already about 30 million children dying every year due to malnutrition or diseases resulting from deficiencies.