Bishop Hill CLOUD experiment links
Aug 24, 2011 Climate: solar Here's some links on the CLOUD experiment results.
New Scientist, hilariously has a piece entitled
Cloud-making: Another human effect on the climate.
I kid you not folks - these guys are away with the fairies.
Real Climate says that it doesn't matter because cosmic rays levels haven't changed anyway.
Nature, apparently through gritted teeth manages to say
"Early results seem to indicate that cosmic rays do cause a change"... but...
As readers may have gathered, Svensmark is not a co-author on this paper. There also seems to be a certain unwillingness among these journals to explain Svensmark's role in the cosmic ray experiments. New Scientist manages not to mention him at all.
The corruption of science.
Bishop Hill
Chemistry World can't bring itself to mention Svensmark either.
Nor the Guardian.
Hooray for the Institute of Physics.
Henrik Svensmark of the National Space Institute in Copenhagen and colleagues hypothesize that the ions that are formed as (charged) cosmic rays pass through the atmosphere act as a kind of glue that makes it easier for molecules to stick together and form aerosols. This hypothesis has proved controversial because it suggests a role for solar variation, as well as human emissions of greenhouse gases, in climate change – the idea being that the stronger the Sun's magnetic field, the more cosmic rays are deflected away from the Earth, resulting in the formation of fewer clouds and so a warmer Earth, with a weaker solar magnetism having the opposite effect.
Reuters' coverage is disgraceful
* Study does not prove cosmic rays drive climate change
* Academics see cosmic ray effect as only very small
Bishop Hill
Pallab Ghosh has now done the BBC take on CLOUD. Henrik who?
Reader Comments (95)
@uncle
It might be worth your while to check out the Met Office equivalent of "the small print" in its postings about climate change on its web site.
I posted about this the other day on another thread. To summarise:
On a page discussing "Climate Modelling" (dated 18 March 2011) it adds by way of qualification to forecasts of "dangerous high temperature changes" the words "...if climate turns out to be very sensitive to increased greenhouse gases."
Please note the use of the word "if".
Also please note the use of the expression "greenhouse gases". Greenhouse gases are not just man-made CO2. They are not even the sum of man-made and the much more significant natural CO2.
In a later posting, dated 22 June 2011, discussing "Seamless Ensemble Prediction" it says:
"We cannot be certain about future climate change because
* some variations are inherently unpredictable (internal variability);
* we evaluate climate model output using measurements which have errors (observational uncertainty);
* we have only plausible storylines of how anthropogenic emisssions might evolve ( emission uncertainty);
* we have limited computer resources and an imperfect knowledge of the Earth system, so climate models have to approximate some of the key processes that affect climate change (modelling unceretainty).
Therefore, there is no single best estimate, only a range, of future climate change."
Is the Met Office starting to hedge its bets? Is it starting to reposition itself - just in case the Cloud blots out the CAGW hypothesis? Only asking.
Let us now assume for one moment that the positive feedback claimed for aCO2 is unity - the CERN result allows us to speculate that that could be the case - and tackle this misnomer 'greenhouse gas' with its entirely negative connotations. I propose we call the effect STIR - semi transparency to irradience. That semi-transparency is in both incoming and outgoing directions and leads to a delay in the heating effects of solar irradiance leaving the atmosphere. That delay is the mechanism that causes Earth with its atmosphere to enjoy average temperatures higher than would be if no atmosphere existed. So, a STIR index could be constructed and each gas given a relative value which when multiplied by its concentration would give its absolute value.
There may of course be some +/- feedbacks yet to be confirmed once we better understand the role of each gas, particles injected and particles created in the atmosphere. This study could be left to atmospheric scientists and other established disciplines to understand. Climatology can then be eased toward those other ologies of phren etc. where its natural home is.
simpleseekeraftertruth
Thank you very much indeed for posting about that cosmic rays and tree rings article, that is absolutely great and very relevant to my IPCC AR5 work (on changes in terrestrial ecosystems). I see the 3rd author of that paper is Prof John Grace who is a leading figure in plant physiology & climate, so (not having read the paper yet) I'd be happy to assume the paper has credibility.
I note from the abstract that they talk about the cosmic ray effect on tree rings being via the effect of cloudiness on direct/diffuse radiation. The latter is fairly well-known (aerosols have similar effects) and we include that in our models. We don't include cosmic ray effects on clouds yet though, so the potential for ecosystem effects is another reason why today's Nature paper should be considered important (and - Philip - yes it's great to see that Kirkby has concrete plans to take the next steps!)
@Bishop
I agree that New Scientist reaction is pathetic, though to be fair, humans can affect cloud formation: see Pielke Sr.: http://tinyurl.com/3c49tcu The impact seems to be regional and not comparable with the sheer scale of the cosmic ray effects.
This should be the beginning of a more open minded climate research, and the end of consensus, but somehow, I don't feel like holding my breath.
Funny, in a pitiful way, that the two first comments in the nature news link to real climate and skeptical science, Wow!
@ Don Keiller
The graph is published in the supplementary material (all, unfortunately behind paywall)
Ecclesiastical Uncle
My motivation can be illustrated by Feynman's frustration about the narrow media interpretation of scientific discoveries, which at the time was largely about whether the particular discovery was a potential cure for cancer or not. He got annoyed that everything was framed in those terms.
These days, it seems that every piece of work in climate science needs to be discussed in terms of whether it proves or disproves AGW. Yes that's clearly an important issue, but it's not the only issue for climate science - an equally, or possibly more important, challenge is to be able to make useful forecasts at regional scales on timescales of seasons to a few years. Currently we have only very limited success in this (NE Brazil and the Sahel for example) so anything that helps improve matters is welcome in my book.
Trumpetting or dismissing a discovery purely on the grounds of its relevance to one particular issue is not helpful, and is a symptom of the unfortunate politicisation of how climate science is discussed in the wider world. We need to grow up and look beyond that.
If I remember well, the main impact of global low cloud variations would be tropical ocean insolation changes, so the cosmic ray main impact would be ocean heat content, and therefore the very short term objections (a là RC) make no sense
geronimo
You may be interested to know that we haven't reduced effort on improving weather forecasting in order to focus on climate change - actually quite the opposite because we use the same computer models for both, so the fact that we now get funding for climate research means that there are even more people working on the models and observations than before.
In my response to Jan v J I mentioned the Met Office internal structure. In our Science area there are 3 "sections": "Weather Science", "Climate Science" and "Foundation Science". The latter does the fundemental atmospheric research which underpins the other 2 areas - and work done in Weather also informs Climate and vice versa (because as I say the real world doesn't make nice distinctions anyway, the difference between weather and climate is really only a human perception.
By the way I do think "crap" is a bit strong! Yes the long range (seasonal) forecasts need to be viewed with a large degree of care - for the UK we know the skill is only about 60% - and yes the 3-day forecasts do sometimes get changed as the situation develops, but I do a lot of outdoor activities and live in a farming area so am very conscious of the skill of the weather forecasts and their impacts. Mostly the 3-day forecasts are useful for planning ahead although you do need to keep an eye on updates. But of course there is always room for improvement.
The bank holiday w/e is forecast to be fairly reasonable after the rain of his week. Let's see how we get on...!
Thanks for your comments on WG1 being (mostly) a "scientific tour-de-force"! The facility to get round the traditional chain of communication is one reason why I go on blogs and twitter!
oldtimer
I think we've always said that kind of thing on uncertainties.
Richard Betts:
Unfortunate politicisation? Let's break the adjective down. Un-fortune-ate. But climate science just ate an enormous fortune, in the last two decades!
What's truly unfortunate is that the amounts spent within climate science are dwarfed by the fortunes able to be made by the unscrupulous and opportunistic from so-called policies of 'mitigation'. This has created the most politicised science of history.
We indeed need to grow up and face this fact. Reversing all its effects is not going to be easy, to put it mildly. But this thread is really about one, very simple symptom. Should Svensmark and his cosmic day theory have been mentioned in the mass media as the CLOUD results are released.
Of course he should. We take it you agree Richard. But this is just today's manifestation of the politicisation. We have to start somewhere.
'Trumpetting or dismissing a discovery purely on the grounds of its relevance to one particular issue is not helpful, and is a symptom of the unfortunate politicisation of how climate science is discussed in the wider world. We need to grow up and look beyond that.'
Like for example revisiting the Stern Review, and the Climate Change Act that was passed into law based on one particular issue being responsible for the increase in global temperatures, perhaps.
On the matter of uncertainty and incompleteness, Richard Black quoted a certain Dr. Svensmark on that back in November 2007:
Surely that will always be true, because climate is far too complex for any one effect to be proved 'responsible for the present-day warming'.
But how extraordinary, as one rereads that article, that Svensmark doesn't feature at all - well, hardly at all - in today's media discussions.
The politicisation has got worse as the evidence has swung away from CO2 emissions being a crisis. Any theories on why, Richard?
Richard:
Many thanks for participating and being open minded. However, it is just as well the current England team were better at cricket than the Met was at predicting rain at the Oval last week. ;)
The IoP has many Members and Fellows who are sceptical of AGW. Nature and New Scientist are propaganda outlets. New Scientist has always been a rag.
Such hugely interesting paper - and I am cross, getting even crosser ...
Why?
Because the usual suspects are humming and hawwwing already, warning about taking these results too seriously because there's still that CO2 and all those wonderful models ... and Dr Kirby also said this, that and the next ... Svensmark - who he ... and they should've done this and that ...
Gawd.
Look - this is science as it should be done - from hypothesis to experimental observations whose results (three different experiments now, see Nigel Calder), and the hypothesis has not been refuted by experimental observations.
Feynman would have been proud of this!
And we all know that of course this is only a first step, with more and different experiments having to be done. But - big but - these ain't no models who need tweaking to even get the hind casts right.
IMHO, proper scientists should welcome this paper, warts and most careful phrasings and all. They should not try and denigrate it, because: where are their hypotheses supported by experimental observations?
This paper does not debunk CO2 being the driving force ot AGW, it is just another piece of the puzzle. However, the reaction by the proponents of AGW seem to indicate it is the cross to their vampire. I fail to see that. It is a good paper that helps explain weather on earth, but it is not the rosetta stone of climate. I just wonder why they are so afraid of it?
Richard Drake
Presumably your question is to me not Richard Black!
I think it's pretty clear that the politicisation has got worse because (a) some major policy decisions are now being taken in some countries, which is bound to create opposition (and reaction and counter-reaction), whilst at the same time (b) globally emissions are still rising and a lot of people are therefore feeling an increased sense of urgency and frustration.
As this happens, it's important for scientists to challenge exaggeration / misinformation from both sides, and also welcome new work for its contribution to our wider understanding because, as I say, there's other issues too.
BTW my comments for the bank holiday w/e forecast applied to England and Wales - starting off showery Saturday, more sunshine (but still some showers) into Sunday and nice on Monday as a high pressure builds up out to the west. However Scotland looks pretty grim Sat & Sun actually, very windy, although again clearing up by Mon.
This is highly promising, but I don't think GCRs are all the story. There were two splendid video clips of a conference in Germany in Dec 09 for the Energy & Climate group which showed GCRs + other solar effects accounting for temperature rises, although seem to have dissappeared for now! There is also the simple fact that whilst TSI only varies by 1/10th of 1% over a cycle, we are talking about the big shiny ball thingy in the sky that possesses 99.9% of the mass of the Solar System, & is 330,000 times the mass of the Earth, or there abouts! Now tell me when it changes the Earth's climate can't!
PhilJordan,
This paper contributes to Dr Svensmark's theory rather than detracts from it which causes a problem for the CO2 theory on three accounts.
It has to be CO2 because there is no other plausable theory.
Natural sources are the null hypothesis that CO2 theory has tried to break down with model output rather than empirical data.
Of three sets of temperature measurement, troposphere, ocean and land then the troposphere and ocean data tend towards the findings of Dr Svensmark and only the land data tends towards the CO2 theory, with all the previous doubt cast around the tampering of land data again raising it's head.
This makes the 'CO2argument all that more difficult to retain the moral high ground without putting a lot more effort into the science for which I would be surprised if the same amounts of funding were present.
This position over the next couple of years will also have to be advocated by the IPCC in their role as unbiased scientific advisors to government policy machines in order to allocate funds to further investigate cloud forming and the causes.
The BBC refuses to countenance any deviation from the Faith (forgive the use of a bit of shorthand, here) regardless of copious evidence which casts some doubt. We have recited time and again the list of those climate scientists whose immediate reaction to any research which provides even the smallest smidgin of an alternative to the Faith is to scream "denier", "heretic", "shill".
(In some cases, quite evidently before they have even read the relevant paper)
We know that environmental NGOs have been dripping their own particular Gospel ("IN the beginning was the Word and the Word was 'it's much worse than we thought'") into the ears of willing politicians, journalists and other useful idiots and through all this there has been one simple message: it's happening: this is the cause: it's bad: it's our fault.
The only way to counteract that is to pick on anything that says: it's not happening: this is not the cause: it's not that bad: it's not our fault, and run with it. It's called fighting fire with fire.
When in the fullness of time enough people are prepared to agree that the science is not settled and that: we're not sure exactly what is happening or what the cause is or how bad it is or how much of it is our fault, then we can perhaps hold a proper debate and do what scientists are supposed to do, namely to find out the truth.
Richard Betts: an embarrassment of Richards. Black and Betts, Drake and Dawkins, Lindzen and Lionheart. Where will it end? :)
You say:
I don't disagree but I think you've missed some vital factors. Any policy decisions having a negative effect on the mass of people's lives are bound to create opposition. But the extent of the fury about so-called climate mitigation (and that remember is the dreadfully inappropriate term chosen by the IPCC) can only be explained by two additional factors:
1. the mismatch between the policies and the science said to justify them
2. the way almost every policy implemented on this basis creates a mass of have-nots but a small group of rich insiders who can play the system, enriching themselves further on the back of those with less political clout.
Biofuel subsidies are the earliest and perhaps the worst example so far. I talk about fury above but I don't think we're anything like angry enough about this humanitarian outrage, that already has probably cost millions of the poorest their lives. Unfortunate indeed.
Talking of the poorest, I heartily agree about better regional forecasting being needed for the Sahel. There are many such things for which the money being devoted to climate science should be used. What worries many of us is that so much seems to go into PR and marketing. And not even for solid science. Think of the man with a double-breasted suit in front of a yard of dubious used cars and you have an idea of how the whole client science 'industry' seems to the outsider at moments like this. I realise this may make you feel awkward as a real scientist. It should.
PhilJourdan
You ask a question that I have long sought a proper answer to.
Why does it have to be CO2? Not in the sense of "we've eliminated everything else. therefore ..." but in the sense of "we're determined it's going to be ..."
Svensmark and CLOUD are not, as you say, debunking anything, simply extending the argument and the parameters and the possible causes. Richard Betts obviously sees it that way. What is preventing the rest of the climate science community from taking a more nuanced view?
I understand why the eco-fanatics are committed to CO2; it's the only justification for banning fossil fuels outright which has long been their ambition.
But scientists? Why should they care so much?
Dr. Betts thanks for your response. WG1's equivalent is not matched in any other science as far as I know and the reason for that is that money has been pouring into climate science research to try that the recent warming has been caused by CO2 emissions from human activity. Having said this money hasn't precluded some good science being carried out, probably lots of it.
You must realize that with this amount of money being put into a science that has yet to prove conclusively that CO2 is the sole cause of 50% of the temperature incrrease since 1800, or whenever, while at the same time governments, urged on by the Greens and openly supported by many in the climate science community, are putting in place policies for our future energy security that will be disastrous. Those of us not prone to over excitement when confronted with doomsday scenarios look on, powerless and aghast, that this most dangerous of religions has taken hold of our national politics to the extent that we have no political party that will even listen to our, absolutely correct, arguments tha you cannot model the future of a chaotic system! And that, other than nuclear, there is little to no chance of developing renewable energies on a scale sufficient to support the peoples of the world in the timescales being put forward by the Greens. (I don't believe the Greens believe there's a chance either, they just don't care).
It is small wonder that the realists are treating every paper that helps to put a nail in this preposterous
religious fervor as an opportunity to hole it below the waterline.s
@ Richard Betts
Thank you for your reply: "I think we've always said that kind of thing on uncertainties."
The impression I have gained, as a member of the public trying to follow the arguments, is that the Met Office gives more emphasis to the risks of global warming predicted by its models than to the uncertainties that underlie those climate models. This is certainly my recollection of evidence given to the HoC Science and Technology Committee by the Met Office representative.
I have raised many climate related issues with my MP and, via him, with the department of Energy and Climate Change. The government mantra is "the science is settled". My reasonable questions are ignored and go unanswered. I am not alone in getting this response. The so-called enquiries into Climategate produced a similar response. Yet we are asked to believe in, and pay the inordinate costs of, the "science" behind the Climate Change Act and the Carbon Plan. I am not convinced that the science is settled. It seems you may even agree with me?
@ PhilJOurdan
"I just wonder why they are so afraid of it?"
Svensmark and Friis-Christensen found a link between cosmic rays and global temperatures which counteracted the established view of the Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory and the University of Lancaster that there was no link. The established view has prevailed. The recent CERN experiment casts a doubt on the established view used to build the whole 'CO2 is evil' edifice at a time when "the science is settled" meme was proving to be so successful. Now, careers and funding are at stake - hence the fear as lustre may fall from some careers and funding flow elsewhere.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm
As a matter of historical interest, does anyone recall the originator of "The science is settled" claim?
What do you expect form the people who worked so hard and so well to ignore climategate?
It will be fun to see, as the AGW wheels continue to fall off the train, when the journalists will start to refer to cliamtegate as a real deal, even as they continue to ignore it.
RCs reporting of the paper seems a lot better than WUWTs by a short mile
Bob says "RCs reporting of the paper seems a lot better than WUWTs by a short mile".
Is that right? Are they actually allowing discussions from all perspectives, as WUWT does? If they are doing their usually culling of discussions, then you're only hearing one perspective over there, and that's...not very good reporting.
Mike 3:23pm
Yes - indeed I nearly used "polarisation" instead of "politicisation".
Your point is nicely proven by a twitter conversation I had with the owner of one of the self-described "progressive" blogs in the US, who made essentially the same argument as you about "fighting fire with fire" when explaining to me that I should not under any circumstances engage in a civilised discussion with sceptics....
The result of which is of course, as you say, positive feedback at both ends leading to an ever-increasing polarisation instead of a sensible debate.
Richard Drake
Some of the climate model development work at the Met Office Hadley Centre is funded by the Department For International Development with the specific aim of improving regional seasonal to interannual forecasts in Africa (in close collaboration with African scientists through the Regional Climate Outlook Fora).
When this was set up, DFID very clearly and specifically said that they were not the slightest bit interested in more evidence for AGW. They just want to be able to help alleviate poverty by taking action that is resilient to climate change / variability arising from whatever cause, and they realised that this is a very tough call so took steps to get us to focus more resources on this.
oldtimer
I agree with you (and Mike) that the science is not settled, although my interpretation of where the balance of evidence lies is probably different to yours!
Nevertheless it is important to keep weighing up the evidence at both ends, and to be prepared to explain (in a rational manner) one's own reading of the evidence.
RDCII
I don't want to get into an argument about which post was 'better', but Schmidt poses the correct questions at RC:
And see the figure immediately below at RC: Cosmic Rays from Neutron Monitors (wrt 1965-1999).
The caption reads:
Apologies for the lack of links above, but when I try to post with links, it doesn't work. More Squarespace weirdness. I'll try again.
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate, with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
Come on gentlemen! Do not lose site of my contention that it’s all the government’s fault and that their well designed institutional arrangements pay their part in sustaining policy. Don’t blame the foot-soldiers. Who’d want to be in the UEA now with you cognoscenti firing heavy artillery at them? Must be like the PBI.
Geronimo- The IPCC. As you say. The mechanism is the government’s review of reports in preparation. See the recent thread in Discussions on this blog.
Oldtimer – Thank you but I am afraid you have lost me. Bureaucrats do not read the small print unless there is good reason, and, for the moment, I do not see that my posting urging sympathy for the UEA boys in the position (successive) governments have put them in provides one. I doubt it’s worthwhile, but enlighten me if you want.
Richard Betts – Thank you as always. Your frustration is matched by mine. Given the snail’s pace at which climate science moves away from ignorance of what would actually justify current policy and at which the present benign climatic environment might become catastrophic, the government has the cart before the horse. If your concern is the furtherance of the science, then, of course, you get fed up with the distortions of the polemicists, but then so am I, but not because they distort the science but because they help to sustain a rationally unsupportable policy.
I now appreciate better that the recent development is no death blow to either side of the CAGW row. However, that does not effect my main message because it certainly does not make the UEA’s daft task any easier and their goal will have receded a bit.
Richard Drake – I am far from sure that depoliticizing the science will, in the event, have anything to do with the government ditching its present policy. Or that loss of opportunity for financial gain by the lucky few will matter notwithstanding frantic lobbying. Much more likely will be the impact of tax and freedom from dependence on support from green loonies. And, no doubt, the law of unforeseen circumstances in a fair wind.
My Lord – My perusal of the infamous act led me to the conclusion that there is simply no need to make the politicians face the fact that they made a mistake and repeal it. Let them preserve their face. The act is chock-full of ‘mays’ and leaves governments with options that amount to ignoring it. (Is this not what, some months back, this blog reported the Muckergee (probably spelt wrong), complaining about?)
Mike Jackson – I doubt that scientific enlightenment will prove effective. We are dealing with religion and politics here, and plain old devious behaviour and any insights that can be got from Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins may work better.
Richard Drake again - Add ‘than exasperation’ to the above. Let’s try to be practical.
Richard Betts again – It’s nice to know that DFID are level headed. I wonder if this is politically or bureaucratically led. If the latter, why has that been allowed to happen? Is their Minister just not interested? Someone to get at? And does that tell us anything about our William at the FO?
And so on.
Ecclesiastical Uncle
I think it's simply not DFID's priority.
Richard: it's good to hear what you say about DFID but it isn't nearly enough. Who in government represents the interests of the poorest as the discussions are had about preventing Africa using coal for cheap electricity? Tell me good news about that and I will begin to pray for the people concerned day and night.
Ecclesiastes: what relationship the law of unforeseen circumstances with the one about unintended consequences. But I heartily agree. I'll not forget Enoch Powell once saying: "I've been in politics long enough to know how many inevitable things never happen." And I've just been reading about the adoption of Steve Jobs. His birth parents were both students and stipulated that his adopted parents should both be graduates. They said they were - but it turned out Paul and Clara Jobs were both drop-outs from education. Steve himself followed in their footsteps are dropped out of college after one term. Nobody could have foreseen the consequences. Thank goodness.
Remember the Met Office response to improve the models was buy to more computer power? They went cap in hand to the Government? Well I may well have been working too hard because this analogy popped into my head...
An Aristocratic family's response to the increasing stupidity of their intermarried incestuous progeny was to bring in even more eminent and expensive teachers and governesses. With no improvement in the intellectual capabilities of their offspring. When in reality all they really needed was a cheap bit of productive hanky panky with the chamber maid/footman.
The CERN Paper: a "a bit of rough" implanted into the inbred genes of climate science.
Ecclesiastical Uncle
I fear the act was enabled in order to allow environmental groups to hold whichever government is in power to task. I know there are lots of stupid laws on the books that probably will never see the light of day but this one, I fear, could cause enough of an embarrassment to warrant compliance.
Greenpeace or WWF will jump at the chance at their day in court and all the media attention, if the targets laid down are not met.
We have already seen the allegations of 'manipulated' emmissions figures for Italy making headlines, the next few years will see more of the same. This is why I personally feel that the act should face fresh scrutiny and be openely debated as there is no possible way that the targets can be achieved without crippling the economy in the process.
@ Ecclesiastical Uncle
Sorry to have lost you over the small print. In essence the small print says that the science is not settled. Richard Betts kindly confirmed this in an earlier post:
"oldtimer
I agree with you (and Mike) that the science is not settled, although my interpretation of where the balance of evidence lies is probably different to yours! "
Experience has told me that the small print does matter when it comes to insurance policies. The Climate Change Act was sold as an insurance policy. It is a lousy policy. It is too expensive. It will not deliver what it says it will deliver. It should not be renewed.
I wish I shared your confidence that government can safely ignore the Act if it wants to. The evidence to date, and the inclinations of those responsible for it (MilibandE, Cameron, Clegg and Huhne) suggest that is not going to happen any time soon.
oldtimer:
I don't think the Act is the problem. What sanctions can there be for the government that 'breaks it' on the due date? They will blame all the previous ones. It's a fantasy at every level.
It false belief that is the problem. And corruption, in the cosy interaction between insiders on the make, lobbyists, civil servants and ministers. But corruption can be rooted out. False belief should I think be our chief concern.
Lord Beaverbrook
The economies of the world that have swallowed the AGW myth are the MOST crippled already, whilst those that have demonstrated more intelligence are booming.
Sorry for being pedantic!
For US readers, compare the bankrupt California, and booming Texas, and their positons on AGW.
Lord Beaverbrook
The economies of the world that have swallowed the AGW myth are the MOST crippled already, whilst those that have demonstrated more intelligence are booming.
Sorry for being pedantic!
For US readers, compare the bankrupt California, and booming Texas, and their positons on AGW.
BBD:
I see that you misunderstand the nature of this blog; it is more about the politics, spin, and dirty tricks surrounding AGW than it is about the Science (although the Bishop did a great job of explaining some abused statistical techniques in his book "The Hockey Stick Illusion"). It's a shame that this science has become so politicized that a political site must must exist, but there you are.
Comparing a political blog to a scientific one like RC is silly. You want to go to www.wattsupwiththat.com to find both sides of the scientific aspects of this issue discussed.
As far as whether the coverage at RC can be considered good, I understand that you believe that RC asked the right questions. That's how a propaganda site is SUPPOSED to operate; by allowing no critique of the critique, the reader is left with the feeling that what they've written is unquestionable.
Again, head over to to WUWT and check out their coverage to get both sides of the scientific perspective. The RC comments are discussed there.
BBD: BTW, you don't really have to provide a link to RC, since the Bishop does that in the column to the right. You'll find that, in keeping with their goal of presenting their view as the only ideas you should be exposed to, RC does not have links to WUWT or Bishop Hill, so if you want to link to WUWT or Bishop Hill there, you will have to provide links...but don't expect the comment to be published.
RDCII
Gosh. I missed all that over the years. Thanks for setting me straight.
There’s an audio interview with Guardian science correspondent Ian Sample at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/audio/2011/aug/29/science-weekly-podcast-space-sounds
in which he says, among other things:
“...what it found was that, people thought as I say these three components made aerosols naturally - water, sulphuric acid and ammonia - but when you do that in this experiment, you get something like between a tenth and a thousandth of the amount of aerosols you would expect. So what they’re saying is that there are some other - and in this case it has to be organic gases - a gas or gases - that are playing into this process.
“Now, that might seem incredibly sort of esoteric, but what it means is that there are vapours coming off that are going into the atmosphere - whether they’re from human activity or just from natural processes - like being animals or plants - that are crucial for the formation of these particles that do lead to cloud formation. And it’s interesting to find that out, because if it’s something that humans are producing through their activity, it means that there is another thing that we are doing that is influencing the climate”.