Bishop Hill What's all this then?
Sep 11, 2011 Climate: Models The blogospheric dissection of the papers by Spencer and Braswell and by Dessler continue apace. In fact the pace is a bit of a problem, as I have been left rather behind - radiative physics is an area I need to get up to speed on. This is a pity because it looks as though today's excitement is all going to be focused the effect of clouds on the earth's energy budget.
Firstly there is this comment by Bart at CA. Then there's this post by Tallbloke, which is essentially just a reposting of a comment by Bill Illis at WUWT.
The Bill Illis/Tallbloke piece seems rather more straightforward to me - if I understand it correctly, it shows that the variability in the amount of heat escaping the earth is driven to a large extent by changes in cloud cover. As one commenter puts it:
But the [climate models] only assign a single, constant value for all clouds, at all latitudes, for all periods of day and night, for all seasons of the year, across all elevations for all values of humidity and rainfall and percent CO2.
Right?
I can see that this is a problem, although perhaps I haven't quite got my head around the implications yet.
The Bart comment at CA is, however, more tricky and I haven't made head or tail of it yet. Given that there seems to be general agreement that it may be significant, maybe readers here can explain.
Reader Comments (162)
TE
You gave credence, unwittingly, mistakenly or otherwise to a nasty little blog from an environmental zealot who leads an environmental advocacy group that freely uses the term "denier" not only to describe sceptics but also to disparage scientists who may dissent from 'consensus' science.
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/plehner/the_media_climate_science_and.html
As a commenter you did not address the main point of this blog that those scientists who dissent should be effectively shut-up thru censorship not only in science circles but also in the main stream media. Surely as a scientist that should have set off alarm bells in your head.
If you are not being honest with yourself about such matters how can you be honest with others?
Mac
I think it's unfair to doubt my honesty because of an *absence* of criticism of the article beneath which I commented.
I merely wanted to address the commenter's well-worn trope that "climate has changed in the past for natural reasons, therefore it must be all natural now". I didn't address other points the commenter made, nor the article itself. But that doesn't mean I agreed with the points I didn't address. It just means that I wanted to point out the flawed logic about past natural changes.
I understand the point you are making, but I think you are being rather harsh and absolutist about it.
It feels rather as if you have already made up your mind about me, and nothing I say will change your mind. Perhaps if we talked in person one day you would see that I am rather normal and honest. Until then, please try to inject a little good faith into your reading of my occasional previous forays into public comments. Innocent until proven guilty...?
Tamsin
I would think one thing that demonstrates my honesty is my use of my real name everywhere, with a link to my webpage, rather than a pseudonym. I'm not criticising those that use pseudonyms or short names, merely pointing out that I do not.
Tamsin
You'll find a lot of that about in the climate blogosphere ;-)
Like I said, you will need a thick skin. Also, a strong degree of fatalism about the chances of persuading many people that in order to understand better, they must re-appraise.
Mac is my real name.
http://www.monbiot.com/2011/02/23/robot-wars/
TE
..................... but you didn't address the main thrust of this particular nasty diatribe of advocating the censoring of dissenting scientists.
Perhaps that is why some commentators choose not to indentify themselves. They may be putting their careers, their jobs and that of their families and friends at risk by simply be being labelled a "denier" by environmental zealots.
Have you ever considered that?
Mac
I don't doubt it's your real name - that's why I said "or short names".
Yes, I have considered that - that's why I said that I am not criticising anon or semi-anon usernames.
We all feel vulnerable in this heated (no pun intended) atmosphere. I'm sure you heard about the threats to Australian climate scientists and the noose waved at a climate conference in Melbourne this summer.
That's why it's important to keep these discussions as civil as possible.
Tamsin
Civility is good, indeed, and barring the odd exception, this blog is a haven of relative civility considering it is about climate. I guess that if everyone accepts that other commenters have sincere opinions and respects the right of other people to disagree, even on matters that one considers important, it helps keep things polite. Its also worth remembering that many more people read comments here than write them - from the lurkers point of view, a two-way stream of invective is not so interesting. It is also valuable to have people from a range of backgrounds on this blog, so I'll join the more frequent commenters in welcoming you, Tamsin - especially as we are (somewhat remote) colleagues.
Anyway, Mac was probably unfair to personalize the matter, but the post he linked to is a good example of one thing that is quite offensive to sceptics or lukewarmers such as myself: many people on the consensus side strongly push the line that there is no intellectually respectable position that deviates in the tiniest way from the consensus whereby the only question is how to "cut global warming pollution enough to avoid the most catastrophic impacts". And very few voices on the consensus side ever seem to denounce that attitude. At the very least, discussing energy policy must be seen to be respectable. As I said, its not a personal matter - I don't consider it is my job to go around denouncing the poltically-inspired people who go around saying that the whole AGW theory is a liberal conspiracy and a fraud.
Context is everything.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/09/death-threats-respect-the-science/
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/climate-anger-dangerous-says-german-physicist/story-e6frg6nf-1226095587105
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/sideshow-around-carbon-tax-must-stop/story-fn56az2q-1226079531212
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-dangers-of-boneheaded-beliefs-20110602-1fijg.html
No death threat should ever be condoned, ever ........ but having lived in Melbourne myself I know a thing or two about Aussies - they do love 'knocking tall poppies' by all and any means possible.
The timeline is clear on abuse and death threats. Over the years no one on the consensus side ever called their dogs off.
TE you had an opportunity to stand up to this sort of abuse of dissenting scientists at NRDC - why didn't you?
Tamsin, good to hear you will be starting a blog, I'm sure that will be of interest.
Please remember that you have to be very careful about everything you say - every small slip will be jumped on!
For example, the sceptic commenter you were responding to did not say what you attributed to him in quotes. One of the things we sceptics really don't like is when our arguments are misrepresented.
I don't think use of full real names is any guarantee of honesty, but it does tend to lead to more civilised and polite discussion. I will be switching to my full name soon (I was tempted to do so as part of Al Gore's 'reveal the deniers' campaign but didnt quite have the courage).
The documented threats of violence I am aware of were from Ben Santer towards Steve McIntryre and Pat Michaels.
Courtesy of Willis Eschenbach who composed this small but potent Hate-Crime list:
.............. and there is George Monbiot now infamous comment from 1999, "Global warming means that flying across the Atlantic is now as unacceptable as child abuse"
What value civility in this debate?
There is an interesting previous parallel to the statements Mac reports above, I think in the time of Henry V. The ecclesiastical establishment was still large and wealthy in England and operated its own court system. Henry needed cash for a war. The monasteries, priories, and so forth didn't want to cough up their share, nor even pay for support of the civil judiciary system. After all, they could try their cases in ecclesiastical courts. Henry's response was no pay - no access to civil courts. Suddenly an assaulted priest had no recourse to civil court and no other way to get at the miscreant. They caved.
Now Mann et. al, seem to think that their possible misdoings should not be subject to civil proceedings, .. can be handled if they need it by the academic community. But for the rest of us, it's roll out the tumbrils and run us through the court system. These crimes they accuse us of are all civil, btw.
Isn't it odd that they don't threaten us with expulsion or being held back a year or something more appropriate to their cloistered existence.
All the above with deference to our host's sensibilities.