Tuesday
Jan272015
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Predictions
Jan 27, 2015 Blogs Climate Change Predictions is a new blog on the climate block, which introduces itself thus:
We are a small group who have followed the global warming/ climate change issue for some years. Initially we didn’t know which version was correct but we noticed several things. One was the frequent use of predictions, often scary, that seemed on the surface to be believable. We wondered whether anyone ever went back to see if the predictions turned out to be true.
This blog presents predictions that have been made over the past 40 years or so and we leave it to you to make up your own mind about them.
Jo Nova points out that the post category of "hardest hit" is hilarious. Take a look.
Reader Comments (81)
Rodent: OK. I'm gonna call your bluff. Please show the peer-reviewed science papers that demonstrate that the MWP was warmer and global. Soon and Baliunas tried it in 2003 and the paper was so flawed that I give it my students to show them how not to do science!
You said:
"Do yourself a favour Monty: ignore me, ignore “Onbyaccident”, ignore everyone else on this site and any others that you might visit; ignore, even, the opinions of your favourite personalities, be they David Attenborough, David Bellamy or David Beckham. Sit back and empty your mind of all preconceptions and prejudices. Once you are sure that you do not intend to verify any ideas you might have, search the internet for a wide range of scientific papers on the subject, ensuring that they are by as wide a range of authors as you can find, and read the information. A good paper will minimise the authors’ prejudices, but strive to identify any prejudice that you do see, and endeavour to ignore it – just gather the data, and try to do it without coming to any initial conclusions. Keep your mind open and fluid; should you feel your opinions setting, give yourself a shake, and continue reading. This will take some time, but do come back to us and tell us the results".
Too late...not only have a read more than you....I've also written it! That's why there's a consensus!!
You're a teacher not a student.....?!!!
Wow....
...and you believe the infallibility of peer-review...?!!!
Double wow...
...AND you believe that science requires a consensus....??!!!!!
Triple wow.........
Actually, that you should be teaching scares me, but, sadly, does not surprise me.
Rodent:
I'll ask again and keep it simple.
Please show the peer-reviewed science papers that demonstrate that the MWP was warmer than now and global. I need precisely dated ones of course...not the nonsense put out by Greening Earth Society.
Sorry, Monty, but I am still getting over the shock; your evident naivety and zeal had me labelling you as a first or second-year student, yet to discover the benefits of opening your mind to ideas contrary to long-held beliefs. To find that you are actually teaching has been a bit of a jolt. That you should now start to argument from authority comes as no surprise; it must be a barrel of laughs in your class.
Anyhoo… what I have found, so far: “A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based On Non-Treering Proxies” by Craig Loehle, printed in ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT Volume 18 No. 7+8 2007, and: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDwYLPNHk_0&feature=relmfu.
Both of which I have no doubt you will dismiss out of hand (very probably without even viewing).
I have found many in the past, but am getting bored with this; to return to scientific principles, perhaps you should not be asking me to prove myself right, but you should be attempting to prove me wrong (and, no, the “hockey stick” or similar does not count).
Rodent: Ahh....Energy and Environment. That highly rated journal....I wonder why the paper was published here. After all, there are loads of credible scientific journals to choose from, yet he decided to publish it in a notorious 'skeptic' journal. How strange.
And Craig Loehle...the person who didn't understand what BP meant in paleoclimate! Which is why he made a mess up of his reconstructions.
Ah, well. Thank you for proving me right.
I don't suppose you have bothered looking at the sea-levels discussion I mentioned above, either, have you? I suspect that I will not be surprised by your answer to that one. Now, get back to
indoctrinatingteaching (...hmmm, maybe I was right, first time...) your charges; show them what you can do with a tightly closed mind.'WE'??
According to these gradients you're projecting hundreds of years into the future - maybe you should be looking through Samuel Pepys' Diaries to find sage advice on proteomics?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2001.66/trend/plot/rss/from:2000/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.9/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/uah/from:2005/trend
SNTFM: One of the problems with closed minds is that they tend to assume that we have learned all that there is to learn, and any further progress can only be downhill. Also, they rarely read what you have actually written , but what they think you should have written.
Rodent. You wrote: "One of the problems with closed minds is that they tend to assume that we have learned all that there is to learn, and any further progress can only be downhill".
I don't have a closed mind. I also know that we haven't learnt all that we have to learn. But there is a deep scientific consensus and for you to argue that we have this all wrong is utter lunacy. And for you to quote Loehle as an expert on climate reconstructions and not to question why this paper was published in E&E and not in a mainstream journal is why you aren't really a 'skeptic'!
You have an open mind? Really? Have you read the discussion on sea-level rise, to see what you might glean, there?
Have you looked at the CO2 discussion?
Have you looked ever out of the window and wondered why what you are being told is often so very different from what you have observed?
Have you never wondered why NONE – repeat: NONE – of the dire predictions offered have ever been realised? (Hint: start from 1970, and see how those predictions of Ehlrich et al, many of them forerunners of today’s “prophets”, have panned out.)
I suspect that I could answer all of those questions for you with one, simple, two-lettered word.
I found two for you to view, then realised that you would find a reason – any reason, probably couched in scornful language (tick) – to dismiss them, and you would do for any others that I could proffer. I gave up at that point, and merely encourage you to do your own research.
Erm, no, there isn’t, hence blogs like this. For a start, no TRUE scientist would ever hide behind “scientific consensus” – just look to such luminaries as Newton, Darwin or Einstein to see that – would graphene or the cure for gastric ulcers exist if the discoverers believed in “deep scientific consensus”? However, I can accept that there might well be a deep political consensus.For your edification, I choose not to judge a book by its cover but by its contents, and then only after reading.
RR:
You do understand what it would take for a prediction to be correct? Lets assume we are talking say about model predictions. And let's say that we were in a nirvana where we all (yes you and me and Monty and all) understood and agreed the physics in the models. And lets just say that the physics represented reality exactly. So we develop some math and code that up .... now before we press "go" we need to sit around and come up with yup you may have guessed it...the inputs. And we blissfully all agree those! Then we press go and promise to come back in say 30 years to see whether the results accord.
Still with me?
Guess what on our return? They could differ! Lets say for the sake of this little story that they do!!! Now how can that be. You and all the deniers go off shaking your likkle heads saying well duhh how does that figure......
You think that debases the science? Really? You know how it still works and yet have the science still being exact? No?
Becasue THE REALLY LIVED THROUGH INPUTS (ACTUAL EMISSIONS, VOLCANOES etc) AS INPUT IN REALITY AFTER WE SET IT ALL RUNNING WERE NOT THE bl**dy SAME. Trouble is some of you drifted into deniership. Now here I'm being charitable .....
That is why we speak of PROJECTIONS and RANGES from models and not PREDICTIONS. And to the point of this story - that is why that rubbish little website is as useful as a chocolate teapot....
Want to revisit your statement of NONE being realised? As reported by mainly those bastion papers the Daily Telegraph and Mail...sheesh....
Monty - you deserve a medal for putting up with this wilful exercise in stupidity. Couldn't help laughing at RRs efforts of finally dredging out some links for you after persistent asking.
So sadly familiar.
RR, yup, closed, very angry 'minds' - some nonsense there about 'drifted into deniership' from the OBA sock puppet character. Where's that Entropic character these days, by the way? He had a similar line in patroning superiority despite his non-existent scientific credentials.
Let's unpick this for a minute - 'drifting into deniership' sounds very much like 'backsliding' to me. As in religious cult.
I was part of the political consensus largely because I trusted my fellow 'scientists' - but actually always questioned why the same rabid obsessives that destroyed the UK's huge scientific lead in biotechnology was equally rabidly obsessed with global warming/climate change/global weirding or whatever the latest merde du jour was.
Then came Climategate. I read the emails. Game over. Science cannot be conducted by fixing, faking, hiding awkward bits and plain deceit. Scientists only qualify for the title by seeking the TRUTH - if it's inconvenient to tell the truth, you've made a complete cockup of your career choice. You are NOT a scientist and cannot ever become one. You are a liar.
Then the excuses, the lies, the coverups. More establishment lies about coverups, the smears, the endless propaganda, the desperate employment of the lunatic fringe in the pages of the Guardian (which I used to buy and read daily) the dwindling band of utter losers who think they're scoring with the pathetic use of quotation marks around the mis-spelled word sceptic.
Now eighteen years with no temperature increase. It ain't warming. Nobody in school today has ever witnessed ANY of this fearsome 'threat to the planet'.
Looking back the picture is so familiar - misanthropic lie after misanthropic lie. Once our eyes are opened, there's no return - trust is gone forever - the naivety of brainwashed youth, once lost, makes for deep resentment of the loathsome deceivers who peddle this arrogant nonsense.
You're basically self-fertilisers and what's more, you know it.
Onbyaccident: yes, I do know what it would take for a prediction to be correct; a prediction is made, and – lo! – the event happens. Thus, is the prediction correct! Aren’t you impressed with my knowledge of English? Now, what you are saying is that, no matter how carefully you prepare and no matter how studiously you apply your research, when you try to make predictions for a chaotic system, said predictions might not be verified by events.
Well, slap me with a kipper! Something no-one else had thought of! Give this person a Nobble prize!
You are having a larf, again, aren’t you? I would have thought that, if the prediction is not correct, it is not a correct prediction. Clear? I am, and others of my ilk are, saying that to try to make predictions on the limited amount of information that we have is foolish, in the extreme, while you, basically and in a long, roundabout way, are saying EXACTLY the same thing, yet you call us “deniers”!
Let us go back to this “…nirvana where we all (yes you and me and Monty and all) understood and agreed the physics in the models.” [sic] Now, let us take a break, here: do we understand and agree with the physics of the model? Reality: not enough data – FAIL. Continue: “And lets [sic] just say that the physics represented reality exactly.” [my bold] Ooops. Another flaw. How can you be so sure? However much we may agree, can we really, truly be sure that is absolutely correct? Have you no concept that humans might be wrong? That our observations, and interpretation of same might be erroneous? Anyway, carry on: “So we develop some math [sic] and code that up ...” Well, we have already determined your argument is flawed, but carry on: “…now before we press "go" we need to sit around and come up with yup you may have guessed it...the inputs.” [sic] Well, as I have already pointed out, we really, really, really do not have enough information to do this.
You have, in your own way, highlighted the difference between “warmists” and “sceptics” (or “deniers”, if you wish); you staunchly insist that the principles being applied are robustly scientific, and that all variables are known; sceptics, however, are not too sure, and feel that more information is required. That the results of the PROJECTIONS and RANGES do not conform even remotely to reality does, I feel, provide stronger support for the more sceptical view than it does for the alarmist view.
(BTW, “Persistent”? I am not sure that twice is being persistent – 5 or 6 times, and I might agree with you. I was reluctant to provide any links as I was sure that any that I did provide would be dismissed out of hand – a point that Monty quite quickly proved correct. Also, I would have to trawl the net again, looking for what I have found, and felt that Monty was as able to do that as I, and could be sure that what he found was more believable than anything I could provide.)
Well… yes. Do you have any evidence to prove me wrong? If so, please enlighten us.SayNoToFearmongers: more or less my history, too; by nature sceptical, I was prepared to believe the hype presented on the MSM… then I read the emails, and started looking at the facts.
Paranoia and conspiracy. No science of course. Something I've come to expect here.
Couple of themes though I want to pick up on.
1 - we hear often of those of you who once believed in AGW but found the light and moved over to what you call the skeptic camp. It's a familiar anecdote but one thing that always defines it is a complete utter lack of proof over what changed your mind. When a socialist converts to being a conservative there may be a stated reason. Christian to moslem. But all we get with you guys 'n' gals at its very best is 18yr pause (no evidence apart from some rather poorly drawn cherry picked lines on graphs) or debunking of Mann HS by some inept science a la McIntyre. Quite often though it is absolutely nothing. A profund deep silent ignorant well.
2 - another theme. You call us the establishment. With our "lies and excuses and cover ups". Misanthropy. You have the gall to refer to Climategate. You the pluckly little outnumbered fighters for the truth. Just likkle old you and a bunch of oligarchs and little oil companies. So we are really the establishment?
We are quoted Darwin and Galileo as if you stand in their tradition. I know one thing for sure as to which camp they would be in if they were around today and it would not be in yours. The hear nothing see nothing but say a lot crowd. But you know sometimes you are outnumbered simply because people have decided where the truth lies.
You know I don't even pity you. I occasionally pass by with my free ticket to the zoo. Yes you anger me as I have an automatic anger for wilful stupidity and because people of your ilk waste a lot of people's time. We view you out of utter curiosity. I often wonder what the priests who railed against Galileo's logic would have sounded and looked like. And they look and sound like you. You are the Katie Hopkins of the science world. Unembarrassed in how stupid you sound. But at least she gets paid for her rants.
There is plenty that needs discussion within AGW. But none I'm afraid that I ever find here. Ever. You unpicked nothing. So we sound superior do we? I wonder why...
Onbyaccident: what planet are you on? Have you not heard that NASA, NOAA, the IPCC and the UKMO accept that the pause (or hiatus, if you prefer – “plateau” is my preference) is real, and has been so for about 18 years (depending upon which system you use)? Even Phil Jones, of the UEA, admits that 2014 was NOT the hottest year “evah”; it was little different from any other. Please, please send any evidence to those august bodies to correct their obvious errors, so that they may regain some of their lost kudos. You also prove quite convincingly that you are not even reading what we are writing; where have I mentioned Galileo? You even demonstrate your own ignorance about the Galileo v Church imbroglio, but I’ll let that pass.
'There is plenty that need discussion within AGW' - so why do the gutless alarmists persistently refuse to debate with realists?
Your arrogance and deceit changes nothing. The only thing that ever matters is observations. The models say it should be warming. It isn't warming. The models are wrong. That's how science works. I know this because I am a scientist.
You are a liar.
@ RR - why do you think I was referring to you? I have little interest in trawling back to check through your missives as to whether you have written anything about Galileo. And no NASA, NOAA, IPCC etc don't accept the pause at all. What they and their scientists debate is a slowdown in warming over the 80s/90s. You want to call that a hiatus that's fine.
It may also surprise you that I don't also think it is relevant as to whether the atmospheric temps for 2014 are the hottest ever. What is undeniable is that the planet entropy is increasing. Factor in the oceans too. Next year may well atmospheric temps may dip below 2014 - that will also be irrelevant. What matters is the mid and long term trend.
@ SNTF - get you. So I'm a liar am I. About what? You think we don't want to debate with you? Goodness knows I've asked for you deniers to give me relevant links on here (and other sites that do have more science to them than BH) as I'm genuinely interested in knowing why you ended on that side of the wrong side of Ockham's razor? To believe what you would would need a lot more assumptions). Default replies have been overwhelmingly hand waving irrelevance but occasionally though a link - but to imbeciles like Monckton and Ridley (although I will say that you are at least usually too embarassed to send me anything by Delingpole). Nothing EVER from a peer reviewed scientist with a physics/climate science/paleo background (and no Curry and Lindzen are too compromised by oil & lobby money).
No I have no fear of debating you. It's just that a) as stated above there is a persistent lack of evidence supplied by your side and b) why should we? There is a reason that as has been stated elsewhere Man Utd don't play against Portsmouth these days. You guys are just not in the same league. My reference to there being plenty of debate and unknowns within the AGW world related to things such as
- What is the current melt state of the WAIS?
- how best to model cloud formation?
Darwinians don't debate Creationists so why should we debate you? Goodness knows it happens at times but I very much doubt that you would move the debate on. Asking for your input into global warming and climate change science and policy would be akin to asking predatory paedophiles their views on child protection. That is how we feel. So get over it.
To your "I am a scientist" assertion. Go on then. Tell me. What are your qualifications? What field? You state that the only thing that matters are observations. The only thing. Utterly astonishing.
Show me your qualifications and I'll show you mine. Given your comment above re observations and models I feel I'm on solid and fertile ground here (that's if you pop out of your hole again :-))
Actually RR why don't you try the same. Would be very illuminating methinks..
I will await you of the morrow...
For someone who doesn't want a debate, you are very persistent.
"why should we debate you?"
Cos you want us to pay for you loony climate policies and to suffer massive lifestyle restrictions .. And you dare suggest that there should be no debate and sceptics should be kept off the Controversial BBC.
Well said, Stewgreen! What galls me even more is that the likes of Monty and his ilk are on the public payroll, so I am paying them for their loony views and unbalanced
indoctrinationeducation of the young.When will you get it, Onbyaccident? (Even your name is obviously a falsity, by the way, so why should we give you any credibility?) The reason we do not give you any evidence is that we CANNOT give you any evidence, as there is no evidence to give! How can you prove a negative? Surely, if you claim that the world is warming, then it is up to you to give evidence that the world is warming, not demand those that question it to prove that it isn’t? You’d be brilliant in a court of law: “’E done it, m’lud. I know that, and ’e cannot provide any proof ’e didn’t, which obviously makes ’im guilty as ’Ell!” It reminds me of a fracas I was in a while back, when I stated that a given quotation was not from the attributed publication; my adversary DEMANDED me to show where the quotation wasn’t, and became quite irate when I admitted that I could not do that. You are effectively doing the same. As you are refuting what most of the major organisations are saying, I think the requirement for evidence from you is becoming more important.
By the way, the implication that you were referring to me was that you linked Galileo (who has not been mentioned in this thread) and Darwin (who I did mention in this thread). Back-pedalling as you are leads me to the conclusion that you realise you’ve been found out, and are quite prepared to lie to cover your tracks.
My observation about your ignorance about the Church and Galileo still stands.
You don’t really “do” science, do you, Onbyaccident? You talk about the mid and long term trends, and even refer to “… a slowdown in warming over the 80s/90s." Here’s some news for you – the 80s/90s were the only time that recognisable global warming has actually occurred in the lifetime of most of the people on this planet, at present. Before that, there was about 30 years of cooling, leading to cries of: “An ice age is coming!” (oddly enough, by many of the same people claiming that thermageddon is approaching, though, strangely, many are now denying this fact), and since then, the temperatures have flat-lined. Few on here would dispute any of that, as there is plenty of evidence that is what has happened; few would doubt that, for a couple of centuries, temperatures have risen, indeed, most will be glad of that; few would claim that temperatures will NOT rise further.
As I cannot claim to be an authority about what others on this site think, feel or believe, I will not, so will now revert to the personal, hoping that it might reflect the views of others: what I am sceptical about is that this 2-century rise has been caused by human activity; simply referring to historical records shows that there has been a rise and fall cycle in global temperatures for many millennia, so why should this be any different? I am also sceptical about the rise being caused by an increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere; correlation is NOT causation. I accept that CO2 has increased, and that humans may well have contributed to some of this rise, but, as the rise in CO2 has been pretty steady, the rise in temperatures has not; for that reason, I doubt that CO2 has any significance in this rise. The data garnered so far is a very good basis for ongoing research, but we simply have not been making the required degree of observations for long enough to reach any sensible conclusions; many, many more years, decades – perhaps even centuries – of observations will have to be made before conclusions should be reached. However, the politicians have latched onto this, and are milking it for all its worth, and using it to milk the tax-payer with a renewed avarice (if you doubt that, look at the vast number of “green” taxes imposed; look at the businesses that are being heavily subsidised in which politicians have substantial stakes – e.g. Cameron’s father-in-law). That they have a whole swathe of academics who perceive this as a good way for their own enrichment, and a tranche of businessmen with similar perceptions merely reinforces the politicians’ views (by the way, if you think that “Big Oil” are opposing this and not getting themselves involved in the opportunity for profit, then you really are gullible!). You will, I have no doubt, dismiss this as “conspiracy theory”, but I merely see it as people spotting an opportunity, and leaping on the band-wagon.
You ask us for evidence, then give us a long list of accredited persons whom you will not consider as evidential; I suspect your list will lengthen should others’ papers be offered to you. Let me offer some non-written evidence: the retreating ice in Alaska is revealing a lost forest – surely, even in your peculiar world, that there should be a forest under the ice has to indicate that that area was once NOT covered in ice, but was temperate enough for trees to grow? Similar finds are being made in other places around the world. How about the “body under the ice”? A well-known discovery of a victim of conflict found in the Alps, as the ice sheet melted. Several thousand years old, the body was found where it fell, with signs of crushing from the ice over it, thus indicating that he did not fall into a crevasse; in other words, the ice sheet that covered him did not exist in his day – i.e. it was warmer, then.
However, I know that you will quite summarily dismiss all that I have put to you, because, I have said before, you really do not “do” science.
@ michael Hart
I'm persistent but I'd hardly call this a debate. Get yourself over to places like RealClimate for that.
Methinks that you are giving up on this one, OBA. I take it you are unable counter a rather tenacious little mouse. Give me real arguments rather than name-calling, and you might hold more sway.
I prefer places where I can trust the moderators not to delete my, possibly dissenting, posts. That's something we can both enjoy here at Bishop Hill.
@SGreen
Yes I dare suggest as the end result would be meaningless. I see no reason to have your agreement in this or anything to do with climate change. You have an opportunity every so often to vote your view. Unfortunately in a mature democracy there are many things we pay for that we would rather pay less for. I could list some myself. Are you 5? When you grow up a bit why don't you revisit your comment.
Rationale to not have you on BBC is merely one of arithmetic. Providing one denier for one rational scientsit gives the illusion of debate. You could though go for say (and here I'm being generous with the ratio) 32 climate scientists who support the AGW view to maybe one (if you could find one) that didn't. As you seem to believe in democracy and all....
@ RR
Tenacious but irrelevant. One point - what I'm asking you to do is not prove a negative. Think about it again. Embarrasing that you even seem proud to state/write down that you have no evidence at all.
Let me humour you though. We have plenty. You ask for evidence; well here is one piece re your comment (oft seen on here and other swivel eyed sites) about how everyone was fretting about a new ice age sometime back...errr they weren't....
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
As for the rest of your ramblings....by the way did you share your background/experience with us in your overlong posts. Will go for another look but your posts are quite difficult to get through in many ways.
:-)
@ mH
there is very little dissention on here amongst the denier set. I have no idea of what happened to you over at RC but I suspect that there may be more shades to your story than you would care to go into. As for myself I've had messages removed on BH simply because I used the "denier" word. However here I've been called an "alarmist", "warmist" etc which I care not a jot about. I shrug and move on...
Thank you for your link. I say, you do have a sense of humour, don’t you? You really were just ’aving a larf, weren’t you? I do wonder if, in 30 years’ time, when the scare is for the oncoming ice age, there will be similar publications denying that there ever was any scare about global warming?
But you are asking me to prove a negative: I say that there is really not enough evidence to support any of the alarmist theories; you ask me to prove it. HOW can I prove that? I also say there is no alien life-form in the universe; Earth is the only planet with life on it. It is a theory I cannot prove right – indeed, it is not possible to prove it right, but you could so easily prove it wrong.
As for the source of my information, most of what I am saying is based on and fully supported by the latest IPCC report – go on, have a read.
As an aside, it would be interesting for an educator to take transcripts of both our postings, anonymise them, and give them to their students to see which they consider the more rationally argued. I can see little more than pomp and bluster in your ramblings, Onbyaccident, amplified by your obvious fear of open debate; it would be interesting to see if others agreed.
But you don't move on, do you?
You've just used the D-word, and not been moderated, while complaining about being moderated for using the D-word.
I call troll.
"b...sh..sh" the sound of OBA shifting the goalposts
Remember you were not talking about scientists you were talking about debate in general : you initially said "why should we debate you?"
Now you add
- "Rationale to not have you on BBC is merely one of arithmetic."
Whose special arithmetic is that ?
1]Even if we were talking of "only scientists" (which we aren't) you can't show any proper replicated evidence for your quoted ratio of 32 to 1.Though of course none of the PR depts of UK science institution deviates from the hysteria line it is not difficult to find a scientist who will express scepticsm of hysterical views.
2] Since we are talking about general debate
If 82% of taxpayers don't care for your rather hysterical view then it is certainly not fair of the BBC to air 99% hysteria. (recent survey said only 18% are particularly worried about climate change )
- Your wishful thinking that there is no climate debate, doesn't make it true. The BBC's job is to work for the public addressing their concerns. We don't see you saying that that the BBC for fracking, or windfarms can limit airtime to "only scientists" who toe a party line.
" Get yourself over to places like RealClimate for that"
- You'll notice that the sceptical climate blogs get much more participants than the true-believer ones.
You said " Are you 5? When you grow up.." - strange that you are bringing in the playground language. We'll stick to debating arguments instead of throwing petty insults and going Ad Hom.
- on your reply to @RR You OBA are the one claiming to be the Climate Clairvoyant so in challenging your assertions it is not his job to prove that the dead say different things to him than they say to you. He just has to show weaknesses in your pronouncements.
- A typical troll trick is to go on saying 50 crazy things. And so draw a rational sceptic to make a minor contestable point, which the troll zooms in to pick on like a scab. Such a technique adds nothing to a general quest for the truth.
I recycle time lost to trolls, by laying off actual recycling for a day.
@ SG
I keep hearing this about scientists "toeing the party line" argument all the time. I've worked in academia and I never saw that. It's a convenient argument but not easily provable or unprovable.....give it a go and let me know why you think that.
@ RR
"I do wonder if, in 30 years’ time, when the scare is for the oncoming ice age, there will be similar publications denying that there ever was any scare about global warming?"
Is that all you can say about a relatively easy to read paper that I sent you? I'd have to say that your assertion is unlikely - for that to happen then the denier side would have to be producing vast amounts more than they are. In properly peer-reviewed journals there is hardly anything to support your ravings. Should there be some factor in the future as yet unseen that negates virtually all of AGW I will be the first to admit that the vast body of evidence as of the current time points to varying degrees of warming.
Which goes to my point really...you guys have nothing to point to. I asked you to send something and you fall back on a defensive line of "can't prove a negative". You have absolutely no clue here do you and lack even basic common sense let alone any scientific training (and NO I'm not asking for you to be a working climate scientist) - let's try having a go as to how you would then intervene in this line of thought
- CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That I think we can agree on?
- Putting vast amounts of it into our atmosphere will cause the planet to heat.
- However you state that this is not the case? Or if it is heating it is not because of the man made contributions.
It is that last line that needs explaining. Goodness knows I've tried to keep this simple so give it a go....
Trying to call me a troll is convenient for people who have little to argue for themselves. You hope I'll go away and just leave them in their little cozy denying world free of inconvenient and rather awkward realities. Bit like the people who still wished it was the 1950s.....
Onbyaccident: my “ravings”? You have probably been told a hundred million times: do not exaggerate!
You are right, we “guys” have nothing to point to; as we have nothing to point to, how can we point to it to prove our, erm, point? If we were in a desert, and we “guys” said, “There is no water out there,” you might disagree and say that there is water there. But, when we ask you to show us, I suspect you would invert that and demand that we show you specifically where there is no water; as we could not, other than by generally showing you a desert, you would then label us “deniers”.
You say:
There does seem to be a general consensus on that. Mind you, does that make it true? I have seen as many experiments failing to show contained CO2-rich atmospheres warming as succeeding. There is also a growing consensus that the term “greenhouse gas” is erroneous, and a better term should be sought..First point of contention: do you have any evidence that this is so? Venus has an atmosphere that is 99% CO2, yet its temperatures at an altitude where the pressure is 1 bar is approximately what the Earth’s would be, should the Earth, with its present atmosphere, be that distance from the Sun.I am saying that a lot of what you are saying is open to conjecture; nothing you have stated has yet been verified by observations. You present me with observations that support your view, and I might alter my view.Another reason I am reluctant to provide you with publications that question your beliefs is that you will dismiss them out of hand. You have already given us a list of those whose papers you will NOT read. What about this or this or even this? Call me picky if you will, but you have yet to provide us with any evidence to support your views, other than a link to a risible, obscure blog (a conclusion reached not by your methods – i.e. summarily, without even bothering to read – but drawn by reading posts and comments, and – perhaps more interestingly – the responses to comments).
You have already dismissed the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change as untrustworthy; which other scientists would you dismiss? As I do not want to waste my time presenting publications that you dismiss because of authorship, would you consider work from any of these:
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society;
Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University;
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences;
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003);
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University;
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London;
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute;
Zbigniew Jaworowski, physician and ice core researcher?
If none of these meet your rigorous, if obscure, standards, might I suggest that you get onto the various institutions that employ them or that they belong to and have them summarily ejected!
I shall leave it to others to determine who amongst us is raving.