Other readers may simply wish to note that the one Chinese paper BBD refers to is an extensive literature review of 91 other papers, not a paper in its own right.

The reference I gave (on this page, in the same message as the literature review) was for

Peter A. Stott

DNFTT

philip, matt and dung,
Had enough?

:)

What a waste of time this has been. I'm only sorry that I stopped Mrs BBD from adding her own comment when she saw what was on the screen a few hours ago.

You are luckier than you know.

Wear your Unsinkable Rubber Duckies with pride.

Goodnight.

Shub,

Yes, I think so. I'll be surprised if there's anything more that can be said to BBD, that will cause him to reflect on his position. I'm still smarting somewhat from the reply he gave me at Nov 12, 2011 at 3:10 PM, where I think his attitude to science is revealed clearly for all to see:-

The problem with Koutsoyiannis' and several other alternative takes on short and long-term climate variability is that they are essentially non-physical.

Thus they provide contrarians with an irresistibly convenient way of avoiding any discussion of the role of RF from GHGs in the physical processes that underpin and drive climate variation.

This is classic misdirection as practised by lawyers and stage magicians.

I hope my own position has remained reasonably clear through this thread. I'm concerned about rising CO2 emissions and want to see this reversed. However, I also think that political agendas have been piggy-backed onto climate science, in a way that has subverted normal political debate. I don't think the kind of position exemplified by BBD helps at all in achieving emission reductions. IMO, the use of this approach by activists and activist-scientists has caused considerable harm both to science and society, and I sincerely wish that would give it up.

Philip

You are the first honourable warmist I have come across so good luck to you. BBD could learn a lot from you but I dont think he will.

Quack!

quote BBD

I will take that as concrete evidence that everything I say - every statement, every challenge - is correct and unopposed by yourself.

Outstanding arrogance of the first order!

quote BBD

I will take that as concrete evidence that everything I say - every statement, every challenge - is correct and unopposed by yourself.

Outstanding arrogance of the first order!
Nov 21, 2011 at 8:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterAnon

It's a bit like groundhog day! I take a break from reading this blog and come back to see exactly the same person hogging the blog.

To be fair, we all need a hobby and it's nice to see an enthusiastic amateur like BBD telling us all how stupid certain qualified climate scientists are, whilst praising those who appeal to his extremely limited knowledge of this complex subject. As a member of a local photography club, I know how we like to show off our skills to fellow members, but soon lose our hubris when getting a lecture from qualified professionals. It's nice to feel like a big fish in a small pond but if nobody's impressed then what's the point?

RKS

You know nothing. Don't pretend otherwise.

Anon

Outstanding arrogance of the first order!

No. The outstanding arrogance is to make this statement without any substantive response to my comment.

God you lot are pathetic.

matthu

Have you worked out why a misleading 'literature review' by some unheard-of CHINESE authors has popped up... just before Durban?

Remember what the Chinese did to COP15? Or are you a bit too young for that?

Such charming naivety. To be sure, you will go far.

DNFTT

Again the bleat of 'DNFTT'.

What an absolute admission of defeat. And my, how ridiculously childish you sound.

Some readers will probably remember the Independent UN-instigated review of the IPCC carried out by the IAC?

12 appointed staff members of the panel were said to have been selected because they were some of the top scientific researchers around the world, specializing in climate science, atmospheric science, ecology, chemistry, physics, economics and other fields.

One of the 12-member committee was Jingyun FANG, Cheung Kong Professor and Chair, Department of Ecology, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, in Beijing where he also serves as Academic Director of the College of Urban and Environmental Sciences and where he also taught as a professor from 1997 to today.

Professor FANG's research interests include terrestrial carbon cycle, biodiversity and biogeography of plants, land use and land use change, and applications of remote sensing in ecology.

Jingyun FANG was also one of the co-authors of the extensive literature review of 91 relevant papers that I referred to earlier.

Now I don't usually think that there is anything necessarily to be gained by trying to argue from authority, but in this instance it appears that there may be someone trying to draw an inference from the fact that FANG is not a European scientist. In our society this may even be construed as racism.

In this instance I would simply point out that there can be absolutely no doubt about Professor FANG's credentials and also no doubt that he will have included in his review papers from some of the most eminent scientists in the field.

The full list of references can be found at the end of his review, and the abstract, which I also quoted earlier, is as follows:

In recent decades, there have been a number of debates on climate warming and its driving forces. Based on an extensive literature review, we suggest that (1) climate warming occurs with great uncertainty in the magnitude of the temperature increase; (2) both human activities and natural forces contribute to climate change, but their relative contributions are difficult to quantify; and (3) the dominant role of the increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases (including CO2) in the global warming claimed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is questioned by the scientific communities because of large uncertainties in the mechanisms of natural factors and anthropogenic activities and in the sources of the increased atmospheric CO2 concentration. More efforts should be made in order to clarify these uncertainties.

http://climategate.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/fangetal.pdf

People with a genuine interest in climate science will probably regard this review as having made a valuable contribution to the debate from a highly respected scientist.

RKS

You know nothing. Don't pretend otherwise.
Nov 21, 2011 at 9:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Funny that because from what I read of your incessantly repetitative posts you know absolulutely nothing either. You're an amateur pub bore with a load of second hand quotes.

http://climategate.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/fangetal.pdf

People with a genuine interest in climate science will probably regard this review as having made a valuable contribution to the debate from a highly respected scientist.
Nov 21, 2011 at 11:20 PM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

Don't be silly. Acording to the highly self rated amateur 'scientist' BBD this guy doesn't rate. Don't forget, his selected scientists trump yours anytime because all the alarmist blogs he reads say so.

Hi Dung,

Thanks for your comment, I appreciate the sentiment, although I'm not sure I'd self-identify as a "warmist" either.

As I tried to point out to BBD, I don't think that labels are such a good idea in this argument. If you accept Matthu's summary of the "consensus" (page 5 of this thread, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:57 PM), then you identify a range of opinion that includes the vast majority of professional climate scientists, including almost everyone normally labeled "sceptic", as well as a large number of those normally labeled "warmist". The position is therefore very inclusive. The only people left out by it are those who either deny the reality of further GH warming or who insist that the problem is far worse than the majority imagine. Although these possibilities can't be excluded, I think they are both aimed squarely at supporting a political position, whereas the climate issue is practical, not political.

My argument is that the logic of accepting Matthu's summary is to want decarbonization. I don't see any incompatibility between this desire and my opposition to the political agenda of sustainability, ecocentrism and all the other green ideology. If you want to think of the "worse than we imagine" position as being "GHE-alarmism", then the other extreme could equally be thought as being "decarbonization-alarmism". But I don't think there is good reason for this fear either. The aim is simply to evolve the energy supply so that it produces less (or eventually zero) CO2 per unit energy. And this is perfectly compatible with increasing the supply of energy so that everyone in the future world has a similar level of cheap energy access as modern day Europeans or Americans.

Philip

My argument is that the logic of accepting Matthu's summary is to want decarbonization.

I happen to disagree with that. I am not saying that the conclusion is wrong - simply that it does not follow from my summary. My summary makes no inference about the severity or the likely continuation or the dominant cause of warming.

The dominant cause of warming (purely according to my summary which I equate with the current consensus) is very uncertain and could just as easily be changing land use or any other natural cause not even considered by AR4.

Philip,
Have you read/seen the latest Robert Laughlin book, 'Powering the Future'? He offers clear reasons as to why there will be no replacing carbon-based fuel use - speaking purely from a practical standpoint. Our proportion of its use may vary, depending on running out of crude oil, getting too icky about coal (developed country syndrome) etc, but we wouldn't replace it, and we would find ways of producing these fuels from a range of sources even when they are long gone.

Secondly, there are more reasons to not believe or say ' aim is simply to evolve the energy supply so that it produces less (or eventually zero) CO2 per unit energy'. The world, both the developing and the developed each in their own way, has pursued the mirage of universal health care, and universal human rights. These apparently noble aims in turn, have resulted in more harm to their own objectives. In each of these instances we possess/ed the basic component that would solve problems: good preventive and medical care, and the rule of law and in each of the above, the perversions introduced by blanket objectives eventually only served to retard its implementation.

The trend of out time, it seems, is to hold similar blanket views about energy. Why should we believe that such a process will do any good this time around alone? A subset of us may feel that reconciling the three different poles in the climate debate, 'concern for climate', energy and the environment, may be possible with intelligent decarbonization (i.e., getting rid of carbon). I would contend, that careful thinking utilizing lessons from history, would show to us that this is yet another pattern arising from our old intellectual habits. It is in all likelihood, destined to end in disaster. Ideological reconciliation is not necessary, and it is known that some perceived polarities simply disappear with changing circumstances. For example, increased concern for the environment and corrective action is a direct result of development (i.e., burning lots of fossil fuels). One is simply not possible without the other.

I hope you do not wish the poor people to be standing in the sun with their solar cookers (100% decarbonization). (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Solar-Panel-Cooker-in-front-of-hut.jpg). I don't. I want them to be inside, using natural gas or electric energy, just like the rich people (people like us) do in their kitchens.

matthu

In our society this may even be construed as racism.

The fact that you do not understand the realpolitik at work here makes you ignorant. It does not make me a racist. That is a vile slur - by far the worst on this thread - which is saying something.

However, I do hope BH doesn't snip your comment because I would like others to see just how unpleasant you actually are when shown, once again, to be in the wrong.

DNFTT

Hi Matthu,

I agree with you. Some more assumptions are needed to get from your summary to decarbonisation. I also agree that the dominant cause of warming is very uncertain and that changing land use, black soot, and so on, are likely to contribute to any human impact and that they can be addressed far more readily than CO2.

Here is the reasoning I make regarding CO2:-

1/ It seems feasible that if nothing else changes, then CO2 levels will rise to 1000 ppmv by 2100. This is 4x pre-industrial levels.
2/ "Sceptical" estimates for sensitivity to CO2 range between 0.5 - 2 C (near to 2 C are estimates from Shaviv, Schwartz, Chylek and a number of others). Happer I think has suggested 2 C.
3/ Putting together 1000 ppmv with 2 C implies a 4 C change by 2100.

In the light of the uncertainties, I'm not sure if it is possible to do much better than this. I take it as an argument in favour of diversification of energy supply. Diversification should also lead to increased availability of energy and so is likely to be a general good, without significant downside.

matthu

DNFTT - again! :-)

Anything to say about that accusation of racism?

Hi Shub,

I definitely want poor people to become rich and to be using gas or electric energy to the same extent as people like us. I hope it will be possible to achieve this at the same time as decarbonization of the energy supply. As far as I know, the problem is that noone really knows quite how to do this yet. The trick is presumably to develop the technologies that are required.

Laughlin's new book is on my list (perhaps Santa will help out). I take very seriously anything he has to say on the subject.

Diversification of energy supply, if this can be done without derailing the economy, without dishonesty (by that I mean hidden taxation, fobidding companies - in AUS - from mentioning the impact of the carbon tax, suppressing evidence etc.) is probably a good thing.

But is this possible? Clearly a lot of people in high-up places thought that it was possible - I think they have recently been having second thoughts.