Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > The IEA Strategy Report

Philip

See above. ABC. You are the one indulging in avoidance. As ever, you pretend otherwise, which is why we have such a big problem communicating.

Dec 1, 2011 at 10:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

I'm perfectly happy to talk about carbon. Please, raise any aspect you like. BTW, I don't believe I've ever claimed to be neutral about this issue. Where did you get that idea from?

Dec 1, 2011 at 10:57 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhilip

@Philip Dec 1, 2011 at 8:50 AM

Regarding Obscurity, I think I am right in saying that there was some suggestion it might be Kevin Trenberth! Probably not true, but amusing.

Definitely amusing, Philip! But somehow I cannot imagine the Great Trenberth choosing a nym with connotations that are so counter to his evidently high opinions of himself. At the very least, I would have expected him to engage in a pretense of argument related to the topic at hand, rather than the diversionary and completely irrelevant ad hominem tirades with which he chose to litter the thread.

Then again, perhaps Trenberth has decided to redefine "obscurity" :-)

Dec 1, 2011 at 11:00 AM | Unregistered Commenterhro001

matthu

You have (once again) dishonestly misrepresented my comments.

You say:

The last time BBD commented on uncertainy in science, he used scare quotes around 'uncertainty'. That says it all really.

The comment you refer to is at Nov 24, 2011 at 3:49 PM. I was quoting you*:

matthu

You were keen to misrepresent Peter A. Stott upthread, so here's a little something to set the record straight. Far from endorsing your 'uncertainty' fudge, he does the exact opposite in his latest paper

May I remind you of these gems of yours at Nov 23, 2011 at 6:05 PM:

By the way, when you talk about "vile tactics" on this thread, you are once again laying yourself open to being accused of vile tactics yourself. Some would say you are pretty vulnerable on this score - but not for me to comment of course.

And Nov 23, 2011 at 7:00 PM:

How about simply raising the level of your debate?


*See at: Nov 24, 2011 at 12:10 PM; Nov 24, 2011 at 2:08 PM and Nov 24, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Dec 1, 2011 at 11:12 AM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Hilary

You are being unfair to Obscurity:

At the very least, I would have expected him to engage in a pretense of argument related to the topic at hand, rather than the diversionary and completely irrelevant ad hominem tirades with which he chose to litter the thread.

(S)he helpfully reminded us that Spencer has prior theological commitments that contradict best current scientific understanding and compromise his scientific objectivity. This on a thread entitled Climategate 2.0: Bias in Scientific Research.

Spencer's own words sum up the problem very well:

So, bias ends up being the enemy of the search for scientific truth because it keeps us from entertaining alternative hypotheses for how the physical world works. It increases the likelihood that our conclusions are wrong.

Dec 1, 2011 at 11:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Actuallty, BBD - I was referring to Nov 24, 2011 at 4:06 PM

You and your fixation on 'uncertainty'. Standard pseudo-sceptic fare, of course, but deeply tiresome all the same.

This was not a quote of anyone. You appeared then to find discussion of uncertainty deeply tiresome and pseudo-scientific, and I see now you have yet to raise the level of your debate.

Dec 1, 2011 at 11:51 AM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

Your (mis) use of uncertainty is deeply tiresome and unscientific. So I'll stick with my comment at Dec 1, 2011 at 11:12 AM.

Dec 1, 2011 at 12:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Just as I indicated above: as a 'scientist' you simply can't handle uncertainty.
Real pity that 'climate change' relies so much on statistics - and statistics is all about quanifying uncertainty, but there you go.
QED.

Dec 1, 2011 at 12:56 PM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

You are truly out of your depth, Matthu.

Remember that only a couple of weeks ago you didn't know what RF stood for. Once that was explained to you, you then tried to argue that it was not important.

It would be pitiful, but for some reason, after the exchanges I've had with you on this thread, I don't feel any pity for you at all.

Dec 1, 2011 at 1:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

DNFTT

Dec 1, 2011 at 1:35 PM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

matthu
Whatever BBD is he is certainly not a scientist.
He has learnt a lot of sciencey language and is prepared to trawl through a lot of stuff written by his new heroes and regurgitate great chunks of it without properly understanding most of it. To this end he tries to pretend he is "in the know" by (as an example) using abbreviations and initials where you and I would use words. This is a form of oneupmanship which allows him to sneer at those who are not quite sure what he is referring to and provide him with the opportunity to divert the discussion onto ground of his own choosing.
He doesn't do "uncertainty". In fact he doesn't do anything very much and he has no concept of the principles that underpin scientific research. In this regard he is in good company with his new-found friends.
You will have noticed that he simply takes their word for everything. Contradictory findings pass him by. Research that posits a different thesis or scientists who are not in favour with his friends are dismissed with the usual warmist rhetoric about 'shills' and 'deniers' and 'religious fanatics'.
His description of you as "tiresome and unscientific" has given me the best laugh of the day so far.
I really must come back later and see if he has managed to improve on it!

Dec 1, 2011 at 1:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

Mike

You haven't got a clue, either. So your huffing and puffing is as empty as matthu's.

Dec 1, 2011 at 1:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

What haven't I got a clue about, BBD?
Do be specific.
At all times be specific. And give examples and preferably links to peer-reviewed evidence if you want us to pay attention.

Dec 1, 2011 at 2:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

BBD (not for the first time) accuses me of dishonesty when it was BBD himself being dishonest.

Earlier I pointed out:

The last time BBD commented on uncertainy in science, he used scare quotes around 'uncertainty'. That says it all really.

BBD replied:

You have (once again) dishonestly misrepresented my comments.

You say:

The last time BBD commented on uncertainy in science, he used scare quotes around 'uncertainty'. That says it all really.

The comment you refer to is at Nov 24, 2011 at 3:49 PM. I was quoting you

whereas in fact it seems BBD had deliberately overlooked a more recent comment of his (as in 'the last time') Nov 24, 2011 at 4:06 PM .

How do I know it was deliberate?

Well, it appears I had accurately represented BBD's comments: he did use scare quotes around 'uncertainty'.

Anyone else on this board making a mistake like that would naturally want to retract the accusation of dishonesty and apologise for making an error. But we have become accustomed to BBD's ways.

Not content in turning the previous discussion into a cess pit, he seems intent on creating another cess pit.

Regrettably, there is only one common denominator.

Dec 1, 2011 at 3:07 PM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

matthu

So it's okay for you to feed the 'troll' but nobody else?

Anyway, calm your hysteria. First, you really should have referenced which of my comments you meant at the outset. Second, it makes exactly no difference, which is why I will continue to stick with my response to you at Dec 1, 2011 at 11:12 AM.

You say:

How do I know it was deliberate?

Well, it appears I had accurately represented BBD's comments: he did use scare quotes around 'uncertainty'.

Yes, I did - in the comment I pointed to in my response (the one I thought you were talking about - pity you didn't reference). Here it is again, for the record:

You were keen to misrepresent Peter A. Stott upthread, so here's a little something to set the record straight. Far from endorsing your 'uncertainty' fudge, he does the exact opposite in his latest paper

Next time, don't be so lazy. Reference. It avoids confusion.

Much more interestingly, I've just been reading the new Richard Betts discussion in which he says (my emphasis):

ii) Estimates of the various external forcings of the climate system (radiative forcing, ie: the perturbation to the Earth’s energy balance) suggest that the net anthropogenic forcing* is extremely likely (95%) to be substantial and positive, and likely (66%) to be at least five times larger than the natural radiative forcing (solar). The evidence for this is presented in the IPCC AR4 Radiative Forcing chapter on which I was a lead author . Since then, further evidence has emerged than the solar forcing may actually be smaller than that used in AR4 – see the other Bishop Hill discussion thread “Richard Betts: 20 C Temperature Attribution20C temperature attribution”

And:

There are of course uncertainties in all of this. For the radiative forcing estimates, those for CO2 and other well-mixed GHGs are reasonably well-known, but the forcings due to aerosols are much more uncertain. The uncertainties in land use forcing (surface albedo) are also large relative to the central estimate, but the central estimate is still relatively small compared to GHGs and aerosols.

So it looks as though you misrepresented him upthread too. You were wrong to say that the consensus has moved on, wrong to claim that CO2 is no longer central, that LUC is a really significant factor, that uncertainties and new natural factors now play a much greater role etc.

I repeatedly tried to point out your errors at the time, to no avail. Perhaps you will accept from RB what you will not hear from me. Although judging from your only comment on the RB thread, that doesn't look very likely.

*Just a reminder of the primacy of CO2 among anthropogenic forcings from AR4 WG1 Ch2.

Dec 1, 2011 at 3:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

BBD seems to think I was addressing him - but all references to him were in the 3rd person.

He also suggests that I did not properly reference which comment I was referring to (as in "The last time BBD commented on uncertainty in science ...") If there were similar two comments on the same page, which one does he think I was referring to?

It seems that even BBD is admitting to uncertainty here on the “Richard Betts: 20 C Temperature Attribution” thread:

I do wonder about the implications for estimates of GHG forcing over the last century. Contrarians will point to the use of outdated TSI estimates to force the models referenced by AR4 WG1 and claim that it 'proves' GHG forcing is over-estimated. It seems to me equally likely that the opposite could be true.

Oct 17, 2011 at 4:36 PM | BBD

Now two opposite viewpoints that are equally likely seems like a fairly large uncertainty, wouldn't you say? And even Richard Betts thought so:

As you say, there are important uncertainties here.
Oct 17, 2011 at 4:02 PM | Richard Betts

oh, there's that word 'uncertainties' again ...!

[ By the way, when I say DDFTT I mean do not react to blatent ad hominem attacks and character assassinations which have no place on this thread. My previous post was pointing out an accusation of dishonesty which has yet to be retracted. ]

Dec 1, 2011 at 4:02 PM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

Matthu, you are quite right about TSI. For some reason, both Richard and BBD are being somewhat disingenuous over this issue. The bottom line is that models are unable to accurately reproduce 20th C temperature variations.

Dec 1, 2011 at 4:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhilip

Furthermore, despite being a lead author on the IPCC AR4 Radiative Forcing chapter, Richard was apparently quite unaware that TSI reconstructions made prior to AR4 publication do not support the AR4 attribution story that he stated on this blog. Doesn't exactly fill you with confidence, does it?

Dec 1, 2011 at 4:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhilip

I am intrigued by Richard's comment to me

matthu, I didn't mean to imply that my view is different to any "official" view, just that there isn't really an "official" view.

which I have asked him to clarify! A first glance, that seems to have put paid to any concept of a current consensus, whatever may have been the situation at the time of AR4.

Dec 1, 2011 at 4:36 PM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

matthu

Congratulations on your comment at Dec 1, 2011 at 4:02 PM.

It's a childishly evasive mess, of course, but you did manage to avoid any mention whatsoever of Richard Betts' repudiation of your bizarre views on the scientific consensus on this thread.

Just to be clear, that part starts here:

Much more interestingly, I've just been reading the new Richard Betts discussion in which he says (my emphasis):

Your hypocrisy is bottomless:

By the way, when I say DDFTT I mean do not react to blatent ad hominem attacks and character assassinations which have no place on this thread.

This from the man who has now twice called me a racist on this thread. FFS.

Dec 1, 2011 at 4:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Richard Betts has certainly not repudiated my views on the consensus at all. In fact, he agreed with them. If BBD has any doubt about this, I suggest he does his homework. He could start here:

Nov 11, 2011 at 3:47 PM | matthu on this thread, page 6.

Compare the RS statement with my own version:

1) global warming is real (whatever that means)
2) man is having an impact
3) at least some of the impact is likely caused by CO2 emissions

I asked Richard Betts whether there was another similarly brief way of expressing the totality of the consensus and he replied

Nov 9, 2011 at 10:39 PM | matthu

Thanks - yes, to my mind that pretty well captures the bits that virtually everyone who knows about the science can agree on.

Anything beyond that (what the impacts will be, and how we should respond) become highly uncertain and down to value judgements and attitude to risk.

and Tamsin Edwards replied

I agree with Richard.

So nothing bizarre about that then.

And why does BBD keep reminding everybody that he is in denial about racism?

By all means try to discredit a scientific argument by examining the science. But it is most certainly is racist to ignore a scientific argument simply because the argument is made by Chinese scientists. And the more he propagates the idea that this is a valid argument, the more he enforces the view that BBD is blind to racism.

Anmd did BBD really just accuse someone of being childish?

BBD has just reminded me why I don't intend to continue responding to any of the rubbish, ad hominem atacks, racism that BBD spouts on this thread.

DNFTT

Dec 1, 2011 at 5:25 PM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

You have repeated this lie for the last time:

By all means try to discredit a scientific argument by examining the science. But it is most certainly is racist to ignore a scientific argument simply because the argument is made by Chinese scientists.

As I have now said repeatedly, in my view Fang et al. is blatantly politically motivated, and timed to coincide with Durban.

But yet again, you misrepresent me. Yet again you call me a racist.

Since BH has not chosen to moderate you I am forced to defend myself as best I can.

In this matter you have proven yourself to be a serial liar, a hypocrite and a fool. You are a disgrace to this blog.

Dec 1, 2011 at 5:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

No, not the last time.

By all means try to discredit a scientific argument by examining the science. But it is most certainly is racist to ignore a scientific argument simply because the argument is made by Chinese scientists.

Whatever the motivation, the question that needs to be addressed is whether the science is wrong.

Dec 1, 2011 at 5:44 PM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

BBD certainly says that the Fang paper is politically motivated, and that this is the reason he believes its arguments should be waved away. However, he also agrees that Hansen and Sato's recent paper is preaching to the choir, but in this case thinks it arguments are beyond criticism.

I noticed in an earlier comment that apparently he also supports the idea that scientific arguments should be ignored because the argument is made by scientists with Christian beliefs. Mike Hulme is certainly one such scientist. Perhaps BBD also has some reasoning that enables him to distinguish the effect on his science of Hulme's personal beliefs from Spencer's.

For myself, I agree with Matthu that it is the arguments themselves that need to be addressed.

Dec 1, 2011 at 6:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhilip

In case anyone has not realised this, there is now a parallel discussion going on, on the "Evidence, confidence and uncertainties" thread where BDD has selectively quoted me and I have also posted the abstract from Fang et al.'s paper.

(I will be absent for a while now, but I do suggest that the discussion on the other thread will be more interesting and hopefully more restrained i.e. I hope that pthere proper regard to the science and that no-one will suggest that Fang should be discounted simply by virtue of his nationality and the fact that his review may be politically motivated.)

Dec 1, 2011 at 6:11 PM | Unregistered Commentermatthu