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 > Explaining a glaring contradiction

shub,

We all say it, but we don't seem to believe it. This has not been about the science for a very long time indeed. The science has been less than categorical about the C in CAGW since the start, as time goes on, even the GW part is becoming less tenable. This has always been about the politics, so no matter how many holes you poke in the shoddy science, they will still steamroller it all in....

Dec 12, 2012 at 3:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

Yeah, it is important. But you want to obsess about a single value, "global temperature" (whatever that is - some statistical combination of temperature readings spread around the globe), but ignore or deny what is really happening. You wont comment on ice mass loss in Greenland or Antarctica or the Arctic because it conflicts with the story you want to tell: nothing going on here, move along. We know there is an energy imbalance, we know heat is accumulating. Whether or not we can measure it is not so important.

BTW, whatever you make of it, take a look at some awesome (really!) footage of glacier calving in Greenland:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2012/dec/12/chasing-ice-iceberg-greenland-video

Dec 12, 2012 at 4:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterBitBucket

Mile Jackson
DNFTT best policy out, leave him under the bridge.

Sandy

Dec 12, 2012 at 4:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

I don't think it was ever about real science. It was cargo-cult science from the word go - looking for a result and doing whatever was needed to produce the appearance of the desired result. This runs through the subject - the "homogenising" of temperature data, the faith in the use of proxy measurements, the use of models inherently incapable of validation - both for the dynamics of CO² atmospheric concentration and for modelling climate, the assumption of positive feedback effects - it goes on.

The people involved have always genuinely believed what they were doing was science - see Jones's comments in the CG1 emails about how he was going to carry on "doing good science" - but it never was real science.

It's significant the extent that Believers ridicule the idea that anyone except a "trained climate scientist" can assess the results of climate science for themself. To me, this indicates two things:

¤ Such Believers have no real comprehension of the subject, other what is essentially rote-learning.
¤ It's a faith, dressed up in the trappings, appearance and language of science.

The Great Delusion will end, presumably, at some point [in next decade? in the next century? in the next millenium?] but it will not have ended because someone has refuted some papers on the subject or because someone has conducted some careful and validated measurements decisively showing no significant relation between atmospheric CO² and global average temperature.

I have no idea what will eventually have brought it to an end. The election of the UKIP? Being laughed out of existence after a decade of bitter winters? Being forgotten about after the collapse of the $, the £ and the €, followed by hyperinflation with resulting civil disorder and starvation?

If you think you know what will finally put a stake though its heart, please tell us all.

Dec 12, 2012 at 4:53 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Martin A
I've seen lots of fads which have come and gone, most gradually fade away leaving a rump of dedicated followers. It is the bandwagon effect in operation. This is a fad which has passed its peak, if the recent demonstration with 300 people is anything to go by.
Marathons, remember when every town had one and every small town a half marathon? Ones I don't remember were the Gin Craze and the Tulip craze. There have been lots of short lived ones I can remember as far back as Hula Hoops (not the potato snack), Body piercing and tatooing will go the same way as all fads, the latter may cause some heartache in the future but probably not as much economic damage to western nations.

Sandy

Dec 12, 2012 at 5:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

Martin A

Maybe we really are already seeing the end, Camoron is saying he wants the UK at the forefront of the shale gas revolution, economic reality is seeping in.

Dec 12, 2012 at 6:39 PM | Registered CommenterDung

TheBigYinJames

"This has not been about the science for a very long time indeed."

No, this is one of the things that it is about:-

H/T Anoneumouse, on the "Slow Learner" thread:-

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/12/12/uk-deutschebank-prosecutors-idUKBRE8BB0NA20121212

"Around 500 police and tax inspectors raided Deutsche Bank, arresting five staff in a probe linked to a tax scam involving the trading of carbon permits."

Dec 12, 2012 at 6:50 PM | Registered CommenterGreen Sand

Sandy

I'd like to think you are right.

This one has been going on an awful lot longer than most fads. I don't think this fits the usual fad definition - essentially something that people do simply because it is new and novel. That's essentially a self-terminating thing. As soon as it's been around for a while, it is no longer novel and so it is dropped almost as fast as it caught on.

Others lasted longer - duffel coats and corduroy jackets were around for a few years but you don't see them today. Whereas fluorescent socks seemed to disappear overnight.

With CAGW, the corruption has spread so widely and there are so many beneficiaries in the civil service, national government, local government, media, and universities that I find it very hard to imagine it simply fading away.

Plus there is a generation of indoctrinated children many of them now teachers and perpetuating the myth.

I often find myself thinking that perhaps we passed a tipping point years ago and the thing is now with us for good.

Dec 12, 2012 at 7:47 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

it seems that BB has done his bit for the team. He can now be killed in a cell in the Lubianka, with an epitaph that reads that he became a premature anti-warmist.. He serves no further function.

Dec 12, 2012 at 10:10 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

Diogenes, stop the nonsense. Just go and look at the GRACE data. Then have the grace to admit that you were wrong about the melting of the icecaps.

Dec 12, 2012 at 10:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterBitBucket

Dec 12, 2012 at 7:47 PM | Martin A

[re fads]

With CAGW, the corruption has spread so widely and there are so many beneficiaries in the civil service, national government, local government, media, and universities that I find it very hard to imagine it simply fading away.

[...]

Plus there is a generation of indoctrinated children many of them now teachers and perpetuating the myth.

I often find myself thinking that perhaps we passed a tipping point years ago and the thing is now with us for good.

Thinking back to the halcyon days before I stepped onto the battlefield of the climate wars ... the only awareness I had of the messages of "environmental correctness" were those conveyed by "global warming" and "carbon footprint". My strongest recollection is that there would be "winners" (i.e. of benefits), one of which would be Canada, and "losers" (although it wasn't entirely clear to me how anyone could lose if they had to learn to live with a warmer climate!)

Not that my experience is necessarily typical, but perhaps the "tipping point" - which led to some due diligence on my part - came with the introduction of the great big 'C" ... as in C-AGW and sCary stories. And what seemed to me to be an inexplicable shift in branding from "global warming" to "climate change".

In the past three years, IMHO, increasingly, the rent-seekers, activists and advocates (all the "Big" names, as well as their acolytes and lesser lights) have had to contend with explaining more and more "glaring inconsistencies".

But the "indoctrination" of which you speak, Martin, runs so deep, that they are not equipped to do so (and the facts that have come to light in the interim don't help them, either!)

Canadians (wisely, of course!) began stepping back from the brink in the 2008 federal election, during which they resoundingly rejected PM wannabe, Stéphane Dion and his pie-in-the-sky "Green Shift" in favour of the far more pragmatic Stephen Harper. But I digress ...

This is not to say that I think we are out of the (alarmist-occupied) woods, yet.

Far from it, unfortunately. Rio+20 paid very little attention to "climate change" [pls see Rio – the final score: climate change 22, sustainable 400]

So little that it should have come as no surprise that the recent UNFCCC confab in Doha both began with and concluded with far less hype than usual. It succeeded in achieving the magnificent feat of "retiring" two of its acronymic offspring ... and launching another to populate its stable, in the hope of perpetuating its own existence, as ineffective agenda-driven bureaucracies are wont to do.

But the UNEP (promulgator of increasingly scary stories since 1972) began laying the groundwork for a shift from "climate change" (cc) and "carbon footprint" (cf) to "biodiversity loss" and "environmental footprint" two years ago!

These new, improved mantric buzzwords from the IPCC's younger sibling, IPBES, can easily - and oh-so-conveniently - subsume and replace both cc and cf, using the "we are the experts and it's worse than we thought" propaganda Assessment Report template perfected by the IPCC.

IPBES and TEEB (the "new testament" version of the "climate bible") should by now be ready and primed to step into the spotlight being (perhaps very reluctantly) vacated by the UNFCCC/IPCC. Needless to say, they have their own reporting and financial "mechanisms" all lined up and ready to roll!

But, with a little bit of luck, these new, improved UNEP purveyors of propaganda and indoctrination will not be quite as, well, "sustainable" (you should pardon my use of this word!) Because they suffer from the rapidly declining credibility of their "grandparent", the United Nations. There can be little dispute that the UN is an organization which time and time again proves itself both totally incapable meeting its charter obligations and particularly inept at setting an example by practicing what they preach.

In short ... notwithstanding all that we have yet to overcome before we witness a tsunami of rationality, I'm somewhat optimistic that the undertows suggest that perhaps - at long last - the tide may well have irrevocably turned.

Dec 13, 2012 at 4:16 AM | Registered CommenterHilary Ostrov

...and the winner of the Hill's prestigious "verbosity of the year" award goes to Ms Hilary Ostrov. Well done Hilly, you shown us time and again how to use a heck of a lot of words to say almost nothing. An acceptance speech? Oh no, please don't...

Dec 13, 2012 at 12:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterBitBucket

That's the value of engaging with a troll. It brings out the worst in the troll faster so the quicker you can be done with the troll.

Dec 13, 2012 at 12:28 PM | Registered Commentershub

Hilary Ostrov
Join the "Gold star googling" award club @ Dec 13, 2012 at 12:12 PM.
Re Fads.
Two or three years ago everyone was into doing their bit to save the planet. Now that councils fine people for putting the wrong thing in the brown/blue/green/grey bin the novelty is wearing a bit thin. The changing story means people can't keep pace. Finally of course every five-ten years or so a new group teens and twenties want to be fifferent from their predessors music/fashion/sport de jour/good cause all change. I will agree with Martin that this one has gone on a bit longer than is normal. By the way Martin my brother is a great lover of the duffel coat and still wears one particularly when out in winter painting (pictures not houses).

DNFTT
Sandy

Dec 13, 2012 at 12:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

fifferent = different

Dec 13, 2012 at 1:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

...and the winner of the Hill's prestigious "verbosity of the year" award goes to Ms Hilary Ostrov. Well done Hilly, you shown us time and again how to use a heck of a lot of words to say almost nothing. An acceptance speech? Oh no, please don't...
Dec 13, 2012 at 12:12 PM BitBucket


BB - as I've said once or twice recently, you continue to come across ever more bitter and twisted.

But maybe your comment was a BB joke? In the past you have explained that my reaction to your jokes is due to my lacking a sense of humour, so perhaps that applies here too?

Dec 13, 2012 at 5:55 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Sorry Martin, I forgot the smiley. Of course it was a joke.

Dec 13, 2012 at 6:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterBitBucket

I see.

Dec 13, 2012 at 8:23 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Martin A

DNFTT

Dec 14, 2012 at 12:17 AM | Registered CommenterDung

Hmmm ... seems to me that the reading comprehension skills of the "lesser lights" - who decide to grace us with their persistently diversionary presence here - are in a state of rapid decline.

Dec 14, 2012 at 1:09 AM | Registered CommenterHilary Ostrov

Hilly, it is not so much comprehension as patience. I rarely make it to the end of your essays... (bet I'm not alone either)

Dung, what has come over you? You were always so friendly, relatively speaking. What have I done to upset you?

Dec 14, 2012 at 1:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterBitBucket

I looked at the IPCC attribution chapter. They've attributed 0.6-1.4 K of warming to humans, in a period that shows a total warming of 0.6K.

Dec 14, 2012 at 9:26 AM | Registered Commentershub

Problems with understanding another person's point of view

Dec 14, 2012 at 10:02 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A