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 > What if the slayers are right?

TBYJ:

Ah, I see where you're heading now, Richard, and I concur.

Sincere thanks for that :)

There is no need to invoke an overthrow of physics to get the result the slayers want. If they were being clever, instead of trying to get establishment science to swallow and assimilate the very difficult prospect of all their accepted physics being wrong, slayers could effect the same policy outcome by pushing the much less radical lukewarmer position as a unified position.

Hmm, two very important issues here. Would it be morally right for slayers to argue on the basis of a scientific position they don't actually believe in to "get the result [they] want"? Yes, hold the front page, Drake has Sympathy for the Slayers - albeit in that very limited sense.

The second issue is that Lindzen is not a lukewarmer - at least I think most people calling themselves lukewarmers would say he isn't. And you yourself say earlier:

This is where my Lukewarmerish is slightly less complacent than Lindzens, I still think some of the actions are worth doing, even if the rise is going to be small.

"Some of the actions" is too vague for me to say for certain but I think Lindzen thinks all of the actions are unnecessary, just as they are for the slayers.

I don't have a big beef with the lukewarmers in saying this, I'm still just aiming for maximum clarity and precision.

I agree but I also think human nature precludes this - a lot of the slayer psychology is about retribution on establishment science.

That I think is speculative, compared to what's gone before, but extremely helpful and for me convincing, at least for some in the slayer camp. But if one always considered only the extremists one would have given up trying to make any point about anything long ago.

I say the extremes may not control the outcome of the global warming mitigation debate. Ordinary voters might even have a say before it's over. That's why I think RKS and woodentop are too pessimistic by half. But thanks very much for this, TBYJ.

Jan 7, 2013 at 6:33 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

Richard

I wrongly interpret your views (apparently) so often that I need to ask you to confirm your aims before I comment.
You seem to be saying that there IS a downside to discussing the views of "The Slayers" because even if they are right it will make no difference to the policies of governments on Climate Change, is that right?

Jan 8, 2013 at 2:48 PM | Registered CommenterDung

Well, we are not going to 'win'. It doesn't matter who is right, the scare will die according to the rules of scares, not the rules of science. Its supporters will make no damascene declarations, they will just stop proclaiming the consensus. They will eventually distance themselves from it. It will be forgotten. If it fails to deliver. Which is what it is doing right now, but will that continue? The opportunist measures, the taxes and the pious obeisance to green fads, they will go on.

Jan 8, 2013 at 3:02 PM | Registered Commenterrhoda

I think he's suggesting that politically, it will be far easier for the establishment to accept the lukewarmer position (i.e. they were right all along, it IS warming... but not as bad, so face-saving) than to get them to accept the science is all wrong, we should be throwing it all out, heads must roll etc. Since both Lindzen and Slayers want the same thing (no mitigation required) then politically it makes sense to push the agenda that is most likely to succeed because it puts fewer noses out of joint.

Jan 8, 2013 at 3:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

TBYJ is easily the closest here. My key question was

So, if the policy outcome is the same and one approach is much more likely to be true than the other, are there any downsides in some sceptics giving the impression that the slayer option is a fundamental, make or break issue in the debate?

If you read the slayers they give the impression that their arguments are vital for the overthrow of CAGW in all its forms. In particular they tend to be utterly dismissive of a pioneer of good science and honest communication to the public like Richard Lindzen. What this thread is trying to show is that in fact their arguments are totally peripheral to the debate that really matters: whether the world's poor should be burdened with murderous carbon-reduction policies on the back of a high-sensitivity view that is totally lacking in scientific support. Nic Lewis has also been showing the lack of empirical evidence in recent days, and the last time he did so here the thread was interrupted by lengthy debate of the slayer option by therealviffer and Dung, who angrily demanded I should be banned from BH for suggesting this discussion should be moved elsewhere. That demand has never been lifted that I have seen. That's how central this has been made out to be.

One of the ways the centrality of the slayer issue has been promoted on Bishop Hill in the last year and more is by mydogsgotnonose and his other manifestations feeling free to interrupt any thread. He has been saying, explicitly or implicitly, "This is of central importance to everything else." But it isn't. And his contempt from Lindzen and other brave pioneers of good science sticks in the back of my throat. That is the attitude of a saboteur, a fellow traveller in the worst sense, not an ally.

Of course, if people at the BBC and the Guardian think that we think this is a central issue they will mark us down as the idiots their pride made them assume we were anyway. Why give them that option?

So this, among other things, is my answer to Dung in his Discussion thread three days ago:

3) There are people (holds hand up) (holds another hand up for alecm ^.^) who see many discussions as pointless when the GHE itself is not proven, the GHE underpins every other discussion one way or another.

That said, I will obey the great leader!

The GHE and the slayer critique of it doesn't underpin every other discussion, for the reasons I've shown. That is misdirection. It's time we grew out of it.

And of course I support the discussion Rhoda started. Nothing should be off limits in that sense. It's giving the impression that the slayer option is a make or break issue that should not be countenanced, not least for the sake of the many victims of CAGW policies.

Jan 8, 2013 at 5:02 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

Drako

We have already established that on Bishop Hill the only thing we all agree about is that the current "consensus" is wrong but we probably all have different reasons for holding that view.
The Slayers are just another group that do not believe the consensus is correct.
They do not agree with Richard Lindzen, Oh dear well the Idsos do not agree with Lindzen either would you like them proscribed as well?
Real scientists do not do their research to change political policies, they do it to find the truth. At the moment there is sadly no empirical experimental evidence that proves Lindzen, the Idsos or the slayers view is the correct one.
Interestingly on Rhoda's excellent thread where the slayers science is the subject of heated debate, only RKS (who supports the slayers) is proposing an experiment to prove his case. In addition, on that thread, there are a number of long standing BH denizens who give credence to the the slayers (not me, I am still trying to learn).

Jan 9, 2013 at 6:08 AM | Registered CommenterDung

Not quite true Dung, my reply to the call for lab experiements for GHE was to desmonstrate that ALL of the salient physical processes have already been demonstrated in the lab.

The general call for a 'proper GHE experiement' is like me proving to you that a wing at speed can fly via air pressure, an engine can burn fuel using combustion, rubber can slow down a wheel using friction.... but you saying.... yes.. but you haven't proved a plane can fly! The answer is the same.. just look up.

Jan 9, 2013 at 8:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

BigYin, there's a lot of people saying that there is no GHE. When one asks for a demonstration and gets told that it isn't worth doing, or it can't be done, or it's a stupid question, my BS alarm goes off. Now, you are probably quite right in what you say. But wouldn't you like something to point to which proved the whole chain? Because the whole chain is what I was going for, GHE in the lab was the first link. We need the whole chain of logic ending in CAGW.

Oh, the wing provides lift, but how? You can still find it all explained by Bernoulli. But it's wrong. The plane still flies, but the scientific explanation hawked by some is just not sufficient. Circulation theory too. Fancified nonsense. Still taught when I went to school. and maybe it still is.

However, let's not turn this thread into that debate again.

Jan 9, 2013 at 9:44 AM | Registered Commenterrhoda

Quite :) Just re-iterating that inability of lay people to propose an experiment does not a theory invalidate :)

Jan 9, 2013 at 9:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

In the past I have made the analogy :

1. Science tells us Oxygen is extremely poisonous to humans (which pure Oxygen is)

2. Politicans / activists / newspapers say that something must be done about this poisonous gas in the sky

3. 'Lukegassers' say that although true, it's not as bad as they are making out, something else stops it poisoning us

4. Slayers try to prove that there is no oxygen in the atmosphere

Jan 9, 2013 at 10:26 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

Nice one. There is always a temptation after part of a discussion is finished to come back and get the last word. But I am not going to succumb to that. Oh no.

Jan 9, 2013 at 10:41 AM | Registered Commenterrhoda

Me neither.

Jan 9, 2013 at 11:09 AM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

Dung:

Drako

OK Dungo, the allusion is up to you - the Disney cartoon elephant or the 70s rock group. As for me, when I introduced myself in Spanish to some delightful Spaniards and Argentinians with whom I was staying in Zaragoza in 1982, right at the end of the Falklands War and the start of the World Cup group stages, for which I had partly come over, their response forever sticks in the mind: "Francisco Drake - pirata!" Pronounced Fran-this-co Dra-kay of course. We were firm friends after that.

Back to the conclusion of your latest post:

... on [Rhoda's] thread, there are a number of long standing BH denizens who give credence to the the slayers (not me, I am still trying to learn).

We are all trying to learn, Paul Dennis included. Bless that man in particular. He has a real-world reputation to think of. It's certainly been greatly enhanced for me. But are he, you, Richard Drake, TBYJ and others to be taken to have giving credence to the slayers merely by joining that discussion, unless they explicitly say so? I don't for a moment think so.

Above all, very few of us I believe wish to "give the impression that the slayer option is a fundamental, make or break issue in the debate," which is the point at issue in this thread.

You though have given that impression, not least by suggesting I should be banned from Bishop Hill when I had the temerity to say the issue was off-topic for the Matt Ridley thread, then by saying:

There are people (holds hand up) (holds another hand up for alecm ^.^) who see many discussions as pointless when the GHE itself is not proven, the GHE underpins every other discussion one way or another.

Now would be a good time for you to think it through and put the record right. Once we agree on this I think the rest will quickly fall into place.

Jan 9, 2013 at 11:49 AM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

Interestingly on Rhoda's excellent thread where the slayers science is the subject of heated debate, only RKS (who supports the slayers) is proposing an experiment to prove his case. In addition, on that thread, there are a number of long standing BH denizens who give credence to the the slayers (not me, I am still trying to learn).

Jan 9, 2013 at 6:08 AM | Dung>>>>

Dung, PLEASE don't fall into the trap of conflating the science of ATMOSPHERIC GHE with the 'slayers' opinion that there is NO GHE.

To subscribe to the more likely idea that GHE is due to the gas laws than to radiative effects is NOT in agreement with what the 'slayers' propose.

Jan 9, 2013 at 12:20 PM | Registered CommenterRKS

Thanks for that RKS. I agree that it's best not to call Nikolov & Zeller slayers. What should we call them? Do TBYJ, Martin A or Paul Dennis have an opinion on that?

Jan 9, 2013 at 12:25 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

Good distinction to get right, I think. What is the difference between the 'general slayer position' (if there is one).... and supporters of N&Z's ATE pressure theory? I've been calling them slayers, lumping them in with anyone who doesn't think there's any heating/radiative GHE , but perhaps that's not right.

Jan 9, 2013 at 12:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

Thanks for that RKS. I agree that it's best not to call Nikolov & Zeller slayers. What should we call them? Do TBYJ, Martin A or Paul Dennis have an opinion on that?

Jan 9, 2013 at 12:25 PM | Richard Drake>>>>>

The basis of N&Z's work, the Gas Laws, are accepted by all as the basis by which stars form, and how gas giants warm, so I think we should call N&Z nothing more than conventional physicists using classical science. Why should the Earth be a special case and require an alternative reason for the temperature of it's atmosphere?

Jan 9, 2013 at 1:32 PM | Registered CommenterRKS

RKS, that's dishonest again.

It seems to me that you have recently adopted a policy of pushing N&Z as already validated, putting a finger in each ear, and blagging your way onto every thread on this board pushing this message, trying to reframe every conversation to accept your position as proven. It's becoming almost as tiresome as MyDog and his 'this is all rubbish because pyrgeometers are all wrong' comments.

You're fast becoming my least favourite poster here, not because of what you believe, which you are entirely entitled to, but for the tedious repetition and disruption your agenda causes to other threads. You're a good contributer here, and I've enjoyed your comments in the past.

Can we please leave N&Z on the threads they belong in and talk about slayers again?

Jan 9, 2013 at 1:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

Hmm, just to be clear, RKS, I think you are saying that you believe Nikolov & Zeller are correct. But this seems to me to be a slightly unhelpful word to add to my very basic categorization so far:

1. Lindzenite (a neologism I hope doesn't catch on)
2. Slayer
3. Correct.

Shall we say instead:

1. Lindzen GHE
2. Slayer
3. Gassy.

My original question would then recast to:

So, if the policy outcome is the same and one approach is much more likely to be true than the others, are there any downsides in some sceptics giving the impression that the slayer or gassy options are fundamental, make or break issues in the debate?

How does that sound? More to the point, what's the answer?

(Cross-posted with TBYJ at 1:44 PM but I'm sure we can work something out!)

Jan 9, 2013 at 1:45 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

RKS, that's dishonest again.

It seems to me that you have recently adopted a policy of pushing N&Z as already validated, putting a finger in each ear, and blagging your way onto every thread on this board pushing this message, trying to reframe every conversation to accept your position as proven. It's becoming almost as tiresome as MyDog and his 'this is all rubbish because pyrgeometers are all wrong' comments.

You're fast becoming my least favourite poster here, not because of what you believe, which you are entirely entitled to, but for the tedious repetition and disruption your agenda causes to other threads. You're a good contributer here, and I've enjoyed your comments in the past.

Can we please leave N&Z on the threads they belong in and talk about slayers again?

Jan 9, 2013 at 1:44 PM | TheBigYinJames>>>>

I simply responded to Richard Drake asking how N&Z should be categorized, to which I responded that as they were using accepted classical science we should accept them as conventional physicists. I did not insist they were correct only that their methods conformed to classical science.

My contribution to Rhoda's GHE thread was entirely relevant, as it argued what GHE might actually be, whether or not some might find the message unsettling. And it achieved the result of getting alternative descriptions for GHE discussed, even to getting complete new threads discussing, and attempting to disprove, N&Z's interpretation of the Diviner instrument going, so introducing the argument was hardly irrelevant.

I do notice a distinct hostility on your part to anything that does not conform to your own opinions and I am sad for that, as I could also find your closed mindedness, and persistent dismissal of other peoples ideas in favour of your own, similar to how you describe Mydog.

Now please grow up and stop this pissing contest you embarked on some threads back. If it suits you I'll not respond to any post of yours that does not refer to what I have written, but I will not be censored [or bullied] by anyone other than the Bish.

BTY I was quite surprised, and impressed, by BB's recent positive contributions to the threads.

Jan 9, 2013 at 2:25 PM | Registered CommenterRKS

Bullied by the Bish? Surely a contradiction in terms, according to the founding ecclesiology of this place? :)

TBYJ should have his say back to RKS, if he wishes, but if we can dial down on the insults - TBYJ's not remotely like mydog, that's a bridge too far for anyone who's contributed to this thread so far - that would be appreciated.

Jan 9, 2013 at 2:30 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

1. Lindzen GHE
2. Slayer
3. Gassy.

My original question would then recast to:

So, if the policy outcome is the same and one approach is much more likely to be true than the others, are there any downsides in some sceptics giving the impression that the slayer or gassy options are fundamental, make or break issues in the debate?
How does that sound? More to the point, what's the answer?

(Cross-posted with TBYJ at 1:44 PM but I'm sure we can work something out!)

Jan 9, 2013 at 1:45 PM | Richard Drake>>>>>

Other than influencing the search for a more accurate way to describe climate, as none of the above alternatives to the 'science' CAGW requires a radical [if any] change in policy, the only downside in 'choosing' one theory over another might be to skew scientific research [phlogiston etc.], as seems so often to happen when a consensus viewpoint is adopted.

Jan 9, 2013 at 2:56 PM | Registered CommenterRKS

Bullied by the Bish? Surely a contradiction in terms, according to the founding ecclesiology of this place? :)

TBYJ should have his say back to RKS, if he wishes, but if we can dial down on the insults - TBYJ's not remotely like mydog, that's a bridge too far for anyone who's contributed to this thread so far - that would be appreciated.

Jan 9, 2013 at 2:30 PM | Richard Drake>>>>>>

Quite obviously the Bish does not bully, just a bad use of brackets perhaps and why do you keep stirring trouble in comments directed between other contributors. Your opinion and advice is not required in this matter and I would prefer it if you would keep out of personal matters that do not directly concern you.

I was compared to Mydog [to which of course in your usual one sided way you forgot to refer to] and that was why my comment was made.

As far as I am concerned I have responded to the hostile post by TBYJ, and your attempt to keep the pot boiling is neither requested or appreciated.

There is no more to discuss on the subject.

Jan 9, 2013 at 3:09 PM | Registered CommenterRKS

RKS (3:09 PM): All our interactions here are open for others to comment on. Otherwise it would be email. This is a thread I began and there's been, to my mind, amiability throughout (if I haven't forgotten something) until you and TBYJ began to cross swords. But I don't deny the need for irritation or anger at times - or at least their inevitablity. I will now step out, at your request, and await what TBYJ makes of the latest. I'll also wait a little while to respond to your 2:56 PM, which will take us in another direction.

Jan 9, 2013 at 3:36 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

Nothing more to say on this until it returns to the topic in the heading.

Jan 9, 2013 at 3:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames