Discussion > We are wasting our time; all of it.
The amusing thing is that no matter how bad he wants to paint us, we're still more effective than his massive, highly financed side. If their aim was to hit the floor, they'd miss.
TinyCO2
Converts are irrelevant, at the moment.
1) As the models continue to diverge from reality no-one could be expected to have more trust in the understanding that led to the models. So anyone who does “convert” is clearly not doing so for rational reasons – at the moment. So a “Convert” from Sceptic to Believer is of no relevance except to their psychiatrist – at the moment.
2) On the other hand, the media only tells tales of doom so people who don't follow the science may think these predictions are based on scientific evidence (rather than speculative hypotheses about CO2 being the main driver of the climate). However, should they change their view it could only be because they have found another source of information. That is, they must have bothered to research the matter. Such people are not “converts” from Believer to Sceptic. They are convers form Agnostic to Engaged.
3) Finally, those who realise that the only prediction that has come right is the Arctic sea ice may decide that they’ve blundered. But that’s been true for about a decade. Such “converts” from Believer to Sceptic are again irrelevant. Rationally, they should have switched already… if they haven’t then there must be a reason unrelated to the physical world that has stopped them. That reason may have changed but that reason is of no interest to the rest of the world.
So we are currently wasting our time, all of it. But not in the long-term.
When the dam bursts the Agnostics will be informed. And they will be informed of the debate that has happened here and on other Sceptic sites. Then what has happened here will be of use.
Remember, the vast majority are Agnostics. They accept what they hear of the End of the World but don’t research it. They don’t change their life-style. They clearly don’t think the End of the World is important.
So they clearly aren’t that convinced – even if they aren’t persuaded it’s another phlogiston.
M Courtney
You don't really think anyone thinks any of you lot are skeptics, do you?
You don't really think any of "us lot" give a $hit, do you?
Big Oil
Dung, I'm surprised that you came to skepticism via Monckton. Do you still find him plausible? Maybe someone new to the subject could be easily fooled by his fake graphs and things, but these days it wouldn't take too long to find that he is not exactly well esteemed. e.g. http://www.durangobill.com/GwdLiars/GwdLiarsChristopherMonckton.html
I guess you are talking about quite some time back though and perhaps his nature was not so well known then. Do you think if the DT reply had been from soneone more credible such as a real scientists you might have been convinced the other way?
I came to the subject when I came across some folks who said there was no such thing as the greenhouse effect. I knew nothing about it, but it didn't take long to figure out that they were nuts. Yet they were taken seriously at various skeptic websites. That set my opinion of such sites and it hasn't changed for the better since.
Raff
Look Raff; I do not mind what you think, if you do not believe Monckton then no problem, we do seem to be incompatible. Sadly it is not worth talking to you because you do not answer questions or discuss things. I know there are sites where you are more than welcome so why come here and insult people's intelligence?
Dung
I wasn't aware that I had failed to answer your questions, but I see I did:
Don't you have a train to catch Raff?No, I use my bike mostly.
Happy now?
Raff
Raff, not going far then?
David Porter
Raff, you have said that you don't believe any of this lot will be convinced that "AGW is a problem". I have explained to you why I don't think it will be a problem would you do me the courtesy of explaining what you believe the "problems" will arise from AGW? If you write them down instead of implying them we can have a discussion based on empirical data rather than going off on side issues.
I am genuinely interested in what's scaring you, and you don't seem to understand that a "sceptic" is someone who doubts rather than someone who is certain. So it would be good if you could lay out what the problems are that are keeping you awake at night.
It would be good for you too, because only by confronting our fears will we overcome them.
geronimo
Geronimo, you may as well knit fog. You will have a greater chance of success with that than getting a direct answer. Raff does not (cannot?) do rational argument; the only “skill” shown, so far, is the oh-so-clever petty put-down (yawn). Whether this is because we are such intellectual pygmies we only deserve contempt, or it really is a bit too complicated for Raff, I shall leave it to you to decide.
Radical Rodent
I was interested to actually follow the link Raff gave ref Monckton; to preface what I am showing I want to explain a view that I have.
In my opinion when you read a text and attempt to determine its value and honesty, if you discover just one lie then you can ignore the whole thing because you just learned a lot about the people who wrote the text.
"Despite ever-increasing scientific evidence that human activities are having a profound and harmful effect on the Earth’s climate, there are ongoing claims to the contrary, often by those with no expertise in climate science or any scientific training whatsoever. A recent example of this is the testimony by Mr. Christopher Monckton before Congressman Edward Markey’s Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming held May 6, 2010."
"Regarding Monckton’s ASSERTION 3: “Monckton’s discussion of the impacts of a continued rise in the level of CO2. . . is extremely superficial.” “The best evidence from state-of-the-art free-air carbon dioxide enrichment experiments is inconsistent with the notion of major sustained increases in crop yield in a world of doubled atmospheric CO2.”"
This paragraph is deliberate deception on several levels.
Upon first reading there is a suggestion that an increased level of atmospheric CO2 will not lead to an increased crop yield and I would say that message is what is intended.
In reality what the paragraph says is that if CO2 levels double then you will not get continuous increases in crop yields.
Did anyone say that you would get endlessly rising crop yields from a one off increase in levels of CO2??
This an article from a true low life.
Dung
While still trying to come to terms with the revelations that had challenged my previously-held beliefs on global warming, I saw a video of Lord Monckton in a Senate Committee meeting a while back (perhaps it was the same one): the scene was set as the committee members sought to question Lord Monckton’s title. Once he had given them those facts, they promptly began deliberately misusing his name – “Monkeyton” being one shameless faux-blunder. Once all these jollities had finished, Lord Monckton then proceeded to give his side of the argument, helpfully providing them with all the scientific evidence to support him. The “scientists” however, could not do that – instead, they waffled on about the sea butterfly, its delicate beauty, blah, blah blah… Needless to say, the committee found in favour of the “scientists”. It was, and remains, such blatant bias that has me as a fully-committed sceptic.
Radical Rodent
"Geronimo, you may as well knit fog." I know, but I'm ever hopeful on engagement. I spent a good portion of my life bossing people who were much more intelligent than I am. I found the easiest way to get to the truth in any conversation was to get down to an agreed position as to what they actually meant when they'd said something to me. Once there it was reasonably easy to put questions that gave me answers I understood. You would be surprised (maybe not!) how many times getting to the kernel of the issue highlight the BS you're being fed, both to you, and frequently your interlocutor, who hadn't realised what s/he was saying contained BS.
In any event I am not asking Raff to do other than tell us what "problems" he saw from AGW that we won't be convinced about. it's not a trap, but once we know what the problems are he sees coming we can get down to the detail of how and when. Who knows I might be "convinced" myself.
geronimo
Geronimo, perhaps you should look in the IPCC reports to get a flavour of changes occurring now and those expected.
Dung, you appear neither to have known of M's claim, nor understood what you quoted nor took the time to follow the link to the pdf in which the full response text is given. M apparently claimed that
It is also known that a doubling of today’s CO2 concentration, projected to occur later this century (IPCC, 2007), would increase the yield of some staple crops by up to 40%...A gain of 40% would be a major increase in yield in anyone's esitmation. The text you quoted
“The best evidence from state-of-the-art free-air carbon dioxide enrichment experiments is inconsistent with the notion of major sustained increases in crop yield in a world of doubled atmospheric CO2.”So M says double CO2 and you definitely get 40% more yield ("It is also known...") and the text you object to says no you don't. A "major" and "sustained" (i.e. permanent) increase (like 40% claimed by M) is not what is found in experiments.
You ask, "Did anyone say that you would get endlessly rising crop yields from a one off increase in levels of CO2??" Well M didn't, he claimed 40% from doubling was sure. And the text you object to didn't, it said there would be no major sustained (i.e. permanent) increase.
The text in the pdf goes on to say
Quantitative analyses and syntheses of those experiments indicate that the direct effects of elevated CO2 will increase crop yields by 13% (on average for those with the C3 photosynthetic pathway, such as wheat, soybeans, rice) or 0% (on average for those with the C4 photosynthetic pathway, such as corn, sugar cane, and sorghum); not the 40% Lord Moncton suggests. Moreover, these estimates ignore (1) indirect effects of CO2 as a greenhouse gas on future temperatures, precipitation, and their variability, and hence on future crop yields and (2) other consequences of fossil fuel- burning such as rising ozone pollution that will reduce crop yields. The bottom line for crop yields: combined effects of fossil-fuel burning (rising CO2 , rising O3 , climate change) are uncertain but at least as likely to be negative as positive, and shifting increasingly towards the negative the higher that CO2 concentrations rise.
One could indeed say that 13% is major (though you didn't) but that would be to ignore the caveats in the text that follows that number.
So you have read through that whole page and the many, many examples of M not being honest and all you object to is a piece of text where you appear only to misunderstand the meaning of the word "sustained". Do you want to try again of will you accept that M is not a plausible source?
Raff
Error, apologies
Dung
Raff
You misunderstand the difference between a sustained increase and a sustained 'higher level'. A sustained increase is like sustained growth; the growth continues.
Dung
A very quick word for Raff about Monckton.
Probably nobody here formed their opinions about 'climate science' and all its accompanying baggage as a result of anything that Lord Monckton said, even though we find it interesting now and then to skim through the things he posts on WUWT and elsewhere.
I imagine that most BH commenters are like me - we accepted the whole 'global warming' thing as being well established and not open to doubt any more than, say, DNA analysis. Only when we decided to get to grips with what it was all about did we begin to smell a barrow load of rats.
No doubt there are some people here, like a couple of archeologists I know, who thought the whole thing was nonsense all along.
Martin A
Dung, language can be ambiguous. One often needs common-sense and to consider the context to understand. Why would Durango Bill or Dr Reich say that M claims "endlessly rising crop yields" (your words) from increased CO2 when they have the open goal of M claiming as fact a 40% rise for doubled CO2.
Why do you, when faced with 9 examples of error, dishonesty or deceit, hide behind a non-common-sensical reading of an excerpt from some text, which, when read in full, is as clear as day? And even if, against logic, you insist that "major sustained increases in crop yield" really means a nonsensical "crop yields increasing indefinitely at a major sustained rate", what of the other 8 examples?
Martin, do you think everyone here is aware that much of what M says is web of deceit?
Raff
Raff
When people attempt to communicate with each other then words are all they have available. The spoken word is better than the written word because there is no body language available with the written word.
However the English Language is very precise when used correctly, mistakes can be made but also advantage can be taken.
I quote the text given when I followed your link:
"Monckton’s discussion of the impacts of a continued rise in the level of CO2"
then
"The best evidence from state-of-the-art free-air carbon dioxide enrichment experiments is inconsistent with the notion of major sustained increases in crop yield in a world of doubled atmospheric CO2."
If Monckton was discussing the impact of " a continued rise in the level of CO2" then what is gained by pointing out that this is incompatible with the impact of "a world of doubled atmospheric CO2"?
Dung
May 28, 2015 at 3:10 PM | Unregistered Commenter geronimo.
What makes you think they were more intelligent than you??
Dung
I suspect global crop yields have correlated with CO2 concentration better than global temperature has, over the past couple of decades.
rotationalfinestructure
Tedious pettifoggery. Enjoy it on your own.
Raff
That was for Dung.
Raff
I seriously do not think Raff 'gets my point' but that is his problem and not mine.
Dung
Raff I have read the IPCC report, at least I've read the SPM Synthesis and find it to be waffle. I don't believe for one minute that they can foretell the future state of the climate, nor the impacts, neither do the scientists. IPCC TAR WG1. 14.2.2.2
"In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."
I really would like to know what precisely you're afraid of. Do you think if I asked you why you were a Christian and you said "look in the Bible" (which also contains forecasts of death, pestilence, famine and wars) it would help me in any way to understand why you're a Christian?
Should I be more precise perhaps?
1. Do you believe that glaciers melting is a sign of AGW? If so how do you explain the fact that they've been melting since 1800?
2. Do you believe that storms have got more intensive? If so how do you explain the fact that this doesn't show in the tropical cyclone intensity records?
3. Do you believe that rising sea levels are a sign of AGW? If so how do you explain the fact that sea levels have been rising throughout the Holocene?
4. Over what timescales do you believe we'll get to an ECS temperature (1.5 - 4.5C)?
You get the point, it's YOUR beliefs I'm after, I am assuming, like the Christians and the Bible, there are parts of the IPCC reports that you take issue with. It may be that you think they've underestimated the woolly damage they're talking about in the SPM (one of the most unconvincing documents I've seen in a long time even if you only have a passing knowledge of the current state of the climate). It may be that you're gullible enough to believe that there are people who can foretell the future, or divide the Red Sea, I simply don't know because you never exchange any information with us.
geronimo
Don't you have a train to catch Raff?