Copenhagen and Canada - it'll Devastate us

[jdobbin]

All politicians are driven by the polls. If Harper or Iggy made climate related promises it is because they believe it will get them votes. I doubt either cares about the science.

Like it or not, your argument lies with those in government. You just don't seem willing to do take the present Tory leader to task for your own political reasons. I'm sure your reasons will be "but the Liberals..." when countering but it seems fairly obvious that Harper is willing to spend a hell of a lot of money on something that you disagree with and you treat him with kid gloves.

You argue completely and utterly against the science but never really stand behind the work with a vigourous defence of it where it is needed: the present government leader in Canada.

So criticize other political parties all you want, in the end you support someone who ignores you because you don't do anything to indicate your support should not be taken for granted.

[Riverwind]

Scientific standards of evidence are far more rigorous than the judicial requirements.

You can't be serious. Science as it is practiced in fields like climate science today is a joke. Any old crap can get published as long as it 'supports the cause' and any which casts doubt is put under intense scrutiny. Look at the case of Mann 2008 which has been shown to be a completely bogus paper yet the 'scientific process' of submitting comments to journals failed to allow this error to be corrected and the journal editors allowed Mann to dismiss this damning critique as 'bizarre'

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7411

At any rate, your argument seems to boil down to "I'm incredulous, so let's keep moving goalposts".

I am not moving any goal posts. I have consistently said that AGW is not fact in the way a layman understands the word.

Evolution has many important connotations on real life.

Name one. I don't consider arguments over subject matter in schools to be 'important connotations on real life'.

I don't find your incredulity all that convincing. Thus far you've shown yourself quite capable of falling into fallacious arguments to back your views up, and you clearly have little knowledge of how real science is done.

I know perfectly well how science it done. The difference is I am not blind to the failings of the system.

I never said they were. But this demand for absolute proof is one that could never be provided to you for any theory.

I see you like to beat up on strawman. I never demanded absolute proof. I only said that AGW does not meet the standards of evidence that I think are required before embarking on a massive redistribution of wealth in society based the theory.

That is quite debatable. A theory does not have to explain every possible phenomenon within its area to be useful. Again, your invoking special pleading.

So please give me another example where a scientic theory was used to justify such massive changes to society? I can think of many equally weak theories that were used to justify relatively small changes (i.e. eliminating CFCs or DDT) but none that match the scale of AGW. Eugenics comes to mind but I doubt you would want to explore the parallel between how the 'scientific consensus' was co-opted by people with an adgenda.

Extreme caution, it would seem, to the point of doing nothing at all.

We have had no increase in temps for 10 years and the last 8 have seen cooling. People have done proper statistical analyses which are currently going through the peer review process that show that the recent trends in the surface temperatures, ocean heat content and tropospheric temperatures all suggest that current batch of IPCC models overestimate the effect of CO2.

The real question is why are are even talking of radical policy changes given the recent data.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Riverwind

[Topaz]

I saw David Suzuki on tv and he was asked about carbon being store underground. He said it hasn't been done before so no one knows what will happen BUT, his friend at Princeton University said that the carbon would be sucked up by this other property ( sorry can't remember the name) but it would suck up the 1 million tons of carbon and turn it into METHANE. Now, I believe methane is a gas and I think is could end up being very dangerous for the area its stored in. Maybe one spark and blow Albeta and Saskatchewan off the map.

[bush_cheney2004]

....but it would suck up the 1 million tons of carbon and turn it into METHANE. Now, I believe methane is a gas and I think is could end up being very dangerous for the area its stored in. Maybe one spark and blow Albeta and Saskatchewan off the map.

That's true...when I was in college we used to ignite our farts with a Zippo lighter......methane gas will burn !

[Riverwind]

Maybe one spark and blow Albeta and Saskatchewan off the map.

Lets look at the chioces

1) Shutdown the economies of Alberta and Saskatchewan

2) Pump the CO2 underground even if there are many unknown risks.

3) Continue to emit CO2 into the atmosphere

Gee. The right choice is pretty obvious to me but I am a pragmatist.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Riverwind

[bush_cheney2004]

...Gee. The right choice is pretty obvious to me but I am a pragmatist.

Right...but option 2 has broader political appeal. CO2 sequestration has already been demonstrated on a small scale between the US and Canada, and we are getting bombarded with reforestation strategies as well, which serves yet another environmental special interest. So we can take all the excess CO2 and freeze it into dry ice for storage on Mars polar caps.

Meanwhile, nobody cares about water vapor!

[ToadBrother]

You can't be serious. Science as it is practiced in fields like climate science today is a joke.

And more fallacies. This time it's circular reasoning.

Any old crap can get published as long as it 'supports the cause' and any which casts doubt is put under intense scrutiny. Look at the case of Mann 2008 which has been shown to be a completely bogus paper yet the 'scientific process' of submitting comments to journals failed to allow this error to be corrected and the journal editors allowed Mann to dismiss this damning critique as 'bizarre'

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7411

Ah yes, another industry shill's "blog".

If you want to claim that climatology is fraught with such errors, then do so, but do it in an honest fashion. Any twit can use Google/

I am not moving any goal posts. I have consistently said that AGW is not fact in the way a layman understands the word.

Nor is any science.

Name one. I don't consider arguments over subject matter in schools to be 'important connotations on real life'.

I know perfectly well how science it done. The difference is I am not blind to the failings of the system.

You apparently don't, as your bizarre Kuhnian obsession with experiments seems to demonstrate.

I see you like to beat up on strawman. I never demanded absolute proof. I only said that AGW does not meet the standards of evidence that I think are required before embarking on a massive redistribution of wealth in society based the theory.

And what standards of evidence would you invoke?

So please give me another example where a scientic theory was used to justify such massive changes to society? I can think of many equally weak theories that were used to justify relatively small changes (i.e. eliminating CFCs or DDT) but none that match the scale of AGW. Eugenics comes to mind but I doubt you would want to explore the parallel between how the 'scientific consensus' was co-opted by people with an adgenda.

Eugenics was largely championed by certain libertarian and social darwinist types. I have no idea what it has to do with science any more than animal husbandry.

We have had no increase in temps for 10 years and the last 8 have seen cooling. People have done proper statistical analyses which are currently going through the peer review process that show that the recent trends in the surface temperatures, ocean heat content and tropospheric temperatures all suggest that current batch of IPCC models overestimate the effect of CO2.

A ten year spread is a ludicrously small number to declare a trend out of. I do love the psuedo-skeptics. "Hey, your statistical analysis is bunk, so here's a completely idiotic statistical analysis to prove you wrong!"

The real question is why are are even talking of radical policy changes given the recent data.

Because the recent data doesn't show what you want it to.

The ten year claim is nicely debunked here:

http://www.grist.org/article/global-warming-stopped-in-1998/

Why exactly the pseudo-skeptics keep trundling it around is quite beyond me.

Edited October 15, 2009 by ToadBrother

[Riverwind]

Eugenics was largely championed by certain libertarian and social darwinist types. I have no idea what it has to do with science any more than animal husbandry.

Here is fun flashback from 1972 where David Sukuzi goes on about dangers of 'eco-freaks' and the 'unaccoutable scientific elitists' who were advocating eugenics. It was a legitimate scientific theory at the time based on the relativily new field of genetics.

http://archives.cbc.ca/programs/294-3762/page/3/

[Riverwind]

Ah yes, another industry shill's "blog".

Now you are showing your true colours as a mindless zealot that has no interest in science or the truth. Why don't you get back to me after you have read the claims and extremely detailed evidence provided in the post. Until then we know who the shill is and it is not Steve McIntryre.

BTW: This industry "shill" was featured Andrew Revkin of the NewYork Times who had this to say:

So should this all play out within the journals, or is there merit to arguments of those contending that the process of peer review is too often biased to favor the status quo and, when involving matters of statistics, sometimes not involving the right reviewers?

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/...limate-science/

If you want to claim that climatology is fraught with such errors, then do so, but do it in an honest fashion.

I made a specific claim - provided a link to detailed supporting evidence which you refused to read because of your preconceived notions about the source. Someone who was interested in finding the truth would have taken the time to read, understand and respond to the arguments presented.

And what standards of evidence would you invoke?

Climates models that could make predictions that actually came true. However, the bigger problem is I have no confidence in the climate science community now. They have shown themselves to be fundementally untrustworthy and it will take same serious institutional reforms to fix that.

There is a lot of similarity between the recent scandals that the RCMP have gone through. On the surface all of them only involved individual officers acting badly and we should not judge all officiers because of the actions of a few, however, the investigations have uncovered serious cultural and instutional problems with the RCMP which need to be fixed before the public can have confidence in them. Climate science needs a similar reform.

A ten year spread is a ludicrously small number to declare a trend out of. I do love the psuedo-skeptics. "Hey, your statistical analysis is bunk, so here's a completely idiotic statistical analysis to prove you wrong!"

This statement simply demonstrates your ignorance of statistics which is unfortunately shared by many praticing climate scientists. You see there is no magic dividing line between climate and and weather and it is absurd to claim there is one. There is only a continuous function where the uncertainty intervals get extremely large for shorter timeframes. This means it is possible to use any period of time to show that the climate models are wrong but for shorter periods it is harder to do because of the higher uncertainty intervals. The fact that it can be done for a 8 period demonstrates how far the trends are outside of the range predicted by the models.

The ten year claim is nicely debunked here:

Gee I see you have no problem using "(global warming) industry shill" sites when it suits you? Why the hypocracy?

Here are the analyses (hint: try reading and understanding them - you might actually learn something).

Ocean heat content: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009...by-bob-tisdale/

Tropospheric temperatures: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/tempe...ter-up-to-2008/

Surface temperatures: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/hadcr...through-august/

Why exactly the pseudo-skeptics keep trundling it around is quite beyond me.

Because mindless zealots who would not know good science if it slapped it in their face keep running around claiming the 'science is settled'.

[ToadBrother]

Now you are showing your true colours as a mindless zealot that has no interest in science or the truth. Why don't you get back to me after you have read the claims and extremely detailed evidence provided in the post. Until then we know who the shill is and it is not Steve McIntryre.

Look at the guy's bio.

I made a specific claim - provided a link to detailed supporting evidence which you refused to read because of your preconceived notions about the source. Someone who was interested in finding the truth would have taken the time to read, understand and respond to the arguments presented.

You made a specific claim about a specific paper.

Climates models that could make predictions that actually came true. However, the bigger problem is I have no confidence in the climate science community now. They have shown themselves to be fundementally untrustworthy and it will take same serious institutional reforms to fix that.

Wow! An entire branch of science is, in your view, untrustworthy.

There is a lot of similarity between the recent scandals that the RCMP have gone through. On the surface all of them only involved individual officers acting badly and we should not judge all officiers because of the actions of a few, however, the investigations have uncovered serious cultural and instutional problems with the RCMP which need to be fixed before the public can have confidence in them. Climate science needs a similar reform.

And now we add non-sequiturs to the list of fallacious arguments you invoke.

This statement simply demonstrates your ignorance of statistics which is unfortunately shared by many praticing climate scientists. You see there is no magic dividing line between climate and and weather and it is absurd to claim there is one. There is only a continuous function where the uncertainty intervals get extremely large for shorter timeframes. This means it is possible to use any period of time to show that the climate models are wrong but for shorter periods it is harder to do because of the higher uncertainty intervals. The fact that it can be done for a 8 period demonstrates how far the trends are outside of the range predicted by the models.

Gee I see you have no problem using "(global warming) industry shill" sites when it suits you? Why the hypocracy?

Scientists are an industry?

Here are the analyses (hint: try reading and understanding them - you might actually learn something).

Translation: I've found a bunch of shill sights that agree with me.

Ocean heat content: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009...by-bob-tisdale/

Tropospheric temperatures: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/tempe...ter-up-to-2008/

Surface temperatures: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/hadcr...through-august/

Have you actually got anything that has made it through peer review? Oh, lemme guess, peer review is part of the evil conspiracy as well.

Because mindless zealots who would not know good science if it slapped it in their face keep running around claiming the 'science is settled'.

The ten year claim is bunk. Period.

[Wild Bill]

I saw David Suzuki on tv and he was asked about carbon being store underground. He said it hasn't been done before so no one knows what will happen BUT, his friend at Princeton University said that the carbon would be sucked up by this other property ( sorry can't remember the name) but it would suck up the 1 million tons of carbon and turn it into METHANE. Now, I believe methane is a gas and I think is could end up being very dangerous for the area its stored in. Maybe one spark and blow Albeta and Saskatchewan off the map.

Topaz, you really should turn off your TV and read a few basic science books!

[Riverwind]

Look at the guy's bio.

Tells me he is more than qualified to comment on the quality of statistical analyses use in climate papers.

You made a specific claim about a specific paper.

As an example. The fact that you are refused to even look at criticisms of that paper demostrates that it would have been a waste of time to provide you a complete list of the sloppy papers being published and lauded.

Wow! An entire branch of science is, in your view, untrustworthy.

Based on numerous examples of unprofessional behavoir and a willingness to defend junk science provided it supports the cause. The problems are well documented

Scientists are an industry?

They don't work free. They seek to advance their careers. They need to attract funding. You bet they are an industry. Why should anyone believe that scientists are altruistic?

Translation: I've found a bunch of shill sights that agree with me.

Keep digging deeper you only discredit yourself. I am always amused at how alarmists collapse into quivering blobs of goo spitting ad homs when presented with credible counter arguments.

Have you actually got anything that has made it through peer review? Oh, lemme guess, peer review is part of the evil conspiracy as well.

Are you capable of understanding papers that did get through peer review or do you just use that designation as a score card? If you can understand the papers you should have no problem reading the analyses presented and providing some sort of counter argument. Refusing to even look at them demonstrates an incredible amount of willful blindless.

The ten year claim is bunk. Period.

Any chance that you could come up with a rational argument for why a statistical step function would exist? How about answering this question:

The climate models predict average increase in temperatures of about 0.2 degC/decade. Let's say the average temperatures dropped 10 degC in 5 years. Would that be enough to prove the climate models wrong? If not why not?

Edited October 15, 2009 by Riverwind

[Moonlight Graham]

Now, I believe methane is a gas and I think is could end up being very dangerous for the area its stored in. Maybe one spark and blow Albeta and Saskatchewan off the map.

Methane is also a greenhouse gas.

[Argus]

Come back when you have the vaguest idea what you're talking about.

I dunno, but it sure looks to me like he knows an awful lot more about this subject than anyone else posting here.

[wyly]

Meanwhile, nobody cares about water vapor!

water vapor takes about 2 week to cycle through the atmosphere...CO2 accumulates faster than it can cycles out it has an atmospheric lifecycle that can last centuries...accumulating CO2 presents the danger and not water vapor as CO2 changes the GHG ratio in the atmosphere, a greater percentage of GHG's = more heat = warmer oceans=methane release= even more heat...

the science is sound if you understand it...

[Pliny]

The process was something like this:

1) Do simple tests with CO2 in a tube and hypothesize that CO2 causes the atomsphere to warm.

2) Take temperature/CO2 data from ice cores, assume that CO2 was a major driver the ice ages and 'validate' this assumption by making up values for a long list of parameters for which there is no data (i.e. cloud cover, aerosols). Naively assume that the back-of-envelope calculations have factored in everything that influences climate.

3) Develop computer models which replicate the trends in the temperature record. Reject any models which cannot produce the same CO2 response that was 'predicted' by the assumption that CO2 caused the ice ages. Make up data for various unknown parameters (cloud cover, aerosols) and be sure to pick values that provide the best match with the temperature record.

4) Run these carefully tuned models without CO2. Report the non-suprising result that the current temperature trends cannot be replicated unless CO2 is included. Claim that this means the models 'prove' that CO2 caused the warming.

5) Ignore critics who suggest that other factors are at work. In cases where the critics produce evidence that cannot be ignored go back and re-tune the models after incorporating the new factors. Reject any re-tuned models which cannot reproduce the assumed CO2 response as 'obviously wrong'. Tell the critics that the models now take the factors into account and they 'make no difference'.

6) Compare model protections to real data collected after the models were tuned. If there is a difference assume the data is wrong and spend time and money 'adjusting' the misbehaving data. When possible use a climate model to predict what the data should be and then use those predictions to calculate the adjustments. Claim that the models successfully predicted the temperature trends provided one uses the 'corrected' data.

7) Present model findings to Chicken Little to get everyone to run to Fox's den.

The same thing is evident with the Bank of Canada that runs about thirty different economic models and they still couldn't predict the biggest financial disaster since Jimmy Carter.

[bush_cheney2004]

water vapor takes about 2 week to cycle through the atmosphere...CO2 accumulates faster than it can cycles out it has an atmospheric lifecycle that can last centuries...accumulating CO2 presents the danger and not water vapor as CO2 changes the GHG ratio in the atmosphere, a greater percentage of GHG's = more heat = warmer oceans=methane release= even more heat...

the science is sound if you understand it...

Nonsense....water vapor is the most dominant GHG, and the most dominant positive feedback mechanism for amplifying other forcing inputs like CO2. I don't think you understand the "science" (or engineering).

[Bryan]

Have you actually got anything that has made it through peer review? Oh, lemme guess, peer review is part of the evil conspiracy as well.

Mann's hockey stick graph passed peer review.

[Pliny]

The ten year claim is nicely debunked here:

http://www.grist.org/article/global-warming-stopped-in-1998/

Why exactly the pseudo-skeptics keep trundling it around is quite beyond me.

There is a little fact that the author of your little essay has left out and that is that - all the scientific models used to extrapolate the GW theory did not predict the downturn. If you thought about it at all you would recall the big hullabaloo about GW is that, it is being caused by the emission of GHG's which have not been curtailed or even decreased over the last decade, thus, simply said, GHG's are not the entire contributing factor to any perception of GW. In other words, the scientific claim that anthropogenic global warming is a fact due to the emission of GHG's from our energy consumption is now in question because the level of GHG's has increased and the temperature still went down over the past decade.

Cherry picking a start date is the strawman in this article. I'm surprised you didn't pick that up.

You have not offered any analyses in defense of your "cite postings which indicates to me you have uncritically accepted them as is or you do not have enough information to make the points yourself. You don't have to be a scientist to understand what they are saying but you do have to know something about the subject matter yourself if you are going to debate it. Like you said, "anyone can google".

Edited October 16, 2009 by Pliny

[Pliny]

I saw David Suzuki on tv and he was asked about carbon being store underground. He said it hasn't been done before so no one knows what will happen BUT, his friend at Princeton University said that the carbon would be sucked up by this other property ( sorry can't remember the name) but it would suck up the 1 million tons of carbon and turn it into METHANE. Now, I believe methane is a gas and I think is could end up being very dangerous for the area its stored in. Maybe one spark and blow Albeta and Saskatchewan off the map.

Too bad there isn't some way we could tap all that methane and use it as fuel....hmmm! We've learned to extract Natural gas and propane maybe we could extract methane somehow..hmmmm!

It would definitely be safer if Albertans and Saskatchewanians all quit smoking though before they start experimenting.

[wyly]

Nonsense....water vapor is the most dominant GHG, and the most dominant positive feedback mechanism for amplifying other forcing inputs like CO2. I don't think you understand the "science" (or engineering).

it doesn't get more basic than i laid out...if you comprehend it then there is no hope for you to ever understand it...

[wyly]

7) Present model findings to Chicken Little to get everyone to run to Fox's den.

The same thing is evident with the Bank of Canada that runs about thirty different economic models and they still couldn't predict the biggest financial disaster since Jimmy Carter.

every bank in Canada predicted what was coming our way...the conservative government with the financial genius at the helm predicted last november -a slight surplus, no recession and no deficit

[jbg]

The process was something like this:

1) Do simple tests with CO2 in a tube and hypothesize that CO2 causes the atomsphere to warm.

Far easier to extrapolate natural warming during a "warm" 20-30 year PDO phase such as occurred between 1977 and 1998 (or possibly 2007) forever.

It has the same accuracy of taking daylight trends in Toronto between June and December and continuing to extrapolate for the next six months.

[blueblood]

every bank in Canada predicted what was coming our way...the conservative government with the financial genius at the helm predicted last november -a slight surplus, no recession and no deficit

And 11 months before that predicted that there was going to be some tough times ahead as far as the economy goes.

[capricorn]

If Harper or Iggy made climate related promises it is because they believe it will get them votes. I doubt either cares about the science.

Indeed Riverwind. Consider Ignatieff's sudden embrace of all things green.

There have been 94 sitting days in the House of Commons so far this year. Over that time Michael Ignatieff has raised the issue of the environment in question period only twice.

Spaced almost six months apart, each occasion coincided with a bilateral meeting between the Prime Minister and President Barack Obama. On the basis of the tenor of Ignatieff's questions, they were designed to put him in the frame of that day's top political story rather than to elicit a substantial response from the government.

---

It could be that this week's speech marks a watershed in Liberal thinking and a return to a greener approach in time for the next campaign.

More likely, though, it is meant to pre-emptively position Ignatieff for the inevitable reappearance of the climate-change issue on the federal radar in the lead-up to the December UN climate conference in Copenhagen. Overall, it reinforces the perception that this Liberal team is making up its script as it goes along and having its leader read it off the back of an envelope.

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/711156

Posturing on environment matters gets us nowhere.

On another note, I wonder who will tail Harper and co. in Copenhagen.