Global Warming backdown

[Shady]

I believe that most skeptics agree with that statement.....and the debate has always been - and continues to be about "how much".

Exactly. The biggest problem is that there doesn't seem to be an accurate way to measure.

[waldo]

As the audio clip said: "In a recent survey, 98 % of Climate Scientists agreed that humans were contributing to warming - the debate is over how much". I believe that most skeptics agree with that statement.....and the debate has always been - and continues to be about "how much".

Exactly. The biggest problem is that there doesn't seem to be an accurate way to measure.

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Phil Jones: Yes

yabut, Shady... aside from the fact you've shown you haven't been able to speak to a single aspect of the actual science throughout the assortment of MLW climate related threads, aside from the fact your principal forte is one of parroting tabloid newspaper denier themes, aside from the fact you revel in distortion, fabrication and specious claims, aside from the fact you've been called out repeatedly by others over your intellectual dishonesty... you now so brazenly step forward in support of a presumptive statement on the "debate". If that's your real position, what's motivated your past MLW posting history in climate change related threads... a posting history that categorically denies AGW climate change?

if that's your real position, why do you still, to this day, pompously and ignorantly include that Phil Jones related Q/A in your signature? You've been repeatedly chastised over that signature - another MLW member created a thread dedicated to your intellectual dishonesty in presenting that signature. Repeatedly, you've been apprised of the purposeful cherry-picked short term trending aspects that precipitated that question posed to Phil Jones. Repeatedly, you've been apprised of the statistical aspects related to that Q/A statement. Repeatedly, you've been apprised of the unique nature of CRU data as compared to other global temperature datasets. Repeatedly, you've been apprised as to what results other global temperature datasets present as compared to CRU data. Repeatedly, you ignored it all, notwithstanding the fact you don't even understand the foundations to what you choose to categorically ignore.

your now brazen support for the aforementioned quoted presumptive statement on the "debate" has nothing to do with that Phil Jones Q/A you hold so dearly to... in fact, it contradicts it. The denialsphere ran with that Q/A statement and pumped it up to no end - using it in support of claims that actual warming hasn't occurred - not questioning the degree of mankind's contribution to that warming. Clearly that Q/A statement had minimal shelf-life once it was countered that simply adding another year to the purposely cherry-picked interval period brought forward the full traditional 95% statistical significance level. Today, you rarely encounter any reference to that meaningless Q/A exchange... it really only surfaces in the hands of true deniers - like you Shady. You actually believe your signature quote has... meaning... other than as a target pronouncement of your denial and your purposeful intent to attempt to inflame. But then again... that's what you're all about - hey lil' buddy?

[TimG]

As for whether climate can be analyzed as a boundary value problem, well, it has boundaries, and the various parameters in question have values defined along those boundaries, and if the phenomena taking place within the volume defined by those boundaries can be described by a closed system of solvable equations, then it can be treated as a boundary value problem

Here is presentation that provides support for my claim that climate is not a boundary value problem:

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/is-climate-really-predictable-on-10-50-year-time-scales-by-william-r-cotton/

[jbg]

Just to keep everyone up to date we're heading into a major La Niña. While the immediate effect is the heat waves that are socking Montreal, Toronto and the U.S. Northeast it will lead to the start of a thirty-year cooling cycle. I'm mulling starting a thread on this.

[waldo]

Just to keep everyone up to date we're heading into a major La Niña. While the immediate effect is the heat waves that are socking Montreal, Toronto and the U.S. Northeast it will lead to the start of a thirty-year cooling cycle. I'm mulling starting a thread on this.

still mulling? A 30 year cooling cycle! Does Simple know you're honing in on his 30-year cyclic meme? I've poked and prodded Simple to no end trying to get him to cough up his source... to substantiate his repeated claims. Surprisingly... Simple won't bite - he just continues to state it as fact. Sources? Substantiate? Why... these are foreign concepts to Simple. How about you? D'Aleo? Bastardi?

by the by... when we're heading out of what was a moderate El Nino, at what point does a countering La Nina actually begin to be felt? Given the cyclic nature of ENSO, just how does a cycle that typically lasts 8-12 months, occasionally up to 2-3 years, account for something that, as you state, "will lead to the start of a thirty-year cooling cycle"?

[waldo]

oh my! Is this what new owners can bring to the National Post... and to Jonathan Kay? What will Lorne Gunter, Lawrence Solomon and Terrence Corcoran have to say... now?

Bad science: Global-warming deniers are a liability to the conservative cause

The conviction that global warming is some sort of giant intellectual fraud now has become a leading bullet point within mainstream North American conservatism; and so has come to bathe the whole movement in its increasingly crankish, conspiratorial glow.

In simpler words, too many of us treat science as subjective — something we customize to reduce cognitive dissonance between what we think and how we live.

In the case of global warming, this dissonance is especially traumatic for many conservatives, because they have based their whole worldview on the idea that unfettered capitalism — and the asphalt-paved, gas-guzzling consumer culture it has spawned — is synonymous with both personal fulfillment and human advancement. The global-warming hypothesis challenges that fundamental dogma, perhaps fatally.

The appropriate intellectual response to that challenge — finding a way to balance human consumption with responsible environmental stewardship — is complicated and difficult. It will require developing new technologies, balancing carbon-abatement programs against other (more cost-effective) life-saving projects such as disease-prevention, and — yes — possibly increasing the economic cost of carbon-fuel usage through some form of direct or indirect taxation. It is one of the most important debates of our time. Yet many conservatives have made themselves irrelevant in it by simply cupping their hands over their ears and screaming out imprecations against Al Gore.

Rants and slogans may help conservatives deal with the emotional problem of cognitive dissonance. But they aren’t the building blocks of a serious ideological movement. And the impulse toward denialism must be fought if conservatism is to prosper in a century when environmental issues will assume an ever greater profile on this increasingly hot, parched, crowded planet. Otherwise, the movement will come to be defined — and discredited — by its noisiest cranks and conspiracists.

[Keepitsimple]

Interesting article in the Globe this morning:

Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself

Stanford University physicist Robert Laughlin says governments – and people generally – should proceed with more humility in dealing with climate change. The Earth, he says, is very old and has suffered grievously: volcanic explosions, floods, meteor impacts, mountain formation “and all manner of other abuses greater than anything people could inflict.” Yet, the Earth is still here. “It’s a survivor.”

Writing in the summer issue of the magazine The American Scholar, Prof. Laughlin offers a profoundly different perspective on climate change. “Common sense tells us that damaging a thing as old as [Earth] is somewhat easier to imagine than it is to accomplish – like invading Russia.” For planet Earth, he says, the crisis of climate change, if crisis it be, will be a walk in the park.

.............

You can’t discuss climate change, Prof. Laughlin says, without looking backward across geologic time. He puts ordinary rainfall into perspective to illustrate the point. The rain that now falls on the world in a normal year measures a metre – “about the height of a golden retriever.” The rain that has fallen since the beginning of the Industrial Age measures 200 metres. The rain that has fallen since the age of dinosaurs would fill Earth’s oceans 20,000 times. The rain that has fallen since oxygen formed would fill the entire world 100 times.

Yet, the amount of water in Earth’s oceans hasn’t changed significantly in all of this time. In Earth’s most recent glacial melting, 15,000 years ago, the sea level rose by one centimetre a year for 10,000 years – and then abruptly stopped. The heat required to produce this melting was 10 times the total energy consumption of all human civilization.

............

Prof. Laughlin concedes that excess carbon dioxide could – “in a handful of examples” – contribute to the extinction of species. He cites corals as an example. But he insists that keeping carbon in the ground for a little while longer won’t make much difference to animal or to organism.

The real extinction problem, he says, is human population pressure: habitat destruction, pesticide abuse, overharvesting, species invasion. This is a distinction of great importance because it might help direct environmental concern to goals that people can actually achieve: Forget Gaia, save a marsh; forget the planet, save a frog.

The Earth regulates climate change in geologic time, Prof. Laughlin says, “without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.” If the Earth determines that Canada should freeze again, the best response would simply be to sell your Canadian real estate. The Earth moves on, Prof. Laughlin says. So should we.

Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/please-remain-calm-the-earth-will-heal-itself/article1642767/

[Pliny]

oh my! Is this what new owners can bring to the National Post... and to Jonathan Kay? What will Lorne Gunter, Lawrence Solomon and Terrence Corcoran have to say... now?

Bad science: Global-warming deniers are a liability to the conservative cause

It doesn't matter anymore, Waldo! The poles are going to shift in 2012. Run for the hills. The sky is falling.

Polar shift

Better than AGW for sky-is-falling effect! Maybe if we transfer some wealth to Greenland we can ease the negative effects? Time's a-wasting though. Let's get Pope Gore on this. He should be working on his sequel - he can call it - "Forget about An inconvenient Truth - this will scare the bejeebers out of you."

unfettered capitalism — and the asphalt-paved, gas-guzzling consumer culture it has spawned

On what planet is this guy from?

Unfettered capitalism? Where? How can something that doesn't exist spawn anything?

Edited July 19, 2010 by Pliny

[jbg]

still mulling?

Perhaps I have other things to do than post on boards sometimes and forget I'm thinking of starting a thread. Maybe you have more time on your hands.

A 30 year cooling cycle! Does Simple know you're honing in on his 30-year cyclic meme? I've poked and prodded Simple to no end trying to get him to cough up his source... to substantiate his repeated claims. Surprisingly... Simple won't bite - he just continues to state it as fact. Sources? Substantiate? Why... these are foreign concepts to Simple. How about you? D'Aleo? Bastardi?

Try this out (link). Edited July 19, 2010 by jbg

[Keepitsimple]

The debate continues.....even the New Scientist is starting to pay attention. Perhaps such a skeptical article in the most widely read science journal signals a step towards a more balanced debate.

Without candour, we can't trust climate science

14 July 2010

IS CLIMATEGATE finally over? It ought to be, with the publication of the third UK report into the emails leaked from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU). Incredibly, none looked at the quality of the science itself.

The MPs' inquiry - rushed out before the UK general election on 6 May - ducked the science because the university said it was setting up an "independent scientific assessment panel" chaired by geologist Ron Oxburgh.

After publishing his five-page epistle, Oxburgh declared "the science was not the subject of our study". Finally, last week came former civil servant Muir Russell's 150-page report. Like the others, he lambasted the CRU for its secrecy but upheld its integrity - despite declaring his study "was not about... the content or quality of [CRU's] scientific work" (see "Scientists respond to Muir Russell report").

Though the case for action to cut greenhouse gases remains strong, this omission matters. How can we know whether CRU researchers were properly exercising their judgment? Without dipping his toes into the science, how could Russell tell whether they were misusing their power as peer reviewers to reject papers critical of their own research, or keep sceptical research out of reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?

Russell's report was much tougher on data secrecy, finding a "consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness". Key data on matters of public importance - like CRU's assembly of 160 years of global thermometer data - cannot be regarded as private property. Even so, he ought to have joined Oxburgh in calling for greater documentation of the "judgmental decisions" that turned raw data into the graphs of global average temperatures. Data manipulation is the stuff of science, but that manipulation has to be as open and transparent as the data itself.

Global thermometer data going back 160 years cannot be regarded as private property

Russell's team left other stones unturned. They decided against detailed analysis of all the emails in the public domain. They examined just three instances of possible abuse of peer review, and just two cases when CRU researchers may have abused their roles as authors of IPCC reports. There were others. They have not studied hundreds of thousands more unpublished emails from the CRU. Surely openness would require their release.

All this, plus the failure to investigate whether emails were deleted to prevent their release under freedom of information laws, makes it harder to accept Russell's conclusion that the "rigour and honesty" of the scientists concerned "are not in doubt".

Some will argue it is time to leave climategate behind. But it is difficult to justify the conclusion of Edward Acton, University of East Anglia vice-chancellor, that the CRU has been "completely exonerated". Openness in sharing data, even with your critics, is a legal requirement.

But what happened to intellectual candour - especially in conceding the shortcomings of these inquiries and discussing the way that science is done. Without candour, public trust in climate science cannot be restored, nor should it be.

Link: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727692.900-without-candour-we-cant-trust-climate-science.html

[waldo]

ah yes! The last death knell of Hackergate... just doesn't sit well... with some - particularly those who trumped up it's nothingness. If you listen real close you can still hear their faint muffled whines in the distance.

[bloodyminded]

ah yes! The last death knell of Hackergate... just doesn't sit well... with some - particularly those who trumped up it's nothingness. If you listen real close you can still hear their faint muffled whines in the distance.

Some of them are still insisting on the discredited narrative.

You can't trust inquiries any more than you can trust peer review, evidently.

As Mark Steyn said (somewhere in between his prediction that Iraq would be a tourist trap by 2004, and that Saudi Arabia and Syria would be turned into democracies by 2010, thanks to the Iraq War): "Climate Change is the biggest liberal fraud ever perpetrated."

These things are their stories, and they're sticking to them.

[TimG]

You can't trust inquiries any more than you can trust peer review, evidently.

The problems with the inquiries have been well documented and a few normally unsceptical sources have also condemned them as whitewashes. Anyone who actually cared about the facts of this matter would have taken the time to understand the criticisms and if they did they would not be able to claim the inquiries were adequate.

I am curious why you would bother to express an opinion on the inquiries when it is clear you have made zero effort to research the issues.

I would also be interested to hear arguments about why we should trust peer review as basis to make trillion dollar economic decisions. A secretive and unaccounatable process that was designed to settle arguments about the mating habits of the striped marmot is hardly appropriate for decisions with such wide ranging impact. I know I would refuse to fly on a plane if I was told the only evidence they have that it would fly is a because the consensus in peer reviewed literture say it will fly. Why would you?

Edited July 25, 2010 by TimG

[bloodyminded]

I know I would refuse to fly on a plane if I was told the only evidence they have that it would fly is a because the consensus in peer reviewed literture say it will fly. Why would you?

Yet evidently, if a self-styled "sceptic" deemed the matter impossible, that would be sufficient evidence to avoid flying altogether.

Especially if the sceptic called himself "conservative."

Edited July 25, 2010 by bloodyminded

[TimG]

Yet evidently, if a self-styled "sceptic" deemed the matter impossible, that would be sufficient evidence to avoid flying altogether.

Please answer the question. Why should anyone believe that peer review is adequate for making decisions with significant economic or safety consequences?

Aircraft engineers certainly do not. They make decisions after the extentively test theories in a lab and verify that they are able to reliably predict outcomes.

Edited July 25, 2010 by TimG

[bloodyminded]

Please answer the question. Why should anyone believe that peer review is adequate for making decisions with significant economic or safety consequences?

I don't think peer review is the end-all and be-all of everything. But it's important.

You might ask yourself why we should base decisions about economic and safety considerations on the absense of peer review. That doesn't sound better; it sounds worse.

Edited July 25, 2010 by bloodyminded

[TimG]

You might ask yourself why we should base decisions about economic and safety considerations on the absense of peer review. That doesn't sound better; it sounds worse.

A strawman argument. Peer-review is simply one of many factors that one would use to evaluate a claim. A claim that has made it into the peer reviewed literature obviously should be taken more seriously than one that has not but that does not means that all non-peer reviewed sources must be ignored.

For example, a aircraft engineer may find in lab tests that a claim in peer reviewed literature is unreliable. Based on those tests that engineer can legimately choose to ignore the peer reviewed literature claim even if the engineer never submits his evidence for peer review.

Decisions with significant economic or safety consequences can never be left to peer review and questioning peer reviewed claims outside of the literature is a necessary part of the scientific process. A part that has been forgotten in climate science because such questioning undermines the political agenda of AGW activists.

Edited July 25, 2010 by TimG

[bloodyminded]

A strawman argument. Peer-review is simply one of many factors that one would use to evaluate a claim. A claim that has made it into the peer reviewed literature obviously should be taken more seriously than one that has not but that does not means that all non-peer reviewed sources must be ignored.

For example, a aircraft engineer may find in lab tests that a claim in peer reviewed literature is unreliable. Based on those tests that engineer can legimately choose to ignore the peer reviewed literature claim even if the engineer never submits his evidence for peer review.

Decisions with significant economic or safety consequences can never be left to peer review and questioning peer reviewed claims outside of the literature is a necessary part of the scientific process. A part that has been forgotten in climate science because such questioning undermines the political agenda of AGW activists.

You might or might not be overestimating the power and number of genuine "AGW activists." But you are certainly overstating the case for "political agenda," even as you embrace the equal and opposite political agenda under the pretence of "scepticism."

Because I don't disagree with the points you make in this post; but I get the feeling that you do disagree with them, in a sense.

I see little notion of you pleading caution in a sincere way; I think you are an absolute believer in the denier camp.

ie "The biggest liberal fraud in history."

This notion is not scepticism.

Indeed, if you research the sites of those genuinely interested in scepticism (not AGW particularly, but scepticism generally)...you will find that they are profoundly sceptical...about the AGW "sceptics."

[TimG]

I see little notion of you pleading caution in a sincere way; I think you are an absolute believer in the denier camp.

Translation: you can't argue with my points but rather than concede that you were wrong to insist on blind adherance to the claims in the peer reviewed literature you decide to toss out some ad homs.

Indeed, if you research the sites of those genuinely interested in scepticism (not AGW particularly, but scepticism generally)...you will find that they are profoundly sceptical...about the AGW "sceptics."

The biggest problem which such people is they jump on the more absurd claims of some skeptics and use that as an excuse to ignore the more nuanced and more important arguments.

Matt Ridly has some good insight on this problem: http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/homo-stramineus

Hawks is dead right on both points. First, sceptical arguments get caricatured most; second, this is because people don't read the views they don't agree with. Instead they read their friends' caricatures of their enemies' arguments. This is the story of the Nature-Nurture debate over many decades, where the orthdox scientific church -- which insisted that nurture was all -- indulged in furious denunciations of straw men genetic determinists based on only reading their friends' versions of what their enemies said. The opposite sometimes happened as well but not so much.

The point applies especially to climate science today. If you try to find rebuttals of heretic climate sceptics, again and again you find yourself wading through articles attacking straw men that bear little resemblance to the sceptics' actual arguments. I have yet to read a defence of the hockey stick graph, for example, that understands, let alone does justice to, Steve McIntyre's critique before dismissing it. RealClimate is an egregious offender in this regard.

That I why I feel that people who do not actually go and read and undestand the sceptics arguments themselves are frankly not qualified to have on opinion on their merit. That group of a people, unfortunately, includes the majority of praticing climate scientists. Edited July 25, 2010 by TimG

[bloodyminded]

Translation: you can't argue with my points but rather than concede that you were wrong to insist on blind adherance to the claims in the peer reviewed literature you decide to toss out some ad homs.

My "blind adherence" seems to be at odds with your concession (which you later ommitted through edit) of my "progress" earlier.

Of course, I've never maintained a different opinion, so it wasn't, technically, "progress." But my stated and unambiguous opinion is directly at odds with what you've said here...and then you have the gall to accuse me of ad hominem--in the same sentence in which you offer one!

I couldn't caricature your debate methods any better than this.

The biggest problem which such people is they jump on the more absurd claims of some skeptics and use that as an excuse to ignore the more nuanced and more important arguments.

Matt Ridly has some good insight on this problem: http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/homo-stramineus

That I why I feel that people who do not actually go and read and undestand the sceptics arguments themselves are frankly not qualified to have on opinion on their merit. That group of a people, unfortunately, includes the majority of praticing climate scientists.

And, of course, you have offered a declarative statement, so it's reasonable to ask if it is true. What research (which is very important to you) have you done to discover that this fault is committed by "the majority of climate scientists"?

Because reading some person making the charge does not constitute "research" in any credible capacity.

Edited July 25, 2010 by bloodyminded

[waldo]

I would also be interested to hear arguments about why we should trust peer review as basis to make trillion dollar economic decisions. A secretive and unaccounatable process that was designed to settle arguments about the mating habits of the striped marmot is hardly appropriate for decisions with such wide ranging impact. I know I would refuse to fly on a plane if I was told the only evidence they have that it would fly is a because the consensus in peer reviewed literture say it will fly. Why would you?

peer review? Really? That's your go-to... your hang-on... your last resort to attempt to 'save grace' from the manufactured nothingness that Hackergate proved itself to be?

given the nature of the MLW usual suspects, we've had a pretty good shot at this issue previously - beating upon the profiled Hackergate examples of presumed/supposed examples of interference with peer-review... there is no there... there!

but somehow... somehow... regularly, hundreds of skeptical papers get published in legitimate respected journals. Just how does that happen through your described "secretive and unaccountable process"? Notwithstanding, of course, the last hope for failed skeptical papers... the Energy & Environment journal, highlighted previously in this MLW posting:

I find it somewhat amusing that you would pick up on... and rail against... the 'randy marmot' fluff piece being pushed out across the mainstream media this past week? The actual study published within the current issue of the Nature journal - here: Most certainly, the denialsphere is quite perturbed that an actual flavour of empirical evidence of climate change would be thrust upon the great unwashed masses

A population of the hibernating mammal Marmota flaviventris — the yellow-bellied marmot — has provided a unique data set that illustrates the effect of climate change on the annual events of animal life. Data from the past 33 years of a long-term study show that the animals, living in a subalpine habitat in the Upper East River Valley, Colorado, now emerge earlier from hibernation than they used to. This gives them a longer growing season so that they are now heavier when they start to hibernate again. At the same time, the fitness of large individuals has increased, leading to a rapid increase in population size. On the cover, a yellow-bellied marmot photographed in the Rocky Mountains.

[TimG]

And, of course, you have offered a declarative statement, so it's reasonable to ask if it is true. What research (which is very important to you) have you done to discover that this fault is committed by "the majority of climate scientists"?

I have read a lot on this topic. I have read what many climate scientists have said themselves on the topic. In many cases they openly admit they have not read or understood sceptical arguments yet they are still convinced they are completely wrong.

[waldo]

A claim that has made it into the peer reviewed literature obviously should be taken more seriously than one that has not but that does not means that all non-peer reviewed sources must be ignored.

interesting... what about the denialsphere meltdown concerning the IPCC's use of non-peer reviewed sources, most particularly within the 'social sciences' influenced WG2 report? An absolute travesty - so claimed outraged 'deniers'. Of course, the (mis)quote machine went into overdrive casting the "peer reviewed" IPCC as... anything but. Until, of course, sanity prevailed and the actual IPCC published guidelines for using non-peer reviewed information were brought forward. Oh, right!

[TimG]

peer review? Really?

So what is your argument? Why should such a process be trusted? You got to do better that 'it is all we have'.

[bloodyminded]

I have read a lot on this topic. I have read what many climate scientists have said themselves on the topic. In many cases they openly admit they have not read or understood sceptical arguments yet they are still convinced they are completely wrong.

???

A reaffirmation of the original assertion, based on personal anecdote, without supporting information?

(And "the majority," to boot, let's not forget.)

If I were to simply take you at your word, would your charge about my paucity of research immediately be rescinded? And if so, why?