Speaking Out About Climate Change

[Michael Hardner]

The conclusion is still up in the air. I don't think anybody really knows. What's bogus are the people who've declared the debate is concluded.

The debate never ends, though. What we can't agree on here is what the consensus is. Some people think that unless 100% consensus occurs on a theory that produces precise and accurate predictions that can be reproduced, then there's no point in saying anything.

And you have people who doubt that the moon landing was real. I don't know what to do with it.

If you think your opinion is as valid as someone who has researched this for years, I don't know what to do with that either.

[waldo]

It's all there. I'm waiting.

you, you're waiting! Oh my...

well, anyone can play blog wars if you'd like. But really, why not actually challenge his positions/his work. I can see why you'd prefer the scurrilous Marc Morano route.

Gavin Schmidt - NASA Climatologist (responding to a RC question):

Jan2009: Dr. Theon appears to have retired from NASA in 1994, some 15 years ago. Until yesterday I had never heard of him (despite working with and for NASA for the last 13 years). His insights into both modelling and publicity appear to date from then, rather than any recent events. He was not Hansen's 'boss' (the director of GISS reports to the director of GSFC, who reports to the NASA Administrator). His "some scientists" quote is simply a smear - which scientists? where? what did they do? what data? what manipulation? This kind of thing plays well with Inhofe et al because it appears to add something to the 'debate', but in actual fact there is nothing here. Just vague, unsubstantiated accusations

James Hansen - responding to a request for a comment on Theon's statement:

Feb2009: John Theon never had any supervisory authority over me.

I remember that he was in the bureaucracy at NASA Headquarters, but I cannot recall having any interactions with him. His claim of association is misleading, to say the least.

What he can legitimately say is that he had a reasonably high position in the Headquarters bureaucracy. A job in that bureaucracy is not considered to be a plum, so we should probably be grateful that somebody is willing to do it, and I don't particularly want to kick the fellow around.

You should investigate his scientific contributions to evaluate the degree to which his opinions might be listened to.

Of course you are free to quote me.

(emphasis added)

[bush_cheney2004]

This particular discussion is special - at the core is the question of whether climate scientists published a bogus conclusion or not.

Okay, but that's just more of the same. Climate scientists are just like any other special interest with an agenda, so one would expect a few strident individuals to go off the rails. Their actions have undermined what it means to be a scientist, and all it took to figure it out was some basic statistics.

Climate change science has now become climate change advocacy. Annoying alarmists like Dr. Heidi Cullen (Forecast Earth) have completely disappeared from the popular weather media landscape. She, like the others, pushed too hard and lied too much. Economics silenced them in the end, just as we always knew it would.

[bush_cheney2004]

...If you think your opinion is as valid as someone who has researched this for years, I don't know what to do with that either.

No need for further contention....we get it...global warming...climate change...whatever. We understand and accept that it's happening for reasons that may include "anthropogenic forcing" (this term was their first big PR mistake). But guess what, we're not going to do anything about it...yet. Scientists or so called scientists don't get to decide these things. We have gone over this many times.

[Michael Hardner]

Okay, but that's just more of the same. Climate scientists are just like any other special interest with an agenda, so one would expect a few strident individuals to go off the rails. Their actions have undermined what it means to be a scientist, and all it took to figure it out was some basic statistics.

When your job is to produce truth, it's big news if you lie. Nobody bats an eye when snake oil sellers or politicians lie, but when judges do they notice.

Climate change science has now become climate change advocacy.

There is still a clear delineation of which discussion is which, and scientific papers, economic discussions, and opinions are all different things.

Annoying alarmists like Dr. Heidi Cullen (Forecast Earth) have completely disappeared from the popular weather media landscape. She, like the others, pushed too hard and lied too much. Economics silenced them in the end, just as we always knew it would.

We never talk about economics here... I suspect because it's all opinions and your opponent can't seem as big an idiot in that arena, so there's no outrage/disbelief to fuel the fight.

[Michael Hardner]

No need for further contention....we get it...global warming...climate change...whatever. We understand and accept that it's happening for reasons that may include "anthropogenic forcing" (this term was their first big PR mistake).

Yes... the real reason we won't discuss the important part is because it's dull.

But guess what, we're not going to do anything about it...yet. Scientists or so called scientists don't get to decide these things. We have gone over this many times.

...the important part...

[waldo]

This particular discussion is special - at the core is the question of whether climate scientists published a bogus conclusion or not.

ultimately, the ridiculous obsession is over the matter of the validity of the targeted reconstruction over a particular 200 year period... not over the full reconstruction, simply 200 years of it (rather, a 200 year "extension", one not beholding to tree ring proxies). At the heart of this obsession, the one deniers just can't seem to raise to the level of actual formal challenge, is the statement, (words to the effect) => "the past few decades are the hottest in the past 1300 years". (ie, challenging 1300 years versus 1100 years). That's it!

[bush_cheney2004]

When your job is to produce truth, it's big news if you lie. Nobody bats an eye when snake oil sellers or politicians lie, but when judges do they notice.

But they do lie, and always have. These are flawed human beings, with careers and egos invested in a game that feeds on itself in academia, and now geo-politics.

There is still a clear delineation of which discussion is which, and scientific papers, economic discussions, and opinions are all different things.

Which is where they should remain. Their arrogance and climate change religion has consumed those who lost perspective, the very thing most needed for the job.

We never talk about economics here... I suspect because it's all opinions and your opponent can't seem as big an idiot in that arena, so there's no outrage/disbelief to fuel the fight.

That's why I would prefer to cut to the (economic) chase. That's what really matters in this game.

[Michael Hardner]

ultimately, the ridiculous obsession is over the matter of the validity of the targeted reconstruction over a particular 200 year period... not over the full reconstruction, simply 200 years of it (rather, a 200 year "extension", one not beholding to tree ring proxies). At the heart of this obsession, the one deniers just can't seem to raise to the level of actual formal challenge, is the statement, (words to the effect) => "the past few decades are the hottest in the past 1300 years". (ie, challenging 1300 years versus 1100 years). That's it!

I've read about that... and I don't think that's much of a difference. If it's an error then ok, but I don't think that it's germane to the 180 degree "upside down" variable is it ?

[Michael Hardner]

But they do lie, and always have. These are flawed human beings, with careers and egos invested in a game that feeds on itself in academia, and now geo-politics.

Individually, maybe it happens. They're people after all. But en masse, and with a conspiracy of silence ?

I don't buy it...

Which is where they should remain. Their arrogance and climate change religion has consumed those who lost perspective, the very thing most needed for the job.

That's why I would prefer to cut to the (economic) chase. That's what really matters in this game.

Right. Scientists are bound for glory, success and history... unless they're caught lying...

[Moonbox]

you, you're waiting! Oh my...

well, anyone can play blog wars if you'd like. But really, why not actually challenge his positions/his work. I can see why you'd prefer the scurrilous Marc Morano route.

I don't even know who Morano is. Regardless, here's the part of Theon's quote that Morano and other's misrepresented:

Yes, one could say that I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results. I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation.

Hansen's dismissal of Theon's criticism was also pretty misleading. "Oh...yeah...he was like some bureaucrat or something that I sort of knew of and like...just a pen-pusher...I mean...he doesn't know anything about climate scientist."

If you look up Theon's list of credentials, that's not really the case. So, at worst, what you have here is a very senior NASA weather scientist, well above Hansen, who, after reviewing his work (particularly the stuff that made him famous in 1988, says it was bogus. Does that prove anything? Not particularly, but it is an example of a very well-positioned climate scientist who has problems with Hansen's research.

Please tell me what you think of Freeman Dyson's position. I think he's in a position to understand the computer models no? What about Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize winner who left the American Physical Society over their position that man made global warming is 'irrefutable'?

[bush_cheney2004]

Individually, maybe it happens. They're people after all. But en masse, and with a conspiracy of silence ?

I don't buy it...

Yes...en masse, which became part of the "vast majority" narrative to silence and discredit their professional and popular critics.

[Michael Hardner]

They did 9/11 too I heard...

[bush_cheney2004]

The did 9/11 too I heard...

..."the science is settled"...

[waldo]

If you look up Theon's list of credentials, that's not really the case. So, at worst, what you have here is a very senior NASA weather scientist, well above Hansen, who, after reviewing his work (particularly the stuff that made him famous in 1988, says it was bogus. Does that prove anything? Not particularly, but it is an example of a very well-positioned climate scientist who has problems with Hansen's research.

like I said, it's too bad you can't find the effort to interpret and present an actual (legitimate) challenge to Hansen's position/work... clearly it's there; however, you seem a tad preoccupied with 3rd-party BS promulgated by Morano (and that's where this Theon crap all stems from). Saying you don't know who Morano is, offers an even better indication of how well you source things.

in any case, your characterization of Theon as a "climate scientist" is laughable. I can't find anything published by the guy since 1994 and even then all his interest/specialty seems to be in "tropical rainfall". In those described years of supposedly being "Hansen's boss" (which, again, he wasn't), Theon was nothing more than a high-level, non-practicing scientist... a bureaucrat. That contrasts with Hansen's most prolific, historical and active, peer-reviewed bibliography - here:

Theon has no credibility - none.

Please tell me what you think of Freeman Dyson's position. I think he's in a position to understand the computer models no?

described as a great mind, with a great past - now... almost 90 years old, and in his latest years has taken to challenging facets of climate science. As I read it he doesn't challenge the buildup of atmospheric CO2 attributed to man - he simply discounts the impact of it... and, of course, he criticizes climate models, yet openly acknowledges he knows nothing of the intricacies of them, in fact knows little of climate science proper. Perhaps Dyson's own words should be a measure of how significant one should take his criticism.

Freeman Dyson interviewed by Yale360

: I guess one thing I don’t want to do is to spend all my time arguing this business. I mean, I am not the person to do that. I have two great disadvantages. First of all, I am 85 years old. Obviously, I’m an old fuddy-duddy. So,

I have no credibility

.

And, secondly,

I am not an expert

, and that’s not going to change. I am not going to make myself an expert. What I do think I have is a better judgment, maybe because I have lived a bit longer, and maybe because I’ve done other things. So I am fairly confident about my judgment, and I doubt whether that will change. But I am certainly willing to change my mind about details. And if they find any real evidence that global warming is doing harm, I would be impressed. That’s the crucial point: I don’t see the evidence...

What about Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize winner who left the American Physical Society over their position that man made global warming is 'irrefutable'?

ya, one of 50,000 APS members... but, again, an aged octogenarian with no background and knowledge in climate science. In any case, some other guy on MLW thought this was worth something too:

so, again, another old geezer raises his hand... this time, the long retired octogenarian, a non-practicing emeritus, Giaever, an avowed denialist... cause, apparently, he didn't like the American Physical Society's official National Policy on Climate Change - that reads:

...the actual APS National Policy on Climate Change:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases

[waldo]

there have been a few MLW threads in the past 'somewhat' dedicated to showcasing the "best" of the lame-stream media's weak/failed "journalism" attempts to convey AGW/CC related news/info. Of course, 'weak/failed', judgement presumes on one's perspective; certainly, when the attempts to convey are purposely intended to distort and misinform while ignoring accuracy/relevancy/fact, then... clearly, review judgement is subjective! In any case, these past threads invariably get derailed - this thread seems as good a place to renew the showcase:

of course, the MLW status update section (the "shout box") has become a favourite for drummer-types to showcase the best worst of these weak/failed "journalism" efforts; invariably, the status update is simply a word-for-word drop of a media/blog headline from the usual suspects. Unfortunately, the MLW status update section has become a favoured alternative for some to avoid the rigor of thread commentary.

a few recent days examples fresh from the MLW status update section;

eg. #1

AP: Norway Data Shows Earth's Global Warming Less Severe Than Feared

no - standard denier ploy pushing this into the mainstream. It pertains to a part of a PhD thesis that has not been published... not accepted by any journal. Even if it was legitimate, it would simply represent yet another study, of many, looking at climate sensitivity. No single paper is/will be the determiner - no matter how hard the denialsphere and it's acolytes push their agenda.

eg. #2 (this one drawn word-for-word from a FoxNews headline)

New report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warming.

this one, completely inaccurate/false, merits a bit of background: now brought into the North American mainstream by FoxNews, the actual 'event' transpired in mid-Dec, 2012. At that time it did make the British mainstream tabloids... the typical past source for this same MLW member bringing forward this type of 'barking noise' misinformation. That mid-Dec event was the early release (the "leak") of a draft version of the upcoming IPCC AR5 Report; the ongoing iterative releases from the UN body, the AR5 presenting the fifth in a series of reports intended to "assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information concerning climate change, its potential effects, and options for adaptation and mitigation."

in this circumstance, FoxNews is simply following a line of established (failed) due-diligence... simply presenting the unfounded/incorrect claims being made by a 'climate change denier', a blogger! Blog Science Rules!!! An underlying side-story presumes to leverage a "whistleblower" effort by the blogger.... in bringing forward ("leaking") an early draft of the IPCC AR5 Report.

as to the denier blogger's interpretation from the draft report, the one FoxNews has simply presented as a factual account, the interpretation is incorrect/false... of course that's never stopped FoxNews from it's AGW/CC misinformation campaign! The blogger's interpretation being that the IPCC (draft) report, "contains a game-changing admission" that enhanced solar forcing is the real/actual principal contributor to global warming... not anthropogenic sourced CO2 emissions"... that the IPCC is finally going to "come clean"... that the "hoax will be revealed"!!!

uhhh... no! What the draft IPCC report includes are references to galactic cosmic rays (GCR's) and aspects of the climate system. However, the key points missing from the blogger's failed interpretation are that the report's references to GCR's are wholly consistent with the scientific knowledge/research that shows GCR's are not effective at seeding clouds... that they have a minimal influence on global temperatures. More pointedly, in line with numerous MLW discussions on this point, solar activity is currently 'flat' - even decreasing in recent decades... that, any amplifying impact GCR's might have on solar climate influences, the amplifying impact of GCR's is a cooling effect on global temperatures.

[GostHacked]

http://www.foxnews.c...role-in-global/

The Earth has been getting warmer -- but how much of that heat is due to greenhouse gas emissions and how much is due to natural causes?

A leaked report by a United Nations’ group dedicated to climate studies says that heat from the sun may play a larger role than previously thought.

“[Results] do suggest the possibility of a much larger impact of solar variations on the stratosphere than previously thought, and some studies have suggested that this may lead to significant regional impacts on climate,” reads a draft copy of a major, upcoming report from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

http://principia-sci...s-key-role.html

The astonishing NASA announcement comes in the wake of a compelling new study just published titled, “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate.” One of the participants, Greg Kopp of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, overturned mainstream climate science thinking by declaring even slight changes in solar output have a considerable impact on climate. Kopp conceded, "Even typical short term variations of 0.1% in incident irradiance exceed all other energy sources (such as natural radioactivity in Earth's core) combined."

The full report by Dr. Tony Phillips is available from the National Academies Press. The news story reveals NASA’s upper management was barred from stopping climate activist, James Hansen, head of NASA’s research on climate, from promoting a political agenda. The NASA climate retreat signals that a paradigm shift is now in full swing and the discredited claims of man-made global warming alarmists are being tossed aside at the highest levels of government.

Popular skeptic climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball was overjoyed at the news, ”Finally, NASA seem to have broken free of the “settled science” that the IPCC imposed. Climate science was effectively frozen for thirty years and NASA are now getting back to where they were in the 1970s. The last valuable contribution they made was Herman and Goldberg’s, “Sun, Weather and Climate”, in 1978.”

Edited February 2, 2013 by GostHacked

[waldo]

ah, purrfect! Should I really be surprised who steps forward first and that the reply includes no personal statement/commentary... just dropped links & pasted extracts?

so... your response to my showcasing the FoxNews hackjob is to... re-quote my earlier supplied FoxNews link, and paste in a couple of paragraphs from the article! Well done.

http://www.foxnews.c...global/

oh wait... there's more. Another dropped link sans personal statement/commentary. A dropped link from the blog of "renowned" denier Tim Ball - the guy who claims to be Canada's first climatologist!

http://principia-sci...s-key-role.html

Tim Ball has no credibility. The article speaks of an "astonishing NASA announcement"... but never really states what that announcement is - let alone offering a citation reference for that supposed NASA announcement. Hey GostHacked, can you help out here? (/snarc)

the BS article draws reference to a "study"... a study that doesn't exist. What does exist, what the denier article presumes to leverage, is a workshop gathering that, presumably, caused NASA to make it's "astonishing announcement"! This workshop:

On September 8-9, 2011, experts in solar physics, climate models, paleoclimatology, and atmospheric science assembled at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado for a workshop to consider the Sun's variability over time and potential Sun-climate connections.

While it does not provide findings, recommendations, or consensus on the current state of the science, The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate: A Workshop Report briefly introduces the primary topics discussed by presenters at the event. As context for these topics, the summary includes background information on the potential Sun-climate connection, the measurement record from space, and potential perturbations of climate due to long-term solar variability. This workshop report also summarizes some of the science questions explored by the participants as potential future research endeavors.

[Shady]

I don't know why you're so hostile to any discussion of climate change.

[waldo]

I don't know why you're so hostile to any discussion of climate change.

save your fake put-upon hostility resentment for someone who cares... speaking of your claimed "discussion", is your idea of discussion one where you provide MLW status updates that simply reflect verbatim, 'word-for-word', copies of blog/media headlines that favour your personal denier position on AGW/CC? A few posts back, I quoted 2 examples of your recent status updates... your, uhhh..... "discussion":

=> 1- "AP: Norway Data Shows Earth's Global Warming Less Severe Than Feared" &

=> 2- "New report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warming"

what would you like to discuss... outside and beyond you simply dropping yet another MLW status update?

[Shady]

save your fake put-upon hostility resentment for someone who cares... speaking of your claimed "discussion", is your idea of discussion one where you provide MLW status updates that simply reflect verbatim, 'word-for-word', copies of blog/media headlines that favour your personal denier position on AGW/CC? A few posts back, I quoted 2 examples of your recent status updates... your, uhhh..... "discussion":

=> 1- "AP: Norway Data Shows Earth's Global Warming Less Severe Than Feared" &

=> 2- "New report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warming"

what would you like to discuss... outside and beyond you simply dropping yet another MLW status update?

Sometimes I don't have time to post. So I like to supply the latest news headlines. It's like my own news ticker.

[Sleipnir]

People who lashes out at the concept of climate change are the ones with little understanding in the topic.

[waldo]

Sometimes I don't have time to post. So I like to supply the latest news headlines. It's like my own news ticker.

your 'run&gun' status update "news ticker" is stuck on presenting a most one-sided view that suits your agenda. As detailed a few posts back, your two most recent updates on the subject (that I've noticed), are not factual based - you are perpetuating purposeful misinformation. One would think that your service offering, your MLW 'news ticker', would strive for accuracy - yes?

[GostHacked]

Waldo, I noticed that you went for the Tim Ball thing but not for the two videos I posted. I suggest checking them out as this guy has done a lot of work so far to show that the sun has a major influence on our planet. More so that people like you think or care to admit.

Eventually the IPCC and their 'consensus' style science will fall apart and become exposed. I don't want consensus, I want some facts for a change.

[Shady]

your 'run&gun' status update "news ticker" is stuck on presenting a most one-sided view that suits your agenda. As detailed a few posts back, your two most recent updates on the subject (that I've noticed), are not factual based - you are perpetuating purposeful misinformation. One would think that your service offering, your MLW 'news ticker', would strive for accuracy - yes?

I'm just trying to provide a little balance.