Related to our story on the US Chamber of Commerce challenging the EPA on CO2, we asked this question:
Do you support the idea of putting “global warming” on trial with the EPA?
After getting over 2200 responses over two days, I’ve closed the poll. Here are the results:
It would not seem to be a very productive exercise. Even most skeptics agree that the globe has been generally warming over the last 200 to 20 years and that temperatures now are very warm and not neccesarily getting colder. Having a debate on the causation might be possible but it even then assigning blame between CO2, changes in land use, natural cycles or something unknown would be nearly impossible.
We should know something more in the next 10-15 years given additional data. Patience is a virtue.
Thanks
William
I think we have a better and stronger concensus than those promoting AGW. Take that Al Gore.
There is no doubt that AGW is a blatant scam. What is most interesting, is why has this nonsense been promoted so strongly ?
Is there a single underlying cause, such as the nuclear power lobby ? … or perhaps a source of reseach dollars for whatever topic can be thought of, that can be linked to climate in whatever way possible ? … or a way to sell more newspapers ? … or a way for financial markets and corporates to make a fortune from carbon taxes and carbon trading ? … or just plain stupidity ? … or a combination of these ?
REPLY: It is not a “blatant scam” as there is full truth to the fact that CO2 does cause a warming effect. However the magnitude and cause/effects looks to be overhyped and oversold. – Anthony
In the absence of scientific research, the only sensible answer to the question “is man primarily responsible for climate change” is the Scottish verdict, “not proven”.
Unfortunately this is not an option.
A law trial and the accompanying media circus is not a substitute for a political debate: where citizens democratically choose between and develop a number of policy choices. Short-circuiting this process by claiming “the science is settled” is characteristic of one side of this debate (perhaps revealing a fear of democracy).
So be careful for what you wish for; a “trial” does not magically create new science, only science can do that. And a “trial” robs us of our democratic right to determine our future.
of choices
It would be interesting to see how this poll would go over at one of the pro-AGW sites.
I think the poll results were a foregone conclusion with respect to WUWT readers. The only question was, how close to 100% would the “yes” votes be? It would be much more interesting to see this same poll administered over at RealClimate. I think many there would be torn between “yes” and “no.”
Mike,
It would never happen at RC, they aren’t really interested in the broad opinion of their readers, only the narrow one, which is why they routinely censor comments from many individuals, including me.
William “Even most skeptics agree that the globe has been generally warming over the last 200 to 20 years”
I think you are pushing it a bit. Yes I suppose that the globe has been generally warming. But it has most certainly been warmer in the recent past.
“and that temperatures now are very warm and not neccesarily getting colder.” Nope, wouldn’t argree with you there.
Mike,
I think people are RC are so in denial and so sure of themselves that they would also vote YES to this question.
What if we lose?
There should be some outside the EPA put on trial, too, for long term damage to science – the jewel of human intellect. Once again it will fall to science and the will to be free to try to lead us out of another dark age that has a greater potential to empoverish and destroy than the one that we thought the enlightenment had banished forever. Ironically, its a too-little-to-do, well-off class whose well-being came from western economic strides that is out to destroy the economy. Even Marx only wanted the poor to be able to get something out the wonders of economic development.
I believe the wrong question was asked.
It’s not the subject of AGW so much as the EPA handling of the subject.
Did they take a balanced view of the subject before coming to an endangerment finding or were they selective in the evidence they heard?
DaveE.
I lost my long winded post. Here’s the short version.
REPLY: It is not a “blatant scam” as there is full truth to the fact that CO2 does cause a warming effect. However the magnitude and cause/effects looks to be overhyped and oversold. – Anthony
I think people overlook this too often. The scam is not the CO2 creating warming. The scam is the exaggeration of the claimed warming and the overstatement of the certainty by which it is known followed by the single minded jump to increased government control over every aspect of our lives.
I didn’t vote so whomever voted twice, thanks.
A trial would turn into a circus as there is plenty of information to dispute climatology’s claims of the effects and magnitude of warming. Certainly, the idiotic mitigation plans need to be put on trial as everyone agrees they cannot work and do nothing but give politicians more power and control.
That’s the real scam in my opinion.
William (14:16:58) :
“We should know something more in the next 10-15 years given additional data. Patience is a virtue”
Very true William,
Unfortunately, policy is being written/developed right now….and they (AGW crowd) won’t wait because we have only 4 more months before the ‘tipping’ point…
Mike,
Real climate would probably censor my vote. I’ve made many quiet careful comments there only to have them clipped. RC is a advocate only website which fronts as a science site. There is no question they would tolerate only an advocate approved result.
This is the inevitable result of the warmist crowd’s running away from any neutral, moderated debate. The few debates the alarmists entered were total disasters for their side. Now they evade debates because of the spankings they got from the skeptics’ side.
I don’t like having anything settled by legal action. You are never certain of the outcome, no matter how strong your case is [and the warmists’ case is by far the weakest; their very first response was to try to get the case thrown out of court].
But since the warmist side hides out from debate, there isn’t much other recourse, is there? One of the great advantages to legal action is being able to subpoena witnesses; the discovery process [I look forward to Michael Mann, Al Gore and Caspar Amman trying to explain themselves], and the subpoenaing of supporting data and methodologies. Also interesting would be knowing who is funding these *cough* “public servants.” Who do they answer to? The taxpaying public? Or George Soros, the Heinz Foundation, and their ilk? Those sucking at the public teat can not serve two masters. Exposing the payola will open the public’s eyes.
Most people will not lie under oath. Al, Mike and Caspar are going to find out how few friends they really have in academia. And no institution or government agency will be able to get away with derailing someone’s career for truthfully answering questions under oath. Testifying in a trial like this means job security.
If this actually goes to trial [by no means certain at this point] it will be very interesting. Win or lose, it will be an inflection point for the anthropogenic global warming claims.
wattsupwiththat (14:32:15) :
It would never happen at RC, they aren’t really interested in the broad opinion of their readers, only the narrow one, which is why they routinely censor comments from many individuals, including me.
By the way, Tamino took a shot at WUWT readers today in a post titled “Loony Bin.” He concludes his post with:
But the comments to that post are — well, right out of the loony bin. Read a few if you’re up for a good laugh, but be careful … you could feel your I.Q. dropping.
D. King (14:39:59) :
“What if we lose?”
We’re already losing. But only because we’ve been bringing the wrong weapons to the fight.
They bring knives…we bring feather pillows. Time to change that.
With all due respect I have to disagree with Anthony. I recognized Global Warming as a blatant scam almost as soon as I heard the phrase for the first time. C02 doesn’t “cause” warming any more than a lumpy sweater does. At least not the commonly understood meaning of “cause.” Silly, frankly.
Andrew
REPLY: There is an effect from Co2, but it is logaritmic, and we’ve very nearly hit the plateau. See this graphic:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/co2_temperature_curve_saturation.png
The blue circles are where the Mauna Loa Co2 record is overlaid. – Anthony
Tamino is projecting his anger at me because Lucia is kicking his butt here…
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/two-box-models-the-2nd-law-of-thermodynamics/
…and he can’t find a way out.
Anthony
wattsupwiththat (15:04:14) :
Tamino is projecting his anger at me because Lucia is kicking his butt here…
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/two-box-models-the-2nd-law-of-thermodynamics/
…and he can’t find a way out.
He did find a way out. He banned her from his board!
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/22/constant/
REPLY: It is not a “blatant scam” as there is full truth to the fact that CO2 does cause a warming effect. However the magnitude and cause/effects looks to be overhyped and oversold. – Anthony
The basis for any good scam. Start with the truth, then bend it to your needs by over hyping and overselling. Make no mistake – this is nothing but a giant scam to gain everything from research money to political power. Only a tiny few actually care about the climate and they are largely just followers.
J Clarke
Cap & Trade = tax, tax, tax.
CO2 reduction = rationing of carbon fuels
The combination of tax and rationing will cause a price hike of carbon fuels opening the market for wind, solar and bio fuels which will further increase the energy prices and all other products and services that rely on energy.
To control the entire system a massive Government Organization is needed.
So in the end this scheme is all about an unprecedented grab for Government Power and free money (a lot of free money) for the happy few like Gore.
It will absolutely do nothing to our climate and it does not have to because our climate is fine.
But it will ruin our economies, it will destroy jobs, ruin our middle class and put us all in shackles.
In the Third World and Asia, these policies will cause famine on an epic scale.
CO2 is not a threat to the climate and certainly not a threat to human health.
Therefore it is a hoax only invented to scare the people and herd them like cattle.
The Chamber of Commerce has stated however that they do not intend to question the science behind AGW/Climate Change, only if the use of cars is damaging to public health.
I think they should question the science because the science is fundamentally flawed.
If they don’t this is only a show trial which will end without anay gain.
William said: “Even most skeptics agree that…temperatures now are very warm and not neccesarily getting colder.
Er…no.
This particular sceptic is an archaeologist whose speciality is the prehistory of NW Europe. A soid chunk of that covers how the post glacial (Holocene) climate affected human behaviour and migration patterns. What we have right now isn’t even close to being “very warm”.
Could anyone think that a trial would be anything more than a show trial? The deck will be stacked from the get go.
The problem is that there are a group of people in the world that think they should be running it, and it p**ses them off that the rest of us don’t see it. The little ceasars of the world are convinced they are smarter and more ideologically pure than the rest of us. AGW is just the latest wedge they are using to try to gain more control. This is no different than the Club of Rome, Population Bomb, or Nuclear Winter. A thousand page health care bill is nothing, wait till you see what’s coming if they get their way.
D. King (14:39:59) :
“What if we lose?”
Public EPA hearings are just the start. Chances are that the EPA will dodge the request and the court cases will begin. Eventually this will probably work its way to the Supreme Court. Taking the long view of things, we can’t lose, the facts are on our side. It is just a matter of time before the truth becomes widely evident. The Chamber’s efforts will likely contribute towards this goal.
Dr A Burns (14:19:02) : There is no doubt that AGW is a blatant scam. What is most interesting, is why has this nonsense been promoted so strongly ?…
REPLY: It is not a “blatant scam” as there is full truth to the fact that CO2 does cause a warming effect. However the magnitude and cause/effects looks to be overhyped and oversold. – Anthony
I’ve often wondered about the extraordinary combination of events that caused climate science to become so badly derailed: (a) 30 years’ warming just as folk were beginning to think global resources and sustainability, and the energy of scientifically-illiterate dictatorship started to surface through the UN; (b) the rise in atmospheric CO2, possibly largely due to the slow warming oceans’ recovery from the Little Ice Age, just as computer-wargames-fixated myopic nerds appeared who were blind to the effervescent power of warming oceans and the evidence of history and archaeology; (c) the rise in our emissions of CO2 – which could be entirely coincidental; (d) the known facts of CO2 as a GHG, alongside ignorance of how CO2 actually behaves in our atmosphere and what feedbacks it triggers, if any.
Now here’s a real bit of light fun, very OT, but I feel it uses the same kind of discernment of multiple factors that belongs to real real climate science: I would expect realclimatescientists to be fooled a lot longer than WUWT readers.
“It is not a “blatant scam” as there is full truth to the fact that CO2 does cause a warming effect. However the magnitude and cause/effects looks to be overhyped and oversold. – Anthony”
…and we need to understand natural factors a LOT better …and my impression is that, due to iron-fisted conventions, that could take decades ….or even centuries since the iron-fisted conventions are so deeply-ingrained.
We can’t certainly wait for the peer review process to get to the bottom of this. A public trial of the science might activate the process, however, not that long ago in humanity’s history, science has been put to trial and the judges (Chruch!) ignored the real science to protect their agenda. Gallilleo was condemned and we all know today that he was right.
The Church of Gore will make sure that History will repeat itself and condemn a whole bunch a good scientists in the process.
I’m all for this trial IF our side can get access to code and data from their side as well as time to go through it.
And speaking of being censored, the last 3 or 4 posts I posted at climateprogress were deleted.
Lucy Skywalker (15:33:22
Now here’s a real bit of light fun, very OT, but I feel it uses the same kind of discernment of multiple factors that belongs to real real climate science: I would expect realclimatescientists to be fooled a lot longer than WUWT readers.
That one is pretty easy, but then, there are four nines in my birth date, so I’m quite familiar with the interesting numerical properties of the magic nine.
REPLY: It is not a “blatant scam” as there is full truth to the fact that CO2 does cause a warming effect. However the magnitude and cause/effects looks to be overhyped and oversold. – Anthony
The best and most “blatant scams” often have some elements of truth in them.
Example: WWII British fighter pilots ate lots of carrots to help them see in the dark. Of course, carrots are good for you as they contain Vitamin A and it will probably have some small benefit to your eyesight (the grain of truth). However RADAR is what allowed the allies to spot german aircraft at night.
Nevetheless, reportedly some people believed the scam and indeed ate lots of carrots (not that anyone will admit to this embarasssing scenario)
If the AGW scam goes the way of most scams then Gore, the BBC, David Suzuki, IPCC and a whole load of their disciples may end up eating humble pie (not that any of them will admit to it).
As the late Reid Bryson, often referred to as the ‘father of climatology’, stated::
“Global Warming is Cheesy Science”
“And how much [heat] is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.”
What does that describe if not a scam?
I’m thinking of renting my church building for just such a “AWG on Trial” exercise. I go to a congregational church and we have a policy of renting the facility out for “Town Hall” type meetings (part of the New England/Congregational heritage.)
I’m debating…January 15th or January 22?
Dr. Joe
Minneapolis
Minnesota
REPLY: Dr. Joe, consider giving a movie premier instead:
http://noteviljustwrong.com/make-history/host-your-own-premiere
– Anthony
As Solzhenitsyn wrote: “When in history something Soviet withstood against full information?”
The same is valid for AGW.
Lucy Skywalker:
Lucy, given the presence of water in all 3 phases in the atmosphere, oceans and ice caps, convection etc I’m with you.
Co2 is an infrared absorbing gas in a few bands. It is utterly critical to life on this planet that it be present in the atmosphere over a wide band of concentrations.
With all the other possible confounding factors in the Earth atmospher/ocean/surface system, vastly complicated and buffered by biology I think that’s all that can be said. What real effect it may have on the vague and artificial notion of “global average surface temperature” has not been demonstrated at all, let alone the effect of any increase due to human activity.
A veritable mountain has been made out of a molehill.
In light of several of the comments above, I’m reposting a comment I made at the tail end of the prior thread on this topic:
Cases involving legal decisions about matters of science are routine. (E.g., about dangers of various medicines, the validity of patents, etc.) Saying that science shouldn’t be decided by the courts is a non-starter–they’re already involved. Eliminating the courts would not eliminate non-scientific rulings on the topic, it would just shift non-scientific decision-making by default to the legislature and/or the executive agencies. And they make their decisions based on testimony given to them, similar to what goes on in a trial.
Second, a legal decision would not foreclose scientific research and publication on the topic. IOW, the judiciary wouldn’t be intruding into science or shutting it up. There’s no analogy to the Galileo situation.
Third, there’s no need for a “trial” to be a legally binding trial. What the CoC seems to be calling for, or anyway ought to be calling for, is a more elaborate form of a “hearing,” one that merely mimics the features of a trial in order to enable a fairer and fuller consideration of the evidence. In particular these features are: a neutral (non-agency) judge/overseer, cross-examination of scientists, and document “discovery.”
Fourth, there’s no need for the judge to be the detailed examiner of the evidence. In patent cases brought before the International Trade Commission, for instance, there are professional panels of examiners who hear the arguments and then make a recommendation to the judge. This format could be adopted here, with the panels being made up of distinguished retired scientists from various disciplines.
Fifth, there’s no need for the judge to be a scientific illiterate, if the “trial” format is merely an ad hoc device to enable a more disinterested and detailed examination of the evidence and arguments. He/she could be a scientist with some legal training, or real-time legal backup by an aide. And the judge needn’t be a single individual, but could be a multi-member group, like an appeals court.
Sixth, the “decision” handed down needn’t be black/white, but instead could be couched in probabilistic terms (shades of gray). Or, better, the trial could be set up to have multiple outcomes, with the third outcome being, “Given the costs involved, and the irrevocable nature of a treaty commitment to such spending, would it be wise to wait two (say) years while additional skeptical research is funded and additional scrutiny is performed on the current consensus?” If Yes is the answer—which seems as though it would be a nice face-saving outcome—that’s great.
If No is the outcome, that wouldn’t be a loss for the skeptical side, because if the trial were not held, No would be the outcome from Congress or the EPA anyway. Long-term a No would be a Win for skepticism because, if the world fails to warm over the next decades, Establishment science and Establishment political structures and procedures would lose legitimacy, and more decentralized scientific and political organizational structures would gain in contrast.
(For instance, I think it would be good if there were seven funding agencies in place of the NSF, whose budgets would rise and fall depending on the importance of the research they had funded. This would encourage more funding of far-out ideas, such as DARPA does. DARPA’s research provides much more bang for the buck than the NSF’s.)
Seventh, in addition to making an overall AGW ruling (Yes, No, or Delay), the judges and examiners could make lots of sub-rulings, or anyway offer tentative opinions, on the 101 contested claims in this dispute, listing them in order from strongest to weakest. Or they could instead, or in addition, point out areas where the evidence needs to be re-examined or firmed up or made congruent with some other line of evidence.
Eighth, the risk of getting a biased judge or panel of judges could be reduced by splitting the trial into different sub-trials on disputed topic-areas, with separate judge-panels and examiner-panels for each. (In addition, each side could be allowed to appoint one of the judges to the panel, to ensure that its arguments got a hearing during judicial head-scratching conferences.) For instance, there could be one topic-panel for sea level rise, one for positive/negative CO2 feedbacks, one for solar effects, one for glaciers, etc. There could be as many as 20 of these. This would greatly speed things up and add to the depth of the examinations.
Ninth, regardless of the outcome, it would be a great contribution to future disputants to have all the arguments and citations and evidence put “on the record” in a centralized location, and to have lots of “myths” debunked or at least crippled during cross-examination. Cross-examination and formal “debates” by disputants (which should be part of these procedures) would force both sides to confront each others’ best points, instead of talking past each other. The issues involved would thereby be sharpened and clarified. This alone justifies this format.
Mike Abbott (14:49:03) : Tamino
Tamino Who?
Gavin Who?
RealWhat?
This trial could be what John Coleman and Monckton (and maybe a million others) are looking for.
Lucy Skywalker (15:33:22) : real bit of light fun,
Right 4 of 7 times. But I scrolled up and down, rolled the mouse around, and waited…. 3 of the times. hehehe
Jeff Id (14:45:16) :
Yep…. To my mind Climate is driven by natural forces. While all anthropogenic effects are insignificant to global climate and barely measurable against the background of that natural variation. As it stands, observation bares that out.
It is the politically driven catastrophism that I object to and the bad science that infuriates me.
The politics of this have caused people much misery and the loss of their livelihoods….. It is time a court ruled on these catastrophic claims of AGW.
Lucy Skywalker (15:33:22) :
This thing is starting to freak me out Lucy! WTF!!!
If I look for the gift only, with no delays, and advance, it’s always right.
Re: William (14:16:58) :
I would support a trial and not because I believe the outcome would have any meaning, but because the American trial system has this thing called discovery, It is a wonderful thing and it could result in all the players having to lay their cards on the table. No hidden data, no hidden methods, no hidden communications between the people involved. Everything (or nearly everything)would have to be disclosed. You might find out why some papers picked 3 PC’s instead of 5 or 7. Or how the confidence intervals where calculated on others. Or even some of the exchanges between IPCC chapter authors.
A trial would be productive simply because of what it would reveal.
in the previous darwin trial , science lost..
What
Jeff Id (14:45:16) :
said.
Regards,
Steamboat Jack
Shifty, loud, and impatient. Ominat be he.
==========================
REPLY: It is not a “blatant scam” as there is full truth to the fact that CO2 does cause a warming effect. However the magnitude and cause/effects looks to be overhyped and oversold. – Anthony
Spoken like a scientist/climatologist, certainly NOT like an engineer.
The principal difference between science and engineering (or what used to be called “applied science”) is the COST and BENEFIT components.
[Had an engineering prof who had 30+ patents and had been a Ford VP. He used to say that engineering was doing for 50 cents what any jackass could do for $5. (Parenthetically, he also added that “the Mercedes-Benz is what the jackass does with $5.)]
In engineering terms the facts that (a) the effect of anthro CO2 is minimal (b) in any case, CO2 effects are exponential and plateauing and (c) “solutions” are horribly expensive with non-existent positive effects but VERY high costs, taken together mean that AGW is a SCAM, pure and simple.
Executive Summary of AGW “solutions”: high first cost, high maintenance costs, low efficiencies, severe negative impact on economic growth and quality of life, AND minimal (essentially unmeasureable) impact on “warming”. Yet for SOME reason (oh, yeah, because of some maniupulated computer models), we MUST CAP CARBON NOW.
Please enlighten me; how is this NOT a blatant scam?
er, Onimat. Actually, I like Omni Not, best.
===========================
Hasthe globe been “generally warming over the last 200 to 20 years”?
After recent posts and comment here, I’m not so sure. The sources of most of the temperature data are measuring stations of dubious accuracy, as Anthony has shown for the USA, erring on the warm side. Over the rest of the world the stations are equally problematic, and have gradually migrated to warmer zones, per E.M. Smith’s revealing study:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/thermometer-years-by-latitude-warm-globe/
Is there a meaningful measure of ‘global’ temperature at all, for any period since the last ice age?
Not only is the sky not falling, it may not even be warming.
/Mr Lynn
Lucy Skywalker (15:33:22) :
Now here’s a real bit of light fun, very OT, but I feel it uses the same kind of discernment of multiple factors that belongs to real real climate science: I would expect realclimatescientists to be fooled a lot longer than WUWT readers.
BTW, it doesn’t just work for double digit numbers, it’s true for any integer value no matter how large.
REPLY: There is an effect from Co2, but it is logarithmic, and we’ve very nearly hit the plateau. See this graphic:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/co2_temperature_curve_saturation.png
The blue circles are where the Mauna Loa Co2 record is overlaid. – Anthony
wattsupwiththat (15:04:14) :
Tamino is projecting his anger at me because Lucia is kicking his butt here…
__________________________________________________________
Forgive the hybrid quote, but they were juxtaposed.
I’m really not surprised that Tamino (et al.) project their anger at WUWT. I’m sure that entire governments are using WUWT to get real information to shape policy. They don’t get that from his site or RealClimate, and I’m sure the policy makers are cognizant of that fact that dissenting comments are not addressed scientifically (because they can’t), but simply deleted, thereby inspiring a total lack of confidence in their sites.
I went over to RealClimate the other day to check out a link on here to the Monbiot/Plimer argument. Plimer had asked Monbiot a question requiring an answer with numbers in it. Gavin’s response was that Plimer’s question was full of syntax errors (my interpretation). This was then followed by a plethora of similar comments (which looked as if, as with Monbiot’s blog, many were written by the same person) expressing adulation, and thanks to Gavin for what a brilliant scientist Gavin was for dealing scientifically with Plimer’s question. What a crock.
Regarding the CO2 saturation curve, which really is the stake in the heart of CO2-induced global warming theory (both GW and AGW), what is the full link, and is there a similar graph where the effects of various levels of water vapor on the curve are shown ??
REPLY: I’ll have a post on that graph in a few days, patience. – Anthony
The British Government that already adopted one of the hardest climate legislation in the world is not taken seriously by it’s population. The people question the objectives behind the Government Policies.
A similar process is taking place in the USA.
Hopefully the US Senate will block the Waxman Bill and Cap & Trade because it’s more damaging to the economy than any Climate Change.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/08/perfect_storm_public_attitudes.html
I applaud the vote, and look forward to the trial. That way, Americans everywhere can hear 1st hand what both sides are saying, and decide for themselves. After which I expect this to hit the fan harder than HealthCare. Congress phones will be ringing off the hook and email filled to the top.
TerryS
I cannot foresee a trial where officers of the court break down the doors of CRU to confiscate servers at CRU to get Phil Jones raw data. The US congress did not have much success during the hockey stick proceedings and FOIA requests don’t seem to be going anywhere under existing law. It’s a dream to think a trial would even put a dent in AGW inertia. While we are all arguing about this on the Blogs our children from ages 4 thru college are being indoctrinated to the plight of polar bears and how bad CO2 is. 15 years from now it won’t matter that the data differs from the models, the liberal ruling class and their voters won’t care.
Thanks
William
Right-oh! The discovery process would cut straight through much of the bluster, evasion, and fabrication that Steve McIntyre has so thoroughly documented in his quests for data/code.
Tree-rings might finally be revealed as total crud temp-proxies.
The other delightful aspect of an adjudicated trial would be the requirement of testimony, under oath, with penalty of PERJURY.
Wouldn’t it be splendid to pose questions about “lost” correspondence and e-mails among the IPCC teams? With follow-up questions about soto-voce communications among green NGO’s, lefty 527’s, and some in the warmist “research community”.
How, exactly, did Jim Hansen (a USGovt employee of NASA) qualify for and accept that $250K from Teresa Heinz-Kerry’s political/ketchup foundation without violating conflict-of-interest regulations?
The list is endless and would make LARGE theater! This time the seat-squirming and flop-sweat would be real in an A/C’ed room (not contrived heat by Tim Wirth). Bring it on!
em butler (17:18:05) :
in the previous darwin trial , science lost..
Formally yes, substantively no. I’ll accept a formal loss in exchange for a substantive gain. We’re going to get the formal loss regardless.
==========
Incidentally, here is a tenth item for my long post above: The trial’s proceeding needn’t be open to the public. Upon conclusion, a written transcript would be posted.
Mr. Lynn: Thanks for your pat on the back in the earlier thread.
The vote was a lot closer then I would have expected.
Here are some standards on whether scientific evidence is admissable in a court of law:
1. Empirical testing: the theory or technique must be falsifiable, refutable, and testable.
2. Subjected to peer review and publication.
3. Known or potential error rate and the existence
4. The existence and maintenance of standards and controls concerning its operation.
5. Degree to which the theory and technique is generally accepted by a relevant scientific community.
It would be interesting to see what evidence the skeptic side could muster which passes all these tests.
After digging into the science and doing some calculations myself (plus reading the pro and con sites), I am not convinced there has been as much warming as claimed during the last century.
Actually, it surprised me to find that even the amount of global warming may be questionable. My personal “leisure time” science project is to see if I can convince myself I am right or wrong about that.
Be that as it may, much of the catastrophic AGW CO2 argument depends on a fraction of a degree of “excess” warming during the last 100 years that is said to have occurred — but, may not have occurred. So, to me, the reality of “some” AGW due to CO2 is questionable — despite the science being “plausible”.
Anyhow, “scam” seems to be a good one word description of the overall AGW movement — if “scam” means taking peoples’ money under false pretenses.
Michael Hauber,
In Science, the burden of proof is not on the skeptic, rather it is on those who make the claims or propose the theory.
The AGW side has the “theory” or claim which says mankind is causing catastrophic climate change — it is their burden to prove it to an unbiased “jury”. Skeptics need do no more than express skepticism.
The real issue is — how does one find a genuinely unbiased jury of Scientists.
philincalifornia (17:37:21) :
REPLY: I’ll have a post on that graph in a few days, patience. – Anthony
Thanks Anthony. I look forward to it, as I’m sure do many.
wattsupwiththat (15:04:14) : “Tamino is projecting his anger at me because Lucia is kicking his butt here… http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/two-box-models-the-2nd-law-of-thermodynamics/…and he can’t find a way out.”
Mike Abbott (15:08:58) :”He did find a way out. He banned her from his board!” http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/22/constant/
I hate to inform you dude, but banning someone with significant intellect such as hers, is quite a far, far stretch from being “a way out.”
It’s what we call in the south…a “weasel out.”
He’s not man enough to combat her, fairly??
So he he just deletes her.
What a man!
Anybody can deliver a below the belt kick where it counts.
The game is played fairer here.
Anthony is right: He can’t find a way out.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
William (17:54:07) :
TerryS
I cannot foresee a trial where officers of the court break down the doors of CRU to confiscate servers at CRU to get Phil Jones raw data. The US congress did not have much success during the hockey stick proceedings and FOIA requests don’t seem to be going anywhere under existing law. It’s a dream to think a trial would even put a dent in AGW inertia. While we are all arguing about this on the Blogs our children from ages 4 thru college are being indoctrinated to the plight of polar bears and how bad CO2 is. 15 years from now it won’t matter that the data differs from the models, the liberal ruling class and their voters won’t care.
Thanks
William
—————————————-
William, they don’t have to break down the doors. A competent plaintiff’s attorney can force them to produce the documents, along with all e-mails, etc. (I’ve been there, done that).
Also, don’t worry about the children … they’ve been indoctrinated genetically to avoid snakes, spiders, crocodiles and frauds. I think they will surprise you.
Clarification….just in case someone misreads:
“Anthony is right: He [Tamino] can’t find a way out.”
wattsupwiththat (14:32:15) : “It would never happen at RC, they aren’t really interested in the broad opinion of their readers, only the narrow one, which is why they routinely censor comments from many individuals, including me.”
Mike Abbott (14:49:03) : “By the way, Tamino took a shot at WUWT readers today in a post titled “Loony Bin.” He concludes his post with: But the comments to that post are — well, right out of the loony bin. Read a few if you’re up for a good laugh, but be careful … you could feel your I.Q. dropping.”
While most of us could care less about juvenile, below-the-belt comments like the one you quoted…
…your inability to address Anthony’s remarks about him being censored from RC [even though you post it like you are addressing it], and following it with this laughable quote…says one thing:
You have nothing really to say or address.
Yet Anthony, being the good sport he is, allows you to blather on anyway.
Who takes the higher road here??
Meanwhile….back to the subject at hand: The Chamber of Commerce [private] vs. EPA [Big Brother].
Give ’em hell!!
It is going to be really difficult to disprove the AGW case.
They have an answer/an adjustment to the historical data for every problem, for every mistake. The entire science has based from the ground-up to arrive at a result of 3.0C per doubling and anyone who has questioned that has been drummed out of the funding sources / out of the journal publication privileges.
Even the actual temperature records we are relying on have been adjusted to come as close as possible in terms of justifiable adjustment ranges to arrive at 3.0C per doubling.
The issue comes down to – is it really warmer? How much? Let’s go back to the original raw temperature records again. Let’s find out if crops could have been grown in marginal areas if it was, indeed, 0.7C lower. How much did Albedo really change during the ice ages – Was it really so small that it had little effect despite 30% of the planet being iced over? How come noone has a climate model that predicts a lower sensitivity range and how come the models always over-predict the actual temperature rise in forecasts but are so accurate in hindcasts? At the end of the day, is it really warmer. Why has the climate changed so little that we can’t even see any “unadjusted” evidence for it?
Gene Nemetz,
look on the “gift” page and see if the same gift is shown on more than one square. Is that the one that is selected for regifting??
Now, why would only those squares be selected through the formulae???
Dave Wendt,
Please let me in on what 9’s have to do with it???
What if we lose?
Just The Facts (15:31:18) :
“Eventually this will probably work its way to the Supreme Court. Taking the long view of things, we can’t lose, the facts are on our side.”
Been there……Done that…….Lost!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/02/AR2007040200487.html
Deborah (15:00:45) :
The above is a WMD.
William (17:54:07) :
“I cannot foresee a trial where officers of the court break down the doors of CRU to confiscate servers at CRU to get Phil Jones raw data. The US congress did not have much success during the hockey stick proceedings and FOIA requests don’t seem to be going anywhere under existing law. It’s a dream to think a trial would even put a dent in AGW inertia. While we are all arguing about this on the Blogs our children from ages 4 thru college are being indoctrinated to the plight of polar bears and how bad CO2 is. 15 years from now it won’t matter that the data differs from the models, the liberal ruling class and their voters won’t care.
Thanks
William”
In the information age it is very hard to keep the truth hidden for long. The difference between politicians and judges is that most judges still have honor. Judges expect you to respond accurately and completely to discovery requests and if you fail to obey their orders, they can issue an adverse inference ruling against you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_inference
It sucks to be on the receiving end of an adverse inference ruling:
http://www.fulcruminquiry.com/Morgan_Stanley_Ruling.htm
I’m not too worried about the green/liberal indoctrination that the kids are getting. Once the facts become apparent, and Al Gore is arrested for perjury, the Green sheen should wear off quite quickly…
D. King (20:25:09) :
“Been there……Done that…….Lost!”
But you are focused on a singular event. Might the Chamber’s effort fail in the Supreme Court, possibly. Might Justice Kennedy be swayed by well reasoned logic, also possible. Will the process help us to discover valuable information, force various liars to testify under oath and increase communication of the facts to the public, almost certainly. The long view may time and there will be losses along the way, but in the end the facts will prevail.
Bill Illis (20:13:08) :
“It is going to be really difficult to disprove the AGW case.”
Ummm…even if Mother Earth continues to drop in temp despite the increase of atmospheric CO2? Sounds like a Perry Mason moment to me!
kuhnkat (20:14:42) :
If you subtract the sum of the digits of any integer over nine from the integer the result will always be divisible by nine. If you check the chart all factors of nine show the same gift.
BTW, there are quite a number of these tricks out there. The number theory geeks seem to get a rush out of dreaming up new ones and unlike in climatology the”forcing” always works, at least if you do it right.
Surely you mean “couldn’t” care less…
Just The Facts (21:27:29) :
…Might the Chamber’s
Might Justice Kennedy
Will the process help us to discover valuable information…
All good questions.
“The Chamber is myopic when it comes to immigration,
so they’re suspect. I wouldn’t put it past them to be on
the take. There is simply too much at stake.”
Look, I’m with you on this, I just think a better approach
would be to surgically remove the key pieces; one at a time.
I do not trust the Chamber!
D. King (22:17:35) :
“I just think a better approach would be to surgically remove the key pieces; one at a time.”
No argument there. I am glad the Chamber is doing their thing and look forward to watching it unfold, but I’ve chosen to put my support behind a particular blog. This is an information war and it will be won based on credible science/facts. I think that the most important thing we can do right now is facilitate open and honest scientific research and debate.
Roger Knights, thank you for your comments.
Bill Illis (20:13:08) : It is going to be really difficult to disprove the AGW case. They have an answer/an adjustment to the historical data for every problem, for every mistake. The entire science has based from the ground-up to arrive at a result of 3.0C per doubling…anyone who has questioned that has been drummed out of the funding sources / out of the journal publication privileges.
But surely,
(1) this disproof is exactly what Monckton DID answer with his maths in the Daily Telegraph article last year, and IMO is the top reason why he’s targeted so heavily for abuse. He used the IPCC maths against itself to show it was faulty several times over, overestimating the temperature rise. When Gavin challenged him, he responded to every detail of Gavin’s challenge. Gavin NEVER answered Monckton’s reply – and I am certain, and so is Monckton, that Gavin did not reply because, just as with Tamino now, no legitimate reply was possible – that Monckton was correct.
I always felt this was an unseen hear-of-the-matter issue so I said so in my Primer, and spelled it out to make it reasonably comprehensible here
(2) a court case seems like the best opportunity possible for exposing the way in which questioners HAVE been drummed out of funding, publication, and status generally.
Re: William (17:54:07) :
TerryS
I cannot foresee a trial where officers of the court break down the doors of CRU to confiscate servers at CRU to get Phil Jones raw data. The US congress did not have much success during the hockey stick proceedings
The proceeding before congress wasn’t a trial.
In a trial if they wanted to present, as an example, the gridded HadCRU data and derived graphs as evidence then the opposition has the right to the raw data and the methods they used so that their own experts can analyse it. If it is not produced then the court can rule that HadCRU (and derivatives of it) can not be presented as evidence. There is no breaking down of doors.
Lucy Skywalker 15: 33: 22.
I’ve won 3 snow globes, a clock radio, a candy dish and six boxes of chocolate. When will you be sending them, please?
It became (functionally if not in spirit) a scam when they said:
“The debate is over”
People often blame big oil and right wing media for spreading “disinformation” about global warming, but for me those four little words uttered by “real climate scientists” themselves, killed it dead.
If nothing else it seemed to me to betray a rather narcissistic trait.
Anyhow that’s not the issue. When they have real evidence to show then I’ll be convinced, as I’m sure will most people here. They’ve tried to pretend it is others who won’t accept the real evidence by calling them deniers, but the truth (as far as I can tell) is that there is no real evidence, consequently there is nothing to deny. Cunningly, the word denial is used to suggest to themselves that there actually does exist real evidence of dangerous man made global warming.
We’re not really denialists…. we’re more like people who are waiting. Still waiting for real evidence.
I don’t support a “monkey trial.” While it may be satisfying to those of us who know this whole thing is a complete scam with little to no support in the data record, it will be a diversion from the real issue which has nothing to do with science.
AGW is a political thing, and has never been about real science done by real scientists. It has been about the gradual conditioning of the voting public in the US to believe that there is a problem so that they will accept the government’s “solution” of a “Cape and Trade” bill. Believe it.
It should be fairly obvious by now that the public have been manipulated time and time again through the use of fear. The most obvious recent examples have been the TARP legislation and stimulus bill. Both of these were theft. Waxman-Markey is also theft. It has been passed by the house and is due for consideration by the senate this fall. Believe me, passage of this bill will fundamentally change the lives of average citizens, while lining the pockets of fat cats and carbon credit traders like Gore.
Don’t waste your time watching a monkey trial. Instead, write your senators and tell them that enough is enough and that you will not stand for carbon taxes. Remind them that senators can be recalled if necessary.
I appreciate the discussion but it’s a dream to think that any court of law is going to get into arcane discussions of statistics (spline smoothing) similar to what occurs at Climate Audit to try and pick apart AGW. It just won’t happen. Contract law has some basis in precedent for interpretation, on what basis will climate studies and GCM parameterization and results be interpreted? It will come down to one set of expert witnesses versus another set of expert witnesses. Based on reality, there is a list of thousands willing to testify in support of AGW. You can count the list of real skeptics on one hand. Even “skeptics” like Dr. Spencer and Lucia at the Blackboard are warmers who acknowledge some degree of CO2 warming in the last 100 years. The AGW side would call them as witnesses in support of AGW.
Until our knowledge of clouds and the oceans and other parts of the climate improve substantially and there are decades of data to support something to the contrary, AGW theory will rule in the the scientific, political and educational realms. Even major religions support calls for reductions in CO2. Although I enjoy reading the discussions, the argument seems to be over… for now. What’s going on now is just picking around the edges. The only thing holding back full scale CO2 reductions right now is the deep recession. In 3-4 years you’ll see some more severe legislation implemented.
And despite comments above to the contrary, temps are not cooling. If anything they have hit a brief plateau. I’ve seen nothing on Lucia’s or Dr. Spencer’s web sites that show a “cooling trend” unless you cherry pick the heck out of your time period.
Finally, before anyone starts to categorize me, I am a skeptic, I agree with Dr. Spencer’s views on AGW 100% and I do believe that the CO2 hysteria is a scam.
Thanks
William
In the FWIW category – can’t get at my explanatory info right now – here is text from forces.org:
”
Osteen decision on the EPA’s ETS scam | US Federal District Court
Article Published: 1998/07/17
Details:
Type: Legal
Published By: US Federal District Court
Further Information
Text of the decision by the US Federal Court on the EPA scam on passive smoking. With extreme contempt and after careful examination, Judge Osteen orders the EPA to vacate its classification of ETS as a carcinogen because based on fraudulent methodology and utter junk science.
But not even the power of a Federal Court can stop the Fraud of the Century. The Osteen decision will be vacated by the Appeals Court technical grounds of jurisdiction — although after the clear statement that Osteen’s scientific reasons are not questioned.
Already bent by the Master Settlement Agreement, the tobacco industry did not push the case to the Supreme Court, where it could easily have prevailed. In the meantime judge Osteen was slandered and publicly lynched as a tobacco industry “friend”. That was never true — and a burning previous judgement against the industry by the same judge demonstrates it.
That, of course, does not matter for antitobacco fanaticism, as the message is clear: on the grounds that not even one death or disease can be scientifically demonstrated to be caused by active or passive smoking, the judicial system, scientists and any force denouncing public health frauds must be silenced.
The PDF document we present, the best such available, is of relatively poor quality; click here to see the decision in html format.
”
(http://www.data-yard.net/science/legal/osteen.htm)
William (07:18:12) :
“You can count the list of real skeptics on one hand.”
Because one accepts that a small amount of warming can results from increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations, does not prevent one from being a “real skeptic” of the catastrophic global warming narrative.
“Until our knowledge of clouds and the oceans and other parts of the climate improve substantially…”
And don’t forget about the sun.
“argument seems to be over… for now.”
The argument is just heating up. Convincing people to believe something can be relatively easy. Convincing people to pay lots of money/taxes for that something is much more difficult. In the US, the momentum has shifted to the skeptics side:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116590/Increased-Number-Think-Global-Warming-Exaggerated.aspx
“In 3-4 years you’ll see some more severe legislation implemented.”
Yep, if the Democrats keep on the path they are on they will have been booted out of power in 4 years:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/27/avlon.obama.independents/
and a more independent breed of Republicans will be passing legislation to help prevent future erroneous scientific consensuses. And don’t forget about those Special Prosecutors…
Allen63 (18:50:16) : After digging into the science and doing some calculations myself (plus reading the pro and con sites), I am not convinced there has been as much warming as claimed during the last century.
Actually, it surprised me to find that even the amount of global warming may be questionable. My personal “leisure time” science project is to see if I can convince myself I am right or wrong about that.
There has not been any significant warming at all in the best, most stable and most long lived temperature records:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/gistemp-quartiles-of-age-bolus-of-heat/#TopTen
BTW, if you want the code to reproduce any of this on your own, just let me know on my site. Everything I’m doing is available to anyone who wants a copy (including your own private copy of GIStemp, if desired. The “minimal” source code only compressed “tarball” is about 65KB. It needs linux and a g95 type FORTRAN compiler.)
William (07:18:12) wrote:
I appreciate the discussion but it’s a dream to think that any court of law is going to get into arcane discussions of statistics (spline smoothing) similar to what occurs at Climate Audit to try and pick apart AGW.
I didn’t propose that a court of law evaluate the AGW debate, but that the EPA hearing adopt the format of a trial, with the judges and juries being composed of retired scientists. A trial format would have the advantage of allowing discovery, cross-examination, and a neutral (non-agency) judge/overseer.
It just won’t happen.
On the contrary, it is bound to happen, once the EPA issues its ruling and a suit is filed against it.
Contract law has some basis in precedent for interpretation, on what basis will climate studies and GCM parameterization and results be interpreted?
The burden of proof is on the AWGers, who will have to demonstrate, among other things, that the current temperature variation is abnormal, and that the positive-feedback from CO2 thesis is bulletproof, that the damage likely to occur is worse than the costs of “the solution,” etc. All of the links in their chain must be absolutely bullet-proof before we spend trillions, which they aren’t.
It will come down to one set of expert witnesses versus another set of expert witnesses. Based on reality, there is a list of thousands willing to testify in support of AGW. You can count the list of real skeptics on one hand.
The thousands of supporters aren’t all thoroughly familiar with the entire span of the AWGer’s case, but only with a fraction of it; they accept the rest on faith, more or less. (And many of them aren’t accepters of the “catastrophic” warmist position.) Their grasp of the full span of the issues is less than that of the prominent skeptics.
As for “real” skeptics, there are few among atmospheric scientists, but that’s because that bunch has a limited erspective on what affects climate (it’s more than the atmosphere), and because they have a professional-prestige motivation to tout alarmism, as it makes their branch of science more important in the scientific pecking order, and makes it better funded. OTOH, there are plenty of scientists whose expertise is relevant to the debate, but who haven’t yet entered the lists, except here and a few other places on the internet, because of the way the playing field of debate is warped.
Even “skeptics” like Dr. Spencer and Lucia at the Blackboard are warmers who acknowledge some degree of CO2 warming in the last 100 years. The AGW side would call them as witnesses in support of AGW.
But not in support of CAGW, which is the point at issue.
Until our knowledge of clouds and the oceans and other parts of the climate improve substantially and there are decades of data to support something to the contrary, AGW theory will rule in the scientific, political and educational realms.
Nonsense, all that’s needed is for CO2 to continue rising and the temperature to fail to cooperate.
Anyway, it’s not necessary to WIN the trial, or even to overturn the conventional wisdom “in the scientific, political and educational realms.” As I pointed out in my post above, it’s enough to shed some light on the way in which consensus has been engineered, to knock down the most egregious whoppers of the alarmists, to de-demonize the deniers by the strength of their case and their credentials and reasonableness on the stand, and to plant seeds of doubt about the strength, credentials, and reasonableness of the alarmists.
That will mean that any victory by the AWGers will be Pyrrhic, because the effective marginalization of the deniers as utterly unworthy of consideration, which the AWGers have foisted on the media and the general public, will be at an end. They will have shown that they have a respectable case. In addition, journals will be shamed into being more even-handed, and the silent fraction of skeptics will become more vocal. AWGers’ attempts to brush off questioning and doubts will be much reduced. That’s good enough for now. If a two-year delay can be obtained, lots can happen to strengthen the skeptics’ position. (Including global cooling.)
Roger
I fail to see why the burden of proof will be on the AGW side to provide a bullet proof theory, on the contrary the skeptic side will have no plausable alternative explanation that is as good as the GCM’s and CO2. If there was we would not be having this discussion.
I also don’t see the requirement for the cost benefit analysis to be bullet proof but EPA standards based on externalities would still provide the basis for strict standards on CO2 the same way they did for CFC’s, particulate matter and other smokestack emissions. The equation is $100 billion in CO2 control or sequestration vs destroy the world, flood the LDC’s, drown the polar bears. The AGW side has already won this argument.
You refer to CAGW what is that? As I mentioned earlier, another 15 years will validate or invalidate the models wit actual data. Another two years will not establish a cooling trend and we have not yet had a cooling trend even over the last 10 years.
It’s possible our government will implement a policy that is very costly and ultimately turns out to be worthless but then again that’s been the main business of the US Government for the last 50 years. Why get so worked up over this when we keep so many scientists employed and feel so good about ourselves possibly saving the world? 20 years from now all the politicians who voted for it will be retired and living on fat pensions anyway.
Finally, there will be no light shed at all on AGW. The press will take the AGW side and present it in the light that they wish. The skeptics may score debate points but it’s a no win as the AGW side will bask in the glow of a favorable media. The public will be as motivated to watch the “trial” as they are to watch C-Span or watch paint dry.
It’s a no-win any way you look at it.
Thanks
William
William (13:37:44) :
So pessimistic, it almost seems like you’re being hopeful. No worries, it is just a matter of time before the lies behind catastrophic anthropogenic global warming are exposed…
William (13:37:44) wrote:
I fail to see why the burden of proof will be on the AGW side to provide a bullet proof theory, on the contrary the skeptic side will have no plausable alternative explanation that is as good as the GCM’s and CO2. If there was we would not be having this discussion.
Nonsense. Since CO2 is not a poison, and since there is non-correlation between temperatures and CO2 levels in recent warm periods (for the past few millennia), and since the most recent warming is within the limits of normal variability, etc., etc., it is up to the warmists to prove that there is something unusual going on and that it is irrefutably tied to rising manmade CO2, and that it is a major threat, etc.
I also don’t see the requirement for the cost benefit analysis to be bullet proof but EPA standards based on externalities would still provide the basis for strict standards on CO2 the same way they did for CFC’s, particulate matter and other smokestack emissions.
Since CO2 is not a poison, there can be no application of the ordinary strict standards rule that applies to poisons. Rather, the strict standard should be applied to the warmists’ case, which has many weak points.
The equation is $100 billion in CO2 control or sequestration vs destroy the world, flood the LDC’s, drown the polar bears.
The cost is over a trillion (I’m fuzzy on the exact number, but it’s out-of-sight), the effect on the world of action by the US will be tiny unless Asia signs on in a timely and effective manner, which it won’t, and the threats are very iffy. (E.g., the sea level is stable, or anyway not rising any faster than its long-term rate, and the Arctic ice’s recent decline is not much different from what has occurred in the past 1000 years—or if it is, it’s due mostly to soot from Asia, which can be scrubbed fairly easily.)
The AGW side has already won this argument.
They’re “ahead,” but they haven’t yet “won.” They’re ahead mostly because they’ve controlled the forum and employed both sophisticated sophistry and heavy-handed intimidation techniques to ensure conformity, because they’ve got most of the funding, because the UN’s IPCC was set up to please Ted Turner, a warmist who donated a billion $ to the UN, which has tilted the playing field, and because the debate has not yet reached the court of public opinion, or even the court of ordinary scientific opinion. Consensus has been engineered by sweeping opinion leaders and gatekeepers off their feet with a SEEMINGLY sound case, complete with one-sided “refutations” of skeptics’ claims. But there has been no real engaged ARGUMENT with the skeptics yet. For instance, Monckton’s refutation of the IPCC’s analysis hasn’t been engaged with and debunked, except in a superficial way. And many of the dodges of the warmists—data obfuscation, avoidance, manipulation, etc. have not yet been forced upon the media’s attention, generally recognized, let alone confessed to. Our side has not yet “had its day in court”—any “court.” When it does, and only when it does, can the superficial and sophistical rebuttals of our claims be exposed for what they are. The debate has not yet begun.
You refer to CAGW what is that?
Catastropic AGW. It’s in the Glossary, and is used here fairly regualrly. (“Catastrophic” is the nub of the debate, not whether the world is warming slightly–which it is, as a result of a rebound from the LIA and a warm phase of the PDO. etc.)
As I mentioned earlier, another 15 years will validate or invalidate the models with actual data. Another two years will not establish a cooling trend and we have not yet had a cooling trend even over the last 10 years.
Strawman. What I said was: “all that’s needed is for CO2 to continue rising and the temperature to fail to cooperate.” I.e., a flat temperature trend is sufficient to greatly weaken the alarmists’ case, which asserts that there is a fairly tight correlation between more CO2 and increasing annual temperatures over the long term. (This tight correlation is why some warmists were until recently predicting an ice-free Arctic Ocean within a few years.) Non-confirmation of this tight temperature correlation would give us breathing room for further studies, thinking, and debate. Further, if the PDO and other oceanic oscillations enter a cool phase, as seems to be happening, or (less likely) if Svenmark’s (sp?) cosmic ray theory is correct, a sharp turn for a distinctly cooler global temperature is possible in the next two years. A cooling trend seems to have started three years ago, at a conservative estimate, so a five-year cooling trend (3 + 2 =5) could not be dismissed as mere noise—particularly since the only “forcing” at work that could produce such a substantial long-term trend, according to the IPCC, is an absence of manmade CO2. (Provided there is no huge volcanic eruption.)
It’s possible our government will implement a policy that is very costly and ultimately turns out to be worthless but then again that’s been the main business of the US Government for the last 50 years. Why get so worked up over this when we keep so many scientists employed and feel so good about ourselves possibly saving the world? 20 years from now all the politicians who voted for it will be retired and living on fat pensions anyway.
The cost to the developed world is somewhere over a trillion, which will sink its economy. It could lead to a loss of legitimacy of our form of government, and of Science as an institution, if citizens were heavily taxed (indirectly) and temperatures failed to keep on rising the way they should according to AGW theory. (Measures to reduce CO2 emissions would not have much effect on temperatures for at least a decade, according to the AWGers, so they couldn’t take credit for a fall in temperatures for at least ten years.) This could lead to a political crisis, in conjunction with the next down-leg in the economy. I.e., there’s a chance it could mean the end of our democracy and the start of a new dark age. We should avoid that risk.
Finally, there will be no light shed at all on AGW. The press will take the AGW side and present it in the light that they wish.
How do you know? Why should I accept your sweeping pronunciamentos? The media hasn’t really been exposed to an even-sided debate on this matter. The tide is turning in the media, in minor ways, such as in the reaction of some pro-AWG reviewers to Plimer’s book, to Monckton’s testimony, etc. They aren’t completely hopeless. They’ve been caught up in a fad, like the rest of so-called informed opinion. And they will have to avoid a one-sided presentation of the proceedings, lest their shifitness be exposed by popular media (talk radio, Drudge, etc.) and the MSM thereby they lose even more readership and credibility than they already have.
The skeptics may score debate points but it’s a no win as the AGW side will bask in the glow of a favorable media.
On the contrary, it’s a no-lose situation, since the media has been so one-sided to date. I.e., it can’t get any worse.
The public will be as motivated to watch the “trial” as they are to watch C-Span or watch paint dry.
How do you know? The public massively followed every twist and turn of the Nixon Watergate scandal and impeachment hearings. They (or at least those with TVs) also followed the Army/McCarthy hearings, which I’m old enough to remember. If the public is faced with a major threat to its lifestyle, they could display a similar interest. Certainly some would watch the daily or weekly highlights on YouTube, or would read online snippets and debates about the highlights, etc.
It wouldn’t be necessary for a large audience to watch the raw proceedings. You can bet that talk radio would play “juicy” extracts from the trial and point out the flaws in the warmists arguments, the gaffes they make, etc. Don’t forget, this issue could be one that the Republicans and their allies could use to exploit public anger against know-it-all, overbearing liberals and MSM and thereby regain control in Washington. Such an issue is their only hope at this point. If the Republicans sense that the wind is shifting, which opinion surveys indicate, they could force a major national debte on the issue, give skeptics who testified at the “trial” various venues to make their case, invite them on TV shows, etc. The public hasn’t turned off appearances by skeptics like Monckton on theGlennBeck show—instead, they’ve been fascinated.
Anyway, the whole issue of whether the public would watch or not is a strawman, since I proposed that the proceedings could be secret (which is my preference—I want the trial to be a scientific exercise, without any grandstanding to the crowd). I wrote, in the other (second) thread on this topic, “Incidentally, here is a tenth item for my long post above: The trial’s proceeding needn’t be open to the public. Upon conclusion, a written transcript would be posted.”
It’s a no-win any way you look at it.
Then why is it that the warmists are the ones who are horrified at the prospect of a debate? The answer is that it’s a no-win situation for THEM, not us.
I agree with Roger Knights. Global Warming On Trial, anywhere, at any time, with any significant public awareness off it and the detail of the trial’s proceedings, would be damaging to the AGW movement.
Andrew
These 20 concurrent trials I advocate needn’t require the physical presence of the witnesses, judges, and jurors, which would be expensive and logistically awkward. Each trial could be conducted online.
In fact, that would be a superior method, because links and documents could be posted and easily quoted and referenced, and the trial could last as long as necessary to reach a resolution or exhaustion–which I guess would be about six months, on average. Jurors and witnesses could ask questions of each other. Judges would keep things from getting too disorganized and unruly. There’d be no need for a transcriber.
Roger
Nice posts. McIntrye and McKittrick pretty much destroyed the Hockey stick argument via publication and the Wegman report that I believe was impaneled by our government to find out the “truth”. This was done in public not in some secret trial. Yet if you talk to 1000 people on the street I will bet probably only a handful would have any doubt of the accuracy of the Hockey Stick slide in Gore’s presentation. You could probably only obtain a slightly higher number of skeptical opinions if we asked 1000 scientists across all disciplines. The argument is also over based on the inertia of government funding of Pro-AGW research for the next 5 years. Skeptics don’t have billions of dollars and the support entire Government agencies to promoting their agenda.
AGW has been successfully sold to the public as a desireable policy based on the science and morality of saving the world. Governments are adopting policy based on it. These policies may be stupid but people will feel good about themselves knowing that there won’t be any poor polar bears drowning for lack of ice even as they experience brownouts when the wind farms are off the grid. We’ll have to wait for another 10-15 years for more data and a better understanding of clouds.
thanks
William