Lord Leach of Fairford weighs in on Nature’s ‘denier’ gaffe

I’ve still not received any reply from Nature Climate Change editor Rory Howlett to my query about why he allowed the term “deniers” in scientific literature (Bain et al), and neither has Bishop Hill to my knowledge. Lord Leach however, has weighed in, and has sent me his letter for publication here with permission. – Anthony

=========================================================

Dear Dr Howlett,

The use of the term “denier” does your journal a disservice, both for its vagueness and for its insulting overtone.  

What does a “denier” deny? Certainly not Climate Change: nor global warming since records began in the late 19th century: nor the likelihood of human influence on temperatures. What, then?

A “denier” denies certainty on a complex and still young scientific subject. A “denier” questions assumptions about the near irrelevance of solar, oceanic and other non-anthropogenic influences on temperature. A “denier” prefers evidence to model projections. A “denier” tests alarming predictions against actual observations. In short, a “denier” exhibits the symptoms of a genuine seeker after scientific truth.

I wish the same could be said of “consensus” writers – or that they showed the same restraint and courtesy towards different opinions shown by sceptics such as Watts Up With That

Yours sincerely

Rodney Leach
Lord Leach of Fairford

==========================================================

I was surprised to see WUWT mentioned. I thank Lord Leach for the hat tip.

If you haven’t written a letter, you still can. See the details here:

Nature’s ugly decision: ‘Deniers’ enters the scientific literature

Some letters to the editor in the UK might also be helpful.

UPDATE: Jo Nova has an excellent letter also:

Dear Dr Phil Bain,

Right now, it’s almost my life’s work to communicate the empirical evidence on anthropogenic climate change.

I can help you with your research on deniers. I have studied the mental condition of denial most carefully. There is a simple key to converting the convictions of people in this debate, and I have seen it work hundreds of times. Indeed, my own convictions that lasted 17 years were turned around in a few days. I can help you. It would be much simpler than you think.

Firstly, to save time and money we must analyze the leaders of the denial movement. I have emailed or spoken to virtually all of them.

They are happy to accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes warming, that humans produce CO2, that CO2 levels are rising, and that the earth has warmed in the last century. According to Hansen et al 19841, Bony et al 20062, and the IPCC AR4 report3, the direct effect of doubling the level of CO2 amounts to 1.2°C (i.e. before feedbacks).

All they need are is the paper with the evidence showing that the 1.2°C direct warming is amplified to 3 or 4 degrees as projected by the models.  Key leaders in the denial movement have been asking for this data for years. Unfortunately the IPCC assessment reports do not contain any direct observations of the amplification, either by water vapor (the key positive feedback4) or the totality of feedbacks. The IPCC only quotes results from climate simulations.

Since science is based on observations and measurements of the real world, it follows that a denier of science (rather than a denier of propaganda) must be denying real world data. I’d be most grateful if you could explain what “deniers” deny. Deniers repeatedly ask for empirical evidence, yet must be failing badly at communicating that this is the crucial point because none of the esteemed lead authors of IPCC working Group I seem to have realized that this paltry point is all that is needed. All this mess could be cleared up with an email.

The evidence for anthropogenic global warming is overwhelming, so the observations they deny must be written up many times in the peer review literature, right? After five years of study I am still not sure which instrument has made these key observations. Do deniers deny weather balloon results, or satellite data, or ice cores?

When  you find this paper and the measurements,  it will convince many of the key denier leaders. (But being the exacting personality type that they are, deniers will also expect to see the raw data. So you’ll need to also make sure that the authors of said paper have made all the records and methods available, but of course, all good scientists do that already don’t they?)

As a diligent researcher, I’m sure you would not have described a group with such a unequivocally strong label unless you were certain it applied. It would be disastrous for an esteemed publication like Nature to mistakenly insult Nobel prize winning physicists, NASA astronauts, and thousands of scientists who have asked for empirical evidence, only to find that the Nature authors themselves were unable to name papers (or instruments) with empirical evidence that their subject group called “deniers” denied.

If those papers (God forbid) do not exist, then the true deniers would turn out to be the researchers who denied that empirical evidence is key to scientific confidence in a theory. The true deniers would not be the skeptics who asked for evidence, but the name-calling researchers who did not test their own assumptions.

The fate of the planet rests on your shoulders. If you can find the observations that the IPCC can’t, you could change the path of international action. Should you find the evidence, I will be delighted to redouble my efforts to communicate the empirical evidence related to climate change.

Awaiting your reply keenly,

Joanne Nova

—————–

REFERENCES

1 Hansen J., A. Lacis, D. Rind, G. Russell, P. Stone, I. Fung, R. Ruedy and J. Lerner, (1984) Climate sensitivity: Analysis of feedback mechanisms. In Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, AGU Geophysical Monograph 29, Maurice Ewing Vol. 5. J.E. Hansen and T. Takahashi, Eds. American Geophysical Union, pp. 130-163 [Abstract]

2 Bony, S., et al., 2006: How well do we understand and evaluate climate change feedback processes? J. Clim., 19, 3445–3482.

3 IPCC, Assessment Report 4, 2007, Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8.6.2.3.  p630 [PDF].

4 IPCC, Assessment Report 4, 2007, Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8. Fig 8.14, p631 [PDF] see also Page 632.

About these ads

141 thoughts on “Lord Leach of Fairford weighs in on Nature’s ‘denier’ gaffe

  1. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if you start publicly identifying places of scientific agreement with the IPCC WG I report, it will go a long way towards silencing the use of the “D” word. As of right now, the absence of any mentions of agreement is interpreted as a rejection of the entire body of those scientific findings.

  2. It appears that Lord Leach affirms something that AGW supporters either ignore or modify to suit themselves…the scientific method.

  3. Good letter, the good lord (hehe:) sounds like a man of reason and principle…and because of that I expect catastrophiliacs will start attacking him personally in three, two, one….

    Mailman

  4. Succinctly put, Lord Leach. This is precisely the type of thing that needs to be drummed into what has become a klatsch of immature, snivelling, holier-than-thou, sneering jabberwocky-mongers who think that the smear is an appropriate means of scientific discourse. Much easier to dismiss a dirty denier than to shore up the crumbling “science” they so snidely espouse.

    Excellent!

  5. The term climate “denier” is a deliberate attempt at hijacking the historical relevance of the holocaust in order to prevent scientific debate.

    Scientists and journalists that use the term should hang their heads in shame.

  6. Pleasant informative letter on its way to the uk editor Thursday as suggested,
    regards

  7. Anthony- I was looking back through Herman E Daly’s and John B Cobb jr’s book for the common good: redirecting the economy toward community, the environment. and a sustainable future. That’s where my comments on ecological humanism yesterday came from.

    I think that book is extraordinarily pertinent to understanding the use of a term like “denier” and the anger that the scientific facts are now betraying the true dominance of the social and behavioural sciences in this agenda. They cannot come out directly and say “the economy must be subordinated to our social goals and desire for political power.” But that is always the essence. That’s why the debate must be shut down. It is entirely too close to unmasking the reality before it’s too late. As with education, irreversible change was supposed to be firmly in place before anyone with power and an ability to communicate grasped the essence and started screaming it from the mountain tops. As you have been doing so ably.

    A passage from the intro to for a common good is pertinent to all of this scheming while avoiding detection. It quotes from a John C Raines: “That the social is primary in regard to the human has become by now less a claim than a taken-for-granted starting point in most American sociology and anthropology. But it is a starting point that has little penetrated American political and economic thought.”

    Denier is better than acknowledging the truth that sociology and anthropology and other social science theories created with a collectivist political purpose are being treated as primary in creating public policy. That sounds bad and gets at the basis for the legitimacy of the public policy in the first place. Ad hominem attacks change the focus of scrutiny away from the ridiculous assertions like the Anthropocene.

  8. After looking at this article, it seems like they could substitute the terms “THE ENLIGHTENED” and “The Heretics”, for “Believers” and “Deniers”. Let the Inquisition begin (cue Monty Python: “Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!”).

    Also, I note that the hyperlinks to citations do not link to any reference information for me and no bibliography is provided. This makes it rather difficult to see what reference was cited as providing the approach: “Next, adapting an approach used previously to investigate the social effects of industrialization [ref30]” or as providing suposedly indisputable information related to climate change: “experiences attributable to climate change such as flooding [ref29]”.

    Psycho-babble, mumbo-jumbo, circular-reasoning pseudo-science attempting to prove their assumptions without testing their assumptions while masquerading as science. But that’s just my opinion.

  9. My letters have already gone out, to both Nature and the authors of the “study.” I’d encourage others to do the same. Let’s give them some real volume feedback.

    Jo Nova has done a brilliant email to the editor. See http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/nature-and-that-problem-of-defining-homo-sapiens-denier-is-it-english-or-newspeak/

    There was a time when people could write a letter to a newspaper and refer to black people as niggers, and the letters were published too. If objected to, the disingenuious argument was the that the word merely referred to their skin colour. Of course, all the adults knew exactly the emotional payload of that word. Eventually, the penny dropped with the newspapers and letters using that word no longer appeared on the letters page.

    Let’s stop the thin edge of the wedge right now.

    Pointman

  10. I wonder when our UK Chancellor of the Exchequer,The Honourable Member of Parliament Mr George Osborne will be classified as a “denier” as well if this piece by Benedict Brogan has any “wind” behind it “The wind of change will give Tories something to cheer

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100166505/the-wind-of-change-will-give-tories-something-to-cheer/

    “The Chancellor will shortly give them just that. In a few weeks, as part of the Energy Bill, ministers will announce a reduction of up to a quarter in the value of Renewable Obligation Certificates – or “Rocs”. Yes, I realise that’s hardly a sentence to set the pulse racing. But if one considers that Rocs are the means by which the taxpayer subsidises the wind farm industry, and that the Chancellor proposes to slash that giveaway by 25 per cent, then translated into plain English it means this: onshore wind farms will be killed stone dead.”
    Worth a read and good news indeed if there is something behind this opinion piece. The halting of the spread of wind farms cannot come quickly enough. I wonder what the Germans are going to do now that they are about to shell out Euro 750 billion to Spain and Italy. Surely they will need to restart their nuclear power stations again as they will need to keep industry’s wheels spinning to make up for that shelling out and that is just the beginning.

  11. Phil C says:
    June 20, 2012 at 8:49 am
    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if you start publicly identifying places of scientific agreement with the IPCC WG I report, it will go a long way towards silencing the use of the “D” word. As of right now, the absence of any mentions of agreement is interpreted as a rejection of the entire body of those scientific findings.

    Have you not had your coffee yet, or did you just glide over the second paragraph of the post?

  12. I just went on a bit of a rant with my summer school biology students regarding some shoddy work, reminding them that adults unable or unwilling to look at data analytically will fall for any old scam that comes their way because THEY WON’T BE ABLE TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE.

    I’d like to say that it is the first time I’ve had to rant thusly, but it is far from the first time, not even this week. Sigh…

  13. Frankly, I wouldn’t want to be labelled a “Believer.” I know, because there is a meme running around the “Believers” that people who do not “Believe” are akin to religious nuts, flat earthers, or those who “deny” evolution (I don’t “deny” it, but the way “deny” is used here I find offensive, something arrogant about “We are right, and you are wrong.”).

    Which I find quite ironic. Real skeptics have not cut down the range of possible futures as have believers. We are open to being convinced, but a few things might help. Like models that predict the actual change in temperature. Like completely open data and methods.

    These Believers do seem like some kind of nut jobs, as I think about it. “The end of the world is near, so say the monks,” but the monks won’t translate the book into a language you can read (i.e., publish results).

  14. In return for “Denier” I now call CAGW fanatics “Climate Jihadis”. Feel free to borrow the term should it suit. Certainly, they seem to be as dangerous if not more so than the Islamic version. Both are as nuts as each other – maybe they need introducing?

  15. did you just glide over the second paragraph of the post?

    No, it just is incredibly vague and can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean when put next to the IPCC report. Science works at a much greater level of detail.

  16. Phil C says:
    June 20, 2012 at 8:49 am

    .”is interpreted as a rejection of the entire body of those scientific findings.” ..who is making such a rash interpretation? let me guess, it will be the warmist believers! – those who also rashly interpret data (or ignore/adjust it to suit)! LOL

  17. I think that Denier has a very appropriate place in the discussion of climate change with possible anthropogenic contributions. I believe that the most appropriate place for that maligned word is in the phrase “Data Deniers”. There is nothing more detestable than a Data Denier that either:
    1. Denies any obligation to show the data which he claims form the basis of his work,
    2. Denies any obligation to consider data which might cast doubt upon his work, or
    3. Denies the quality of the original data by changing it so that it is more supportive of his work.

    Of course the term Believer should only be applied to those who hold to their beliefs and are not interested in anything which might challenge it.

    Donald K. Mitchell

  18. There is no greenhouse effect at all, of increasing atmospheric temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. This post is just continuing “lukewarmer” propaganda, which is just as obnoxious as alarmist propaganda; I deny both, and I label you all incompetent in the face of clear and definitive physical evidence (my Venus/Earth comparison) that will have to be faced by everyone, if the incompetent climate consensus is to be corrected and real knowledge can advance. There is no “good” side vs. “bad” side in the climate debate, if you define it as greenhouse effect (GHE) alarmist believers vs. GHE lukewarm believers. There is no real difference in the incompetence shown by both groups, to a competent physicist.

  19. Robin says: June 20, 2012 at 9:07 am

    […]
    They cannot come out directly and say “the economy must be subordinated to our social goals and desire for political power.” But that is always the essence. That’s why the debate must be shut down. […]

    Setting aside the fact that these days the UN seems to be generating (and/or “inspiring”) a plethora of papers, placards and polemics in which the subordination of the economy [as we currently know it!] is being advocated increasingly openly, viz the creepy “Future We Want” and its derivatives …

    This would also go some way towards explaining something I’ve never really understood: If, as the IPCC claimed in 2007, the human generated CO2 -> CAGW “link” is so “certain”, why shroud it in the fog of “greenhouse gases”? And, at that point, why didn’t the UNEP simply say, “Thank you very much, IPCC scientists. You’ve done a wonderful job, so now you can go home!”?

    Think of all the $ expended in the name of “climate change research” (and/or facsimiles thereof) – not to mention “carbon trading” – over the last six years that could have been far better spent on ameliorating real problems in the world!

    I’ve never really subscribed to the “conspiracy” theory of history, but I’m finding it increasingly difficult not to consider that perhaps the “climate wars” have been fostered – if not actively permitted to fester – as a diversion, so that reasonable people with enquiring minds would be less inclined to say, “Hang on a minute …what’s this Agenda 21 all about, anyway?!”

    Methinks that perhaps the “vision” of Strong and Brundtlandt – and their like-minded cronies, acolytes and lesser-lights – did not include (or take into account!) the power and reach of the Internet twenty years down the road.

  20. If you would know the subtext informing such such “Denier” pejoratives we suggest referencing Pentti Linkola, whose final solution is to exterminate 99% of the human race by chemical-bacteriological-nuclear means employed by a totalitarian global super-State. But characterizing this existential villain for what he is will occasion moderators’ shocked remonstrances.

  21. The evidence suggests that the “global warming” agenda is actually a punitive redistribution scheme. Still, as the funds are not kept by the world’s poorest, I have to wonder who, exactly, is profiting from the so-called “consensus.”

  22. Phil C says:
    June 20, 2012 at 10:04 am
    did you just glide over the second paragraph of the post?

    No, it just is incredibly vague and can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean when put next to the IPCC report. Science works at a much greater level of detail.

    You mean like the incredibly detailed and precise predictions/forecasts/prognostications/wishful thinking/blind hope contained in the IPCC documents? ROTFLMAO!! (Sorry, couldn’t help myself.) Surely you did not intend the above juxtaposition?

  23. Dearest people. I believe it is time recognize a couple of dynamics which one has replaced another.

    For the past few years, skeptics have been comparatively very well restrained in use of rhetorical tools, such as marginalizing your opponent. And, it was right that we did. (My late night beer induced rants are acknowledged ;-) ) When in a factual or scientific debate, calm assertion and re-assertions of proper facts and scientific methods are essential in winning such discussions. The use of pejoratives in such discussions are a tell to the weakness of your opponents arguments.

    But, that’s in a proper debate and scientific discussion. Over the last few years, skeptics have patiently hammered away at the alarmists. And, guess what?! We won! Over the course of a few years, any objective looks at the facts demonstrates the certitude expressed by the alarmists was entirely overstated. The dire predictions that the end was near and extreme catastrophic events lurk just around the corner is now show to also be overstated.

    It has also been demonstrated, to the point of without question, that some of their posits were based on nothing but fantasies by the alleged scientists. We’ve demonstrated their questions data altering techniques as well. If GISS continues to employ their algorithm they will have moved the LIA to the 1930s! In 8 years, we’ll be on HadCrut v 8! Sea levels? We didn’t like what Envisat said so, alter away and then pull the plug! Did anyone notice that Jason II had a Dec/Jan rise of 4mm? Through the duration of our spring? Some of the alarmists themselves have demonstrated that they are of very low character with no compunction about violating laws.

    My whole point is, this part is over. We wished we could get in a civil discussion with them, but, again, this has shown to be entirely impossible. But, as I stated, we are no longer in a factual debate with the alarmists. We’re in a propaganda war. I know this will be distasteful for many, but, this is where we’re at. And, the use of marginalizing pejoratives are very effective PR tools. The alarmists will not refrain from their use. They can’t. It’s all they’ve got.

    The skeptical camp needs to recognize we are now fighting in entirely different terrain. We’re going to have to take the gloves off or, we’ll get buried.

    I’ll end with an example of what I’m talking about. Right after Bush signed the bank bailout, a group of people got together and formed a loose coalition. They wanted less spending and a smaller government. They became known as the TEA party. The demographics of these people are mostly older (50ish and up) white professionals and career workers. Now, whether you agree with a smaller government or a larger government, more or less spending, it can hardly be stated that either position is extreme or fringe. Most would consider this to be in a legitimate arena of debate and discussion. The TEA party is now seen as an extreme right organization. Why? Because they were characterized in this manner. They were, in many ways, marginalized in the same manner this people are attempting to marginalize skeptics.

    Time to tack in a different direction.

    James

  24. Phil C
    June 20, 2012 at 8:49 am
    ###

    Those who are skeptical of this whole CAGW theory, have made pretty clear the points that they believe, many many times. You seem to be asking for something else. You seem to want a compromise and have a public statement broadcasted loudly that we agree that there is science in the IPCC.

    How come its always the ones, like you, who want to destroy civilization that want compromise? There is no common ground. Any truth from the “Team” is just an element used to construct a deceptive lie. By making the topic of discussion, the real science in the IPCC reports, two things happen. First it validates the worthiness of these propaganda pieces. Second it channels the debate into the world-view of the propagandists, and limits the accepted truth to what the propagandist have defined as truth. By looking for common ground with liars, those who search after truth loose ground.

  25. I think that the issue comes down to “catastrophists” vs. “uniformitarianists.” or perhaps much better “Foxy Loxy and the Chicken Little ‘team'” vs. the “King’s hounds.” For those of you who have forgotten the Chicken Little story, have no children or consider old teaching stories politically incorrect, the protagonist, based upon an assumption regarding a misunderstood datum, assumed a castastrophe was in the offing and recruited a number fellow travelers to warn the King. They fell under the influence of Foxy Loxy, who saw a chance to profit. Foxy’s plans were undone by the hounds who had begun baying on his trail. The parallels are pretty clear.

  26. Phil C says:
    June 20, 2012 at 8:49 am
    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if you start publicly identifying places of scientific agreement with the IPCC WG I report, it will go a long way towards silencing the use of the “D” word. As of right now, the absence of any mentions of agreement is interpreted as a rejection of the entire body of those scientific findings.
    —————-
    You said areas of agreement.
    What about agreeing with Jo:
    “All they need is the paper with the evidence showing that the 1.2°C direct warming is amplified to 3 or 4 degrees as projected by the models.”
    “Deniers repeatedly ask for empirical evidence”
    “deniers will also expect to see the raw data. So you’ll need to also make sure that the authors of said paper have made all the records and methods available,”
    “If you can find the observations that the IPCC can’t, you could change the path of international action.”
    —————-
    That’s a “me too”. You want agreement? How about providing all the data and making everything accessible to everyone?
    Plus you’ve got some pretty strange leaders. You’d think at least one of them would believe enough to have a small carbon footprint. But no, they want me to live in a cave.
    (I’ve read the climategate emails so I believe I have a pretty good idea of why there is no agreement.)

  27. D. J. Hawkins says: You mean like the incredibly detailed and precise predictions/forecasts/prognostications/wishful thinking/blind hope contained in the IPCC documents?

    Have you read them? Care to identify a passage in WG I that’s incorrect? And where the underlying source research is incorrect (or misquoted)?

  28. Chuck Nolan —

    Interesting response. You’ve written that you’ve read the “Climategate emails” but make no mention of having read the IPCC technical reports. Let me start here: have you read WG I?

  29. ackk!!!! This is what happens when one starts to write a comment and gets interrupted a couple of times. Sorry about the spelling and grammatical follies! . “questions”– questionable “this”— these….. sigh and more.

  30. philC is phishing for talking points out of Anthony to be used to subvert the message.
    he’s won’t mirandize. he will propagandize.
    any comments that he can get will be used against you if he can do it.
    (characterization redacted)

  31. hro001–I think history shows us that rent seeking and an attempt to assert political power to gain economic power for the politically connected class is the historic norm. So it’s not like The Murder on the Orient Express where everyone has a secret agenda and are quietly coordinating. That’s a conspiracy.

    AGW/Climate Change/Radical Education Reform are simply what people who want to live at the expense of others and have them do their bidding and not have to worry someone will displace them because they provide better service or a product or have greater knowledge do IF they have access to the machinery of government. It does the coercing and the taxing and the rigging in their favor.

    Which is why widespread economic prosperity and genuine innovation requires personal and economic freedom. Which has been rare in history. And limited govt-which has been rare and is becoming so again.

    And they are amazingly graphic when they think they are only talking to fellow true believers. Which is why I figure out how things must relate and then go looking for actual declarations of intent. Which I then download and hard copy and put on flash drives.

  32. Phil C says:
    June 20, 2012 at 11:07 am
    D. J. Hawkins says: You mean like the incredibly detailed and precise predictions/forecasts/prognostications/wishful thinking/blind hope contained in the IPCC documents?

    Have you read them? Care to identify a passage in WG I that’s incorrect? And where the underlying source research is incorrect (or misquoted)?

    How did we get from “detailed” and “precise” to “incorrect”? Your original reply mentioned “greater level of detail” which I take to mean that you nail down the details. If you mean 3.7 w/m2, you don’t mean something from negative to nearly double. Most of the alleged consequences have such broad ranges that nearly any result could be laid to AGW. If this is not the sense in which you intended to use “detail”, I apologize for my miscomprehension. To it’s credit, even the IPCC has aknowledged there’s a great deal we don’t know. It’s just that most of us here don’t think it’s wise to unhinge the world’s economies based on the rather nebulous nature of claimed wisdom.

  33. Phil C,

    “Have you read them? Care to identify a passage in WG I that’s incorrect? And where the underlying source research is incorrect (or misquoted)?”

    How about the passage that states that the 20th Century warming is very (90% probability) likely to be caused by human GHG emissions?

    I would expect any probability value to be the result of statistical analysis, perhaps applying sampling techniques and deviations and other miracles of modern maths. However, as far as I can determine, there is no calculation to back this figure up at all. None! Nada! Zilch! It appears to this reader to have been plucked entirely from thin air.

    Can you please show me how this figure is derived or otherwise admit that is is bogus nonsense?

  34. Ouch!

    Jo Nova
    The evidence for anthropogenic global warming is overwhelming, so the observations they deny must be written up many times in the peer review literature, right? After five years of study I am still not sure which instrument has made these key observations. Do deniers deny weather balloon results, or satellite data, or ice cores?

    When you find this paper and the measurements, it will convince many of the key denier leaders. (But being the exacting personality type that they are, deniers will also expect to see the raw data.

  35. D. J. Hawkins says:How did we get from “detailed” and “precise” to “incorrect”? Your original reply mentioned “greater level of detail” which I take to mean that you nail down the details. If you mean 3.7 w/m2, you don’t mean something from negative to nearly double. Most of the alleged consequences have such broad ranges that nearly any result could be laid to AGW. If this is not the sense in which you intended to use “detail”, I apologize for my miscomprehension. To it’s credit, even the IPCC has aknowledged there’s a great deal we don’t know. It’s just that most of us here don’t think it’s wise to unhinge the world’s economies based on the rather nebulous nature of claimed wisdom.

    The way you write this makes me think that you have read the IPCC WG I report. Is that a correct assumption?

    As to your concern about “unhinge the world’s economies,” that’s clearly out of the purview of WG I. Would you agree?

  36. Phil C says:
    June 20, 2012 at 8:49 am
    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if you start publicly identifying places of scientific agreement with the IPCC WG I report, it will go a long way towards silencing the use of the “D” word. As of right now, the absence of any mentions of agreement is interpreted as a rejection of the entire body of those scientific findings.

    If you would just plainly state what we are supposed to be denying, that would go a long ways.

    I agree the earth has warmed. I agree that human activities have something to do with (deforestation and UHIE are very good examples).

    I deny that 2+2=5.

  37. Phil C:

    I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but here is my take. I was introduced to “Global Warming” by Al Gore. I was told that if I didn’t believe, the seas will rise, pestilence and plague will rule the earth, war will break out, and millions will die. All I need to do to prevent all this is to buy exceedingly expensive technology, and cede large parts of my freedom to government.

    So I don’t care about the science, really. I’m just a guy wondering what’s going on with this stuff. So I have educated myself. My point of curiosity has been, are the guys trying to make me believe, because that’s all I can do, credible enough that I agree with the drastic actions they propose, that will have an enormous effect on my life, and my kid’s life.

    In other words, I want to understand the main conclusions. These include the reconstructions, because they have been used to influence policy makers, though as I understand it, they do not add to the all important climate sensitivity debate. I understand enough to get a sense of the criticisms of PCA misuse in Mann, and understand enough of the “Selection Fallacy” to convince myself more needs to be understood before the reconstructions are credible.

    I read about the important efforts of Anthony Watts to purify the detection of the signal. I listen to Richard Muller, whom I trust, even though he may be deemed a colorful character, and wonder what could be done. I question why the models are not tracking observations. Because in the end, what I care about is whether or not the government is going to come in and take over another huge part of the economy, and enslave my kids a bit more.

    I don’t care about the science much. Sure, some of it is interesting, but there are lots of interesting things to learn about, such as quantum theory, evolution, the study of culture since the renaissance, etc.

    In other words, I’m reacting to a bunch of people invading my space, and I want to understand if it is warranted. So far, I say “No.” I might change my mind. When I see things like refusal to admit to the selection fallacy, or use of questionable data like Yamal, not use good sites like Law Dome, or use it in a truncated form, upside down Tiljander, I question the credibility. When I read climate gate emails, and it’s clear there is a team, and an agenda, I question the motivations. When the climate scientists claim it is doomsday, but refuse to release data and methods because they might get “scooped,” I question their own belief in their views. Being scooped is a small price to pay for saving humanity. When models depart from the measurements, and the models don’t have error bars, I wonder how good the models are.

    I wonder why, until a few years ago, if this threat were so severe, that nuclear didn’t show up on everyone’s list as an option. I wonder why “Electric Cars” are being pushed so hard, when obviously it isn’t going to take 10 years to convert to an electric fleet. Forget about expensive battery technology, the grid would have to be rewired.

    I don’t really care there is “good Climate science” going on. There is “good science” going on all over the world. What I care about is what I now see as premature, reckless conclusions on the part of some climate scientists. I don’t care for the apparent alignment of science and liberal policy pushing for more state control. So in that, I care only about the main conclusions, and whether they are credible. Are the reconstructions credible (No, in my view), are the models credible (no, in my view), are catastrophic climate sensitivity numbers credible (no, in my view). This does not mean I know climate sensitivity could not lead to catastrophic global warming, only that it hasn’t been proven. Only that the “Team” seems to have decided prematurely, recklessly, and for what seem to be personal ego goals, to attempt to force me to agree with them, when I don’t think they know, or believe, themselves (for instance Al Gore buying beach front property AFTER his twenty feet sea rise claims).

    It’s like the 9/11 attacks that invaded my space. I don’t care about the middle east, or the Muslim religion, though there are many who do, and I’m not saying the issues in that region aren’t worthy. I simply don’t want to have to spend my time being concerned about it and learning about it, but I have to since events in the middle east are having a huge impact on freedoms in America, as well as the economic future of America.

    So sorry. In my view, the onus of proof is on those who would change my, and every person’s life on the planet, due to their beliefs. The “good science” going on is completely irrelevant to the larger issue. There is a binary decision that has to be made, which is “Do we need to make these catastrophic changes or not.” It isn’t about finding common ground.

    The efforts of skeptics should lead to purified scientific results. That these efforts are often derided in ad-hominem ways only furthers my belief that this isn’t about science at all. A Scientist would embrace the opportunity to be clear in their results, but the exact opposite is going on from the team, who would destroy data rather than let it out for FOIA requests.

    In other words, the Monks of climate science want you to believe the word. But they don’t want you to read the book for yourself. These monks are not scientists.

  38. Vince Causey says:How about the passage that states that the 20th Century warming is very (90% probability) likely to be caused by human GHG emissions?

    Refresh my memory, where exactly does it say that in the report? It sounds familiar, but my search of the document doesn’t it.

  39. >>
    I don’t “deny” it, but the way “deny” is used here I find offensive, something arrogant about “We are right, and you are wrong.”).
    >>

    Apart from the holocaust slur, which is horrendously trivialises a horrifying event for short-term political effect, the other implication of this term is that if you don’t agree with their eco propaganda you are “in denial” about the problem, in the true psychological meaning of the phrase. (As I recall it this was the original way in which if was used, though the genocide slur is real enough).

    So what are they saying? If you don’t agree with me you are mentally ill. You need drugs and treatment: off to the goulag. Maybe daily injections of sulphur will help you get your mind right.

    Now that may have got a fair amount of traction in Stalin’s Russia but I wonder if these soft-bellied, well meaning, middle class liberals realise where this kind of logic leads them.

    Ironically, it is now those pushing AGW who are clearly unable to deal with the fact that the models were wrong. What appeared to make sense in the late 90’s just did not happen.

    Now all attempts and means, including scientific fraud, or even literal wire fraud are acceptable as ways to maintain the myth and pretend nothing has been discovered in last 30 years of climate change and monitoring.

    Who is in denial ?

  40. BTW, not disrespect to his lordship but Jo Nova’s makes the point far more forcefully, a very powerfully made point. Kudos , Jo.

  41. more soylent green! says:

    If you would just plainly state what we are supposed to be denying, that would go a long ways.

    WG I

  42. Vince Causey says:How about the passage that states that the 20th Century warming is very (90% probability) likely to be caused by human GHG emissions?

    Which “passage” was that Vince?

    I think you will find that the IPCC’s AR4 claimed that “most ” (defined as more than 50%) of the warming was “probably” due to anthropogenic causes NOT AND I UNDERLINE NOT due to human GHGs alone. They spent a lot of time and huge amount of our money explaining what other effects they took into account.

    If you want to quote the IPCC , you should at least read what they published rather than regurgitating some inaccurate paraphrasing you got from DeSmegBlog of your local newspaper.

    Questionable as some of AR4 is and fact that they based that conclusion on models that have totally failed, you clearly have not even read one word of the “passage” you pretend to be citing.

    How about you read the relevant “passage” and post back with a direct quote?

  43. Ed Barbar says

    I don’t care about the science, really. I’m just a guy wondering what’s going on with this stuff. So I have educated myself.

    Unfortunately, it is all about science, and if you are going to educate yourself, you have to do it with science. And that requires reading what the scientists who do the research are writing. Al Gore is not a scientist. If you don’t want to read him, that’s fine. But don’t dismiss the science because of problems with the messenger. In other words, don’t link science and politics. Science will stand on its own merits. Politics has nothing to do with it. Others here will pounce on me for writing that, but that’s the reason they get labeled with the dreaded “D” word.

  44. gnomish says:
    philC is phishing for talking points out of Anthony to be used to subvert the message.

    And what message is that?

    he’s won’t mirandize. he will propagandize. any comments that he can get will be used against you if he can do it.

    Most of what I’ve done is ask people if they’ve read WG I. How could I possibly use that against anyone?

  45. Phil C says:
    June 20, 2012 at 11:43 am
    Vince Causey says:How about the passage that states that the 20th Century warming is very (90% probability) likely to be caused by human GHG emissions?

    Refresh my memory, where exactly does it say that in the report? It sounds familiar, but my search of the document doesn’t it.
    =============================================================================
    Phil, it says this on P.10 of the Summary for Policy Makers.

  46. Phil C says:
    June 20, 2012 at 8:49 am

    “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if you start publicly identifying places of scientific agreement with the IPCC WG I report, it will go a long way towards silencing the use of the “D” word. As of right now, the absence of any mentions of agreement is interpreted as a rejection of the entire body of those scientific findings.”

    Here are your assertions:
    1. telling us over and over will strengthen your argument
    2. agreeing to parts of a manifesto would reduce the bullying tactics of the IPCC bible thumpers
    3. if there is no occurrence of agreement then all skeptics reject all IPCC findings
    4. there is a temporal condition attached to #3

    Here are you assertions addressed:
    1. argumentum ad nauseam is not a valid form of proof ;^)
    2. “if you agree with me then I’ll stop calling you a poopy head” is not a very compelling argument but great for getting compliance from kids in school yards by bullies.
    3. “if you don’t agree with me then you are all poopy heads” is a slight variation on the previous argument. Clearly, Phil intended that “a rejection of the entire body of those scientific findings” to mean the dreaded “D” word. Phil did leave himself wiggle room by stating “the absence of any mentions of agreement”, not as an assertion, but as the condition of his “if” statement. It reads like “if the blue fairy appears to me then she will grant me all my wishes” – it does not mean that blue fairies are asserted to be real.
    4. maybe Phil can clarify what he meant by “as of right now”. Did he mean when he wrote it? Was it good for one attosecond or was it bracketed by +/- 5 seconds? Or did he mean this day? Year? Century? What does that say about the truth of the statement in the past? In the future?

    Finally, as to the validity of “the entire body of those scientific findings”:
    The IPCC manifesto is based on a large percentage of non scientific literature ( http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/IPCC-report-card.php ). It is a sad fact that 20% of WG 1 Chapter 1 is pure fiction (aka grey literature). The peer reviewed studies referenced from this manifesto are cherry picked ( http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2007/06/20/documentation-of-ipcc-wg1-bias-by-roger-a-pielke-sr-and-dallas-staley-part-i/ ). There were many qualified peer reviewed studies available at the time of the writing of this document that contradicted the studies chosen.

  47. If you would just plainly state what we are supposed to be denying, that would go a long ways.

    WG I

    I believe you are being asked for specifics.

  48. Unfortunately, it is all about science…

    Except it’s not.

    That a computer program that has been written with the assumption that increased CO2 leads to increased temperatures predicts higher temperatures because of assumed higher CO2 is not science. Hiding data and using secret processes to manipulate the data is not science. Abusing the peer review process to suppress valid research is not science. Bullying and abusing people who don’t parrot your claims is not science. Committing crimes in order to attack critics of your work is not science.

    Doing all the above while saying your “results” say society must be reorganized in order to stave off disaster isn’t science, either.

    I’m sure there’s some well-done, real science that supports CAGW. Unfortunately, there’s a lot more of it that contradicts CAGW, and much, much more of what’s done in support of CAGW is just plain not science.

  49. Phil C says:
    June 20, 2012 at 11:43 am

    “Vince Causey says:How about the passage that states that the 20th Century warming is very (90% probability) likely to be caused by human GHG emissions?

    Refresh my memory, where exactly does it say that in the report? It sounds familiar, but my search of the document doesn’t it.”
    ======================================================
    Chapter 9.2.1.1 “Summary of ‘Forward’ Estimates of Forcing for
    the Instrumental Period” which contains the passage “The combined
    anthropogenic forcing from the estimates in Section 2.9.2 since
    1750 is 1.6 W m–2, with a 90% range of 0.6 to 2.4 W m–2,
    indicating that it is extremely likely that humans have exerted a
    substantial warming influence on climate over that time period.”

    Section 2.9.2 does not offer any more evidence, and states that “Table 2.11 summarises the
    key certainties and uncertainties and indicates the basis for the 90% confidence range estimate.”

    But table 2.11 contains no empirical data or quantitative data.

  50. @Phil C says: June 20, 2012 at 12:01 pm

    I do understand the science and cAGW science is speculative bunk.

  51. Phil C says
    ‘I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if you start publicly identifying places of scientific agreement with the IPCC WG I report, it will go a long way towards silencing the use of the “D” word…’

    I will go further back in history. I will look for some common ground with the theory of Phlostigon. Now I agree that some things burn, some dont. Thats exactly what the theory claims.

    so now, somehow, the erroneous basis for the theory of phlostigon is corroborated and validated??

  52. Phil C

    “Refresh my memory, where exactly does it say that in the report?”

    What a weasly reply. You know exactly what it refers to. It is the main take-home message of the AR4, fed to every news-consumer around the world in 2007, The exact wording was;

    “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”

    first given in the SPM, and where a footnote explained that ‘very likely’ meant 90% likelihood. So far, nobody has managed to support that claim based on real published and properly carried out science. None of the believers can even come up with any references allegedly making such claims.

    Still it was echoed all over the world by people sounding just like you. (And you might want to recall that the take-home message from the AR4 predecessor, the TAR, was a graph that looked like a hockey stick, alledging som ‘unprecedented’ warming right now)

    But maybe, you were really completely unaware of what the IPCC has tried to feed to the media!?

  53. “…Unfortunately, it is all about science, and if you are going to educate yourself, you have to do it with science. And that requires reading what the scientists who do the research are writing…”

    Fine.

    Just tell us which journals have been declared “acceptable” for reading.

    Tell us which scientists are the priests we should listen to.

    Tell us which scientific disciplines make up the core of “climate science”. For example, should scientists with math degrees be included? How about physics? Statistics?

    Who do we believe if the scientists themselves allow their political beliefs to color their science?

  54. “Phil C says:
    June 20, 2012 at 8:49 am
    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if you start publicly identifying places of scientific agreement with the IPCC WG I report, it will go a long way towards silencing the use of the “D” word. As of right now, the absence of any mentions of agreement is interpreted as a rejection of the entire body of those scientific findings.”

    Selective reading and comprehension skills disability, eh? Maybe if you tried some new glasses. Then reread the entire WUWT archives and you’ll learn much about the parts of climate science that we believe are good science. Oh, I forgot. You’re a troll and only live from post to post not to adhere to admirable science in prior posts.

    Let me understand this; you claim that if the sceptics among us would certify the portions of the IPCC reports accurate that we agree with?

    So, IPCC has used hundreds of pieces of science, aggregated it together, ignored criticisms forwarded by authors who contributed to the science. IPCC then finalized that with a grandiose summary, not to mention demands on world governments and citizens.

    Ending this simple list of facts is the silly science idea, that is, if one part is wrong, then all of the summaries and aggregations are wrong too. Not just maybe wrong, but absolutely wrong.

    Retract the WHOLE blamed sorry sick lot of bad science. Expunge those who manipulate research to serve their own desires and conduct proper research. After four and a half billion years, the earth will still be here, waiting breathlessly I’m sure, after a decent interval for proper climate science.

  55. Phil C

    “”

    What a weasely reply. You are of course aware of the main AR4 take-home message, echoed all over the world and fed to every living news consumer back in 2007. The exact quote is:

    “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”

    where the ‘very likely’ was explained to mean 90% likelihood in some footnote. You can find it here

    Funny that you pretend to be completely unaware of that claim, you who posture with “it is all about science”.

    As many others (and Jo Nova) point out; Then just show us that science … or admit that you have never seen any such !

  56. Why do deniers of natural climate change label those who affirm that climate change is constant and natural, “deniers”?

    [Moderator’s Admonition: OK, we’re getting too free with the use of the “d-word”. Turn-about is not always fair play. -REP]

  57. Vince Causey says: Section 2.9.2 does not offer any more evidence, and states that “Table 2.11 summarises the
    key certainties and uncertainties and indicates the basis for the 90% confidence range estimate.”

    But table 2.11 contains no empirical data or quantitative data.

    Section 2.9.2 makes reference to Boucher and Haywood, 2001, which is where I would turn to for more evidence. Table 2.11 assesses level of scientific uncertainty of radiative forcing across sixteen categories. Is there one or more of those categories for which you would suggest a different level of uncertainty?

    Jonas N says What a weasly reply. You know exactly what it refers to.

    No I didn’t. I needed to look it up in the document. And for evidence note that you’re quoting Summary for Policy Makers. I’m making reference to Working Group I — different authors and different documents.

  58. Phil C says: June 20, 2012 at 12:01 pm

    In other words, don’t link science and politics. Science will stand on its own merits. Politics has nothing to do with it. [emphasis added -hro]

    This is probably a very good idea. Perhaps you could convince (inter alia) Michael Mann of this. It might also be a good idea for you to share this insight with the U.K. Royal Society’s Foreign Secretary, Martyn Poliakoff, whose contribution** to the carnival Rio+20 included “stressing“:

    the important role of scientists in the sustainability policy discussion

    *See: Royal Society’s green chemist waves little red book in Rio

  59. Phil C.: Al Gore is not a scientist.

    Why is it that so many of the scientists sound like Al Gore? Certain catastrophic positioning. The science is settled. Refusal to really engage in a discussion of the demerits, instead using other tactics to force agreement.

    In any event, and unfortunately, I have improved my understanding of the Science. I’m saying “I don’t want to.” But I do. I have understood enough to convince myself the so called “Scientists” who have built a consensus around AGW are not credible to me. I continue to look to see if there is something credible, but each time I look, it seems there is another chunk that doesn’t make sense, that leads me to believe it is advocates, ego-maniacs, and religious nut cases pushing an agenda.

    I’m sure there are some people out there who are doing “good science.” Good science is not what concerns me.

    You seem to think there is some kind of “healing” process that needs to take place. I’ll tell you what needs to take place to “heal” the divide.

    1) Since AGW advocates are certain humanity is going to suffer hugely, ALL data, even de-selected data, must be made public.
    2) All methods must be posted in useable computer form.
    3) All models must have error bars, and an indication of what conditions invalidate their conclusions.

    There have been other suggestions about how to improve the science, so this isn’t an exhaustive list. Merely hitting some of the important ones.

    Sounds simple to me. But it simply won’t happen. Ask yourself why.

  60. “The combined anthropogenic forcing from the estimates in Section 2.9.2 since 1750 is 1.6 W m–2, with a 90% range of 0.6 to 2.4 W m–2, indicating that it is extremely likely that humans have exerted a substantial warming influence on climate over that time period.”

    It was better before they edited out the rest of the statement:

    “…or, of course, that our estimates are wrong, because let’s face it, we don’t understand climate very well, do we?”

    My favorite assessment of error is from Gavin, when he said the temperature record is accurate to .01 degrees even though there have been multiple adjustments larger than that.

  61. atheok says:Selective reading and comprehension skills disability, eh? Maybe if you tried some new glasses. Then reread the entire WUWT archives and you’ll learn much about the parts of climate science that we believe are good science. Oh, I forgot. You’re a troll and only live from post to post not to adhere to admirable science in prior posts.

    On that low note I’ll sign off this thread. I’ve responded to roughtly ten of the replies to my initial post and follow up replies, asked a number of questions along the way, and now get accused of being a “troll”?”

  62. Phil C

    So yo claim not to be aware of what the most prominent claim in the AR4 was!? Interesting ..

    But very similar passages (as the SPM-one) where found in WG1 ch9, but still without any reported science behind them.

    Above you, kinda, implied that you had actually read the IPCC WG I …. are you now trying to pretend you are unaware of such claims? Or distancing yourself from the SPM, the alleged summary of the science!?

    Are you more happy with the WG1 phrasing of:

    “It is very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases caused most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century.”?

    But maybe you hadn’t read WG1, just tried to give that impression. And of couse, you still have not seen any science affirming such prominent claims. As you said, you weren’t even aware of them, Just commenting at WUWT as if you knew …

    ??

  63. Phil C. If it helps, I don’t see any evidence you are a troll. Wish you would continue to engage. Disagreement about points, in my view, helps to clarify positions, or even demonstrate flaws in the reasoning. That’s why skeptics are good and necessary for Climate Scientists.

  64. PhilC, it’s not necessarily WG1 that you know is a humungous time-spinner, it’s what the Summary For Policymakers did to WG1 when they “summarized” it. It’s the SFP that is rubbish and yes, I have looked at it. You’re being tiresome and trying to make folk waste energy dancing to your tune. Click my name for all the stuff that refutes SFP. And if you still cannot see that my material refutes SFP, you clearly do not think like a real scientist for whom “nullius in verba” is paramount.

  65. Another way at looking at the use of the term “denier” is that is another way of simply “painting with a broad brush”. If this was a race issue, no one would accept the phrase “…they’re all like that…” for a single second, especially those on the political left. But in this case, broad generalizations about a specific group (the skeptics) is considered “okay”. This is clearly a double standard.

  66. Phil C says:
    June 20, 2012 at 11:33 am

    As to your concern about “unhinge the world’s economies,” that’s clearly out of the purview of WG I. Would you agree?
    ###

    No. The whole point of the IPCC IS to unhinge the worlds economies. For you to claim otherwise means that either you have cognitive dysfunction and/or your are dishonest. Your continued demonstration of distorted perception and selective/malleable memory would indicate that the former is at least true.

  67. What does a “denier” deny? Certainly not Climate Change: nor global warming since records began in the late 19th century: nor the likelihood of human influence on temperatures.
    Rodney Leach
    Lord Leach of Fairford
    …………………
    Firstly, to save time and money we must analyze the leaders of the denial movement. I have emailed or spoken to virtually all of them.
    They are happy to accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes warming, that humans produce CO2, that CO2 levels are rising, and that the earth has warmed in the last century.
    Joanne Nova
    =========================================================
    With such friends we do not need enemies.

  68. “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if you start publicly identifying places of scientific agreement with the IPCC WG I report, it will go a long way towards silencing the use of the “D” word. As of right now, the absence of any mentions of agreement is interpreted as a rejection of the entire body of those scientific findings.”

    Phil, Phil, Phil. You’re wrong in two important respects: 1. Those who sling the word ‘denier’ at others are doing so because their central tenet, AGW, is being denied, not because all the other data which the AGW-folks themselves contradict with their theory are not being affirmed. 2. As long as others continue to maintain the baby is ugly the mom won’t care that they affirm he has a lusty cry, a good head of hair, fine limbs, and a healthy appetite. The reason you’re wrong is because AGWology is not a matter of science but of politics and the IPCC is but a means to the political end. If “science” can be used promote it, great. If science gets in the way, it will be tossed aside in favor of whatever serves the purpose at the time.

  69. Just finished reading all the comments and the only thing that comes to mind is: when will FOIA launch Climategate III

    I totally agree with James Sexton (June 20, 2012 at 10:54 am). It’s no longer about the science, it’s all about propaganda. And we need some new ammo. So, FOIA, show us what you got!

  70. Greg House says:
    June 20, 2012 at 1:59 pm
    With such friends we do not need enemies.

    You have to analyze her sentence structure for the hidden message: “They are happy to accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes warming, that humans produce CO2, that CO2 levels are rising, and that the earth has warmed in the last century.

  71. Excellent letters, both from Lord Fairford and Jo Nova.

    Sincerely
    Sir Mike The Stout, Esquire of Lesser East Upper Mooselick, Warden of the Eastern Marches, Ranger of the Northern Boonies…

  72. Jeremy Poynton says:
    June 20, 2012 at 10:02 am
    In return for “Denier” I now call CAGW fanatics “Climate Jihadis”.
    ========================================================
    Calling names is not a good idea. I prefer purely technical terms like “warmists” or “AGW people”. They can call me a non-warmist in return, I would have no problem with that.

    For so called “skeptics”, who accept the AGW concept but do not have any radical agenda I have the term “moderate warmists”.

    There is also a problem with the term “climate scientist”. I am afraid, the warmists’ views on AGW are not supported by real science, therefore I tend to avoid calling them “scientists”, simply because this term implies that their statement are based in real science, which they are not.

  73. Phil C: “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if you start publicly identifying places of scientific agreement with the IPCC WG I report”

    Point out to me where changes in bright sunshine were identified and quantified. (And I’m not saying that is the only cause of warming, but so-called scientific body that ignores bright sunshine is a joke).

    Until then, the IPCC is a fraud.

  74. Phil C says:
    June 20, 2012 at 10:04 am
    Science works at a much greater level of detail.

    So you agree that “Hansen et al., (1988)” isn’t really science, then — ‘cuz it doesn’t work on any level of detail…

  75. Sorry Mods, but I am a denier and have no objection to being so called. I am a denier without scientific qualification but I have a very thorough understanding of the basic requirements of statistical analysis and an understanding of the need for any for theory to stand up to experimental confirmation. I am entitled to audit the theory.

    Firstly it is a given within the argument that the average of the temperature anomalies have increased. Even those of a mere skeptical nature mostly admit this. They ignore the fact that such an approach is without validity of any kind. An average is not an element of the universe, but just a human concept – a mere demonstration that any number can be divided by two. If one were to take a trip to the edge of the universe (assuming that there is any such place) one could rest assured that one would not come across an average, either coming or going. Albeit that the average approach is invalid, to arrive at an average the metrology would need to be perfect. We all know that the metrology is a bad joke. Even the simple calculation of division by two does not give a meaningful average if the number divided is nothing more than a thumb-suck.

    To carry out an audit I need to be shown the numbers, with detailed explanations of any that have been moderated. No satisfactory explanations, then the audit fails.

    Having arrived at an average I am told that a computer programme is needed to take account of the feedbacks, negative and positive, the latter arising from greenhouse gasses. predominantly water vapour and carbon dioxide. These feedbacks go largely unquestioned by the skeptics and no physical experiment is produced to demonstrate that these exist in an open system. As a boy of six or seven I could have told you that the feedback from water vapour in the atmosphere is negative – a simple matter of personal observation. I repeat – water vapour – humidity – not cloud cover, which has an even greater negative impact. As to carbon dioxide there is no empirical evidence that this has any impact whatever on temperature in an open system. Working my way through screeds of physics reading, I have to go back more than a hundred years to find anyone of any account in the field of physics who even theorises that CO2 can have such an effect.

    I am left believing that skeptics, perhaps re-actively to bad mannered warmers, are too polite, too politically correct, altogether too gentle, to laugh the warmers out of court.

  76. Ken Harvey says:
    June 20, 2012 at 2:45 pm
    Sorry Mods, but I am a denier and have no objection to being so called. …I am entitled to audit the theory.
    ====================================================
    I see. What about being called a “f*cking denier” then? Because you are entitled to f*ck as well.

    Maybe you should take into consideration a certain unpleasant connotation of the word “denier”.

  77. G.H. I speak the same English that I spoke as a lad when the bombs were falling on London. I don’t bow to politically correct language, the bulk of it of very recent innovation. My generation mostly avoids profanity and never ever in front of the ladies.

  78. Sticks and stones are the end game when all is lost. They usually appear after shrill invective, bullying, firing of tenured professors for contrary views and blackballing of “rogue” editors and publications, fail to work. It aint pretty, but the end is nigh.

  79. If they want to use the loaded word, “denier”, then perhaps we could start calling them what they are. What’s that word- someone who endeavors to use fear to get a message across… ? Oh yeah- Terrorist.

  80. Phil C says:
    June 20, 2012 at 8:49 am
    ”is interpreted as a rejection of the entire body of those scientific findings.”
    ———————————————————————–
    Scientific finding like glacier gate, Amazon gate, dozen of non peer reviewed article by WWF and greenpeace used as “scientific findings” etc, etc?

  81. harrydhuffman (@harrydhuffman) says: “There is no greenhouse effect at all…”

    Off topic, HDH. You’re getting tiresome.

  82. Ed Barbar says:
    June 20, 2012 at 11:38 am ……

    ==================================================================

    Well said, that man.

    One other thing ….. Ed, who gave you the keys to my brain. ;)

  83. Phil C says:
    June 20, 2012 at 8:49 am

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if you start publicly identifying places of scientific agreement with the IPCC WG I report, it will go a long way towards silencing the use of the “D” word. As of right now, the absence of any mentions of agreement is interpreted as a rejection of the entire body of those scientific findings.
    _________________________________
    Without Data and code and methods it AIN”T SCIENCE!

    This is especially true now that it has become increasingly evident that “Scientists” LIE so they can publish and get tenure and grants.

    A University of Connecticut researcher known for his work on the benefits of red wine to heart health falsified his data in more than 100 instances, and nearly a dozen scientific journals are being warned of the potential problems after publishing his studies in recent years, officials said Wednesday.

    US scientists are significantly more likely to publish fake research than scientists from elsewhere, finds a trawl of officially withdrawn (retracted) studies, published online in the Journal of Medical Ethics. Fraudsters are also more likely to be “repeat offenders,” the study shows.

    In a July 26 letter to Cetero, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration describes the falsification as “extensive,” calling into question all bioanalytical data collected by Cetero’s Houston bioanalytical laboratory from April 1, 2005 to June 15, 2010. The FDA said Cetero manipulated test samples so the tests would yield desired results.

    Former Penn State Professor Charged in $3 Million Federal Research Grant Fraud

    A Tilburg University inquiry has recommended that details of forgery of documents and fraud committed by Diederik Stapel, a leading social psychologist, should be passed to the Dutch public prosecution service. The inquiry found that Stapel,…. fabricated data published in at least 30 scientific publications, inflicting “serious harm” on the reputation and career opportunities of young scientists entrusted to him. Some 35 co-authors are implicated

    Ghostwriting and Medical Fraud: Can any medical-research studies be trusted? by Christopher Lane, Ph.D. in Side Effects
    “Much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is misleading, exaggerated, or flat-out wrong,”

    According to newly released documents from GlaxoSmithKline, the pharmaceutical company often paid ghostwriters to pen medical studies, editorials and even a textbook

    Inside Pfizer’s Ghostwriting Shop: Friendly Drug Studies for Just $1,000

    Retraction Watch has tons of papers retracted for various reasons.

    How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data

    …A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct. When these factors were controlled for, misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others.

    Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.

    Given contemporary scientists appalling lack of honesty and ethics, do not expect “Deniers” to believe any supposed “scientific findings” without real world data to back it up. Computer models ESPECIALLY computer models where the data and code is hidden just isn’t going to cut it.

    Heck I do not even believe my doctor at this point without double checking.

  84. jorgekafkazar says:
    June 20, 2012 at 5:00 pm
    harrydhuffman (@harrydhuffman) says: “There is no greenhouse effect at all…”
    Off topic, HDH. You’re getting tiresome.
    ====================================================
    You can make a simple test yourself.

    According to the AGW concept the “greenhouse gasses” cause the on average -18 degree Celsius cold surface get +15 degree Celsius on average warm by means of back radiation. -18 Degree Celsius is the temperature in the freezer. I suggest you turn off the freezer, open it, then close the opening hermetically with a glass lid (blocking the IR radiation) and wait like for 10 minutes. Then measure the temperature in the freezer and report us, if it was +15 degrees Celsius. My guess is the temperature would not significantly change despite back radiation. Which means, the “greenhouse effect” won’t work…

  85. Phil C says:
    June 20, 2012 at 10:04 am
    did you just glide over the second paragraph of the post?

    No, it just is incredibly vague and can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean when put next to the IPCC report. Science works at a much greater level of detail.
    _______________________________
    ROTFLMAO – Go read The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert or at least Climate Bible (IPCC report) Gets 21 ‘F’s on Report Card

  86. Greg House;

    You’re proposed experiment is akin to counting penguins to prove that polar bears are going extinct. The last thing we need in the war with the junk science of CAGW is more junk science in the opposite direction.

  87. The global warming argument has nothing to do with science. It’s an ideological movement. The co-called Deniers have already won the science debate. Global warming caused by C02 is a scam. But we’ve failed to address the political debate. As long as the Climate Liars continue to win the politicians hearts and minds through propaganda and lies, the ecofascists will continue to implement their leftist, human-hating agenda and destroy the freedoms and liberties won over thousands of years of battle with tyrants and dictators. Until I see prominent politicians stand up and call the Climate Liars what they are LIARS, we’ve won nothing. And, as long as editors of science magazines such as those at Nature can get away with publishing such anti-science drivel as they recently published, REAL science is in deep peril of disappearing forever under a cloud of pseudo-intellectual mumbo jumbo, politically correct, cultiish hogwash. The editors of Nature are nothing but propagandists and should be fired.

  88. davidmhoffer says:
    June 20, 2012 at 6:19 pm
    Greg House;
    You’re proposed experiment is akin to counting penguins to prove…
    ====================================================
    From your highly scientific answer I allow me to conclude that you probably do not like the results of my proposed experiment.

    No problem. Just give us a link to an experiment that proves that back radiation warms something -18 degrees cold by 33 degrees.

  89. Greg House;
    No problem. Just give us a link to an experiment that proves that back radiation warms something -18 degrees cold by 33 degrees>>>>

    Under what conditions? What inputs and at what frequencies? Over what period of time? With what heat sinks in place? Sinking by what mechanisms? Is there a water cycle present in the system? You cannot just wave your arms and shout. The experiment you propose has many, many, many variables, you have to define each and every one of them before proceeding. If you haven’t identified all the variables that could impact your results, then you’re results aren’t meaningful.

    In your “open the freezer and put a sheet of glass over it, the following questions immediately come to mind:

    1. The lid already blocked IR. So what difference should it make if you block IR with the lid or with the glass?
    2. Is unplugging the freezer part of the experiment? If no, it will stay at the same temperature it was before provided that it has enough cooling capacity to overcome the lower insulation value of the glass versus the lid. If it doesn’t have enough cooling capacity to overcome the reduced insulation of the glass versus the lid, the temperature will reach a new equilibrium point dependant upon the temperature in the room, the new insulation value, the limits of the cooling capacity, and exposure to any air currents. If you do unplug the freezer, it will simply warm up to room temperature.
    3. How do you justify 10 minutes? All heat transport mechanisms have a time lag. The way to determine this is to measure the temperature and plot it on log paper to determine what the time constant is. Then you can project to 5 time constants as the time it will take to reach a new equilibrium temperature. Unless you’ve done that calculation, you don’t know if the effect of the glass is going to take 10 seconds, 10 minutes, 10 hours, or 10 years. You’ve picked an abritrary number with no way to justify it. I may as well claim that if I don’t see a polar bear in the next 10 minutes it proves there aren’t any.

    I could go on much longer, hopefully you see the point by now.

  90. davidmhoffer says:
    June 20, 2012 at 7:14 pm
    Greg House;
    No problem. Just give us a link to an experiment that proves that back radiation warms something -18 degrees cold by 33 degrees>>>>
    Under what conditions? What inputs and at what frequencies?
    =================================================
    What is here so difficult to understand? Just give us a link to an experiment that proves that back radiation warms something -18 degrees cold by 33 degrees. Any experiment proving that.

    I guess there exists none, right? And I know why: because this notion was debunked in 1909 by a scientist. http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html

  91. Greg House

    Your link is to a paper about greenhouses. The author asserts that greenhouses warm up primarily by blocking convection. He is absolutely correct. The “greenhouse effect” in the context of climate has NOTHING to do with greenhouses. It is a poor term to use, because of the confusion it causes on this very issue.

    That said, the experiment you are looking for is called the Earth. Do some reading on Stefan-Boltzmann Law. This is an equation arrived at by two physicists over the course of much time and many many experiments that results in an equation that defines the equilibrium temperature of an ideal black body given a constant energy source (or, conversely, the amount of energy that an ideal black body will radiate at a given temperature). The equation is:

    P=5.67*10^-8*T^4

    Where P is in watts per square meter and T is in degrees Kelvin. To be fair, the Earth is not an ideal black body, but for the purposes of this discussion, it is so close as to not matter. Once you have read enough about SB Law to understand it, look up insolation values for Earth. What you will find is that the Sun outputs about 1366 w/m2. Adjusted for day/night, and also adjusted for curvature of earth surface which results in most of that 1366 w/m2 hitting at an angle, you wind up with an average of 1366/4= 341 w/m2.

    So, plug 341 w/m2 into SB Law and you will get about 255K which is about -18C.

    Other sources of heat besides the sun? Look ‘em up. Tides release energy, but it is miniscule by comparison, so is the amount of heat that leaks from the earth’s core to the surface, and same for radioactive materials decaying in the earth’s crust. There simply is no significant heat source for Earth other than the Sun.

    So there is your experiment. There is only enough heat from the Sun to keep the surface of the earth at an “average” of -18C, yet earth surface is an “average” of about 15C. If you propose the backradiation doesn’t exist, then please provide a credible alternate explanation for the difference in temperatures. If you decide you want to debunk SB Law instead, good luck with that, the SB Law equation is used by thousands of engineers every single day to design all manner of equipment that works as designed.

    If there is an argument to be made, it is that averaging temperatures that do not have a linear relationship to energy flux results in a meaningless number. I would agree with that. 3.7 w/m2 at -40C raises the temperature about 1.6 degrees, but 3.7 w/m2 at +40 raises it only 0.55 degrees. So of what value is it to average temperatures that have completely different meanings in terms of energy balance?

    Sadly, if you agree with me on that point, and arrive at an estimate the proper way, which is to raise all temps to the power of four, average them, and then take the 4th root to arrive at an “average” temperature, what you will find is that the actual average temperature of the earth via SB Law is over 100 degrees lower than the actual surface temperature.

    I’m a raging skeptic by the way. I’m not arguing the warmist point of view which I believe to be utter garbage. But there are the way things work in reality, and reality is that the energy from the Sun cannot maintain the earth’s surface temperature anywhere near as warm as it actually is.

    And there’s your experiment.

  92. Greg House

    In my haste, I neglected to adjust for albedo, which is the amount of energy that gets reflected rather than absorbed by earth. Subtract another 30% from my 341 w/m2. Sorry, my bad.

  93. davidmhoffer says:
    June 20, 2012 at 8:28 pm
    Greg House
    Your link is to a paper about greenhouses.
    =================================================
    Yeah, I knew this would come. Many warmists say that.

    Now, the Wood’s experiment is about back radiation. The result demonstrates, that the back radiation either does not warm at all or warms only to no significant degree. And note, there was very much back radiation in the experiment.

    This proves, that your theoretical calculation about 33 degrees warming through (less) back radiation is false. It is very funny also that you call your calculation “experiment”.

  94. davidmhoffer says:
    June 20, 2012 at 8:28 pm
    and reality is that the energy from the Sun cannot maintain the earth’s surface temperature anywhere near as warm as it actually is.
    ======================================================
    Yeah, this is also a little bit funny. Even the radical warmists do not maintain, that the “greenhouse gases” are an additional source of energy, but some moderates warmists actually do. I remember Lord Monckton explaining to me, that the “greenhouse gases” work like a radiator.

  95. Greg House;
    It is very funny also that you call your calculation “experiment”.>>>>

    Call it what you will, the physics are what the physics are. The surface temperature of the planet cannot be achieved by insolation. You are free to propose another explanation.

    If you insist on an experiment (and the earth is an on going experiment, despite you’re denigration of the calculations to arrive at what the surface temp would be based on insolation alone) then try this one. Leave a sweater in a cold room until it reaches the same temperature as the room. Then you go into the room and stay there until you get cold too. Then put the sweater on. After a short time, you will feel colder, warmer, or the same temperature. In the event that you feel warmer, please explain where the extra warmth is coming from since the sweater was as cold as the room in the first place.

    None of which BTW changes your original assertion that putting a sheet of glass on a freezer in place of the lid for 10 minutes proves anything. You clearly have a very weak grasp of physics, and are repeating what you’ve heard in the belief that it is correct. If you want to learn, go look up the work of Stefan Boltzmann as I suggested. Learn some calculus and apply it to determine what the average incident insolation on earth surface is. Find out what a time constant is, and why it is important. If you spew facts from a foundation of ignorance you bring no value to the debate at all.

  96. davidmhoffer says:
    June 20, 2012 at 9:24 pm
    Greg House;
    It is very funny also that you call your calculation “experiment”.>>>>
    Call it what you will, the physics are what the physics are. The surface temperature of the planet cannot be achieved by insolation. You are free to propose another explanation.
    ====================================================
    Now just try and think logically.

    Your theoretical calculation about back radiation warming has been proven wrong by the Wood’s experiment. You are free to look for errors in your calculation and I do not care at all if you find any or fail. What I care about is that the CO2 has an alibi as a result of the Wood’s experiment. So the “A” in your AGW concept has no basis in real science.

  97. Phil C says:
    June 20, 2012 at 11:14 am
    Chuck Nolan —

    Interesting response. You’ve written that you’ve read the “Climategate emails” but make no mention of having read the IPCC technical reports. Let me start here: have you read WG I?
    ————–
    You’re kidding, right?
    How do you ignore climategate, the harry read me file and the UN actions since it began.

    I think they all have their reasons for pushing CAGW.
    The UN and it’s IPCC have their reasons.
    World governments have their reasons.
    WWF, Greenpeace and other NGOs have their reasons.
    Universities have their reasons.
    GE and other manufacturers have their reasons.
    Scientists have their reasons.
    Jim Hansen and Peter Gleick have their reasons.
    Me, I have no reason to believe any of them.
    They all gain from the CAGW scare and the truth may be the biggest casualty.

    I don’t believe they know so much and I don’t believe they’re chasing the truth.
    People getting fired for denying this religion of CAGW is wrong.
    Al Gore and Hollywood jetting around telling people to shut down power plants is wrong.
    There’s too much money being passed around but, only if you support CAGW.
    There is nothing in my make up that will allow me to stand on their side.

    You think I should trust something from the IPCC? You’re kidding, right?

  98. davidmhoffer says:
    June 20, 2012 at 9:24 pm
    Leave a sweater in a cold room until it reaches the same temperature as the room. Then you go into the room and stay there until you get cold too. Then put the sweater on. After a short time, you will feel colder, warmer, or the same temperature. In the event that you feel warmer, please explain where the extra warmth is coming from since the sweater was as cold as the room in the first place.
    =======================================================
    This example is first irrelevant to the matter of back radiation and second so blatantly misleading. I am not going to distract the readers from the main issue by going into details now. Unfortunately, it comes not only from the radicals, but also from some moderate warmists, this is sad.

  99. Greg House;
    So the “A” in your AGW concept has no basis in real science.>>>

    Which part of “I am a raging skeptic” did you not understand?

    Not everything the warmists say is wrong, and not everything the skeptics say is right. If you don’t understand how insanely wrong your glass sheet on a freezer notion is, and you refuse to educate yourself on the physics involved, then your opinion of what the Wood’s experiment means is equally useless.

  100. davidmhoffer says:
    June 20, 2012 at 10:03 pm
    Which part of “I am a raging skeptic” did you not understand?
    Not everything the warmists say is wrong, and not everything the skeptics say is right. If you don’t understand how insanely wrong your glass sheet on a freezer notion is, and you refuse to educate yourself on the physics involved, then your opinion of what the Wood’s experiment means is equally useless.
    =====================================================
    I do not care about how you call yourself. Second, I really like how you connected my proposal about freezer experiment with the Wood’s experiment having proven the back radiation warming hypothesis to be false.

    • Such strange argument. Your body (Sun) is burning fuel and giving off heat, and the sweater (atmosphere) is being warmed and delays loss of heat to the surrounding colder void. The Sun heats the Earth, then the Earth radiates heat to the atmosphere during the night. A greenhouse prevents mixing of Sun heated air inside with the colder atmosphere. None of these simple physical processes requires a trace gas to capture and radiate back energy from the colder gaseous element to the warmer solid. As I walk my dog Buddy to the beach during the day, then to his favorite piddle place at night just before bedtime, these phenomena are easily observed. I can confirm the greenhouse effect by measuring temperature in various areas of our sunroom and comparing them to the outdoors. When it gets too hot in the sunroom, I open windows, and close them to warm it up. These are simple, understandable experiments. And when my body stops warming my sweater, or my blankets at night, I won’t care anymore.

  101. majormike1;
    And when my body stops warming my sweater, or my blankets at night, I won’t care anymore.>>>

    When your body warms the sweater or blankets which in turn keep you warm, you are experiencing back radiation. When you walk your dog at night, you might notice that cloudy nights are in general warmer than clear nights. Backradiation again. When an engineer designs a blast furnace or a smelter, she relies on backradiation to increase the temperature. You can buy instrumentation that accurately measures downwelling IR and actually measure it. Snow piled up against the side of a house will help keep the house warmer inside. Backradiation again.

    The question to be asked is not if backradiation exists. It does, and it can be measured directly. Does the bulk of it come from CO2? No. Most of it comes from other gases in the atmosphere plus dust particles, ice crystals and so on. Does increasing CO2 increase the amount of backradiation? If it intercepts and re-radiates at frequencies that would otherwise have escaped directly to space, then yes it does, and experiments show this. Does this raise the temperature of the earth? NO! But it does change the height in the atmosphere at which the effective blackbody temperature of earth occurs, and due to the lapse rate and other factors, this impacts surgace temperatures. By a large anount? NO! It would take another 200 years minimum burning fossil fuels at peak consumption to increase temps by 1 degree over what they are now.

    Where is the hole in the warmist position then? They postulate an increase in water vapour which is also a “greenhouse gas” that would double, triple, or even quadruple the effects of CO2 increases. This is the fallacy that can be proven wrong. As temps increase, the amount of water vapour that the atmosphere can hold also increases. But the problem with this theory is twofold.

    First, water vapour levels haven’t ever maxed out for the temperatures we already have. There are other processes that keep them from doing this. Further, if the theory was correct, there have been cases in the geological record where precisely the conditions for such a turbo charged temperature increase have existed, and nothing happned. In brief, just because temps increase, we have no reason to believe that water vapour will increase by the maximum amount possible.

    Secondly, there are many other processes besides water vapour, and the preponderance of the evidence is beginning to show that there are negative feedbacks that have been ignored and which mitigate water vapour and may be so strong as to completely cancel water vapour and provide a negative feedback to CO2 backradiation.

    • Your back radiation sounds a lot like insulation. My sweater is not warming me, it is just slowing my loss of body heat. I warm the sweater, but it never is as warm as my body, and being colder cannot warm me. If it is trapping too much heat, I unzip it, and cooling is rapid. The floor and walls of the sunroom exposed directly to sunshine are much warmer than the air inside warmed by radiation from the Sun-heated surfaces. The trapped air does not warm the solids, it just slows the heat loss, which I speed up by opening the windows.

  102. Correct if i am wrong but with regards to the 90% question should’nt Phil C ask Ben Santer
    Was not he ….. who alone change the final draft of a WG paper??

  103. Ken Harvey says:
    June 20, 2012 at 2:45 pm

    To carry out an audit I need to be shown the numbers, with detailed explanations of any that have been moderated. No satisfactory explanations, then the audit fails.

    It failed the audit – http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/files/WarmAudit31.pdf
    GLOBAL WARMING: FORECASTS BY SCIENTISTS
    VERSUS SCIENTIFIC FORECASTS
    by
    Kesten C. Green and J. Scott Armstrong
    “We found
    enough information to make judgments on 89 out of a total of 140 forecasting
    principles. The forecasting procedures that were described violated 72 principles.
    Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical.
    The forecasts in the Report were not the outcome of scientific procedures. In
    effect, they were the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and
    obscured by complex writing. Research on forecasting has shown that experts’
    predictions are not useful in situations involving uncertainly and complexity. We
    have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts of global warming.”

    Of course, all this has a beginning – when the IPCC report was doctored by the powers that be behind it and their puppet Santer.

    Short telling here: http://larouchepac.com/node/12823 IPCC’s Santer Admits Fraud
    Longer telling here: http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Social/IPCC-Santer.htm

    Having arrived at an average I am told that a computer programme is needed to take account of the feedbacks, negative and positive, the latter arising from greenhouse gasses. predominantly water vapour and carbon dioxide. These feedbacks go largely unquestioned by the skeptics and no physical experiment is produced to demonstrate that these exist in an open system. As a boy of six or seven I could have told you that the feedback from water vapour in the atmosphere is negative – a simple matter of personal observation. I repeat – water vapour – humidity – not cloud cover, which has an even greater negative impact. As to carbon dioxide there is no empirical evidence that this has any impact whatever on temperature in an open system. Working my way through screeds of physics reading, I have to go back more than a hundred years to find anyone of any account in the field of physics who even theorises that CO2 can have such an effect.

    Exactly, the Water Cycle.. Missing from AGWScienceFiction energy budget because it shows the “33°C greenhouse gas warming from -18°C to 15°C”, is a sleight of hand.

    The Water Cycle cools the Earth 52°C from the 67°C it would be without water as water vapour with its very very high heat capacity, and lighter than air anyway, rises taking away the heat from the Earth’s surface where it gives it up in the higher colder atmosphere and condenses back into water or ice, and, this pure clean rain is itself carbonic acid as carbon dioxide is irresistably attracted to water and so is swept up in the water cycle and so the cooling cycle of Earth.

    They also don’t have the Water Cycle, because their atmosphere is empty space with ideal gas molecules zipping around at great speed bouncing off each other in elastic collisions, their molecules without weight and volume and attraction. They actually have no way for their clouds to form… And they can’t hear any of this because no sound is possible in their ideal gas world.

    I am left believing that skeptics, perhaps re-actively to bad mannered warmers, are too polite, too politically correct, altogether too gentle, to laugh the warmers out of court.

    Hmm, walking on a knife edge.. I find the level of ‘scientific’ understanding of basics by warmers is most likely from simply taking deliberately created fake fisics memes for granted – it ends up colouring all their perceptions and analyses without them being aware of it, but also, or perhaps rather from this, simple physics basics become difficult to grasp for them.

    For example, so convinced are they that light not heat from the Sun is the power that heats land and oceans that it is practically impossible to get them to see how nonsensical this is – because a whole story has been created to give this ‘scientific credibility’. It’s been very cleverly done by tweaking real world physics and it’s well established now in the education system. They have been taught that “shortwave in longwave out” is the way the world works, that no direct heat from the Sun, thermal infrared, plays any part in heating land and oceans. They can’t understand the difference between light and heat because they’re taught that all electromagnetic energy is the same and all creates heat on being absorbed. It’s really very sad.

  104. majormike1 says:
    June 21, 2012 at 12:08 am
    Your back radiation sounds a lot like insulation.>>>

    bingo.

  105. davidmhoffer says:
    June 20, 2012 at 11:29 pm
    When your body warms the sweater or blankets which in turn keep you warm, you are experiencing back radiation.
    =======================================================
    What you are experiencing under a blanket is a warmer air. The air under the blanket is warmed by your body through conduction and this warm air can not escape through convection because the blanket blocks the convection essentially. The same blocked convection goes for greenhouses, houses, cars and any other enclosed space. These are basics.

    Now, the back radiation hypothesis is very (160 years) old. Some scientists in the 19th century did not bother to check it experimentally and committed a logical fallacy like that: there is back radiation and there is warming (or reduced cooling, whatever), so therefore it is the back radiation that causes this warming. This is not only a false conclusion from the purely logical standpoint, but it has also been proven false experimentally by professor Wood’s experiment in 1909.

    What we have been experiencing now is that moderate warmists commit the same old fallacy forgetting that what sometimes appears to be true should be first proven true in the real science, and they repeat the same thing proven false long ago.

  106. Greg House;
    Your body heats the air space via conduction. It heats the blanket, if it is in contact with your body, also by conduction. In addition, your body radiates energy according to SB Law. The blanket absorbs some of that radiation. The higher temperature of the blanket results in it radiating at a higher temperature than it would otherwise, also according to SB Law. Since the blanket radiates some energy away from you and some toward you, the amount radiated toward you increases. It is not all a consequence of conductivity, nor is it all a consequence of of radiated energy, it is a combination of both. In the case of materials such as air and cloth, they are very poor conductors. The predominant factor in this example is radiance, not conductance. Try coverying yourself with a sheet of highly conductive material and you will get a completely different result. Two thin blankets together will keep you warmer than one thick blanket, because the gap between the two blankets breaks disrupts the conductive path. You can measure downwelling IR at night when there is no cloud cover directly if you have the proper instrumentation. Where is it coming from?

    If you take my advice and learn the basics, you’ll be far better off. You are quoting the Wood’s experiment and shouting your beliefs because it is what you want to believe. A few hours with a physics text book to the point that you understand the formulas and can apply them directly yourelf will set you on the right path. These are formulas that millions of engineers apply every single day all around the world to design everything from power blants to engines to ovens, and they get it right over and over and over again.

    There are gaping holes in the warmist meme. Learn what they are, and attack the actual problems with their theory. IF you aren’t willing to do the homework to understand the basic physics at play, then I can’t help you.

  107. davidmhoffer says:
    June 21, 2012 at 8:43 am
    …In addition, your body radiates energy according to SB Law. The blanket absorbs some of that radiation. The higher temperature of the blanket results in it radiating at a higher temperature than it would otherwise, also according to SB Law. Since the blanket radiates some energy away from you and some toward you, the amount radiated toward you increases. It is not all a consequence of conductivity, nor is it all a consequence of of radiated energy, it is a combination of both. In the case of materials such as air and cloth, they are very poor conductors. The predominant factor in this example is radiance, not conductance.
    ======================================================
    What you have said is a hypothesis. Your description does not prove the crucial point about “radiance, not conductance is the predominant factor”. It is exactly what I said in my previous comment: you conclude on a factor being predominant without providing any proof. This is a fantasy, not a scientific way of thinking.

    The Wood’s experiment proves the opposite, namely that the BACK radiation even under most favourable conditions can not influence the temperature either at all or to any significant extent.

    You narrative has been debunked, this is the reality.

  108. Greg House;
    You narrative has been debunked, this is the reality.>>>

    Congratulations on that remarkable achievement.

  109. Messers Hoffer and House, you make no mention of the human body perspiring water vapour. The blanket stops this escaping so quickly so the humidity close to your body increases and slows evaporation so you lose less heat as latent heat and you feel warmer.

  110. davidmhoffer says:
    June 21, 2012 at 6:09 am
    majormike1 says:
    June 21, 2012 at 12:08 am
    Your back radiation sounds a lot like insulation.>>>

    bingo.

    ============

    Only if you have no sense of scale..

    The ubiquitous meme “like a thermal blanket” coupled with a real sense of scale shows this blanket to be so full of holes that it’s actually for all practical purposes, 100% hole.

    I find it difficult, not being a scientist myself, to comprehend that there are scientists without any sense of scale.

  111. I find it difficult, not being a scientist myself, to comprehend that there are scientists without any sense of scale>>>>

    And I find it difficult to understand how people who admit to having no science background can insist that their conclusions are correct while at the same time refusing to learn the basics first hand so that they would be speaking from an informed opinion.

    I could play the “cite war” and bury this discussion with cites that “prove” my point and “disprove” Jeff House and Myrrh. To what end? My cites are better than your cites? I have more cites than you do so I win? This stuff is basic physics, and I have urged getting conversant with the basics as a means of having a meaningful discussion. If you are unwilling to learn the basics, to find means of verifying the basics on your own, and to proceed with the discussion from a firm foundation based on fact, then there is nothing to discuss.

    Declaring yourself “not a scientist” while at the same time declaring your understanding of the science to be superior to that of the scientists is laughable. Either learn the science, or don’t. In the meantime, billions of dollars are spent in the private sector every day to design products based on the exact physics I have tried to explain to you. If you truly believe that the physics doesn’t work that way, that’s up to you. In the private sector, if you spend major amounts of money on designs that don’t work, you lose your job. I’ve pointed you both at the basics you need to understand prior to discussing experiments like Wood’s in any meaningful fashion. If you don’t want to do that, you are choosing to wallow in your own ignorance while the world proceeds along designing and building products every single day based on the exact same physics. If Joel Shore (PhD in physics and a rampant warmist) and Richard Lindzen (PhD in physics and a rampant skeptic) were in this thread, you’d find very quickly that on the matter of backradiation, they pretty much agree, as do millions upon millions of engineers whose job security is predicated upon applying the principles I’ve pointed out to you properly.

    “None are so blind as those who will not see”
    Johnny Dark
    Butterflies Are Free

    dropping thread

  112. davidmhoffer says:
    June 21, 2012 at 11:44 am

    Declaring yourself “not a scientist” while at the same time declaring your understanding of the science to be superior to that of the scientists is laughable. Either learn the science, or don’t. In the meantime, billions of dollars are spent in the private sector every day to design products based on the exact physics I have tried to explain to you. If you truly believe that the physics doesn’t work that way, that’s up to you. In the private sector, if you spend major amounts of money on designs that don’t work, you lose your job. I’ve pointed you both at the basics you need to understand prior to discussing experiments like Wood’s in any meaningful fashion. If you don’t want to do that, you are choosing to wallow in your own ignorance while the world proceeds along designing and building products every single day based on the exact same physics. If Joel Shore (PhD in physics and a rampant warmist) and Richard Lindzen (PhD in physics and a rampant skeptic) were in this thread, you’d find very quickly that on the matter of backradiation, they pretty much agree, as do millions upon millions of engineers whose job security is predicated upon applying the principles I’ve pointed out to you properly.

    Real engineers know that your backradiation claim is ridiculous. Why didn’t Joel come back with the mechanism I asked him for? Because he couldn’t provide any to show how the net is achieved in the claim “heat flows from colder to hotter and hotter to colder and the net heat flows from hotter to colder”. How?

    Real scientists know the difference between Heat and Light. They know that the direct heat from the Sun does reach the Earth’s surface, your comic cartoon energy budget has excised it.

    It is the direct heat from the Sun, thermal infrared which heats the land and oceans, not as you have it, shortwave, claiming Light does the work of Heat.

    If real engineers disappear you’d never understand enough to be able to design and build the different appliances we have using Light and Heat from the Sun.

    Photo comes from the Greek, meaning LIGHT. Thermal comes from the Greek, meaning HEAT. These are not the same energies. This is basic bog standard physics knowledge in traditional science.

    – here the real basics:

    http://library.thinkquest.org/06aug/00442/wusolarenergy.html

    “Solar energy is power that comes from the sun. Solar energy can be harnessed in two different ways. One way is through photovoltaic conversion. Another way is through solar thermal conversion.

    “During photovoltaic conversion, solar energy is collected through panels, called solar panels. Solar panels are covered with large modules which are covered with lots of little PV cells, or photovoltaic cells. The PV cells collect the light from the sun. Once the light is inside a PV cell there is a semiconductor made of a thin sheet of silicone crystal which takes in the photons from the sunlight. A photon is a particle of solar energy. Within the semiconductor, energy of the photons shifts to the electrons. This energizes the electrons. Then the electrons break out of the semiconductor to get to the silicone atoms. Then they flow into the electric current. Usually a solar cell is made of a glass protective layer, an anti-reflective coat, and electric contacts.”

    “…Usually PV cells don’t generate much electricity. PV cells generate about ½ a volt per square decimeter. A solar panel making fifty watts of electricity is about four decimeters by ten decimeters.”
    ——

    Real Light from the Sun works on the electronic transition level, it energises the electrons, it does not move the whole molecule into vibrational states as does Heat, which is thermal infrared and which is what it takes to heat up matter.

    Visible Light from the Sun is reflected/scattered in the atmosphere because it is absorbed by the electrons of nitrogen and oxygen. The electrons are energised briefly and when they come back to ground state they give off exactly the same energy level which they absorbed – blue visible light is more easily scattered by the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen, that’s how we get our blue sky.

    Back to the same article:

    “Another type of solar energy is solar thermal conversion. In this process, there are thermal conversion panels (panels that absorb heat) which are grouped together often in a dish or trough system. The solar energy is then absorbed and concentrated into a line or a point that heats a pipe filled with fluid. These systems can concentrate the intensity of sunlight up to 10,000 times of normal sunlight.
    ——

    panels that absorb heat – they absorb the Heat, the direct thermal infrared from the Sun, that’s how they work. Thermal infrared direct from the Sun is a powerful energy, it directly heats up matter. Heat from the Sun heats up matter, Light from the Sun doesn’t.

    The best you can do with the tiddly little Light energy is make a tiddly bit of electricity.

    Back to the article:

    “Many people use a solar heating system to heat their house. This type of system is more effective than using a PV system to heat homes or water. You can tell the difference because solar heaters can turn 60% of the sun’s energy into heat whereas PV systems can only change 12% to 15%. Solar heaters are able to heat large things like pools, water, and houses. So as you can see, when it’s heating, you are better off using a solar heater.”
    ——

    If it’s real heating you want, of big things, of land and oceans, then you use the direct thermal infrared heat from the Sun.

    Real engineers in the real world know this.

    Your claim is that shortwave, Light, does the powerful work of HEAT from the Sun, but when I ask for proof of such strange ideas no one ever comes back with any. Because it doesn’t exist.

    The comic cartoon energy budget you use is basic b*ll*cks. This has been deliberately created to promote AGW and to dumb down the general science understanding of the oiks. This is a far greater con than the lying cheating shenanigans about temperature.

    Take a look at your cartoon – where’s the Water Cycle? Where’s the real atmosphere of the heavy fluid ocean of gas which we have in the real world? Where are the real molecules with weight, volume and attraction subject to gravity? Where the wind and weather systems in your world when you have no convection? Where’s sound in your world of empty space with imaginary ideal gas molecules zipping around at great speed bouncing off each other?

    You’ve been had.

    Some children are still learning real basic physics:

    http://techxcite.pratt.duke.edu/curriculum/solarcooker.php

    “Solar Energy: Cooking in the Sun
    This TechXcite: Discover Engineering! module introduces kids to the direct use of solar thermal energy through the design of a solar oven. Finding ways to use energy more efficiently will be an important part of engineering in the 21st century. Solar thermal energy is used in solar ovens, passive solar architecture, and to generate electricity in some applications. In this module, kids do some initial experiments to explore heat transfer through radiation and conduction. Then, they learn how to locate the sun in the sky by finding the solar angle and solar azimuth at a particular time during the day. They then utilize this knowledge to design and build a solar oven.”

    Real engineers know which energy they’re working with and the different properties and capablilities of each:

    http://www.solarthermalmagazine.com/2012/03/01/solar-pool-heater-manufacturer-hits-price-per-btu-breakthrough/

    “Using performance rating data from the independent Florida Solar Energy Center (FSEC) – which measures a solar collector’s ability to efficiently transfer thermal energy from the sun into usable heat (in the case of solar thermal, BTUs) – Sunlite™ is rated at 1,000 BTUs per square foot. Based on the manufacturer’s newly released pricing, Sunlite™ carries a price per BTU of only $0.002 – making it the most cost-effective solar thermal BTU on the planet.”

    How would you even begin to check out their cost efficiency claim here?

    In your fictional fisics the direct thermal energy from the Sun doesn’t play any part of heating the land and oceans – where is your fantasy world?

  113. @Myrrh
    For what it’s worth, I am an engineer and energy and mass balances are part of my stock-in-trade.

    Davidmhoffer is right, you and Greg House are wrong. Period.

  114. D. J. Hawkins says:
    June 21, 2012 at 4:01 pm
    @Myrrh
    For what it’s worth, I am an engineer and energy and mass balances are part of my stock-in-trade.
    Davidmhoffer is right, you and Greg House are wrong. Period.
    ==========================================================
    This is a rare example of the most valuable scientific contribution to the scientific debate. Thank you.

  115. Greg House says:
    June 21, 2012 at 4:31 pm
    D. J. Hawkins says:
    June 21, 2012 at 4:01 pm
    @Myrrh
    For what it’s worth, I am an engineer and energy and mass balances are part of my stock-in-trade.
    Davidmhoffer is right, you and Greg House are wrong. Period.
    ==========================================================
    This is a rare example of the most valuable scientific contribution to the scientific debate. Thank you.

    Do you know why the Aether hypothesis for the transmission of light is no longer popular, aside from being wrong? The knuckleheads who continued to believe in it eventually died. You and Myrrh are so far from right it can’t even be called wrong. Please aquire a fundamental text on heat transfer, or even a Schaum’s Outline (McGraw Hill, $22.00) and stop embarrasing yourselves.

  116. D. J. Hawkins says:
    June 21, 2012 at 5:07 pm
    Do you know why the Aether hypothesis for the transmission of light is no longer popular, aside from being wrong? The knuckleheads who continued to believe in it eventually died.
    ==================================================
    This looks like a right analogy applied to the AGW concept. It was popular in some circles from 1860 till 1909. Climate sensitivity of CO2 was there, back radiation warming the Earth surface, everything. Then came professor Wood with his easy experiment and the AGW concept died.

    What we have now is a sort of a scientific zombi dug out my some people, who call themselves scientists.

  117. Is Leach a buddy of Lawson? Another ‘lord’, Lawson not only has much of his wealth invested in oil, but is a paid lobbyist for the oil industry and a vociferous denier, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2012/mar/06/climate-change-sceptic-lawson-coal shows another of his ‘interests’ is dirty coal. He is behind the ludicrously titled ‘Global Warming Policy Foundation’ http://thegwpf.org/, funded by the oil industry to promote dissinformation. There are quite a few rich, old men in the denial camp, the buffoon David Bellamy is another, Noel Edmonds another [all Brits] none of them with even a smattering of science qualifications, but all with huge houses in the country and opposed to wind farms ‘spoiling their view’. Selfish to a man.

    REPLY – That’s nice, dear. But is he Right or is he Wrong? That would be the relevant question. ~ Evan

  118. Greg House, so AGW died in 1909, and despite that tens of thousands of scientists are spening their lives investigating the many aspects of AGW, governments around the world have accepted it as fact even if they are failing to actually do anything about it, bodies such as the UN and NASA, not to mention the Pentagon accept it as fact, and the planet is getting hotter and with all the effects predicted like extreme weather events. Are you from another planet?

  119. Myrrh – you appear to have difficuulty understanding energy. ‘It is the direct heat from the Sun, thermal infrared which heats the land and oceans, not as you have it, shortwave, claiming Light does the work of Heat.’ I’ll remember that next time I sunbathe. Could have sworn the sunlight made me hot, but it was thermal infrared all along. So in order to stay cool in sunlight we just need an infrared filter? Could be major business opportnities there, especially in Africa.

  120. Oneworldnet- The CRU gets money from Shell and BP, according to their website, so what’s your point? Here’s an angle for you to ponder: Big oil wants the alarmists to win. Its simple, and it’s about banking and political clout. No mitigation efforts are going to touch Big Oil, they have too much clout. Mitigation will put their smaller competitors (and coal) out of business, which is AOK by them, given that they are monopoly capitalists. Carbon taxes are intended to be collected by the World Bank. The Rockefellers (as an example) are big oil, as well as big in banking (Jpmorgan chase/federal reserve). To think they dont own part of the World Bank is ludicrous, so it follows that they would fund whatever side would get that tax money rolling in. That’s how they work. Twisted, yet genius. You are naive. The skeptics are among the good guys, and if the UN wins and brings the hammer down, you are going to rue the day you backed their silly empty propaganda campaign.

  121. And, Oneworldnet, you asked Greg House if he was from another planet, which was rhetoric on your end, but if Greg had been from another planet, let’s say Mars, he would have reported that it was warming there too up until 1998 (NASA agrees- google mars warming). That’s weird. How did our industrial co2 increase get to Mars?

Comments are closed.