Newsbytes: Consensus And Controversy

 New Report On The Global Warming “Battlefield”

This report positively concludes that an alleged near unanimous scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), that “the science is settled”, is overstated. The report finds a robust, critical scientific discourse in climate related research, yet it highlights that a “consensus-building” approach to science might represent a politicised and unscientific belief in science – a belief in tension with the ethos of “normal science”. The report calls for a continuing questioning, critical, and undogmatic public debate over man-made global warming, and a clearer separation between science and policy. –Consensus and Controversy, SINTEF April 2013

By insisting on scientific consensus and the “elimination of doubt”, seeking to declare the science of AGW settled once and for all, and imbuing this putative settlement with highly normative and pejorative allegations (to question is “irresponsible, reckless and immoral”), the consensus approach clings to being (solely) “science-based”, but its position is at the same time implicitly in direct opposition to the ethos of “normal science”. It is not supported, justified or endorsed by science in its canonical expression, where science, based on thinkers such as Kant,  Popper, Merton and Polanyi is seen to be constituted on continued discussion, open criticism, antidogmatism, (self)critical mindset, methodological doubt, and the organization of scepticism. –Consensus and Controversy, SINTEF April 2013

The authors of this paper recently presented their views on climate science at the Royal Academy of Belgium. No French or Belgian newspaper was willing to publish their assessment. Questioning the impact of mankind on climate change is evidently still a taboo in the French-speaking world. –István E. Markó, Alain Préat, Henri Masson and Samuel Furfari, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 14 April 2013

Since 1997, global temperatures have failed to rise. As a result, climate predictions and climate science are facing a crisis of credibility. We don’t know whether or not global warming will become a global problem this century. It is certain, however, that Britain’s unilateral climate policy is undermining the UK’s economy and is threatening its competitiveness. Benny Peiser, Cambridge Enterprise & Technology Club, 25 April 2013

Many blame the public’s confusion over global warming on a widespread ignorance of science. A scientific grounding wouldn’t hurt but it also wouldn’t help much — few laymen, no matter how well informed, could be expected to follow the arcane climate change calculations that specialized scientists wield. The much better explanation for the public’s confusion lies in a widespread ignorance of history, not least by scientists.  We learn that history trumps science when the science is speculative, politicized, and at odds with reality. — Lawrence Solomon, National Post, 19 April 2013

There is compelling evidence that, across the disciplines, peer review often fails to root out science fraud. Yet even basic errors in the literature can now be extremely difficult to correct on any reasonable timescale. –Philip Moriarty, Times Higher Education, 18 April 2013

About these ads
This entry was posted in Consensus, Newsbytes. Bookmark the permalink.

81 Responses to Newsbytes: Consensus And Controversy

  1. Austin says:

    Record lows will be shattered tonight and tomorrow across the high plains. Amarillo’s low is 30 degrees for this date and the forecast low is 23 degrees. Similar setup for much of New Mexico, CO, UT, KS and NE. This hard freezing record cold will move East tomorrow and Thursday. Much of Canada and Alaska has been running 30 degrees below normal for the last month.

  2. Andrés says:

    No matter how cold it gets, global warming is modeled to be ongoing.
    How can the “consensus” survive?
    Answer: Because it is not science, but politics at its worst.
    See Lawrence Solomon: History trumps climate scientists (Financial Post, 13/04/23),
    at http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/04/18/lawrence-solomon/

  3. Good stuff. I just wish this stuff got more play…

  4. Robin says:

    When you have political, economic, and social transformation premised on systems thinking, you also need a widespread belief of a crucial system in crisis. That merits action. That gets the Transformation ball going as Necessary.

    Facts inconsistent with the narrative will simply go unreported. And absolutely will not be in the models or videogaming MUVEs our K-12 students are to be so engaged in.

  5. Bob says:

    @Austin: That’s weather. If you had high winds and blizzards it would be climate change caused by global warming.

  6. Richard111 says:

    “few laymen, no matter how well informed, could be expected to follow the arcane climate change calculations that specialized scientists wield.”
    They use ‘MODELS’, not arcane climate change calculations. If these were made public there would be much hilarity at how radiation from a cool source warms an already hot object.

  7. Laws of Nature says:

    Josh, l love your comics!!!

  8. Its just weather.
    Just weather.
    Given Time.
    Ice.

    http://www.arapahoebasin.com/ABasin/snow-conditions/web-cams.aspx

    Some chance Al Gore and buddies are spending some of his money near this ski area now.

    Just snow.

  9. JackT says:

    One of these days, the main stream media will decide to allow this topic into the debate that they control. To allow public policy to be driven by a “not-so-settled” science is in and of itself a criminal perpetration of fraud upon society. When people realize that ther gasoline and utility bills, and for that matter, the cost of every single product that is produced under the ridiculous policies of the EPA, are all driven by political science with no true science allowed into the debate. “Settled science”, is not science at all, and the only desire of the skeptical side of the debate is to actually utilize science to create policies based upon actual observations. Climate change is and always has been “real”. To what extent man has or ever can truly control or affect climate is still highly speculative. None of the climate models have proven to be accurate, and observations provide the evidence that the models and their basic premise is flawed. Maybe this new paper will at least open the door to a true debate. The skeptical community wants that debate!

  10. Aldous says:

    Best Josh cartoon of all time

  11. Kev-in-Uk says:

    great cartoon – although I personally would consider homeopathy reasonable?

  12. Doug UK says:

    Josh – how do you do it so well and so quickly?

    Superb – on a par with Giles i would suggest – and I mean that as a very high compliment indeed.

    What about a Christmas compilation book?

  13. Anymoose says:

    In real science, all theories, anthropogenic global warming included, are just crackpot ideas until they are proven. See Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Charles, et al as examples.

  14. Dagfinn says:

    If anyone is interested, here is a Google translation of the what the SINTEF researchers wrote in the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten. http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=no&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aftenposten.no%2Fmeninger%2Fkronikker%2FDen-tvilsomme-utvilsomheten-7172257.html%23.UXbIc4I73rM

  15. jc says:

    A definitive cultural statement on what was Civilization, showing the true standard of what is now the life of the mindless that has usurped the Mind. Should be obligatory in schools.

  16. That cartoon is absolutely hilarious. Congrats to Josh.

  17. Sparks says:

    All have good intentions, Homeopathy, Reflexology, Astrology and Climatology all seem to be the beginning of understanding a scientific issue, infantile science, valuable in itself. But, as all educated people can discuss all issues of a scientific nature, they will tell you, they have observed the hijacking of science for an alliterative subjective motivation.

  18. Box of Rocks says:

    Anymoose says:
    April 23, 2013 at 10:42 am
    In real science, all theories, anthropogenic global warming included, are just crackpot ideas until they are proven. See Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Charles, et al as examples.

    Box of Rocks replies…

    Me knows you are wrong.

    Galileo was actually trying to solve a problem for the catholic church. The data from that problem solving just happened to turn that periods thinking on it’s head.

    You see the question back then had to do with setting the dates of the major feast days within the church. And for all the bashing the catholic church has received at the hands of the liberals, it chose the problem the best way possible – using science.

  19. Brant Ra says:

    The only problem with Josh’s comics this time is how to explain the placebo effect(homeopathy)…..
    Its a real effect. I would not lump MMann in with anything that might have some tenuous science behind it… It would be an insult to unexplored science…..
    Other than that, very funny…..

  20. the1pag says:

    Here’s a link to another very interesting debunker from “The Weekly Standard” magazine:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/articles/climate-circus-leaves-town_718070.html

  21. I am a little surprised no one has made the anology between the wall of denial erected by the warmists and the Berlin Wall. Just as the Berlin Wall crashed overnight I deeply hope the climate wall falls as quickly. This article is another crack in the base of the denial wall.

  22. Box of Rocks said:
    April 23, 2013 at 11:08 am
    “…the catholic church … chose [to solve] the problem the best way possible – using science.
    ————————————-
    The church rejected science when its findings didn’t coincide with their model of reality.

    Hmmm – sounds familiar.

    Good thing we have Anthony “Martin Luther” Watts to hammer skepticism onto the creaky doors of religified climate science.

  23. Steven Mosher says:

    paper is garbage. 82 pages of fluff. yes I read the whole thing.

  24. Doug Huffman says:

    If I recall correctly, Karl Popper directly addressed homeopathy and astrology in his Logic of Scientific Discovery and discussion of the problem of demarcation of science from non-science. His razor is falsifiability.

  25. M. Nichopolis says:

    It hit 27 degrees F over here in Massachusetts last night (lower in some parts), and our reluctantly budding trees aren’t too happy about it either.
    Punxatawney Phil should be shot (and then roasted with gravy of course).

  26. Steven Mosher:

    Your entire post at April 23, 2013 at 12:13 pm says

    paper is garbage. 82 pages of fluff. yes I read the whole thing.

    Thankyou for another demonstration of your cogent, analytical performance.
    Yes, I quoted the whole thing.

    Richard

  27. Sparks says:

    A quick and funny example of why you shouldn’t take people out of context.

    Steven Mosher says:
    “yes I read the whole thing.”

    Yes, I believe you did enjoy reading 50 shades of gray!

    The excellent people commenting here (except Lief) would never do such a thing. lol

  28. Box of Rocks says:

    Mark and two cats –

    Just ‘how’ has the catholic church rejected science.

    This ought to be a ‘big bang’!

  29. Cynical Scientst says:

    Exactly. It was at the moment that the science was declared “settled” and the word “d****r” was first fired in anger that my doubts about the claims of climate science crystallised into absolute certainty that it was no longer science.

  30. Box of Rocks says: “And for all the bashing the catholic church has received at the hands of the liberals, it chose the problem the best way possible – using science.”

    The Catholic Church’s relationship with Galileo is full of irony. Galileo had rejected Kepler’s view that the planetary paths were elliptical, in favor of Copernicus’ perfect circles. Thus, the observed data for the orbits of the planets were more in line with Ptolemy’s system of crystal spheres than they were with Galileo’s view. I.e. Galileo’s model was more correct, but the observed data favored the incorrect model.

    In some ways, the Catholic church observed the principals of science better than Galileo.

    Joe Dunfee

  31. fredd says:

    To the people chuckling at Mosher’s outburst: Have you read this paper? I tried but didn’t get very far, it’s pretty awful. Maybe someone will speak up and say yeah, this is their kind of science?

    The theatrical tropes of the debate is also squarely pinpointed by the fact that the play’s definitive number one villain and enfant terrible is the agent and actor (or rather “actant” in the vocabulary of actor-network-theory) that goes by the name of CO2. Carbon dioxide. This gas is quite literally the “smoking gun” (Archer and Rahmstorf 2010: 11) of the play, metaphorically represented as something like the (Lord of The Rings’) Sauron in the saga of global warming, and believed to play the major role in causing anthropogenic global warming – with all its possible detrimental consequences. Yet CO2 is also a major actant in photosynthesis and the life-giving production of oxygen. With CO2 at the centrepiece of the play, inhabiting this radically double-edged position of being both the gas of life and death, global warming as eschatological tales of humanity’s end-times, and its embedded counter narrative of secular (or rather quasi-religious) earthly resurrection and salvation through heroic deeds and technological measures, the drama of global warming attains the level of meaning that myths are made of.

  32. Dodgy Geezer says:

    @Cynical Scientst

    Exactly. It was at the moment that the science was declared “settled” and the word “d****r” was first fired in anger that my doubts about the claims of climate science crystallised into absolute certainty that it was no longer science.

    I can recall reading Steve McIntyre’s blog when it first came out, with the news of how he was treated by Nature when he tried to put a correction in, and thinking “This isn’t how science is supposed to work. There’s something wrong here…”

    It might be interesting to collect the stories of how we all became ‘deniers’. It would make a better paper than Lewandowsky’s, and a more accurate social study of behaviour. For instance, I was not able to understand the maths of the PCA fiddle that Mann did, but I could spot a scam quite easily in his behaviour. I have since wondered why none of the politicians saw anything suspicious in the early refusals to provide any data..?

  33. BobM says:

    Re Consensus:

    The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no
    evidence that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view
    of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread
    belief is more often likely to be foolish than sensible.

    – Bertrand Russell, in A History of Western Philosophy,

  34. fredd:

    re your post at April 23, 2013 at 2:42 pm.

    Your point is well made. The amusement was that Mosher did NOT make the same point well.

    Richard

  35. Cole says:

    The SINTEF report appears to have been removed. I’ve checked the links at all of the postings including one in the media.

  36. Theo Goodwin says:

    Austin says:
    April 23, 2013 at 9:44 am
    “Record lows will be shattered tonight and tomorrow across the high plains. Amarillo’s low is 30 degrees for this date and the forecast low is 23 degrees. Similar setup for much of New Mexico, CO, UT, KS and NE. This hard freezing record cold will move East tomorrow and Thursday. Much of Canada and Alaska has been running 30 degrees below normal for the last month.”

    Amarillo at 23 on April 23? Amarillo is only a click north of Atlanta. Astounding. This is worth watching. Thanks for the news. Good luck to you.

  37. D.J. Hawkins says:

    Mark and two Cats says:
    April 23, 2013 at 12:08 pm
    Box of Rocks said:
    April 23, 2013 at 11:08 am
    “…the catholic church … chose [to solve] the problem the best way possible – using science.
    ————————————-
    The church rejected science when its findings didn’t coincide with their model of reality.

    Hmmm – sounds familiar.

    Good thing we have Anthony “Martin Luther” Watts to hammer skepticism onto the creaky doors of religified climate science.

    Do you even know what “science” was supposedly rejected? If you’re refering to heliocentrism, it’s important to note that as far as explaining the data, it didn’t do a better job than the epicycle system then in vogue. This is because Galileo, among others, insisted that orbits were circular. He was vigorous in attacking comtemporaries who suggested that celestial bodies might follow eliptical paths. Focault’s pendulum was a couple hundred years in the future, so Galileo didn’t have an observational leg to stand on. In this particular case, Galileo appears to have suffered from the “pretty theory” complex: “It’s such a beautiful theory, it must be true.”

  38. blueice2hotsea says:

    SINTEF April 2013 – Page 29
    … a panel of scientists convened by the National Research Council was set up, which reported in 2006 and broadly supported Mann et al.’s findings…

    Richard Muller at Climate One
    “No. No. No. I was on that National Research Council Panel…”
    “None of the key conclusions that [Michael Mann] drew in his 1998, 1999 work held up once the National Academy reviewed it.”

    no comment.

  39. fredd says:

    blueice2hotsea says:
    Richard Muller at Climate One
    “No. No. No. I was on that National Research Council Panel…”
    “None of the key conclusions that [Michael Mann] drew in his 1998, 1999 work held up once the National Academy reviewed it.”

    This comment made be curious, I hadn’t seen the NRC report before so I just looked it up. Right away this 2006 report makes a point similar to the PAGES 2k 2013 findings:
    Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture
    of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm
    conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm
    Period”) and a relatively cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700. The
    existence of a Little Ice Age from roughly 1500 to 1850 is supported by a wide variety
    of evidence including ice cores, tree rings, borehole temperatures, glacier length records,
    and historical documents. Evidence for regional warmth during medieval times can be
    found in a diverse but more limited set of records including ice cores, tree rings, marine
    sediments, and historical sources from Europe and Asia, but the exact timing and
    duration of warm periods may have varied from region to region, and the magnitude
    and geographic extent of the warmth are uncertain.

    Also, Muller’s recollection to the contrary, the NRC report does hold up the main conclusion from Mann’s papers, although cautioning that there is greater uncertainty.
    The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years. Not all individual proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is unprecedented, although a larger fraction of geographically diverse sites experienced exceptional warmth during the late 20th century than during any other extended period from A.D. 900 onward. Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming.

  40. fredd says:

    Here (I hope) is a cleaner version of that first NRC quote above, sorry!
    Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm Period”) and a relatively cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700. The existence of a Little Ice Age from roughly 1500 to 1850 is supported by a wide variety of evidence including ice cores, tree rings, borehole temperatures, glacier length records, and historical documents. Evidence for regional warmth during medieval times can be found in a diverse but more limited set of records including ice cores, tree rings, marine sediments, and historical sources from Europe and Asia, but the exact timing and duration of warm periods may have varied from region to region, and the magnitude and geographic extent of the warmth are uncertain.

  41. RockyRoad says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    April 23, 2013 at 12:13 pm

    paper is garbage. 82 pages of fluff. yes I read the whole thing.

    Of course Mosher would say that–the paper takes his pet project and sticks a fork in it. Deeply.

    (Although he didn’t specify what “paper” he’s referring to; he didn’t define what he meant by “fluff”; and has been pointed out by others, we don’t know what “whole” he read.)

    Come back, Steven, when you’ve got something definitive to refute–and if not, we all understand.

    (I wonder if he was as precise in his “reading” as he was in his response. Personally, I found this paper on the Global Warming Battlefield to be rather insightful–and I didn’t sleep through all 82 pages as if it were “fluff”–I only needed the summary to understand why Mosher’s responded the way he did. But it isn’t the report’s author’s ignorance that’s on display here–If I was selling stoves that didn’t heat up after 17 years, I’d not want that advertised at all.)

  42. D.J. Hawkins said:
    April 23, 2013 at 4:16 pm
    Do you even know what “science” was supposedly rejected? If you’re referring to heliocentrism, it’s important to note that as far as explaining the data, it didn’t do a better job than the epicycle system then in vogue. This is because Galileo, among others, insisted that orbits were circular.
    ———————————-
    Galileo’s system was less than accurate and has since been supplanted, yes. That is how science is supposed to work. What the church did was to reject any affront to their doctrine – which was my point in comparing it to today’s hidebound climate science.

  43. Caleb says:

    I like Josh’s cartoon, but it may be a bit unfair to astrologers. Astrologers don’t “adjust” the positions of planets and stars. Also, though their predictions are often incorrect, they occasionally get something right, which is more than I can say for some climate scientists.

  44. ferdberple says:

    Dodgy Geezer says:
    April 23, 2013 at 2:42 pm
    It might be interesting to collect the stories of how we all became ‘deniers’.
    ============
    I tried to ask questions at Real Climate about climate 50 years ago, when I was growing up and studying such questions in school. Having been alive at the time I thought I might be able to help out some of the scientists that were too young to have any first hand knowledge.

    If you have ever been to RC, you know the rest. You would have thought I had sinned against god and the heavens for asking such questions of “real scientists”. Mere mortals are not permitted to ask such questions of their betters. We are obviously less than humans. We are deniers. We are unworthy of answers. We should be thankful they take our money in the name of our salvation. Amen.

  45. Box of Rocks said:
    April 23, 2013 at 1:53 pm
    Mark and two cats –
    Just ‘how’ has the catholic church rejected science. This ought to be a ‘big bang’!
    —————————————
    The church rejected the process of science by insisting that scripture trumped observation.

    As to the big bang, maybe I’m dumber than a box o’ rocks, but it seems to me that had anyone posited that theory in Galileo’s day, the Inquisition would have put them on trial too.

  46. Sparks says:

    Mark and two Cats,
    I have a post on my to-do list about black holes, the speed of light and galaxy formation. The Big bang is what it is, I prefer science to be less stringy and more relative.

  47. ferdberple says:

    Sparks says:
    April 23, 2013 at 6:41 pm
    Mark and two Cats,
    I have a post on my to-do list about black holes, the speed of light
    ==========
    ah, but what about the speed of gravity? how is it that the distant stars appear motionless when we stand still, and move when we spin, if all motion is simply relative with no preferred frame of reference.? how is it that except for the rotation of the earth, we appear to be spinning at pretty much the same rate as the rest of the universe?

  48. ferdberple says:

    Caleb says:
    April 23, 2013 at 6:17 pm
    it may be a bit unfair to astrologers.
    =====
    the techniques of astrology are used to predict the tides with great accuracy.

  49. KevinK says:

    Boy, wouldn’t it be a real hoot if the “Greenhouse Effect” turned out to be nothing more than an optical delay line, or a multilayer optical interference filter without the interference? That way by simply delaying the flow of energy (thermal/visible light/IR light) through the Sun/Earth/Atmosphere/Universe system it would have nothing to do with the average (cough, cough, equilibrium) temperature of the Earth. Boy, imagine all those peer reviewed papers and decades wasted chasing a chimera…

    Perhaps if we re-evaluate the data yet again we can surely find the “smoking gun”, it must be there someplace, maybe in the deep oceans ?

    No, that could never be, it was a consensus after all.

    But then again, it is still not warming……

    Cheers, Kevin.

  50. Sparks said:
    April 23, 2013 at 6:41 pm
    Mark and two Cats,
    I have a post on my to-do list about black holes, the speed of light and galaxy formation. The Big bang is what it is, I prefer science to be less stringy and more relative.
    —————————————
    Cool! Maybe you can get round to a GUT too :)

  51. Sparks says:

    ferdberple,

    Are you being funny and showing how clever you are? wait for the post, the speed of gravity is timing.

  52. Sparks says:

    Mark and two Cats,

    What is a GUT? sorry, laugh if you want, I can not place what a GUT is.

  53. blueice2hotsea says:

    One comment for fredd.

    The purpose of the 2006 NRC report was to describe and assess the state of scientific efforts to reconstruct surface temperature records for the Earth over approximately the last 2,000 years….

    The Hockeystick controversy was also addressed. One of the Mann et al conclusions was deemed “plausible”, in lieu of subsequent research. Nevertheless, Muller’s point seems to be that the NRC found NONE of the Mann 1998, 1999 key conclusions to be justified without at least referring to subsequent research by others.

    At best, a tepid endorsement.

  54. Sparks says:

    blueice2hotsea,
    At best, a tepid endorsement.

    So If the planet catastrophically warms ?

  55. Geoff Sherrington says:

    BTW, the top graph invited my mind to consider a comparison of proxy models going back 2000 years or so, like Craig Loehle presented.
    There was some discussion about centring the various graphs and scaling them for better comparison. Here, the time axis is well known. In the proxy graphs it is not. Can you see the dangers of assuming that the highest point or some other feature is coincidental on a global scale and so justifies centring by moving the time axis horizontally? It’s not even coincidental on the tiny scale of these Islands.

  56. rtj1211 says:

    To be fair to Astrology, I wrote a skit about a decade ago for an April Fool’s joke (for those not acquainted with this quaint British custom, on the morning of April 1st, it is customary to play practical jokes, tell superficially true stories which are humorous bollocks in reality etc etc) addressing astrological predictions in a scientific way.

    The approach taken was to analyse the birth astrology of a Nobel Laureate and to attempt to predict outcomes and character traits. Of course, I was cheating as I knew of the man and and had several conversations with former colleagues/employees of his. However, in that skit, I documented a population-based study approach on a population which could theoretically be used to see if astrology had any basis in fact whatever.

    It’s certainly possible to postulate that, in more primitive societies, the traits of those born in a particular month of the year would be influenced by the effect of the changing seasons both on the environment within the maternal womb but also on their first year of life. You would probably postulate that, as societies advance, the effects of those seasonal changes may be ironed out and hence the astrological ‘traits’ might be eliminated. You can also postulate that, if everyone knew what they were supposed to be like, they might be more likely to conform to the ideal.

    So the best way to test astrology is to find populations who knew nothing of it for 35 years, then retrospectively analyze whether or not populations conform to it in any meaningful way statistically.

    So far as I am aware, if such studies have been done, they have not been publicized widely.

    Good idea to do the science before dismissing astrology as quackery.

    It may well be quackery, but scientists saying it is doesn’t make it so.

    Scientific analysis could make it so.

  57. wikeroy says:

    ferdberple says:
    April 23, 2013 at 7:03 pm

    “ah, but what about the speed of gravity? ”

    It has to be instantanious, otherwise my model of the world falls apart. In other words, it has no speed.

  58. Bob says:

    SINTEF is a Scandinavian research organization. The client for this study was Det Norske AS.

    http://www.detnor.no/en/about-det-norske/about-det-norske

    I believe they are a Norwegian oil company.

  59. Bruce Cobb says:

    I, unlike Steven haven’t read “the whole thing” yet, so am not quite sure what he meant by “82 pages of fluff”. I don’t even know where he came up with “82 pages”, since it is actually 84 pages. Although, it should be pointed out that only pages 6 thru 69 represent the meat and potatoes of the paper, and I have noticed some blank pages and/or partial pages here and there. So in all, perhaps there are only 60 pages of actual reading material. Maybe that was what he meant by “fluff”. I doubt that he could possibly argue with the conclusion of the paper, though, that basically, Climate Science has thrown scientific method out the window, to the detriment of mankind, and science itself. Call me skeptical, but I can’t believe he read the whole thing. If he has, perhaps he should take an alka-seltzer, and call in the morning.
    If not reading the whole thing, I do highly recommend reading the Conclusions, which begins on page 66, and goes thru page 69.

  60. fredd:

    re your posts at April 23, 2013 at 5:20 pm and April 23, 2013 at 5:24 pm.
    Allow me to give you a clue.

    It does not matter who said what, when and how.
    It does matter that the ‘hockey stick of Mann Bradley & Hughes was – and is – bollocks.

    Richard

  61. Bruce Cobb says:

    Sparks says:
    April 23, 2013 at 7:35 pm

    Mark and two Cats,

    What is a GUT? sorry, laugh if you want, I can not place what a GUT is.
    It stands for “Grand Unified Theory” (I was curious, so looked it up). It would be nice if physics could be tidied up. Damn Einstein anyway. He started it.

  62. Gary Harkness says:

    Anyone have a response to the observation that SINTEF is basically supported by oil company money? I’m debating a friend.

  63. Box of Rocks says:

    Mark and two Cats says:
    April 23, 2013 at 6:28 pm

    Me thinks you need to update your smears to the 21st century….

  64. Bruce Cobb says:

    Gary Harkness says:
    The answer is that even if true, it doesn’t matter one whit because that is both smear and ad hom argument. They need to debate what the paper says.

  65. Bob says:

    @ Gary Harkness “Anyone have a response to the observation that SINTEF is basically supported by oil company money? ”

    Gary. This study is funded by a Norwegian oil company, and so stated on the cover of the study. Just look for the client, and then google that name. The reason I posted that comment is not because I believe that it means much, but there are those brain-dead acolytes of the climate apocalypse who will see this as a knock-out punch. It’s better to be prepared for these little events.

  66. D.J. Hawkins says:

    Mark and two Cats says:
    April 23, 2013 at 6:10 pm
    D.J. Hawkins said:
    April 23, 2013 at 4:16 pm
    Do you even know what “science” was supposedly rejected? If you’re referring to heliocentrism, it’s important to note that as far as explaining the data, it didn’t do a better job than the epicycle system then in vogue. This is because Galileo, among others, insisted that orbits were circular.
    ———————————-
    Galileo’s system was less than accurate and has since been supplanted, yes. That is how science is supposed to work. What the church did was to reject any affront to their doctrine – which was my point in comparing it to today’s hidebound climate science.

    In the future, try finding a better example. Galileo was challenging the current orthodoxy which in turn was based on the historical and then-current exigesis of an authoritative source – the Bible. Try reading Cardinal Bellarmine’s letter to Foscarini and you will see outright acknowledgement that there is a possibilty the heliocentric theory might prevail, but at present there was no evidence this was true. As I pointed out previously and you have studiously ignored. If Galileo was going to claim everyone else had it wrong, it was his duty as a scientist to provide empirical evidence of the superiority of his world view, not just that he had a prettier theory. This he could not do. Find yourself another poster-boy. Maybe Wegener would do.

  67. Gary Harkness says:

    Thanks, everybody…I’m not sure I got anything I can use. A good friend, with a fair mind I might add, believes that anything from NASA is gospel and not subject to question while anything funded by the oil companies is to be dismissed out of hand. I have already given him the arguments about government money being as corrupting as oil money. I have also urged him to read the report, which I feel is a good summary at least of the current state of the debate. I emphasize that this is a good and fair man. I want to make the case, not shut or shout him down. any help?

  68. Bruce Cobb says:

    @ Gary, Your friend seems to think the provenance of an argument is more important than the argument itself, which is an irrational position based on fear since clearly, he’s afraid to think for himself. I don’t believe there is any way to convince someone like that of the error in that type of thinking, and it is probably unwise to try.

  69. Gary Harkness says:

    There is truth in that, Bruce. With neither of us being science people and the science being so arcane there is a big obstacle there. But he is a good guy and it is fun trying to crack his shell. Wish their was some magic phrase or piece of information I could use. I get tired of being told that anything sponsored by Big Oil isn’t worth listening to.

    Thanks

  70. D.J. Hawkins said:
    April 24, 2013 at 10:43 am

    Mark and two Cats says:
    April 23, 2013 at 6:10 pm
    D.J. Hawkins said:
    April 23, 2013 at 4:16 pm
    Do you even know what “science” was supposedly rejected? If you’re referring to heliocentrism, it’s important to note that as far as explaining the data, it didn’t do a better job than the epicycle system then in vogue. This is because Galileo, among others, insisted that orbits were circular.
    ———————————-
    Galileo’s system was less than accurate and has since been supplanted, yes. That is how science is supposed to work. What the church did was to reject any affront to their doctrine – which was my point in comparing it to today’s hidebound climate science.

    In the future, try finding a better example. Galileo was challenging the current orthodoxy which in turn was based on the historical and then-current exigesis of an authoritative source – the Bible. Try reading Cardinal Bellarmine’s letter to Foscarini and you will see outright acknowledgement that there is a possibilty the heliocentric theory might prevail, but at present there was no evidence this was true. As I pointed out previously and you have studiously ignored. If Galileo was going to claim everyone else had it wrong, it was his duty as a scientist to provide empirical evidence of the superiority of his world view, not just that he had a prettier theory. This he could not do. Find yourself another poster-boy. Maybe Wegener would do.
    —————————–
    Galileo was not my example – I was referring to a post by Box of Rocks. Please try to keep up.

    My comparison of the Inquisition and contemporary climate science was apt because of the inflexibility of both, which you studiously ignore.

    And just as IPCC’s ARs are not an authoritative source on climate science, the bible is not an authoritative source on celestial mechanics.

    In future, try keeping religion outa science ;)

  71. Box of Rocks said:
    April 24, 2013 at 6:25 am
    Mark and two Cats says:
    April 23, 2013 at 6:28 pm

    Me thinks you need to update your smears to the 21st century….
    ——————————
    Climate science and the Inquisition are on about an equal footing – I need update nothing.

    And it ain’t a smear if it’s true!

  72. Neil Jordan says:

    It’s all consensus and no controversy in today’s California Water Plan eNews, which includes a link to a publication by NRDC and American Rivers that “provides strategies to deal with water-related effects of climate change”. Appendix I provides sample legislation. As others have noted, it’s models all the way down.

    http://www.nrdc.org/water/climate-smart/files/getting-climate-smart.pdf

    The eNews includes a link to a webinar to be presented on May 14, 2013:

    https://www3.gotomeeting.com/register/848222014

    The following are the first three paragraphs of the Executive Summary:
    [begin quote]
    Both 2011 and 2012 produced a record number of extreme weather events including floods, heat waves, droughts, fires and snowstorms. In 2011, 14 different extreme weather events resulted in damages of more than $1 billion each.1 That trend has shown no signs of abating. In 2012, scorching heat brought widespread drought to more than 65 percent of the country and contributed to raging wildfires in the West that burned more than 9.2 million acres.2,3 On top of that, the arrival of Superstorm Sandy in late October 2012 devastated communities along the northeastern seaboard with record-breaking storm surges and historic flooding. In the end, 2012 featured 11 billion-dollar extreme weather disasters, and it was the warmest year on record for the contiguous U.S. since record-keeping began in 1895.4

    Many extreme weather events as well as warmer temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, increasing ocean acidity and rising sea levels are expected to intensify as climate change continues. In turn, these changes are fundamentally altering our communities and natural resources by threatening public health, affecting water availability and energy production, putting vulnerable homes and infrastructure at risk and jeopardizing vital ecosystems. As carbon pollution continues to contribute to extreme weather, it is critical that states begin planning for a new “normal,” prioritizing climate preparedness in conjunction with improvements to disaster response and recovery.

    To address these challenges, many states have begun to take action to reduce the carbon pollu- tion that contributes to climate change and are beginning to prepare for potential climate impacts. More than 35 states have conducted some level of planning to reduce carbon pollution. Despite these and other efforts to reduce the release of heat-trapping pollutants, states already are experiencing the impacts of climate change and need to plan and prepare for the implications of increasingly warmer temperatures, changing precipitation patterns and rising seas. Only 10 states have developed comprehensive plans to prepare for these climate-related impacts.5 Remarkably, most other states are not planning and remain ill-prepared for the challenges that climate change presents.
    [end quote]

  73. D.J. Hawkins says:

    Mark and two Cats says:
    April 24, 2013 at 3:38 pm
    D.J. Hawkins said:
    April 24, 2013 at 10:43 am

    ……..
    —————————–
    Galileo was not my example – I was referring to a post by Box of Rocks. Please try to keep up.

    My comparison of the Inquisition and contemporary climate science was apt because of the inflexibility of both, which you studiously ignore.

    And just as IPCC’s ARs are not an authoritative source on climate science, the bible is not an authoritative source on celestial mechanics.

    In future, try keeping religion outa science ;)

    In failing to provide your own example, it’s logical to assume you were accepting the one provided by “Box of Rocks” and responding thereto. No backsies.

    The Bible is not NOW considered an authoritative source, but it was then. Your incapacity to understand the scientific framework of “then” vs “now” reveals a certain paucity of imagination.

    Again with the “inflexibility” meme. You tell me, what emperical evidence did Galileo present, other than his pretty MODEL. That’s right, none. It made celestial calculation easier but he had no proof, direct or indirect (see Focault again) that the sun was the center of the universe. Try setting aside your repugnance at the image of a feeble old man under house arrest for the remainder of his days and consider the exchange on the EVIDENCE. In contrast, dozens of researchers in climate science have provded EVIDENCE for their views. It may be right, wrong, incomplete or misinterpreted but they can point to some corner of the real world as bolstering their theories. Galileo…could…not. That is why, in this case, the Inquisition is not as guilty of inflexibility as the IPCC is.

    In future, try keeping logic in your discussion.

  74. D.J. Hawkins:

    Your post at April 24, 2013 at 4:36 pm could not be more wrong.

    Other than a rant it only says this

    You tell me, what emperical evidence did Galileo present, other than his pretty MODEL. That’s right, none. It made celestial calculation easier but he had no proof, direct or indirect (see Focault again) that the sun was the center of the universe. Try setting aside your repugnance at the image of a feeble old man under house arrest for the remainder of his days and consider the exchange on the EVIDENCE. In contrast, dozens of researchers in climate science have provded EVIDENCE for their views.

    Galileo showed that – by use of a telescope he had purchased in the local market – he could observe the moons of Jupiter orbiting Jupiter.

    This was direct empirical evidence that the Earth was not the center of the universe. And that was the point of dispute. He had used empirical evidence to show that part of the cosmos did not revolve around the Earth. The doctrine was that the cosmos revolved around the Earth. Whether or not the Earth revolved around the Sun was a supplementary point of little importance. Indeed, the movement of Jupiter’s moons was what Galileo meant when he famously said, “But they do move”.

    And scientists – then or now – don’t obtain “proof”. They obtain evidence from which they draw conclusions.

    No researcher has has provided any evidence for AGW. Santer claimed to have found some in the 1990s but his shenanigans was soon exposed. If you have some then publish it: you will certainly get a Nobel Prize for that!

    Richard

  75. D.J. Hawkins says:

    richardscourtney says:
    April 24, 2013 at 4:54 pm
    D.J. Hawkins:

    Your post at April 24, 2013 at 4:36 pm could not be more wrong.

    ……..Galileo showed that – by use of a telescope he had purchased in the local market – he could observe the moons of Jupiter orbiting Jupiter.

    This was direct empirical evidence that the Earth was not the center of the universe. And that was the point of dispute. He had used empirical evidence to show that part of the cosmos did not revolve around the Earth. The doctrine was that the cosmos revolved around the Earth. Whether or not the Earth revolved around the Sun was a supplementary point of little importance. Indeed, the movement of Jupiter’s moons was what Galileo meant when he famously said, “But they do move”.

    And scientists – then or now – don’t obtain “proof”. They obtain evidence from which they draw conclusions.

    No researcher has has provided any evidence for AGW. Santer claimed to have found some in the 1990s but his shenanigans was soon exposed. If you have some then publish it: you will certainly get a Nobel Prize for that!

    Richard

    You give too much credit to the discovery of the Galliean moons for crushing the concept of an Earth-centered cosmos. The Ptolemaic system used a series of epicycles to align theory with reality. As observations became more refined so did the epicycles. It was clumsy and we know now, wrong, but the concept of heavenly bodies orbiting a fixed point in space NOT THE EARTH was well accepted. I find your claim that whether the Earth revolved around the Sun was of “little importance” to be vastly amusing. You clearly don’t understand the controversy as it was framed at that time. And by the way, there’s no evidence for the claim he uttered the phrase “Eppur si muove”. It appears first in an account written 124 years after the fact, and in any event supposedly refered to the earth, not the moons of Jupiter. So you get a twofer; one myth and an erronius factiod in a single non-quote.

    I confess to the careless use of the word proof, although an especially keen observer might have noticed the word “evidence” in capitals – twice – shortly thereafter.

    On AGW, I had intended to highlight the efforts of the skeptical side of the debate in dealing with “the science is settled” attitude of the IPCC, but find it interesting that, in light of my unintentional ambiguity, you jumped to a conclusion opposite of what was intended. One that isn’t in fact supported by what I actually wrote, since I made no reference to either side of the debate.

  76. D.J. Hawkins said:
    April 24, 2013 at 4:36 pm
    You tell me, what emperical [sic] evidence did Galileo present, other than his pretty MODEL.
    ——————————-
    Again he inflexibly inserts the subject of Galileo’s evidence. I’ll spell it out for him again: I was lightheartedly comparing the methods of the Inquisition with those of climate science to quash dissent – I was making no statement about the validity of Galileo’s work – he keeps trying to change the subject.

    And when the bible was considered an authoritative source is immaterial: to consider it such at any time, within the sphere of science, is a fallacious argumentum ad auctoritatem.

    ” That is why, in this case, the Inquisition is not as guilty of inflexibility as the IPCC is.”

    heh :)

    Sorry I fed this tiresome troll folks.

  77. Mark and two Cats:

    At April 24, 2013 at 11:43 pm you say of D.J. Hawkins

    Sorry I fed this tiresome troll folks.

    Please also accept my apology for having made the same mistake.

    When D.J. Hawkins asked

    You tell me, what emperical evidence did Galileo present, other than his pretty MODEL. That’s right, none.

    I thought an answer to his question together with refutation of his other two falsehoods would resolve the issue.

    It didn’t. He changed the subjects and pretended he had said other than his own words; i.e. pure trolling.

    Until then I thought D.J. Hawkins had been misinformed so I did not recognise he was merely a troll. Sorry.

    Richard

  78. D. J. Hawkins says:

    @ Richard Courtney
    April 25, 2013 at 4:46 am

    Your “answer” was nothing of the sort. I noted in my rebuttal how Galileo’s observations of Jupiter’s moons didn’t bring anything new to the debate. Clearly you have a reading comprehension deficit or are being deliberately obtuse. Capping your answer with a myth doesn’t help your case either.

    “Proof” and “evidence” are unfortunately used interchangeably. The one to three ratio in that particular post might have suggested where my intent lay, but hey, if you want to count it as a “gotcha”, fine.

    Then your blather about AGW:

    No researcher has has provided any evidence for AGW. Santer claimed to have found some in the 1990s but his shenanigans was soon exposed. If you have some then publish it: you will certainly get a Nobel Prize for that!

    What did I actually write?

    In contrast, dozens of researchers in climate science have provded EVIDENCE for their views. It may be right, wrong, incomplete or misinterpreted but they can point to some corner of the real world as bolstering their theories.

    What phrase suggests support for the AGW meme? Do McIntyre, Eshenbach, and Tisdale do research in climate science? Do they look to empirical evidence to bolster their claims? Yep, I think they do. And for “wrong, incomplete or misinterpreted” could we point to Mann, Briffa, and Steig? Yes, we could. Your tirade exposes your incapacity to analyze what someone actually writes vs what you think (and I use that term loosely) they mean.

  79. Jules says:

    Why should the Belgian media pay attention to a lecture ? What’s the news value ? Especially when their “arguments” make little to no sense, often are internally inconsistent, or sometimes even are debunked by themselves ?

    http://jules-klimaat.blogspot.be/2013/04/belgian-climate-pseudo-skeptics-address.html

  80. Friends:

    I apologise that my apology for feeding the troll encouraged him.

    Richard

  81. D. J. Hawkins says:

    richardscourtney says:
    April 27, 2013 at 3:15 am
    Friends:

    I apologise that my apology for feeding the troll encouraged him.

    Richard

    Ah yes, deflection, the last refuge of incompetent debater (to mangle Samuel Johnson). Perhaps you would like a shoe, and a podium to pound it on?

Comments are closed.