Quick post, I’m in between sessions here in Washington DC.
Dr. Richard Lindzen just gave a keynote talk on climate sensitivity and the state of climate science. Here is the powerpoint below:
Powerpoint link, “hot off the press” so to speak, minutes old.
More later
Not bad, Mike. We might also consider re-conquering the emotional high ground that the enviro-whackos have captured, e.g.: The International Society for Progress and the Environment (TISPE). After all, it’s about more than climate, though that is the current focal point. A shorter name wouldn’t hurt, either. How about Eco-Progress International?
/Mr Lynn
Anyone here have experience organizing political groups? I have none, but would be willing to participate.
I have been very successful in getting the word out on Polywell Fusion and have had a hand (according to the researches who would know) in getting it funded.
Steps:
1. Set up a Google Alert on terms you would like to respond to
2. Make up a text file of standard responses including links (you can do this as you go along)
3. Make sure to always start your response with a comment about the piece posted.
Have at it.
It will not get you instant results. It took me about a year to have an effect. Keep grinding away. Enlist others. This blog (or another) could serve as a clearing house i.e. “an argument is getting hot at xxx blog, any one care to provide reenforcements?”
The fact that WUWT provides moderately moderated comments that are timely when the moderators are awake is very helpful.
Eventually some one will start a blog or a board focused on counter arguments. Topics might include Thermodynamics, Feedback, Data, Peer Review, etc. Such a place should be loosely moderated but membership only to keep out the spammers, rabid crazy warmists, etc.
Note to self – more sleep, more coffee, and don’t post in the morning anyway!]
Jim Masterson (08:00:59) :
>> Ric Werme (05:31:26) :
. . . and the net result is that the moon is slowing down. < I think you mean that the Earth’s rotation is slowing down. The basic principle is that angular momentum is conserved, so due to tidal friction on the Earth, the momentum of the Earth’s rotation is transferred to the momentum of the Moon’s revolution.> . . . until the sun expands into a red dwarf and destroys both. < Red dwarf stars are low mass, main sequence stars usually<
I can't believe I said red dwarf. I'm not even much of a fan of Red Dwarf! You're right of course, I meant to say red giant.
in the “M” spectral class range. (The Sun is main sequence, yellow dwarf star in the “G’ spectral class range—specifically G2.) You probably mean “red giant.” Stars, like the Sun, eventually leave the main sequence and enter the red giant phase when they start to fuse helium—also called the helium sequence. <
Milwaukee Bob (14:07:14) :
That’s about right. I started working on PDP-10s in 1969, the PDP-11 came out a year or two later, several OSes came out for it that we didn’t use at CMU. When I joined DEC in 1974 I quickly fell in with the RT-11 developers as maintained the PDP-10 they used for a lot of their work.
Here’s a good old mention from http://www.inwap.com/pdp10/jargon.html RSX-11 and RSTS are very unlike the PDP-10 Monitor, OS/8 is a PDP-8 OS I should’ve mentioned. The PDP-6 was the predecessor to the PDP-10.
PIP
/pip/ [Peripheral Interchange Program] vt.,obs. To copy; from the program PIP on CP/M, RSX-11, RSTS/E, and OS/8 (derived from a utility on the PDP-6) that was used for file copying (and in OS/8 and RT-11 for just about every other file operation you might want to do). It is said that when the program was originated, during the development of the PDP-6 in 1963, it was called ATLATL (`Anything, Lord, to Anything, Lord’).
Ric Werme (17:59:57) :
[Wow – that post got trashed something glitched during submission or from open angle brackets, let me try again, fortunately a copy was on my system]
[Note to self – more sleep, more coffee, and don’t post in the morning anyway!]
Jim Masterson (08:00:59) :
>> Ric Werme (05:31:26) :
. . . and the net result is that the moon is slowing down. <<
> I think you mean that the Earth’s rotation is slowing down. The basic principle is that angular momentum is conserved, so due to tidal friction on the Earth, the momentum of the Earth’s rotation is transferred to the momentum of the Moon’s revolution.<
I apologize for not being clear with units and concepts. The Moon has a fair amount of angular momentum due to its orbit around the Earth. Good grief, I’ve forgotten the formula, umm, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum is okay, proportional to distance times tangential component of linear momentum, and that’s where the vast majority of the angular momentum lives.
Let me give a better example of what I meant by energy transfer that boosts an orbit slowing things down.
Imagine a satellite in a circular orbit 10,000 miles (or Km) above the center of the Earth. Its potential energy (the energy it took to lift it up there) is one value, and its kinetic energy (the energy it has from zipping along at several miles (or Km) per second. Suppose we accelerate itquickly and enough so it’s in a new orbit, now with a low point (perigee) at 10,000 miles (I’ll skip the Km) and a high point (apogee) at 20,000 miles. The acceleration increased the KE and the satellite starts climbing. As it does, KE gets transferred to PE and the satellite slows down all the way up to 20,000 miles. At that point it’s going so slowly that it begins to fall back to the perigee and where the acceleration ended. However, suppose we accelerated it right at the apogee enough so it’s in a circular orbit at 20,000 miles. It turns out the satellite will still be going slower than at the lower orbit. A circular orbit is one where the acceleration downward due to gravity equals the centrifugal force. The former is Newton’sF = G x m1 x m2 / r^2 (force = gravitational constant times mass of Earth times mass of satellite divided by the square of the distance between them). The latter is F = 1/2 m x v^2 (force one half mass times the square of the velocity).
So doubling the radius of the orbit means we have 1/4th the gravitational force, and that means we need 1/2 the velocity.
So, bringing things back down to earth, err, up to the Moon, the Earth’s tidal bulge accelerates the Moon, and as the Moon spirals away the Moon will still approximate a circular orbit and it will slow down.
Hmm, orbital angular momentum would stay the same (twice the distance times half the speed), and that’s a problem because the Earth’s spin has to slow down. I guess the answer is that the Earth actually orbits the center of gravity (the barycenter) of the Earth/Moon system and that distance will increase for both Earth and Moon. The Earth is so close to the barycenter we might not be able to treat it as a point so I hope the Earth manages to gain some angular momentum due to the orbital motion. Please straighten me out if I’m confused.
Another wart is that tidal friction means that some of the Earth’s kinetic energy is getting turned into heat, so figuring out the end state through conservation of momentum would be the way to go.
>> . . . until the sun expands into a red dwarf and destroys both. <<
> Red dwarf stars are low mass, main sequence stars usually<
I can’t believe I said red dwarf. I’m not even much of a fan of Red Dwarf! You’re right of course, I meant to say red giant.
Sounds like a good idea for spreading the word, but I think what Mike D. and I were talking about was actually organizing groups of people, an organization (if not a movement) that would be able to exert political influence in favor of a Realist approach to issues of energy, climate, environment, and the future of humanity, an organization to counter the intense propaganda and lobbying of Alarmist organizations like Greenpeace, the WWF, etc.
Obviously there are groups or organizations today that promote Realist ideas and values (e.g. Heartland, or Fred Singer’s SEPP), but they seem small and scattered. I suspect that is because they do not market themselves to a broad membership base the way the enviros do. It is essential to promote such an organization with positive messages: not just that the Alarmists are wrong, but that we must band together to save civilization and yes, even “the planet,” from their destructive and anti-human, anti-ecological (plants including crops need ample CO2!) schemes.
The Alarmists have succeeded in painting skeptics and Realists as a small band of self-interested, greedy, flat-earthers. Well, turnabout is fair play. We can paint the Alarmists as head-in-the-sand Luddites and Marxists who are intent on taking us back to the Stone Age, putting a halt to the progress our children and grandchildren are entitled to expect.
The point is to get strong enough to inoculate world legislatures against the mad virus that has them careening toward a self-inflicted environmental and economic catastrophe. Given how short the time is, that will take some doing. The Alarmists have a big head start. And I have no real idea how to catch up. But I’ll bet there are some here who do.
/Mr Lynn
Not a fan of Red Dwarf?? Then there is truly something wrong with you! 😉
>> Ric Werme (18:41:24) :
Please straighten me out if I’m confused. <<
I don’t think I can. It’s too late.
Jim
Mr. Lynn and others interested in pursuing political organizing of environmental realist groups — please click on my name, examine my site, find the Contact applet, and contact me to begin private discussions.
That way we don’t veer WUWT into directions the host may not desire (on his site, at this time).
George E. Smith (09:58:50) :
I think Lucy spends too much time listening to Art Bell’s Dreamland program; along with Richard C Hoagland. I’d like a dollar for each time someone mentions hyperdimensional physics or zero point energy, or string theory.
I’ve never heard Art Bell’s programme. Actually most of my education recently has been on this website which I adore; I love hearing what you say George, and generally (not always) I agree with you. But I also like to think for myself.
I put those (provocative) remarks on this thread because I have enormous respect for Lindzen and I want to see decent Climate Science again: sometimes spiking the conversation brings in needed energy. Yes, how do we hit back as “climate realists” and keep integrity? NIPCC is an essential document. IMHO a skeptics’ climate science wiki would also help turn the tide. That’s also why I wrote my primer (under my name) and, George, if there’s anything there that’s not ok science by you, please let me know and I’ll change it until it’s ok with you. Hopefully it passes already.
Mr Lynn
Some weeks ago I suggested we need to do some better marketing/publicity in order to counter the prevailing AGW view which has a much wider currency than ours. A variety of people agreed and several ideas were given so that sceptic material would be picked up by say Google.
A good example of apparent lack of marketing was the first Heartland conference earlier this year. It got very little publicity, but whether that was because details were not sent out to the media in an adequate fashion, or it was ignored by them I can’t say. Probably the latter, but perhaps Anthony could comment.
I think it is up to us to counter misleading views when we come across them (say in a letter in our local newspaper or in an article) but that requires a situation whereby a scientifically literate response can be given.
Perhaps more important is that rather than just responding we need to take the intitaive and set the agenda ourselves so we are not always on the back foot. Again Heartland is attempting to do this with the release of the latest document (highlighted on another thread) but this organisation is not perceived as being an objective or credible organisation in the eyes of some media.
I think we need to be more proactive and put over our views in a more concerted manner, but to do that we need access to a resource of literate and credible material (WUWT amongst others) and a group of knowledgable people who can ensure that any crafted response (to say an article) does make scientific sense. This material then needs to be sent to key media in a planned campaign. (all this has time and resource implications!)
However it is easy to be smeared so it is essential that any such organisation distances itself from fringe groups, politically motivated viewpoints or vested interests.
Arguably this activity is something the Heartland institute does, but like it or not, as soon as that organisation is mentioned credibility is compromised in some peoples eyes.
There is also an important corrollary to the scientific arguement that we don’t tend to address adequately. I was part of a small Govt agency meeting yesterday (in the UK) which was dealing specifically with carbon reduction, where everyone just accepted the AGW hypotheses as factual.
Afterwards someone said when I made my views known ‘ but even if AGW is wrong there is no disbenefit to doing what it says we need to do as it will help man and the planet.’ So even if AGW is wrong it is right.
Saying our taxes will increase if we follow the current path when ‘the earth is in danger’ seems pretty mean spirited. So there is a scientific arguement AND a ‘moral’ arguement. Both are equally important, but I don’t think we discuss the ‘moral’ arguement enough.
Personally, I think Man has great difficulty in keeping more than one ball in the air at any one time, and whilst we focus on ‘fixing’ AGW (which doesn’t need fixing in the first place) there are far more important and urgent things that can be fixed that DO need fixing!
We need to be clearer as to what the ‘disbenefits’ of following the AGW agenda are, and ensure our arguement is well rounded -it isn’t just about the science in many activists minds-AGW is just the convenient banner-this is an environmental battle that would still be fought even if AGW was proven to be wrong.
Any suggestions from anyone as to what the counter arguements should be?
Once that is in place we can be more proactive in demolishing AGW from the safe vantage point of the scientific AND moral high ground.
Tonyb
Alan the Brit (01:48:44) :
Adam Soereg;-)
If we show that the surface temperature record is flawed, we remove THE most important card from the house, beacuse the satellite data show little or no warming in the lower troposphere
RSS (0.16 deg per decade) shows pretty much the same warming as the surface records. UAH (0.13 deg per decade) has a slightly lower (though not significantly different) warming trend, but the discrepancy appears to originate in the pre-1992 period when UAH temperatures were higher than RSS. Since 1992, UAH and RSS have virtually identical trends of +0.22 deg per decade, while the surface trends of 0.24 & 0.20 for GISS & Hadley respectively are also remarkably similar.
I agree with Pamela Gray. We need a something equivalent to a “tank” to counter the momentum the alarmist have achieved.
I say we need a “rock star”. Get a Brad or Angelina or Oprah in our corner.
I was at the conference. Snator Inhof had the most prescient comment: “.. the battle that is winnable is the “economic” one.” We have a narrow window at the moment to slow the momentum but but once the econmomy recovers (and it will) people will become guilty again and re engage the myth. The “science” argument is over everyone’s head. The avergae person has “trusted” sources for this and most beleive what Bryan, Katie and Charlie tell them.
We need a ROCK STAR and I didn’t see any at the conference.
>> John Finn (03:34:20) :
RSS (0.16 deg per decade) shows pretty much the same warming as the surface records. UAH (0.13 deg per decade) has a slightly lower (though not significantly different) warming trend, but the discrepancy appears to originate in the pre-1992 period when UAH temperatures were higher than RSS. Since 1992, UAH and RSS have virtually identical trends of +0.22 deg per decade, while the surface trends of 0.24 & 0.20 for GISS & Hadley respectively are also remarkably similar. <<
These numbers don’t support the GHG model. Using a standard GHG feedback model (similar to Dr. Lindzen’s), the atmosphere MUST warm faster than the surface. There is no leeway here. If the atmosphere doesn’t warm by at least 129% of the surface, then the surface warming isn’t caused by a GHG. If you also consider latent and sensible heat fluxes and how the atmosphere responds to GHGs by altering its upward-downward radiation ratio, then the atmosphere has to warm by at least 160% to 190% of the surface. This is a mandatory requirement of the model.
If you lower the albedo (make the planet darker), then the same model requires that the atmosphere only warm by about 70% to 90% of the surface. This, interestingly, is exactly what we see.
Notice that if you combine both effects (GHG and albedo), then the atmosphere warming is closer to 200% of the surface.
Jim
I agree, and have e-mailed you via your very interesting website. Anyone else reading this thread and interested, please do so as well, so we can begin to assemble a kernel of concerned folk.
How about, “The International Society for Progress and the Environment”?
Truer words were never spake. A friend was there as well, and reports:
“A most interesting conference, alas, preaching to the choir.”
The choir has to get MUCH bigger!
Was there any press? I haven’t seen any.
/Mr Lynn
TonyB (02:35:48) :
In my opinion the lack of publicity is due to the extreme right-wing slant that Heartland has (either perceived or real). Like Fox News, they are ridiculed over and over again for their sometimes silly views.
I’m a political fence-sitter. I think both major parties have something to offer, and a lot of baggage to get rid of. But since perception is reality, the perception in most of the media of Fox and Heartland isn’t good.
RE: Jim Masterson (06:26:09) :
Good point. Also noteworthy that the upward trend in the satellite record match the time period of positive PDO and AMO. Now that the positive phase of PDO has ended (too early to tell about AMO), the upward trend has stopped. In fact, May 2009 is reported in as .043 for UAH. Certainly the trend over 30 years is no basis for alarm! The 0.13 decadal trend is the result of an OLS process that is suspect where oscillations dominate.
John Finn,
I am not an atmoshperic scientist so thank you for the correction. I was merely using information written by atmospheric scientists that implied that the AGW signal would be seen in the lower troposphere above the tropics. If this is in correct then apologies!
AtB
How about the choir individually writing to the internationally influential London-published Financial Times which today, 4 June 2009, published the letter below headed:
“Climate study is open to criticism”
Published: June 4 2009 03:00 | Last updated: June 4 2009 03:00
From Prof David Henderson and Dr Benny Peiser.
Sir, Your report “Climate study counts human costs” (May 30) refers to “swiftly growing human costs”, while twin panels in the text refer to “300,000 lives lost each year” and an “annual cost to the global economy’ of $125bn”. Your report also quotes an assertion by Kofi Annan that “climate change is causing suffering to hundreds of millions worldwide”. These are remarkable statements, and the study has already been referred to by one leading expert, Professor Roger Pielke Jr, as being “worse than fiction, it is a lie”.
As in many other instances, there is no hint in your report that the alarming conclusions of this study might be open to question. On past experience any criticisms of the study, however well founded, will not be noticed in your columns.
This chronic bias is characteristic of all too many newspapers.
In the treatment of climate change issues, you owe your readers a higher standard of objectivity and concern for the truth.
David Henderson,
Westminster Business School.
Benny Peiser,
Cambridge Conference Network
Liverpool, UK”
The email address for the editor of the FT is letters.editor@ft.com and you should include your daytime telephone number and postal address.
Jeff Alberts
I agree-I was trying to be diplomatic 🙂
Organisations seen as extreme right wing (whether justified or not) tend to be easily dismissed because of a perceived ‘big business’ agenda, Its a shame as some of the Heartland stuff is good. What I was saying is that if any organisation got off the ground as a result of the exchanges here I would feel more comfortable for it to be apolitical, scientifcally based and to recognise there are wider environmental issues that appeal to people that AGW has highlighted.
Tonyb
“”” Lucy Skywalker (02:21:46) :
George E. Smith (09:58:50) :
I think Lucy spends too much time listening to Art Bell’s Dreamland program; along with Richard C Hoagland. I’d like a dollar for each time someone mentions hyperdimensional physics or zero point energy, or string theory.
I’ve never heard Art Bell’s programme. Actually most of my education recently has been on this website which I adore; I love hearing what you say George, and generally (not always) I agree with you. But I also like to think for myself.
I put those (provocative) remarks on this thread because I have enormous respect for Lindzen and I want to see decent Climate Science again: sometimes spiking the conversation brings in needed energy. Yes, how do we hit back as “climate realists” and keep integrity? NIPCC is an essential document. IMHO a skeptics’ climate science wiki would also help turn the tide. That’s also why I wrote my primer (under my name) and, George, if there’s anything there that’s not ok science by you, please let me know and I’ll change it until it’s ok with you. Hopefully it passes already. “””
Well My Dear Lucy; please accept that my comment was very much tongue in cheek; and no offense was intended. But if even a smidgeon was felt, then please accept my apology. It’s actually good to see you here rather than some of those other places, I ran across you and felt we were both wasting our time.
But “Hyperdimensional Physics” which seems to be a joint creation of Richard C. Hoagland and Dr Michio Kaku, is one of those red capes to El Toro, along with zero point energy. The nonsense that Maxwell’s four equations of electromagnetism, are actually just a subset of ten or eleven equations, and that suddenly each equation becomes synonymous with a physical “dimension”, six or seven of which are rolled up so tightly in the concept of string theory or some other neo-religious baloney; keeps me warm at night when I would otherwise freeze.
My understanding of zero point energy is very little, and some 50 years in the past; but I believe it relates to a quantum theory concept of Absolute Zero; where in classical Physics all motion would cease, there being no thermal energy to cause any; but in quantum mechanics some residual “zero point energy” persists even at absolute zero; and since it truly is absolute zero; that miniscule zero point energy is totally inaccessible; science fiction notwithstanding.
Another favorite of science fiction which may have more validity is the concept of the energy of the vaccuum; whereby particles (matter and anti-matter pairs) can simultaneously appear out of nowhere; and by inference a kaboodle of energy along with that. This of course is right up Anna V’s alley, rather than mine.
I believe the origin is the lesser known form of Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty (unbestimmheit (mit ein umlaut)) where the product of positional uncertainty, and momentum uncertainty (delt_p * delta _x) is greater than (h/2pi) where (h) is Planck’s constant. So we can never know exactly the position and momentum of even a single particle simultaneously; which means the laws of physics can not predict its future position and momentum better than a certain accuracy level.
In the alternative form the product is (delta_E * delta_t) ; energy times time.
This uncertainty evidently allows a certain amount of energy to suddenly appear out of nowhere; but maybe for only a brief instant of time.
I have often commented whimsically that the “big bang” was nothing more than the bottom end of the 1/f noise spectrum; so named because the noise amplitude increases inversely with the frequency; which is a problem because it implies that the noise can get infinite in amplitude at very low frequencies. Sanity returns, once we show that for any 1/f noise spectrum, the amount of energy in any frequency octave is a constant, so even though the amplitude may seem to increase without limit at low frequencies; the power does not, and in order to observe those larger and larger amplitudes, you have to wait a hell of a long time, so the apparent huge energy level is actually spread over that long time. And of course (so far as we know) the big bang only happened once; but it was a doozy when it happened.
So not to Worry Lucy; I was just taking advantage of the opportunity presented to yank your chain; but really I do still believe in Chivalry.
George
“”” peter_ga (16:31:49) :
George,
“Well how do you determine whether a feedback system is stable or unstable, if you remove time from the equations.”
Stability analysis involves recasting the equations to the frequency domain so time is factored out in effect. If I know my system is stable at all frequencies, then I know it is stable for all time. Ignoring time is the same as analyzing the system at a frequency of zero. Another way of looking at it is to “open the loop” and analyze that system. If the loop gain at any frequency has a magnitude greater than unity when its phase shift is 180 degrees, then the system is unstable. This rule is completely different if the loop feedback sign is positive rather than negative, and trying to invert it hurts my brain. This is how they developed radar controlled anti-aircraft guns in WW2 thereby winning that conflict.
Looking at the OT problem, consider the “feedback factor” which is the negative of the loop gain. To put time in, analyze this factor at all frequencies. If at any frequency, it has a phase shift of zero (rather than 180) and a magnitude of unity or greater, then it is unstable.
So ignoring time is OK, but inverting the feedback sign is not, even if Hansen has done it already. He probably did it to confuse everyone. “””
Well Peter I made the mistake of assuming (there’s that word) that the cognoscenti would understand that frequency and time (period) are just two aspects of the same thing. You can do the analysis in the frequency domain or in the time domain as you wish.
As I grew up in the Tektronix Academy where frequency was regarded as a mental aberration; it was not to be used in technical discussions of Oscilloscope circuitry. It was of course Tektronix who first built an oscilloscope, with that radical idea of a triggered Timebase, which was calibrated to read cm/second rather than frequency of a free running; and not too damn linear “horiontal deflection”.
When Tektronix first introduced their model 511 oscilloscope in 1947, an early visitor to their show booth was an old geezer who stayed for hours all through the show, playing with the knobs, and saying nothing.
Finally at the show’s conclusion, Howard Vollum, one of Tek’s two founders approached this geezer and asked him what he thought of the instrument. Well it is quite fancy said the visitor; but nobody will ever pay $1000 for an oscilloscope.
That old geezer was Allen B. Dumont; who had just witnessed the instant demise of his whole oscilloscope universe. No-one serious, would ever again buy a scope with a horizontal fequency knob on it; or one without a vertical amplifier not calibrated in Volts per cm, instead of a variable gain pot.
Tek’s shunning of the frequency domain eventually got to bite them in the butt; when Hewlettt Packard introduced a one GHz sampling oscilloscope; with a sampling head that was designed by Microwave engineers, in the Frequency Domain, in the form of a Microwave Magic Tee, that completely bamboozled the Tek engineers; who ultimately came to respect what those HP guys had done. Frequency is no longer a swear word at Tektronix; who never theless still make the best Oscilloscopes.
I’m kind of partial to the old model 547; the first Horizontal Sweep Switching Oscilloscope. I designed that first Horizontal sweep switching circuitry; although I did not invent the concept; we were already doing alternate and chopped vertical signal switching anyway.
So frequency domain or time domain; you still need to know the dynamic response of the feedback circuitry to know whether you have an oscillator or an amplifier.
And if their really was a feedback going on in the greenhouse climate system; it most assuredly would be an oscillator and not an amplifier.
Maybe somebody should sketch the Pole/Zero plot for a typical atmospheric GHG feedback model. But I think that would just terrorize the Gavin Schmidts of the world.
Believe me; water vapor can do all the feedback it wants to; sans CO2 to set it off.
George
As for winning WW-II with radar controlled anti-aircraft guns; the Germans are believed to have fired 5000 rounds out of those mighty 88s, for evey B-17 they brought down with flak.
Far more important was the Proximity fuze, which the US Navy developed, and only belatedly allowed the US Army, and the British to have. Neither Germany or Japan ever caught on; or the war’s outcome could have been a whole lot different. It was used with devastating effect in the battle of the bulge.
TonyB (02:35:48) :
I agree entirely that the Realist (vs. AGW) viewpoint requires much better marketing than it has heretofore received.
And yes,
As for the ability of a Realist organization to distance “fringe groups, politically motivated viewpoints or vested interests,” as you put it, that’s a complex matter.
First, you have to realize that any anti-AGW movement is going to be slandered as ‘fringe’, made up of ‘kooks’, allied with ‘greedy oil and coal interests’, ‘crackpot science’, and so on, and so forth. Yes, it’s vitally important to establish scientific bona fides, but you know how easily those are dismissed by the AGW orthodoxy (‘not peer reviewed’, meaning by the correct peers). The objective has to be to gain public credibility, and that’s where the marketing comes in, because as Senator Inhofe said (above), the science is over most people’s heads.
Second, because AGW has become a political issue more than a scientific one, the AGW crusade has be stopped in the halls of Congress and Parliament, and that means some kind of political action. You may be able to avoid identifying with other issues (social questions, foreign affairs, etc.), but there’s one you can’t dodge, and that’s the economy. The ‘remedies’ that the Alarmists propose are all top-down, statist measures, and the way to combat them in the public mind is to emphasize how much they will curtail economic growth and individual freedom.
Notice, BTW, that the Alarmists’ affiliations with extreme leftwing ‘fringe’ groups and with avowedly leftwing and socialist political parties has done nothing to marginalize them or damage their effectiveness. The reason is that, as you point out, they have taken the moral high ground, with rhetoric like “Saving the planet.”
You are absolutely right that we have to recapture the moral high ground. I think the way to do this is not by shouting “Fire!” in the theater, as the Alarmists do, but by shouting “Water! Quick!” The lesson has to be:
What the Alarmists want to do, with or without good intentions, is to stop Civilization and Progress in their tracks. But economic growth, which means cheap and abundant energy, is essential for progress, and contrary to the Alarmists, the CO2 that might produce is good, good for plants, good for the Earth, and good for you. They offer a dead and dying Earth, with everyone cowering in fear; we promise a bright future of development for all people on the planet, a planet of beautiful cities and fields and gardens, fueled by abundant energy.
That’s the form the debate should take, as I see it.
Anyone interested in a Realist organization, and in discussing these ideas further, please go to MikeD’s website,
http://westinstenv.org/ and click on the Contact link.
Apologies to Anthony if this is going to far afield, but TonyB raised important questions, I hope of some general interest.
/Mr Lynn
George E. Smith (16:10:12) :
> … Tektronix; who never the less still make the best Oscilloscopes.
Indeed. Do they still have fun with the schematics? I haven’t had the need (damn things never break) to look at many, but I remember things like a cartoon figure of a washerwoman cleaning the display tube, probably a school bus traveling along a wiring bus, amusing stuff like that.
> Maybe somebody should sketch the Pole/Zero plot for a typical atmospheric GHG feedback model. But I think that would just terrorize the Gavin Schmidts of the world.
One could build a case that climate systems analysis is too important to be left to the climatologists and should be given to the engineers. 🙂
Almost thirty years ago we had a very large earthquake (6.9 richter) about 70 km as the crow flies from Athens. This had not happened since 1928 , and in the time between, Athens had become a huge city with a lot of badly built houses, many of them illegally, i.e. without submitted and approved city planning.
The whole place became an upturned ant hive. For about a month it was like living on a shaking tree from the aftershocks, and for a long time after that people were sensitized to earth quakes. This means that every scientist and his cousin became amateur seismologists.
And this is where the connection comes with PR and AGW. A young physics instructor measured the tellurian currents , these are earth currents that are observed to change during quakes, and decided he could predict the next quakes.
The media took off on it, his politics was with the governement of the time so he got his grants, and the whole thing took off.
No matter if scientists pointed to statistics, statistical errors in space and time : predictions take a third of Greece, and Greece is a quake prone area, and 2 sigma on a 1 richter scale error is within everyday shakes, etc. etc. Science could not convince the feeling that pushed the research and the desire of the public to have a prophet. Even now, the group comes up with @ur momisugly#$%^ predictions with three month sigma and a third of the greek land as target, and they still get publicity, though they have cried wolf too often.
It is similar with AGW. It will be like Hydra, unless the gods are good to us and the icebergs start moving . Can you hear them creaking?