Related to our story on the US Chamber of Commerce challenging the EPA on CO2, we asked this question:
Do you support the idea of putting “global warming” on trial with the EPA?
After getting over 2200 responses over two days, I’ve closed the poll. Here are the results:
REPLY: There is an effect from Co2, but it is logarithmic, and we’ve very nearly hit the plateau. See this graphic:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/co2_temperature_curve_saturation.png
The blue circles are where the Mauna Loa Co2 record is overlaid. – Anthony
wattsupwiththat (15:04:14) :
Tamino is projecting his anger at me because Lucia is kicking his butt here…
__________________________________________________________
Forgive the hybrid quote, but they were juxtaposed.
I’m really not surprised that Tamino (et al.) project their anger at WUWT. I’m sure that entire governments are using WUWT to get real information to shape policy. They don’t get that from his site or RealClimate, and I’m sure the policy makers are cognizant of that fact that dissenting comments are not addressed scientifically (because they can’t), but simply deleted, thereby inspiring a total lack of confidence in their sites.
I went over to RealClimate the other day to check out a link on here to the Monbiot/Plimer argument. Plimer had asked Monbiot a question requiring an answer with numbers in it. Gavin’s response was that Plimer’s question was full of syntax errors (my interpretation). This was then followed by a plethora of similar comments (which looked as if, as with Monbiot’s blog, many were written by the same person) expressing adulation, and thanks to Gavin for what a brilliant scientist Gavin was for dealing scientifically with Plimer’s question. What a crock.
Regarding the CO2 saturation curve, which really is the stake in the heart of CO2-induced global warming theory (both GW and AGW), what is the full link, and is there a similar graph where the effects of various levels of water vapor on the curve are shown ??
REPLY: I’ll have a post on that graph in a few days, patience. – Anthony
The British Government that already adopted one of the hardest climate legislation in the world is not taken seriously by it’s population. The people question the objectives behind the Government Policies.
A similar process is taking place in the USA.
Hopefully the US Senate will block the Waxman Bill and Cap & Trade because it’s more damaging to the economy than any Climate Change.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/08/perfect_storm_public_attitudes.html
I applaud the vote, and look forward to the trial. That way, Americans everywhere can hear 1st hand what both sides are saying, and decide for themselves. After which I expect this to hit the fan harder than HealthCare. Congress phones will be ringing off the hook and email filled to the top.
TerryS
I cannot foresee a trial where officers of the court break down the doors of CRU to confiscate servers at CRU to get Phil Jones raw data. The US congress did not have much success during the hockey stick proceedings and FOIA requests don’t seem to be going anywhere under existing law. It’s a dream to think a trial would even put a dent in AGW inertia. While we are all arguing about this on the Blogs our children from ages 4 thru college are being indoctrinated to the plight of polar bears and how bad CO2 is. 15 years from now it won’t matter that the data differs from the models, the liberal ruling class and their voters won’t care.
Thanks
William
Right-oh! The discovery process would cut straight through much of the bluster, evasion, and fabrication that Steve McIntyre has so thoroughly documented in his quests for data/code.
Tree-rings might finally be revealed as total crud temp-proxies.
The other delightful aspect of an adjudicated trial would be the requirement of testimony, under oath, with penalty of PERJURY.
Wouldn’t it be splendid to pose questions about “lost” correspondence and e-mails among the IPCC teams? With follow-up questions about soto-voce communications among green NGO’s, lefty 527’s, and some in the warmist “research community”.
How, exactly, did Jim Hansen (a USGovt employee of NASA) qualify for and accept that $250K from Teresa Heinz-Kerry’s political/ketchup foundation without violating conflict-of-interest regulations?
The list is endless and would make LARGE theater! This time the seat-squirming and flop-sweat would be real in an A/C’ed room (not contrived heat by Tim Wirth). Bring it on!
em butler (17:18:05) :
in the previous darwin trial , science lost..
Formally yes, substantively no. I’ll accept a formal loss in exchange for a substantive gain. We’re going to get the formal loss regardless.
==========
Incidentally, here is a tenth item for my long post above: The trial’s proceeding needn’t be open to the public. Upon conclusion, a written transcript would be posted.
Mr. Lynn: Thanks for your pat on the back in the earlier thread.
The vote was a lot closer then I would have expected.
Here are some standards on whether scientific evidence is admissable in a court of law:
1. Empirical testing: the theory or technique must be falsifiable, refutable, and testable.
2. Subjected to peer review and publication.
3. Known or potential error rate and the existence
4. The existence and maintenance of standards and controls concerning its operation.
5. Degree to which the theory and technique is generally accepted by a relevant scientific community.
It would be interesting to see what evidence the skeptic side could muster which passes all these tests.
After digging into the science and doing some calculations myself (plus reading the pro and con sites), I am not convinced there has been as much warming as claimed during the last century.
Actually, it surprised me to find that even the amount of global warming may be questionable. My personal “leisure time” science project is to see if I can convince myself I am right or wrong about that.
Be that as it may, much of the catastrophic AGW CO2 argument depends on a fraction of a degree of “excess” warming during the last 100 years that is said to have occurred — but, may not have occurred. So, to me, the reality of “some” AGW due to CO2 is questionable — despite the science being “plausible”.
Anyhow, “scam” seems to be a good one word description of the overall AGW movement — if “scam” means taking peoples’ money under false pretenses.
Michael Hauber,
In Science, the burden of proof is not on the skeptic, rather it is on those who make the claims or propose the theory.
The AGW side has the “theory” or claim which says mankind is causing catastrophic climate change — it is their burden to prove it to an unbiased “jury”. Skeptics need do no more than express skepticism.
The real issue is — how does one find a genuinely unbiased jury of Scientists.
philincalifornia (17:37:21) :
REPLY: I’ll have a post on that graph in a few days, patience. – Anthony
Thanks Anthony. I look forward to it, as I’m sure do many.
wattsupwiththat (15:04:14) : “Tamino is projecting his anger at me because Lucia is kicking his butt here… http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/two-box-models-the-2nd-law-of-thermodynamics/…and he can’t find a way out.”
Mike Abbott (15:08:58) :”He did find a way out. He banned her from his board!” http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/22/constant/
I hate to inform you dude, but banning someone with significant intellect such as hers, is quite a far, far stretch from being “a way out.”
It’s what we call in the south…a “weasel out.”
He’s not man enough to combat her, fairly??
So he he just deletes her.
What a man!
Anybody can deliver a below the belt kick where it counts.
The game is played fairer here.
Anthony is right: He can’t find a way out.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
William (17:54:07) :
TerryS
I cannot foresee a trial where officers of the court break down the doors of CRU to confiscate servers at CRU to get Phil Jones raw data. The US congress did not have much success during the hockey stick proceedings and FOIA requests don’t seem to be going anywhere under existing law. It’s a dream to think a trial would even put a dent in AGW inertia. While we are all arguing about this on the Blogs our children from ages 4 thru college are being indoctrinated to the plight of polar bears and how bad CO2 is. 15 years from now it won’t matter that the data differs from the models, the liberal ruling class and their voters won’t care.
Thanks
William
—————————————-
William, they don’t have to break down the doors. A competent plaintiff’s attorney can force them to produce the documents, along with all e-mails, etc. (I’ve been there, done that).
Also, don’t worry about the children … they’ve been indoctrinated genetically to avoid snakes, spiders, crocodiles and frauds. I think they will surprise you.
Clarification….just in case someone misreads:
“Anthony is right: He [Tamino] can’t find a way out.”
wattsupwiththat (14:32:15) : “It would never happen at RC, they aren’t really interested in the broad opinion of their readers, only the narrow one, which is why they routinely censor comments from many individuals, including me.”
Mike Abbott (14:49:03) : “By the way, Tamino took a shot at WUWT readers today in a post titled “Loony Bin.” He concludes his post with: But the comments to that post are — well, right out of the loony bin. Read a few if you’re up for a good laugh, but be careful … you could feel your I.Q. dropping.”
While most of us could care less about juvenile, below-the-belt comments like the one you quoted…
…your inability to address Anthony’s remarks about him being censored from RC [even though you post it like you are addressing it], and following it with this laughable quote…says one thing:
You have nothing really to say or address.
Yet Anthony, being the good sport he is, allows you to blather on anyway.
Who takes the higher road here??
Meanwhile….back to the subject at hand: The Chamber of Commerce [private] vs. EPA [Big Brother].
Give ’em hell!!
It is going to be really difficult to disprove the AGW case.
They have an answer/an adjustment to the historical data for every problem, for every mistake. The entire science has based from the ground-up to arrive at a result of 3.0C per doubling and anyone who has questioned that has been drummed out of the funding sources / out of the journal publication privileges.
Even the actual temperature records we are relying on have been adjusted to come as close as possible in terms of justifiable adjustment ranges to arrive at 3.0C per doubling.
The issue comes down to – is it really warmer? How much? Let’s go back to the original raw temperature records again. Let’s find out if crops could have been grown in marginal areas if it was, indeed, 0.7C lower. How much did Albedo really change during the ice ages – Was it really so small that it had little effect despite 30% of the planet being iced over? How come noone has a climate model that predicts a lower sensitivity range and how come the models always over-predict the actual temperature rise in forecasts but are so accurate in hindcasts? At the end of the day, is it really warmer. Why has the climate changed so little that we can’t even see any “unadjusted” evidence for it?
Gene Nemetz,
look on the “gift” page and see if the same gift is shown on more than one square. Is that the one that is selected for regifting??
Now, why would only those squares be selected through the formulae???
Dave Wendt,
Please let me in on what 9’s have to do with it???
What if we lose?
Just The Facts (15:31:18) :
“Eventually this will probably work its way to the Supreme Court. Taking the long view of things, we can’t lose, the facts are on our side.”
Been there……Done that…….Lost!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/02/AR2007040200487.html
Deborah (15:00:45) :
The above is a WMD.
William (17:54:07) :
“I cannot foresee a trial where officers of the court break down the doors of CRU to confiscate servers at CRU to get Phil Jones raw data. The US congress did not have much success during the hockey stick proceedings and FOIA requests don’t seem to be going anywhere under existing law. It’s a dream to think a trial would even put a dent in AGW inertia. While we are all arguing about this on the Blogs our children from ages 4 thru college are being indoctrinated to the plight of polar bears and how bad CO2 is. 15 years from now it won’t matter that the data differs from the models, the liberal ruling class and their voters won’t care.
Thanks
William”
In the information age it is very hard to keep the truth hidden for long. The difference between politicians and judges is that most judges still have honor. Judges expect you to respond accurately and completely to discovery requests and if you fail to obey their orders, they can issue an adverse inference ruling against you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_inference
It sucks to be on the receiving end of an adverse inference ruling:
http://www.fulcruminquiry.com/Morgan_Stanley_Ruling.htm
I’m not too worried about the green/liberal indoctrination that the kids are getting. Once the facts become apparent, and Al Gore is arrested for perjury, the Green sheen should wear off quite quickly…
D. King (20:25:09) :
“Been there……Done that…….Lost!”
But you are focused on a singular event. Might the Chamber’s effort fail in the Supreme Court, possibly. Might Justice Kennedy be swayed by well reasoned logic, also possible. Will the process help us to discover valuable information, force various liars to testify under oath and increase communication of the facts to the public, almost certainly. The long view may time and there will be losses along the way, but in the end the facts will prevail.
Bill Illis (20:13:08) :
“It is going to be really difficult to disprove the AGW case.”
Ummm…even if Mother Earth continues to drop in temp despite the increase of atmospheric CO2? Sounds like a Perry Mason moment to me!
kuhnkat (20:14:42) :
If you subtract the sum of the digits of any integer over nine from the integer the result will always be divisible by nine. If you check the chart all factors of nine show the same gift.
BTW, there are quite a number of these tricks out there. The number theory geeks seem to get a rush out of dreaming up new ones and unlike in climatology the”forcing” always works, at least if you do it right.
Surely you mean “couldn’t” care less…
Just The Facts (21:27:29) :
…Might the Chamber’s
Might Justice Kennedy
Will the process help us to discover valuable information…
All good questions.
“The Chamber is myopic when it comes to immigration,
so they’re suspect. I wouldn’t put it past them to be on
the take. There is simply too much at stake.”
Look, I’m with you on this, I just think a better approach
would be to surgically remove the key pieces; one at a time.
I do not trust the Chamber!