UPDATED: This opinion piece from Professor Henrik Svensmark was published September 9th in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Originally the translation was from Google translation with some post translation cleanup of jumbled words or phrases by myself. Now as of Sept 12, the translation is by Nigel Calder. Hat tip to Carsten Arnholm of Norway for bringing this to my attention and especially for translation facilitation by Ágúst H Bjarnason – Anthony
Translation approved by Henrik Svensmark
While the Sun sleeps
Henrik Svensmark, Professor, Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen
“In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable,” writes Henrik Svensmark.
The star that keeps us alive has, over the last few years, been almost free of sunspots, which are the usual signs of the Sun’s magnetic activity. Last week [4 September 2009] the scientific team behind the satellite SOHO (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) reported, “It is likely that the current year’s number of blank days will be the longest in about 100 years.” Everything indicates that the Sun is going into some kind of hibernation, and the obvious question is what significance that has for us on Earth.
If you ask the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which represents the current consensus on climate change, the answer is a reassuring “nothing”. But history and recent research suggest that is probably completely wrong. Why? Let’s take a closer look.
Solar activity has always varied. Around the year 1000, we had a period of very high solar activity, which coincided with the Medieval Warm Period. It was a time when frosts in May were almost unknown – a matter of great importance for a good harvest. Vikings settled in Greenland and explored the coast of North America. On the whole it was a good time. For example, China’s population doubled in this period.
But after about 1300 solar activity declined and the world began to get colder. It was the beginning of the episode we now call the Little Ice Age. In this cold time, all the Viking settlements in Greenland disappeared. Sweden surprised Denmark by marching across the ice, and in London the Thames froze repeatedly. But more serious were the long periods of crop failures, which resulted in poorly nourished populations, reduced in Europe by about 30 per cent because of disease and hunger.
It’s important to realise that the Little Ice Age was a global event. It ended in the late 19th Century and was followed by increasing solar activity. Over the past 50 years solar activity has been at its highest since the medieval warmth of 1000 years ago. But now it appears that the Sun has changed again, and is returning towards what solar scientists call a “grand minimum” such as we saw in the Little Ice Age.
The match between solar activity and climate through the ages is sometimes explained away as coincidence. Yet it turns out that, almost no matter when you look and not just in the last 1000 years, there is a link. Solar activity has repeatedly fluctuated between high and low during the past 10,000 years. In fact the Sun spent about 17 per cent of those 10,000 years in a sleeping mode, with a cooling Earth the result.
You may wonder why the international climate panel IPCC does not believe that the Sun’s changing activity affects the climate. The reason is that it considers only changes in solar radiation. That would be the simplest way for the Sun to change the climate – a bit like turning up and down the brightness of a light bulb.
Satellite measurements have shown that the variations of solar radiation are too small to explain climate change. But the panel has closed its eyes to another, much more powerful way for the Sun to affect Earth’s climate. In 1996 we discovered a surprising influence of the Sun – its impact on Earth’s cloud cover. High-energy accelerated particles coming from exploded stars, the cosmic rays, help to form clouds.
When the Sun is active, its magnetic field is better at shielding us against the cosmic rays coming from outer space, before they reach our planet. By regulating the Earth’s cloud cover, the Sun can turn the temperature up and down. High solar activity means fewer clouds and and a warmer world. Low solar activity and poorer shielding against cosmic rays result in increased cloud cover and hence a cooling. As the Sun’s magnetism doubled in strength during the 20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large part of global warming seen then.
That also explains why most climate scientists try to ignore this possibility. It does not favour their idea that the 20th century temperature rise was mainly due to human emissions of CO2. If the Sun provoked a significant part of warming in the 20th Century, then the contribution by CO2 must necessarily be smaller.
Ever since we put forward our theory in 1996, it has been subjected to very sharp criticism, which is normal in science.
First it was said that a link between clouds and solar activity could not be correct, because no physical mechanism was known. But in 2006, after many years of work, we completed experiments at DTU Space that demonstrated the existence of a physical mechanism. The cosmic rays help to form aerosols, which are the seeds for cloud formation.
Then came the criticism that the mechanism we found in the laboratory could not work in the real atmosphere, and therefore had no practical significance. We have just rejected that criticism emphatically.
It turns out that the Sun itself performs what might be called natural experiments. Giant solar eruptions can cause the cosmic ray intensity on earth to dive suddenly over a few days. In the days following an eruption, cloud cover can fall by about 4 per cent. And the amount of liquid water in cloud droplets is reduced by almost 7 per cent. Here is a very large effect – indeed so great that in popular terms the Earth’s clouds originate in space.
So we have watched the Sun’s magnetic activity with increasing concern, since it began to wane in the mid-1990s.
That the Sun might now fall asleep in a deep minimum was suggested by solar scientists at a meeting in Kiruna in Sweden two years ago. So when Nigel Calder and I updated our book The Chilling Stars, we wrote a little provocatively that “we are advising our friends to enjoy global warming while it lasts.”
In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. Mojib Latif from the University of Kiel argued at the recent UN World Climate Conference in Geneva that the cooling may continue through the next 10 to 20 years. His explanation was a natural change in the North Atlantic circulation, not in solar activity. But no matter how you interpret them, natural variations in climate are making a comeback.
The outcome may be that the Sun itself will demonstrate its importance for climate and so challenge the theories of global warming. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable. A forecast saying it may be either warmer or colder for 50 years is not very useful, and science is not yet able to predict solar activity.
So in many ways we stand at a crossroads. The near future will be extremely interesting. I think it is important to accept that Nature pays no heed to what we humans think about it. Will the greenhouse theory survive a significant cooling of the Earth? Not in its current dominant form. Unfortunately, tomorrow’s climate challenges will be quite different from the greenhouse theory’s predictions. Perhaps it will become fashionable again to investigate the Sun’s impact on our climate.
–
Professor Henrik Svensmark is director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at DTU Space. His book The Chilling Stars has also been published in Danish as Klima og Kosmos Gads Forlag, DK ISBN 9788712043508)
Sponsored IT training links:
Interested in CISA certification? We offer complete collection of dumps questions to successfully pass NS0-163 and 642-566 exam.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
E.M.Smith (11:46:19) :
Ought not that to be: PV=nRT ? (I always remembered it as PivNert…)
Let’s do it per mole …
E.M.Smith (11:19:39) “So the basic point is that there is an AHI effect and it is most pronounced on days with clear sky and low wind.”
Clear windless nights (not daytime) …unless you have other material?
Thanks for the note. With sky condition info it should be possible to filter the bias off TMin. However, I would not trust that the generalization holds for all seasons & locations. (For example, continental vs. coastal sites; sites near valleys that (seasonally & bistably) alternately blast cold air & then warm moist air; etc… but the example you provide gets the ball rolling w.r.t. what types of things to probe re AHI.)
Joel Shore (18:49:29) :
“…what is known about nonlinear systems is that applying a forcing to them makes it more likely that one will induce such a shift. This is the whole concept of tipping points. Of course, climate skeptics generally don’t believe in tipping points because they don’t like science that would argue for the necessity to constrain our emissions. Better to believe that the only way the climate can flip suddenly is completely spontaneously and so there is nothing we can do about it.”
Joel: How would you react if I were to say the following:
If (hypothetically) it were proved beyond any doubt, to everyone’s satisfaction, that anthropogenic CO2 and other emissions had no effect at all on global climate, then how much should the current global political plans to cut emissions be changed? My answer – hardly at all. (Maybe the extravagent percentage targets should be more realistic, but thats about it.) There are many good reasons to reduce gaseous pollution, such as local air quality and related health issues, resource management, the environment etc.
I see this as a scientific debate, not political. It is deeply wrong that it has become political. As so often there is needless polarisation. Sceptics do not necessarily delight in endless pollution (like Soviet era planners with the slogan “smoke means socialism”). And I daresay warmists are not necessarily driven by a desire to take dictatorial control of countries and economies.
Lets limit pollution. And lets also have unconstrained scientific research and debate into climate change (which is intrinsic and continuous). There is no need for entanglement of the two.
The lynching and marginalizaion of AGW-sceptic scientists and media workers is an utter disgrace and a historic travesty of democracy and civil and liberal society. And the distortion of the scientific process to force it to prove global warming has damaged science itself hugely.
It’s worth noting that countries in which global warming activism is strongest are those with greater levels of economic division and class resentment, such as Britain. Class hatred is the animus which energises much global warming politics, thus the disproportionate focus on targeting air travel seen as linked to wealth. The same is true about activism against nuclear power, animal research and transgenic technology – scientists “talk posh” and are on the wrong side – any opportunity to punish them is eagerly taken. These people are expoliting you and they wont thank you – in their eyes you and I are on the same side of the line.
Re: Phlogiston (19:22:57)
It’s nice to see a sensible perspective.
So there are just two options? one where we mix certainty with uncertainty with action, and the other where we notice the uncertainty and decide we know nothing and never act?
I happen to be reading Taleb’s The Black Swan at the moment, where he is discussing this issue. IIRC, he is advocating a practical approach to uncertainty, ie. something we can use. The problem remains, history is full of examples where experts vastly underestimated uncertainty, real world examples of disasters.
Nevertheless, objective real knowledge is possible. But, because you never know what new thing might turn up that is completely outside your vast and expert data gained from careful study and experience, including the vast experience of all your colleagues and the entire institutions themselves, it remains that it is easier to prove something wrong than it is to prove it right. One reason it is so hard to prove something right, isn’t just the threat of unknown unknowns popping up and “surprising us”, it is also that as human beings we appear to be hard wired to invent stories. It is harder to not invent stories than it is to invent them. This also implies that it is harder to be a skeptic than it is to not be a skeptic.
It is harder to withhold judgement on something, and to continue to keep an open mind to alternatives. We are wired to conclude that one lion ate a person and therefore every lion will eat people. But the world today is far more complex, and quick or wide judgments don’t serve us when faced with complex systems which can suddenly change in all sorts of ways we haven’t imagined. And yet, this doesn’t mean that objective correct knowledge is impossible, but it does mean that we have to be skeptical if we are to survive.
It is as if there is a tipping point in our minds, where just a bit of data, tips us into a different state where we believe we have the only true and correct story (or if you couch it in sciency terms, the “most likely”). This confirmation bias is inherent to our makeup. What we really need skepticism to “adjust” for it.
Once we have formed a pattern or story in our mind, it is very easy to look at historical data and “explain” it. We looked at the rise in temperature over the 20th century and explained it. If the idea of greenhouse gasses hadn’t been around, we could have “explained” it in a different way. Like for example, the heating after the 800 year lag is explained as being due to CO2, ie. only in the parts where CO2 is rising. Obvious, innit? If CO2 rises with temperature, that confirms the theory (or in sciency terms, is “consistent”). But it is faulty (as in wrong) logic. Similarly, Taleb explains how the sighting of a red mini confirms that swans are white. Follow it, it makes sense!
But you know, all this talk about confirmation bias is just too damned inconvenient for most people to bother with.
All true experts agree anyway, what more confirmation do you want! Let’s add a few more vocal experts-in-agreement. That’ll add additional “consistency”. Look, Ghandi preaches non-violence; Ghandi confirms global warming!
Skepticism makes everyone’s job harder. It reminds us that the truth is more elusive. It infuriates people. But hey, it should mean there’s a case for more research and more funding, non?
Phlogiston:
Well, I am happy to hear you say that you think greenhouse gas emissions should be cut regardless, but that certainly would not be a popular view on this site. Most people here seem to think there should be no restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions and are strongly opposed to current legislation or international negotiations to impose such emissions restrictions.
And, to be honest, I don’t think you can directly justify cuts in CO2 in terms of air quality and health issues (at least those unrelated to climate change or ocean acidification). Certainly, using less fossil fuels will result in less other pollutants…But, there are other ways to cut back on these pollutants without reducing our use of fossil fuels. The difference between traditional pollutants and CO2 is that the latter is a product of even ideal, perfectly-clean combustion whereas the former are usual the result of the combustion not being fully efficient (or are a result of other substances found in the fuel) and thus occur in smaller quantities and are easier to reduce either by improving the combustion process or cleaning the pollutants out of the exhaust stream.
With CO2, we are faced with the choice of either reducing our use of fossil fuels or of sequestering (a lot of) CO2.
Stefan: An interesting point-of-view but I don’t think that I agree with you that skepticism is harder than the reverse. Particularly in the public sphere, I think it is much easier to raise or highlight doubt and uncertainty than the reverse, which is part of the reason why I think that evolutionists often do not “win” debates with creationists even though I think most here would agree that the evolutionists have the science on their side.
Part of the reason this is the case is that I think many people have a naive view of science where they think there should be one piece of “smoking gun” evidence and that there should be no empirical evidence in apparent contradiction…or at least a puzzle within the current theory. In reality, science works more by the accumulation of evidence, but with no one piece of evidence being perfectly airtight, and in any active scientific fields, there will be puzzles the scientists are still trying to resolve.
Also, in my personal experience doing computational modeling, I find it quite easy to come up with many reasons why my model may be too simplistic to capture reality and hence I am constantly surprised at how well the models perform. In fact, this has always been a little mysterious to me. (Admittedly, this may be due in part to my own personality, as I think I am a naturally skeptical / pessimistic person, so that combination makes me concerned with all the things that could go wrong with the modeling.)
Joel wrote:
Most people here seem to think there should be no restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions and are strongly opposed to current legislation or international negotiations to impose such emissions restrictions.
I don’t think it’s most. I think most here have no problem with cleaner energy production, including reductions in CO2 output. We recognize that energy production has and always will evolve and adopt cleaner technologies. Many of us here even recognize that government regulation is sometimes necessary to to nudge things in that direction. Tightening the smog rules in the 70’s comes to mind. Yes, people kvetched and moaned, but they got used to it. And the Japanese showed that it was not only possible to do so, but could be done in a cost effective manner, and obviously, it was good for business.
What most DO object to, is doing so based on flawed science, in a hap-hazard and economically damaging way, and based on ridiculous fear mongering and scare tactics. We object to the use of naked political pressure to do SOMETHING NOW!, even when that something is not going to accomplish the stated goal of stopping global warming, yet cost us dearly now and for centuries to come, and actually hamper our ability to adjust to the climate change that the actions won’t stop anyway..
Sonic Frog
I agree with you that Joel is making assumptions about everyone on this site, and not making a distinction between ‘deniers’ and sceptics. We are vastly different groups.
The inconvenient truth is that at present there is no practical alternative to burning carbon in its various forms and there is no chance of reducing it by 90% (UK recommendations) without causing our economy a great deal of harm.
The idea that renewables can presently take up the slack is pie in the sky-which doesnt mean we shouldnt try but success is many years in the future. In the meantime the first second and third world all want to maintain or achieve a good standard of living, with its inhabitants enjoying a long and healthy life and carbon is an integral part of that for the next few decades.
On a more practical level I dislike paying extra taxes (green taxes in the UK are around 2000$ a year) having my movements rerstricted (carbon card coming soon according to a Parliamentary comittee ) and generally being told what to do based on an invalid hyopthesis.
Which doesn’t mean I’m a schill of big oil out to destroy the panet.
tonyb
Joel wrote:
Most people here seem to think there should be no restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions and are strongly opposed to current legislation or international negotiations to impose such emissions restrictions.
Reply:
Sonicfrog (11:45:13) :
I don’t think it’s most. I think most here have no problem with cleaner energy production, including reductions in CO2 output.
I disagree. I think most people here “have no problem with cleaner energy production,” but think that CO2 has the following effect on global temps:
The temperature increase attributable to CO2 is equal to, and no larger than, the proportional effect of [CO2] + 4[H2O] +16[methane] + x[ other greenhouse gases] – (minus) absorbance wavelength saturation, without amplification or positive feedbacks. This miniscule temperature increase does not need regulating, and is beneficial plant growth.
I sincerely subscribe to the point of view that cleaner energy production and reduction in CO2 output is a great advantage. In particular I support the viewpoint that saving the rainforest is vital for the human race.
Obviously most scientists that oppose the idea that our climate is heading towards a catastrophe are not politically motivated. They honestly think there is something fishy going on. It is not just that they think there are some minor problems with climate predictions, it is merely that they do not feel comfortable and at home in the reasons and explanations given. The underlying psychological problems may be that the language, arguments and reasoning strongly differ from the sound scientific methods they are used to. For example, the idea of consensus is not well received among the scientists that have been disciplined to think independently and question authority by Richard Feynman – read Cargo Cult Science and you will understand what I mean.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/cargocul.htm
Another problem is the oversimplification of rather complicated matters – journalists write comprehensive books about topics brilliant scientists with 30 years experience in the field are struggling to understand.
My own point of view is that we do not know, mainly because I cannot find a good reason to expect that a climate model should be able to predict the future climate. It is important to emphasise that I do not know much about how the climate works. On the other hand, are there any scientists that know all the details? I encourage the scientists that trust the climate models to try to look into the reasoning of some of the great minds that finds the reliability of such models troublesome. You may discover that there are many sober arguments from various disciplines that are not at all politically motivated, but are instead based on fundamental scientific principles like the scale invariance of chaotic phenomena. You see, many so called climate sceptics are actually honestly not convinced, and they will be difficult to convince because nature cannot be fooled.
Joel Shore (09:46:39) “[…] but that certainly would not be a popular view on this site. Most people here […]”
Disagree.
Joel Shore (09:46:39) “[…] sequestering (a lot of) CO2”
A bad idea.
TonyB:
Yes, but the reason this is true is that market economies are great at solving problems that the markets know exist and horrible at solving problems that the markets don’t know about. As long as fossil fuels are cheap and plentiful and get a free ride in the sense that the costs of their effects are borne by everyone collectively, then the necessary financial incentives do not exist for alternatives to be developed. (And, by alternatives, I mean not only alternative energy sources but also new technologies to increase efficiency and technologies to sequester CO2.)
One further – perhaps final – thought on nonlinear system dynamics. They exhibit a log-log “power law” behaviour, so if you plot size of changes or events against frequency that they occur, both with log scale, you get a straight line. Small changes often, big changes less often. The thing is that this pattern of changes emerges spontaneously from the system, not necessarily in response to any forcing agent.
So in a non-linear / non-equilibrium system, the system itself is a player and can generate dynamics and changes, not directly linked to any specific external factor.
So will global temperature go up or down? This then -according to the dynamic chaos interpretation, depends on what state your system is in.
Do we have a system of an up? Or system of a down?
By the way a great book on chaos, nonlinearity etc. is “Deep Simplicity” by John Gribbin, Random House New York.
Joel Shore
Only an American could say fossil fuels are Cheap and plentiful!
Around 20% of the population of the UK will suffer Fuel poverty this winter many vulnerable people will be unable to heat their homes and some will die.
We sit on a vast reserve of coal which for political reasons James Hansens flies over here (the irony!) and tells us we can’t use. For political reasons our leaders have refused to use Nuclear. Shall we cover our countryside in windmills to get 10% of our energy needs or shall we just jack up the carbon fuel prices and be unable to afford to get to work or heat our homes?
Come on Joel-stop dealing in theories and adrress the world as it is and likely to be for several decades.
tonyb
You say it is easy for creationists to raise doubt and uncertainty. But I am talking about scepticism as a discipline of mind.
You say evolutionists don’t often “win” debates against creationists. Your story (narrative) here is that, look, even religious people can raise doubt.
But if raising doubt is evidence of real scepticism, your religious group should also be raising doubt about God. Actually they’d never make it to the debating hall to meet the evolutionists, they’d have to send notes “we’ll be there in an hour, we’re still trying to work out the God thing”. Then two hours later, another note, “sorry, still not cracked it yet, be another two hours, tops”. And so on.
Now look at your narrative. In your narrative, these religious types, the creationists, find it easy to be sceptical, and from your narrative you infer that it is easy to be sceptical if even they can do it–look how easy it is to be sceptical!
Why does your story use the least sceptical people as evidence of scepticism? Your narrative isn’t even self-consistent.
If they were sceptical, they’d question God.
Perhaps you’re using the word scepticism in the sense of someone who is not easily convinced (of what, the definition doesn’t say). So sure, creationists are not easily convinced that God might not exist. SUV drivers aren’t easily convinced that their SUV is murdering polar bears. Hitler wasn’t easily convinced that his plans were wrong. And to this we add, AGWs aren’t easily convinced that their models are wrong.
And how do you convince someone to question their belief? You get them to think sceptically. And that is not easy.
Above you equated religion with “easy scepticism”. Think about that.
The naivety is believing that this gradual accumulation of evidence tells you more than it does.
Remember, people like Taleb were quants on Wall Street. Their models performed well. And this led people to believe that they understood more than they did. They based decisions about risk on these models. But then reality blows up in their face. And people threw themselves out of windows.
In my view, my hunch, if you will, is that 95% of everything already known in climate science, all that has been gradually accumulated, over the decades by painstaking research, will continue to be correct. And the real world system will still go and do something completely unexpected.
So far no one seems concerned about the fact that even the Copenhagen conference will emit such an amount of nonsense that it probably makes a gross contribution to the Madhouseeffect. (MGG Manmad Global Gargling)
Joel My 00 42 41
Sorry, the first sentence sounded much more rude than I intended. What I mean is that American Fuel is very lightly taxed compared to much of Europe and other places. We are already struggling to pay the bills which ALREADY have green taxes on them. We simply can’t afford any more. No offence meant.
tonyb
Joel Shore (18:35:47) :
How did Joel Shore get to be so insufferable? Lots of practice? Now we’re “skeptics” [with quotation marks yet] relying on “right wing think tanks”, while the Joel Shores of the world are above it all, hobnobbing with their cronies in ‘actual prestigious scientific organizations’.
Aside from that hogwash, it should be kept in mind that planet Earth is falsifying the CO2=AGW conjecture. Joel Shore and his ilk are being proved wrong by the planet. Is there any greater authority on Earth?
Sorry to bust Shore’s bubble, but he had it coming. He’s on the losing side of the debate, so he throws in his backup argument: “actual prestigious scientific organizations.” heh.
And he’s still wrong: click.
Stefan says:
Yes, but then I would also say that if “climate skeptics” showed real skepticism, they would be raising doubt about many of the arguments that are put forth here and elsewhere! So, in some sense, I might grant you that true skepticism is not easy. However, pseudo-skepticism where one is claiming to be skeptical but really is just being contrarian against a particular scientific theory I think is quite easy to do in a way that convinces a fair amount of the public (particularly those inclined that way) and even some scientists in other fields who don’t know the particular field well.
And, frankly, if true skepticism ruled here, you wouldn’t find people embracing the work of Beck or of Gerlich & Tscheuschner or the book of Ian Plimer, and you would find people like Smokey who post lots of deceptive graphs having others (besides those of us defending AGW) criticize them. (People have occasionally taken Smokey to task for some of his less charitable comments directed at us, which I do appreciate, but not really on scientific issues.) If true skepticism ruled here, it wouldn’t take a person defending AGW to point out (months later, I think) that a post by Roy Spencer here arguing that CO2 rises might not be due to humans suffered from a simple mathematical problem that rendered his result meaningless. If true skepticism ruled here, you wouldn’t have people continuing to claim that there was a scientific consensus for global cooling in the 70s even against considerable hard evidence to the contrary (or, at the very least, they would be coming back with hard evidence of their own from the scientific literature, rather than [selectively] citing a few articles from the popular press). I could go on and on here, and in fact it is a bit of a raw nerve for me because the more and more time I have spent here, the more and more I have become convinced that the appropriation of the word “skeptic” by the “climate skeptics” is really quite a travesty, at least as applied to many of the more vocal folks on the site.
TonyB: No offense taken. You Europeans have already done a lot more than we Americans to try to use taxes to incorporate some of the externalized costs of fossil fuels into their price.
I said:
And, as if on cue, Smokey had done it again! 🙂
I see that Joel Shore has now unilaterally elevated himself to being the arbiter of true skepticism. Maybe we should run everything by Joel first, to make sure it passes his alarmist litmus test.
How’s that article coming, Joel Shore? Or is sniping from the warmista peanut gallery all you can do?
Smokey, Joel Shore makes very valid points about the process of skepticism even if I disagree with much of his point of view.
Separating the wheat from the chaff is extremely important in any debate.
Ah, Joel me boy, when you have no facts, bluster. Claim that graphs refuting AGW are “deceptive” [I’ve numbered these so you can show us, by the numbers, the “deception” in each and every one of them] :
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
Got lots more when you’re done with these.
BTW, you forgot to tell us how that article is coming along. About ready to submit it for WUWT peer review? Don’t chicken out on us!
jeez,
Joel Shore has repeatedly stated the same thing in various ways: “…Smokey who post lots of deceptive graphs… And, as if on cue, Smokey had done it again!”
Just because someone says a graph is “deceptive” doesn’t make it so. It’s a typically pompous AGW attitude. What is “deceptive” about that graph? Is it more deceptive than the bogus y-axis graphs the alarmist crowd uses? : click. If a normal y-axis was used, this is what we would see: click. The first chart is scary, isn’t it? It’s intended to be, and that makes it deceptive. Joel is just projecting “deception” from his side of the aisle.
I didn’t make up those five graphs, various others did. I simply save them to show what’s happening. I take it for granted that the charts, many of which have been posted here in articles, are accurate. If I’m wrong about that, then simply claiming they are “deceptive”, without any other evidence, is insufficient. Don’t you think?
Joel was pointing out that those claiming to be skeptics fail to be skeptical of specious arguments on their side of the fence.
I agree that happens around here more than I would like to see.
Joel Scepticism
Most people start off believing the party line-that there is AGW-and only after looking at it properly do a proportion then realise all is not what it seems.
They have looked at the facts and changed their minds. In this respect I think warmists fail to appreciate that there are two main types of ‘disbelievers’.
The first are ’sceptics’ who have thought deeply about it, read the papers and changed their original position based on actual facts and observations. Many (but by no means all) from within this group are often fairly liberal-probably more so in Europe than the US.
The second group are ‘deniers’ (lower case and non perjorative) who hate the govt, hate authority, believe they should be able to do whatever they want. AGW is just one of many things they automatically disbelieve because they think it is a govt attempt to control them. There is a political element here, but equally very many hate govt of any complexion. There are a sprinkling o this site who tend to come and go.
This last group hate AGW because they believe it is being used as a tool of the govt to intrude in to their life.
The latter would go on denying until their last breath- no matter the proof.
The former are perfectly rational people and would look at the evidence presented to them, but based on the past performance of some of those involved in promoting AGW-and the exaggerated claims made-would want to delve behind the headlines before accepting anything as factual.
Your group also has similar schisms. For every thougtful proponent of AGW, such as yourself (and TomP) there are an many ‘green believers’ who have as much made up their mind beforehand as the ‘denier’. There was a prime example of that this morning from the latest climate group interviewed on the BBC who said they ‘just know’ that man is wrecking the planet.
On this blog we get many ‘hit and runs’ from green believers who sanctimoniously post things culled from elsewhere then disappear.
When there are so many question marks about the reliability of data-sea level rise, arctic ice variation through the centuries, global temperatures to 1850, THe MWP, Ocean temperatures, Co2 levels, satellite reliability etc, and so many unknown facets- such as the real effect of the sun, the PDO etc, none of us from either side should believe that ‘the science is settled’ (Al Gore) and then refuse to debate the science-as he does.
By the way were you surprised at the number of sceptics who diagreed with your comment above;
“Most people here seem to think there should be no restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions and are strongly opposed to current legislation or international negotiations to impose such emissions restrictions.”
Perhaps it demonstrates that we are not the homogenous irrational group you (and certainly TomP) may believe we are?
Best regards
tonyb