This is a week of extremes in quotes about climate. On one end of the scale we have professor Steven Schneider with a set of quotes so beyond the absurd, that he now has his own “jumping the shark” TV sitcom moment.
On the other end, we have the New Scientist, shocking warmists and skeptics alike with some hardcore doubt about the outcome of the Muir-Russell and other Climategate inquiries. They write:
But what happened to intellectual candour – especially in conceding the shortcomings of these inquiries and discussing the way that science is done. Without candour, public trust in climate science cannot be restored, nor should it be.
and…
Russell’s team left other stones unturned. They decided against detailed analysis of all the emails in the public domain. They examined just three instances of possible abuse of peer review, and just two cases when CRU researchers may have abused their roles as authors of IPCC reports. There were others. They have not studied hundreds of thousands more unpublished emails from the CRU. Surely openness would require their release.
All this, plus the failure to investigate whether emails were deleted to prevent their release under freedom of information laws, makes it harder to accept Russell’s conclusion that the “rigour and honesty” of the scientists concerned “are not in doubt”.
Full article here at The New Scientist
Reported by the French newspaper ‘Le Figaro”:
http://www.lefigaro.fr/environnement/2010/07/19/01029-20100719ARTFIG00349-une-carte-du-rechauffement-climatique-dans-google-earth.php
The Met Office plays Google (scorching) Earth…
The best exposé I’ve seen is chapter 5 of Roy Spencer’s book, The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists. The error he points out is very subtle, so it’s easy to see how the warmists are so sure they can’t be wrong. Here are a few snippets:
Chapter 5 is pretty technical and ought to be supplied with more “training wheels” to make it easier to grasp.
One of the IPCC’s biggest ‘poster child’ propganda, was that tuvalu was sinking
(in much the same way the ‘hockey stick’ was a propaganda tool)
BBC: June 2010 – Low Lying Islands growing not sinking.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10222679
“A new geological study has shown that many low-lying Pacific islands are growing, not sinking.
The islands of Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Federated States of Micronesia are among those which have grown, because of coral debris and sediment. (the process that Darwin discovered!!)
The study, featured in the magazine the New Scientist, predicts that the islands will still be there in 100 years’ time. ….. ”
—–
The new scientist article could not bring themseleves to say growing and said ‘shape changing’
Interviewing a kiribati climate scientist, apparently suprised bythe discovery that coral islands grow, bythe process described..
As discovered by Charles Darwin:
THE
STRUCTURE AND DISTRIBUTION
OF
CORAL REEFS
Charles Darwin: 1842
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F271&pageseq=1
The IPCC really keeps abrest of all this ‘new science’ doesn’t it!
Ahhhh, positive omens and portents I see!
Courtney,
Thanks for the info about ‘The Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) of the European Union (EU)’. Wasn’t aware of this but am seeing similar effects here in the US, with operationally efficient and effective high energy density coal fueled power plants like the one at the University of Wisconsin – Madison being destroy and rebuilt as a low energy density ‘biomass’ power plant. There was no economic analysis, no cost trade studies, no science or logic supporting this action. There was only political gamesmanship dressed in the mantle of ‘green is good’ wishful thinking! And yet, the kinder supporters of the green agenda at UW-Madison are outraged (really) at the 7% increases to their tuition costs. They have yet to learn that they will pay a high price for what they demand, if it is not economically viable.
May this be a lesson they learn well and soon…
Vigilantfish writes:
“It [AGW] has a several full scientific hypotheses that are difficult to test in real-world conditions, but these hypotheses exist, including the one just stated. It also is based on the theory that human-generated carbon dioxide, as it increases, will trigger runaway global heating, overcoming all natural negative feedback systems in the process. The use of models does not negate the scientific nature of the theory.”
Could you please state the hypotheses? No one else has been able to state them. The “runaway global heating” depends on “forcings” caused by CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. Yet no one has presented reasonably confirmed hypotheses that explain these forcings. Surely, by now, everyone knows that the results of model runs cannot be treated as data or evidence because the models are run (solved) in “model universes” created by programmers, not in the actual universe.
Crispin in Waterloo: July 19, 2010 at 7:43 am
Perhaps one day I will add (whatever the new ‘green’ disaster is) to my grandchildren’s fireside stories about acid rain, ozone, CO2, black helicopters…
Three-Five Echo, Three-Five Echo, this is Archon on Fox Secure Delta — do not acknowledge — mission abort, I say again, mission abort and RTB via Tacit. You were *spotted*, you idiot. Archon out.
Cor blimey! Whatever next?
First the BBC reports details of the whitewash, then the WSJ gets all feisty, then some mag I’ve never heard of called the Atlantic gets sceptical… and now New Scientist gets all scientific.
Am I dreaming?
New Scientist is covering its arse because the more obvious corruption is the more will backfire in its face in the future. If the warmistas dig their heads in the sand long enough and the media buries enough skeptical stories, New Scientist will go back to promoting the global warming religion.
FYI–
Dr. Stephen Schneider has died on a flight to London of apparent heart failure. RIP.
The NY Times had very complimentary things to say. I believe one should never speak ill of the recently departed, so I have nothing to say.
“…based on the theory that human-generated carbon dioxide…”
Ah yes, that indomitable human-branded CO2. It makes the atmosphere heat up far better than natural CO2 (must be something about the origin of the carbon, or perhaps the oxygen?) Apparently they believe it but can’t measure it, can’t produce a viable theory to support their allegations, nor can they offer a convincing explanation.
I thought that was a hoax when I first read it. I thought it was too bizarre a coincidence to be true!
I don’t know where else to put this since I couldn’t find what i thought was an input connector.
When a column comment line is closed to further posts; as is the Stephen Schneider one below here; could you put a message to that effect at the TOP of the page; so people don’t waste their time; as I just did; writing something that goes in the circular file.
I typically scan a thread to see what others have said or offered; on subjects of interest; and then offer a post, if I think I can add anything or otherwise. It is obvious that a lot of people post on threads; without having any idea what has already been said; so there is often no continuity of discussions; or dialog.
I have often posted things; only to find questions or comments related to what I just wrote; that clearly shows the person simply hasn’t read anything said before.
But the only way to find that a thread is closed is to post somethign and be told the gate is locked.
George
Fix that can you Chasmod !
Jim G. writes:
In my continuing attempt to point out poor journalism, NPR radio in Wyoming, this morning at 7:50 AM MDST, included “climate change” as one of the possible causes for the decline in honey bee populations! This may be a new low and adds to the previously reported extremely long list of almost everything in the world which may be caused by AGW.
Just shows an NPR bias for Colorado. Here in Florida, we have been reporting large, dragon-like snakes that are popping up in fields and gulping down fruit and vegetable pickers. We are sure that they are caused by global warming but we can’t get NPR’s attention.
Cold Englishman says:
July 19, 2010 at 5:58 am (Edit)
the Highways Departments are shutting off motorway lights (at night no less) to reduce our CO2 emmissions, and as an aid to astronomers.
Don’t know which part of the UK you live in, but Oop Norf, the motorways never did get lighting. Personally, I can use my headlights to drive in the dark, and I prefer the night-time countryside without the orange glow syndrome.
Q/ wes george says:
July 19, 2010 at 4:15 am
We are witness to the decline and fall of a cultural paradigm that also posed as a scientific hypothesis. I doubt history will designate AGW as a proper scientific hypothesis however, at least not in its later incarnation. AGW has more in common with phrenology or the Enron scandal or a modern variety of tulip mania – a sociopolitically pathological phenomena, to be sure, but not a proper scientific hypothesis. /unQ
The first & only Marxist Hippie Cult.
Born out of hatred for their fellow beings, fueled by a desire to punish their fellow beings, lead by an Elite that wishes to largely eradicate their fellow beings.
regards
‘Nature’ is showing signs of heading the same way:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/sun-rediscovered-by-nature/
Theo Goodwin says:
July 19, 2010 at 8:55 am
Vigilantfish writes:
“It [AGW] has a several full scientific hypotheses that are difficult to test in real-world conditions, but these hypotheses exist, including the one just stated. It also is based on the theory that human-generated carbon dioxide, as it increases, will trigger runaway global heating, overcoming all natural negative feedback systems in the process. The use of models does not negate the scientific nature of the theory.”
Could you please state the hypotheses? No one else has been able to state them. The “runaway global heating” depends on “forcings” caused by CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. Yet no one has presented reasonably confirmed hypotheses that explain these forcings. Surely, by now, everyone knows that the results of model runs cannot be treated as data or evidence because the models are run (solved) in “model universes” created by programmers, not in the actual universe.
____________
Aaagh! You have forced me to undertake a mental exercise that I have been lamentably lax in not having done before – trying to defend the AGW hypothesis to figure out what it scientific about it. It’s a good exercise to do! While trying to think of a scientifically defensible AGW hypothesis that has any possibility of being tested, I could not come up with a single solid example. AGW theory postulates that humanly generated excess CO2 will cause the world to warm up catastrophically or otherwise. Problems with theory: warm up from what temperature? How do we know what amount is “excess” based on a record of CO2 concentrations that is very short, or is not entirely reliable for the distant past? How much CO2 is really generated by human activity, given a changing natural baseline? IS there an optimum world temperature? What is a catastrophic amount of warming? What are the meteorological effects of warming – does a warmer world really generate more snowfall in southern regions, as as been argued this year, and if so, why was this not predicted prior to this past winter? At what world temperature does the polar ice cap disappear in the summer? Why, in a scientific community that defends evolution and castigates skeptics of any portion of Darwin’s theory as ‘creationists’, do scientists who fear-monger about AGW want evolution and change to suddenly stand still, preferably in the 1950s – a period which so much of sociology and popular culture is eager to demonize in the west. In a scientific world that prizes quantification, precise quantities and measurements to answer many of these questions are missing.
But note that in my comment above, I did not argue that the AGW theory generated good hypotheses, just that it generated hypothesis regarding warming and the effects of warming. Like eugenics – which was a science – the hypothesis is not easily tested. It is becoming abundantly clear that skeptical hypotheses and studies are proving to be more accommodating to testing one way or the other, just as was the case with eugenics. During the eugenics hype, the skeptics eventually had better — and more readily tested, or empirical genotypical — evidence for the way that heredity operates. Anthony’s surface stations project is a great example of steady data- gathering with a clear hypothesis to be tested.
If predicted colder winters come to pass, and Britain is left in the dark and cold without electricity, will there be a Marshall Plan brought in to send shiploads of coal for the old aged pensioners ? Unfortunately, we believe that the UK authorities have long decreed that all fireplaces and chimneys have to be either removed or blocked up just to prevent this sort of adventurism!
Please note that Stephen Schneider died of a heart attack today.
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/nobel-climate-scientist-dead-at-65/story-e6frfku0-1225894383878
available, [url=http://www.warwickhughes.com]due details signed security[/url], ipcc, [url=http://web.gc.cuny.edu]browsers record techniques[/url], solar, [url=http://ccsl.iccip.net]physical economics north[/url], contribute, [url=http://wattsupwiththat.com]high 0 partially warming features[/url], north
Dr. Stephen Schneider, leading global warming guru, has just died in London:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/earth/20schneider.html
The ‘New York Times’ has an appropriately flattering obituary:
“He rejected hyperbole, readily conceding that uncertainty was unavoidable… climate-change skeptics use that uncertainty to advance their cause. But because the costs of global warming – from the melting of icecaps to the flooding of islands – is so high, Dr. Schneider maintained, not acting is riskier than acting.”
Is it acceptable to pick holes in an obituary? I hope so, because I can’t resist… Skeptics ‘use’ uncertainty to ‘advance’ their cause?! It’s sad that to the end Dr. Schneider never understood the problem with the ‘precautionary principle’.
‘Climategate’ is very much like the ‘Gulf Oil Spill’, those closest to the slimy odoriferous hateful waves get the worst of it. But everyone will be the worse for it.
‘New Scientist’ is right on the beach and is feeling the effects more than most.
I am posting this here because Anthony closed comments on the “Quote of the Week – Steven Schneider Jumps the Shark” thread, due to Schneider’s passing.
I also extend my condolences to Professor Schneider’s family, friends and colleagues.
Yet, Schneider was thick in the the fray, even to the last, and he would have wanted the fray to continue, hoping – of course – that his debaters won out in the end. In that spirit, I don’t think it is entirely poor taste to argue with him still…
Schneider had said in Stanford Magazine:
Now, this, ladies and gentlemen is exactly – EXACTLY – what The Royal Society, with Isaac Newton and his enemy Robert Hooke deep into their own fray at the time (being all but sworn enemeies) was formed to deal with, in 1666. Yet Hooke was hard upon empirical science and Newton wasn’t far behind him. The very PURPOSE of The Royal Society was to establish a basis for SCIENCE. And that science – most fervently in the case of Hooke – had to be based on EXPERIMENT, not claim or inference. Certainly not on bombast or argument. If there was no experiment proving each and every jot and tittle, it was not science. That was the raison de’tre of The Royal Society: Experiment and empiricism. NOTHING was to be accepted as fact, as science, until it had been backed up by tested in the real world.
For his attitude about experiment, Hooke has been a bit of a favorite of mine.
THIS – what Professor Schneider is doing – is NOT science. Where is the empiricism? Where is the experiment?
Let us leave out that what the CRU and Mann and 90% of the work at the IPCC and RealCimate are doing is simply massaging numbers and trying to read meaning into those numbers. (Their part in this is not science, but statistics.)
Let us leave out any arguments over whether those meanings/interpretations are correctly assessing anything whatsoever.
Let us instead go to the heart of what Professor Schneider is doing here. He is arguing that there are any number of vague, unspecified “tipping points” out there, any or all of which will have some heinous effect – the effect he is claiming as the basis for his work.
Robert Hooke would be turning over in his grave.
What Schneider is doing is rank proselytizing – the very core of religion.
And if there is ONE thing The Royal Society was against, it was religion. Science had one HELL of a time separating itself from the thought processes of religion those 400 years ago. It had been trying for at least a century to do so. Religion had so many ways of ARGUING things – things that were untestable, things that were beliefs, things that were un-opposable – the “how many angels fit on the head of a pin” stuff. Arguing issues brings in tangential issues and analogs which make things less and less clear and make finding the true understanding of the subject less and less “findable.”
Argument is not science.
Claiming something is not science.
Massaging numbers by itself is not science.
Facts are science. Ask the ghost of Robert Hookes, who is the real father of the scientific method, if anyone is (…perhaps Ptolemy is). And the ghost will tell you. “What experiments have you run? And how many people have replicated it?”
Hauling his “tipping points” into the fray, Professor Schneider drags us all the way back to the 1600s and before, to a time when you didn’t even have to have FACTS.
A tipping point is not a fact. Warnings about ONE tipping point is twice removed from being a fact. Warnings about multiple and vague tipping points? THAT is Schneider going pretty Vatican or Billy Graham on us. It is conjuring up demons and devils and witches – AND FEARS. Fears of unnamed and scary THINGS.
Schneider has brought the Bogeyman into the fray.
As just about his last contribution to the fray, Schneider has – I hesitate to say it, because of his passing and seeming a cruel bastard – taken science backward 400 years. “Tipping points” – especially vague warnings of unnamed bogeyman tipping points – what are these doing in a scientific discourse? That is hell and damnation stuff, and they have no business here. And STANFORD Magazine, no less, is the publisher? As science??????? Wow. . . .
WUWT has been cited as a reference in this interesting article about the New Scientist shift:
http://news.suite101.com/article.cfm/does-new-scientist-see-paradigm-shift-on-greenhouse-gas-theory-a263695
*drip, drip, drip*
@CRS, Dr.P.H. July 20, 2010 at 1:52 pm:
A great observation in that link. A fine turn of events. Since I am not a scientist (see my post 2 posts up), I am free to use the phrase “tipping point.” Might we have reached one?. . .