Post by Dr. Ryan N. Maue
Dr. Trenberth delivered his highly-anticipated presentation at the American Meteorological Society 91st Annual Meeting in Seattle on Wednesday. The talk was titled “Promoting climate information and communication of climate change“, and an overflowing crowd of several hundred listened for about 20-minutes, then scattered. Those that read the preprint online (version 3 now) and expected Trenberth to back off on his rhetoric were sorely disappointed. Dr. Trenberth
- vigorously defended himself against the out-of-context slanderous claims from ClimateGate emails
- cheerfully promoted the science of the IPCC regardless of silly errors [like the Himalayan Glaciers — Telegraph Jan 27 news article]
- threw Phil Jones under the bus for being naive about “keeping papers out”
- doubled-down on the denier vitriol
- trashed the media for insufficiently sympathetic and woefully inaccurate climate change coverage
- attributed a dozen recent extreme weather events to global warming including the Queensland flooding
- and finally suggested that the “null hypothesis” concerning AGW attribution be turned on its head.
All in all, it was the stemwinder that everyone expected from the preprint preview/fiasco. Details from the talk follow…
I sat in the rear-most row of the conference room and took some notes on my laptop during the proceedings. I have quotes that can be confirmed when the AMS publishes their presentations online likely in the next month or so. Otherwise, I am paraphrasing the slides that were presented.
The presentation was dedicated to Dr. Stephen Schneider who passed away last July. Trenberth described the ClimateGate incident as an “illegal email hacking” that spawned viral attacks on scientists. The emails were used to “damn the IPCC and many of us”, and included conversations that were clearly not for human public consumption. The term “ClimateGate” should have been replaced by “swiftboating”. Trenberth himself was not embarrassed per se, just dismayed about the viral nature of the coverage. He went on to explain the “can’t find the heat / travesty” email, and said he was not particularly upset with what was put out in the public domain in terms of his email correspondence. According to him, ClimateGate simply proved that scientists were human. There was “some evidence of a lack of openness” but all following reviews/inquiries found no problems with the science.
Trenberth then discussed the small errors in the IPCC report (Himalayan glaciers), but there were no major changes to the overall IPCC conclusions. He admitted that the IPCC handled the “errors” rather poorly and left some scientists “hung out to dry”. Trenberth had not seen the Phil Jones email (Trenberth was not cc’ed) that said “we are gonna keep these papers out of the IPCC”, but blamed Jones for being naive about the process. Regardless, the papers, which Trenberth snidely commented “weren’t very good anyways” were indeed not excluded. (The system worked.) The “It’s a Travesty” is still accurate, but Trenberth believes that the missing heat is somewhere in the oceans, maybe below 300 – 700 meters depth. It was just a cherry-picked email anyways.
Deniers: in the AMS preprint, which Trenberth described as garnering plenty of “nasty email responses” the term is heavily used. Trenberth defined it in the talk as someone that simply rejects basic information about climate science. There is a difference between skeptics and deniers, though it was not explicitly delved into. Trenberth lamented exasperation with the deniers and suggested that he and everyone else simply not debate nor grant them visibility or a platform by engaging with them. Good advice — with the obligatory quote from Daniel Patrick Moynihan about having your own set of facts. Indeed, on the distinction between deniers and skeptics, he said “if the shoe fits, wear it”. The audience chuckled.
Media: same as preprint. Trenberth lamented the trend that blogs and media contaminate the discourse with an increasing trend of uninformed opinions. He has seen his colleagues get burned when they engage with the media often through misquotation or slanted coverage. He suggested that a scientist feed the media a story and exclusively promote your own stuff in order to tell a story or generate news. Some quotes from Thomas Friedman on a Meet the Press from Sept 6, 2009 were read, but I didn’t jot them all down because he reminds me of Paul Krugman.
Nature of climate change: It’s winter he declared, that’s why it is cold and snowy. The audience laughed loudly at that quip. Natural variability is ongoing and when the natural warmth and AGW are in the same direction, as with the recently waned El Nino, then “records will be broken”. He showed the obligatory shifting of the bell-curve to demonstrate changes in extreme events with global warming by moving the entire distribution to the right.
The null hypothesis has been (prove at 95% confidence level) that “there is no human influence on climate” which required folks to prove otherwise. However, with the IPCC declaration of “unequivocal warming due to humans”, Trenberth implored that we change the null hypothesis to put the onus of proof on the deniers: “There is a human influence on climate.” Therefore, the following events would not have happened or as bad or something (not clear what he meant/implied) without the human influence on climate:
Flooding in Pakistan, Russian drought, heat wave, and wildfires, flooding in the US including the rainstorm in Nashville, the active Atlantic hurricane season, and Snowmageddon.
The key is the 4% increase in moisture or water vapor over the past 4-decades shown in anomalous SSTs. The Queensland flooding is also due to SST increases and “indeed global warming” related, but he also mentioned La Nina. He suggested that we use these events (disasters) as teachable moments to “straighten out the media”, “inform the public and politicians”, and resolve renewed US leadership in climate science.
The two audience questions were brief and ancillary to Trenberth’s thesis.
————-
This talk is one of the opening salvos in a well-coordinated broadside initiative to redeem and repackage climate science, climate scientists, and climate policy in the eyes of the public. This “re-education” campaign needs a brand name. Together We Thrive and Win the Future are taken
Promoting climate information and communication of climate change
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Can I be the first to say this? I think the missing heat is being sequestered in ocean water below 2,000 meters.”
Or perhaps 20,000 fathoms. Something has to keep the beast warm. Or maybe the beast is the source of the warmth.
Science note: 20,0000 fathoms is 120,000 feet. Which is approx 19.75 miles. The Mariana Trench is approximately 7 miles deep. It makes you wonder where the other 12 miles are.
Jeff Alberts says:
Only if you completely and utterly fail to comprehend it. I was not saying that (with the notable exception of one of the top “sketpic” climate scientists), those who are “skeptics” believe in creationism. What I was responding to was someone who tried to make an analogy between creationism and AGW by pointing out that the analogy utterly fails and works much better the other way around for the reasons that I explain.
I suggest reading what I wrote again and trying to actually comprehend it. If my argument failed so badly, someone here would actually be able to shoot it down rather than just making snide remarks about it and attacking straw man versions of my argument.
Watch the Democrats and EPA regulate that event…. Can’t you just visualize the Democrats of Chicago sending an entourage up to the face of the approaching glacier face on the southside of Milwaukee to cast carbonnated water and implorations of global warming and climate change at the groaning ice sheet as they wave copies of the applicable EPA regulations and a court restraining order?
@kcom:
It’s a travesty we can’t find the missing 12 miles!
kcom:
January 28, 2011 at 5:38 am
Are you referring to “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea”? I think that refers to distance traveled, not depth.
Joel Shore:
At January 27, 2011 at 2:06 pm you yet again demonstrate that your ignorance is profound.
I think I can help you in your self-proclaimed ignorance of the difference between Creationism and ‘climate scepticism’. It is as follows.
Creationism
There is an overwhelming body of empirical evidence that evolutionary processes have happened and continue to happen but Creationists dispute the influence, effect and magnitude of those processes.
‘Climate scepticism’
There is no empirical evidence of any kind – none, zilch, not any – that the AGW hypothesis is true and ‘climate sceptics’ point to the growing body of evidence (e.g. the missing ‘hot spot’, Trenberth’s “missing heat”, etc.) which refutes the hypothesis.
I hope that helps and you to now understand, but I recognise that it is not possible to help the deliberately ignorant.
Richard
Douglas, I really like the way you copy and paste that which you are about to critique, I so would like it if every one did it so that we don’t have to go back just to put a critique in context. . . thank you
I am not an experienced user of the internet, but I do know that there is probably an easier way to link back to someones comment . . . but copy and paste works for me . . .
Many times, I read comments on this site and I wonder who in the world some commenters are referring to when they make comments, I become confused & befuddled!
D. Patterson says: “…Can’t you just visualize the Democrats of Chicago sending an entourage up to the face of the approaching glacier face on the southside of Milwaukee to cast carbonnated water and implorations of global warming and climate change at the groaning ice sheet as they wave copies of the applicable EPA regulations and a court restraining order?”
…Yes, but only if patriotic Americans haven’t lynched them all first. Hopefully, the glacier will oblige us and bury them all in one of its spectacular ice falls. That would be poetic justice, indeed.
John Brookes says:
January 28, 2011 at 1:15 am
I hearby declare 2011 “International Get Trenberth Year”.
John, certainly as one of Thomas Sowell’s “annointed”, your powers cannot be assailed! But, just for some extra reassurance, please be so kind as to tell us what the “rest of the world” thinks of your declaration, because no doubt a bunch of us sceptics mistakenly think Trenberth’s already doing a good enough job of it all by himself!
“”””” Laurie Bowen says:
January 28, 2011 at 8:22 am
Douglas, I really like the way you copy and paste that which you are about to critique, I so would like it if every one did it so that we don’t have to go back just to put a critique in context. . . thank you
I am not an experienced user of the internet, but I do know that there is probably an easier way to link back to someones comment . . . but copy and paste works for me . . .
Many times, I read comments on this site and I wonder who in the world some commenters are referring to when they make comments, I become confused & befuddled! “””””
Well Laurie C&P is a good way to do it. I often C&P the whole post someone left; and then if I can erase a bunch of stuff that is not pertinent to what i want to add; tyring, when I do this to indicate deliberate editing with a bunch of …………. and then I use my maxi quotes:- “”””” blah blah blah “””””, which is five times double quotes and spaces at each end for clarity.
But you are right, a lot of times, I can’t tell who is saying what or complaining about what. It helps to at least C&P the header of whoever said what; then we can go back and find that post if we want to knoww aht was said. A big problem with this sort of “Stream of consciousness” forum, is that people read the (article; maybe!) and then post a comment; and never read what anyone else has already posted. As a result I see all sorts of interesting postage by others; and find that nobody ever bothered to engate in tete a tete with them. Nested formats, tend to eliminate that problem; but have some of their own; such as hijacking the whole thread onto some side track shunting rail.
I would never suggest to Anthony to alter his format; because it IS the format of WUWT; and properly used by posters, it does work very well; but people should at least put some delimiter around what they excerpt. And for those who haven’t noticed; if you C&P from a post that has ben formatted somehow into italics or some other editorial wizardry; all of that vanishes when you C&P it with what M$ has given us to work with; so it is NOT a good way to distinguish stuff.
G
“”””” Richard S Courtney says:
January 28, 2011 at 5:04 am
HAS:
Despite repeated explanations and corrections, at January 27, 2011 at 2:30 am, you yet again assert;
“Just to remind – the null hypothesis is simply what the experimenter wishes it to be for the purpose of his/her experiment. There is no preordained null hypothesis, and the choice of it carries no presumptive weight..”
No! That is a falsehood! And it is an attack on the scientific method. “””””
Good to see your shingle here more often Richard. Just when I think insanity has headed for the cash window with the chips; you show up to pour some oil on the waters.
George
“”””” Larry in Texas says:
January 28, 2011 at 1:13 am
On the question of AGW/skeptics vs. evolution/intelligent design, I’ve never had problems with the science of what is commonly called “evolution,” “””””
Well Larry iT, we are fairly sure that at the moment of conception, only a single cell is present; ergo, only ONE person can be present at that time, to collect it’s Social Security number. Certainly only one set of DNA is there. Yet at birth; there could be a catastrophic birth defect result, and the baby is born totally malformed; even in two or three parts; that look remarkably similar and alive; but only one of them can have the SS# bestowed at conception.
But we are told, that the DNA is no longer identical. The multiple cell divisions have resulted in many typos, so the two or three pieces that we call identical twins or identical triplets; are no longer identical; and grow even less identical as they age.
So “evolution” couldn’t possibly be happening could it ? If evolution happened, children would not look exactly like one of their parents, for the two majority genders; or identical to both of them for Hermaphrodites.
The only way that Trenberth and his followers can win the debate is if they do turn the null hypothesis on its head and force skeptics to prove him wrong. Of course that goes against everything in science, but fits in perfectly with religion (where followers challenge non-believers to prove them false).
Richard S Courtney says:
No…It doesn’t help one bit and I find it utterly incomprehensible that you would think otherwise. It is just one person’s opinion. How is a policymaker supposed to decide about the current scientific status of AGW and of evolution? Are they supposed to solicit Richard S Courtney’s opinion? Do you really think that is realistic?
So, tell me, what sort of OBJECTIVE criterion could they use to determine the answer? I would submit that the best way we know how to do this is to have them solicit the opinion of the scientific societies that have been set up, some with this sort of purpose in mind, societies like the National Academy of Sciences in the U.S. or the Royal Society in London (or, on AGW, also the IPCC).
An argument based on Richard S Courtney’s personal assessment of the science (or Joel D. Shore’s personal assessment of the science) frankly is not worth diddlysquat! And, I find it bizarre that you actually think it is.
About six months ago I discovered the “blockquote” and “/blockquote” tags (inside angle brackets, of course) and have used them ever since. I think the indentation they provide is a great help.
PHEW! The seemingly endless amount of sheep are back in the paddocks, and I can refresh myself this afternoon… Did anybody miss me? (warm smiles)
Now, where were we? Oh yeah. It’s ‘Dr. Trenberth time’ and his ‘much anticipated’ speech. In which he said nothing new ~ with the marked exception of ramping up irrational hatred of his enemies Du jour ~ ‘The Deniers’.
Frankly, Scarlett’s ~ I have had it up to ‘HERE’ with the Global (in this case, scientific) Elite and their dual obnoxious methods of Behavioral-ism-ing (aspiring Linguist, you see). What bores me to no end is that they only have ‘two hands’ to entertain us with when dealing with ‘The People in the Audience of the World’.
BIG Yawn… Allow me just one moment to explain, I promise (this time) I’ll be quick.
In one hand they recite verbal hatred and demean those which merely disagree with them (by forever dragging in the lowest possible common denominator) by purporting in this case, that their ‘adversaries dujour’ aren’t quote unquote ‘scientific’ – when, in fact – their “Agenda” comes from an old dusty Sociologist’s Playbook.
(Anyone else ever notice that in the last 15 years ‘The art of Debate’ has been twisted (as has Poetry) into something strange and akin to verbal mud wrestling…? hmmm? Do you REALLY think that’s ‘Progressive’, do you? It’s the ultimate in oxymoron – right next to ‘Planned Parenthood’….No little wonder ‘Progressive’ used to only be used in HIGH RISK insurance, methinks…
Anyhow ~ ‘Hand’ #1 just has one ‘little ball’ to toss into the air that deals with all the supposed intellectuals on this planet.
In the other Hand, they have billions of dollars and ‘useful idiots’. This hand foments and channels physical and irrational anger ~ to cause physical uprisings (or, hahaha… ‘real’ Climate Change) in places like the Middle East – at the moment. They actually place adverts in local papers and solicit for ‘activists’ the going weekly wage of the area! In the 80’s in Cleveland, Ohio, it was $600 U.S.D. per week…not bad, huh? (I wonder what they pay Dr. Trenberth for his ‘smoke and mirrors’ she muses…)
Well, I for one, am bored with ‘Our Global Jugglers’ which only have the capacity to juggle two balls in their two (albeit large and cumbersome) hands.
One hand – ‘forever’ increasing cognitive dissonance within the intellectual community by giving speeches like Trenberths’~ orrrrrrr… Hand Two – the incitement of of a never ending supply of ‘young useful idiots’ urging them into acts of violence. (Can we all say: ‘Dear Old’ (now) Francis Fox Piven, Class?) It’s right outta her and her hubby’s playbook. Face it – if Glenn Beck can get everyone in the U.S. to buy truly historical books over the past 2 years – Cloward & Piven’s strategies are playing out in what’s happening in the Middle East this very night.
I think the worst BEST example I heard today, actually – was…. Our current ‘birthcertificateless’ president (decidedly little p) coming on Cable in a FOX NEWS ALERT telling those poor kids over there that it was right and ‘okay’ to believe in the concept of freedom… When he is – in fact – with his OTHER HAND – stamping it out in the U.S.A. How tragic. I mean…scientists unite. How can we be hearing that Soetoro
will have an internet ‘kill switch’ just one day ago – and TODAY have the same character tellin’ the waifs of Egypt that ‘they too’ can ‘live the American Dream’! (What a nightmare, right?)
I mean, how does anyone like Birthcertificateless Barry (and again akin to Trenberth) have the chutzpa to say that while he’s taking apart the land of my birth piece by ever lovin’ piece? Again. They can only play with 2 balls in the air at the same time and it’s what is gonna get them exposed for good this time.
Two hands – Two balls. ‘Climate Change’/’Global Governance’ only two balls in the air at all times…
Our supposed ‘Intelligentsia’ is intellectually bankrupt, my friends. This cool internet ‘w.w.w.’ (world wide web) that they’ve built around us all ~ has now become the forum through which Truth is being exposed on a hitherto unknown Grand Scale. Amazing, isn’t it? The very vehicle built to enslave – now, frees. Oh, the Delicious Irony of it.
You know – even if you don’t “believe the Bible”, you should ‘at least’ read the part when it talks about digging a pit for someone and the propensity for falling into it with no outside assistance whatsoever… It’s truly a Great Read, and simply ‘a must’ – for wanna-be-Scholars…
No one I know of is becoming shaken at all because we’ve long seen their agenda from a far off. (Personally ~ I am relieved that all this manufactured ‘stress’ and strain is being exposed – it’s almost cathartic feeling, isn’t it? almost ‘freeing’???
Here, here’s my word picture to sum this all up and I’ll be done with the ‘rant’… and I bet if I’d given this ‘talk’ to the Scientists in that room a few days ago – we would’ve had many questions and even a template for ‘WORLD PEACE’ as we ordered out for pizzas and yacked far into the evening at some favorite pub…but, I digress once more.
Imagine a huge theater. A GLOBAL THEATER, in fact.
While the audience sits in the shadows, the newest ‘Juggler’ is in center-stage spotlight. By all ‘perception’ it looks as if the Juggler has firm and total control of the room… (Trenberth, Soros, Clinton, Gilliard, even the Liberal guy…Tony Abbott…here in OZ – it truly matters not ‘who is the Juggler’ at the time… ALL of them can only juggle two at one time.)
But, anyhow… Once his/her Audience becomes bored to tears with either one ball or the other… “The Great Global Audience” will tire of the show and get up ‘en masse’ or one at a time ~ or mebbe even leave in droves by their (gasp!) sexual preferences… (for who truly cares what another does in their bedroom – as long as kids don’t get hurt and parties are consensual, right?) and all adults begin to exit the Theater… (NO NEED to ‘yell fire’ in that crowded place, either!)
Everyone – globally will simply begin re-assert God-given human freedoms and live and govern themselves as they should.
Here’s the last GREAT PART… (oh, I always do love a happy ending!)
Then, that LARGE WORLD STAGE that Dr. Trenberth, his cronies and their Handlers stand upon will look out onto the emptiness of The Global Theater and someone will catch on that the PUBLIC has gone and finally (saving energy, of course) some flunky will flick the switch for the spotlight into the ‘OFF’ position.
Leaving ~ all our charlatan Jugglers of the Global Stage with no audience. No audience whatsoever. Both groups – formerly ruled by one of two hands – finally learned the Truth that they could stand up on their own accord and go home, or to school, or to the office, or to Jenny Craig for goodness sakes… They could go ANYWHERE else because the Global Theatrics that have been going on wear very very thin on human beings who love being entertained – but, loathe hearing that other humans are being considered less than any other human being on earth. Yeah. It’s like: ‘Don’t Tread On My Brother OR Me’. THAT’S what adults humans ‘are about’.
With or without financing – with or without televisions – even with or without ARMS (I’m talkin’ the kinds that come outta shoulder sockets, like kids in Slum Dog Millionaire!) we will merely stop participating as ‘the audience in the dark’ if we are no longer entertained – and are only being demeaned by one hand or the other.
Soooooo…. I guess that’s my cue… Yeah. I’m standing up outta my seat for the moment…
So, now ~ if you Ladies and Gentlemen excuse me… I’m taking my own advice, and not stressing over one hand: Trenberth or the other: Egypt.
I’m going surf-fishing across from the farmhouse… The weather is grand (70F) (regardless of what you’ve heard!) and the seas truly magnificent – the skies tonight ~ truly the envy of the world… so, I’ve decided to go toward The Exit of this grand Global Theater this late afternoon…
Excuse me, oh…yes. thanks. Sorry,ooophs…Excuse me…Thank You….sorry…thanks.
(Phew ~ SUNLIGHT! YAHOO.)
Cynthia Lauren Thorpe
HAS says:
January 27, 2011 at 6:57 pm
[snip comments on a previous post – j]
Sorry, as a scientist I am free to do what I want when it comes to setting nulls and alternates. How I do that will be fundamental to my experimental design, the results I might produce, and the value of my experiment.
You can’t tell me what to test, and nor can Dr T.
—————————————————————–
No wonder science is in such a state. Your post reminds me of the famous Alice in Wonderland quote about a word meaning what I want it to mean etc.
I am appalled that anyone who calls themselves a scientist can claim that:
“as a scientist I am free to do what I want when it comes to setting nulls and alternates.”
As an individual, you are certainly free to do that. As a scientist, you have no idea. According to you, the null hypothesis is anything you might come up with in the bath or shower (depending on where you live) that morning.
Codswallop.
Joel Shore:
At January 27, 2011 at 2:06 pm you said you did not know the difference between ‘Creationism’ and ‘climate scepticism’. So, at January 28, 2011 at 8:22 am, I took the trouble to explain this to you by writing:
“Creationism
There is an overwhelming body of empirical evidence that evolutionary processes have happened and continue to happen but Creationists dispute the influence, effect and magnitude of those processes.
‘Climate scepticism’
There is no empirical evidence of any kind – none, zilch, not any – that the AGW hypothesis is true and ‘climate sceptics’ point to the growing body of evidence (e.g. the missing ‘hot spot’, Trenberth’s “missing heat”, etc.) which refutes the hypothesis.”
At January 28, 2011 at 5:26 pm you have replied to that by saying;
“No…It doesn’t help one bit and I find it utterly incomprehensible that you would think otherwise.”
and you added a load of irrelevant twaddle about “personal opinion” and decisions of policymakers.
Well, I find it “utterly incomprehensible” that anybody of average intelligence could fail to understand the differences that I explained. Perhaps the reason for your failure is in the statement with which I concluded my post at January 28, 2011 at 8:22 am: it was,
“I hope that helps and you to now understand, but I recognise that it is not possible to help the deliberately ignorant.”
I suggest that you need to ponder the matter.
Richard
Richard:
I understand what your opinion is, but it is an opinion that is not shared by most of the scientific community. [And, in fact, it is an opinion not even shared by fellow AGW-skeptic Roy Spencer, who does not feel that the evidence for evolution (at least on a macro scale) is very overwhelming.]
It is basically just tautology…You are an AGW-skeptic, ergo you do not feel there is lots of empirical evidence for AGW. That does not make your belief true any more than it would make the similar belief of a creationist about evolution true. How can you rationally expect a policymaker to take your assessment of the science more seriously than the assessment of the actual scientists in the field, the various scientific bodies like the NAS, Royal Society, etc., etc? Do you seriously expect them to say, “Well, on this side we have the assessment by all these scientists but how can we trust them when we have someone from the coal industry whose assessment differs?
If you want to get the ear of any policymakers other than those ideologically-inclined toward your point of view, you have to actually convince the scientific community of your opinion. And, you do that by engaging them in the serious scientific journals and such.
Joel Shore, you are simply using the illogical and deceitful fallback argument all Alarmists sooner or later use; the Argument from Authority, or “Consensus” argument.
As for tautologies how’s this one; you are a Warmist Believer ergo you feel that “the science is settled”, and that the null hypothesis now is that mankind is primarily to blame, via his production of C02 for the recent (greatly exaggerated) warming. Clearly, you are blinded by your own belief system, and you prefer it that way for some reason.
It is, as Richard says, a “deliberate ignorance”.
Joel Shore says:
January 29, 2011 at 3:42 pm
Except for the above statement, your stance is reasonable. Imagine how many people would have died this winter if it were not for the coal industry. You seem to be resorting to the tactic used by many of the politically motivated CAGW supporters trying to denigrate skeptics as deniers, and suggesting there is a conspiracy similar to one we have been led to believe was perpetrated by tobacco companies.
I have been thinking about comparisons between the creationist/evolution and CAGW/climate skeptic discussions for some time, and now I have recent experience with another; abiotic oil/organic oil, where the following blog was commandeered by abiotic oil proponents who seem motivated by an almost religious fervour: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/21/shale-gas-boom-on/
I have to admit to bias obtained through a science background, but find myself skeptical of climate alarmism, which seems to be more anti-development than scientific. Emission of CO2 may in fact influence climate, but a long view tells me it is self-limiting, and it’s influence is certainly not linear, as the earth has apparently not warmed significantly in over a decade and CO2 emissions have risen considerably.
Joel Shore:
At January 29, 2011 at 3:42 pm you say to me:
“It is basically just tautology…You are an AGW-skeptic, ergo you do not feel there is lots of empirical evidence for AGW.”
No! That is the precise opposite of the truth!
I know there is no empirical evidence for AGW while there is much empirical evidence that refutes it and, therefore, I am an AGW-skeptic.
At January 28, 2011 at 8:22 am I wrote, and at January 29, 2011 at 12:03 pm, I repeated:
“There is no empirical evidence of any kind – none, zilch, not any – that the AGW hypothesis is true and ‘climate sceptics’ point to the growing body of evidence (e.g. the missing ‘hot spot’, Trenberth’s “missing heat”, etc.) which refutes the hypothesis.”
To prove me wrong you only needed to provide one solitary piece of empirical evidence for AGW. But you did not. Instead, you repeatedly asserted that I was providing an “opinion” (n.b. not scientific fact) and resorted to ad hom.
Your response is a proof beyond doubt that you know I am right.
Richard
Richard,
I and plenty of others have talked about the wealth of empirical evidence before. However, if you really believe there isn’t any, you are not going to be convinced by anything along those lines that I will say….When you set yourself up as judge and jury, you can conclude whatever you want to believe, which is what you will do.
Flask says:
No, Flask, in this case I am simply stating what industry Richard is in fact employed in (assuming the information available on the web is still up-to-date): http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Courtney I think people deserve to know when someone has that strong an interest that would tend to influence their views on this matter. I am not claiming that this is true of most of those who are skeptics…I think that for most it is more ideological reasons…but in Richard’s case there is apparently more than just that.
Joel Shore:
You are making a fool of yourself.
In response to my challenge for you to cite one single, solitary piece of empirical evidence for AGW, in your post at January 30, 2011 at 6:27 pm you assert:
” I and plenty of others have talked about the wealth of empirical evidence before. ”
But you do not mention any such empirical evidence BECAUSE YOU KNOW THERE IS NONE.
And your ad hom. comments about me do not change that obvious fact.
So, I will not answer any more of your nonsense unless and until you cite some empirical evidence for AGW (n.b. anthropogenic warming and not merely warming that is recovery from the LIA).
Richard
Bruce Cobb says:
Bruce,
That is because it is very hard to argue against nonsense at some point. The fact is that authorities in science are authorities for a reason and if you are much less of an authority and reach a conclusion in conflict with the one that they authorities have reached, perhaps you need to re-examine what you believe. It takes a certain lack of humility to conclude that the authorities are all wrong and you are right.
Richard:
In a nutshell, our current understanding of AGW is based on a wealth of empirical data, starting with the data showing the rise in CO2 levels…and their close tie to the rise in anthropogenic emissions, proceeding through the fact that it is warming and that the warming shows basic features in agreement with the prediction that the warming mechanism is due to greenhouse gases (such as cooling of the stratosphere while the surface warms). It is also based on all of the empirical data that we have regarding the absorption spectrum of CO2 and our understanding of radiative and convective transfer and how these translate in a radiative imbalance or “forcing”, a forcing that every serious scientist including Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer agrees with. Empirical evidence of the climate sensitivity being about 0.75 +/-0.25 K per (W/m^2) comes from climate changes that have occurred in the past, such as the glacial – interglacial transitions and our estimates of all of the forcings that produced these changes. There is now also strong empirical evidence from the satellite record that the water vapor feedback is happening in the way that the models predict (as found by Dessler and by Soden et al., for instance). While cloud feedbacks remain a source of uncertainty in regards to the magnitude of effects predicted by the models, a negative cloud feedback makes it very difficult to understand paleoclimate, as well as to understand the climate record of the last century of so.
This is just some of the empirical data that would lead almost any serious scientist to laugh at your assertion that there is no empirical data supporting AGW. What is your hypothesis for why basically all the major scientific organizations on the planet believe that there is strong empirical evidence for AGW? Are they all deceiving us or are they all deceived and how can you explain such mass deception?
There is a reason why we have built our modern society on the best scientific understanding available. You will throw us back into the Dark Ages by trying to get us to abandon science as informing public policy when the science concludes things that you don’t like.
It is fine for you to try to win the day with your arguments in the scientific community…I have no problem with that. It’s what science is all about. However, what has happened is that you have been losing the argument in the scientific community so you are instead trying to get the public and policymakers to go along with your ideas despite the fact that the scientific community has rejected them. It is the same strategy followed by the creationists and by the tobacco companies. And, it is fundamentally an attack on science and especially on the use of science to intelligently inform public policy.