Comments On The Hill’s Post “Scientists Ask Congress To Put Aside Politics, Take ‘Fresh Look’ At Climate Data”
By Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.
There is an article in The Hill’s Energy and Environment Blog on February 1 2011 by Andrew Restuccia titled [h/t/ Bob Ferguson]
Scientists ask Congress to put aside politics, take ‘fresh look’ at climate data
The news article starts with the text
More than a dozen scientists took aim at climate skeptics in a letter to members of Congress late last week, calling on lawmakers to put aside politics and focus on the science behind climate change.
In the Jan. 28 letter, 18 scientists from various universities and research centers called on lawmakers to take a “fresh look” at climate change.
“Political philosophy has a legitimate role in policy debates, but not in the underlying climate science,” the scientists said in the letter. “There are no Democratic or Republican carbon dioxide molecules; they are all invisible and they all trap heat.”
Other excerpts from the news article read [with my comments right below each excerpt]
“The scientists took aim at climate skeptics. “Climate change deniers cloak themselves in scientific language, selectively critiquing aspects of mainstream climate science,” the scientists said. “Sometimes they present alternative hypotheses as an explanation of a particular point, as if the body of evidence were a house of cards standing or falling on one detail; but the edifice of climate science instead rests on a concrete foundation.”
My Comment
Actually, the focus almost exclusively on the radiative effect of CO2 and a few other grenhouse gases is a house of cards. As we documented in our paper (in which each author is a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union)
Pielke Sr., R., K. Beven, G. Brasseur, J. Calvert, M. Chahine, R. Dickerson, D. Entekhabi, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, H. Gupta, V. Gupta, W. Krajewski, E. Philip Krider, W. K.M. Lau, J. McDonnell, W. Rossow, J. Schaake, J. Smith, S. Sorooshian, and E. Wood, 2009: Climate change: The need to consider human forcings besides greenhouse gases. Eos, Vol. 90, No. 45, 10 November 2009, 413. Copyright (2009) American Geophysical Union
“In addition to greenhouse gas emissions, other first-order human climate forcings are important to understanding the future behavior of Earth’s climate. These forcings are spatially heterogeneous and include the effect of aerosols on clouds and associated precipitation [e.g., Rosenfeld et al., 2008], the influence of aerosol deposition (e.g., black carbon (soot) [Flanner et al. 2007] and reactive nitrogen [Galloway et al., 2004]), and the role of changes in land use/land cover [e.g., Takata et al., 2009]. Among their effects is their role in altering atmospheric and ocean circulation features away from what they would be in the natural climate system [NRC, 2005]. As with CO2, the lengths of time that they affect the climate are estimated to be on multidecadal time scales and longer.
Therefore, the cost-benefit analyses regarding the mitigation of CO2 and other greenhouse gases need to be considered along with the other human climate forcings in a broader environmental context, as well as with respect to their role in the climate system.”
and
“The evidence predominantly suggests that humans are significantly altering the global environment, and thus climate, in a variety of diverse ways beyond the effects of human emissions of greenhouse gases, including CO2…….Because global climate models do not accurately simulate (or even include) several of these other first-order human climate forcings, policy makers must be made aware of the inability of the current generation of models to accurately forecast regional climate risks to resources on multidecadal time scales.”
The failure of this group of climate scientists to consider this broader perspective illustrates their inappropriately narrow view of climate including the role of humans in affecting it, as well as of other social and environmental threats as discussed in the weblog post
A Way Forward In Climate Science Based On A Bottom-Up Resource-Based Perspective
The Hill post also writes
“Congress should, we believe, hold hearings to understand climate science and what it says about the likely costs and benefits of action and inaction,” the scientists wrote. “It should not hold hearings to attempt to intimidate scientists or to substitute ideological judgments for scientific ones.”
The letter of January 28, 2011 to the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate is from
John Abraham, University of St. Thomas
Barry Bickmore, Brigham Young University
Gretchen Daily,* Stanford University
G. Brent Dalrymple,* Oregon State University
Andrew Dessler, Texas A&M University
Peter Gleick,* Pacific Institute
John Kutzbach,* University of Wisconsin-Madison
Syukuro Manabe,* Princeton University
Michael Mann, Penn State University
Pamela Matson,* Stanford University
Harold Mooney,* Stanford University
Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton University
Ben Santer, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Richard Somerville, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Warren Washington, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Gary Yohe, Wesleyan University
George Woodwell,* The Woods Hole Research Center
*Member of the National Academy of Sciences
The letter is reproduced in the news article and has the following excerpts which I will comment on.
First, two excerpts separated by a few paragraphs illustrates an inconstant claim of the above individuals. They write
“It is not our role as scientists to determine how to deal with problems like climate change. That is a policy matter and rightly must be left to our elected leaders in discussion with all Americans. But, as scientists, we have an obligation to evaluate, report, and explain the science behind climate change.”
but then later state
“We and our colleagues are prepared to assist you as you work to develop a rational and practical national policy to address this important issue.”
My Comment
It’s actually hard to find a more self-contradictory statement!
The next excerpt is
“But no one who argues against the science of climate change has ever provided an alternative scientific theory that adequately satisfies the observable evidence or conforms to our understanding of physics, chemistry, and climate dynamics.”
The authors of the letter do not even define what is “the science of climate change”. From the context of the letter, however, they clearly mean the dominance of the radiative effect of CO2 and a few other gases as being the primary forcing that alters long-term weather statistics and other aspects of the climate. However, it is straightforward to refute this hypothesis as we did in our paper listed above [Pielke et al, 2009] where we documented that the hypothesis
Although the natural causes of climate variations and changes are undoubtedly important, the human influences are significant and are dominated by the emissions into the atmosphere of greenhouse gases, the most important of which is CO2. The adverse impact of these gases on regional and global climate constitutes the primary climate issue for the coming decades.
has been rejected.
The only hypothesis that has not been rejected is
“Although the natural causes of climate variations and changes are undoubtedly important, the human influences are significant and involve a diverse range of first-order climate forcings, including, but not limited to, the human input of carbon dioxide (CO2). Most, if not all, of these human influences on regional and global climate will continue to be of concern during the coming decades.”
We agree that “human activity is changing the climate” e.g. see
Inadvertent Weather Modification: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society
(Adopted by the AMS Council on 2 November 2010)
but this statement documents that the influence of humans on the local, regional and global scale is much more than due to the radiative effect of CO2 and a few other greenhouse gases. The narrow perspective presented by the authors of the letter to Congress is not supported by the current scientific knowledge.
The next excerpt is
“Climate change deniers cloak themselves in scientific language, selectively critiquing aspects of mainstream climate science. Sometimes they present alternative hypotheses as an explanation of a particular point, as if the body of evidence were a house of cards standing or falling on one detail; but the edifice of climate science instead rests on a concrete foundation. As an open letter from 255 NAS members noted in the May 2010 Science magazine, no research results have produced any evidence that challenges the overall scientific understanding of what is happening to our planet’s climate and why.”
My Comment
Without commenting on their very inappropriate use of the term “denier”, their claim that “no research results have produced any evidence that challenges the overall scientific understanding of what is happening to our planet’s climate and why”, is blatantly wrong. Examples of major international assessment reports that refute their claim include
Kabat, P., Claussen, M., Dirmeyer, P.A., J.H.C. Gash, L. Bravo de Guenni, M. Meybeck, R.A. Pielke Sr., C.J. Vorosmarty, R.W.A. Hutjes, and S. Lutkemeier, Editors, 2004: Vegetation, water, humans and the climate: A new perspective on an interactive system. Springer, Berlin, Global Change – The IGBP Series, 566 pp
and
National Research Council, 2005: Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties. Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change, Climate Research Committee, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 208 pp
In National Research Council (2005) it is written
“…..the traditional global mean TOA radiative forcing concept has some important limitations, which have come increasingly to light over the past decade. The concept is inadequate for some forcing agents, such as absorbing aerosols and land-use changes, that may have regional climate impacts much greater than would be predicted from TOA radiative forcing. Also, it diagnoses only one measure of climate change—global mean surface temperature response—while offering little information on regional climate change or precipitation. These limitations can be addressed by expanding the radiative forcing concept and through the introduction of additional forcing metrics. In particular, the concept needs to be extended to account for (1) the vertical structure of radiative forcing, (2) regional variability in radiative forcing, and (3) nonradiative forcing.”
“Regional variations in radiative forcing may have important regional and global climatic implications that are not resolved by the concept of global mean radiative forcing. Tropospheric aerosols and landscape changes have particularly heterogeneous forcings. To date, there have been only limited studies of regional radiative forcing and response. Indeed, it is not clear how best to diagnose a regional forcing and response in the observational record; regional forcings can lead to global climate responses, while global forcings can be associated with regional climate responses. Regional diabatic heating can also cause atmospheric teleconnections that influence regional climate thousands of kilometers away from the point of forcing. Improving societally relevant projections of regional climate impacts will require a better understanding of the magnitudes of regional forcings and the associated climate responses.”
“Several types of forcings—most notably aerosols, land-use and land-cover change, and modifications to biogeochemistry—impact the climate system in nonradiative ways, in particular by modifying the hydrological cycle and vegetation dynamics. Aerosols exert a forcing on the hydrological cycle by modifying cloud condensation nuclei, ice nuclei, precipitation efficiency, and the ratio between solar direct and diffuse radiation received. Other nonradiative forcings modify the biological components of the climate system by changing the fluxes of trace gases and heat between vegetation, soils, and the atmosphere and by modifying the amount and types of vegetation. No metrics for quantifying such nonradiative forcings have been accepted. Nonradiative forcings have eventual radiative impacts, so one option would be to quantify these radiative impacts. However, this approach may not convey appropriately the impacts of nonradiative forcings on societally relevant climate variables such as precipitation or ecosystem function. Any new metrics must also be able to characterize the regional structure in nonradiative forcing and climate response.”
The authors of the letter to the Members of Congress have failed to communicate these issues to them in their communication.
Summary
The authors of this letter to Congress clearly are advocates for particular policy actions based on their (in my view) inaccurately narrow view of the role of humans within the climate system. They are trying to claim they are only focusing on the science issues, but even a casual examination of their letter shows they are advocates. They still, unfortunately, have not read my son’s book
Pielke, R. A. Jr, 2007: The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics (Cambridge University Press, 2007) should be required reading to determine the role that each AGU member wants to serve with respect to their interface with the political process.
in order to educate them on the role they have chosen when interfacing with policymakers.
http://www.cardstacker.com/index2.html
Now that’s a real house of cards!
Back to the article. It is amazing how science is defined these days. Please look ONLY at OUR science. Ignore everything else because we say it isn’t important. Great reply.
Good lord, they want another theory? Here’s one. The Earth has been warming for hundreds of years since the little Ice Age back to levels seen within time of human history (MWP, RWP). The fossil record (Greenland forest now being exposed), ice core record, written histories, coast line records, etc all point to this as the PRIMARY driver on climate since the LIA.
The now debunked claims that CO2 is a LEADING force on global warming has been proven to be wrong. At best it is a lagging effect.
The now debunked long term historic record from organic proxies was proven wrong when tree rings diverged from the modern temp record. Not only did this destroy the idea organic proxies could indicate GLOBAL climate levels, this conclusion was covered up by Mann, Jones, et al with the HS graph. It seems the pre 1960 correlation between sparse temp records in city centers to tree rings at high altitudes and latitudes (which indicate a temporal and spacial gap too wide to connect the two data( was all coincidence.
It has also been proven that the temp record decomposes with distance and time too much to detect global changes within a fraction of a degree. All these fractional cries of warming are simply statistical ghosts in the noise. There is also proof the temp record is to spotty pre-1940 to have a precision sufficient to compare to the modern global record within a degree C.
In fact, if we simply accept the global annual temp anomaly as given, the 1°C error means it is as warm today as 80 years ago – statistically.
All this points to a the end of a centuries’ long warming after the LIA which had NOTHING to do with CO2, human produced or otherwise.
Prove otherwise and then we can discuss global warming.
Someone really needs to ask these guys how we will know if we do beat “Climage Change” since evidently Climate Change results in… hot, cold, dry, wet, snowy, rainy, arid, weather. Do we win when it is exactly 64 degrees over the entire earth and all weather patterns cease to exist, the polar ice caps melt, and it never rains again?
As to science, I never hear a shred of scientific evidence from AGW talking heads, just dire announcements and “trust me, I’m a climate scientist!”. For all we know Global Warming is a rounding error.
Related New Scientist Article
“The meeting was the brainchild of University of Oxford science philosopher Jerry Ravetz, an 81-year-old Greenpeace member who fears Al Gore may have done as much damage to environmentalism as Joseph Stalin did to socialism.”
“… they felt this was most pronounced in the IPCC itself, where reports assessing climate science were routinely written by people sitting in judgement on their own research and that of their critics. Public trust in climate science had collapsed and had to be rebuilt through reconciliation, they said.”
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/02/climate-sceptics-scientists-at.html
Climate “science” …….climategate …chop chop…. timberrrrrrrrrrrr!
Just wondering: on that list, how many of those scientists work in climatology or meteorology? Why isn’t Michio Kaku on here?
Facts – Facts – Facts!! What is with you people? Constantly wanting to resort to facts to back up your positions.
/sarc (if required)
I realize it’s been hammered around before, but if I’m to be Labeled as a “denier” I reserve the right to call my opponents “clueless gits”. “Morons” for short.
Demonstrating that the whole “CO2 emissions are the main problem” meme is completely wrong is childishly simple. It takes a genuine idiot to continue to believe in it with the wealth of contrary evidence currently surrounding us.
Correlation is not causation, but it takes SOME correlation to prove causation. There is none.
Only 18? I am sure lots more scientists could send letter to congress to tell them to ignore those fraudsters that cooked the science of AGW.
’18 Scientists’ = a consensus!
I hope they get their wish and the SCIENCE is given a chance to show the TRUE story – you know, the one that is told simply by the statement “We don’t know enough yet to make ANY case one way or another for cause and effect.” The only ones who are using “sciency sounding language” are the advocates of CAGW such as those who wrote this most recent piece of “we are smarter than you and you should just shut up and listen to what we tell you” elitist bull[snip]. True scientists would never say anything along the lines of “Well, you haven’t given any other theory to explain something that may or may not be happening, therefore our theory should be accepted as fact.” Last I checked, that’s advocacy, not science. I try desperately to have faith in humanity, but I just get more and more cynical every time I read something like this written by people who are supposed to be our brightest.
/rant off
@Ryan Spear: Michael Mann is on the list. He is a Climate “Scientist”.
lol, yes, let’s take politics out of climate change discussions. First, let’s establish the effects human caused climate change…….. then, just for fun, let’s establish that the changing climate is a problem. We could even try to quit according normative values to weather events and temperatures. Wouldn’t that be nice? Oh, wait, that would blow up the need for such an insidiously vapid letter. lol “Let’s take politics out of a political contrivance!” Psuedo-elitists.
Lets get all 18 of the gang before congress and ask them under oath where the heat went and when is it coming back.
” body of evidence were a house of cards standing or falling on one detail; but the edifice of climate science instead rests on a concrete foundation.”
They really should proof read, thier evidence is a house of cards on a concrete foundation on top of “QUICK SAND”!!! Then again they might just get more than they bargain for. The commitees that do look at the evidence will most likely see the sceptic side and decide that they are charlatans at the feed trough that is running out of feed!
That’s very good.
That could go global – I can see it on T shirts
“We and our colleagues are prepared to assist you as you work to develop a rational and practical national policy to address this important issue.”
Lysenko would be proud to see that Lysenkoism is still alive and well in the halls of American science.
The gang of 18 are the usual suspects: Kevin “Den!er” Trenberth, Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann, Ben “The Bully” Santer…
But they forgot Gore, Hansen, Schmidt and many others! Sheeesh – can’t they get the more famous manic CAGW scientists to sign off on the letter?
I think the 18 are all that is left of the 700 originally hyped to be forming the “rapid response team”. Maybe no one is calling them and they are resorting to the ambulance chasing lawyer tactic to stir up some interest and raise money for their organization. If they do testify someone needs to shut off the heat in the congressional chambers the night before the hearings. Who wouldn’t love to watch the plumes of breath vapor billowing from their mouths as they testify wrapped in layers of winter garb. As Carlin said, “I can dream, can’t I?” lol.
And we don’t have to provide any alternative theory. A theory is bad when there is empirical data that cannot be explained by the current theory, and so far there is plenty of data that doesn’t fit with CAGW models:
-Temperatures are not rising as fast as CAGW predicts.
-Number of cyclones/hurricantes are not growing as CAGW predicts.
-Sea level rise is not accelerating as CAGW predicts.
-Ice caps are not melting as CAGW predicts, specially the south one.
-Glaciers are not melting as CAGW predicts.
-Winters are not milder as CAGW predicts.
… and on top of that, there is poor correlation between CO2 levels and temperature.
Here again we see the influence of Post Normal Science (a science method for people who are bad at science). None of the 18 recognize that what they propose is not a fresh view of the science and it is a travesty they do not.
“But no one who argues against the science of climate change has ever provided an alternative scientific theory that adequately satisfies the observable evidence or conforms to our understanding of physics, chemistry, and climate dynamics.”
===================================================
Well of course not….
…the climate change umbrella has been made so large, that everything is now caused by climate change
warmcold, wetdry, warmdry, warmwet, colddry, coldwet, droughtflood, snowrain, nightday, cloudsun……………………………….
Quite frankly Dr. Pielke Sr. it looks to me like a skirmish between two groups of scientist claiming the cause is this vs the cause is that. However, the outcome is the same – it’s warming and warming fast. And i think that when they talk about deniers, they’re not talking about the claims about the aerosols and the land changes you and others made. They are talking about those group of peoples or organizations saying nothing is happening and it’s all BS like some of the previous comments proposed above. Well reading your paper, you must feel the same way because those deniers are saying the same about what you wrote.
On a final note, maybe the croud here should take note that you – there hero – are stating that AGW is real, happening, and getting warmer. Is’nt inconveniant ? (sarcasm off)..
Is’nt just a skirmish on what group(s) of scientist wants the control to manage what needs to be done – to me it looks like that. As all the paper both group are pushing are coming to the same conclusions even if the source is slightly different. I mean one group is saying GHGs are the main driver giving a minor role to aerosols and land changes, and your group is saying the main driver beside GHGs are aerosols and land changes. What’s the difference here, the outcome is the same and the source is anthropogenic (in fact your paper is even going further in attributing the cause to the anthropogenic part with the emphasis on land changes and aerosols) and actions still needs to be taken – whoever is right.
Yes, this statement of these so-called scientists is particularly galling:
““no research results have produced any evidence that challenges the overall scientific understanding of what is happening to our planet’s climate and why”
Given that “the overall scientific understanding” of importance is high climate sensitivities and increased risk of drought projections, EVERY diagnostic study of the models challenges the overall scientific understanding. The more than factor of two model disagreement on senstivity itself challenges the understanding. The warming trend being stalled by natural variation for a decade challenges the understanding. The IPCC admission that solar variation is poorly understood challenges the understanding. The much higher solar variation in the UV range and its greater impact on the stratosphere challenges the understanding.
These “scientists” are obviously hoping to take Congress for dupes before the evidence comes in and before the “consensus” completely disintegrates.
If Congress ever gets Trenberth before them, hopefully they pin him down on why he doesn’t discuss Wentz’s results on the model failures to reproduce the increase in precipitation published in the journal Science in any of the drought related studies produced under his supervision.
…no research results have produced any evidence that challenges the overall scientific understanding of what is happening to our planet’s climate and why.
Least of all ipcc Climate Science “research results”. Then they even poison the well by having Michael Mann in on the declaration, and Dr. Kevin “Travesty” Trenberth, who not all that long ago was also saying that the Models couldn’t make predictions until they were “initialized” to existing conditions, but now has suddenly annointed the Models as being existing conditions despite being abjectly unsuccessful in the same arena of predictions?
Attn,
denierspeople of the World, “They’rrrrree here!”Looking at the list maybe we can offer to throw a Climategate reunion party for this group. A replica of an earlier IPCC temperature graph which included the MWP could pop out of a large “Hide the Decline” themed cake. Activities would include a tree ring toss contest and a liars poker tournament. Treats would include snow-melt cones and decarbonated soft drinks.
Anyone who denies that there is climate is crazy. Up here in Boston we gotz lotz of climate. I also have a game called 4 lump monty. There are 4 lumps in my back yard. Your job is to figure out what is under the lump. One lump is a Saturn, one lump is a Toyota, and one lump is a F-150 truck. The other lump is all snow and ice. There is also another lump that has a Porsche 944 under it, but I will leave it out of the game since it is in arrest me red.
How many of these “scientists” depend on their tremendous past funding, their huge current funding, their (greatly increased!) future funding on the tax dollars and NGO funding that ONLY CAGW extremism and propaganda can bring forth – ONLY if they can claim CAGW is an immediate, catastrophic, life-threatening hoax (er, threat)?
If, as they claim, the much-rumoured “big oil” money (that never seems to be able to be documented or even counted) funding skeptics “changes” the skeptical view of “science”, then are not these very “scientists” for Mann-made global warming admitting that THEY are the ones who are capable of, and indeed, have actually changed THEIR science to support THEIR fundamental belief in CAGW?
For, if a rumoured single $250,000.00 one-time grant can affect the entire skeptical position on science, then how can they claim that several Nobel Peace Prizes, dozens of international trips and 1500 news media interviews and 15 years of public adulation and policy setting promotions (plus 89 billion dollars worth of funding) has not affected their own position?
They have very deftly wrapped themselves with the cloak of the ardent pursuit of pure scientific truth while projecting political motivations onto others. Gave me a good laugh. Nice try, but no cigar.
Thank you, Dr. Pielke.
Hopefully, our current policymakers will easily see through their flimsy camouflage. The only question that needs to be clearly asked:
“If we undertake to reduce U.S. CO2 emissions to X level by Y time, what effect will it have on average global temperature and sea level as of any future timeframe? How many major tropical cyclones, floods, droughts, animal extinctions, killer heat waves, killer snow storms, etc. will have been prevented?”
Anyone? Take your time….
They could only get 18?? Pathetic. And even worse, Peter Gleick is one of the 18. The same Peter Gleick who is one of only a handful of commenters who has been banned from WUWT, after several warnings, for his endless personal diatribes and childish behavior.
Compare these 18 political advocates with the 31,000+ [including over 9,000 PhD’s] in the hard sciences, who co-signed a statement saying:
At current and projected concentrations, CO2 is harmless and beneficial. The only reason these 18 tax-eaters signed this letter is in hopes of keeping the grant gravy train rolling.
Mike Haseler says:
February 4, 2011 at 9:53 am
“Related New Scientist Article
“The meeting was the brainchild of University of Oxford science philosopher Jerry Ravetz, an 81-year-old Greenpeace member who fears Al Gore may have done as much damage to environmentalism as Joseph Stalin did to socialism.””
So how much damage has Ravetz done by the invention of post-normal science? Remember he rejects the notion of objective truth, yet he meddles with science. I would say, as much damage as Pol Pot to Cambodia (no, not to socialism; socialism was defunct before).
If the group’s claim of CO2 or Pielke’s soot & land use being the ‘main driver’, please utilize them to explain the current ‘off the cliff’ drop in both RSS ( http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/rss_v32-v332.png ) and UAH ( http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Jan_2011.gif ) temperatures. Have either of their causes had any major change recently?
Sometimes they present alternative hypotheses as an explanation of a particular point, as if the body of evidence were a house of cards standing or falling on one detail; but the edifice of climate science instead rests on a concrete foundation.
I do believe the concrete is cracking under a certain VA AG.
Very disappointing to see Brent Dalrymple’s name on this ignominious list. Back in the 60s, he was instrumental in developing the K-Ar radiometric dating method. Working with Cox and Doell, they laid out the facts for sea-floor spreading based on the reversed-normal magnetic stripes in sea-floor basalt. Talk about a paradigm shifter.
This pathetic plea to politicians to declare “their brand of science” as the official, one-and-only version of Truth is a complete repudiation of the scientific method and of the critical skepticism that has made science so valuable for so long.
As a fellow geologist, I am dismayed at colleagues who willingly turn a blind eye to the abundant evidence that climate/weather of modern times are completely unremarkable. We live within the coldest 2 million years of earth history but are incredibly fortunate to occupy one of the brief interglacial periods when climate is warm enough to sustain widespread agriculture. The Holocene Optimum, along with the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warm periods, were all warmer than present and sea levels were also generally higher than present.
Gads! We’re quibbling about ppm of a trace gas! This borders on insanity.
Regg says:
February 4, 2011 at 10:39 am
“changes. What’s the difference here, the outcome is the same and the source is anthropogenic (in fact your paper is even going further in attributing the cause to the anthropogenic part with the emphasis on land changes and aerosols) and actions still needs to be taken – whoever is right.”
The difference would of course be that it makes no sense to reduce CO2 emissions if CO2 is not the driver of the warming. BTW it hasn’t warmed since 1998.
You should know, I remember a time when they said this incidence of “rapes” had increased when the only phenomenon was . . . that more “rapes” were being reported.
We do not have a higher incidence of domestic abuse than before, only better tracking.
Remeber, hen pecked? Lot’s of men still don’t report abusive women . . . for shame!
I honestly think sometimes that they (these scientists) might suffer from the “Adam and Eve” syndrome. But, then again . . that would mean they are simple and honest!
The next excerpt is
“Climate change deniers cloak themselves in scientific language, selectively critiquing aspects of mainstream climate science.”
The persons who signed the letter should be censured by Congress for using the profanity “deniers.”
Reminds me of another list:
Martin Bormann, Karl Dönitz, Hans Frank, Wilhelm Frick, Walther Funk, Hermann Göring, Rudolf Hess, Alfred Jodl, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Wilhelm Keitel, Baron Konstantin von Neurath, Erich Raeder, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Alfred Rosenberg, Fritz Sauckel, Baldur von Schirach, Arthur Seyss-Inquart, Albert Speer, Julius Streicher
“More than a dozen scientists took aim at climate skeptics in a letter to members of Congress late last week, calling on lawmakers to put aside politics and focus on the science behind climate change.”
OK. Let’s “focus on the science.” All of it. Like Dr. Pielke just did.
I keep on hearing about these “thousands” of scientists who believe in global warming and yet it always seems to be the same small insular and arrogant group that is pushing this crap publicly.
In this case about half of the guys are in the climategate emails (a shocker!).
“Climate change deniers cloak themselves in scientific language, selectively critiquing aspects of mainstream climate science.”
But an avowed ‘climate change denier’ signed the letter: Michael Mann, whose [debunked] straight and flat hokey stick handle showed no climate change over many centuries.
Scientific skeptics are at the forefront of those who understand that the climate has always changed, and always will change – naturally. Only among the ranks of climate alarmists will you find people who claim that the climate doesn’t change.
Regg its not warming fast, however Dr Pielke realises as do all concerned sceptics that our activities are changing the world.
Here is Australia we have trashed the landscape causing many animal and plants to become endangered and some extinct.
Focusing on one element of the biosphere is EXTREMELY NARROW MINDED.
For once humans need to wake up globally and present some intelligent stewardship.
Any ideas?
“We and our colleagues are prepared to assist you as you work to develop a rational and practical national policy to address this important issue.”
Is that unbelievable or what? It has exactly the rhythm of a B-movie apparatchik.
It could be followed with a good old Fascist proposition: “We would hate to see these lovely windows meet with an accident.”
Given the cold winter currently being experienced by the States and given that the satellite measurements suggests that temperature anomalies are currently below the 30 year average, the timing of this does not suggest that the cAWG crowd will have an easy ride.
Regg says:
February 4, 2011 at 10:39 am
“Quite frankly Dr. Pielke Sr. it looks to me like a skirmish between two groups of scientist claiming the cause is this vs the cause is that. However, the outcome is the same – it’s warming and warming fast. And i think that when they talk about deniers, they’re not talking about the claims about the aerosols and the land changes you and others made. They are talking about those group of peoples or organizations saying nothing is happening and it’s all BS like some of the previous comments proposed above. Well reading your paper, you must feel the same way because those deniers are saying the same about what you wrote….”
Whilst I might disagree with you Reg that it is warming fast, the cause of the warming is crucial. Since if we spend a 100 trillion dollars curbing CO2 emissions and it turns out that CO2 is not the driver and the warming continues because it is due to natural variation and if this warming is a problem, then we will need to spend further trillions adapting. However, we now have a problem since we have used all the money in unsuccessfully mitigating and we are now bankrupt and we have curtailed industry such that we cannot mobilise the necessary resources so as to be able to adapt.
Accordingly, commonsense suggest that we should not attempt to mitigate by restricting CO2 emissions and just wait and see what happens. If there is a problem (and I doubt that there will be), the past geological record of this planet confirms there are no near tipping points, such that man will easily be able to adapt.
Only eighteen! Maybe all that cold ice and snow falling out of the sky due, of course, to “global warming” prevented them from gathering more signatures.
The recipients of the letter should reply:
“Thank you for your letter. You are correct. CAGW is a settled issue. We no longer see a need to fund climate studies. Instead, we will only fund studies that seek to determine what strategies will best help us adapt to a warming globe.”
The ensuing response letter will be:
wait for it ….
“What luck! My most recent grant application is intended to do just that. Be generous in your funding.”
D Caldwell says:
February 4, 2011 at 11:02 am
Hopefully, our current policymakers will easily see through their flimsy camouflage.
____________________________________
The camouflage is created for the policymakers to use. They are not interested in truth, whatever that is. They want justification for furthering their goals of taking more and more control over the economy and us.
Dear “Reminds me of another list..”
In case some people are TOO DENSE (Pb)…
That’s part of the list of German Scientists who declared “Relativity” a Jewish conspiracy to overthrow “established” science.
Score: National Socialists (0), Albert E. (100,000,000,000,000…ah, all relative anyway!)
I can’t wait for it to get colder, I know thousands, if not millions of folk will suffer and I know it will hit our economies hard. But nature is nature and it doesn’t really care about us (no matter what some dumb Gaia theory may say) at least then we can get science back from these mystic fools…
Pull My Finger says:
February 4, 2011 at 9:51 am
This idea can’t be emphasized enough, for when weather patterns cease, there are no temperature gradients, it doesn’t rain or snow–the result is a barren, dead planet.
C’mon w*****s, explain just this one and we will believe you.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.html
@ Regg: “However, the outcome is the same – it’s warming and warming fast. ”
This statement defines you as a warmist-alarmist. The other identifier is your use of the word “denier”. What exactly is being denied? A denier is someone who denies that something historically happened when the historical records show that it did happen. Michael Mann, for example, denies the LIA and MWP.
Remember the Little Ice Age? Thank goodness it’s warming since then, although it seems to have stalled since ’98. WUWT?
I wonder if the “Gand of 18” is concerned their funding is in jeopardy.
Hoser says:
“The camouflage is created for the policymakers to use. They are not interested in truth, whatever that is. They want justification for furthering their goals of taking more and more control over the economy and us.”
I must agree the above is absolutely true for our current Administration and for many in Congress. However, I have some guarded optimism that there are also many members of Congress who are not quite so enthusiastic about the Federal Government being the solution to all society’s ills. We shall see….
Funny, 18 scientist but not one sign with academic credentials nor titles.
So how many of ’em actually have credentials and titles and are doing science in an official capacity, all as in not just self proclaimed?
Personally I only recognized four but only because they’re the crazed hippie van gaurd in different gates. :p
“Climate change deniers cloak themselves in scientific language, selectively critiquing aspects of mainstream climate science.”
If one eliminates the snarky parts, there is this:
‘Some researchers selectively critique climate science.’
. . . Now looking for notes from my first ever science class . . .
This is a great post. Thanks to Prof Pielke Sr. and WUWT for giving it wide exposure.
Being a serious issue, I will also suggest reading the recent report by Craig and Sherwood Idso, especially the “Concluding Commentary.”
http://co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf
This was the core of a WUWT post a few days ago.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/31/carbon-dioxide-and-earths-future/
Finally, I wonder if our congress folk ever take the time to read so much material?
Oppenheimer?
Trenberth?
Mann?
Dessler?
Santer?
You could find many who have politicized the issuer more.
Also, try doing a google ‘Scholar’ search on most of the others.
Many disparate fields not known for familiarity with climate data.
I wish there was a fresh look at the climate data to remind us
the very real observed warming trends are all at a rate consistent with the
low end of predicted ranges, which, should they continue, not even warm us
back to average temperatures of the dawn of civilization.
This is such a transparent appeal to authority, it makes me wonder if we really are getting the best and brightest in science, much less politics.
If the Republican majority falls for this snookering, we are in deep trouble on many fronts, not just climate/energy.
Does anyone have handy addresses of the Congressional members who are the butt of this sort of effort? Perhaps our elected representatives would still like to hear in a respectful polite but direct way what many people who actually keep up with this issue think of this effort?
Regg,
In what universe is it warming and warming fast?
How do you define warming, and how do you define warming fast?
Please illustrate.
Reg: “However, the outcome is the same – it’s warming and warming fast.”
Do a linear fit of the CRU temperatures from 1910 through 1945.
Do the same fit of CRU data from 1979 through the present.
If you do so, you will note that recent decades’ warming ( reputed to be ‘global warming’ ) of about 1.6 C per century
does not even match the highest rate recorded ( early twentieth century rate of 1.7 C per century ).
Further, while this rate (1.6 C per century ) exceeds the falsification limit,
it does not reach the rate of the IPCC best estimate for even the ‘Lo Scenario’
(of 1.8 C per century ) much less the middle or ‘High Scenarios’.
Global warming is real, in principle, but it is also a hoax of exaggeration.
TO richard verney
I don’t consider a -0.009 of a degree drop a big set back for a single month considering the current La Nina. But if you compare 2011 to 2008 (both La Nina years) you’ll get warmer temps currently than in 2008 by about 0.3 – and in fact warmer than any previous La Nina 30 years back (even 1999)
But that’s not the issue in this subject.
Pielke clarely stated :
In addition to greenhouse gas emissions, other first-order human climate forcings are important to understanding the future behavior of Earth’s climate. These forcings are spatially heterogeneous and include the effect of aerosols on clouds and associated precipitation
And
Therefore, the cost-benefit analyses regarding the mitigation of CO2 and other greenhouse gases need to be considered along with the other human climate forcings in a broader environmental context, as well as with respect to their role in the climate system.”
Emphasis mine..
So clearly Pielke et al are not saying CO2 is not a driver as some posters claimed above, but he’s saying that’s not the only one. Now, making it ”not the only one” (and i don’t think they really claim it was), does’nt mean it does not exist – it means there is other things that needs to be taken care along side with CO2.
That’s what Pielke is claiming. So when Pielke is offended by the word ”denier”, he should understand that he’s being put in the same bag as the other 12 by a good bunch of posters here. How does he call them ? Skeptics ? ….
As per the economics, the US debt is not caused by the investment made to fight CO2… Don’t make me laught in saying the US is spending trillions of $$ on Co2 mitigation, please. China is the country spending the most for that issue and that is about 54 billions (paid mostly by financing the US debt).
Pull My Finger: “….Global Warming is a rounding error.”
Excellent!!!!
With your permission, this will soon be a ‘bumper sticker’ on my vehicle!
I find gently chiding humor, founded on an observablel truth, to be an effective method of challenging the current dogma.
Thanks!!!
“We and our colleagues are prepared to assist you as you work to develop a rational and practical national policy to address this important issue.”
ROTFLMAO!!!
Reminds me of the old joke:
“Hello, I’m from the IRS and I’m here to help you.”
“But no one who argues against the science of climate change has ever provided an alternative scientific theory that adequately satisfies the observable evidence or conforms to our understanding of physics, chemistry, and climate dynamics.”
I have a theory that singularities are caused by the flatulence of giant intergalactic caterpillars, and anyone who can’t provide an alternative theory must therefore accept my theory or be forever labeled a GIC denier.
D Caldwell says:
February 4, 2011 at 11:59 am
Unfortunately, I am growing more skeptical because there is too much money and power already in the hands of government. Bureaucrats have a political agenda too (they are produced by places like Berkeley and Harvard and they select like-minded people to advance), and career government employees don’t get booted when the next party takes power.
Also, regulations create markets that keep faltering companies afloat. They get fat and lazy without competition. For example, GE is looking forward to a new smart grid market. IBM, CISCO, INTEL and many others are getting in on the action too. In this way, government controls industry. It isn’t a free market anymore.
Politicians on both sides are interested in getting support from corpoprate donors. It is easier to go along with the program than adhere to some vague principles the voters prefer. It is our job as voters to try to identify and elect representatives who will work for the people. They are the rare exceptions when you get above local politics.
It is plainly evident, politics as usual is not sustainable. The government has grown to the point where it is now in competition with the people. Electeds and regulators don’t know how to hold bureaucracy in place, much less contract. They only know how to grow.
EPA, for example, has accomplished its main tasks already. We have taken the low-hanging fruit. No doubt, they have done a great job cleaning up America. The problem is because they have done what they set out to do originally, they now have to find new regulatory avenues that are not cheap or even practical to implement. No government program ever wants to be successful, because if it does complete its tasks, it ends (or should).
I would like to see EPA shift into maintenance and monitoring mode. There is no need for them to do anything new. Unfortunately, the new EPA regs keep up the anxiety level in the public to avoid resitance, and help the companies get what they want out of their regulatory markets. In turn, our elected friends get their support for re-election.
I wonder if they’ll recommend that Congress examines the failure of the atmospheric hot spot to eventuate, and all the other IPCC predictions that have either failed or are so weak as to render them redundant – which is pretty much all the main points of AGW.
Talking about the hot spot no-show drives AGW promoters nuts & I’m yet to see anyone explain it away. This issue should be more visible to the public as it kills AGW with no hope of resuscitation.
http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2009/12/blog-post_30.html
http://www.sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf
Dr. Pielke,
Please explain how when the authors in question write:
“Major international scientific organizations in disciplines ranging from geophysics to geology, atmospheric sciences to biology, and physics to human health – as well as every one of the leading national scientific academies worldwide – have concluded that human activity is changing the climate. This is not a ‘belief.’ Instead, it is an objective evaluation of the scientific evidence.”
You seem to interpret this as: “Actually, the focus almost exclusively on the radiative effect of CO2 and a few other greenhouse gases is a house of cards.”
I don’t see how you can make your “a house of cards” reference when the authors reference the conclusions of this vasy array of organizations, including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Are you chellenging the conclusions of these organizations?
William Gray says:
February 4, 2011 at 11:26 am
“Regg its not warming fast, however Dr Pielke realises as do all concerned sceptics that our activities are changing the world. Here is Australia we have trashed the landscape causing many animal and plants to become endangered and some extinct. Focusing on one element of the biosphere is EXTREMELY NARROW MINDED. For once humans need to wake up globally and present some intelligent stewardship. Any ideas?”
In Europe and the USA, the indigenous populations have experienced birth rates dangerously below replacement level for at least 40 years. This fact should be treated as a health crisis of the first order by all nations.
“Congress should, we believe, hold hearings to understand climate science and what it says about the likely costs and benefits of action and inaction.”
Well, I agree completely with that. But they then go on to say:
“It should not hold hearings to attempt to intimidate scientists or to substitute ideological judgments for scientific ones.”
Ah, this is really the crux of it. This is why they sent the letter. They are trying to set the scene. They understand that there will now actually be hearings on the science and that worries them. So what they are trying to do is to give themselves cover. Should an inconvinient question arise for which they have no answers (like, ‘how much of the recent warming can likely be attributed to natural variation’) they will claim its just a political attack by the denial machine.
What Mann et al are doing is not science, but political activism masquerading as science.
If Congress truly wants to better understand climate science, it should speak to scientists from across the entire spectrum of opinions, give equal respect to all and, above all, keep an open mind.
Deciding future policy solely on the basis of what these jokers have to say would be to invite disaster…….
Dear Regg
In case you haven’t noticed it is not “warming fast”. In fact it is not warming at all. There is, as of right now, no actual proof of any warming beyond natural variation. It really was warmer, in this hemisphere at least, 1000 years ago. Most of the 20th century warming was probably created by data fudging but even if real it would be well within normal range.
Land use changes means among other things UHI.
What is all this stuff about being a scientist or not being a scientist. Yes professionals are to be listened too, and yes professionals do have knowledge and techniques that amateurs are often unaware of, but in the end they are people: Clever, stupid, vain, modest, sensitive and insensitive.
Do the mathematics that we cannot understand for us, present the data in a way we can understand, give your reasons for what you think it all means, and then accept you are one of many people on this planet who know only so much and no more.
In fact do as Anthony Watts does on this blog. If you like people you will not look down on people. I trust this blog because of it’s openess and its willingness to let everyday people disagree and debate with the scientists willing to put their theories into the public domain, I do not trust the sort of people (even if they say they are real scientists) who write in the pompous style above.
D Caldwell said “””Reminds me of the old joke:
“Hello, I’m from the IRS and I’m here to help you.”””
That’s not what they told me! They told me . . .
‘Hello, I’m from the IRS and I’m here to help MYSELF!’
From their letter to Congress: “Although the natural causes of climate variations and changes are undoubtedly important, the human influences are significant and are dominated by the emissions into the atmosphere of greenhouse gases, the most important of which is CO2. ”
The most *important* greenhouse gas may be CO2, but the most *effective* greenhouse gas is H2O. Anyone familiar with an infrared absorption spectrum can show that CO2 has a small effect compared to water vapor. But since mankind can do nothing about that, we’ll just regulate CO2 production instead.
I think an effective strategy might be to take the EPA to court to demand that they regulate greenhouse gasses in order of effectiveness. When they successfully mandate the quantity of water evaporation over the oceans, they can proceed to the lesser problems such as CO2 and N2O emission by humans.
“The letter” says:
“The fruits of the scientific process are worthy of your trust. This was perhaps best summed up in recent testimony before Congress by Dr. Peter Gleick, co-founder and director of the Pacific Institute and member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. He testified that the scientific process “is inherently adversarial – scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. ”
Which, of course, is why the signatories of “The Letter” start off by calling anyone who disagrees with them a “denier”. Good , honest, objective scientists to a Mann.
“Climate change deniers cloak themselves in scientific language, selectively critiquing aspects of mainstream climate science,”
If the Govt. would provide AGW realists with sufficient funds, they could then critique
all of the work of “mainstream science” without being selective.
How many accountants did it take to “critique” Bernie Madoff’s work?
Theo Goodwin says:
February 4, 2011 at 12:43 pm
William Gray says:
February 4, 2011 at 11:26 am
In Europe and the USA, the indigenous populations have experienced birth rates dangerously below replacement level for at least 40 years. This fact should be treated as a health crisis of the first order by all nations.
——————————————————————
Theo Goodwin. Would you please define what you mean by the ‘indigenous populations’ of Europe and the USA.
Thank you
Douglas
Here is an article worth noting for interest . . . well done, too! I am not saying I agree with his conclusions, mind you . . . . but, I do remember reading about it in Scientific American years ago, and seeing a “boob” tube piece about a geologist that study the phenomenon in certain rocks.
Magnetic Polar Shifts Causing Massive Global Superstorms
Terrence Aym Salem-News.com
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/february042011/global-superstorms-ta.php
Linking these bibliographies is legal . . . right? If it snot, then someone has to stop making it so easy . . .
Regg says:
February 4, 2011 at 10:39 am
“On a final note, maybe the croud (crowd) here should take note that you – there (their) hero – are stating that AGW is real, happening, and getting warmer. Is’nt (Isn’t that) inconveniant (inconvenient)? (sarcasm off).. ”
Apparently the ‘spell check’ was turned off, along with the sarcasm?
The planet earth has been warming in fits and starts since the last ice age. It will continue to do so until whatever alignments of planets, ocean currents, volcanic eruptions, solar activity, extrasolar gamma ray flux, and as yet undiscovered variables are necessary to cause the onset of the next glacial epic. That we will slide into another ice age is a near certainty, based on geologic records. And it may happen soon, based on those same geologic records. The current planetary temperature cyclical trend is well within the historical population of cyclical trends for the Holocene (current) interglacial period, as best we can tell. Your considerable angst for 0.039 per cent atmospheric CO2 is poorly founded, Regg.
The Bard posited an applicable closing:
“There exists more between heaven and earth, Horatio, than is dreamt of in one single philosophy.”
— Hamlet, Act I, Sc. 5
To Mike Jowsey stating This statement defines you as a warmist-alarmist.
Actually an alarmist point of view is someone predicting an ice age as we got more to loose from an ice age than a warm period – still we need to adapt under both of them. The name of the game is accounting the plausible problems and what/how it cost to metigate them – and see what’s the most economic. But if we simply ignores everything and continue the ”no result chatting”, the cost will be higher and the ”disturbance” will be worst. That’s how i see it. To prevent a flood you build dams/levy/dikes – they cost a lot, but it’s less than flooding otherwise you have to assume the risk the higher cost when flooding comes in. That’s basic economic.
To hunter
Just look at the graph from RSpencer posted some days ago on this web site. January 2011 is the second warmest ”La Nina” January since 1979 (41 years is’nt). The warmest being the 1999, but it is disputable as other sources are showing Jan 2011 to be at +0.83 (not -0.009). If it’s the case, then 2011 would really be the warmest January La Nina.
Yearly January temps in La Nina condition since 1979 – best guest value based on the available graphic. Source : http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Jan_2011.gif
1979 -0.24 (not a La Nina but on the negative side of the Enso)
1985 -0.48 (full La Nina at -0.9)
1989 -0.42 (full La Nina at -1.7)
1996 -0.2 (full La Nina at -0.7)
1999 0.02 (full La Nina at -1.4)
2000 -0.32 (on going La Nina at -1.6)
2001 -0.03 (on going La Nina at -0.6)
2008 -0.3 (full La Nina at -1.4)
2011 -0.009 (full La Nina at -1.4) that one is disputable as the current value might be +0.83 according to other sources.
Now i know, some of you will say ” REGG YOU’RE CHERRY PICKING ” .. Not at all. I’m just using the same technic frequently used by the blog’s owner et al. when comparing similar years.
“R2 says:
February 4, 2011 at 10:11 am
’18 Scientists’ = a consensus!”
But how many actually wrote it?
/sarc
“”””” “Political philosophy has a legitimate role in policy debates, but not in the underlying climate science,” the scientists said in the letter. “There are no Democratic or Republican carbon dioxide molecules; they are all invisible and they all trap heat.” “””””
“”””” “There are no Democratic or Republican carbon dioxide molecules; they are all invisible and they all trap heat.” “””””
Well actually, no they don’t so some of those scientists should get out of town.
Those CO2 molecules can and do, capture (for a short while) some LWIR Electromagnetic Radiation; but I have never heard of them trapping “heat”.
“Heat” would be involved in processes like conduction and convection; it certainly isn’t involved in Radiation.
And I never heard of conduction or convection get stopped by trapping; well of course some of the super gell substances, can slow down conduction by having such a low thermal conductivity. But CO2 is not going to be very diferent from air; and even though its specific heat may be different from N2, or O2, or Ar, It is present in such miniscule proportion in the atmospehre, that I doubt that there is much in the peer reviewed literature about changes in atmospheric conduction or convection due to CO2 changing.
And yes, I do believe that the small trace amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, is significant, as to the capture of some portions of the LWIR “Radiation” spectrum; but “heat capture”; nyet on that.
“The debate about climate change has become increasingly ideological and partisan. But climate change is not the product of a belief system or ideology. Instead, it is based on scientific fact, and no amount of argument, coercion, or debate among talking heads in the media can alter the physics of climate change.”
Watch the pea. Here they try equate “climate change” and “physics of climate change” when clearly what they are refering to is neither, it’s their half finished computer models that only work with the fiddle factor called climate sensitivity that has no base in the physics of climate.
‘ It is not our role as scientists to determine how to deal with problems like climate change. That is a policy matter and rightly must be left to our elected leaders in discussion with all Americans. But, as scientists, we have an obligation to evaluate, report, and explain the science behind climate change. ‘
With you all the way bud. So go and “evaluate” how the climate works, you have not even half the story yet. When and only when, you can come back and “report”. In the mean time, butt out of political advocacy.
Correction to my previous post… It’s the graph from the last 31 years. Sorry.
So they ask the senators to drop the politics of climate change and focus on the science, but the very act of scientists asking senators to do this is politics or advocacy – the largest contradiction in the letter is its very purpose, aimed to be political whilst at the same time asking others to not do the same – these “scientists” have shown their true colours and are clearly after more funding, or have some other agenda to push. If they are impartial to politics and are led by only fact and evidence, they would care not what the senators think or do about climate science.
“But no one who argues against the science of climate change has ever provided an alternative scientific theory that adequately satisfies the observable evidence or conforms to our understanding of physics, chemistry, and climate dynamics.”
Neither have those that argue for “the science of climate change”!
I’m frankly not surprised that they focus on the radiative effects of CO2, which are about the oNLY climate energy transport effects of CO2.
While it is true that other things like aerosols can have effects, and can be human influenced; the plain fact is the CO2 is the only crutch they can use to install universal servitude, and obeyance of the edicts of the left.
I’m quite comfortable in the belief (from the data evidence) that CO2 only affects climate via EM radiation, and that other human causes of climate change act in other ways; but oNly CO2 leads to tyranical control of the populace.
“In the Jan. 28 letter, 18 scientists from various universities and research centers called on lawmakers to take a “fresh look” at climate change.”
I note that Michael “Hockey-Stick” Mann is among the 18 scientists. Are the remaining 17 scientists guilty by association of Hockey-Stick’s mal-science?
“The scientists took aim at climate skeptics. “Climate change deniers cloak themselves in scientific language, selectively critiquing aspects of mainstream climate science,” the scientists said.
The original theory presented by these “climate scientists” is that anthropogenic carbon dioxide was responsible for global warming. Not one of these climate experts has provided any “concrete foundation” that this theory has any basis in fact.
The director of the IPCC, Pauchari, admitted in a CNN interview that there was no sustentative evidence that carbon dioxide was the cause of any global warming, a video which I have twice posted previously on WUWT.
The AGW purveyors of mal-science are instead cloaking themselves in a game of changing the name of the game.
Global warming, climate change or climate chaos is not the debate. Change and chaos in the the temperature and climate of Earth are controlled by Nature, much to the chagrin of the multitude of climate modelers.
Climate change, global warming/cooling and climate chaos is ongoing and not linked to the flora and fauna on Earth. If so linked, show the scientific facts supporting that link.
Anecdotes are not proof, but volcanoes have historically been linked to climate anomalies.
Computer models are not reality. Nature is reality. This truism was published by a French journalist several years ago.
“Although the natural causes of climate variations and changes are undoubtedly important, the human influences are significant and are dominated by the emissions into the atmosphere of greenhouse gases, the most important of which is CO2. The adverse impact of these gases on regional and global climate constitutes the primary climate issue for the coming decades.”
I ask the question: What is the difference between the gases in a greenhouse and atmospheric trace gases?
I submit that there is no atmospheric trace gas that acts as a “glass ceiling” that prevents the convection of atmospheric thermal energy, with the exception of water vapor in limited local circumstances.
The most important atmospheric trace gas is water vapor, not carbon dioxide.
The use of the term “denier” is much like the term “racist” and is designed to win the argument by accusation rather than relevant facts.
Congress is not interested in understanding climate, or rather, the government is not. Never let a crisis go to waste. A democrat said that, but they all think that.
Mark
Did you notice who all in that sewing bee, ARE NOT members of the National Academies of Science. And what a publicly noisy sect they are.
For further muddle-headed thinhing, here is part of Phil Jones in email 1111085657.txt Climategate
“My response would have been what is the point of doing any more paleo work, if we
are constrained by the answer we are allowed to get. If we don’t have the MWP and LIA then we are wrong. We have orders of magnitude more data than when these came into vogue in the 1960s, but we still are expected to find them.”
No strong place for radiative physics of GHG here and direct conflict with the H/S.
Laurie Bowen says:
February 4, 2011 at 11:14 am
>>
You should know, I remember a time when they said this incidence of “rapes” had increased when the only phenomenon was . . . that more “rapes” were being reported.
We do not have a higher incidence of domestic abuse than before, only better tracking.
Remeber, hen pecked? Lot’s of men still don’t report abusive women . . . for shame!
>>
Damned good point. New research shows rising CO2 leads to increased rape and domestic violence.
they all should be locked up
I think we should all be seriously concerned when a “special interest” group makes an appeal to any legislative body, be it in the US, UK, Australia or NZ, wherever: not because politicians are corruptible, but because they are vulnerable to accepting so-called arguments at face value if they come from a ‘trusted’ source.
An example:
At the time of the Copenhagen conference a year ago, the late, unlamented UK Prime Minister and former Chancellor, Gordon Brown dismissed sceptics like me as, quote, “flat-earthers”.
It defies belief that in the previous 12 years he had had either the time or energy to be fully cognisant of the AGW arguments, and yet he automatically took the official line.
And he was the man with a massive parliamentary majority.
But it’s worse than that.
Yesterday in WUWT, Barry Woods’ post of the BBC prog. “Science Under Attack” covered it –
Sir Paul Nurse, Nobel Laureate (in a totally unrelated discipline) – newly President of the Royal Society (one of the most prestigious appointments within the entire world of science) apparently ‘bought the lot’ without knowing what it was he had bought.
To me it seems amazing that Nurse hadn’t done some research on the subject for the programme beforehand, but even more, that afterwards he must have had the time to check the facts but didn’t, before the programme was broadcast.
It’s very worrying that 100’s of £m of ordinary folks’ pension funds are now at stake already to these Carbon Exchanges, but it could get a lot worse if they’re not stopped.
Dan in Cal says:
“I think an effective strategy might be to take the EPA to court to demand that they regulate greenhouse gasses in order of effectiveness. When they successfully mandate the quantity of water evaporation over the oceans, they can proceed to the lesser problems such as CO2 and N2O emission by humans.”
Nice try, but before you blow you life savings on a lawyer don’t forget that H2O is only a feedback amplifying the CO2 warming.
Mike Jowsay, spot on, well said!
The absence of Michio Kaku is interesting. It is possible that he wasn’t invited. 🙂
What’s more interesting however is the conspicuous absence of James Hansen and his NASA team. Why were they not invited?
The burden of proof is on the warm-earthers. There is no debate. What is this debate nonsense? It is either AGW or it is not. The alarmists have to prove the case. Not the other way around, and they haven’t. It is their hypothesis from the get-go. However, to falsify the warm-earth thesis, just one assumption has to be disproven—and, like a string of dominoes, they have all fallen. The scientific majority has jumped in to do this, because we were poised to endure Algorian, Draconian solutions to this non-problem.
A good scientist strives to falsify his own hypotheses. None of the “Team” has the scientific strength (or maybe the know-how) to do this, nor have they even tried. They have dishonored themselves, answering the Sirens’ call to booty and fame.
Very sad, indeed.
Regg says:
February 4, 2011 at 1:39 pm
To Mike Jowsey stating This statement defines you as a warmist-alarmist.[—
. But if we simply ignores everything and continue the ”no result chatting”, the cost will be higher and the ”disturbance” will be worst. That’s how i see it. To prevent a flood you build dams/levy/dikes – they cost a lot, but it’s less than flooding otherwise you have to assume the risk the higher cost when flooding comes in. That’s basic economic.]
————————————————————————–
Regg. Your analogy doesn’t stack up. Dams may be built to prevent floods of a known and measurable extent based upon good data gathered from observation of past events. There is no data that determines the extent to which the earth’s atmosphere may warm that may be caused by co2. So you have no idea of what to do about it. You are suggesting that ‘we’ do ‘something’ about a problem that is not defined.
Douglas
P. Solar says:
February 4, 2011 at 2:45 pm
“Nice try, but before you blow you life savings on a lawyer don’t forget that H2O is only a feedback amplifying the CO2 warming.”
Assuming that all the warming is caused by manmade CO2. Will you guys ever get tired of assuming your conclusion?
mikemUK says: February 4, 2011 at 2:32 pm
“To me it seems amazing that Nurse hadn’t done some research on the subject for the programme beforehand,”
It’s not just in Egypt that the plebs are getting angry. You can see it amongst scientists who fear that climategate is going to tar their whole profession as being incompetent charlatans. You can quite understand why. Scientists don’t get paid a lot, but at least they have respect. But the way the scientific oligarchs have pin the reputation of all scientists on the integrity of the climategate team means every scientists is going to be made a laughing stock when this whole house of cards falls.
The peasants are revolting! I’m quite sure it won’t be long before heads start to roll and I can’t see Nurse being in place by the end of the year.
If anyone fancies running a sweepstake, I’ll put a pound on sometime during the summer break like July.
Regg says:
“Just look at the graph from RSpencer posted some days ago on this web site. January 2011 is the second warmest ”La Nina” January since 1979 (41 years is’nt). The warmest being the 1999, but it is disputable as other sources are showing Jan 2011 to be at +0.83 (not -0.009). If it’s the case, then 2011 would really be the warmest January La Nina.”
Measured in tenths of a degree over four decades using jerry-rigged systems of measurement managed by pro-AGW zealots! Preposterous! Unbelievable! Shameful!
Douglas says:
February 4, 2011 at 1:32 pm
Theo Goodwin says:
February 4, 2011 at 12:43 pm
William Gray says:
February 4, 2011 at 11:26 am
“Theo Goodwin. Would you please define what you mean by the ‘indigenous populations’ of Europe and the USA.”
Inuits and Scot-Irish.
When will “scientists” understand this simple truth:
“‘Global Warming’ refers to an obscure statistical quantity, globally averaged temperature anomaly, the small residue of far larger and mostly uncorrelated local anomalies. This quantity is highly uncertain, but may be on the order of 0.7C over the past 150 years. This quantity is always varying at this level and there have been periods of both warming and cooling on virtually all time scales. On the time scale of from 1 year to 100 years, there is no need for any externally specified forcing. The climate system is never in equilibrium because, among other things, the ocean transports heat between the surface and the depths. To be sure, however, there are other sources of internal variability as well.”
Dr. Richard Lindzen MIT
Having studied this issue for a few years now, it is beyond me why anyone thinks there is anything that needs explained in any of the weather we have seen for the last 150 years.
It is pretty obvious that none of the gang of 18 have ever taken a class in heat transfer.
If they have they must not have completed it satisfactorily or have slept since then.
These boys are just not too smart. Very glib but not smart.
I would be willing to hazard a guess on their political leanings.
.
Noelle: “……. I don’t see how you can make your ‘a house of cards’ reference when the authors reference the conclusions of this vast array of organizations, including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Are you challenging the conclusions of these organizations?”
Challenging the conclusions of government-funded scientific organizations is ultimately what it’s all about.
This is what climate skeptics must ultimately do if they are to go over the heads of the government-funded climate change alarmists directly to the voting public.
That’s a very tall order, but one which is fully achievable if climate skeptics are willing to systematically organize and present their data, their knowledge, and their conclusions using a disciplined, professional, and fully transparent approach.
Some in the skeptic community are already there, but many others are not.
There needs to be something which we might think of as a Counter-IPCC Climate Science Knowledge Base, one which is organized according to sound knowledge management principles and which is completely transparent as to its data sources and its data management practices.
The money is in the carbon tax, so any idea why these ‘climate scientists’ would focus on that?
I wonder if Dr. Trenberth will bring his missing heat with him when he fronts up.
Dr Mann must surely bring those upsidedown proxies, I think.
And with all that scientific horsepower the lot of them ought to be able to find that pesky missing Tropospheric Hotspot and have it tag along, too, one would hope.
Regg says:
February 4, 2011 at 1:39 pm
“To prevent a flood you build dams/levy/dikes – they cost a lot, but it’s less than flooding otherwise you have to assume the risk the higher cost when flooding comes in. That’s basic economic.”
Logic fault. In areas where flooding has historically occurred, you may choose to build dikes and other flood control devices, if it is desireable and economically feasible. Yet, in your analogy, you argue that we must ‘build dams’ to prevent ‘flooding’ that has NOT historically occured. That illustrates a very strong case of hydrophobia, but would not be a rational or economically reasonable thing to do!
The debate over the AGW hypothesis is whether there has been ANY true climate warming effect attributable to the industrial age of the human race on this beautiful planet. The more we look at the data, analyses, debatable temperature proxies, the inaccuracies of historical and current temperature measuring devices and data sets, the siting and urban heat island effects distorting those temperature measurements, the inaccuracy for decades of AGW models and proponents claims of impending global warming ‘disasters’, and the now exposed collusion and skulldugery of some of the most ardent AGW proponents, the greater and greater the total weight of the evidence becomes refuting the AGW hypothesis.
It takes a leap of faith to conclude otherwise. And, in a nutshell, that is where we are today. We have reasoned rejection of the AGW hypothesis on the one side and the well indoctrinated AGW faithful on the other.
We would be criminally unconscionable to destroy the industrial strengths of our maturing planetary society, based on a faithfully adhered to but irrational fear of 0.039 or even 0.050 per cent atmospheric CO2. Exploration of the solar system beckons to our children and the stars twinkle invitations to the generations beyond. You would hamstring our toddling efforts to crawl off this planet, denying use of energy intensive resources because of your fears. No combination of solar, wind, grain alcohol, or other pie in the sky power can get us there! You would deny all of those current and future generations their birthright, to serve your phobia of increases to a climate benign atmospheric trace gas that enhances fecundity of all flora on this planet, and thereby provides increasing fodder and oxygen for all fauna as well.
You would do this, based on the poorly supported AGW hypothesis. It is not rational.
Regg says:
“Just look at the graph from RSpencer posted some days ago on this web site. January 2011 is the second warmest ”La Nina” January since 1979 (41 years is’nt). The warmest being the 1999, but it is disputable as other sources are showing Jan 2011 to be at +0.83 (not -0.009). If it’s the case, then 2011 would really be the warmest January La Nina.”
=============================================================
What “other sources”?
Kindly provide a link if you do not want to be exposed as a liar and a fraud.
I’m sure all those people in New Mexico who’s gas supply has been cut off are feeling good about how much carbon emissions they are saving. You don’t need heat, just that warm fuzzy feeling about how you are contributing to ‘saving the planet.’
I read that article at “the hill” and what a pack of lies. You can take every reference to skeptical scientist and denier and replace it with ‘climate scientist’ and it would be very close to the truth!
A recent meeting held on 23 NOV 2010 sponsed by the California Energy Commission (CEC) http://www.energy.ca.gov/2011_energypolicy/documents/#11232010 entitled ” Joint Committee Workshop on Electricity Infrastructure Need Assessment” discussed infarstructure needs to meet the 33%RES, enacted via an administrative law requirment by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), by 2020 in CA. The Californial Energy Storage Association stressed the need for energy storage to address the intermittent nature of most forms of renewable energy (wind and solar) in a public comment http://www.energy.ca.gov/2011_energypolicy/documents/2010-11-23_workshop/comments/California_Energy_Storage_Association_TN-59287.pdf The CESA comment had a particularly insightful comment on page 4-
…
“Finally, the timing for including energy storage as a fundamental component of California’s
electricity infrastructure has never been greater. At the November 30, 2010 CPUC LTPP
workshop, CAISO presented their findings related to full RPS Implementation, and found that the
33% in state RPS scenario resulted in a small INCREASE in MMBTU of fuel burn in California.
According to Mark Rothleder, Director of Market Analysis and Development CAISO, “The primary
reasons for this are a result of two things:
1) increased regulation and load following requirements resulting in resources with
flexibility being committed online more in the 33% reference case over other cases and
2) lower level net imports from outside of CA in the 33% reference case. This result may
change for depending on the ultimate source of flexibility.” (BOLD, underline added by M. Miller)
I am sharing this information on Watts Up With That as the CA legislature (vs CARB) is currently considering putting the force of legislative law behind the 33%RES mandate. http://www.sacbee.com/2011/02/03/3373329/democrats-launch-green-energy.html Unfortunately, the CA legislature has not been capable of providing guidance to our bureaucracies (CARB, CEC) on what is an acceptable price for the electrical customers in the state to pay for removing CO2 from the electrical generation facilities. My personal feeling is that the CARB’s “The cost-effectiveness of the proposal is estimated to be about $200/MMTCO2E in 2020. (page ES-3) ” is not cost effective.
I have not re read the CARB report http://www.cal-span.org/cgi-bin/archive.php?owner=CARB&date=2010-09-23–
STAFF REPORT: INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS
PROPOSED REGULATION FOR A
CALIFORNIA RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY STANDARD
Public Hearing to Consider the Proposed Regulation
to Implement the Renewable Electricity Standard
Date of Release: June 3, 2010
Scheduled for Consideration: July 22-23, 2010
justifying the move from the current legislated 20%RES to 33% to see if the concerns of the CASIO noted above were considered in the analysis. If you live in CA please contact your state representatives to ask them to provide input to the bureaucracies in regards to what is an acceptable price for us to be paying to remove a ton of CO2.
Can you say Post Normal Science?
You see this kind of thing doesnt happen in Normal science.
Regg says:
“Just look at the graph from RSpencer posted some days ago on this web site. January 2011 is the second warmest ”La Nina” January since 1979 (41 years is’nt). The warmest being the 1999, but it is disputable as other sources are showing Jan 2011 to be at +0.83 (not -0.009). If it’s the case, then 2011 would really be the warmest January La Nina.”
=============================================================
If your “other sources” include the RSS data base, they show the monthly anomaly as +0.083C, not +0.83C.
Darned tricky, those decimal points………
eadler is crazier’n Barrie Harrop. You couldn’t get 97% of any group of people to agree that the Pope is Catholic.
Regg:
However, the outcome is the same – it’s warming and warming fast.
Regg, you must be a Post Normal Scientist: panic makes you smarter.
The name of the game is accounting the plausible problems and what/how it cost to metigate them – and see what’s the most economic. But if we simply ignores everything and continue the ”no result chatting”, the cost will be higher and the ”disturbance” will be worst. That’s how i see it. To prevent a flood you build dams/levy/dikes – they cost a lot, but it’s less than flooding otherwise you have to assume the risk the higher cost when flooding comes in. That’s basic economic.
QED? Especially since now CO2=CAGW “plausibly” causes every disaster imaginable, therefore we’ll have to get ready for everything? “Before it’s too late!”?
Get a grip, Regg, the alleged cure to the alleged CO2=CAGW disease is much worse than the alleged disease; so much so that India and China are even using the alleged cause of CO2CAGW, increasing fossil fuel combustion, as the cure for their current catastrophic disease = underdevelopment – a condition which the panicked Post Normal Scientists in contrast want to actually reproduce in the developed countries, even as “good”!
Scott Brim says:
February 4, 2011 at 4:21 pm
.
“Challenging the conclusions of government-funded scientific organizations is ultimately what it’s all about. This is what climate skeptics must ultimately do if they are to go over the heads of the government-funded climate change alarmists directly to the voting public.”
This is not necessary in the USA where more than a healthy majority oppose “Cap and Trade” and the EPA’s regulation of CO2. It might be really helpful in Britain, though that train left the station some time ago.
Excerpt from their statement: “But no one who argues against the science of climate change has ever provided an alternative scientific theory that adequately satisfies the observable evidence or conforms to our understanding of physics, chemistry, and climate dynamics.”
This is manifestly untrue. They deny the existence of contrary scientific evidence which nullifies their claim that greenhouse warming exists. The evidence against it is empirical, meaning that theories in disagreement with it must be abandoned unless the empirical observation is shown to be in error.
Let’s start with the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect. You may recall that this is what Hansen built his case upon when he testified to the Senate in 1988. Ferenc Miskolczi has shown, using NOAA weather balloon data going back to 1948, that the average infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere has not changed for 61 years. This means that constant addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere for all these years has not changed the transparency of the atmosphere to infrared radiation that carbon dioxide absorbs.
This totally contradicts the IPCC claim that putting more CO2 into the atmosphere causes more absorption of radiation, that “radiative forcing” they babble about. They have to prove that Miskolczi is wrong or take back their claim that more CO2 means more radiative forcing. The Miskolczi paper has been out for a year and so far no peer-reviewed criticism of it has appeared.
Secondly, their claim that warming started in the late seventies and continued through the eighties and nineties is simply factually wrong. I have proven that this so-called “late twentieth century warming“ never existed and that temperature curves showing it are cooked. That is because satellite temperature measurements, which are far more accurate than the secretive sources they use to construct their own curves, simply do not show this warming. There were just temperature ascillations, up and down for half a degree for twenty years, but no warming.
And that makes a lie of Hansen’s testimony in 1988 that warming had started. For details read What Warming? available on Amazon.com. When these guys come out with an outrageous claim that their science has not been questioned this is the information you should throw that back at them. It is not a peripheral issue but goes to the heart of their claim that global warming exists.
R2 says:
February 4, 2011 at 10:11 am
’18 Scientists’ = a consensus!
How many consensus’s in an unequivocal?
How many unequivocal’s in a unanimous?
Heck, I don’t even know how many Olympic size pools in a Manhattan.
/sarc
Smokey: 1100 scientists were surveyed. After throwing out the 1000 that disagreed, the 100 that remained consisted of 3 children and 97 IPCC lead authors. They kept the 3 since they’re easier to refute for PR points.
Mark
Dr. Pielke/mods:
Change needed in Summary paragraph: “…They are trying to claim they are only focusing on the science issues, but even a causal examination….” I believe casual is the word intended, not causal.
Eadler,
I presume your assertion of 97% comes from the document titled “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.” You really need to read the document in full instead of twisting its results. A few points:
10,000+ earth scientists were sent a survey. (no physicists, no engineers, etc)
3,000+ responded, from the survey; “With survey participants asked to select a single category, the most common areas of expertise reported were geochemistry (15.5%), geophysics (12%), and oceanography (10.5%). General geology, hydrology/hydrogeology, and paleontology each accounted for 5–7% of the total respondents. Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists, and 8.5% of the respondents indicated that more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications
in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change.”
Only 90% agreed with the statement that the earth has warmed. In other words 300+ don’t even believe the earth has warmed!!!!!!!!!
Only 82% agreed that human activity was a significant contributing factor. The survey did not define what “significant” meant. In any case over 550 did not agree with this poorly worded question.
The only way you get 97% is if you count only those who are “climate scientists” and have been publishing climate research papers as their primary focus recently.
The results merely confirm that there is a strong consensus within the closely knit group that call themselves climate scientists. Hardly a surprise, it is this groups butchering of the science that skeptics have been arguing against.
… because that is the job of climate scientists!
Sure, I can believe that there are several things humans are doing that have some effect on climate, whether to make it colder or hotter. However, the thing that stands out to me is that, although the “science” (the radiative properties of polyatomic gases) is understood, the next unscientific step – modeling and forecasting – are simply so much BS. The very idea that these guys have a full grasp on the complexity of the earth’s surficial processes and have programmed computers to mimic it, is preposterous.
This is the area to attack. Make them, as Dr. Pielke notes above, define “the science” and then refute, ridicule and mock their puerile use of it via these damned models.
Theo Goodwin says:February 4, 2011 at 12:43 pm
[In Europe and the USA, the indigenous populations have experienced birth rates dangerously below replacement level for at least 40 years. This fact should be treated as a health crisis of the first order by all nations].
Theo Goodwin says: February 4, 2011 at 4:12 pm
Inuits and Scot-Irish.
————————————————————————–
Theo Goodwin. Thank you for your definition but I don’t think that the diminution of these races is any more of a concern than that of the Europeans generally. In any event it seems to me to be part of an evolutionary trend – some races are being replaced by others. There seems to be a distinct possibility that the breeding rate of Europeans is so low that they are likely to be replaced by immigrants from Asia during this century.
I don’t know that this is a health crisis unless you are referring to the whisky swilling Scots!
Douglas
““There are no Democratic or Republican carbon dioxide molecules; they are all invisible and they all trap heat.””
Waxing lyrically over the physical properties of something invisible is somewhat problematical, the notion that a molecule can trap heat makes it bizarre and as it’s written for an audience of politicians, it’s also patronising.
I wonder if the think atomic absorption is like a kitchen sponge….
One can completely throw out the temperature record for the past 150 years and still see that the overall climate is warming. The loss of arctic sea ice, retreating alpine glaciers, pole-ward range extensions of numerous species, rising sea temperatures, etc. are all pretty good indicators of that.
It amazes me that anyone can conclude that a 30 percent increase in CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution can have only a minimal effect on increasing temperatures. What is their motivation? Fear? It is what it is. Sure, climate changes naturally, but humans have changed the chemistry and heat-transfer properties of the atmosphere. Personally, I think it’s probably too late to reverse the trend, and we’ll just have to deal with the consequences of an ever expanding human population and the chaos that will surely come of it.
Douglas says:
February 4, 2011 at 6:40 pm
Theo Goodwin says:February 4, 2011 at 12:43 pm
“I don’t know that this is a health crisis unless you are referring to the whisky swilling Scots!”
The Scot-Irish, the Bushmill’s drinkers.
mikemUK says: February 4, 2011 at 2:32 pm
“To me it seems amazing that Nurse hadn’t done some research on the subject for the programme beforehand,”
Fascinating! Why isn’t the BBC doing a program on the fact that the Head of the Royal Society agreed to do a television program on the AGW debate and proved on camera that he is totally ignorant of the science. In addition, all the BBC editors allowed the program to air and, thereby, proved that they are just as ignorant as Nurse. Given that Nurse is the head of the Royal Society, his ignorance proves that the level of knowledge about AGW at the Royal Society and the BBC is lower than that of the man on the street. In other words, Nurse’s performance is hard, cold proof that the Royal Society and the BBC are totally driven by ideology in the AGW debate and quite happy to lie to their public. Why is this not a national scandal in Britain? Are all Britains now Post Normal Scientists?
JimF – Thanks for finding the typo! I have corrected.
Edit note:
Another malaprop: “an inconstant claim”; “inconsistent claim”, surely?
According to the Carbon War Room ( carbonwarroom.com ), the Situation is dire; it’s CCC!! (Catastrophic Climate Change). They make it clear that it’s really CACC (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change) they mean, tho’:
This is Branson and a buncha industry and Vulture Venturist and Change Agent heavy hitters:
http://www.carbonwarroom.com/about/founders
Theo Goodwin says:
February 4, 2011 at 7:27 pm
Douglas says:
February 4, 2011 at 6:40 pm
Theo Goodwin says:February 4, 2011 at 12:43 pm
The Scot-Irish, the Bushmill’s drinkers.
—————————————————————————
Aha! – The subtle distinction – and they take it everywhere they settle too! Come to think of it – there are more Irish and Scots in the US, Australia and N.Z. than in the UK – so they are in no danger of extinction – just contaminating the REAL indigenous people!
Cheers
Douglas
The above makes me think, though, that Creighton’s famous didactic technological replacement example was wrong, though. The automobile did not save us from being buried in horse
shitmanure.Smokey says:
February 4, 2011 at 5:40 pm
eadler is crazier’n Barrie Harrop. You couldn’t get 97% of any group of people to agree that the Pope is Catholic.
Smokey,
Your statement applies to Pielke Sr, who together with James Annan is the author of a report on a poll which he took and published. Based on their poll,
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d5/jdannan/survey.pdf
Almost all respondents (at least 97%) conclude that the human addition of CO2 into the atmosphere is an important component of the climate system and has contributed to some extent in recent observed global average warming.
So now you can call Pielke Sr. and James Annan, the originators of the poll, and the authors of the report crazy.
While you are at it, you can call James Doran, the author of a different poll crazy. His independent poll also find 97% of climate researchers also attribute global warming to GHG’s emitted due to human activity.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science
as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of
their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.
REPLY: 77 respondents? hardly a valid representative sample of scientists, your example is ridiculous – Anthony
A lot of people have been hoodwinked into believing that global warming has been caused by people, countries, factories and cars emitting co2, carbon dioxide. THIS IS NOT TRUE. We have been the victims of a hoax that simply engineers more taxes.
I went to see Al Gore in Glasgow and it cost me £700 just to sit at a table and watch him speak about climate change, Hilton hotel in Glasgow. I believed it all. I thought, shit the planet is melting! You see, my planet, yes it’s mine as it’s the only one I live on has to be protected against harm as it’s also my son’s and your planet.
But let us look at some facts. Carbon Dioxide is a natural gas that has been in our atmosphere for millions of years, probably before time began as we know it. Carbon Dioxide is vital for our survival, we as human beings emit this with every breath we take and make. It is then absorbed by flora and fauna and transformed into life giving Oxygen. So to all activists out there who believe in save a tree I say, keep breathing as your co2 is needed by our green friends. I love this green place, I love clean water and I love being able to see a clear blue sky, apart from fighetr jets chem trailing everywhere.
It is a fact that has been proven by climatologists that the earth ceased warming in 1997 and that this is not due to reduced emissions from cars, vans nor factories. This is due purely to the effect the sun has on our atmosphere. Whenever the sun spurts it’s sun spots it is showing it’s power and violence. Sun spots are huge explosions in the sun’s gaseous climate. These spots not only affect the earth but they also affect every other planet.
When you watch the news and you hear “oh my god the antarctic and artic polar caps are melting”. You are in fear as you think if they melt we will be flooded. This is wrong, they melt every year during the summer months and more so when sun spot activity hits our planet. Th glaciers are actually increasing in size as the earth is cooling, not warming up as Al Gore would have us believe.
Sea level change, simple equation here is this. Glaciers melt, sea level rises, we drown. This is what you are told, so where is Noah?
Reality, the majority of any glacier or iceberg is already underwater so the top of it melting will not matter to the volume of water in our oceans. Oh and can polar bears survive?
Yes they can, Polar bears have been known to swim distances of over 200 miles, tracked with rc collars. they have two layers of fur, the first one is so insulated that they will not even show on an infra red camera pointed at them as there is no heat loss. The second coat is needled, this means that each hair acts as a wee tube to absorb heat and transfer it to the core organs. A polar bear in the water is at home as you and me might be lying on a sunny beach. The biggest threat to polar bears is us, man, hunting them and not climate change.
Climage change is continual, we have had ice ages before and it has had nothing to do with human output of carbon dioxide. It is the result of the changes in the sun’s atmosphere.
Carbon dioxide is not the issue here. Without co2 we die. So why has it become the issue? The answer is simple, cars, people and companies can be taxed because Governments and the media make it so. There is no legitimate reason to give a car or a van a co2 emission rating other than to allow a tax to be made on it. This would be the same as taxing dairy farmers who have herds that fart, so let’s have a fart tax too. Sounds funny, but it is not as the USA have already tried this.
And to all the climate change/global warming activists I just want to tell you a wee story.
I recycled as much as I could. Plastic, tin, steel, paper etc. I had a green bin that it all went into. I was doing my bit for mother earth. I was then faced with a problem as the local council, who i pay £1200 a year to in council tax, refused to empty the recycle bin. Eight weeks and they would not empty it and I complained to be told, we cannot recycle materials contained withing platic bags. I said so you cannot recycle plastic bottles and containers contained within a platic sack. I was told NO. So if plastic cannot be recycled when it is contained within plastic then what is the point. I then did some research and found out that the same council use 34 vans to collect the recycled waste, they do 1.6 million miles in diesel powered vans, medium sizze. to collect this waste. Then they transport this waste to a central collection point. It is then loaded into trucks to take it a further 90 miles. This recycling amounts to 900 tons per week. So how is this friend;ly to the planet? This kind of recycling is counter productive as it is causing more pollution than it solves.
I helped the ozone today, I took my recycling bin into my garden, stroked it fondly and said goodbye and set fire to it.
People are not the problem, co2 is not the problem. Politicians are the problem.
Only 18 left that wish to hang together. Even Hansen has deserted, probably to go back to AGCooling and the next IceAge where he started in the early 70s. pg
eadler says:
February 4, 2011 at 8:22 pm
Based on their poll,[—]
—————————————————————-
Yawn
Gosh eadler, your argument has all the attributes of an advertisement for a brand of soap powder.
Douglas
DirkH & Mike Haseler,
I am late to this thread party.
My assessment of PNS is somewhat similar to yours. My own view is that PNS is a symptomatic behavior of the IPCC consensus climate science advocates. The solution for a renaissance/reformed climate science cannot include PNS if it is to abandon the past climate science biased advocacy.
John
Roger, I hope you sent this post to members of Congress – especially the Democratic members in both the House and the Senate – to thoroughly guide their investigation and analysis. From a policy maker standpoint, your statement is highly useful and informative.
Brian H says:
February 4, 2011 at 8:22 pm
The above makes me think, though, that Creighton’s famous didactic technological replacement example was wrong, though. The automobile did not save us from being buried in horseshit manure.
—————————————–
Oh yes it did.
By 1905 the motor cab fares in London were two thirds of the horse cabs.
My late grandfather, born 1881, thought the elimination of horse manure in London Town, was the greatest improvement in his lifetime.
My elderly mother, who is nearly a hundred, which is a great age, can still remember the stench of horse manure in the London streets of her childhood.
And, having moved to the country for safety seeing the first Zeppelin being shot down in flames.
Except it was not a Zeppelin of course it was a Schutte Lanz.
People forget how late the overall change from literal horsepower to ICE especially in agriculture was, roughly speaking in the USA and the UK and elsewhere it happened in the 1950’s.
And a good thing too. In 1900 a quarter of the arable land in the UK went for fodder: corn ethanol anybody?
How quickly we forget the problems of the past, including its great weather disasters, and how far we have come in in a generation due to our ever advancing technology.
Although the Luddites are always with us and would upon some pretext or another try to drive us back into the past. Well the past is a foreign country, they do things differently there: and we have advanced since then.
And I for one do not wish to go back there.
Kindest Regards
Hey eadler,
The only thing 97% of ‘climate researchers’ have in common is that they are probably either academics or bureaucrats who’s adventures are largely funded with other peoples (taxpayers) money. I sure hope that there isn’t something ($) that could possibly be causing their opinions to be other than purely unbiased? [sarc]
And…….. They say at the end of the article; “…but the edifice of climate science instead rests on a concrete foundation.”
Hmmm. Maybe they should have chosen a different metaphor! Aren’t portland cement manufacturing and aggregate mining two of the industries the idealists need to run out of the state in order to achieve their rediculous goals?
eadler,
As I am sure you are aware, the below quote is cherry picked from the paper I referred to:
“In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science
as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of
their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.”
What of the 300 who don’t believe the earth has warmed? What of the fact that no physicists, engineers, or statisticians are included in the survey? It is these disciplines that understand thermodynamics, heat transfer, fluid dynamics, statistical analysis, and the difference between accuracy and precision that climate scientists conflate when discussing their beloved models. And it is these disciplines that would understand why Lindzen said that a climate system dominated by positive feedbacks is “intuitively implausible.”
Uh, Mr. Jones …
my immediately preceding post was the “Situation” statement etc. by the CarbonWarRoom boyz. That was the “horse
shitmanure” I was humourously implying has now replaced the previous supply.Duz yuh get it naow?
😉
^Note smilie/emoticon.
a jones says:
February 4, 2011 at 9:24 pm
Brian H says:
February 4, 2011 at 8:22 pm
The above makes me think, though, that Creighton’s famous didactic technological replacement example was wrong, though. The automobile did not save us from being buried in horseshit manure
Oh yes it did.
By 1905 the motor cab fares in London were two thirds of the horse cabs.[—]
———————————————————————–
ajones. As interesting and true as you argument is, my take on Brian H’s observation was that he was referring to the verbal horsh—t that has overtaken us today despite the removal of the genuine article from the streets of London (and elsewhere)
Cheers
Douglas
Doug Badgero;
Give it up. Anyone who doesn’t recognize that stupid student survey and analysis as a textbook example of data snooping and half a dozen other fatal statistical errors (self-selection not least among them) is either winding you up or brain-burned or doing a perseverative thread-hijack.
Doug B;
Unless, of course, you’re doing an autodidactic exercise to develop yet another wannabe science, gluteology.
Calvi36 says: February 4, 2011 at 8:34 pm
A lot of people have been hoodwinked into believing that global warming has been caused by people, countries, factories and cars emitting co2, carbon dioxide. THIS IS NOT TRUE. We have been the victims of a hoax that simply engineers more taxes.[—-
I helped the ozone today, I took my recycling bin into my garden, stroked it fondly and said goodbye and set fire to it.]
——————————————————————————-
Calvi36. Good for you. I liked your story – especially that last sentence – Just the right reaction to those Local Authority mindless Wa—kers. But they will most likely be back to punish you for lighting a fire in your back yard without first obtaining a resource consent to emit particulates to air. Sorry to be the one to tell you this an’ all.
Good luck with your summons. You might need a good lawyer.
Douglas
Dr. Roger Pielke Sr,
I enjoyed your commentary on the letter to members of Congress authored by the 18 scientists. Both the clarity and the simply stated approach that you took were needed.
Question – Because I consider it crucial to the ongoing climate science dialog, what do you see as the key strategic argument for a rational resolution to end the biased advocacy in climate science? Do you think there is one key line of reasoning that encompasses all other arguments in restoring a more open rational process in climate science? My thinking of late is that the key strategic argument for a return to rational dialog is identifying and eliminating the root cause of the bias/advocacy (whatever is the root). I would be interested in your perspective on this.
Regards,
John
The science of climate change has been complicated by humans who want to make it look very complicated when in fact they are the ones who can’t understand it. The process of climate change is a lot simpler with the difficulty arising only from our ignorance of factors at play which if we got would enable us analyze and predict climate change accurately and with ease. We will also be able to manage climate change by intervening on the natural factors to manipulate the natural climate cycles. To understand how all these happen, see the correct theory of climate change on http://www.climatechange.epitomeillustrations.com. Policy makers need to understand the correct explanation of what causes climate change and how if they are to formulate appropriate policies. It is not just doing anything which matters but doing the correct thing. If climate change scientists have been looking for an alternative theory that adequately accounts for climate change and all observable phenomena, then it is available.
Smokey says:
February 4, 2011 at 11:04 am
They could only get 18?? Pathetic. And even worse, Peter Gleick is one of the 18. The same Peter Gleick who is one of only a handful of commenters who has been banned from WUWT, after several warnings, for his endless personal diatribes and childish behavior.
= = = = = = = =
Smokey,
OK, I will take the bait happily.
Smokey, can you point me to some WUWT posts where Peter Gleick’s behavior has led to restrictions in posting on WUWT?
Moderators – I did a search of Peter Cleick’s name in the dialog box at the upper right of the WUWT main screen. It did not bring up anything relevant.
Thanks,
John
REPLY: The search box only searches within titles and body of the articles, not comments. Glieck made some pretty nasty comments IIRC. – Anthony
“If we undertake to reduce U.S. CO2 emissions to X level by Y time, what effect will it have on average global temperature and sea level as of any future timeframe?
Given that China’s output of CO2 output will increase by 2X by time Y. What should the US response be?
Don’t forget to go through the list of 18 lobbying
“scientists” and add a pound (#) sign after the ones
who were authors or recipients of those Climategate
e-mails.
I believe at least a third of the folks writing the
“reconsider” letter to all those confused Congressfolf
qualify as Climategators.
Smokey/Anthony,
Ahhhh, thanks to Google I found the WUWT post where Peter Gleick was given three strikes and out by the moderator.
It was the WUWT post “Scientific American still running false warming story” posted on January 19, 2011.
Peter Gleick was given some precautionary principled warnings prior to WUWT policy implementation. : ) Finally, the precautionary principle applied correctly . . . . IPCC please take note.
John
William Gray
any ideas ?
For Australia ?
Yep,
keep killing the rabbits !
Mack the Knife ( Feb 4 2011 5.17 )
I would bring your attention to Australia where hundreds of millions of dollars of public money assigned to flood control was instead used to build desalination plants (which have been mothballed since completion waiting for global warming )
As Plato said,
those that are too smart to go into politics, end up being governed by idiots.
“[carbon dioxide molecules] …are all invisible and they all trap heat.”
I didn’t know that. Can CO2 actually “trap” heat and how much would one part in 2500 in the atmosphere need to “trap” to make a significant difference?
Why this obsession with CO2? Is it more efficient at “trapping” heat than (say) water vapour? Or are we into socio-politics by any chance (surely not!) where it just happens that a focus on that particular gas happens to suit those who would like to stop us using fossil fuels and all that?
I only ask because I want to know, you understand. I wouldn’t want to cause no trouble or nuthin’
Anthony Said,
REPLY: 77 respondents? hardly a valid representative sample of scientists, your example is ridiculous – Anthony
The example is not ridiculous. A sample of 77 , and a response of 97% implies that at 95% confidence, the percentage is correct to a level of +/-3.8%. Even the worst case is a high enough percentage of researchers to give one faith that an overwhelming majority of experts accept the theory of AGW.
In Pielke’s poll, the confidence interval is even smaller. With 140 as the sample size it is 2.83%.
When 2 independent surveys ask the same question of a different sample and get the same result, it is not ridiculous to trust the results. It reduces the confidence interval around the 97% figure quite a bit.
The 18 scientists who authored the letter have a good case for their argument that those who don’t accept AGW are a small minority of research scientists in the field.
The 18 write: ““But no one who argues against the science of climate change has ever provided an alternative scientific theory that adequately satisfies the observable evidence or conforms to our understanding of physics, chemistry, and climate dynamics.”
but this is again turning the null upside down. When one proposes a theory, it is necessary to demonstrate that it is a good one. Using 20 computer models and saying “look, they agree!” does not make the theory true, it merely reflects common modeling methods and assumptions. The degree to which the models mimic global climate over the 20th century is only vaguely adequate (mid-century warming missed, aerosols different in every model, absolute GMT diffs of 4 deg C between models, huge diffs in precip between models, tendency to throw of absurd model runs, tropical tropo hotspot not exactly evident, jet stream simulated poorly –I could go on). There is no sense in which their theory has been tested and produced results that are either robust or precise. Just because their models are “pretty good” in the researchy sense does not mean they are adequate for shifting to disruptive and inefficient “clean” technologies (many of which do not even exist, like CCS).
steven mosher says:
February 4, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Can you say Post Normal Science?
You see this kind of thing doesnt happen in Normal science.
I, for one, LOOK FORWARD TO WHEN Steven Mosher joins reality, along with the rest of us.
Occam’s razor says it does happen if you are talking about politically privileged science, cf, Lysenkoism. There now. NO PMS or ‘PNS’ needed! (There are many other examples like eugenics.)
Kuhn was simply WRONG to characterize science history and progress in terms of “normal” and “revolutionary” science. Physics is not the universalizable “one size fits all” model for all other sciences, physical or not. Non-conformity is not the relevant indicator here. Data sufficiency and falsifiability are.
What the ‘gang of 18’ scientists are doing was laid out by skeptic historian Michael Shermer in “Why Darwin Matters.” He argues for evolution against ‘Intelligent Design’ on the basis of coherentist standard of scientific truth: the theory fits the available evidence. Attacking or subtracting ‘cherry picked’ details still leaves the theory of evolution standing.
This is fine, except for what it leaves out. What if the evidence in close detail does not match the theory? What if the data is of very poor quality?-too poor to tease out any hypothesizied ‘discernible human influence’? Indeed, this is what Peilke, Sr and his co-author William Cotton argue in their textbook “Human Impact on Weather and Climate,”2007 (second edition): global warming from anthropogenically added CO2 cannot be determined from the available data (SEE p 243ff). Natural variability overwhelms the variable one is looking for. (Which is also his thesis above.)
A coherentist standard of scientific truth is vulnerable to other challenges. For instance, Shermer ignores the fact that virtually everyone educated can grasp evolution deductively: If a population varies genetically, and if reproduction of the population varies, then its gene pool will evolve. Therefore, evolution is a fact, observable to all; only it specific applications vary.
Similarly, deductions apply to climate science as it advances or fails to advance. For instance, by making falsifiable predictions. All climate models predict an accelerated rate of warming above the tropics (compared to the surface) in the lower troposphere. Available evidence, this far, fails to find it; therefore it is falsified – proved false.
The resistance of the field to come to grips with falsification of one of the hall-marks of their failed IPCC predictions. Likewise, Lysenko’s fall came from a failure of his theories to perform:
Not how this – “Lysenko’s reputation was also undermined by Soviet geneticist Zhores Medvedev’s samizdat…” – suggests a parallel with climategate today, exposing the dirty linen of scheming, lying, fraudulent scientists as a key to changing corrupt science practices.
In another parallel to the above story of “spectacular new advances in genetics” outside the Soviet Union bringing down Lysenko, perhaps finds a parallel in Roy Spencer’s empirical satellite-based explanations of temperature change following from changes in cloud cover – ie, nature not ACO2.
The recent many months dispute between Andy Dressler and Spencer is telling – particularly since Dressler is also one of the ‘Gang of 18.’
At any rate, no place for PNS in finding salient, realistic parallels to today’s debates between the well-funded Orthodoxy and the outsider critics. why not uphold science and use Occam’s razor: the simplest explanation for the evidence is generally preferred over the more complex one.
Why can’t Steven Mosher follow the common cannons of science nd find them applicable here, too? Others can….
“… Sometimes they present alternative hypotheses as an explanation of a particular point, as if the body of evidence were a house of cards standing or falling on one detail; but the edifice of climate science instead rests on a concrete foundation.” (From the paper of the 18)
They don´t get the metaphor / analogy right, either:
It does not at all matter if the foundation is made of concrete: The house of cards can and will still collapse when important cards are removed. In fact, every building will collapse if structural parts are removed. The house of cards that AWG is will simply collapse much easier, and very likely by itself. Unfortunately the “post-normal” proponents of the AGW “theory” are unable to realize this collapse. A case of distorted view of the reality, maybe? Certainly very “Post Normal”!
Craig Loehle wrote:
The 18 write: ““But no one who argues against the science of climate change has ever provided an alternative scientific theory that adequately satisfies the observable evidence or conforms to our understanding of physics, chemistry, and climate dynamics.”
but this is again turning the null upside down. When one proposes a theory, it is necessary to demonstrate that it is a good one. Using 20 computer models and saying “look, they agree!” does not make the theory true, it merely reflects common modeling methods and assumptions. The degree to which the models mimic global climate over the 20th century is only vaguely adequate (mid-century warming missed, aerosols different in every model, absolute GMT diffs of 4 deg C between models, huge diffs in precip between models, tendency to throw of absurd model runs, tropical tropo hotspot not exactly evident, jet stream simulated poorly –I could go on). There is no sense in which their theory has been tested and produced results that are either robust or precise. Just because their models are “pretty good” in the researchy sense does not mean they are adequate for shifting to disruptive and inefficient “clean” technologies (many of which do not even exist, like CCS).
It is true that the models are relatively rudimentary, relying in part on empirical relationships, and many of the results are inaccurate. However this work has a history of about 40 years. Despite all the changes and refinements, they all predict that GHG’s will warm the earth, and that more extreme drought and rainfall events will be the result. The physical principles are unassailable, and the observations of the atmospheric phenomenon are not turning up any strong evidence that the models are wrong. The greatest uncertainty comes from the behavioral models of clouds. In fact many of the models have negative feedback due to clouds built in, and recent observations show strong evidence of positive feedback. The models are just as likely to be underpredict global warming as they are to overpredict it.
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Clouds_Likely_Created_Positive_Climate_Feedback_In_Past_Decade_999.html
The tropospheric hotspot controversy has been largely settled. A hotspot is a consequence of any warming, and the balloon observations which indicate it is not there, were shown to be inaccurate, and the satellite observations were shown to have errors, which when corrected, showed warming of the troposphere.
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf
Expressing this thought using S-Parameters (Scattering Matrix Parameters) as from an RF engineering POV:
Definitions:
If S12 is transmission up (the direction from surface (1) of earth to space (2)) and
if S21 is transmission down (the direction from to space (2) to surface of earth(1))
Considering an air parcel (or a sample stack of the atmosphere):
IFF (if and only if) if S12 does not equal S21 THEN CO2 can trap heat
IOW, if the transmission of LWIR (through the parcel, the atmospheric air ‘stack’) is not reciprocal (up and down thru or radiation or re-rad) and slightly unidirectional in allowing LWIR to propagate (through the sample) THEN it may trap heat … such is not the case however; I have not found it being described any different in the literature yet anyway.
.
bubbagyro said “The burden of proof is on the warm-earthers. There is no debate.”
Bubbagyro, for me the above is half right . . . the warm-earthers made a prediction, that prediction is not correct . . . the predictions are at least 10 years old and not accurate. Their hockey stick is wrong, & they know it. And thats because of infinitesimal changes in CO2 and infinitesimal changes in temperature as a whole. They started this whole scam by trying to make a “molehill turn into a mountain”.
Now, they are saying that instead of a hockey stick there will be hotter hots and colder colds. Why? Because that is what is happening already, it’s an extrapolation.
This is a credibility issue . . . there is lots of money invested in these prognosticators, as well as the institutes . . . . and in the end run all the money comes from the “commoners” and all the repercussions of the “experts” errors are suffered by the “commoners”.
Pin the guys down, for a short term, intermediate term, and long term forecasts.
It’s only a place to start . . . and we as a people have to STOP compartmentalizing . . . What happens or does not happen in a place (like the IPCC) effects everyone, and please don’t give me that butterfly effect nonsense, the IPCC has a great amount of “power” for want of a better word.
Here is a question I would like to ask, and I admit don’t know the answer. Where on earth can we pick that has the most stable climate. It would be somewhere on the “celestial” equator” that a place that has 12 hour days, 365 days a year . . . what are the changes there . . . what kind of data is there to work with.
But, in my reality, it seems that as soon as I ask, it just disappears. . .
Regg:
You really need to get a hold of your fear and panic. If a few tenths of a degree warmer causes such panic, what are you going to do when there is a real emergency. What is happening in the world, that has you so afraid, that you are ready to initiate drastic mitigation? We are currently benefiting from the modest warming from the LIA, and the subsequent increased food production has enabled us to feed 7 billion hungry. CO2 enhancement has helped us do this amazing feat.
Sea levels are not drowning the coastal areas and no directly linked catastrophic results have ensued. Even slightly reduced Arctic ice coverage has yet to cause any real hardships (more of a blessing, than not). Yet you insist on spreading your irrational fears, every chance you get, hoping to panic the herd. If you do not want to deal with flooding risk, then, be smart… Don’t build on a flood plain.
If you want to progress/impose social reform, then do so on it’s own merit. Do not try to slip this hidden agenda into scientific issues. There are many real dangers in the world. Weather is just one of them.
Please point out the disasters, caused by AGW, currently killing citizens, that requires action. I see a lot of real dangers, requiring action, on the part of many peoples. Climate just isn’t one of them. Not yet, anyway.
The one part of your statement that was valid, was that cooling represents a much bigger threat if and when it resumes. Warming is a pleasant walk in the park. GK
There are no Democratic or Republican carbon dioxide molecules; they are all invisible and they all trap heat.”
Yes, both of them…/sarc
Sam the Skeptic says:
February 5, 2011 at 3:39 am
“[carbon dioxide molecules] …are all invisible and they all trap heat.”
I didn’t know that. Can CO2 actually “trap” heat and how much would one part in 2500 in the atmosphere need to “trap” to make a significant difference?
Why this obsession with CO2? Is it more efficient at “trapping” heat than (say) water vapour? Or are we into socio-politics by any chance (surely not!) where it just happens that a focus on that particular gas happens to suit those who would like to stop us using fossil fuels and all that?
I only ask because I want to know, you understand. I wouldn’t want to cause no trouble or nuthin’
[trimmed]
CO2 like the other GHG’ molecules doesn’t actually trap the heat. They absorb and re-emit IR radiation within their spectrum, preventing half of the upward going radiation, originating from the earth’s surface, from traveling directly into space. This reduces the rate of flow of energy away from the earth into space raising the earths temperature about 33C above what it would be without GHG’s in the atmosphere.
This fact was discovered by the great physicist John Tyndall in 1859, who followed up on Fourier’s ideas published in 1824.
The concentration of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere is slow to change. The average life of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is about 5 years versus water molecule, which is about 10 days. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is quite stable for many years, and varies very slowly with temperature, while H2O concentration varies strongly with temperature. This means that increasing CO2 can drive an increase in water vapor, but not vice versa. That is why there is such a focus on CO2.
Response letter
cidso@co2science.org
The Truth About Climate Change Open Letter
Dear Friends:
As you may have heard, a group of 18 climate alarmists sent an open letter to members of Congress repeating the usual mantra of sea level rise, extreme weather, the spread of diseases, and so forth. Their letter appears below.
We have drafted a reply and are seeking other USA scientists willing to join us as signers. Our letter is attached.
Please review the letter and, if you agree with it and are willing to be publicly connected with it, please let me know by replying to this message, listing your affiliation. We would also appreciate your sending this note on to others of your colleagues that you feel would also be interested in signing this document.
Thanks for your attention, and for your own efforts on this important issue.
Craig Idso
Warning to the gang of 18, be careful of what you wish for?
@- Craig Loehle says:
February 5, 2011 at 5:29 am
“The 18 write: ““But no one who argues against the science of climate change has ever provided an alternative scientific theory that adequately satisfies the observable evidence or conforms to our understanding of physics, chemistry, and climate dynamics.”
but this is again turning the null upside down. When one proposes a theory, it is necessary to demonstrate that it is a good one.”
Several posters object to the requirement of those that opposed to the dominant scientific paradigm of AGW theory should provide a equally robust alternative. Some, as in your post, link this to some reversal of a null hypothesis.
Firstly the null hypothesis in science is a tool, useful in specific and defined conditions which is employed as part of an experimental method is a very small percentage of scientific work.
It may get bandied about in epistemological speculation, but in work on that staple of biology, the fruit fly, just over 1% of the scientific papers that mention work on the fruit fly also refer to a null hypothesis.
The claim from mainstream science that contrarians should propose a robust alternate theory is not unique to climate science. In medical research there are several examples where the dominant view of an issue is attacked, but the mainstream science reject the attacks because of that lack of an alternative. The classic example would be HIV/AIDS. There are a dwindling band of people who claim that the general medical understanding of this condition as a result of infection by a retrovirus that targets the immune system T-cells is wrong. They point to inconsistencies in parts of the evidence while ignoring the consilience of the overall explanation of the condition that the virus theory provides. Almost all medical science ignores those contrarian voices in large part because they have no causal explanation for the condition that fits in with the observed facts of the condition, and with so much of the extended knowledge we have of human disease processes.
Because of the lack of any credible alternative explanation almost all of those that make policy in response to HIV infection accept the ‘concensus’ medical understanding. In those few cases where policy does not follow the ‘consensus’ view of biological science it is invariably for ideological or politically expedient reasons.
As the tobacco industry found in the past, it is much easier to snipe and cast doubt on the main edifice of scientific understanding than it is to erect an alternative explanatory structure with comparable strength. But without a strong alternative there is nothing to provide a template for research that would invalidate the ‘group-think’ of the standard explanation which human society presently has about climate processes.
The implication by the 18 writing to congress is that the lack of an alternative hypothesis (beyond the descriptive hand-waving of ‘Natural variation’) eminating from the skeptical minority reduces the credibility of those skeptical positions. This is just the most recent in a long ‘tradition’ of the same argument advanced against the objections to policy on acid rain, asbestos, lead, tobacco, CFC’s, HIV, MMR … I suspect others could suggest more examples.
The position of R Pielke Snr that the AGW theory is incomplete because it fails to encompass ALL the possible causal factors of human origin that can alter the climate is at least a better counter than the blank rejection of AGW without any alternative. It does at least accept what is already considered to be a robust explanation as PART of the climate system. The issue then becomes the degree each factor influences the observed behavior.
Wombat says:
February 5, 2011 at 3:12 am
Wombat, what part of a group of “scientists”, many with
shared historical baggage (the Climategate e-mails) getting
together and lobbying Congress (the “reconsider letter”)
do you feel is not political ?
Many of you are making a big fuzz about an example i gave (the dams, dikes, ..). Poor man, can’t see an example from a proposal. I will explain it. When you foresee a problem, you take action about it – if not, it will only get worst. It was not a proposal to built dikes all along the east or west coast.
I did’nt proposed CO2 was the only issue – but most of the commenters about what i wrote said so. Go figure, i was putting emphasis that (as Pielke said) CO2 was part of the issue and not the only one.
I’m mostly in Pielke Sr camp about warming. Co2 is not the only thing to take care. So if you blast my point of view, you blast Pielke as well. That was my point, people here are bashing against the 12 – that’s your right. But when you bring arguments about warming, Co2 or other to claim it’s all false, then you’re also against what Pielke said, how can you say you agree with him if you don’t believe what he just wrote ?
For those saying it’s not warming, please read Pielke’s paper – and please don’t say you agree with him if you don’t see warming.
Someone said i was using rig data (jerry-rigged systems of measurement managed by pro-AGW zealots! – was the exact wording). Well i did’nt know RSpencer was a pro-AGW zealot. He’s usually one the reference for the skeptic.
GK, my biggest fear is not the warming or the cooling. Blindless point of view as i just pointed out is really scarry.
eadler says:
“The example is not ridiculous. A sample of 77 ,”
77 permutations for a sample amongst a community of tens of thousands?
How is that not ridiculous? But of course if you want to sample a chemical composition based on a sample of 77 representing a fantastical made up 95% confidence in reality out of tens of thousands . . . call any medical manufacturer to become a test subject for they would love you to death, breaking no sweat.
izen says:
February 5, 2011 at 1:15 pm
An alternative explanation/hypothesis to explain what?
From the context of the letter, however, they clearly mean the dominance of the radiative effect of CO2 and a few other gases as being the primary forcing that alters long-term weather statistics and other aspects of the climate. However, it is straightforward to refute this hypothesis as w
———–
This has the smell of a straw man argument.
As does a number of other points made in this criticism.
So the question arises, in light of the 50 million things we don’t apprarently understand about climate, at what point in our understanding do we take action?
The items in the list above might take 20 years to nail down and that research may very well prove that they make things better, worse or have no effect at all.
In the mean time I am cynical enough to believe that this list would have grown ever longer, along with the insistence that there be an additional 20 years of inaction.
This looks to me like an institutional failing called the “boiled frog” effect.
If courage was something of value here I would say “stuff it” “damn the torpedoes” and take action.
Budget cuts have got to start somewhere. These 18 gentlemen, and the institutions that support them, would be a good place to start excising fat from the budget. I hate it for their families. I don’t see any names on that list smart enough to support themselves without government largess.
John Whitman – You have asked an excellent question. Please read my post
A Way Forward In Climate Science Based On A Bottom-Up Resource-Based Perspective
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/08/03/a-way-forward-in-climate-science-based-on-a-bottom-up-resourse-based-perspective/
As I stated above, I am a layperson with a military background, this does not make a stupid person.
I can read a few words and now and then string a sentence together!
I cannot argue the science with you guys as I would lose no matter what side I was arguing for.
I am just a normal guy with a a business who likes to look into things a bit deeper than your ordinary Joe.
I have been watching the pro and anti AGW camps closely and I come down in favour of the anti side. Let me explain why.
Taxation:
The UK was one of the first countries to be taxed on CO2, there is a thing called P11D, a taxation policy for benefit in kind. This had a direct effect on those people who drove company cars and is based on the CO2 emissions of each vehicle. There is a P11D attached to every new car on sale in the UK and it has been there for many years. Amazingly the tax liability increases annually for company car users! So, many company car drivers opt out of company car schemes and take an allowance per month to lease or buy a car (they are still taxed on that allowance but at normal income tax rates).
Carbon Trading:
New markets setup to compete directly with the financial markets, yet controlled by the very same Central Banking kabals.
So what has this got to do with 18 “Scientists” sending a letter?
Quite a bloody lot tbh as we have the same kind of eco, global, new green, old red lunatics here in the UK. They lobby those so called Politicians “puppets” and get their own way which is drastically harming our economy, our standard of living and our way of life.
Whilst you guys and girls can argue the Science I as a layman can see what these corrupt policies are doing to me, my family and my country.
If there was a clear danger and I am not talking IPCC Himylayan Glaciers here, then I would step up to the plate and say that we need to act. However I do not believe this is the case. I believe, yes a word with religious connotations, that I am not a denier and that infact I am a realist.
Sorry for the long diatribe but I just had to make my position clear.
Why I, a mere engineer, have no trust in what these 18 scientists say: Driving home from a basketball tournament this evening, my car’s outside temperature readout had been reading 42 deg F for the past hour as I traversed rural countryside. As I approached, passed through, and out of a small city of 60,000 inhabitants, the temperature went from 42 degrees to 47 and back to 42 degrees on the other side. This was in the space of ten minutes. I’ve seen the temperature go up and back down like this by as much as 12 degrees in Dallas and Birmingham. Most, if not all, of these scientists deny any significant UHI effect on the temperature record. They do this because it invalidates what they advocate. The have no credibility, no character, and no shame.
Amazing Mike how they will not even discuss the heat island effect and why so many of the “outer stations” no longer count in the stats.
Behind every scheme, there is a schemer!
I do daily heat checks on my house every day, The lounge is ok, the bedrooms fine, the hallway a tad cooler than the rest, just ran a bath and lo and behold it is the hottest place in this house. Why is that? It is -5 outside btw, gotta love this warming!
@Josh Grella
“The only ones who are using “sciency sounding language” are the advocates of CAGW…”
Josh you are inspiring me. Steven Colbert coined the word, ‘Truthiness’ which is a “truth” that a person claims to know intuitively “from the gut” without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts. (see Wikipedia)
So now we can call it what it is: ‘scienciness’.
Scienciness is a ‘scientific understanding’ that a person claims to know intuitively “from the works of the Team” without regard to rebuttals, R-squared values, climate history or geological facts for all that they deny.
The scienciness is settled, of that I have no doubt. Science on the other hand, settles on methods, not outcomes.
Much of the scienciness written in support of CAGW has the imprimatur of climate science. I refer to the religious view that is it “official that the book is free of doctrinal or moral error.” as certified by a “bishop or archbishop.” Priestcraft!
https://tomfolio.pbworks.com/w/page/22340573/Glossary-Page-I
Well, an independent investigation of truthiness will usually reveal scienciness for what it is.
Free the minds: free the people.
Whew! That’s a relief! I was afraid you might be doing daily checks every week! /sarc
I do weekly checks every hour, every 3rd day with half hourly checks every 2nd day, well thats what my model told me to do! I have removed the central heating system from all equations as this cannot be a factor at all.
Then I have my placebo model, that has no data but I just hide the data that is not available as all emails have been deleted, or are tied up in an mysql database that cannot be read by the human eye.
Either way I am a winner as my grant funding to research why the common housefly now has heat boils on their arses has just been approved, this could be because of AGW, I will report back in about 3 years once I need more funds but I am sure the results will form the new consensus as to why the common housefly has botty boils and burns on their rear ends!
Addendum:
We may find that these burns are due to frostbite, which in all probability is also caused by AGW.
Watch this space.
Scott Brim : “Challenging the conclusions of government-funded scientific organizations is ultimately what it’s all about. ”
So, Scott , do you assert that the scientific findings are wrong because the government provides funding?
I still say, once they figure the mistakes in their model, the knowledge will once again disappear . . . I believe in schemers . . .
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=weather+gambling+sites&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=
LazyTeenager says:
February 5, 2011 at 6:43 pm
“This looks to me like an institutional failing called the “boiled frog” effect.”
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to publish my rebuttal to the boiled frog metaphor:
Once upon a time, not so very long ago, there was a small beautiful pond, in a glade, by the forest. In this pond lived 10 happy, frolicking frogs.
One particular cold morning, one vocal frog noticed a mist rising from the surface of the pond. He immediately shouted “Wake up! Wake up! You sleepy frogs. The pond is beginning to boil!”
All the other frogs rubbed their eyes in amazement, for indeed, there was steam rising from the pond. Quickly they held a meeting and came to a consensus. Yes! The pond was indeed beginning to boil!
Emergency plans for pond evacuation were quickly implemented, and the frogs left the pond.
Nine of the frogs were gobbled up by snakes and birds. The last frog managed to escape the ravenous predators, but was caught in the opening, by the noon sun, which dried him to a pretzel.
And the flies,lived happily ever after. GK
Noelle says:
February 7, 2011 at 5:27 am
So, Scott , do you assert that the scientific findings are wrong because the government provides funding?
– – – – – –
Noelle & Scott Brim,
Thanks for highlighting a great topic.
I submit that when government provides funding to scientific research then political influence on it must be assumed as a (and I reluctantly used the following phrase) precautionary principal. A rational position is to be skeptically on the look out for any political influenced funding bias; this focus recently is very intense on climate science research funding.
So, Noelle, the little skeptical antenna in the back of our minds should be activated when we see climate science funding, it must be tested for funding bias. Although the most intense focus has recently been on climate science research, the idea applies to other areas of research.
John
John Whitman wrote: “So, Noelle, the little skeptical antenna in the back of our minds should be activated when we see climate science funding, it must be tested for funding bias. ”
Shouldn’t this be true of all scientific research? From any source? Why or why not?
Scott and Noelle,
Having to test of funding bias should not be true at any level. We require disclosure of funding because of rare frauds in the past. We should be able to judge research on the merits and for that we need to be able to assess the merits, which requires open disclosure of data and methods and in some cases computer codes. What should raise our skeptical antenna is when these are withheld or made more difficult than necessary. What should reassure us is full and open disclosure, helpful assistance in reproducing results, a thorough review of the relevant literature, and a frank acknowledgment of the merits of competing hypotheses and of evidence or data which poses difficulties and is a possible source of error.
DirkH says:
February 4, 2011 at 11:14 am
….,,,, BTW it hasn’t warmed since 1998.
Dirk, maybe you can be the first one to answer this question for me…. Why does everyone pick 1998 as they’re year for this analysis? Is it because it’s the only year (aka hottest) out of the past 12 where you can make your case? What happens if you pick 1997 or 1999? Or for that matter, why don’t you just look at the trend over the past 10 or 15 years… Do you really think picking the hottest year to begin your curve is a good analysis technique?
Robb876,
1998 is kind of an iconic year. Scientists worked hard to make sure it was the warmest year on record, especially by adjusting troublesome records back in the 1930s. In 2005, James Hansen had little trouble citing an analysis of ocean heat storage ending in 1998. Keep in mind, that in climate terms, basing a trend or alarmism on a single 60 year period is pretty questionable, since it can only sample one cycle of certain multi-decade climate modes like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. The citations of 1998 by skeptics are just a bit of cheeky payback for those who might not want their previous statements citing 1998 played back to them if they object too vociferously. Climate science just needs another decade or two of good data and advancement in understanding and maybe a “consensus” will form at a less unscientifically enforced pace.
Noelle says:
February 8, 2011 at 7:00 am
‘””Shouldn’t this be true of all scientific research? From any source? Why or why not?””
– – – – – – – – – –
Noelle,
Thanks for your reply.
It (skeptical test for funding bias) should be done for all research and from any funding sources, not just climate science funded by government. That said, climate science has a hugely dominate scrutiny recently compared to all other science. Also, regarding the source of funding, I think public (gov’t) money is a different animal than other sources of funding though because it is from a political entity; it has that extra unique potential biasing dimension.
John
a jones says:
February 14, 2011 at 8:02 pm
A short while ago eighteen of the usual suspects wrote a letter to Congress which was rebutted by another letter. Mr, Briggs on his excellent blog gives the details here:
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=3455
With the links and he also proposed an alternative letter which I perhaps, rather testily, criticised as being verbose: not that the previous two letter were not even worse. Talk about rambling.
So for a bit of fun I set to writing a concise letter in draft but alas Mr. Brigg’s blog has moved on so I thought I would put it on here, if Anthony permits, for people to comment on.
It is in a very different style, legislators are used to and use obfustication and circumlocution but they are mostly lawyers and also understand clear and direct language, as should everybody else. Clarity is not a vice.
Please note this is only a first draft and I have omitted the bits and pieces at the top and bottom because they are matter of form.
But readers might wish to c0mpare it with the actual letters to see which is clearer.
So: Draft V1
————————-
To members of etc. blah
You have received a letter from eighteen of our colleagues describing themselves as climatologists which says in essence that the climate is changing in ways detrimental to the USA and that they can explain why and how humans are causing it and can therefore prevent it: and should.
We profoundly disagree. We do not doubt that people affect local climate such as in cities and possibly on larger regional scales due to changes in agriculture, irrigation etc. But it is our view that the great weather systems which produce the climate are driven by vast natural forces the causes and actions of which are only very imperfectly understood so that on a global scale we cannot, at the moment, distinguish natural variation from what, if any, effect might be caused by human activity.
We also think that any current attempt to predict global climate is futile even over decades, let alone centuries, because we do not yet know enough about the mechanisms involved, the relationship between them and our existing measurements, and the degree of certainty we can place on the modelling techniques used: and further note that none of the short term predictions made using these unverified methods have so far come to pass. Quite the reverse.
Our eighteen colleagues also suggest that a warming global climate would present some kind of grave environmental threat to the USA yet every such claim they make has long since been rebutted by experiment or observation published in peer reviewed journals. We further point out that from the historical record there have been periods in this interglacial which have been either warmer or cooler than today and that in the warmer periods human civilisation has tended to flourish: and consequently we might expect that were the globe to warm and CO2 levels rise, as our eighteen colleagues suggest, this would prove a great boon.
We are only too aware that in the last few years there has been a widespread and powerful claque who, for whatever reasons, have trumpeted a message of doom about anthropogenic global warming based on their own peculiar views of science, technology and history: and further have sought to suppress or belittle any opinion to the contrary.
So we welcome the suggestion of our eighteen colleagues that you should examine the science properly, and would be delighted to participate the better to explain that there are other points of view supported by excellent science.
Yours etc. blah.
——————————
I hope this is of interest.
Kindest Regards