Bishop Hill writes:
Fred Pearce is on the receiving end of the full fury of the warmosphere for his article about the Lisbon conference in New Scientist. Pearce, discussing who had agreed to turn up, said this:
But the leaders of mainstream climate science turned down the gig, including NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, who said the science was settled so there was nothing to discuss.
Now Josh’s take:
don says:
February 5, 2011 at 11:59 am
Hm, was Gavin’s finger the index or middle finger? It does make a difference.
When you are drawing cartoon characters with four fingers (as in the Simpsons), it is always the middle finger. 🙂
Anoneumouse says:
February 5, 2011 at 12:34 pm
Ah…Nasaschmidt, junker science since 98
It wasn’t funny at Bishop Hill’s. It is not funny here, either.
THE ARGUMENT FOR BENEFICIAL GLOBAL WARMING
Have you ever noticed, when looking at global temperature graphs they tend to concentrate on showing anomalies, rather than actual temperatures? Have you ever consider why? When you deal in anomalies, from the start you are looking for change, while missing the bigger picture.
The naked human body is able to continuously maintain this body temperature only when the ambient temperature is above 28 C (82 F).
http://www.sarec.ca/ice/hypother.htm
That means, should minimum temperatures – such as found at night and in winter – drop below 28 C (82 F) for any period of time, an unprotected human will die of exposure.
The global average temperature for 2010, the warmest year on records was: 13.9 C + 0.6 C = 14.5 C (58 F)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GISTEMP
This means that the earth on average is too cold to support unprotected humans. In fact, there is almost no place on earth where the long term minimum temperature exceeds 28 C (82 F) season to season, year to year. Even today, almost every place on earth is too colds for human beings without access to clothing and/or domesticated fire.
If climate science worked in actual temperatures, rather than anomalies, the affects of long term climate would be more readily apparent. The idea that the earth is somehow at an optimum temperature for humans in not supported. Humans almost certainly evolved in a much warmer climate than the present day earth. The current attempts to limit access to domesticated fire through CO2 reduction will certainly harm the ability of human beings to live outside those very few area where temperatures are consistently above 28 C (82 F).
“Since, in my opinion, the causes of conflict in the climate change debate relate almost entirely to politics and not the MWP, climate sensitivity or ‘ice’, dismissing this from any discussion did not seem likely to be to help foster any reconciliation.”
In other words, the science is settled and there’s nothing further to discuss. Thanks for the confirmation, Gavin…
I love the histrionics… this from a chap who routinely publicly insults people on his own blog. Just a few days ago, for example, talking about Dr Canziani:
[Response: No. The IPCC reports are not just one infirm 87-year-old’s opinion. – gavin]
Source: Number 36 at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/getting-things-right/
Ummm hello? And he’s complaining because Tallbloke didn’t quote verbatim? The only reason I go to RC is to scroll through the green (text colour) responses to see how badly they are behaving that day – it’s good for a giggle. The only time I have ever seen the Team on good behaviour was a short period after ClimateGate when they were trying yo defend the indefensible.
Might I suggest a strategy… have a collection of priceless Team quotes collated on a second web site so that people can assess their true nature. All with direct references to their own site where they say them. The public can tell a lot about the nature of the Team by seeing a condensed summary of their more outrageous statements.
Good to hear it’s settled.
That’ll save the taxpayers LOADS of money in unnecessary research grants.
…now, all those consensus scientists will just need to find other lines of work. Their work here is done.
Never argue with an idiot; an observer may not be able to tell which is which
A wise man once told me don’t argue with fools… Cos people from a distance can’t tell who is who
Jay-Z
What a web is woven
I would say there are more cracks in the Warmists wall.
Gavin, put our money where your mouth is. Step in the ring, ….
I just love the unintentional carriage return in the quoted text…
as I read it..
…who said the science was settled so there
which kind of made it sound like they were being really childish! – I guess fairly appropriate when you think about it?
Again Josh was all to kind. It would seem that Garvin and the AGW crowd are insisting on the continuance of the “big lie” mentality. One is lead to wonder if these people have been mesmerized by Johnathan Swift’s satire or if this foolishness is simply the result to having take an extreme and oversimplified view of a complex and poorly understood process.
Frank K. says: February 5, 2011 at 12:02 pm
At GISS, nothing changes
Except the historic data 🙂
Judith Curry alluded to the fact that is curious indeed that “deniers” is a term they use on the one hand while claiming they don’t think “the science is settled” on the other. A very odd two-some of positions for one person to hold simultaneously.
Jim Barker says:
February 5, 2011 at 11:55 am
This brought an old quote to mind, not sure where the attribute belongs.
Never argue with an idiot. He’ll drag you down to his level then beat you with experience!
============================
I always heard it as:
Never argue with an idiot; an observer may not be able to tell which is which.
CCR
================================================
I think the one most appropriate to this topic is – “Never get into a pissing contest with a skunk.”
Amazing, they settled science.
Pop an Ipod!
Zone out!
Be cool, Yo!
I think Gavin learned that an open debate is bad for his side from his experience in the Intelligence Squared debate on the subject:
Richard Keen says:
February 5, 2011 at 1:05 pm
If the Science is Settled, why are we still spending 2 billion dollars a year on it? Shouldn’t these people be doing something else with our tax dollars beside rehashing Settled Science?”
I agree completely. In addition they should be living their values. A good friend is a Jehovah’s Witness. They don’t believe in many things the rest of us do (such as celebrating birthdays) The Amish have values much different than their English neighbors. If Gavin et al. really believed CO2 is destroying this planet then they should be ashamed more than anyone else of their contribution to the CO2 budget. None of them should drive, use fossil fuels, use plastic, fly around the world, etc.
It would be like my JW friend lecturing me about not having birthday parties but then throwing himself the biggest parties, Or an Amish man telling me not to plow my field with a tractor yet he uses the biggest John Deere diesel.
I have yet to meet an AGW prophet that is living the values they preach.
But the leaders of mainstream climate science turned down the gig, including NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, who said the science was settled so there was nothing to discuss.
Well, in the interests of our moral duty to fellow humans, someone close to Gavin better clue him into the fact that there are any number of actual infants mightily demanding to be fed and changed 24/7, and many others who are stomping their feet and yelling, “No, you can’t make me,” who would put Gavin’s merely petulant narcisssistic displays to shame. So that Gavin urgently needs to know that he’s going to have to try a lot harder if he wants any real standing among genuine infants!
As for me, I am torn in trying to decide which new motto would be most fitting for NASA, if Gavin were to write them…
NASA – The Science is Settled!! But if you say we said the science is settled, we will call you a liar…
Or the more Prime Directive inspired:
NASA – If minds like these can land us on the moon, then surely the caravan of the Bedouin can reach for Mars…
NASA – The Science is Irrelevant – Our Minds are Settled
These people are showing up as spoiled children. If Gavin is representative of the group he refers to as the “scientific community”, I would suggest to their mothers either a time-out or a duly applied spanking, which ever is their parenting preference.
To most people “SCIENTIST”means ” natural scientist”. Of course there is no such thing as a settled natural science. Everything in natural science is subject to revision, refinement or abandonment to the garbage bin. However, in social science consensus is the foundation of its governing principles especially in political science and jurisprudence. Let’s not forget, natural science split from philosophy less than six centruies ago and social science a couple of centuries later. If we look at the people who insist that the science is settled most of them are social scientists while those who insist the science is not settled are natural scientists. Of course there are natural scientists whose political agenda, financial or other agenda overrule their natural science principles and go with the social scientists. While the science may be settled in social science, the consensus is based on social attitudes that is ever changing. Theories in social science changes with changing social attitudes in the same way new experimental data changes the theories of natural science. Perhaps the Lisbon meeting could have been more significant if it tried to reconcile the decision making paradigm of natural and social sciences.
Sadly Gavin Schmidt may be right when he says;
“No ‘conflict resolution’ is possible between the science community who are focussed on increasing understanding, and people who are picking through the scientific evidence for cherries they can pick to support a pre-defined policy position.”
But which side is which?
Vukcevic,
Interesting graphs. I probably am missing your point, but can you explain/provide links of the physics behind the link between GMF intensity in the z-axis and arctic temperature anomally? Thanx.
In the climate field, there are a number of issues which are no longer subject to fundamental debate in the community. The existence of the greenhouse effect, the increase in CO2 (and other GHGs) over the last hundred years and its human cause, and the fact the planet warmed significantly over the 20th Century are not much in doubt. IPCC described these factors as ‘virtually certain’ or ‘unequivocal’. The attribution of the warming over the last 50 years to human activity is also pretty well established – that is ‘highly likely’ and the anticipation that further warming will continue as CO2 levels continue to rise is a well supported conclusion. To the extent that anyone has said that the scientific debate is over, this is what they are referring to. In answer to colloquial questions like “Is anthropogenic warming real?”, the answer is yes with high confidence.
– Gavin Schmidt
Pamela Gray says:
February 5, 2011 at 4:35 pm
“These people are showing up as spoiled children. If Gavin is representative of the group he refers to as the “scientific community”, I would suggest to their mothers either a time-out or a duly applied spanking, which ever is their parenting preference.”
I believe you are right about Gavin. However, I think a mother could not handle him and his parents might very well need help in handling him. I sense meanness and a desire to hurt. Maybe that’s why his employer gave him “Real Climate,” to keep him occupied.