Note – this will be pinned as a top post for a few days. Other posts will appear below this one.
UPDATE: Josh weighs in with a Friday Funny.
UPDATE2: McKibben has a Forrest Gump moment with his latest propaganda video
I’m doing something I’ve never done before, I’m asking every reader of WUWT to write a letter to the editor this weekend. I don’t take this step lightly, but given what I’ve observed the last few days, I think it is time to stir the power of our collective WUWT community for the common good.
Readers may recall the debunkings I regularly put forth any time paid activists like Bill McKibben, Joe Romm, David Suzuki, or Brad Johnson (and others) try to make claims that human induced climate change is making our daily weather “more extreme”. You know and I know that this is “garbage science” (even worse than “junk science”) because it is an attempt to twist science to strike fear over climate into the hearts of the average citizen. It is an act of desperation, rooted in the fact that the modeled warming scenarios described by the scientist activist high priest of the global warming movement Dr. James Hansen, just have not come to pass. Climate feedbacks don’t seem to be strong, climate sensitivity doesn’t seem to be high, there’s been no statistically significant warming in the last decade, and thus the only thing left is to blame bouts of normally occurring severe weather on climate change. The level of thinking sophistication here isn’t much different from blaming witches for bad weather in medieval times, but the sophistication of telegraphing this message to the weak-minded is far more sophisticated than in those days.
And, yesterday, we saw a message similar to calls made during those dark times “she’s a witch, BURN her!” in Steve Zwick’s rant on Forbes.com where he says:
We know who the active denialists are – not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies. Let’s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let’s make them pay. Let’s let their houses burn. … They broke the climate. Why should the rest of us have to pay for it?
The level of delusional fail here is off the scale. If this were an isolated incident, we could simply laugh it off as the hateful rantings of a person afflicted with climate derangement syndrome. But there’s more.
Yesterday, it entered my children’s school (see below), and this week, we saw a survey on “extreme weather” conducted by Yale, use a phrase in the press release that is straight out of a propagandist organization, Bill McKibben’s 350.org. The heat is on to make climate all about the weather for propaganda purposes, and there’s no data to support it. It is a lie of global proportions. We need to step up. Here’s what I found in my children’s school yesterday:
At my children’s school yesterday, they had a book fair. In that book fair was this display from the publisher of a new book INsiders – Extreme Weather.
Of course you know what book I picked up to look at first, and it took me all of about 15 seconds to find this (I highlighted the relevant part digitally):
“Some scientists”? I think the author really meant “some activists”.
To be fair, there are some very good sections of the book well rooted in science, for example this one on lightning:
I know the author, H. Michael Mogil, who is well rooted in science, and who is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist. I can’t imagine him fully signing off on the climate=severe weather idea as McKibben et al put it. But, I think there was pressure from publishers to include the section on climate linkage, and I think he hedged his statement as best he could. My point is that is it beginning to pervade children’s books.
Also this week we had this poll released from Yale University, which got a ton of press thanks to it being carried in the Associated Press. It even made my own local newspaper.
The poll itself is a logical fallacy, with sloppy questions like this one:
I give it a thorough debunking here with a strong emphasis on the reporting bias introduced by our technologically saturated society. Anyone with a cellphone can report severe weather now and within minutes it can be known worldwide.
Here’s a quote from the lead author that was carried in news stories, bold mine:
“Most people in the country are looking at everything that’s happened; it just seems to be one disaster after another after another,” said Anthony A. Leiserowitz of Yale University, one of the researchers who commissioned the new poll. “People are starting to connect the dots.”
At the time, I didn’t note the significance of the “connect the dots” meme, but one of our sharp WUWT readers pointed out that this is the new catchphrase of Bill McKibben’s 350.org movement.
In tips and notes this morning, Nick Ryan confirmed this for me with this letter from McKibben he posted.
Subject: Good news.
From: organizers@350.org
To: nick_ryan@xxxx.xxx
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 18:57:30 +0000
Dear friends,
Good news this time.
At some point every one of us at 350 has thought to ourselves a little despairingly: is the world ever going to catch on to climate change? Today is one of those days when it feels like it just might happen.
A story on the front page of yesterday’s New York Times described a new poll — Americans in record numbers are understanding that the planet is warming because they’re seeing the “freaky” weather that comes with climate change.
And the story ends by describing the next step in this process: May 5, the giant Connect the Dots day that people are joining all around the globe: http://www.ClimateDots.org
When the zeitgeist conspires to help our efforts, we need to make the most of it. Two weeks is plenty of time to organize a beautiful photo for May 5, one that will help spread this idea. Are you in a place where flood and rain have caused havoc? Ten people with umbrellas can make a memorable “climate dot” for all the world to see. You’ll think of something appropriate for your place — and you can find lots of examples and ideas here.
This movement is growing quickly, and with not a moment to spare — new data from scientists like Jim Hansen at NASA shows that our carbon emissions have already made extreme weather many times more likely. We can’t take back the carbon we’ve already poured into the atmosphere, but if we work together hard and fast then we can keep it from getting steadily worse.
Earth Day is coming up this weekend, and there will be thousands of events across the US. Each one of them is a great place to spread the word about the big day of action on 5/5. When you’re on the front page of the Times it’s a sign that the message is starting to get through — but only one American in 300 reads that newspaper. Now it’s up to all of us to make sure that everyone around the world gets the message, and Connect the Dots day on 5/5 is our best chance to do that. Please join us.
Onwards,
Bill McKibben for 350.org
P.S. It is key to remember that these photos from May 5 are not just for their effect on that day. We need a bank of images showing the human face of global warming — pictures we’ll use for the hard and direct political work of the next few years. If people don’t know there’s a problem, they won’t try to solve it. So let’s show them on 5/5. Here’s a heartbreaking example, from some local activists in Texas:
Climate Activists in Texas
Clearly, due to the timing and the reference he made to “People are starting to connect the dots.”, the poll conducted by Anthony A. Leiserowitz of Yale University is just a tool that is connected to this 350.org “climatedots.org” campaign, it isn’t science, it is blatant advocacy disguised as science of the brand Dr. James Hansen practices.
So looking at what is going in total this week, I think it is time for us to exercise our own rights to free speech, and thus I’m asking WUWT readers to write letters to the editor to your local newspapers and magazines to counter what will surely be a blitz of advocacy in the coming days.
This tactic is used by these NGO’s so there is nothing wrong with it. It is free speech in the finest American tradition. There is one hitch though, and that’s the newspaper editors back-channel.
You see, one of the perks of being a journalist in the TV and radio news business is that I’m privy to how things work. In print media, editors have established a back-channel to alert each other of potential letter writing campaigns, such as those form letters like we see from “Forecast the Facts”.
The key is to make this your own letter, in your own words. While I can suggest topics, the letters need to be written in your own words for them to be accepted.
You can start here with this essay, and draw from it.
Warren Meyer made some excellent points yesterday in his Zwick rebuttal at Forbes:
A Vivid Reminder of How The Climate Debate is Broken
I really liked this part, which speaks to reporting bias (like we have with severe weather):
In the summer of 2001, a little boy in Mississippi lost an arm in a shark attack. The media went absolutely crazy. For weeks and months they highlighted every shark attack on the evening news. They ran aerial footage of sharks in the water near beaches. They coined the term “Summer of the Shark.” According to Wikipedia, shark attacks were the number three story, in terms of network news time dedicated, of the summer.
Bombarded by such coverage, most Americans responded to polls by saying they were concerned about the uptick in shark attacks. In fact, there were actually about 10% fewer shark attacks in 2001 than in 2000. Our perceptions were severely biased by the coverage.
How to write a letter:
1. Go to your local newspaper website, locate the guidelines for letters to the editor. Typical letter policies limit letters to 200-250 words.
2. Do your research, craft your letter carefully. Cite facts, cite statistics such as I offer on WUWT. Use your own words, don’t quote me, though quoting people like Professor Grady Dixon “…it would be a mistake to blame climate change for a seeming increase in tornadoes” is fine.
3. [added] Readers are submitting content ideas in comments, have a look at those. Fr example Steve E. writes: Dr. Roger Pielke Jr’s posting on the IPCC SREX Report, “A Handy Bullshit Button on Disasters and Climate Change” here: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/2012/03/handy-bullshit-button-on-disasters-and.html is also a good source for letter content.
4. Send it, being mindful of length and guidelines.
Thank you for your consideration. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Don’t have time to write a letter to the editor and in any case not many readers of the local in my village.
Instead, I busted into several threads over at the Puffington Host. Easier and more effective for me, at least.
Anyway did my part as best I could.
Later……
Eric Adler says:
April 21, 2012 at 8:53 pm
>>>jaschrumpf says:
April 21, 2012 at 6:23 pm
“Unfortunately, even the existence of “a clear increasing temperature trend” does (not) mean that it was caused by CO2 emissions. The only “evidence” for such is the models’ output, which has been programmed to presume that increasing CO2 is the driver for the increased temperatures. The lack of an alternative hypothesis is indicative of the mindset of the alarmists rather than proof of their hypothesis.”<<<<
Your post is totally wrong. The fact that CO2 absorbs and reemits IR radiation, thereby reducing the rate of escape of heat from the earth atmosphere system, and increases its temperature, especially in the nighttime has been understood since 1859, when John Tyndall published his work on this. The fact that water vapor in the atmosphere is a feedback mechanism which amplifies an increase in temperature has also been understood for a long period of time, and has been confirmed by satellite measurements of H2O in the atmosphere. This is a valid, and confirmed physical theory, based on experimental evidence, not a presumption. Satellite measurements have confirmed the reduction in outgoing radiation intensity at the absorption lines of CO2 and H2O.
Instead of relying on websites run by anti AGW bloggers for your knowledge, you should consult more scientific web sites to educate yourself properly.
Eric, stating that someone is totally wrong when they are quoting observations only shows that you have not read what they have written.
There is only one problem with your heat causes more water vapor which causes more greenhouse effect fugue – and that is that it is NOT happening. Average worldwide humidity is dropping, there is no ‘tropospheric hotspot that there would be if the hypothesis you quote was true, and global temperatures have not risen in the last decade although CO2 continues to rise.
Therefore it is NOT TRUE to state: This is a valid, and confirmed physical theory, based on experimental evidence, not a presumption. Satellite measurements have confirmed the reduction in outgoing radiation intensity at the absorption lines of CO2 and H2O. The hypothesis that heat is absorbed by CO2 leading to increased temperatures leading to increased water vapor leading to more heat is absorbed by water vapor and more warming has been falsified. IT IS NOT GETTING WARMER there is no tropospheric hotspot AND satellite metrics from ERBE and others have shown that there is negative feedback to temperature rise.
What this means is that jaschrumpf is right, there are other things happening that have not been included in the models so the models are all wrong. They remain wrong, even though fudge factors based on the corrections needed rather than real world observations are being added to try to make them fit. It is also an interesting point that the models are all incorrect in the same sense – always too hot. This should be a flag to the modelers that there is a common underlying incorrect assumption. Probably the presumption that CO2 will continue to warm with no negative feedback and that a coupled chaotic atmosphere-ocean system will behave in a linear way; very basic errors.
Then my dear Volker, I have to ask, would you like catsup with those flies?
Here’s another quote you might like:
“Education is useless if all you ever do is impress yourself.” That would be especially true in a desert.
The quote is mine. Don’t need someone from Sumeria to speak for me.
On the upside, loved how you combined “brilliant” with “lorem ipsum”. Now that’s funny.
@Eric Adler
As you are so totally certain of everything – you could answer Jo Nova’s challenge here http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/is-there-any-evidence/
This open challenge has been unanswered for 2 years. One would have thought that with all the leading lights of the AGW movement and billions being spent on ‘climate research’ and industries being shut down at a cost of trillions of dollars, that one of the climate ‘scientists’ would have been able to meet the challenge.
But so far the silence is deafening.
Perhaps with Rio+20 talking of bankrupting the industrialized nations, the climate ‘scientists’ have no right to remain silent in this.
You may edit and my letter:
Editor,
I have a degree in Science Education and have taught Ecology. I am very concerned about our environment, our air, and our water resources. I am also concerned about how our tax money is being spent.
Any careful study will show that the Earth has been been slowly warming sense the early eighteenth century, following the “Little Ice Age”. It may continue to warm, or not. That is not a bad thing.
The toughest among you here, in this area of Kansas, survived, even thrived during the warmer times of the 1930’s and 1950’s. Many of you need to look no farther than your own family history, back a couple of generations. Improved agricultural practices and equipment made recent warming less problematic, if worrisome.
If you recall your eight grade history, the great adventurers of the middle ages, the Vikings, invaded Europe and colonized Greenland and Vineland. Their former villages are being uncovered in Greenland and Newfoundland, Canada as the ice recedes from those places. They were able to survive there because it was warmer then than now. Several degrees warmer. They only abandoned those areas as the Earth cooled and drifted into the Little Ice Age beginning about 1300. Clear evidence of this is available if one looks past the current crop of environmental alarmists.
These alarmists would like to frighten you into raising taxes and penalties on industries that produce carbon dioxide, your oil companies and utility companies. They want to raise your taxes and utility rates to fight “Global Warming”. I suggest we all listen to them and oppose their efforts, especially during this next election. Many Democrats support these false science advocates. Many Republicans oppose them. It is in your best interest to pay close attention to what your favorite elected representatives advocate in this area.
I responded on my blog (www.idealtaxes.com) by pointing out that British Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn predicted the extreme weather in the USA in March based upon solar magnetic and lunar events. Here’s the quote that I transcribed from Corbyn’s April 2 you-tube video:
“The thirteenth to fifteenth of March, we specifically predicted this in our forecast in detail, we said there would be tornadoes and giant hail in the lower midwest. That happened.
“We also said, after that there would be a big heat wave in the central and eastern parts of the USA. That happened.
“And then we said that would turn into or change into something more forcused on Texas with intense heat in Texas. That happened.
“And then, finally, there was a cold blast just coming down from Canada in the Northeast part of America at the end of March carrying into April which we predicted.
Punksta says:
April 21, 2012 at 10:06 pm
“Eric Adler April 21, 2012 at 12:06
“The idea that average global tmeperatures have been flat is wrong.”
No it isn’t. Even at Realclimate they admit another few years of flatness and they will have to have a major rethink.”
Do you have a specific quote or post from their web site to support your statement?
“ENSO is ruled out. It’s been pretty much flat since 1997, ie about 15 years, and ENSO cycles are typically 5 years.”
This is not true. I provided a link to a graph of the ENSO index in a previous post. The strongest positive index value was +3 in 1998, and the strongest negative value was -2 in 2010. This has had a strong influence on temperatures in those years. Taking out the influence of volcanoes, ENSO and solar cycles, a clear warming trend emerges:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=1172
“Ocean content. If there was even a grain of truth that ocean heat content clearly is going up, there would be no argument at all. But there isn’t. Why do you think Trenberth talks of the heat he so desparately hopes is ‘hiding’ down there ?”
The graph of Ocean Heat content to which I linked shows, that it has increased substantially over the past 15 years. Trenberth believes that all of the heat gain has not been tracked.
It is ridiculous to claim that non- emissive sources of energy cost 10 times what fossil fuels cost. A combination of Solar, Wind and nuclear sources are economically viable alternatives to coal and gas. France has lived quite well with 70% of its power generated by nuclear reactors. Wind and solar do not cost 10 times the cost of coal or natural gas. They are currently competitive when assisted by tax credits of 30% of the price of installation.
It is clear that you are refusing to confront the facts that are presented to you, because they would challenge your beliefs. Your modis operandi is simply to deny the existence of the evidence that is put before you.
Ian W says:
April 22, 2012 at 7:10 am
“@Eric Adler
As you are so totally certain of everything – you could answer Jo Nova’s challenge here http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/is-there-any-evidence/
This open challenge has been unanswered for 2 years. One would have thought that with all the leading lights of the AGW movement and billions being spent on ‘climate research’ and industries being shut down at a cost of trillions of dollars, that one of the climate ‘scientists’ would have been able to meet the challenge.
But so far the silence is deafening.”
It is because you are wearing earplugs.
It has been known for 150 years that absorption and emission of IR by GHG’s is responsible for preventing the escape of heat from the earth atmosphere system. The first estimate of the effect of doubling of CO2 due to industrial emissions was made by Nobel Laureate Svante Ahrennius in 1896. More careful measurements of spectra and temperature profiles of the atmosphere in the late 1950’s have improved the model paramenters. Satellite observations of the decreases in upward longwave radiation escaping from the top of the atmosphere, and the increase downward long wave radiation at the surface of the earth are direct evidence that
increases in CO2 and CH4 are responsible for the increase in temperatures over the past 40 years.
http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_Proceedings/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml
Eric Adler says:
April 22, 2012 at 7:55 am
“It is clear that you are refusing to confront the facts that are presented to you, because they would challenge your beliefs. Your modis operandi is simply to deny the existence of the evidence that is put before you.”
That is funny. I was thinking that is EXACTLY what you have done.
Eric Adler says:
April 22, 2012 at 7:55 am
The graph of Ocean Heat content to which I linked shows, that it has increased substantially over the past 15 years. Trenberth believes that all of the heat gain has not been tracked.
I did some calculations with the following numbers:
Mass of air is 5 x 10^18 kg;
Specific heat capacity of air is 1 kJ/kgK
Assume a 3 C rise in air temperature due to AGW. (I do not agree with this scenario, But I am just crunching numbers assuming that is the case.)
Mass of oceans is 1.4 x 10^21 kg;
Specific heat capacity of ocean water is about 4 kJ/kgK
The question I am trying to answer is that IF we for the moment assume the air temperature were to potentially go up by 3 degrees C, but IF we then assume ALL this heat goes into the ocean instead, how much would the ocean warm up?
Using mct(air) = mct(ocean), I get an answer of 0.0027 C is the increase in the temperature of the ocean. Of course, this cannot be measured, nor would the ocean expand to any noticable degree with this added temperature. But IF Trenberth is right that the heat can go into the ocean, what are we worried about?
Strange that those “scientist” who are paid to study global warming think it is real and those scientists who are not paid do not believe it is real.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/19/former-nasa-scientists-astronauts-to-attend-heartland-institute-climate-conference/
Uh…no it is not direct evidence. A warming world can have an immediate impact on the number of things that begin to grow. I wish for early warm Springs. Why? I get tons more pasture grass. That cuts down on the need for additional hay bales. And gets cattle out earlier. Which means more rent payments. Wine growers love it too. Increasing Sun days and warming temperatures have expanded vineyards ever North. And folks who raise pumpkins and other types of gourds, and melons, and tomatoes. Then, all that additional vegetation dies out in the fall and the nutrients, along with the mulchy messes, get added to the soil and air.
CO2 could be a ride-along, not the driver. It will be interesting to see who is right. It certainly is the case that dangerous levels of CO2 have not been able to stop La Nina’s. Or the AO from flipping this way or that, or the great overturning current from overturning, etc, etc, etc. It seems to be rather weak in affecting natural short and long term oscillations, is it not?
Eric, I find your links of model-based research interesting. The circular reasoning in the first article you link to may be brought to light if you would cruise this one:
http://www.sustainablenuclear.org/PADs/PAD201008GOLDMAN.pdf
If we had listened…..
Global temperatures have been going down…
Arctic and Antarctic Ice has been going up…
Sea levels have been falling….
Hurricanes and tornadoes are normal…
Droughts, floods are normal…
etc etc
CO2 levels are rising at the same rate….
But if we had listened, we would all be living like some third world country….
…and they would all be taking credit for saving the world
….from something normal
Wouldn’t do any good to write to the one and only local rag in my town. It’s run by a bunch of treehugging liberals who wouldn’t be persuaded by the onset of another ice age.
Werner Brozek says:
April 22, 2012 at 8:42 am
Eric Adler says:
April 22, 2012 at 7:55 am
The graph of Ocean Heat content to which I linked shows, that it has increased substantially over the past 15 years. Trenberth believes that all of the heat gain has not been tracked.
I did some calculations with the following numbers:
Mass of air is 5 x 10^18 kg;
Specific heat capacity of air is 1 kJ/kgK
Assume a 3 C rise in air temperature due to AGW. (I do not agree with this scenario, But I am just crunching numbers assuming that is the case.)
Mass of oceans is 1.4 x 10^21 kg;
Specific heat capacity of ocean water is about 4 kJ/kgK
The question I am trying to answer is that IF we for the moment assume the air temperature were to potentially go up by 3 degrees C, but IF we then assume ALL this heat goes into the ocean instead, how much would the ocean warm up?
Using mct(air) = mct(ocean), I get an answer of 0.0027 C is the increase in the temperature of the ocean. Of course, this cannot be measured, nor would the ocean expand to any noticable degree with this added temperature. But IF Trenberth is right that the heat can go into the ocean, what are we worried about?”
You are making a lot of scientific errors in your thinking. The assumption that you are making that the ocean will warm uniformly is incorrect and has caused you to make a misleading calculation about ocean temperature. In addition, assuming that the heat capacity of the atmosphere and the heat stored therein is a relevant quantity to look at, shows that you have no understanding of what is happening.
You should look at this energy flow diagram to understand what is happening.
http://www.nar.ucar.edu/2009/ESSL/i2/images/i2_f_05_cgd_05.jpg
The small amount of heat stored by the atmosphere is inconsequential and irrelevant with respect to the heat fluxes moving between the earth (mostly ocean), atmosphere, and outer space.
The incoming heat from the sun, and downwelling radiation, which is not reflected, or emitted as upwelling radiation, or sent back to the atmosphere through convection or transpiration, is absorbed in the upper 300M of ocean. Over time a fraction is mixed into waters below that depth. This fraction is hard to trace. . Accurate tracking of the lateral and vertical flows of heat in the ocean is what Trenberth was concerned about in his quote, which was misinterpreted by so many “skeptic” web bloggers.
The surface of the ocean has been heating up as the various temperature records show. The rate of heating is variable because of fluctuations in ocean currents which mix the surface and bottom waters.
David Ball says:
April 22, 2012 at 8:43 am
“Strange that those “scientist” who are paid to study global warming think it is real and those scientists who are not paid do not believe it is real.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/19/former-nasa-scientists-astronauts-to-attend-heartland-institute-climate-conference/”
Do you really believe that attendees at a Heartland Institute climate conference is a valid statistical sample of paid versus non paid people? If so, you are not thinking clearly. Many of the attendees at the Heartland Institute are paid by conservative think tanks opposed to the GHG theory of global warming because it logically leads to more regulation of emissions. Opposition to government regulation is the raison d’etre for the institute itself.
If there are statistics somewhere to support your paid versus non paid argument, this can be interpreted in two ways:
1) The paid people are all corrupted and their theories are a hoax.
2) The people who have not studied this for a living are not as knowledgeable as those who are paid to do it.
I put my money on hypothesis number 2, based on the data that I have gathered.
I understand physics very well, having been a scientist and engineer prior to my retirement. The arguments against AGW posted here reflect so much ignorance, they are sufficient to convince me that number 2 is the correct explanation. In addition many scientific organizations and polls of scientists not paid to study climate science in particular also endorse the theory of AGW and polls of scientists in other fields show support for AGW among a majority.
I thought I’d just keep it short (maybe not sweet), draft:
——————————-
Has making a mountain out of a molehill become our society’s Achilles’ heel? We originally created agencies to determine mountains from molehills and to protect us from the mountains, but as the mountains were identified and their threats neutralized, smaller and smaller mounds had to be repackaged as mountains in order to justify the existence and expansion of these agencies. We spare no expense in order to retain experts to sniff out mountains masquerading as molehills in agencies such as OSHA, FDA, EPA, NASA and DOT. Our culture as reflected in our entertainment exalts the expert who recognizes the mountain even in its molehill disguise. We’ve become so used to reacting to molehills we barely notice the phrases that expose the repackaging from molehill to mountain, like “potential”, “could”, “may”, and “is consistent with” among others that will inevitably “connect the dots” from molehill to mountain.
———————————–
Edits/feedback appreciated.
I expect this meeting with the talk by Phil Jones of the CRU will be reported locally. An opportunity for anyone local to hear his views.
19:30 [East Anglia] Lecture (Norwich) Climate change – causes and consequences by Professor Phil Jones
Mon, 14 May, 19:30 – 21:00
Lancaster House 6th Form Centre, Norwich High School for Girls, Newmarket Road, Norwich, NR2 2HU. (map)
DescriptionProfessor Phil Jones from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia – the scientist at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair – will present the latest evidence on climate change and global warming.
Norfolk GA event, free to RGS-IBG members.
Perhaps the moderators could alert Christopher Moncton or Christopher Booker? I do not know how to reach them.
I have a question. Just what is a “scientist”?
Monckton’s disassembling of the alarmist’s position is dismissed because, “He’s not a scientist”. (Is Al Gore?)
Anthony Watt’s position is dismissed because, “He’s not a CLIMATE scientist”.
(Are only those who support AGW qualified to be called “climate” scientist?)
So someone please explain to me just what is a “scientist”? Just what is a “climate scientist”?
It seems that the Eric Adlers of the world would base the definitions on the conclusions reached. Or am I missing something?
One thing one does have to admit is that this level of discussion would never occur at RealClimate nor any of the other alarmist blogs. Eric Adler is giving as good as he’s getting, and it’s been going on for a couple of days now. Good luck getting that reception at “The Team”s favorite sites.
Now, I wouldn’t say Eric is getting the better of anyone. He did manage to miss my point that CO2 should be one of multiple hypotheses , and instead focused on his perception of my “ignorance” of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. But we all know that the crux of the AGW biscuit are the feedbacks, not the feeble 1.5C rise due to a doubling of CO2 concentrations. Those feedbacks are nowhere in sight; nor could they be, since geology (my degree) tells us that Earth’s atmosphere has had much higher levels of CO2 (up to 2000ppm) and never had “runaway greenhouse effects.”
It did, however, manage to have an ice age during one of those high CO2 periods.
Carl Sagan’s Popperian “baloney detection kit” absolutely requires multiple hypotheses, and sternly warns against getting “too attached” to one’s own. In fact, the “baloney” score looks like this for AGW:
Wherever possible, there must be independent confirmation of the facts.
Phil Jones refused to release his data because “you’ll just try to find something wrong with it.”
Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
“The science is settled!,” we’re told.
Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the ways it could be explained.
Except for the “deniers,” has any climate scientist proposed any other hypothesis for the observed warming since the 1850s other than CO2 increase?
Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future.Arguments from authority? “There’s a consensus.”
Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours.
Res ipsa loquitor.
Quantify. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations.
The original data in many cases is lost, and much of what we have to look at has been statistically altered in unknown, and therefore possibly incorrect, ways.
If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
Does every link in the AGW argument chain work? Really?
Occam’s Razor.
We observe changes in the earths’ climate. We know these changes have occurred previously throughout geological history. Do we really know enough regarding their causes then to be able to say unequivocally that human activity is causing them now?
Ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much.
I have yet to hear from an alarmist what would falsify the AGW hypothesis. The closest they’ve come is admitting that the flat temps of the past several years are problematic.
Gunga Din,
From my handy desktop dictionary:
scientist, noun, a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.
By that definition, both Anthony Watts and Lord Monckton qualify. Eric Adler, being a faith-based true believer, does not.
Eric, you ignore the fact that many people who are paid to study the climate do not share the conclusion that CO2 is the villian here. You also ignore the fact that there is more money to be had from government agencies if one does support the conclusion that CO2 is the villian than if one does not.
In every hoax, there are supporters who know it is a hoax and supporters who do not know of the hoax, but are conviced by the arguments in favor of it. When one reads email conversations between the principals of The Team where they argue among themselves about “hiding the decline” (the fact that the tail end of the dendrochronolgy series did not match the actual temperature observations made during the same period), and discussing having rival authors blacklisted and editors who published them fired… well, you should get the idea that good, honest science is not being practiced here.
Maybe some of you could add this to your letters…
http://traccc.gmu.edu/pdfs/student_research/Smokowicz.pdf