It seems the debate is getting a bit testy in the land of watercress sandwiches and doilies*.
“Man-made global-warming hypothesis is dead in the water” says Godfrey Bloom MEP, but it gets better, he points a finger at the chairman and shouts “denier”.
Watch.
h/t to Tom Nelson
* Some people thought I was referring to Belgium. No, I was referring to the EU Parliament in Brussels. I had lunch service there in a roomful of skeptics while Climategate raged in my mind, and I couldn’t say anything until it was verified. I recall the lunch service because it seemed to heighten the surreal situation I found myself in. – Anthony
jfreed27:
At April 17, 2013 at 4:42 am you say
True, but there never has been a “stable climate” and there are good reasons to think there never can be a “stable climate” here on Earth.
Global temperature rises by 3.8°C during 6 months of each year and falls by 3.8°C during the other 6 months of each year. If you do not understand why then one recent and simple explanation is available at
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2013/03/misunderstanding-of-the-global-temperature-anomaly/
Of course, this puts into perspective the “higher than average (pre-oil) temperatures” which you say concern you.
The rise in global temperature since the industrial revolution is trivial: it is about 0.8°C which is about a fifth of the rise in global temperature which happens during 6 months each and every year.
Importantly, an oscillating system varying by +/-3.8°C each year could be expected to provide harmonics over much longer times than individual years. Such harmonics alone could be expected to provide such trivially small variations as 0.8°C.
It seems that you live on a planet which has had “a stable climate” at some time. What colour is the sky on your planet; it is sometimes blue here on Earth?
Richard
Moe:
re your post addressed to me at April 17, 2013 at 5:03 am.
I have noted your post and laughed at it.
I consider ALL evidence but I reject unsubstantiated bollocks.
as several people have pointed out, you have only provided unsubstantiated bollocks.
The ability to discern accumulated ocean heat is discussed in the current thread at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/17/a-different-perspective-on-trenberths-missing-heat-the-warming-of-the-global-oceans-0-to-2000-meters-in-deg-c/
Read it if you really do want to consider the evidence concerning the gremlins you proclaim are hiding under the bed.
Richard
Moe says:
April 17, 2013 at 3:12 am
So Richard you don’t accept that the seas are warming? It is the position you would have to take if you think global warming has paused.
/////////////////////////////
If one was being honest, one would have to admit that we have no idea whether the seas are warming or not.
Even if we were to increase ARGO coverage a million fold, we would still have no idea whether the seas were warming or not.
Then we would have to wait at least 70 to 100 years before we would be in a position to extrapolate any useful conclusions regarding trends.
Lets face it, the data is simply not fit for purpose, and the defficencies in the ocaen data set cannot be rectified quickly. There are no quick fixes.
I’m glad Larry finally showed up… Hiya jfreed!
There is no doubt though that the weather has changed around the world though. If it’s not warming then what is causing it? Can anybody enlighten this pathetic, frightened man?!
@ur momisugly Moe says:
April 17, 2013 at 5:03 am
Thankyou for confirming that you are evasive.
Since no person, or word-machine, can fail to register what a “question” is, and the appearance of them in my response directed to you, whatever your intellectual capacity is, these cannot have passed unnoticed.
Your apparent failure to grasp the meaning of any point at all in my comment is disconcerting.
Is this – no polite way of putting this – a “brain problem”? You seem capable of constructing sentences, which while not actually carrying meaning relevant to any point they claim to seek to deal with, are more or less intelligible.
An interesting point. Is this a sign of what can be described as autonomous intelligence? Or does it have the nature of a reflexive condition? Is form without substance anything more than a pattern? Which may well have simply been imposed by imprinting?
The NATURE of your responses certainly indicates imprinting. Sufficient form to carry a limited expression. But no more!
Is this why you were evasive of absolutely everything in my comment? Because the form could not carry such a variation in requirements? Is it even fair to call it evasion? If the form is incapable of carrying a response, does that also imply it is incapable of registering things it is not fit to incorporate? Is that the basis of what – for a normally functional human – can only be called a “brain problem”?
Or is it instead, a fundamental dishonesty? So ingrained, so absolute, that to ignore the unignorable, is a compulsion that cannot be resisted, even though it is blindingly obvious to all who see it? But this in itself a “brain problem” of an almost unfathomable profundity!
So is it possible you incorporate BOTH? A “brain problem” at a level to invoke gasps from a functional human AND a basic, organic, dishonesty at a level which when perceived by a human, requires your ejection from society?
If you are able, I would greatly appreciate a further response to allow a comprehensive judgement. Please do not be concerned with attempting to explain your condition. This cannot be expected regardless of the reason, and can only be the cause of stress.
Just say whatever you feel you are able to. No need to try, or pretend, to be relevant. Any sequence of words at all will do, and will allow a definitive decision on your condition.
Mark:
Your post at April 17, 2013 at 5:47 am shows a basic misunderstanding. It says in total
Weather changes everywhere. It always has and it always will.
Study a course in meteorology if you want to know why weather changes. A blog is not a place where such a course can be provided.
It is not true that “weather has changed around the world”. Weather is changing, has changed, and will change everywhere. There is nothing unusual happening “around the world”. There is only usual change in weather happening at each location on Earth.
There has been no global warming for at least 16 years. Therefore, any weather changes over the last decade cannot be a result of global warming because there has been no global warming.
Your fear may be the reason you say you are pathetic. There is no reason to be “frightened” about global warming because it stopped at least 16 years ago.
Richard
Thanks Richard you have answered my question and I’m sorry that you may feel that my question is inappropriate. I am an educated person to masters degree level in linguistics and my desire to learn has brought me to this blog. You all obviously have more specialist knowledge than me in this field and I respect that. But I represent the guy in the street who has been at the mercy of alarmist media for some years. The guy in the street who wonders why the rain is harder and the snow is deeper here in the UK. If it’s natural variability then that’s good news. The more of me that you can communicate with (yes, on my level) to change the perceptions that you argue so strongly for will surely help the anti agw cause. Thanks.
@ur momisugly Mark says:
April 17, 2013 at 5:47 am
It’s Number 4!!! Unbelievable!!! TRULY unbelievable!!!
I passed by this at first, thinking it was some sort of confused parody!!
Invoking fear of the weather!!!!
There can BE no Number 5. There is no-where to go from this. Although, as part of a very clever strategy, there could – and OF COURSE should – be re-cycling. And maybe this progression is part of the collective structure, where everyone gets to participate regardless of how detrimental or simply embarrassing that is.
Mark, if you can steady your nerves, and get out from under the table for a minute, who gave you the word to go? Moe, icarus62, someone else, your Controller? Or was is by collective understanding achieved through back-rubbing affirmation and a few glasses of your favorite?
@JC
Invoking? No.
Simplyasking a question of those who have more knowledge on the subject than myself so that I might learn something? Yes.
Your conspiracy theory is completely misplaced. I say it again. If you want to communicate to people around the world that they need not fear GW then such questions need to answered even though you might find them tiresome. For the main part, we are at the mercy of the mainstream media.
So for example. I read here in the UK (and I stress read, as opposed to believe) that melting Arctic ice may be responsible for the winter that we have just had. To an ordinary person. melting ice can easily be linked with the concept of GW. People don’t fear the weather itself but the consequences when it comes to food security etc.
Ok so if you want me to stop asking questions because you feel they are inappropriate or tiresome or stupid then fine – I will. But please don’t accuse me of some kind of conspiracy.
Ordinary people have the exactly the same questions.
Mark:
Thankyou for your reply to me at April 17, 2013 at 6:27 am.
No question is ever “inappropriate” and yours certainly was not. However, some answers may be “inappropriate”.
I tried to give a proper answer and I addressed each point in your post. I apologise if I was abrupt: I intended no offence.
I enjoy debate and discussion especially with those who disagree with me because I learn most from those with whom I disagree: if I wanted to talk to myself then I would use a mirror and not a blog.
But I abhor disruptive trolls whose intention is to prevent serious discussion. As you can see if you peruse this thread, the thread has has a severe infestation of disruptive trolls.
I admit that I did have a suspicion that you may have been part of the infestation, and if that suspicion showed in my answer to you then I sincerely apologise.
Richard
@ur momisugly Mark says:
April 17, 2013 at 6:27 am
Do I owe you an apology? Very difficult to believe your initial comment was sincere. If so, then apology offered.
If the reason proffered by you is true, I would honestly like to hear more. That there has been endless propaganda around this issue, and that it has known no bounds in what it will attempt to co-opt, is clear. For the average person, not looking into this themselves, it is understandable that the basic premise of AGW is accepted.
I am curious about how you see this having had the ability to effect your perceptions of the weather and what it is that has made you seek further information. Did the claims just become too implausible? Did you inadvertently pick up snippets of contradictory information?
No apology required. You don’t know how glad I am to have found the blog.
In answer to your question I have gone through a quite terrible process to get where I am with AGW – literally paralysed by fear invoked by the media, particularly after recently becoming a father. It seemed to be something that was unquestionable in the media but yes I did start to notice inconsistent information here and there regarding sea level rise for example. So I started spending hours reading the huge amount of information out there – some of it made me even more terrified and some was more measured.
And now I’m here and it’s the best place I’ve found so far. An alarmist would say that this is because I have found an antidote to the terror that I’ve been experiencing but I see it more as a counter measure. Make no mistake – there are a lot of very frightened people out here and that is really not a good thing.
@Mark says:
April 17, 2013 at 7:38 am
It does not come naturally to me to be able to empathise with a concern with the weather on that level, simply because, I suppose, through my life since I was a kid I have always had exposure to it, and do not find any of it’s extremes in themselves “foreign”. I quite like them actually.
Although the cause in this case (weather) is not something I am disposed to worry about, I do understand that people can and do get – even what they might see as to unjustifieable degree – caught up in anxiety about things beyond their control and about which any information accessible to them is couched in portentous terms.
Which is why no doubt why much, or basically all, CAGW propaganda has been presented in that way. Scare people into acquiescence. With a moral imperative as well.
I believe you when you say there are a lot of frightened people. And having created that is an evil in itself.
@ur momisugly Mark
Oh, and by the way, the weather really hasn’t changed, or not more than is just run-of-the-mill changes that will occur over any time period. Here in Australia, we recently went through severe drought. A 100 year drought. As predicted by numerous people before it started. Not “climate scientists”, farmers and the like. Of course it was not similar in all respects. No-one sane would expect that. Its just weather and will go on, with numerous memorable events, but no Armageddon, until we are all dead. And even after!
@The reality is
1.
The IPCC made a prediction
2.
The prediction was for “committed warming”
3.
The “committed warming” has not happened and discernible global warming has stopped.
4.
This demonstrates beyond any possibility of doubt that climate model predictions of global warming are wrong.
————————————————————————————
Richard, you seem to be getting very upset at a lot of posts, I’m not entirely sure why. With reference to your 4 points, I have not disputed any of them, I am more than happy to accept these things, however my post does not deal with predictions, models, forecasts or any other prophecy, it is related to grounded observation of past temperatures. Just because someone got a prediction based on a theory wrong, does not mean that the retrospective observation were wrong. I would understand it you claimed that there has been no rise in temperature over the last 50 or so years, though I disagree, but your point appears to be related to dysfunctional models which is irrelevant to my point.
My post is related to whether there has been a slowdown or not, something which Anthony agrees with. I don’t care why temperatures have risen or why the climate has varied, I try and steer well clear of any hypothesis not based on grounded theory. Many people say the increase has stopped when looking at the last 16 years. Others look at the last 25 years and point out that if it has not cooled, well the warming has not stopped. They are both perspectives, I am not sure I can make it any clearer, though I can use the old train analogy if it helps.
It’s about using phenomenology or qualitative methodologies instead of reductionist black and white conclusions. Again, predictions made by the IPCC or anyone else are completely irrelevant, I am not discussing such issues any more than I am discussing economic growth forecasts, and observations may be subjective to a degree, but are never idle suspicion.or ideological twaddle.
Gareth Phillips:
I am replying to your egregious and offensive post addressed to me at April 17, 2013 at 8:30 am.
It begins saying
Please don’t pretend to be thick. It makes you look dishonest.
I have been objecting to trolls making false statements, ignoring all points pertaining to their falsehoods, and then repeating the falsehoods.
Your post I am answering does that again.
It says
That is a falsehood. Point 3 of my repeat of my explanation to you is
But you say to me
I DID NOT SAY, SUGGEST, OR IMPLY THAT.
I said and explained that there has been no discernible global warming prior to now for at least 16 years.
And you go on to say
Clearly, I have answered that repeatedly both to you and to others.
Global warming stopped at least 16 years ago. I first explained this in my post at April 16, 2013 at 5:14 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/15/fireworks-in-the-eu-parliament-over-the-pause-in-global-warming/#comment-1276959
If global warming stopped more than 16 years ago then it must have “slowed down” to have stopped.
And, contrary to your egregious assertion, there is NO ‘on the one hand and on the other hand’ about this. ALL the pertinent data sets show that global warming stopped at least 16 years ago.
Stop trolling.
Richard
Denier……! Denier……….! pants on fire !
@gareth Phillips says:
April 17, 2013 at 8:30 am
Frankly your position is idiotic.
Some people might say that it is warmer than 150 years ago and so it is still warming. So what.
The claim is that it should have warmed over the past 15 years. It hasn’t.
It has not got warmer for 15 years. Fact.
So warming has stopped. Fact.
Models require warming through that period. Fact.
Models reflect claimed understanding of climate. Fact.
Claimed understanding is incorrect. Fact.
Those claiming understanding do not know what they are talking about. Fact.
There is nothing more to it.
Gareth Phillips says:
April 17, 2013 at 12:27 am
First thing, I argue for no particular cause either directly – but as a scientist – I argue for the science to be demonstrable and repeatable (as per good scientific practise) and NOT to be twisted and turned as per the presenters ‘beliefs’ – so we are at least in agreement that the current information can be and is presented in different ways.
Now – why is that? – the easy and obvious answer is because the science is flawed, the methodology is flawed, the measurements are flawed and finally, the darned assumptions (that we know how it all works) are almost certainly flawed. This is the basic scientific method – test your assumption (hypothesis, if you prefer) but if it don’t work – it is WRONG – and you should start again. This has never been done in the CAGW ‘science’ – instead, stuff is fudged and fecked with until it meets the (already shown to be) flawed hypothesis.
As for the qualitative approach to Climate science – to be honest – most ordinary folk (who are not alarmists) will do that automatically!! e.g. ‘bloomin cold for this time or year, eh?’ or ‘gee, we are having a hot summer this year’, etc, etc. Then, when these same folk talk to granny, she reminds them of the hot/cold/wet/windy/whatever weather from donkeys years back. Joe Ordinary then gets the qualitative deduction along the lines of ‘hey, this climate and local weather is heckish variable!’
as for the current quantitative science – as per the temp data, etc – it is clearly flawed and cannot be considered remotely reliable. Add to that the concept of a warming world to the tune of 0.7 degrees over several decades and I am sorry, but we are now entering the world of measuring accuracy ‘fantasy’. When folk try and push a global temperature based on the extremely limited number of data points (relative to the size of the thing being measured!), the unreliability of said data (e.g. UHI, etc) and then harp on about how a grid cell can be adjusted according to data from an adjacent cell, averaged, readjusted, etc, etc – I just laugh – it is essentially all statistical fabrication AND the most important thing of all, is that their models cannot replicate it – because they have it all wrong!!
On the skeptical front (US spelling) – the skeptics HAVE to use the same data as the climate scientists and alarmists – so, ultimately, they are working with the same flawed data – but in general the skeptical side is to ‘check’ the alarmists workings and in nearly all cases, we see exaggeration and manipulation – mostly to ensure the AGW gravy train keeps filling their feeding trough! NONE of this is science!!
Richard, you are patently someone who cannot debate without using insults so I will leave it at that.
Kev in the UK, your point about qualitative understanding from an individual point is well made, my point is that interpretation or understanding is not limited to Grannies, Dads and Mums on personal experience, but we all do it, even those engaged in research on a professional basis. Where I may see a pattern of data as indicating one thing, someone else may interpret the data as meaning something else. It’s interesting to look at the angry responses to my post suggesting this idea. I personally have not argued that the climate is warming or cooling or anything else, I’ve tried to stay clear of any conclusion, commenting only on the idea that different people can come to different conclusions using the same data due to their subjectivity and personal goals. I tend to be opposed to hypothesis which are then researched to to support or nullify. I vastly prefer concepts based on observation, which as you can guess makes me wary of models which are not generated from observation. Some of my past students pointed out that I seemed to be very suspicious of any research which came to exactly the same conclusions as the previous one. I must confess such results always made me wonder whether someone was just copying data or giving interpretation they thought were the ones we wanted to hear. You cannot cross the same river twice.
But look at he reaction to this idea, it is one of fury from some that I have reserved judgement or that I have suggested different people see different things. It’s the sort of thing that is commonly seen on Skeptical Science when someone deviates from the accepted truth, but I must admit I’m surprised to see such venom on these pages which are generally seen as being pretty tolerant.
Personally I’d like to see less models and more observation without pre-conditions, but then again phenomenology is not exactly flavour of the month with those who want to know exactly what is going on down to the last iota, and when they believe that has been confirmed they will brook no dispute. It’s the bane of climate science as well demonstrated by Mann and co, and many sceptics. I agree with your other point though, some of the studies are so dodgy they would not pass a first year research dissertation.
cheers, Gareth in the UK
@ur momisugly Kev-in-Uk says:
April 17, 2013 at 10:06 am
Re: your points about temp. measurements.
When I first starting coming to WUWT and found Anthony demonstrating that no one had even checked the integrity of the instruments, I was staggered. That fact, in itself, told me that this whole business was entirely bogus.
Who can pretend that they are are a real scientist who does not even make sure the test-tubes are clean?
Gareth Phillips says:
April 17, 2013 at 10:30 am
Yes, I too prefer observational methods – as a Geotechnical Engineer, the ‘observational method’ is quite often preferred. As for academic research – I agree, stuff that seems to simply re-hash old work is indeed suspicious. I’m lucky – I left academia behind after my Masters over 25 years ago and have no desire to revisit based on the impression I have of modern academics (largely bad – because of those working in climate science!). I have to laugh at the science sometimes though, and some of the crazy rules when applying said science, even for example, in my own field. We must use a piece of equipment calibrated to NPL standards, with a high degree of accuracy and repeatability, etc. Thats fine, but when the piece of equipment produces a range of values (naturally, and correctly!) in the order of +/- say 10 or 20% of the average value it seems crass to demand that it’s accuracy be down to 0.1% or less! When you then add the fact that said AVERAGE value is used in an EMPIRICAL equation, with a factor of safety of about 3 also ADDED in – we are getting into the realms of stupidity to demand super accurate equipment!! But, there you go……
as you may have guessed, I am not a fan of models either – (waits for Mosh to pipe up with how eveything today is based on models!) – but in the climate science sense, they are a complete joke. That wouldn’t be a problem if they then threw them out – but they insist on fudging them further – and still, after all this time, they cannot produce sensible output!
Gareth Phillips:
Your ridiculous post at April 17, 2013 at 10:30 am begins saying
NO! you are patently someone who has no desire to debate and only posts to disrupt debate.
You have repeatedly posted falsehoods.
I have refuted your falsehoods.
And you have continued to repeat the falsehoods without addressing my refutations.
I will ‘bite my tongue’ at that.
Richard
It would have been interesting to see the smug look on the face of the Eurocrat that he was speaking too. I’m sure that it would be very similar the the look on the face of Von Rompuy when Nigel is raking him over the coals. Kind of a childish, giggling, la-la land expression.
UKIP is such a slap in the face for these entitled Eurocrats. Love it.
It was my impression that satellite data is used to measure temperature.
jc says:
April 17, 2013 at 10:50 am
I agree. What I find absolutely astounding in all the station data type ‘issues’ – is that no-one thought to check them earlier? I mean, if you have a rising temp, you would first look locally, perhaps install a second thermometer, and also perhaps a more remote one for a control/comparison. Then you might look at local conditions (UHI, sun shadows, ground surface, etc). Then you would install further controls to get an idea of these potential ‘disturbances’,etc, etc. What does the fact that individual stations and their supervising meteorologists did not do this, tell us? It tells us that NO rigorous scientific method was applied!! (Of course hindsight is perfect, I accept that!)
Instead, they just ‘assumed’ it was normal and have left us with a sh*tload of data that means very little without an awful lot of MANUAL checking. But no-one does this, oh no – it’s easier to write a computer program to ‘check’ and adjust the data based on ASSUMPTIONS. They then use that data to make MORE assumptions and extrapolate to GLOBAL data – come on! – now really, when you sit at look at it like this – in a qualitative manner – who in their right mind is gonna say we know what the feck is going on??
Later, they decided to look for something to explain the rising temps BEFORE looking into the data properly. By some chance, some d*ckhead spotted that temps were rising ‘inline’ with CO2 and hey presto – THE answer was born! Even now, I don’t trust the data OR the corrections/adjustments. As far as I am concerned, our instrument record is nothing much more accurate than a ‘proxy’ equivalent – and so they mould and use it to whatever alarmist advantage they want…..
@ur momisugly Kev-in-Uk says:
April 17, 2013 at 12:00 pm
I think you are being far too generous to make any provision for this failure to be “understandable” with or without hindsight. What may have been considered adequate as a system to measure temps. – in a lazy way – for use in practical forecasting etc. was obviously not to be assumed sound without confirmation. The Future of the Planet depended on this for God’s sake. There was unlimited funding available.
As you say this whole thing is dodgyness built on dodgyness. I too have absolutely no confidence in any of these claimed data sets. I think only a fool would.