Who are the true denialists?

stateofdenialGuest essay by Professor Philip Lloyd

People have the nasty habit of giving their opponents names.  Those who are convinced that humans are wrecking the world by burning fossil fuels call those who don’t believe them “denialists.” It implies that they are close to the Holocaust deniers, and so are clearly beyond the pale.

I have come to the conclusion that they are wrong. The true denialists are those who believe in global warming, and who will go to any lengths to deny the evidence against that position.

For instance, the final draft of the Fifth Assessment Report of IPCC’s Working Group 1 concerns itself with observations of the climate and how it might change in future.  Within minutes of it being released, skeptics had noted that a key figure, which compared predicted temperatures to measurements, had been drastically altered after the second draft had been approved.

In the second draft, the observations lay below the lowest range in the predictions, and seemed to be getting further from the predictions as time went by.  In the final version, the measurements had been pushed up and the predictions had been pushed sideways and Voila! the revised measurements now fell within the range of the changed predictions. Really!  Grown men did this!  Consciously! And honestly thought that no-one would notice.

That’s the trouble with calling people names.  Before you know where you are, you have convinced yourself that they are stupid, too.

And there were lots of similar examples.  In the Summary for Policy Makers, the scientists had said “It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.”  The politicians did not like this, so they added a juicy version “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” Suddenly “more than half” had morphed into “dominant cause.” That way, no one might be left with the idea that the scientists had actually said there was a reasonable chance that quite a lot of the warming was entirely natural.

My own contribution concerned the warming of the upper troposphere.  In the previous Assessment Report, the IPCC had said “Upper-tropospheric warming reaches a maximum in the tropics and is seen even in the early-century time period. The pattern is very similar over the three periods, consistent with the rapid adjustment of the atmosphere to the forcing. These changes are simulated with good consistency among the models.” They even had a figure (WG1 Figure 10.7) to show just what they meant:

clip_image001

clip_image002

clip_image003

clip_image004

These are sections through the atmosphere, from the South Pole on the left to the North Pole on the right. Instead of altitude they give the pressure in ‘hectoPascals” which is sort of unfamiliar to most people, but 400 is around 8km up and 200 around 12km. “Good consistency” is shown by the stippling – Stippling denotes regions where the multi-model ensemble mean divided by the multi-model standard deviation exceeds 1.0 (in magnitude) reads the caption.

You can clearly see the flattened ‘bubble’ getting hotter as the century goes by.  The models predict that, in that region, the atmosphere should warm at about 0.6 degrees Centigrade per decade, far faster than on the surface of the Earth.

Weather balloons have flown into that region for 60 years.  Airliners have carried commuters at those altitudes for 40.  The temperature can be inferred from satellite measurements.  None of these methods have managed to find any evidence of warming at anything like 0.6 degrees Centigrade per decade.  The thermometers suggest slight cooling; the satellites slight warming.

This huge discrepancy between model and measurement has been the subject of intense discussion since the 2007 Assessment.  When I reviewed the first draft of the latest report, I said “Heh! You haven’t mentioned the problem!” Along came the second draft – same difficulty.  This time I read out to the IPCC the actual papers from the peer-reviewed literature that they should have been using: –

Allen, Robert J. and Sherwood, Steven C. (2008) Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds. Nature Geosci 1 (6), 399- 403, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo208;

Lanzante, John R., Melissa Free, 2008: Comparison of Radiosonde and GCM Vertical Temperature Trend Profiles: Effects of Dataset Choice and Data Homogenization. J. Climate, 21, 5417–5435. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2287.1;

Singer, S Fred, (2011). Lack of Consistency Between Modeled and Observed Temperature Trends Energy & Environment, 22, 375-406 DOI  – 10.1260/0958-305X.22.4.375 ;

Douglass, D. H., Christy, J. R., Pearson, B. D. and Singer, S. F. (2008), A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. Int. J. Climatol., 28: 1693–1701. doi: 10.1002/joc.1651

Titchner, Holly A., P. W. Thorne, M. P. McCarthy, S. F. B. Tett, L. Haimberger, D. E. Parker, 2009: Critically Reassessing Tropospheric Temperature Trends from Radiosondes Using Realistic Validation Experiments. J. Climate, 22, 465–485. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2419.1

(I mean, how pedantic do you have to be?)

I concluded my review saying “not even the satellite data comes near the predictions that were made in AR4 – the discrepancy between ALL the data and the models is wide. This debate MUST be reflected in the text.”  So the IPCC had been told where to look – it is their job to review the peer-reviewed literature – and had been told that there was a debate because the measurements disagreed with the models. What did they do?

Nothing!  Absolutely nothing (apart from quoting Titchner in a different context). The Summary for Policy Makers says:

“It is virtually certain that globally the troposphere has warmed since the mid-20th century. More complete observations allow greater confidence in estimates of tropospheric temperature changes in the extratropical Northern Hemisphere than elsewhere. There is medium confidence in the rate of warming and its vertical structure in the Northern Hemisphere extra-tropical troposphere and low confidence elsewhere.”

Section 2.4.4 says:

“In summary, assessment of the large body of studies comparing various long-term radiosonde and MSU products since AR4 is hampered by dataset version changes, and inherent data uncertainties. These factors substantially limit the ability to draw robust and consistent inferences from such studies about the true longterm trends or the value of different data products.”

So the data were apparently wrong!

There is a Table 2.8 headed:

“Trend estimates and 90% confidence intervals (Box 2.2) for radiosonde and MSU dataset global average values over the radiosonde (1958–2012) and satellite periods (1979–2012). LT indicates Lower Troposphere, MT indicates Mid Troposphere and LS indicates Lower Stratosphere”

Notice that?  No Upper Troposphere – none, silence! Likewise, there is a Figure 2.24 which shows some Lower Troposphere trends, but is equally silent on the Upper Troposphere.

And that is the full extent of the discussion of the problem in the latest Report. The previous Assessment made a great song and dance about warming in the intratropical upper troposphere, the present Assessment completely avoids the issue.

Now you could well ask “So what?” The significance is that this goes to the heart of the physics on which all the models used to make predictions are based. If you have watched “The Great Global Warming Swindle,” you will have seen the critic, Richard Lindzen of MIT, speaking about how the Upper Troposphere should be warming.  The physics of the atmosphere, as generally understood by all scientists of whatever global warming persuasion, require it should be warming faster than the surface of the earth.  There is consensus – but the data show the consensus to be wrong.

Therefore the models are wrong.  It only takes one clearcut observation to destroy the integrity of a scientific thesis. The physics underlying all the models is wrong – and we don’t know why. Moreover, the IPCC is demonstrably skirting the issue, telling us that “the observations substantially limit the ability to draw robust and consistent inferences.”  What utter nonsense!

By any measure, the IPCC and its supporters are the true denialists, but it would be wrong of me to use such a word to describe them. So let’s just say they are attempting to deceive, and have done with it.

===============================================================

Professor Philip Lloyd is from the Energy Institute, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Cape Town S.A.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Stephen Richards

Lying, liars or deceit? None is a description of which I would be proud if I was an IPCC scientist.

Kurt in Switzerland

Well put.
I eagerly await the MSM to become aware of this inconvenient measurement.
Kurt in Switzerland

NZ Willy

Outrageous! Dr. Frankenstein seems like a very ethical scientist compared with the IPCC charlatans.

The word denier is a quai-religious term. It infers that that you fail to believe, and that you do not belong to a group of believers. It is a really strange word to use in a debate about science.

What is the science behind why the upper troposphere should be warming? Please point me, thanks!

I forgot to mention – thank you for the troposphere explanation – it is a subject I hardly understand so it is useful to have this simple description of the physics

KNR

‘[So let’s just say they are attempting to deceive, and have done with it.’
In other words the IPCC continue to work in their normal way , a fully ‘political’ organisation whose first priority is to ensure that IPCC keeps existing and that those that enable this get the ‘answers they need’ Its standard UN practice we see at work here and nothing to do with ‘science’ at all.

nigelf

Projection (calling us deniers) is what the left is all about. It’s also what liars do when they know they’re lying and do it to try and deflect away from their own lie.

Genghis

Nah, it harshes the message and no one on the IPCC wants to be the bearer of bad news. They all know the theory is incomplete and they are simply waiting for a big El Nino or Volcano to bail them out. If in five or ten years it gets colder they will just revise the forcings downward again. Time is on their side and they are just playing the odds. There is absolutely zero reason for anyone to upset the gravy train.

Thanks, Philip.

Jquip

OP — ” It implies that they are close to the Holocaust deniers, and so are clearly beyond the pale.”
To be sure, this is the precise intent when it gained popularity. But it’s worth noting that if you disagreed that Dachau was a death camp 20 years ago — you were a Holocaust Denier, and thus a fan of genocide and Fascist Economics. Probably had a signed copy of Mein Kampf stuffed away somewhere, in fact. But not long after that the ‘settled science’ of the history of the Holocaust decided that the shower heads at Dachau were faked for propaganda. Every statement that anyone is a ‘denier of X’ is predicated on “Because, damnit.”
It is a confession that the accuser has no proof on offer for their position. For if they did, they could simply hand it to you. At which point, you would accept the proof unless you were wholly irrational. But “Because, I believe that…” or “Because lots of people believe that…” or “Because the Top Men believe that…” have never been valid proof of a claim.
Not that there’s anything wrong with Ad Homs in general. Nothing makes a good polemic quite like the color commentary included with it. And poetry would be terribly boring without allusion or analogy. But an Ad Hom is not an argument, and cannot carry one. Even if it is useful for humor or ridicule when presented with an argument.
But when the Ad Hom carries the argument, it is done so as there is no proof available for the accusers Deeply Held Faith. For if they had any, they would hardly need to avoid its presentation.

pdxrod

This article is different to the familiar response of climate change skeptics to the ‘denier’ label. The usual argument (eloquently defended by Anthony, Joanne and others) goes like this:
1. Questioning the Nazi holocaust is beyond the pale
2. Questioning the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is good
3. Therefore, attempting to discredit the latter by amalgamating it with the former by using the term ‘climate change denier’ is unfair. Boo-hoo.
Philip Lloyd has a different take:
1. Questioning the Nazi holocaust is beyond the pale
2. Questioning the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is good
3. Those who defend this hypothesis are more accurately described as ‘deniers’
James Hansen, climate guru, apparently unaware of the US Constitution, called for the prosecution of ‘global warming deniers’ in front of Congress. Similarly, the U.S. Greenpeace website explicitly denies climate change denial is covered by freedom of speech: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets/faq/
Some German greens campaigned for climate change denial to be listed alongside holocaust denial, and therefore made an imprisonable offense. The response of the climate change skeptics was predictable: WE’RE not like holocaust deniers! Don’t make US illegal!
There are two issues here. One is whether it is acceptable to defend a particular hypothesis, and the other is whether it is true. It is crucial not to get the two mixed up.
I don’t defend climate change skeptics against slander and potential persecution because I think they are probably right, although I DO think they are probably right. It is the same with ‘holocaust deniers’, whom I happen to think are probably wrong. Defense of their freedom should be completely independent of how wrong you think they are. Defending climate skeptics against the D-word (denier, denialist) by complaining that it amalgamates them with skeptics about the German holocaust is illogical, and it also waves a white flag at the opponents of freedom.

Auto

Was it Humpty Dumpty who said:-
“When I use a word, it means what I want it to mean. No More. No less” ?
Someone will get their words come back and bite them, I suggest!
Auto.

ROM

Based on nothing more than this totally corrupted IPCC “climate science” and at the urging and insistence of the carpet baggers and weepy hand wringers of global warming alarmism, a billion dollars a day of the mankind’s treasure and resources is being splurged, expended and completely destroyed on combatting the non existent anthropogenic global warming
And all for absolutely no measurable let alone perceivable results except the increasing pauperisation of a rapidly increasing number of earth’s citizens.
Let alone is there any proof at all of any perceivable benefits arising from this immense expenditure of wealth and resources for either mankind or the global climate or both..
http://climatepolicyinitiative.org/publication/global-landscape-of-climate-finance-2013/
Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2013
[quote]
The Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2013 finds that global climate finance flows have plateaued at USD 359 billion, or around USD 1 billion per day – far below even the most conservative estimates of investment needs. On one hand, there is some cause for optimism: Although private
[ end]

Alvin

Stephen, thank you for posting the TEDx video. I like his comment about “remaining agnostic and rephrase the question” even though it feels like cheating. What we see from the IPCC is a refusal to be agnostic, and hide the cheating part. He does it on purpose to test his theory and admits the cheating. They do not, and call it fact.

Dodgy Geezer

…By any measure, the IPCC and its supporters are the true denialists…
Unfortunately, Professor, It’s not only the IPCC. All the professional scientific establishment, bodies like the APS and the Royal Society, endorse the IPCC. If a lot of scientists don’t like this, I wonder what it is they’re doing about it?

It is so widely known now and on so many levels that they are not only wrong but constantly forging results to be negative and anti-fossil fuels, anti-industrialization, anti-civilization and anti-human – I’m amazed that any of them can look into a camera and dare to so openly lie, and not find themselves immediately surrounded by an angry crowd.
They are on a super rich banquet of a meal-ticket with this, but when this comes crashing down – and it will – it’s likely to bring the whole of the UN with it. I would like to see that very much, the UN is the nest from which all this sprung, generation after generation. However, have any of these charlatans thought of that?
As they’re all about prediction and projection, how about they run some of those models and take a look at their own future in the short and long term. Not a pretty sight.
If they want to save their skins, sooner or later they’ll have to let go of the cash. Sooner or later, too, there’ll be a race to see who can dob in his or her mates first. They’ll be throwing each other to the wolves.
If any of these guys are reading this, please look around you at your comrades, each one in it for the money, in it to bring down capitalism and destroy the economy, each one willing to cheat and lie and steal so long as it serves the Cause. Do you trust them? Really? Which one of them is going to throw YOU under a bus to save his or her own neck or dodge doing time?
This is going to get very, very ugly.
If you all were to drop the game and slink away, somehow pretending that this whole global warming thing had never happened – everybody might make it. But if the good citizens of the Earth have to tear it down, and the UN too, everything will be out in the open, including all the tricks and cheating, all the emails, all the conniving. People will be held accountable and if they are looking at serving serious time, they’ll be squealing like piglets and pointing at anyone or anything that moves. Someone is going to be left holding the baby. Will it be you?

If we go back to the 60s and the creation of systems science by people like Kenneth Boulding, their books make it clear that this modeling is simply an excuse for social planning. The idea is very similar to what UK sociologist Anthony Giddens again said in the 90s: “it doesn’t really matter if the model or image of the system created is wrong as long as it alters human and social behavior in the ways politically desired.”
The IPCC models come out of the same desire and with the same purpose. Sociologist Daniel Bell in the 60s said “we need a political rationale to justify the desired planned society” and systems thinking would fit the bill. In all of these aspirations we have a scientifically false model of the current physical world being created to justify using the social sciences, including especially pedagogy and education, to actually change the future nature of society and how the economy works.
We will keep spinning our wheels until we accept this is not actually a hard, physical science legitimate debate.

rogerknights

Genghis says:
November 9, 2013 at 1:14 pm
Nah, it harshes the message and no one on the IPCC wants to be the bearer of bad news. They all know the theory is incomplete and they are simply waiting for a big El Nino or Volcano to bail them out. If in five or ten years it gets colder they will just revise the forcings downward again. Time is on their side and they are just playing the odds. There is absolutely zero reason for anyone to upset the gravy train.

Snakes on a train.

Twattsup

“The physics underlying all the models is wrong – and we don’t know why”.
Could it be because you are missing the bleeding obvious? How much of a GHE could be expected to be associated with a greenhouse which has no roof, or walls?

Janice Moore

@ A. D. Everard (re: insightfully pointed mene, mene, tekel upharsin (Daniel) denouncement at 1:33pm, today) Go, A. D.!
#(:))
You may be “off the grid,” A. D., but you are right ON TARGET. “‘A house divided…,'” (Jeshua) is going to fall.
Repent — or devour one another, O Envirostalinist Snakes. If you plan to repent, you had best be quick about it; you have become a stench in the nostrils (Isaiah).
You keep trying to ram your Cult of Climastrology garbage religion down our throats, you science f1ends, so I gave you a little taste of mine.
You, the false prophets, versus God, the Creator of the Universe, lol.
You may win a few battles, but, in the end,
TRUTH will win the war.

Leo G

The true denialists?
The word denial entered the English language in 1914 via Brill’s translation of Sigmund Freud’s “The psychopathology of everyday life” and specifically referred to the “unconscious suppression of discomforting realisations”.
It’s interesting that it’s application to individuals who were skeptical about aspects of the IPCC’s authoritative position on the certainty of its findings about the risk of anthropogenic climate change was popularised by a psychologist (Lewandowsky), clearly as an ad hominem slur.

Jimbo

Warmists avoid the predicted “hot spot” like the plague. They know it represents falsification of their speculation.

June 2010
How John Cook unskeptically believes in a hotspot (that thermometers can’t find)
April 2013
IPCC plays hot-spot hidey games in AR5 — denies 28 million weather balloons work properly

Plus over 16 years of a surface temperature standstill means the models a bad. Not fit for the purpose – i.e their “what if”s to 2100. Well “what if” we continued to chuck out our co2? We expect a global surface temperature standstill? “What if” it continues for 10 more years? “What then?”

GregM

Steven Mosher says:
November 9, 2013 at 1:06 pm
Off course totally off topic, but well worth spending 12 minutes watching .

Jimbo

Hey, a few years back I posted a comment on the Guardian where I said (paraphrase):

“We will soon know who the real deniers are.”

Why did I have 97% confidence to enable me to make this statement? Climate change, because the climate always changes. As it stands today co2 is a flutist in an orchestra dominated by a heavy metal natural climate change band. 🙂
It’s still our fault.

Jimbo

Steven Mosher, I am not about to use my PAID FOR bandwidth watching your posted video. Can you please in future let us know what’s there? It’s like someone posting a link with no comment, but worse.

Curious George

A true denier denies that his(her) knowledge is limited.

David, UK

@ Steven Mosher says:
November 9, 2013 at 1:06 pm
————————–
Does that video have some relevance to this thread (in which case could you illuminate?) or did you post the wrong link by mistake?

Jimbo

Let’s get this denier thing straight.
1) I accept that co2 is a greenhouse gas, in fact I insist it is.
2) I accept that co2 warming is logarithmic not linear.
3) I accept that the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor. [IPCC – 2007: WGI]
4) I accept natural climate change is stronger than we previously thought!
5) I accept no global surface warming for at least 16 years.
6) I accept the holocaust occurred, in fact I insist on this as a well documented fact.
7) I accept that tens of thousands die each year in the UK due to cold (excess winter deaths).
There are a lot of things I accept in life, but tow things I cannot yet accept are the missing hotspot and the missing feedback loop water vapor amplification without signs. Am I a denier of non-observations? I guess these two things make me a denier of no evidence.

Jimbo

Oooops!
“There are a lot of things I accept in life, but TWO things I cannot yet accept…….”

“The true denialists are those who believe in global warming, and who will go to any lengths to deny the evidence against that position.”. So you include your host here then? After all, the belief that CO2 must do some warming ‘against all the evidence’ is there.

Gail Combs

Robin says: @ November 9, 2013 at 1:34 pm
…The IPCC models come out of the same desire and with the same purpose. Sociologist Daniel Bell in the 60s said “we need a political rationale to justify the desired planned society” and systems thinking would fit the bill. In all of these aspirations we have a scientifically false model of the current physical world being created to justify using the social sciences, including especially pedagogy and education, to actually change the future nature of society and how the economy works.
We will keep spinning our wheels until we accept this is not actually a hard, physical science legitimate debate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thank you Robin,
I use to hate history, philosophy, politics and economics but if we ignore them, they are going to bite us in the butt. They hope of course that we are all so specialized, so busy just living, we will ignore all the bits and pieces and pointers and never add them up. Without the political and philosophical background we are all chasing our tails. Because they WILL NOT debate the science, they WILL NOT allow an alternate view in the news. This is because “The Science” was always the camouflage for the real agenda, the annihilation of the Middle Class. In this desire the Marxists and the World Elite are joined at the hip. This is something most people refuse to accept. They think ‘Capitalists’ are opposed to Socialism or Marxism or Communism. See E.M. Smith’s (ChiefIO) explanation of why this is just not true: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/forget-gen-x-now-its-generation-hot/#comment-14483
The “The Third Way” that EM mentions is a favorite of Anthony Giddens former head of the London School of Economics and Bill Clinton. He has another good article – isms, ocracies and ologies http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/isms-ocracies-and-ologie/

Why Communism Kills: The Legacy of Karl Marx
by Dr. Fred C. Schwarz
INTRODUCTION
by Dr. Walter Judd
Marx states in the Manifesto of the Communist Party:
“You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.” (Published by Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1973 edition, page 66)
Apologists for Marxism contend that Marx did not intend that this statement should be taken literally. They affirm that he was referring to the gradual elimination of property owners by the transformation of the economic system which Communism would bring to pass. They cannot deny, however, that many followers of Karl Marx, including Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, and Pol Pot have taken this affirmation literally and have proceeded to kill the “middle-class owners of property” once they have acquired power.
To determine whether Marx intended this instruction to be taken literally, it is necessary to review the doctrines and objectives which Marx presented to his followers….
The Vision
Marx envisioned the creation of a new superior individual who would create a new society of unlimited abundance and freedom. It was the creation of a new earth, if not a new heaven, wherein “the redeemed” would dwell. This new man would be devoid of selfishness, greed, laziness, aggression, envy, malice, hate, and fear. He would be perfectly healthy, supremely intelligent, industrious, tolerant, generous and infinitely talented….
http://www.schwarzreport.org/resources/essays/why-communism-kills

If you understand the actual goal, wiping out the middle class who are an ongoing threat to the wealthy, and the tools, Marxism and CAGW, then a lot of the ‘idiocy’ in government today makes sense such as the collection of DNA from all babies born in the UK and many if not all babies and other individuals (those arrested) in the USA. A necessity for determining what genes cause antisocial behavior and what babies might have those genes. Of course there has also been much work done identifying the genetic component of the tendency towards various illnesses. One wonders if there is a large data base linking the DNA to the child and what he says on facebook….
Obama’s Science Czar, John Holdern, in the book Ecoscience, he co-authored in 1977, made it very clear he believed in rigid control of the breeding of humans. SEE: http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

John West

According to wikipedia: ”denialism is exhibited by individuals choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid dealing with an uncomfortable truth.”
Exactly what reality am I denying?
Are computer model projections reality or fantasy?
Is the tropical tropospheric hotspot reality or fantasy?
Is stratospheric cooling since 1995 reality or fantasy?
Is the earlier projections of 0.3 degrees C per decade global average temperature increase over the last decade and a half reality or fantasy?
Are the billions of climate refugees’ reality or fantasy?
Is the CO2 dominated global climate reality or fantasy?
Are the projected future costs of adapting to a projected future climate reality or fantasy?
Is the Maldives conducting it’s affairs below water reality or fantasy?
Is the cost of mitigating climate change being something only the fossil fuel interests will have to endure reality or fantasy?
Is the well organized and funded denial machine reality or fantasy?

Twattsup

@ilma630
Would that be the host whose reputation and legendary complacency depends on the theory that CO2 definitely causes surface warming, but has no idea of the magnitude of that effect? It should be possible to be a little bit pregnant with error bars that wide.

Jquip

John West: “Exactly what reality am I denying?”
The Testimonials. And how dare you question your betters?
/flees

Jquip says:November 9, 2013 at 1:19 pm

[…] But it’s worth noting that if you disagreed that Dachau was a death camp 20 years ago — you were a Holocaust Denier, […]

Quite likely and rightfully so – and long before that, actually. If you’re interested in learning about the history of Dachau and other death camps (as opposed to the fictions of faux historian, David Irving and his ilk), you could start at:
http://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa1158576
Be sure to let me know if you need any further references.

milodonharlani

Jimbo says:
November 9, 2013 at 3:35 pm
I don’t think that natural climate change is stronger than skeptics thought, but is much worse than CACA advocates previously thought. They’re now having to embrace it to explain observations, much as Young Earth creationists have to embrace extremely rapid evolution to explain how the numerous present species could have arisen in just 4500 years from the “kinds” on Noah’s Ark, which must have been something between families & orders to have a chance of fitting on the boat (although even that level won’t do it; but a kind has to be less than a Linnaean order, since both ravens & doves were aboard).

Gail Combs

Twattsup says: @ November 9, 2013 at 4:36 pm
@ilma630
Would that be the host whose reputation and legendary complacency depends on the theory that CO2 definitely causes surface warming, but has no idea of the magnitude of that effect? It should be possible to be a little bit pregnant with error bars that wide.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In science admitting you do not know is sometimes the beginning of acquiring knew knowledge. Without “I wonder” and “I do not know”, civilization would not exist.
BTW How old are you twelve?

Gail Combs says November 9, 2013 at 5:11 pm

Without “I wonder” and “I do not know civilization” would not exist.
BTW How old are you twelve?

Let’s try re-punctuating that for proper effect, shall we?

Without “I wonder” and “I do not know” civilization would not exist.
BTW, how old are you, twelve?

wayne

Thank you Professor Philip Lloyd, I cannot improve on your words but I will highlight one statement:
The physics underlying all the models is wrong – and we don’t know why. Moreover, the IPCC is demonstrably skirting the issue, telling us that “the observations substantially limit the ability to draw robust and consistent inferences.” What utter nonsense!
How true. And the way they are approaching the atmospheric physics they will never be able to explain why temperatures never continued to follow co2 concentrations upward as expected, but they will continue to try, with further adjustments. Keep your eyes on the pea.

rogerknights

John West says:
November 9, 2013 at 4:25 pm
Is the well organized and funded denial machine reality or fantasy?

Here’s my thread arguing that it’s a fantasy: In my Notes From Skull Island I list nearly 20 things that we climate contrarians (“skeptic” is too mild a term) would be doing differently, including more ads, if we were in fact well organized and well funded:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/16/notes-from-skull-island-why-skeptics-arent-well-funded-and-well-organized/

Dan Pangburn

The IPCC denies science. If the science is done correctly it appears that it is the sun, or more specifically, the magnetic field from sunspots. The time-integral of sunspot numbers as a proxy (appropriately reduced by thermal radiation from the planet) plus net ocean oscillations calculates average global temperatures since 1895 with 90% accuracy (correlation coefficient = 0.95). Demonstrated at http://danpangburn.blogspot.com/

Robin said @ November 9, 2013 at 1:34 pm

…The IPCC models come out of the same desire and with the same purpose. Sociologist Daniel Bell in the 60s said “we need a political rationale to justify the desired planned society” and systems thinking would fit the bill. In all of these aspirations we have a scientifically false model of the current physical world being created to justify using the social sciences, including especially pedagogy and education, to actually change the future nature of society and how the economy works.
We will keep spinning our wheels until we accept this is not actually a hard, physical science legitimate debate.

And it’s not using systems thinking that leads us to discover unintended consequences from our actions.

Systems thinking has been defined as an approach to problem solving, by viewing “problems” as parts of an overall system, rather than reacting to specific parts, outcomes or events and potentially contributing to further development of unintended consequences. Systems thinking is not one thing but a set of habits or practices within a framework that is based on the belief that the component parts of a system can best be understood in the context of relationships with each other and with other systems, rather than in isolation. Systems thinking focuses on cyclical rather than linear cause and effect.

As the man who taught me this (agriculturalist Jim Wilson) said (and I paraphrase here) we seem to spend an awful amount of resources rescuing people from the river without ever going upstream to see who, or what is making them fall in the water. Your quote could be inferred to denigrate systems thinking; The Git believes that without a systematic approach we are doomed to rinse and repeat our many mistakes.
Jim’s excellent book here and yes, I am remiss in not reviewing it yet. But then Amazon Books didn’t exist when I purchased it.
http://www.amazon.com/Changing-Agriculture-Introduction-Systems-Thinking/dp/0864174896

Twattsup

@_Jim @Gail Combs
Jim – you spared her the ‘knew’ atrocity, when she meant ‘new’, as in ‘knew knowledge’.
The epitome of her unintended irony went unnoticed by her.
“In science admitting you do not know …
“Science”. From the latin stem “scio”, which means “I know”. So she knows what she doesn’t know. I have to accept that I don’t know what I don’t know.
kYeah. I’m ktwelve.

bushbunny

When I took on a senior lecturer regarding a historical hypothesis, he and the author of a book announced me and another could be likened to holocaust deniers, JFK assassination conspiracy theorists and climate change deniers. However, someone in the audience questioned this description, and he backed off the holocaust deniers, saying well no one died of course in this comparison. I was an on going graduate of this university, and I tell you now I just passed my second degree. Anyway, I passed. Well it is their job, not mine, eh?
Talking about the lecture, remember and I think I am right, Earth is hurtling through space at abut 65K per second I believe, wouldn’t this also affect our energy? I would like someone who knows more about this to explain.

Twattsup

@Gail Combs (Gail combs what? The suspense is electrifying).
Just to point out that admitting there is something that you do not know, yet choosing to believe in it anyway, does not intersect science at any point. You are describing faith, or activism for a cause. Neither has a place in science.
Sincerely,
Twattsup (Age 12)

Jquip

Hilary Ostrov – “Quite likely and rightfully so – and long before that, actually.”
You have to work hard to miss the point so thoroughly. I applaud your efforts.

ROM

The Pompous Git says:
November 9, 2013 at 5:54 pm
As a farmer [ ret ] an interesting comment above.
I have done my very small bit to change agriculture and have had a role in initiating another possible / potential project which might one day hopefully / possibly involve some significant changes to the way we do some herbicide resistant weed control here in southern Australian agriculture.
Systems thinking as described by yourself seems to be the sometimes called “conceptual thinking” or more colloquially “a big picture man” or thinker.
Conceptual thinking / systems thinking; where the entire situation to be analysed is seen as a whole and then the pattern is broken down into the individual parts of the whole which are then analysed as to their structure and how and where they fit into making up the whole.
Not a very common entirely natural attribute at all so I am led to believe and i suspect very difficult to learn to do thoroughly as most of anybody’s basic thought patterns and situation analysis patterns are probably already ingrained at birth.
Was told by a psychologist many years , er!, decades ago that I was a conceptual thinker and a big picture man for what that is worth which is probably not much..
From Mindwerx;
http://www.mindwerx.com/blogs/bill-jarrard/2012/10/08/conceptual-thinking
Conceptual thinking – the ability to:
* see the ‘big picture’ and better understanding of the context
* perceive and imagine, predict and hypothesize, and to conclude and reflect.
* understand how things are ‘associated and connected’ to:
* identify the systems at play and their interrelationships
* make informed predictions of the future
* plan to achieve the optimum outcome.
Conceptual thinkers are fascinated by concepts, ideas, relationships and philosophies. They ask lots of questions and deliberately think things through.