William Happer is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Emeritus, in the Department of Physics at Princeton University. A long-time member of JASON, a group of scientists which provides independent advice to the U.S. government on matters relating to science, technology, and national security, Happer served as Director of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science from 1991–1993.
Best known to the general public as a vocal critic of the U.N. IPCC “consensus” on global warming, he has been called frequently to give expert testimony before various U.S. congressional committees on the subject of global warming (climate change). In 2015, he found himself at the center of a new controversy involving a so-called “sting” operation organized by Greenpeace.
A list of some of Professor Happer’s major research publications may be accessed here.
These excerpts have been taken from the interview, and appear here without quotes. (h/t to WUWT reader Sasha)
About three months after the beginning of the Clinton administration, Hazel O’Leary called me into her office to ask, “What have you done to Al Gore? I am told I have to fire you.” I assume that the main thing that upset Al Gore (left) was my questioning of blatant propaganda about stratospheric ozone that was his focus at the time: “ozone holes over Kennebunkport” and similar nonsense.
…while I was at DOE. But watching the evening news, I would often be outraged by the distortions about CO2 and climate that were being intoned by hapless, scientifically-illiterate newscasters.
Greenpeace is one of the many organizations that have made a very good living from alarmism over the supposed threat of global warming. They are unable to defend the extremely weak science. So, they demonize not only the supposed “pollutant,” atmospheric CO2, but also any scientists who seem to be effectively refuting their propaganda.
GreenpeaceI suppose I should be flattered to be one of their targets: je mehr Feinde, je mehr Ehre (“the more enemies, the more honor”), as the old German saying goes. But my trials pale compared to those of scientists like Willie Soon, Patrick Michaels, and others, who were not only vilified, but driven from their jobs.
The result of the Greenpeace smear included many hostile, obscene phone calls and emails with threats to me, my family, even my grandchildren. George Orwell wrote about these tactics in his novel, 1984, when he described the daily, obligatory “Two Minutes of Hate” for Emmanuel Goldstein (Leon Trotsky) and his agents, who were the enemies of Big Brother (Stalin) and his thugs.
Greenpeace and other even more fanatical elements of the global-warming movement fully embrace the ancient lie that their ideological end — elimination of fossil fuel — justifies any means, including falsification of scientific data and character assassination of their opponents.
Global warming is a well-established fact. This statement is only half true. A more correct statement would be “global warming and global cooling are both well-established facts.” The earth is almost always warming or cooling. Since the year 1800, the earth has warmed by about 1° C, with much of the warming taking place before much increase of atmospheric CO2. There was a quite substantial cooling from about 1940 to 1975. There has been almost no warming for the past 20 years when the CO2 levels have increased most rapidly. The same alternation of warming and cooling has characterized the earth’s climate for all of geological history.
…more CO2 will be a benefit to humanity. The predicted warming from more CO2 is grossly exaggerated. The equilibrium warming from doubling CO2 is not going to be 3° C, which might marginally be considered a problem, but closer to 1° C, which will be beneficial. One should not forget that the “global warming” is an average value. There will be little warming in the tropics and little warming at midday. What warming occurs will be mostly in temperate and polar regions, and at night. This will extend the agricultural growing season in many countries like Canada, Scandinavia, and Russia. More CO2 greatly increases the efficiency of photosynthesis in plants and makes land plants more drought-resistant. So, the net result of more CO2 will be strongly beneficial for humanity.
The astonishing recent claim by NOAA, that there never was a hiatus, reminds me of the Baron’s soliloquy about the power of his treasure chests in Pushkin’s “little tragedy,” The Miserly Knight, of 1830 (AKA The Covetous Knight). I have tried to reproduce the solemn, iambic pentameter of Pushkin’s verse in my translation :
And muses will to me their tribute bring,
Free genius will enslave itself to me,
And virtue, yes, and, sleepless labor too
With humble mien will wait for my reward.
I’ve but to whistle, and obedient, timid,
Blood-spattered villainy will crawl to me
And lick my hand, and gaze into my eyes,
To read in them the sign of my desire.
The hockey-stick temperature record was conspicuously absent from the latest IPCC report, which speaks volumes. My guess is that the hockey stick started out as an honest but mistaken paper, but one welcomed by the global-warming establishment. They had been embarrassed for years by the Medieval Warm Period, when Vikings farmed Greenland, and when emissions from fossil fuels were negligible. A.W. Montford’s book, The Hockey Stick Illusion (Anglosphere Books, 2015), is a pretty good summary of what happened
NOAA’s recent attempt to eliminate the hiatus is an example of the same kind of thinking that went into the hockey stick. If a politically correct theory does not agree with observations, revise the observations. This is the complete opposite of Nobel Laureate–physicist Dick Feynman’s definition of science, which he spelled out in an entertaining lecture at Cornell University in 1964 :
In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.
I don’t question that the earth has warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age, but I am persuaded that most of the warming was due to natural causes, about which the governments can do nothing. We are already seeing more vegetation on the earth and it is absorbing more CO2. But as I will discuss in response to your next question, I believe that more CO2 is good for the world, that the world has been in a CO2 famine for many tens of millions of years and that one or two thousand ppm would be ideal for the biosphere. I am baffled at hysterical attempts to drive CO2 levels below 350 ppm, or some other value, apparently chosen by Kabbalah numerology, not science.
…plants get the carbon they need from the CO2 in the air. Most plants draw other essential nutrients — water, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, etc. — from the soil. Just as plants grow better in fertilized, well-watered soils, they also grow better in air with CO2 concentrations several time higher than present values.
Essex and McKitrick are on target in their book, Taken by Storm. It is striking that many skeptics, like me, are retired. Aside from character assassination, there is not much the attack dogs of the climate consensus can do to us, at least so far. But young academics know very well that they will risk their careers by expressing any doubt about the party line on global warming.
I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.
In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
Are our all-powerful governments going to fight increases or decreases of solar activity? Where is Owen Glendower when we need him to “call the spirits from the vasty deep,” or King Canute to stop the tides? I am not keen to submit to lunatic, government-sponsored geoengineering schemes of contemporary Dr. Strangeloves. Nor does driving the earth’s human population down from its current seven billion people to no more than 1 billion have much appeal to me, even though it is promoted by influential climate advisers of politicians and popes. Are we supposed to draw straws to decide which six out of seven people must disappear from the face of the earth?
I can’t see any reason to reduce CO2 emissions. Doubling or quadrupling current CO2 levels will be good for the world. The economic burdens you talk about are all pain with no gain for most of the world.
The evidence that CO2 is a pollutant so fearsome that we must give up democracy, punish “deniers,” and impoverish much of the world by eliminating the use of fossil fuels is looking more and more like spectral evidence. If you can’t find real scientific evidence for alarm, dream up hockey sticks, dream away hiatuses, and get rid of your opponents as soon as possible.
Isn’t the freedom to think what we like and say what we think at the very heart of the scientific endeavor? If so, then how did we get ourselves into this fix?
The situation seems to many of us to be truly scandalous — one that historians of science are going to be making hay out of for decades and centuries to come.
During Stalin’s Great Terror, the equivalents of evil fossil fuel interests were Leon Trotsky and his followers. They were a direct threat to Stalin’s control of the world-wide Communist movement, just as climate skeptics are regarded as an existential threat to the global warming establishment.
I would be surprised if the net total funding of climate skeptics exceeded $2 or $3 million dollars a year, and even that may be high. In the last few years, US government spending for climate research [https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf (48-page PDF)] has been about $20 billion dollars a year — more than a thousand times greater than skeptic funding. But even this huge financial advantage is not sufficient to support the pathetically weak scientific case that the world is in danger from more CO2.
In accepting his 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, Al Gore said the summer Arctic could be ice-free by 2013 due to CO2 emissions. I invite readers to have a look at the data site I mentioned earlier [http://www.climate4you.com/]. A few minutes of inspection of the “sea ice” link will show that there has been no significant change in sea ice since 2007. With all due respect to Nobel Laureate Gore, there was plenty of summer ice in 2013.
Full interview: http://www.thebestschools.org/special/karoly-happer-dialogue-global-warming/william-happer-interview/
Great post, but why would CO2 cause any warming at all? Unless you agree with the GHE theory, which I doubt, this claim of “only 1C warming” is not valid within the laws of thermodynamics.
Whilst there appears to be no cogent and convincing evidence that the planet has any positive Climate Sensitivity to CO2, or at any rate to date, we have been unable to isolate and separate the sensitivity towards CO2 9if any at all) from the noise of natural variation and the inherent deficiencies of our measuring system, the point of the article is more fundamental. One does not have to answer the scientific issue as to whether CO2 causes significant and measurable warming.
The fact is that the planet is presently too cold. The planet presently is CO2 deficient.The planet could do with being warmer. The planet could do with more CO2.
To add CO2 to the atmosphere would be a good thing. To add some heat to the planet/its biosphere would be a good thing. Both are pluses. To do both would be a win win scenario.
This therefore begs the question. What is all the fuss about? This has always been a non issue at the most basic level, even before one gets into the science as to where CO2 causes warming and if so, how much.
Partial quote of richard verney
If there is ”no cogent and convincing evidence” ……. then it is silly as ell for anyone to attempt to explain how something that doesn’t exist in the natural world ….. does or doesn’t function according to the Laws of Science.
To wit:
William Happer quoting Dick Feynman’s definition of science …….
“What is all the fuss about?”
I think the fuss is about the basic concept of change. Change, up or down is actually good. The only ones who fear change, any change, is government who as our self professed protectors instinctively prefer the status quo and feel duty bound to step in and attempt to stop any change if someone can attach a negative to that change. We wouldn’t be here if climate didn’t change. Over the longer term, humans invent things at a more furious pace when things change. We come out of any change stronger and better. The one thing we should all fear is eternal sameness.
The problem is the quality of our data sets, and the real errors of our measuring equipment/systems. With few exceptions, the data sets are not fit for purpose, they are not fit for scientific enquiry and hence they cannot answer the central question: Is the Climate Sensitive to CO2, and if so what is its sensitivity?
The IPCC suggests that Climate Sensitivity is likely in the range +1.5 to +4.5 degC per doubling of CO2. I would suggest that a better estimate would be -0.5 to +2.5 degC.
I consider that the balance of the evidence suggests that if there is any significant sensitivity, then sensitivity is low, ie., not exceeding 1degC. But that said, our data sets are simply so poor that almost nothing can be ruled out.
As I said, the point behind the article is that we should not fear more warming, nor higher levels of CO2. That to me sounds a strong point. The climate alarmism is misplaced since a warmer world would on balance be a net positive.
“This has always been a non issue at the most basic level…”
Exactly why I have been baffled by the entire idea that we have a problem since the whole thing became a thing…way back in the late 1980’s.
Richard, I am saying that CO2 cannot affect temperature as predicted by the GHE theory because the laws of thermodynamics prohibit that process. There cannot be any argument. Another process may be possible— increasing atmospheric mass to increase adiabatic compressive heating—- but that is not on offer under the GHE.
Richard verney – January 10, 2017 at 1:19 pm
So, the IPCC suggests that Climate Sensitivity is likely in the range +1.5 to +4.5 degC per doubling of CO2.
And Richard Verney suggest that a better estimate of Climate Sensitivity would be -0.5 to +2.5 degC per doubling of CO2.
Well now, Sam Cogar suggest that the bestest ever and extremely highly accurate estimate of Climate Sensitivity would be -6.8 to +7.1 deg C per doubling of CO2.
And given the scientific facts that the data sets are not fit for purpose, not fit for scientific enquiry and not fit for drunken discussions …… then, as a matter of fact, my estimate of Climate Sensitive to CO2 is as accurate as accurate can be, and therefore irrefutable by anyone in the science or beer drinking community.
Dr. Happer’s bio at the beginning of the full article is very much worth reading. Would that someone would publish a collection of similar life histories as an antidote to rampant character assassination.
JM, CO2 is a GHG. That was established by Tyndall in 1859. No less a prominent skeptic than Richard Lindzen says tnat a doubling in the absence of feedbacks will raise T about 1.2C. No less a skeptic than Monckton in his recent series of posts on ‘errors’ provided data that calculates 1.16C. You do the akeptical cause no good by claiming otherwise. The issue is feedbacks like water vapor and clouds, and what the resulting system TCR and ECS are. On observational evidence, TCR ~1.3 and ECS ~1.65. See, for example, Lewis and Curry 2014.
Nonsense. Question everything. Harking back to Tyndall and Arrhenius is what suppressors do to stifle debate. Yet, how much of 19th century science lingers today in its original form, if at all?
The ONLY thing that can be stated authoritatively is that, all things being equal, an increase in atmospheric CO2 should provide a sensitivity of about 1 degC of surface temperature per doubling. But, all things are never equal in a massive, interconnected feedback system such as that which governs the Earth’s climate. And, Tyndall and Arrhenius knew next to nothing about feedback systems.
>>No less a skeptic than Monckton in his recent series of
>>posts on ‘errors’ provided data that calculates 1.16C
Indeed, but these calculations are assuming a static climate primarily controlled by CO2. If the short-term climate is controlled more by oceanic cycles, or by dust-albedo, then these sensitivity calculations are in error – they are not taking into account all the possible agents of influence and change.
Ralph
-Ristvan
I have great respect for you and you know far more about this issue than I, but unless you can define the feedbacks that no one else seems to be capable of then your assurances regarding outcomes and the predictive power of stand-alone experiments and theory from the 1800’s is almost without value.
No, CO2 is a greenhouse gas without water vapor. In contact with water vapor it is called bicarbonate. Look up the radiance effect of bicarbonate. Zero. Oh, okay, there you go.
NO NO NO CO2 is a radiative gas, the laboratory characteristics of which are known.
However, Earth’s atmosphere and biosphere has never been modeled in a laboratory. It is very different to the laboratory conditions under which the laboratory characteristics of CO2 have been assessed.
Whether CO2 is a GHG is yet to be determined. That can only be answered by observation of the real world that we live on. To date, there is no convincing observational evidence that CO2 leads to temperature increases on planet Earth, but our data sets are poor and that is why we have to date been unable to isolate the signal to Co2, if any at all, from the noise of natural variation.
Let us stick to facts. By all means detail what the laboratory characteristics of CO2 are, but do not claim more for this gas than have presently been proven to be the case.
No Donald, CO2 and water vapour are separate molecules in air. It is not until there is a droplet that can dissolve and ionize to form HCO3- ion.
@ ristvan
January 10, 2017 at 9:58 am:: Having had it explained to me, and studied it myself, I see that Tyndall understood or learnt that what we call downwelling radiation was incapable of raising gas Temps. That is why his superb demonstration mechanism had a watercooled IR receiver. Would not work otherwise but could then show EMR flux being received.
Maxwell (Theory of Heat) Fully understood. that the gas laws through their ‘Poisson Relationship’ halt the possibility of GHE heating, which is obvious to observers. None of the many false hypothesis -patchups a la Feynman do anything but demonstrate scientific futility.
Don’t care Ristvan, the laws of thermodynamics clearly state that such a process cannot work.
Bartemis, you are right for the wrong reasons. CO2 is a ghg but the climatocracy failed because they misapplied the theory and fell for the fallacy of scary lucrative predictions.
John confuses the laboratory properties of a gas with its actions in nature. Sometimes those known properties are significant in nature and sometimes they are trivial. That CO2’s warming actions as a greenhouse gas may be trivial, even unmeasurable in nature compared to other gases does not negate its laboratory property to absorb and re-emit long wave infrared from an emitting source.
John, you quite clearly do not understand the laws of thermodynamics.
It has been shown that those basic calculations of the climate sensivity of CO2 are too great by more than a factor of 20 because what is not taken into consideration is that the doubling of CO2 will slightly decrease the dry lapse rate in the tropsophere which is an offsetting cooling effect. The primary problem with the AGW conjecture is that it is based on only partial science like the fabled radiant greenhouse effect. The radiant greenhouse effect caused by The LWIR absorption properties of so called greenhouse gases has not been observed in a real greenhouse, on Earth, on Venus, or any where in the solar system. In the IPCC’s first report they published a wide range of possible valuse for the climate sensivity of CO2. That was theri range of guesses. In their last report they published the exact same values. So after more than two decades of effort they have learned nothing that would have allowed them to narrow their range of guesses one iot. The IPCC does not recognize estimates below the range they published for fear of losing their funding.
Lol, good luck ristvan
http://i.imgur.com/VKaFqwC.jpg?1
Better than great, John! I’m honored to walk the Earth at the same time that Happer does!
CO2, in re-radiating long wave energy downwards and sideways, delays atmospheric cooling somewhat, until equilibrium is reached. Search for NASA TRCS reports and you’ll find Dr. Doiron’s report that puts an upper bound on temperature increase. Remember that an upper bound is not a prediction – just a maximum possible level, within which your 1C neatly fits, despite “…the laws of thermodynamics” (& yes, they are still valid!).
tomwys1 you are confused, sort out the difference between heat and thermal energy. It matters not what CO2 radiates it cannot delay heat loss
Increasing the path length that a photon of IR has to travel before it can reach space is not a delay?
Thermalizing the energy of an IR photon is not a delay?
The world is round, and spinning, and lit on one side: there’s no such thing as equilibrium.
A very good article.
RE the sensitivity of Earth’s climate to increasing atmospheric CO2:
{excerpts}
CART BEFORE HORSE?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/06/quote-of-the-week-mcintyres-comment-to-dilbert-creator-scott-adams-on-climate-experts/comment-page-1/#comment-2363478
I wrote above:
“Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record and also by ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a longer time scale.”
In my shorthand, ~ means approximately and ~~ means very approximately (or ~squared).
It is possible that the causative mechanisms for this “TemperatureLead-CO2Lag” relationship are largely similar or largely different, although I suspect that both physical processes (ocean solution/exsolution) and biological processes (photosynthesis/decay and other biological) play a greater or lesser role at different time scales.
All that really matters is that CO2 lags temperature at ALL measured times scales and does not lead it, which is what I understand the modern data records indicate on the multi-decadal time scale and the ice core data records indicate on a much longer time scale.
This does not mean that temperature is the only (or even the primary) driver of increasing atmospheric CO2. Other drivers of CO2 could include deforestation, fossil fuel combustion, etc. but that does not matter for this analysis, because the ONLY signal that is apparent signal in the data records is the LAG of CO2 after temperature.
It also does not mean that increasing atmospheric CO2 has no impact on temperature; rather it means that this impact is quite small.
I conclude that temperature, at ALL measured time scales, drives CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature.
Precedence studies are commonly employed in other fields, including science, technology and economics. The fact that this clear precedence is consistently ignored in “climate science” says something about the deeply held unscientific beliefs in this field – perhaps it should be properly be called “climate religion” or “climate dogma” – it just doesn’t look much like “science”.
Happy Holidays, Allan
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/10/the-william-happer-interview/#comment-2393740
“Great post, but why would CO2 cause any warming at all? Unless you agree with the GHE theory, which I doubt, this claim of “only 1C warming” is not valid within the laws of thermodynamics.”
This “CO2-warming-is-against-laws-of-thermodynamics meme” does a great harm to the skeptics reputation, because it ignores simple radiation physics.
Just to get the idea:
• There is a stove in a cold room, giving out a certain radiation energy.
• Now take a black matte painted solid sheet around in a certain distance from the stove. It will be heated up and radiate towards to stove and the rest of the room. The stove will be hotter to a certain extend. This is what a cloud does, being close to the properties of ab blackbody.
• Now take away the solid sheet and put there a blacke matte one with holes punched in, so that about two thirds of the area is covered. So this is now also heated by the stove, but to a lesser extend, and also the stove gets a little hotter. This is what watervapour is doing, leaving through some radiation.
• Now take another black sheet with lots of holes punched in, covering only one quarter of the area. Now the re-radiation is much lower, and the stove stays only a small amount hotter. This is what CO2 is doing in the atmosphere.
• Now try to get the whole picture: CO2 is always there in a quite even distribution. This is the sheet with the big holes. Water vapour is not evenly distributed, So it compares to a second sheet behind it,with differently big holes. Clouds are not always there, but if, they are covering the certian area completely.
• We see: CO2 has a small function in the radiative play. So it doesn’t really matter that much.
• But: All three components of the atmosphere are re-radiating some amount of heat, thus slowing the cooling of the “stove”. They are cooler than the stove and they are not heating up the stove. There is always a net flow of heat towards the cold room. Sometimes more, sometimes less, and always within the laws of thermodynamics.
Makes sense to me .
An excellent article. I believe that the Hockey Stick was Mann’s PhD thesis; if this is not true please correct me. If it is true then who was his supervisor and who was the assessor? What are they doing now?
And given what we now know about the paper and the methodology employed by him, shouldn’t his PhD be revoked?
…it would be revoked in any valid field of science. Although Mann (supposedly) has a PhD in Geology, “climate science” is found in the Geography Department in practically all universities that offer a degree in climate science.
Climatology used to be in the Geography department, not anymore.
No, Mann’s PhD is protected the same way Boston U. protects MLK’s PhD even though he plagiarized his Doctoral dissertation.
Your text shown below is an exact quote from Michael Crichton: You should give credit rather than just plagiarize.
However in the full interview I see that Crichton is credited.
You see, Roy, it is essential that people get ALL the data. Otherwise we get…. climate alarmists.
And people commenting before they know the facts 😉
A quote within a quote calls for proper punctuation.
The lack of proper punctuation makes the piece difficult to decipher who said what. I give it a boat load of red marks and an embarrassing letter grade for poor use of standard conventions.
Not one of those publications is related to climate. His research interests are:
Spin-polarized atoms and nuclei,
magnetic resonance imaging,
hyperfine interactions,
surface interactions,
optical pumping.
yeah, so? Mike Mann was a similar physicist before he went off the rails. Where’s yours?
It is not about their qualifications it is about their area of research and expertise. Michael Mann has published a lot of papers related to climate. It is what he spends his time researching and keeping up to date with. I am wary of experts in one field commenting on areas other than their field of expertise. That very much includes doctors and climate scientists talking about economics. The doctors understand the medicine but they are not experts in how to apply their results through policy. Climate scientists understand the climate (better than the rest of us) but have no special expertise on whether a tax is better than a carbon trading scheme, for example. Their utterings in these areas should be treated with no more weight than other lay people.
And Kevin Cowtan – hiatus buster – is a crystallographer, not a trained climate scientist . But that has not stopped the admiration of his other climate related work by warmists.
The essential qualifications , surely , are a thorough education in basic physics , chemistry and maths and above average intelligence to make the most of that training.
Both Happer and Cowtan fit that category, but one is admired by the warmist community and the other reviled.
Climate scientists understand the climate (better than the rest of us)
That’s an extremely broad generalization that isn’t intuitively obvious.
I’d like to see you try to prove it’s validity as an assertion, rather than to assume it a priori.
Quite possibly, a majority of today’s self-identified climate scientists understand the climate incorrectly to a considerable extent, which in the absence of sufficient humility can be worse than not understanding it at all. As Mark Twain observed, “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
Michael Mann has published a lot of papers related to climate. It is what he spends his time researching and keeping up to date with.
In 2008, Mann et al. published a paper detailing research that utilized proxy data inserted upside down. As Steve McKintyre reported a year later, “Mann didn’t just use one Tiljander series upside down; he used all four of them upside down.” And furthermore, “Even though there is no doubt whatever that Mann used the Tiljander proxies upside down, in their reply to our comment, Mann et al. flat out denied that they had used them upside down.” There really is no place for denial of this magnitude in serious climate science.
https://climateaudit.org/2009/10/14/upside-side-down-mann-and-the-peerreviewedliterature/
Tim, if we were talking about any other specialty than climate science would you consider it even slightly controversial that the people who spend their working lives researching a field understand it better than the rest of us? Geneticists understand genetics better than the rest of us. Professor Happer and his colleagues understands spin polarized atoms and hyperfine interactions better than the rest of us. String theorists understand string theory better than the rest of us. Geologists understand geology better than the rest of us. These seem pretty intuitive to me. Do you object to any of these other statements?
It is extremely un-intuitive to think that someone who spends their working life researching into an area and reading and keeping up to date with the research of others in the same area understands less well than the rest of us.
Another truthful utterance by: seaice1
seaice1, you are absolutely right with your above “statement of support” for all of those aforementioned “junk scientists” that you worship and adore.
Shur nuff, …… seaice1, ….. given the fact you have no qualifications whatsoever in any field of science, ……. then apparently your area of research and expertise is in ALL fields of science ….. which therefore authorizes you to publish peer reviewed papers on any subject that strikes your fancy.
So, seaice1, git with the “program”, …… start publishing papers and become famous like Michael Mann.
Samuel, “given the fact you have no qualifications whatsoever in any field of science,” I do not know why you think for a second that you know such thing as a fact. You obviously do not have enough information to draw such a conclusion, indeed there is no way you could possibly have that information as you do not know who I am, yet here you are stating it as a fact.
It is worth asking yourself if this might be something you are prone to. Maybe, just maybe, you should ask yourself how you “know” all that other stuff you write here.
Michael Mann has published a lot of papers related to climate. It is what he spends his time researching and keeping up to date with.
@Seaice1,
Mann publishes papers that use tree-ring chronologies, believing they record a temperature signal while ignoring the effects of moisture, fertilization, and other influences on growth. Mann isn’t a plant physiologist and doesn’t understand plant biology. By your measure he’s unqualified.
Maybe unqualified to publish much in the Journal of Plant Physiology, I don’t know.
seaice1, you’re just using the same old, tired appeal to authority. Try something original or, better, just go away.
The trouble is that it makes the denizens of a particular silo immune to criticism from outside the silo.
The climate scientists use methods that are common to science, engineering, and math. When Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick discredited Mann’s hockey stick, they pointed out that the statistical methods he used were wrong. link
When I criticize the hockey stick it is because it contradicts a wealth of historical data that shows that the MWP was important and global.
If my friend the arborist looks at Mann’s tree ring data and says it is BS, I am inclined to believe him. Maybe we should point out that Mann isn’t an arborist and should not be allowed to use tree ring data.
Sometimes it takes a child to point out that the emperor has no clothes.
seaice1, by your metrics, R. Feynman, not being a rocket scientist but a theoretical physicist whose field was quantum mechanics and related physics (superfluidity of supercooled liquid helium, etc.), was thoroughly incompetent to investigate the challenger fiasco. Nonetheless he did a fine job there. Why ? Because the matter had nothing to do with rocket science. What matter was scientific rigor, Intellectual honesty.
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.”
+1 Michael Palmer January 10, 2017 at 5:42 am
Obviously you need a working quantitative theory of natural warming and cooling before assessing the effect of any factor (including, but not limited to, CO2 and other GHG) suspected to cause perturbation.
Unfortunately this is probably a “hard problem”, that is, impossible.
Beng135. Do you take advice from your doctors? Appeal to authority. What about financial advisors? Appeal to authority is not a logical fallacy if the expertise is genuine.
A quick lesson from http://www.appealtoauthority.info/
“6 Questions Checklist:
To evaluate the authority’s reliability, you must answer to the 6 standards of acceptance:
Has the authority been identified?
Is their area of expertise legitimate?
Does the authority have sufficient expertise in the subject at hand?
Is the claim made by the authority within their area(s) of expertise?
Is there sufficient agreement among the other experts in the subject?
Is the authority significantly biased?”
Active climate science researches commenting on climate science tick all the boxes. However, it is an appeal to authority if you cite a physics professor as an authority when he comments on climate science and his area of expertise is magnetic resonance imaging.
You may argue that the area of expertise in not legitimate, but there are dozens of peer reviewed journals in this area which is a strong argument against that. You may argue that the authorities are biased, but you should be able to provide evidence that thousands of climate scientists are all biased.
So your accusation of appeal to authority fails dismally.
Commie Bob. “When Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick discredited Mann’s hockey stick, they pointed out that the statistical methods he used were wrong.” They were commenting on areas within their expertise. They do not need to know about climate science to comment on statistics.
“When I criticize the hockey stick it is because it contradicts a wealth of historical data that shows that the MWP was important and global.” What you are saying is you have a climate reconstruction that shows the MWP was genuine and global. That is fine, you can publish that and it will there for everyone to consider. If you just have a few anecdotes then that is not quite the same.
” Maybe we should point out that Mann isn’t an arborist and should not be allowed to use tree ring data.” Mann can use tree ring data just like McKitric can use statistics. The fact that he is not an arborist does not exclude him from doing so, but does mean that arborists can justifiably comment on this aspect of his work.
You can make any criticism of any scientific work you like. You do need to establish a good understanding before it will be taken seriously. That should not require conventional qualifications in the field, but said qualifications are a relatively easy way to demonstrate expertise.
seaice1 “Do you take advice from your doctors?” How about we change that to. Do you blindly take advice from your doctors?
Question for you as well. Are you reaching/studying a way to frame the augment so that people blindly accept authority or consensus?
Mann has published a lot of papers.
So what, given the horrendous quality of most of them.
seaice: Doctors go to medical school where they learn about medicine. Before they are allowed to practice they have to take exams that are widely recognized as being relevant to the subject of medicine.
None of this is true for the climate scientist quacks.
That’s not what I said. What I can say reliably from my own, admittedly amateur, research is:
During the MWP certain crops could be reliably grown in Europe, Greenland, and China.
During the LIA those crops could reliably NOT be grown in Europe, Greenland, and China.
During the LIA ice and freezing was recorded in places that were unused to them in those same locations.
How do we know those things? They are recorded in history by the people who experienced them. Michael Mann’s temperature reconstruction is bogus because it is inconsistent with the historical record. On the other hand, Mann’s hockey stick led me to becoming a skeptic. That would be the silver lining in that particular cloud. 🙂 It isn’t necessary to do a temperature reconstruction to say that the climate was different in the MWP and the LIA. You don’t have to be a meteorologist to say that it must have snowed. Observing that the ground is covered by the bleeping stuff should suffice.
Commie Bob. You are comparing your couple of bits of information to a climate reconstruction and declaring yours superior. Good luck. Your research shows that Europe was probably warmer in the MWP than the LIA. You still have a long way to go.
seaice1 – January 10, 2017 at 5:27 am
Sure I know who you are, seaice1. Not personally, …… but “personality” wise I know a lot about you. The content/context of your posted verbiage and/or your posted commentary …. tells me “bunches” about you. Your above noted silly arsed mistake of not associating “qualifications” with” expertise” was just another “OH MY GAWD” moment that was literal proof of lack of education and/or experience.
seaice1, this is NOT the 1st thread that I have posted harsh criticisms about the content/context of your commentary …….. and it probably won’t be the last. That is, unless you learn to ask questions about things you know little to nothing about ….. before you start mouthing off about things you truly believe you know the factual science associated with said.
Also sayith seaice1
seaice1, don’t be talking silly. I “know” all that other “stuff” that I post hereon WUWT is actual, factual science of the natural world simply because it is explainable via common sense thinking, logical reasoning and intelligent deductions as a result of mathematics, physical experimentation and/or repeatable observations.
Here, study the following, ….. and remember what it states, to wit:
Dick Feynman’s definition of science …….
seaice1:
Alfred Wegener and tectonic plates–German polar researcher, geophysicist and meteorologist
Wright brothers—bicycle shop
da Vinci—many, many areas of expertise, most of it self-taught
Before the ridiculous notion that all knowledge comes from publishing in journals and everyone else is just flat-out ignorant and unknowing, people made scientific discoveries outside their areas of “expertise” all the time. As for medical personel, etc, being experts, I have stories of how well trusting in their “expertise” works out and they don’t have fairy tale endings (unless we’re looking at Grimm’s fairy tales). I do not accept the word of a physician if it makes no sense and/or if he/she won’t fully answer my questions. If they cannot explain what and why they believe, I don’t care at all about their opinion or so-called expertise.
Also, by your definition, those who write on areas not normally considered part of conventional science can be experts if their publish in their own peer-reviewed journals and spend time in research. They should be listened to because they are experts in their fields. If research and publishing are your criteria, that opens all kinds of interesting “truths” from “experts”.
seaice1
Just curious who you are trying to convince, yourself or everyone else? There’s no such thing as “climate science” or “climate scientists.” To the extent that “climate science” exists, it is a multidisciplinary science that comprises many scientific fields such as chemistry, geology, physics, oceanography, mathematics, computer science, and probably a host of others. I daresay that many people on this site and others are experts in one or more of these fields and are more than qualified to comment on and criticize different aspects of “climate science.” The fact that you consider “climate science” a “specialty” leads me to suspect you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Seaice, in two of the greatest geologic debates of the 20th Century — the Channeled Scablands of Washington State, and Continental Drift/Plate Tectonics — scientists who had spent their lives studying their science were at 180 degrees from one another. The battle on each topic raged for 40 years and more, until scientific evidence carried the day. At no time did the scientists involved count up sides and claim that their side had won because they had more “consensus” on their side.
That’s how science works. As the late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould said, “In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.’ I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.”
And that was only for “provisional assent.”
James ” until scientific evidence carried the day. At no time did the scientists involved count up sides and claim that their side had won because they had more “consensus” on their side.”
So you believe the battle still rages, and we cannot say with certainty that plate tectonics and continental drift occur? Or do you believe that there is now a scientific consensus that plate tectonics is the mechanism for the arrangement of continents?
seance1 :
To evaluate the authority’s reliability, you must answer to the 6 standards of acceptance:
Has the authority been identified?
Is their area of expertise legitimate?
Does the authority have sufficient expertise in the subject at hand?
Is the claim made by the authority within their area(s) of expertise?
Is there sufficient agreement among the other experts in the subject?
Is the authority significantly biased?”
Fine, let’s do this
Has the authority been identified? no. for instance : do you include people like Antony Watt or Judy Curry in it ?
Is their area of expertise legitimate? not sure ; too many other fields are involved (chemistry, physics, statistics –improperly used–, chaos theory, …) ; no actual achievements, no corpus of knowledge passed along to technicians who will make use of it in real life
Does the authority have sufficient expertise in the subject at hand? no, everybody agrees that much, much more research needed
Is the authority significantly biased? some of those who pretend to be authority obviously are, as evidenced by climategate and there political activism
“Climate scientists understand the climate (better than the rest of us)”
In many/most cases, they clearly do nothing of the kind.
Genetic fallacy. Next.
That’s basically where the reply chain should have started and ended.
Gavin Schmidt was a mathematician.
And John Cook a cartoonist.
And Al Gore a politician with no scientific qualifications whatever! Though he did get an ‘A’ for his thesis “The Impact of Television on the Conduct of the Presidency, 1947–1969.
Javier,
And apparently, a not very good one. And look where it got him, now he’s a failed physicist wannabe and a cartoonish social psychologist. But since he’s “published,” I guess to seeass1 he’s an unquestioned expert.
Tim Flannery is a palentologist and is now consider and ‘weather expert’ in Australia.
Given how bad some of those are climate ‘scientists ‘ are that is hardly a bad thing .
By the real among those called climate ‘scientists’ are failed politicians and railway engineers and other with no scientific background , its hardly any badge of honor. Although to be fair given the awful standards you can get away and the money you can make , its does make for an easy living .
Richard Lindzen is more direct. He made it clear that climate science attracts ‘B-team’ students. I’ve been half-way down that rabbit hole myself. The further you go, the more fluffy activists you meet who couldn’t hack the rigors of the traditional science disciplines.
Even among people who can and do hack the rigors, and manage to pass and get a degree, there is a wide spread of expertise.
There are people who really get it…understand it all very well, and those who manage to memorize for long enough to take the tests and pass with a middling B.
Even among the A students, there are some who are very smart, and some who are way smarter that the very smart ones.
And then there are people with broad knowledge, and those with fairly narrow focus.
So, there are surely people who are students of one discipline who know more about other disciplines that people who specialize in that second discipline.
Really smart people understand things that others struggle with, read more quickly, and then comprehend and retain what they read to a far higher degree than some other people…
In short, the idea that a specialist necessarily knows more, and/or is more apt to be correct than someone who has not specialized in that area is ludicrous, and everyone who has been at the top of their class knows it. They may know more, or not. They may be more apt to arrive at the correct conclusions, or not.
Besides…this aint brain surgery.
seaice1, you don’t need to be a climate scientist, or a indeed a specialist of any kind, to see CAGW as the pathetic pseudoscience that it is. All it takes is a working brain, and Happer has that in spades.
One important point made by Happer is that the earth is always naturally warming or cooling. However, nobody has ever even claimed that we have a quantitative theory of natural warming and cooling. If you doubt that, just look at the ongoing debate over what causes the ice ages; the ideas are all over the place. That means we simply can’t know the baseline against which to measure human-caused warming. Take that together with the lack of substantial warming for the last 20 years, and the catastrophic scenarios are simply insupportable.
As Tim Allen’s character said to Robin Sachs’s evil alien Sarris in “Galaxy Quest”, “You don’t have to be a great actor to spot a bad one.”
That applies in pretty much every situation.
Any solid training in a hard science would enable (and qualify) a person to question the process of climate science. As someone trained in chemistry, I may not have all the climatology background “climate scientists” have, but I do understand what a theory is, what is required to prove a theory, the problems of data collection and associated weaknesses, error associated with data and data manipulation and the propagation of error through proper error analysis and statistics as applied to scientific data. These are all areas in which climate science has serious short comings. So I may not have a degree in climatology, but as someone trained in science, I am quite capable of spotting many of the holes in what is presented as climate science.
I would also add, that as someone trained in science, the behavior of the climate “scientists” is not the behavior of scientists I have worked with – refusing to disclose data or methods of manipulating data, withholding raw data or computer programs, using only personal attacks as opposed to data and calculations to refute arguments (yes, along with personal attacks in some cases), etc. – all immediately struck me as behavior I have not seen among scientists in other fields.
“As someone trained in chemistry,…….. , but I do understand what a theory is, what is required to prove a theory”
…
When they trained you in chemistry, did they forget to teach you that a theory is never proven?
My turning point in going from warmist to skeptic was Phil Jones’s retort, “I have 25 years invested in this data. Why should I give it to you when all you’ll do is try to find something wrong with it?”
The proper response for a real scientist would have been, “Here’s my data. Look at it and marvel at my scientific wonderfulness, the glory of my conclusions!”
He chose… poorly.
@Rob Bradley – such pedantic comments as yours are boring. I can assure you that we always spoke in terms of “proof” even though we all recognized it as shorthand for the theory best supported by the data to date. For example, any first year chemistry student is familiar with the history of the theory of the structure of the atom and its evolution as new data was collected in the 19th and 20th centuries.
“It is not about their qualifications it is about their area of research and expertise”.
Not true, it is about the quality of the research; is it accurate, is it true?? Does
it agree with reality?? If it doesn’t, then it has no value, notwithstanding the so-called
“qualifications”. When a scientist uses his qualifications as proof his theory is correct,
you should take it with a grain of salt. No meat on that bone!
Richard, I say it is not about their qualifications. You say notwithstanding qualifications. Do you see any difference in what we said?
seaice1,
That is a completely disingenuous statement. You are trying to play both sides of the argument and thus, attain deniability for your own statements.
Alan, that is simply not the case. I have said here on several occasions that it is not about the qualifications but about active research in a particular area.
seaice seems to think that he us on to something. lol.
seaice1,
Mostly he was decrying the abuse of science by “Climate Scientists”, for which he is very qualified. And even when he talks about “climate science”, it is about the larger issues, which anybody with a science background and the ability to think, can grasp. Just because he hasn’t been accepted by the anointed inner circle of “Climate Scientists” does not mean he is unqualified to speak out on these issues; especially when they are being used to bludgeon the government into making sweeping policy changes which will affect everyone on the planet. We all have a stake in this.
Your appeal to authority, a common logical fallacy, only serves to make you look like a fool. I would suggest you avoid it in the future.
It is not my appeal to authority, but the article that included a list of his publications. As these publications are unrelated to the issue under discussion that is an appeal to authority. It is a common logical fallacy, and I suggest you take a look here:
http://www.appealtoauthority.info/
before you suggest others have made themselves look a fool.
Nonsense. People list their credentials and accomplishments all the time. It’s a matter of pride as well as a way to provide the reader some context on the author. If all he did was say, “See, I’m a smart PHD guy, so just believe what I say”, then you’d have a point. But he didn’t. He laid out his arguments in a thoughtful, rational way. Nice try at deflection though.
No, people do not list their accomplishments all the time. They list them for a reason. The reason here is because it makes the person look like an authority.
Note on “argument from authority”—that fallacy was modified to be “argument from inappropriate authority”, mostly I guess so people could claim their authority was great and everyone else’s was not. In reality (where global warming science dare not go), ALL arguments from authority are fallacies. Such fallacies are often called informal fallacies. The argument from authority is inductive and meant to raise the probability of getting a correct conclusion. However, all science depends on the data and methods alone and not who published what. That’s why the argument is a fallacy.
Somewhere along the line, the reality of science that data and method ALONE determine the truth of an hypothesis or theory was ground into mincemeat and replaced with “MY authority is better than yours and you will not be allowed to voice disagreement”. That would be called something other than science—more like a “king of hill” game where the loudest voice wins. Nothing to do with truth.
It is not his list of accomplishments that make Happer credible, it is that he speaks the truth and makes logical sense.
But, but………Michael Mann is a Nobel Prize winner, is’nt he???
Feynman better understood what went wrong with the space shuttle than Nasa and he was only a Quantum Electrodynamicist.
And Abraham Walt, a mathematician for the US govt. during WWII knew more about aircraft damage than the “experts”. They were studying aircraft damage to determine the most efficient way to armor a plane.
Too little armor and it got shot down, too much armor and it was slowed down too much, and wasted too much fuel. A sample of returned planes showed little damage to engines, plenty of holes in the fuselage. and the least damage to the engine. Wald argued , in contrast to the experts, that the excess armor should be around the engine- leave the fuselage alone. He reasoned that bullets were as likely to hit one part of a plane as another. The fact that there were few bullet holes around the engine was sample bias- the planes with engine damage as opposed to fuselage damage were less likely to survive a mission. and weren’t included in the sample statistics.
That reminds me of people who think Dolphins are friendly because they push people to the shore and save them from drowning. Nobody gets to talk to the people the dolphins push the other way.
The appeal to authority was committed not by me but by the author who used a list of publications in NMR to suggest an authority on climate. If someone is a genuine authority then giving apprpoptiate respect to that authority is not an appeal to authority. It would be to say that the person must be correct because they are an authority. I dd not say that.
” Nobody gets to talk to the people the dolphins push the other way.”
LOL. I forgive you on the basis of that bon mot alone.
“LOL. I forgive you on the basis of that bon mot alone.”
Not me.
Being a warmista apologist is a serious matter.
He should be ashamed of himself.
Admirable seaice, but remember if an “alarmist’ was to make any pronouncements they would be mercilessly attacked here for they’re lack of relevant qualifications. You’re playing chess with pigeons mate. Different rules.
Your illogical Appeal to Authority argument is noted. Got anything else?
Thought not.
Did you seriously just say that an Ivy League Physicist is unqualified to comment on science?
seaice1. You have a point there. Generally speaking the comments of William Happer are very good. But he has not calculated or published anything concerning the warming impacts of CO2. In this respect his judgement is based on the studies of other researchers. And this is the basic reason, why he gives an inaccurate answer to the question of climate sensitivity (CS) being 3.0 C degrees as manifested by IPCC. Happer thinks that CS is about 1.0 C but he has no scientific grounds for his opinion.
Meh, that’s near the no-feedback sensitivity, and so all you have to do is imagine that feedbacks are small, and it’s not hard to do that considering that there’s never been runaway.
========
Your reference to ‘a couple of bits of information’ is way off base. The historical evidence for the MWP and LIA consists of many thousand primary source documents. Your attempt to dismiss that with just a wave of the hand indicates something … You would probably benefit from a historical methodology course.
Documents from Paintings ( revered by millions) , Books and many communications between the scientists of those days. All of them are undeniable and cannot be altered like computer data.
Remember, all the people that said that computers would save trees?
Another thing, why do green house growers pump in heat and CO2 into those buildings? To kill plants?
Amen. I like paper a lot. 🙂 If President Trump wants to do one good thing for us, he could fund a project to collect paper met station records from America as well as from around the world and publish them on line.
My first take on cAGW was that the globe far from running a fever is way too cold, and we have way too little CO2, such that if by some happy coincident increasing emissions of CO2 lead to warming then that would be a win win scenario.
When running an agenda, it is standard practice to keep the polpulus in the dark of key facts that might put claims in their proper perspective. We see this with Climate alarmism. So the population is not told that the planet is currently in an ice age, it is in the second coldest period in the last 500,000 years. We are not told that plants developed when CO2 was in the region of 3,000 to 7,000 ppm and that plants struggle and begin to die when CO2 falls below about 180 ppm (depending upon siting and climate) such that pre the industrial revolution CO2 and plants were essentially in intensive care. The biosphere was on the edge of a precipice, and presently it has been pulled a little bit back from the edge of the cliff.
We are never told that man can trace his ancestory back 3 to 4.5 million years, and more recognisably to about 200,000 years and modern man perhaps 70,000 years but yet all major advances have been made in the Holocene about 14 to 15,000 years ago. It is this period of relative benign warmth that has enabled the rapid development of man.
Civilisation and their rise are temperature dependent. This is best demonstrated around the Med, with the Egyptians, Minoans, Greeks, Romans and then Northern Europeans. It is no coincidence that whilst men in Wiltshire (UK) were struggling to place a few stones on top of each other in a circle, the Egyptians were able to build the Great Pyramid at Giza that is so wonderous that even today we do not know or understand how exactly it was build. In the warmth of Egypt, man was freed of the struggle for survival, and had time to learn an array of skill sets and to pass these down from father to son, whereas in Wiltshire it was cold and a daily struggle for survival. The only skill set being passed down from father to son was that of survival.
It would be a great thing if the planet were to warm again to the highs of the Holocene Optimum and if CO2 was to at least double from where it stands now. However, there is little prospect of that. the Holocene will regretfully be over far too soon, and then man will realise what real climate change is like. It will then be a struggle for survival with real climate refugees. I expect that the Great Pyramid at Giza will still stand but every building in Canada, in Northern USA, in Northern Europe will cease to exist. Since ice moves mountains, it is likely that there will be no evidence that man even inhabited those places.
The ending of an interglacial is a very very slow process, unlike its start. And clearly hasn’t started yet. We have centuries ahead, perhaps a few thousand years before things get as cold as LIA and then colder. I am not making plans that far ahead.
Cathedrals were build by teams of less that 100 people, demanding no more than a few 1000 man-year of work. I guess that Stonehenge didn’t required so much.
“Cathedrals were build by teams of less that 100 people”
some of them were ‘climate scientists’
When I suggest that the Holocene will be over far too soon, of course, I am talking of many thousands of years, perhaps 6,000 to 14,000 years (or thereabouts). But this is actually not a long time. The Great Pyramid is about 5,000 years old so we can actually see a man built object of about half that time period.
Not so much. The Holocene is about 2000 years from reaching the point where the typical interglacial increases the rate of cooling towards the next glacial period. Astronomically the Holocene is identical to the average interglacial. No reason to think this should be a long inerglacial.
http://i.imgur.com/1n9EY8W.png
richard verney January 10, 2017 at 3:01 am
Civilisation and their rise are temperature dependent. This is best demonstrated around the Med, with the Egyptians, Minoans, Greeks, Romans and then Northern Europeans. It is no coincidence that whilst men in Wiltshire (UK) were struggling to place a few stones on top of each other in a circle, the Egyptians were able to build the Great Pyramid at Giza that is so wonderous that even today we do not know or understand how exactly it was build. In the warmth of Egypt, man was freed of the struggle for survival, and had time to learn an array of skill sets and to pass these down from father to son, whereas in Wiltshire it was cold and a daily struggle for survival. The only skill set being passed down from father to son was that of survival.
‘Struggling to place’ about 70 stones weighing up to 50 tons each in a circle and putting about 30 multi-ton stones on top about 5 meters above the ground, having first quarried them and transported them ~200 miles to the site. That doesn’t sound much like a ‘daily struggle for survival’ to me! Since construction at Stonehenge in various phases lasted over a 1000 years it would suggest that ‘skill sets’ were passed down from ‘father to son’. Also we still ‘do not know or understand how exactly it was built’.
I am not belittling the task of building Stonehenge. Of course it was a Herculean task. But it is extremely crude, and cannot be compared to the building of the Great Pyramid which is, in essence, a 3 dimensional jigsaw of complex design given the shafts that run through it.
It is no wonder that the Great Pyramid is one of the 7 wonders of the world, and it says a lot about the skill of its builders that it is the only one of the seven still standing, notwithhstanding the vandalism that it has been subjected to over the ages (its limestone casing having been hacked off to build a fortress, in the 14th century, so too its gold crown/capstone – it is missing its top 30 feet).
A great deal of skill went into the design and construction of the Pyramid. The ratio of its perimeter to height is 2pi; this of course could be nothing more than coincidence especially as it is far from certain that the Egyptians at this time knew about pi. The Giza plateau, on which the Pyramid stands, is limestone and the complex was chiselled out using copper chisels. It covers a length of more than 920 metres and is level within 2.1 cm. This is about the same sort of accuracy that we achieve today. It is thought (but of course not known) that the Pyramid was built from about 2,300,000 blocks of stone of an average weight of around 25 tonnes. But it is the dressing of the stone which is so impressive. Where this is not weathered the stones are often so well dressed that it is difficult to place a piece of paper between them; the mean gap being 0.5mm (1/50th of an inch). Even today, we struggle to achieve the stone masonry skills of the Egyptian builders.
As you note, Stonehenge was built over a long length of time, but during that time it went through a number of different designs using ever larger stones. It is more of an evolution in design rather than some continuous building. It is not a piece of construction like building a cathedral, or building a pyramid. It is more a question of brawn (amazing as that may in itself be).
Probably some clever trick like this:
Years ago I saw a youtube video of a guy moving car size stones around all by himself with out breaking a sweat…using nothing but a tiny pebble and a stick with a notch in it.
No reason to suppose that people who lived long ago, and who must have had the need of far more self reliance than we do today, could not have come up with similar or even more clever methods to do what they did.
The Gods walked, and now and then stumbled, to general local dismay.
==============
>>Vuk
>>“Cathedrals were build by teams of less that 100 people”
>>some of them were ‘climate scientists’
Nice one Vuk. I presume this is Chesterfield cathedral. Been like that for hundreds kf years.
R
This is a must read. It’s the words of a physicist, not of a climate “scientist”.
S’funny, Stephen Hawking said things posters here didn’t like hearing and he was smacked down quite vigorously. “Stick to black holes”.
I wonder what Feynman would have made of the way climate ‘science’ works , although no right-winger , I like to think he was good enough a scientists to regard the area as a joke and have no issue with taken BS artiest like Mann to bits for their poor professional behavior. Its a real shame he not longer around to do it .
Feynman would have seen right through climate BS and been very vocal about it, just like at the Challenger investigation. He would be raising hell and taking no prisoners.
Agreed. We could really use him today.
and kicked out.
Here’s what he Did say in “Surely You’re joking Mr Feynman:
“… There was a sociologist who had written a paper for us all to read —
something he had written ahead of time. I started to read the damn thing,
and my eyes were coming out: I couldn’t make head nor tail of it! I figured
it was because I hadn’t read any of the books on that list. I had this
uneasy feeling of “I’m not adequate,” until finally I said to myself, “I’m
gonna stop, and read one sentence slowly, so I can figure out what the hell
it means.”
So I stopped — at random — and read the next sentence very carefully.
I can’t remember it precisely, but it was very close to this: “The
individual member of the social community often receives his information via
visual, symbolic channels.” I went back and forth over it, and translated.
You know what it means? “People read.”
Then I went over the next sentence, and I realized that I could
translate that one also. Then it became a kind of empty business: “Sometimes
people read; sometimes people listen to the radio,” and so on, but written
in such a fancy way that I couldn’t understand it at first, and when I
finally deciphered it, there was nothing to it.
There was only one thing that happened at that meeting that was
pleasant or amusing. At this conference, every word that every guy said at
the plenary session was so important that they had a stenotypist there,
typing every goddamn thing. Somewhere on the second day the stenotypist came
up to me and said, “What profession are you? Surely not a professor.”
“I am a professor,” I said.
“Of what?”
“Of physics — science.”
“Oh! That must be the reason,” he said.
“Reason for what?”
He said, “You see, I’m a stenotypist, and I type everything that is
said here. Now, when the other fellas talk, I type what they say, but I
don’t understand what they’re saying. But every time you get up to ask a
question or to say something, I understand exactly what you mean — what the
question is, and what you’re saying — so I thought you can’t be a
professor!”
There was a special dinner at some point, and the head of the theology
place, a very nice, very Jewish man, gave a speech. It was a good speech,
and he was a very good speaker, so while it sounds crazy now, when I’m
telling about it, at that time his main idea sounded completely obvious and
true. He talked about the big differences in the welfare of various
countries, which cause jealousy, which leads to conflict, and now that we
have atomic weapons, any war and we’re doomed, so therefore the right way
out is to strive for peace by making sure there are no great differences
from place to place, and since we have so much in the United States, we
should give up nearly everything to the other countries until we’re all
even. Everybody was listening to this, and we were all full of sacrificial
feeling, and all thinking we ought to do this. But I came back to my senses
on the way home.
The next day one of the guys in our group said, “I think that speech
last night was so good that we should all endorse it, and it should be the
summary of our conference.”
I started to say that the idea of distributing everything evenly is
based on a theory that there’s only X amount of stuff in the world, that
somehow we took it away from the poorer countries in the first place, and
therefore we should give it back to them. But this theory doesn’t take into
account the real reason for the differences between countries — that is,
the development of new techniques for growing food, the development of
machinery to grow food and to do other things, and the fact that all this
machinery requires the concentration of capital. It isn’t the stuff, but the
power to make the stuff, that is important. But I realize now that these
people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t
understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.
The conference made me so nervous that a girl I knew in New York had to
calm me down. “Look,” she said, “you’re shaking! You’ve gone absolutely
nuts! Just take it easy, and don’t take it so seriously. Back away a minute
and look at what it is.” So I thought about the conference, how crazy it
was, and it wasn’t so bad. But if someone were to ask me to participate in
something like that again, I’d shy away from it like mad — I mean zero! No!
Absolutely not! And I still get invitations for this kind of thing today.
When it came time to evaluate the conference at the end, the others
told how much they got out of it, how successful it was, and so on. When
they asked me, I said, “This conference was worse than a Rorschach test:
There’s a meaningless inkblot, and the others ask you what you think you
see, but when you tell them, they start arguing with you!”
Even worse, at the end of the conference they were going to have
another meeting, but this time the public would come, and the guy in charge
of our group has the nerve to say that since we’ve worked out so much, there
won’t be any time for public discussion, so we’ll just tell the public all
the things we’ve worked out. My eyes bugged out: I didn’t think we had
worked out a damn thing!
Finally, when we were discussing the question of whether we had
developed a way of having a dialogue among people of different disciplines
— our second basic “problem” — I said that I noticed something
interesting. Each of us talked about what we thought the “ethics of
equality” was, from our own point of view, without paying any attention to
the other guy’s point of view. For example, the historian proposed that the
way to understand ethical problems is to look historically at how they
evolved and how they developed; the international lawyer suggested that the
way to do it is to see how in fact people actually act in different
situations and make their arrangements; the Jesuit priest was always
referring to “the fragmentation of knowledge”; and I, as a scientist,
proposed that we should isolate the problem in a way analogous to Galileo’s
techniques for experiments; and so on. “So, in my opinion,” I said, “we had
no dialogue at all. Instead, we had nothing but chaos!”
Of course I was attacked, from all around. “Don’t you think that order
can come from chaos?”
“Uh, well, as a general principle, or…” I didn’t understand what to
do with a question like “Can order come from chaos?” Yes, no, what of it?
There were a lot of fools at that conference — pompous fools — and
pompous fools drive me up the wall. Ordinary fools are all right; you can
talk to them, and try to help them out. But pompous fools — guys who are
fools and are covering it all over and impressing people as to how wonderful
they are with all this hocus pocus — THAT, I CANNOT STAND! An ordinary fool
isn’t a faker; an honest fool is all right. But a dishonest fool is
terrible! And that’s what I got at the conference, a bunch of pompous fools,
and I got very upset. I’m not going to get upset like that again, so I won’t
participate in interdisciplinary conferences any more.”
from the 11/9/11 “Reference Frame” blog.
Brilliant, and a joy to read. Thanks, Alan.
Absolutely hilarious.
>>when I finally deciphered it, there was nothing to it.
The best ever example if this was Rowan Williams, the new Archbishop of Canterbury. He gave an inauguration speech that was televised live, but it was utterly incomprehensible – random words joined together. I kid you not, I had no idea what he was talking about.
At the end the BBC anchor said to the reporter “marvelous speech, and what was the central message Robert?”. The cameras cut to ‘Robert’ whose eyes were bulging, because he had no idea what the Archbishop was talking about, and the anchor had deliberatly passed the buck. So he improvised – he narrated what an Archbishop might say. And I bet he had a go at the anchor later.
Wish I had a youtube copy of that speech, it was a masterpiece of modern liberal ‘yukspeak’. (Rowan Williams was the ultimate liberal hand-wringer. Worst archbishop since Thomas Becket – and look what happened to him…)
R
Wow, I am going to read more Feynman.
“What is relevant is reproducible results.”
Consensus is largely irrelevant to the conduct of science. The scientists themselves know the area in which they work. They read the and understand the relevant papers and they know which results and conclusions are reproducible and consistent.
But how does the non expert know which science to believe? Should we believe the anti-vaxxers? Should we believe the creationists? Should we believe the anti-GMO crowd? The anti nuclear powerists? How can the layman possibly know who to believe? We cannot possibly read and understand all those papers in all those fields.
We can utilize the fact that the scientists themselves do read and understand them. We can see how these experts think. Nearly all doctors believe vaccines do more good than harm. Nearly all biologists believe in evolution. Nearly all physicists believe in the weird contradictory properties of the quantum world. A consensus emerges in these fields. That is not the science, but it does allow the layman a window into the understanding of the science.
Use of the consensus is politics. Very few people reject the consensus of experts in all fields except politicized ones. Almost nobody rejects the consensus about relativity, despite very odd conclusions. Very few people understand relativity and quantum mechanics, yet almost everybody believes in them. Why? because the consensus of experts who do understand them (at least much better than the rest of us) believe it.
The existence of a scientific consensus in these fields is the reason the rest of us believe in them, and yet this is never used to question the science. The consensus is indeed the business of politics, but that does not in any way undermine the science. The question should be why do a lot of people reject the consensus in only a very few politicized subjects, yet accept the consensus in every other sphere?
Much of what you say is reasonable. My response is usually that you should treat them the same as you might treat someone asking for your money in an investment product. This works for any topic in which you do not trust your own expertise.
You may not be able to follow the intricacies of how their product is claimed to be better than others, but you can ask them to live up to their own predictions. If they say they can get an x% return over, say, 30 years, then you go back 30 years and look at what they achieved. Climate science fails, dismally, when subjected to these standards.
More generally, environmentalists consistently predict the worst, which consistently fails to materialise, whether they get their way or not.
Very well said seaice.
You don’t. You just chose your side according to your tribal preferences and then stick to it regardless of evidence and arguments.
Even most scientists do that as evidence can always be interpreted in different ways.
The truth is that for as long as the world is warming or not warming the CO2 hypothesis has the upper hand as it is easier for its defenders to interpret the evidence in their favor. Only when the Earth enters a prolonged cooling period will its opponents have the upper hand. But that may take centuries. Scientists were worried about warming in the 1920-30’s and about cooling in the 1960-70’s. That’s how it works. The CO2 hypothesis has reached the limit of its explanatory powers, so from now on all it will accomplish is to block any progress in the field. So we will have a scientific field with lots of researchers and money and yet no real progress. Without cooling, alternative hypothesis based on natural factors have it very difficult to be tested as they have to work with unreliable old evidence and they cannot out compete the dominant hypothesis.
But without significant warming a lot of lay people are going to remain unconvinced, as most people is eminently practical. Even people that do not question the dogma regard climate change as a non issue. Nobody has been elected to office on a climate combat platform, and during electoral debates climate change is barely mentioned because most candidates recognize that while you might lose some votes by negating it, you are unlikely to win many votes by pushing the issue when people have more real concerns in their minds.
So nothing will be done about global warming, as nothing has been done for the past 37 years. That pretty much demonstrates how serious this issue is considered by he silent majority.
“You just chose your side according to your tribal preferences and then stick to it regardless of evidence and arguments.” That does not seem to be true, because most peoples’ preference is for objects that are either waves or particles, not some weird combination depending on what you look for. Yet most people will not contradict quantum mechanics. In most (or at least many) cases people are prepared to overturn their preferences when presented with a consensus of experts. There are only a very few areas where this is not the case.
ups, sorry this blockquote thing wen’t completely wrong
People don’t have any preference when it comes to most scientific issues. They simply don’t care. If scientists come and say the Universe will one day stop expanding most people will say “that’s interesting.” If they now come and say the opposite people will again say “that’s interesting.”
People only chose about science when it affects their lives, their religion, their economy, their political choices, and then they do it by tribe. Scientific consensus means nothing. It only affects scientific careers. It is a lot more profitable to align with consensus if you are a scientist, so essentially is a negative factor for the increase in knowledge.
Javier, “People don’t have any preference when it comes to most scientific issues.” Yes, that is true to a point. Peoples’ preference for an eternal universe or particles that behave in ways we intuitively understand is marginal. Yet most scientific things come into this category, so most people accept the scientific consensus on most matters of science. For those few subjects where people have “tribes” it does seem that evidence is of very little significance in many peoples’ beliefs. That is just another way of saying that most people accept the scientific consensus on non-politicized science. My question was why this should be the case, and what conclusion should we draw from it?
seaice1 – January 10, 2017 at 3:36 am
Did you actually think that up all by yourself ……. or was it just some more of your learned mimicry?
“GET A CLUE”, …… just because the media doesn’t publish or broadcast …. “any or all rejections of a consensus” ………. doesn’t mean that none exist.
Democrats and/or liberals prefer to keep the citizens ”barefoot, ignorant and hungry” so that they will believe anything and everything that they are told. And thus the explicit reason that the Democrat partisan media (MSM) won’t publish contrary commentary,
Tens-of-millions believed everything that Hillary and Obama told them to believe, …… even though 70% to 93% of the claims and accusations they voiced were non-factual half-truths, untruths and/or outright lies..
Samuel, I am sticking to science, not politicians’ statements or the media. When I said every other sphere I meant scientific sphere. Almost nobody rejects the scientific consensus that atoms are made of electrons, protons and neutrons although few of us have seen direct evidence for it. Most would also accept that this was not the whole story, but it is a very useful model that satisfies the needs of pretty much the whole of chemistry.
Samuel C Cogar January 10, 2017 at 6:18 am
Tens-of-millions believed everything that Hillary and Obama told them to believe, …… even though 70% to 93% of the claims and accusations they voiced were non-factual half-truths, untruths and/or outright lies..
And apparently almost as many believed everything Trump told them even though he told more (and bigger) lies!
Yep, those emails weren’t written by liars.
=======================
seaice1 might gain insight if he/she ponders just why alarum over climate is not susceptible to the kind of lock-step (evolving) consensus that does function in most areas of science. And, in comparison, the radiative effect is.
=================
“seaice1 might gain insight if he/she ponders just why alarum over climate is not susceptible to the kind of lock-step (evolving) consensus that does function in most areas of science. And, in comparison, the radiative effect is.”
Kim, could you translate or explain that please? I cannot tell if you have made a point or not.
seaice1 – January 10, 2017 at 7:16 am
Educate yourself, …… to wit:
quoting William Happer
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
Sorry, seaice1, intersecting monologues only constitute a conversation when both are in good faith. I’m skeptical of yours.
On second thought, I’ll grant an exception. Alarm is policy, CO2’s GHG effect is not.
========================
seaice1,
Not only have you convincingly demonstrated that you are not sticking to science, you are demonstrating at a fundamental level that you don’t even know what science is (and importantly also, what it isn’t).
Q. Should we believe the anti-vaxxers?
A. No, their claims are pseudo-scientific sounding, without any predictions that can be tested. They also have a strong basis in fear.
Q. Should we believe the creationists?
A. No, they don’t even have predictions that can be tested.
Q. Should we believe the anti-GMO crowd?
A. No, see my comments on the anti-vaxxers.
Q. The anti nuclear powerists?
A. No, although they have a small number of predictions that can be tested, they are completely off the planet irrational. Nothing is in proportion to the real risks and benefits.
Q. How can the layman possibly know who to believe? We cannot possibly read and understand all those papers in all those fields.
A. A good point. I use a very finely tuned bullshit detector. Look for things like proportion. Look for past history; have they made predictions that turned out right? Look for truthfulness; have they distorted facts, or even made outright lies?
Hivemind. You seem to use predictions as the main criterion. Can you tell me any predictions of anti-AGW people that have come true? I have asked often, but get very few responses. Most predictions I have found have failed miserably.
I am not asking for failed predictions from the warmists, but actual predictions from the skeptics that would make their case.
seaice1,
That’s not how science works. If the prediction for a theory fails, then it is invalid. As a skeptic I don’t have to make any predictions since I didn’t put forth a theory. It is enough that I can point out a failed prediction. The onus of making predictions is on the one who published the theory. Normally nothing much turns on these kind of issues, but in this case the consequences are enormous to society if we get it wrong, so it is vitally important that the scientific process be followed scrupulously. Shortcuts and logical fallacies can not be accepted.
Paul. Whether or not that is how science works, that seems to be how Hivemind decides.
Look at Hiveminds list
Anti-vaxxers – no predictions so we should not believe them.
Creationists – no predictions, so we should not believe them.
Anti-GMO – see anti vaxxers
Anti nuclear – some testable predictions, but risks not properly weighed.
I am in general agreement with Hiveminds list.
I could add:
Anti-AGW skeptics -no predictions so we should not believe them.
Seaice,
You cannot ‘read other peoples minds… or intent.
Stick to science.
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.
J Mac, I cannot read their minds but I can read their words. You can do the same.
Testable prediction is the gold standard of science. I read that here on WUWT. If proponents of one argument have no testable predictions they are talking pseudo-science.
easice1 – January 10, 2017 at 7:20 am
Seaice1, it wouldn’t matter one “twit” how accurate, factual or reliable an anti-AGW prediction was, is or might be, …… you would “find fault” with it ….. and start “posting” your rebuttal “mimicry” that your parents, guardians and mentors have been nurturing (brainwashing) your subconscious mind to be an adamant, unquestionable believer in/of.
Your nurturers failed you miserably by not teaching you to “think for yourself”, …… but were extremely successful at nurturing you to always respect their authority of you and to “accept, learn and believe” only those things that your chosen mentors dictated that you should “accept, learn and believe”.
Seaice1, another fact that you should be informed of …… it that, because of your “respect and obedience” to your mentor(s)’s authority, … you will never be any more learned or intelligent than your mentors permit you to be, …… which means you will always be subservient to the “whims” of your mentors.
Beyond that, it’s a fallacy to declare that someone has to come up with a better prediction in order to show that the first prediction is invalid.
seaice1 is making the same fallacious claim common in global warming—that to reject a theory, you must have one to replace it. He demands predictions not from those making the theory, but those questioning it. That is not how it works. The questioner need only show the flaws of a theory. Asking for predictions from skeptics is nonsensical—skeptics do not predict, they point out that AGW does not predict. There is a constant confusion on how science works. A new theory is NEVER needed to discard a theory that has proven to be wrong.
Sheri says: “skeptics do not predict”
..
Correct, they are unable to predict because they have nothing to offer in terms of a hypothesis, a conjecture or anything else that most normal scientists offer when they go about their work. All skeptics do is write comments on blogs that do not advance science.
..
Sheri then says: ” they point out that AGW does not predict” which is incorrect. AGW predicts that increased concentrations of CO2 will warm the planet. When that “prediction” was made over 100 years ago, it has come true, the planet has warmed. So Sheri is wrong to make that specific claim.
“When that “prediction” was made over 100 years ago, it has come true, the planet has warmed.”
Oh dear.
Write out 100 times “Correlation does not imply causation”.
You don’t really get this science stuff do you, Rob?
WOWEEEEEE, words of wisdom from: Rob Bradley – January 11, 2017 at 6:11 pm
“DUH”, it appears you both are quite lacking in common sense thought processes and logical reasoning abilities which is most likely due to inadequate nurturing of/by your environment.
Of course, ….. “skeptics CAN predict”, …… and they have as good as or better “success rate” than does the, per se, “non-skeptics”,
“DUH”, iffen it was not for the “skeptics making predictions”, ……. and then working their arse off to prove their prediction was “correct”, ……. humanity would still be without the use of “horsepower”.
And more words of wisdom from:
“DUH”, AGW doesn’t predict anything, the proponents of AGW do the “prediction” and they have been utter failures in all of their predictions.
Rob Bradley, it appears you have a “short term” memory problem …… otherwise you surely would have remembered that 97% of all pro-CAGW Climate Scientists (and millions of their believing lemmings followers) were betting thousands-of-dollars, ….. their jobs, …… their careers ….. and the future of their “vested intere$t” on the accuracy of “their prediction that HRC would be elected POTUS”
“I am not asking for failed predictions from the warmists, but actual predictions from the skeptics that would make their case.”
A skeptic’s case is already made as long as there is no proof that humans are causing the climate to change. The onus is on those making predictions to prove their case, not the skeptics.
RE Seaice1
***I am not asking for failed predictions from the warmists, but actual predictions from the skeptics that would make their case.***
I made 3 predictions correctly.
1. The Arctic Ice will not disappear in 2008 (David Barber said so.
2. The Arctic Ice will not disappear in 2013.
3. The Arctic Ice will not disappear in 2015.
There!
Seaice! – you can check how many predictions there were for it to disappear – Gore, Serreze, etc.
In the Arctic Conference in Winnipeg in December, there was one prediction that Hudson Bay would be ice free in the WINTER in 5 to 10 years. Care to discuss this?
Scientists believe Quantum and Relativity because they have been experimentally tested and predict results that have then been tested. Mann’s Hockey Stick was shown to ne constructed incorrectly, No tropospheric hot spot has been found, we have had multiple warming in the past 3000 years evidenced by human relics. If we are to believe them, climate scientists haven’t even been able to measure recent historical terrestrial temperatures given the number of adjustments they keep making.
“But how does the non expert know which science to believe? ”
Quite easy.
Never believe any scientist, even if he is Newton or Copernicus (both astrologers, talking as much BS than real science).
Believe only technicians that do succeed in making new stuff out of their belief in a new theory. Real working stuff, such like electric motor, phone, planes, nuclear plant, GPS, PV panels, … that the old theory couldn’t account for.
So, to begin with, we need to be shown a real accomplishment out of from AGW theory. Anything noit marginaly trivial.
A greenhouse warmed by adding GHG for instance (except this just doesn’t work). A tropical Hotspot (doesn’t exist). A pause that could last 15 years but no more (too bad, this maximum duration was beaten). A ice free North pole (… nope). Anything. so far : nothing.
“The question should be why do a lot of people reject the consensus in only a very few politicized subjects, yet accept the consensus in every other sphere?”
Are you serious ?
As long as the consensus make no harm, why would you care to fight against it, even if you suspect or even knew it wrong ? That would be a waste of time. A friend of mine doesn’t believe that Jesus was a real man, believe that 9-11 is an american inside job, and that AGW is our doom. I just laugh. I stop laughing get angered and fight back only when those beliefs are turned into intrusive and costly legislation
Nobody else but hardcore scientists, fighting for what they think is truth, would care to fight consensus if we were not told that we have to change all our way of life because of impeding doom.
Nobody cared to check the ozone hole thing, since the cost was so minuscule ; now we have reason to suspect it was just another bad science, but the thing remains minute, so we still don’t care to check.
You fight consensus when there is something at stake, and this make the matter politicized. 20 billion $ of federal funding a year is something. The scare business is something (the doubt business is not : nobody rush to theater to see a doubt film). etc.
You ask how a “non-expert can know which science to believe?”
When government is on an authoritarian kick it will use whatever theory that will enhance its wealth and power.
In the 1930s, it chose interventionist economics as contrived by Keynes.
In the 1980s, it chose “Global Warming” as a means of imposing control an extracting money.
The last great experiment in authoritarian government climaxed in the early 1600s when the British Crown get really stupid. Veteran merchants in London described the scheme as “Tyrannical Duncery”.
It was the start of a great reformation.
In economics and climate, there is a lot of Tyrannical Duncery in play now. Perhaps enough to end the long experiment.
Now, Seaice will likely ask for credentials. BSc. in geophysics and 50 years as a financial researcher and writer.
Seaice should spend some time reading the history of physics.
Hanging out at this site with an open mind would also be constructive.
I do hang out here with an open(ish) mind. I have learned some stuff here. Do you do the same at places where contrary opinions may be espoused?
Did. Until learned the hard way that fact based debate is supressed at them. I am not interested in opinions, only factual efforts to get closer to truth. There is a lot of dissembling amongst those who think AGW is a problem. Wrote up several examples in various essays in Blowing Smoke. Simple forensic science, easy for anyone such as yourself to self verify. Perhaps that is why I was getting deleted, moderated, banned.
Yep, similar story here; that my comments were suppressed and debate tightly controlled only convinced me more thoroughly than otherwise that there was something that it was extremely important to conceal, and haha, it was skepticism.
==================
Ristvan, Blowing Smoke appears to be a collection of your essays. Your comments here are more informed than most, certainly. I can’t comment on why you were deleted/banned at other places.
Can’t, or won’t?
I will answer for you…you can, but will not.
In that short sentence, you lit up everyone’s BS detector.
Warmistas light up everyone’s BS detector with nearly everything they say.
Heh, semper fides, but bona gone mala.
==============
Menicholas,
With all due respect, I must take a slight issue with this comment. I think he set off everyone’s BS detector long before this short sentence. 🙂
True enough Phil, but I thought I had accounted for that in the last sentence.
But in that in short sentence, all the clutter was stripped away.
Menicholas. I can’t comment on that because I do not know where or when ristvan was blocked or deleted.
seaice1 – you talk a great deal about consensus without any explanation as to consensus of what. More terrible is you offer no indication of how you concluded such consensus exists… at all. You are just spouting memes. No value at all. GK
I never even said such a consensus exists. That is another point. I was pointing out that Happer is talking nonesense. That does not require a consensus to actually exist, although I do believe one does.
I comment the statement ““What is relevant is reproducible results.” The very essential claim of IPCC and AGW theory is that transient climate sensitivity is about 1.8 C degrees. It is calculated by a very simple formula dT = CSP * 5.35 * ln (560/280). The latter part is published by Myhre et al. Do you know any researchers who have done the same calculations? Repeating the same calculations has been in use during centuries to validate any important scientific results. The CSP value of 0.5 is wrong, because it is based on the fixed relative humidity in the atmosphere and anybody can find out from the data sets that it is not correct.
We agree with the consensus when it produces verifiable, beneficial results. Smallpox has been eradicated due to vaccines. Polio virtually so. This computer I am using to write this operates on the principles of quantum mechanics. It would not work without them.
The benefits are up front, direct, obvious, and unambiguous.
Climate scientists, on the other hand, are demanding that we wear hair shirts and suffer for our sins, while providing no convincing evidence of any likelihood of benefit. There is no comparison.
“Almost nobody rejects the consensus about relativity, despite very odd conclusions. Very few people understand relativity and quantum mechanics, yet almost everybody believes in them. Why?”
Because no one is calling for massive amounts of income redistribution, saying we’re all going to die and going into hysterics over relativity and quantum mechanics. The closest we’ve come is a bit of panic when CERN went on line. Have the UN declare that quanturm mechanics dictates we donate trillions to poor countries to stop an existential crisis in quantum mechanics and there are going to be skeptics everywhere.
Also, seaice1, you seem to be claiming that people don’t openly and loudly question the consensus on much of science, so they must accept it. No, that does not follow. They may have no opinion, they may disagree but realize it’s of little or no consequence, or eventually they may disprove the consensus. Silence does not denote agreement. It denotes a lack of reason to speak up and voice an opinion.
Go to the sci.physics.relativity Google group and you’ll see posts by plenty of nuts who dispute the special theory of relativity. I wish the gullible CAGWers would attack THEM rather than rational skeptics.
Sheri, I am not saying people must accept it, but that they do accept it.
seaice, a better way of putting it would be that most people don’t care about special relativity, one way or the other, because it doesn’t impact their lives.
On the other hand, because the CAGW fraudsters are demanding billions of dollars in subsidies and substantial cutbacks in people’s life styles, they have taken the time to actually study the science and found that it is bunk.
seaice1: I don’t mean they “must” as in they are obligated, but they “must” in the sense you don’t seem to be able to conceive of the alternative, that they just don’t voice any opinion because there is no reason to. Silence is not agreement.
97% of climate scientists say you’re wrong and consensus is important! But hey! You’re a good word twister! So there’s that.
seaice1,
Nice to see you admit in one paragraph that you’re a non-expert, a layman, and that you’re incapable of critical thought and understanding, therefore you desperately need authority figures to tell you what to think.
And ironically, as Richard Feynman said, the scientific method includes the belief in the fallibility of so called “experts”.
seaice, you should have stopped when you were not so far behind. Your probable devolution to troll status will be interesting to watch.
Seaice1 => ‘The existence of a scientific consensus in these fields is the reason the rest of us believe in them, and yet this is never used to question the science. The consensus is indeed the business of politics, but that does not in any way undermine the science’.
Fair enough, but only half true – at least in the climate field. How many other fields of scientific inquiry, if any, can you list where the ‘consensus’ is used not only as a basis for far reaching policy setting, but also as a means to PREVENT and END – outright – discussion and scientifically sound attempts to falsify the hypotheses? Climate ‘science’ is a new thing: a chimera; half (questionable) data, half expedient socio and geopolitical workhorse
PJB. I am not aware that the consensus is used to prevent scientifically sound attempts to falsify the hypothesis. It is used to limit the exposure of many scientifically unsound attempts.
Scientists are people, and there will always be mis-use of power. I am sure this happens in all fields. Reviewers rejecting a newcomers paper and then publishing their own. Distinguished reviewers rejecting papers that contradict their own position. It will happen to some extent in all areas.
In climate science, as in all science, it is easier if you go along with the consensus. But the real action, the Nobel type action, comes from overturning the consensus. All climate scientists know this. If they could do so they would be the definition of a successful scientist.
However, I can think of one area immediately. Patent reviewers are required to reject any invention that is a form of “perpetual motion machine”. This is only because of the scientific consensus that such a machine is impossible and to consider each one would be a waste of too much time and resources.
You are conflating terms here. A consensus is an agreement among a group of people that is enforced using social pressure and sometimes even overt threats. It is group-think. However accepted scientific “laws”, like the Laws of Thermodynamics are theories which, because they have existed without being falsified for so long, have become generally accepted. This acceptance is not forced; it doesn’t need to be. A real scientist sees them validated every day, just like basic mathematical theorems. Now if someone tries to publish a paper that assumes one of these “laws” is wrong, they will be ridiculed unless they can prove it, which is correct. And anybody claiming that they have falsified one of these “laws” would be met with doubt at first, which is to be expected since humans are not emotionless machines, but like Einstein, if they were correct, their theory would be eventually accepted. None of this is consensus.
How do you know the attempts to falsify the AGW hypothesis are unsound if the AGW disciples move heaven and earth to make sure they never see the light of day?
Go and have a look at Pierre Gosselin’s “No tricks zone” blog. He’s currently having a field day listing all the recent papers which challenge the AGW hypothesis. Are you trying to tell us that none of these has even a scintilla of possible sense in it while we are asked to believe that, without a shred of empirical evidence to back it up, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will (sorry, ‘could’; climate scientists don’t do anything as positive as ‘will’) lead to the elimination of mankind within centuries or, in the case of one idiot, within the next decade?
And why are we supposed to believe that when it has never happened in our planet’s history? Even science needs to pass a “smell test” and the current doom-mongering end-of-the-world stuff (more suited to obscure religious cults) does not convince anyone who bothers to stop and think about it for 10 minutes.
seaice1, you must be young.
Otherwise you would know that you MUST distrust anyone that ask you
* money or power (especially a lot of it)
* in a hurry
* because otherwise something terrible and irreversible will happen,
* in a matter you don’t really understand, or have no time to check because of the hurry
Bonus :
* has the support of mass media, show business, and young people (who actually don’t know sh!t while believing they know better)
Unfortunately CAGW checks all 5. There is a reason for this.
Just show an actually working “perpetual motion machine” and a patent will be issued. Nobody never, ever, was able to build one, despite numerous claims.
Paul, “This acceptance is not forced; it doesn’t need to be. A real scientist sees them validated every day,”
You are describing climate science.
seaice1,
“We will keep that paper from being included even if we have to redefine what peer reviewed science is.”
“Why should I give you the data when your only aim is to find something wrong with it?”
Two shining examples from giants in the field of “Climate Science” that show how the consensus is enforced. Open your eyes. Read some Feynman. Then come back at it with an open mind.
You keep using the term consensus, stop it. There is no consensus in science, only laws and theories whose mathematical underpinnings allow reasonable estimates of REAL WORLD empirical results. CAGW adherents have the onus on them to PROVE their theory by developing the mathematics to allow their theory to provide those same real world empirical results that can be measured. It is not up to me to show their mathematics aren’t right, it is up to them to show me their mathematics are correct. Until then they only have an unproven hypothesis that means nothing regardless of how much “consensus” there is. You want me to change my life and become a pauper based upon an unproven hypothesis? Give me a break! Do you really believe the wealthy elites are pushing this so-called theory for the good of the earth? Wake up, they are in it for the money and power it can bring them and they won’t stop until they have it all!
Jim, I only responded to the references to consensus in the article / interview. If they had not mentioned it, then neither would I.
My point is that there is not consensus in science, but there is consensus among scientists, and indeed experts in every field. Without this no progress could be made.
seaice, now you are merely lying and doing so for convenience.
sea: My point is that there is not consensus in science, but there is consensus among scientists, and indeed experts in every field. Without this no progress could be made.
You can’t be so thick headed. There is NEVER consensus among scientists. There is only agreement that a given hypothesis AND IT’S MATHEMATICAL PROOF provides results that agree with real world measurements. In other words, the results are repeatable and measurable. As a result other scientists agree to use the underlying mathematics to obtain results for their own work.
NONE of the existing models are of any use to the general population of scientists primarily because their underlying mathematics are there only to provide curve fitting capability and are unable to provide accurate real world results usable in other scientists own research.
I’ve said it once before, if the ‘globe’ is warming, it only takes one thermometer to prove it. Using hundreds of thermometers and thousands of cells, and adjusted data and super computers is simply a fools errand in trying to show that you can prove anything with enough statistics. In other words, real world results be damned!
Science is a human construct, therefore susceptible to human follies.
“Every age has its peculiar folly: Some scheme, project, or fantasy into which it plunges, spurred on by the love of gain, the necessity of excitement, or the force of imitation.”
Charles Mackay. Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
Science is auto-corrective. But nothing says how long it can take to correct. It might be generations before it finds its way. Alfred Wegener published his theory on continental drift in 1912. It was discarded until its premises were incorporated by plate tectonics in the 1960’s.
We are fully invested in the CO2 hypothesis of global warming. We are not coming out of it for a very long time regardless of the evidence against it. The hypothesis is not going to contribute anything else to our knowledge, but evidence will be interpreted to support it for a much longer time than reasonable, because:
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”
Charles Mackay. Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
Your comparison with continental drift would be more persuasive if there had been a massive research project into proving continental drift did not happen but still people had refused to believe it for decades. There was no known mechanism for continental drift when Wegener proposed it. As soon as one was postulated the idea was accepted very quickly. It would be accurate to say that the consensus was that humans could not change the climate until the research was done, then people changed their minds. Thus continental drift is actually comparable to AGW theory.
Can you name a “popular delusion” that persisted in face of decades off research to look into that specific thing?
The canals of Mars.
I don’t know if the Canals of Mars is supposed to mean anything, I guess it is offered as an example of a scientific error that was propagated in the face of immense research effort. In fact, the hypothesis was quickly dispensed with as soon as research (in the form of better telescopes) revealed them not to exist.
That’s another myth. Hypotheses get accepted regardless of mechanism, based on their appeal to current crop of scientists.
“There’s an irony that the key objection to continent drift was that there is no mechanism, and plate tectonics was accepted without a mechanism,” to move the continents, said Henry Frankel, an emeritus professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and author of the four volume “The Continental Drift Controversy” (Cambridge University Press, 2012).
Let’s not rewrite history more than necessary. Wegener was not a geologist and his hypothesis was not well received despite massive evidence from geography, geology, paleontology and biology. That it did not have a mechanism and had some errors was the excuse. Over 50 years later the hypothesis was reworked to include oceanic crust and suddenly everybody was in favor. A deep lesson there on how science resolves its controversies.
Seaice1. You are an ASS. (and I am being kind to you)
EMF from power lines and brain cancer.
DDT and bird deaths
Dioxin as a cause of human deaths (It causes chloracne)
PCBs and human ill health. (PCBs saved lives, askarels, fire supressants)
Radiation from Nuclear Power and Cancers (we get much more radiation from medicine)
Plutonium the most toxic…..
The Linear, No threshold (LNT) hypothesis about low dose radiation…been around for 100 years.
That ‘pollution is the biggest environmental threat, or any one of 20 other ‘scares’, when IGNORANCE and POVERTY are always a hundred times worse. and ON and ON and ON.
I have a list of them, and so Did McKay in his book, Popular Delusions.
Javier, There were many reasons for Wegener’s hypothesis not being accepted, among them were the lack of mechanism and the rate he proposes 100 times that now known to be the case as well as the fact that he was not a geologist. There was no concerted scientific attempt to investigate the idea of continental drift. If we are comparing this to climate science it is more accurate to say that AGW plays the part of continental drift in this story. There was no consensus that man could change the climate until research was done that proved it could.
I know of no instance where a significant amount of research led us further form the truth. In all cases such as continental drift the evidence and research effort was scant.
Jsuther2013. To avoid getting off topic too far, I intended to refer to persisting in the scientific consensus.
“Can you name a “popular delusion” that persisted in face of decades off research to look into that specific thing?”
That’s the very point, isn’t it? “Climate science”, i.e the version that promotes climate models as the answer to the future of the planet, has been around for how long, 30 years? Relativity and quantum mechanics have been around for 100 years, plus or minus, and have been tested over and over.
There is no observational evidence that the “climate science” we’re talking of here has been validated. To suggest that the various forcings embodied in climate models “should be accepted theory” is ludicrous.
I’m not talking about greenhouse warming, of course. That has been proven, at least in the laboratory.
“seaice” is nearly fact free and nonrational as Griff. Highly entertaining.
Dietary cholesterol as a cause of heart disease.
It’s the alarmism that is the delusion, the exaggerated fear, the misplaced guilt. This is not so easily debunked as some scientific delusions because there is so much in it that are value judgements.
So to compare so simply is to delude.
==========
How about the flat earth? Or, the earth as the center of the universe? Galileo is a perfect example of being personally destroyed for confronting the “consensus”.
Jim, I’ve long said that Galileo debunking earthcentrism had a greater intellectual effect, but the debunking of the anthropocentric climate alarm will have far larger economic, political, and social effects than his and his fellows’ work.
===============
Seaice,
A classic persistent popular delusion is the assertion in the 1960s that the USA would have a severe epidemic of human cancers caused by man-made chemicals.
When you read Edith Efron’s book ‘The Apocalyptics’ you will find diligent research that will answer the hypotheticals that you are floating here, in a nutshell.
The consequences of this large and expensive tour of wrong medicine remain. Laws and regs made at the time of ignorance are still on the books. Some like clean air act were involved with EPA formation and massive interference in proper science and global societal progress.
You education in climate matters is incomplete until you comprehend this pivotal book. It includes the downfall and slow demise of the chemical cancer hoax. The climate hoax is proceeding down a similar but not identical route. One of the key indicators is the voluntary changes of beliefs of some of the major players.That is happening now but the final stake through the heart might still be years away such is the inertia.
Geoff.
Only one seaice1, and it has always been the same one for every right theory that gets ignored. It didn’t fit what most relevant scientists had in their minds at the time.
When that happens it doesn’t matter the amount of evidence. What has to change is scientists mindset, and that sometimes requires that they die and are substituted by new scientists with a different mindset.
The Piltdown man.
Sugar causing diabetes (type 1 especially)—there was a pediatrician on a TV show even now that told a bunch of kindergarteners they would develop diabetes if they ate too much sugar. The lie is resurrected whenever it fits a PC idea. I’m surprised cities haven’t tried telling 5 year olds they became diabetic because of the evil sugar soda. Ideas are revived as needed, lies and all.
William Happer does not deny GH phenomenon or the warming impact of increased concentrations of CO2: “The predicted warming from more CO2 is grossly exaggerated. The equilibrium warming from doubling CO2 is not going to be 3° C, which might marginally be considered a problem, but closer to 1° C, which will be beneficial.” I doubt that johnmarshall has no personal experience about calculating the warming impacts of CO2. The only way is are spectral analysis methods. If you have done it, so what were your results? Where are they published?
aveollila:
The trouble with this, just at face value …..
“The predicted warming from more CO2 is grossly exaggerated. The equilibrium warming from doubling CO2 is not going to be 3° C, which might marginally be considered a problem, but closer to 1° C”
Is that at just a 40% increase in CO2 (since pre-industrial) and only at a transient warming …. we are at his 1C warmer mark.
Toneb,
And incredibly better off. Pre-industrial climate sucked big time. If CO2 is responsible we should put it in churches and adore it. We should be making sure that it never goes back down again, not making plans to reduce it.
Recent El Niño was a 2-year test of a world with +0.4°C above prior 21st century global average temperature, and it was a huge success. We just had a global record wheat crop. El Niño has just ended, temperatures are back to 21st century global average and we are having lots of deaths due to cold over Europe. I say we still need some more of the good stuff.
…. we are at his 1C warmer mark.
I’m sorry but the “TEMPERATURE ADJUSTMENTS” are at the 1C mark. The real temp change is somewhat less.
Really? We warm up .5 degrees from the coldest 300 year stretch in 10000 years and it’s our fault? Or bad? And they wonder why they look like loons…
Javier, can we move the argument forward then? Can we take that you are now accepting that warming will occur in line with those referred to as “warmists”? All we need to discuss from here are the consequences. Other wise you are just changing the subject
All we need to discuss from here are the consequences……
Unfortunately, we can’t even discuss that…no one knows what they are…only speculation
If by in line you refer to as predicted by climate models, it has already been demonstrated not to be the case.
Whichever data you favor, it shows that global warming has not been accelerating. If anything we are through a period of little warming if any, and I don’t think that anybody knows what is going to happen next.
I accept the warming that has taken place, and I admit the possibility that global warming might continue during the rest of the 21st century. I don’t see any motive to be alarmed for it.
Javier:
“And incredibly better off. Pre-industrial climate sucked big time. If CO2 is responsible we should put it in churches and adore it. We should be making sure that it never goes back down again, not making plans to reduce it.
I think the bio-system was quite happy at 280ppm CO2, after all it saw the ascent on Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
If you recall the LIA was not caused by CO2, or the lack of it.
It was solar and volcanic in origin.
Both could happen again.
Except the current non-condensing GHG concentration will mitigate greatly.
“Recent El Niño was a 2-year test of a world with +0.4°C above prior 21st century global average temperature, and it was a huge success. We just had a global record wheat crop. El Niño has just ended, temperatures are back to 21st century global average and we are having lots of deaths due to cold over Europe. I say we still need some more of the good stuff.”
A few months at an elevated 0.4C is not a test at all of long-term biosphere changes of that level (even if it were a problem), as feed-backs have not kicked in and we are still warming.
In the past the ENSO used to be a proper cycle. GMST’s went up in an EN and down in a LN.
NOT just return to a rising trend.
And winter happens.
It will still with 2x CO2.
NH land masses cool in winter.
The oceans not much.
Get a wind from Siberia and Europe will be cold.
Especially when it has had such a cold period.
BTW: Good to hear from someone who has at least got to stage 3 in the following…
Stage 1 Global warming does not exist.
Stage 2: We’re not the cause.
Stage 3: It’s not a Problem.
Stage 4: We can’t Solve It
Stage 5: It’s too Late.
Toneb, the simple fact that you make a graph beginning in 1970 is proof you are wrong and you know it.
1970 decade is well know to compete has the coldest in the last century, so much so that imminent catastrophic anthropologic global cooling made headlines… And guess what we had to do to prevent it ? slash our energy consumption by at least 4.
BTW:
Stage 1 sh!t (global cooling) happen.
Stage 2: We’re the cause.
Stage 3: It’s a Problem. A big, horrible one, our life, our soul, the whole earth, the cosmos and its gods are at stake.
Stage 4: We can’t Solve It, but we must try nonetheless.
Stage 5: oups, it didn’t happen after all, let’s move to another sh!t (global warming). Rewind.
Toneb, there’s two troubles with your statement:
1) “preindustrial” temperatures are neither exactly known nor constant.
2) A significant portion of the ~1C warming in the instrumental era happened before the increase in CO2 was significant.
You know both of these points already, so why would you point at the 1C rise as if it contradicted him?
Paleontology always shows a boon to the biome from warming, and harm from cooling. We’ve been indoctrinated through the ancient methods of manipulation, fear and guilt, into a bass ackwards view of the whole business. We’ve been deluded, and to some extent, deliberately so.
===============
Funny graph tonedumb..
temperature series doesn’t resemble anything actually real !
The fact remains that the majority of the warming from pre-industrial times is due to something other than CO2.
First off, much the warming occurred prior to the rise in CO2.
Secondly, Things like UHI, micro and macro site contamination as well as problems with decreasing number of sensors in rural areas, also are large contributors to the apparent warming.
Beyond that, Given the quality of the ground based sensor network, and the beyond pathetic geographic distribution of the sensors, the proper error bars for the network should be somewhere between 5C and 10c.
Quite the opposite, The Pleistocene appears to have been quite tough on animals and plants. Most of the giant mammals and birds of the Miocene went extinct. Planet productivity appears to have decreased with temperatures. Deserts have expanded. It is possible that during glacial periods plants were close to starvation levels for CO2.
“With all due respect to Nobel Laureate Gore” WTF
Gore is a professional – liar, cheat, hypocrite, charlatan,
(note to self; stop sitting on fence, say what you really mean)
Plus many.
The Church is evidently also back in time for the atheists in times of digitalization. So Frederik G. Pferdt, Google Manager, during a conference in Karlsruhe / Germany, asked what the term “Chief Innovation Evangelist” means: “It is about giving people self-confidence into their own ideas”. If it were not a cry, you could laugh. An “enlightened” company uses a clerical language and clerical names. And so does the AGW movement. Many people do not understand the basic physics and chemistry, and certainly do not have their own ideas, but few preach that “trust” should be in them. In the meantime, this is no longer a matter of laughing. It leads in densely populated Germany, for example, that windmills are built into protective forests. With consequences for fauna and flora. Every criticism of this is downplayed with the general argument of the “Energiewende” for the protection of the climate. This is all about money and political interests.
William Happer is one of the persons to listen to very well. It is worth to read his words twice. Or more times.
The GHE effect could be disproved experimentally rather easily.
Than do so.
I don’t have to. It’s up to the true believers in this new kid on the block theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming to prove their case. Just because the theory gained a lot of notoriety and gathered many fans and political resources doesn’t make it true, but it does create quite a smokescreen around the extremely weak empirical evidence. Nevertheless the empirical evidence will out them all in the end, even if they’ve slyly moved their goalposts to climate change and extreme weather events and all manner of environmental perturbations/fluctuations. They dance a merry dance to avoid becoming a stationary target for scientific evaluation and there’s no doubt they have a very broad stage to act upon in that regard.
The true test of their CAGW new kid on the block theory is very simple really. If they’re right then the evidence is all in sea level rise, due to ice melt plus oceanic expansion but here’s the rub. CSIRO estimate of global sea level rise in the 20th century is 160 mm or 1.6 mm average a year, yet the rocks at Hallet Cove in South Australia can demonstrate an average sea level rise over 10 times that at 16.25 mm/yr for 8000 years in the past. That’s not down to anthropogenic anything, let alone man made CO2 my friend. What’s your excuse for joining the madding of crowds and their current consensus, or are you denying the science?
No, you don’t have to, but nobody has any reason to believe you if you just say you can easily disprove a generally accepted theory and then fail to demonstrate it. I can easily demonstrate experimentally that relativity is wrong.
sealice, you are a twat of the highest order. Your constant pretence of innocence in this thread has been nothing short of a display of obtuse behaviour and misdirection. What amuses me about plodders like you, is that you actually believe you have a point of substance to contribute in a conversation when the reality is, you are the most boring dinner guest at the table tonight.
My BS radar is highly tuned to prats like you sealice and I would suggest other commenters on this thread give this shyster a wide berth.
Craig “Your constant pretence of innocence in this thread…” I don’t know what you mean. I may miss irony or sarcasm sometimes, but that is inevitable when posts that are intended seriously are so far off the wall. I am not pretending innocence at all.
Oh…..did you say something useful … [rest trimmed. .mod]
That is not true. The GHE operates at a planetary level. It is not possible to sort it from natural variation (yet) because of the attribution problem raised by the only two,periods of warming in the last century, ~1920-1945 and ~1975-2000. They are essentially indistinguishable. Yet even IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM figure 8.2 said the former period could NOT be attributed mainly to the GHE; there simplynwas not enough change in GHG.
Re sea level as thermometry,
It is unscientific to try to set in concrete a global rise of 1.6 mm a guest, IR any others value.
The knowledge of the deeper half of our oceans is so sparse that only fools would accept that there are no changes to be expected, or are in progress, to produce such minuscule changes of level.
Geoff.
seaice : I can easily demonstrate experimentally that relativity is wrong.
Then do so.
Yes, the point is that I can’t and nobody would take my assertion seriously unless I back it up by doing it. Similarly nobody should take the assertion that the GHE can easily be disproved by an easy demonstration without that demonstration. After all, it is easy so why not do it?
William Happer’s comments are a breath of fresh air in a lobby of stale fumes.
After two decades of being attacked for asking simple questions, I have a sense we are seeing a spring after a long winter.
People who thought they were noble warriors, working for Greenpeace, are going to have to look in the mirror and, like a man with a bad hangover, realize that behavior that seemed wonderful was in fact shameful.
I recommend looking in the mirror.
I’ve seen your posts. Look in the mirror yourself.
Dopey Rainbow Warriors can’t even recognise the whales are saved, let alone why.
Hint: We don’t need whale oil for lamps or whale bone for ladies supports anymore.
Observa;
“Dopey Rainbow Warriors can’t even recognise the whales are saved …”
Err, no…..
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/160325-Japan-whaling-minke-whales-Antarctica/
And:
http://us.whales.org/wdc-in-action/stop-whaling
“Once it became apparent that the numbers of whales being killed were putting whale populations under threat, a ban on commercial whaling (hunting for commercial profit) was introduced in 1986 by the body that regulates whaling – the International Whaling Commission (IWC).
However, over 50,000 whales have been killed since the ban came into effect because of loopholes that have allowed some countries to carry on whaling. The IWC currently allows Norway to hunt under an ‘objection’ to the ban, Iceland claims it is allowed to break the ban also because it left the Commission in 1992 but was ‘allowed’ to re-join 10 years later under a ‘reservation’. Iceland’s ‘reservation’ is contested by many other Commission member states.
Japan uses a loophole which allows countries to hunt whales for ‘research purposes’. However, in 2014 after a court case brought by the governments of Australia and New Zealand, the International Court ruled that Japan’s activities in Antarctica were illegal and ordered whaling there to be stopped. Having initially complied with the ruling, in December 2015 Japan announced it would be resuming its whaling activities in Antarctica. Japan also carries out operations in the North Pacific.”
Toneb you point out- “However, over 50,000 whales have been killed since the ban came into effect because of loopholes that have allowed some countries to carry on whaling.” which I don’t deny but the simple facts are even with that culling the whale numbers are increasing. In the case of one of the most threaten