Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
Andrew Bolt responded to my debate with Monckton by defaming me, calling me "vituperative, deceptive, a cherrypicker, an ideologue, a misrepresenter and a Manichean conspiracist only too keen to smear a sceptic as a crook who lies for Exxon's dollars". You'll be glad to hear that Bolt now says I take back my nice words about Lambert. Even though he admitted that "Many of these issues are over my head" he is now utterly convinced by a dishonest post from Joanne Nova that I somehow tricked Monckton.
Nova quote mines Pinker's explanation for this phrase:
if we give Christopher Monckton the benefit of doubt and assume that he meant "the impact of clouds on the surface shortwave radiation" than it can pass."
And claims it means exactly the opposite of what it does:
An honest look at the Pinker statement says Monckton may have gotten the terminology wrong, but allowing for this, his analysis "passes":
An honest look at the Pinker statement says that his terminology can pass but that his analysis is wrong, because as Pinker writes:
The CO2 "radiative forcing" value that Mr. Christopher Monckton is quoting refers to the impact on the Earth's Radiative balance as described above. The numbers that we quote in our paper represent the change in surface SW due to changes in the atmosphere (clouds, water vapor, aerosols). These two numbers cannot be compared at their face value.
Nova then tries to explain away the fact that Pinker wrote
Our work was properly interpreted in the latest IPCC Report (2007)
Watch the spin here:
Monckton never claimed the IPCC misrepresented Pinker. He said they actively ignored the bigger meaning; so Monckton agrees with what the IPCC said about the paper, but not with what it omitted to say. Pinker has not addressed this point at all.
Pinker was responding to this, from my email to her:
Later he [Monckton] accuses the IPCC of a fraudulent cover up of the implications of your paper.
Which was my summary of this statement from Monckton:
[The IPCC admits] that they don't really understand clouds. One of the reasons why they are willing to make that extremely rare admission that they don't understand something is that they want to conceal that they understand perfectly well the implications of Dr Pinker's paper and of a number of other papers like it, Wild et al is another one, the early satellite results is another, there's several of these papers out there all of which show for that period exactly what caused the warming which is a reduction in cloud cover. And when you see the conclusion of the chapter on Observations and the sub-chapter on Clouds in chapter 3 of the IPCC report. The only conclusion that you can come to is that they were deliberately avoiding the very clear implications of Dr Pinker's paper. They knew perfectly well that if they took proper account of that paper they would have to evaluate climate sensitivity as low by the remarkably simple calculation that I showed you on the screens or something very very close to it. And they simply fudged it because if they did that and admitted that all their previous reports were wrong they'd be out of business before you could say "Jack Robinson".
I suppose we should Nova points for trying, but there is no wiggle room there. And notice that Monckton is citing Wild et al as well, so we should also look at Wild says on the subject in Global dimming and brightening: A review: (my emphasis)
The decadal changes in SSR found in the dimming/brightening literature are at first sight often unrealistically large from a radiative forcing viewpoint, as, e.g., presented by IPCC [2007]. Therein, radiative forcings altering solar radiation between preindustrial (year 1750) and present day are on the order of minus 1-2 W m−2 on a global average, while some of the surface-based estimates show similar or larger changes already within a decade (Tables 1-3). Indeed, under the assumption of a climate sensitivity of 0.5-1°C per W m−2 radiative forcing as suggested by current climate models, a change of several W m−2 decade−1 as inferred from surface observations would imply enormous decadal variations in surface temperature which are not observed. However, one should be aware that the radiative forcing concept as used in the IPCC reports applies to changes at the tropopause, which cannot be directly compared to changes at the surface. Scattering and absorbing processes in the atmosphere are additive with respect to their effects on SSR at the surface, but may be opposed at the tropopause. Scattering aerosols enhance the reflectance of solar radiation back to space and reduce the solar flux to the surface. Absorbing aerosols also reduce the solar flux to the surface, but at the same time may reduce the reflectance back to space, opposed to the effects from scattering aerosols at the tropopause. Therefore, surface changes can expected to be larger than tropopause changes, and consequently are also not necessarily representative for (tropopause) radiative forcing estimates (this would only be valid in a purely scattering atmosphere). SSR change estimates based on surface observations should therefore not be used to challenge the IPCC radiative forcings [Liepert et al., 2007], even if these SSR changes would be free of biases from upscaling the surface point observations to global numbers.
Nova then quotes this confused email from Monckton
The only point that Lambert scored was that I had gotten Pinker's sex wrong in my Melbourne presentation (which, from memory, is the only one in which I mentioned her sex). Otherwise, his stuff was gibberish, as the audience swiftly understood when I explained it to them. During the debate, I had kindly done the calculation on the basis that the change in surface radiance mentioned in the Pinker paper would be the same at top of atmosphere, from which a climate-sensitivity calculation using the UN's method follows. However, since Pinker insists that it is the surface radiance that her paper addresses, one must of course use the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative-transfer equation to evaluate the temperature change corresponding to the change in radiance caused by the reduction in cloud cover. And that means just about zero climate sensitivity, which, within the usual error margins, is about the same as the 0.12 K/W/m2 that my previous method had calculated. The common-sense point, as I explained to the audience, is that with that amount of warming from a natural source there was not much room for CO2 to have made much of a contribution.
Presumably by "use the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative-transfer equation to evaluate the temperature change" Monckton means that you should treat the Earth as a black body, ie ignore the fact that the Earth has an atmosphere. But it does have an atmosphere so such a calculation will not give the correct value for climate sensitivity.
Politics
Comments
Hmmm, so Tim I guess you have the answer to the question you asked Monckton: "Tim's 1st question: if Pinker's correction is accurate, how will you correct the record?" "Monckton: I will firstly check with Pinker and the IPCC." I guess he decided not to check with Pinker. Would it be unfair to say that Monckton is a liar and uninterested in the truth?
Posted by: Steve L | February 28, 2010 12:19 PM
Post Mortem of the Climate Change movement. “Death of a Salesman”. RIP Global Dooming/Climate Change/Global Warm Mongering
In the end it was the Voters that dictated social science policy once again and not the lab coat consultants dictating our democracy. But it felt good didn’t to share a concern with fellow humans no matter how fictional the made up crisis was. That’s why doomers were attracted to Liberalism. Liberalism, not conservatism utilizes hysteria and relegating opposing stances as pure evil. At least we conservatives are sporting considering its an honest struggle we like. Climate change needed voter consensus, not scientist consensus. Promising death of the planet wasn’t sustainable for another 24 years anyways. Voters would have to have gone to the poles starving from an obvious climate crisis, to have given the proposed taxes and citizen sacrifices the ok. Even you phony enviros and climate pansies would have thought twice when checking the TAX ME TAX ME TAX ME box on the ballot. Remember this doomers; your “SAVE THE PLANET” was interpreted as “THE PLANET IS DYING”. Promising death was an all-in bet that couldn’t be covered for another quarter of a century. Now we can preserve, protect and respect Nature and face the future challenges of energy with courage, not like climate pansies who tried to motivate our children with exaggeration selfishly elevated to the level of fear mongering with a promise of “death”. How progressive. I’m 100% sure that Rachel Carson is cursing each and every one of you fading doomers for this irresponsible era of environ MENTAL ism with your neocon-like WMD called CO2.
Posted by: Meme Mine | February 28, 2010 12:39 PM
WTF??
Posted by: zoot | February 28, 2010 1:44 PM
Meme Mine, begone irrelevant troll.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | February 28, 2010 1:47 PM
"Posted by: Meme Mine | February 28, 2010 12:39 PM"
Cool story, bro.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | February 28, 2010 2:05 PM
How nice, a troll trying to change the subject :P Must be a little sensitive about this thread.
Posted by: TomG | February 28, 2010 3:04 PM
Meme mine: Step right this way, sir - no sharp objects here, no worries. See the walls are all soft, and would you please wriggle into this fashionable white jacket. Ignore those overlong sleeves. Have some soothing music. There, that's not so bad is it?
Posted by: JasonW | February 28, 2010 3:07 PM
@2 "Climate change needed voter consensus, not scientist consensus."
I can't get over this line. It's fabulously surreal.
A
Posted by: AmandaS | February 28, 2010 3:37 PM
I'd presume that he is doing the tried-and-tested technique of putting enough big words in to satisfy his drones. It doesn't matter to him whether what he said was accurate or not; most of the people listening to him only care that he sounds like he knows what he's talking about.
Posted by: JamesA | February 28, 2010 3:59 PM
@2: Oh noes! The laws of physics have just been outvoted! Science has been foiled by democracy! And we would have gotten away with it too if it hadn't been for you meddling kids...
Posted by: JamesA | February 28, 2010 4:03 PM
I'd add one more thing JamesA.
He's telling them exactly what they want to hear.
Posted by: TomG | February 28, 2010 4:11 PM
Geez, you can't get any more anti-science than that!
When someone can't separate politics (voting) from science, we have serious problems.
Posted by: Paul UK | February 28, 2010 4:28 PM
Fear not, Paul UK!
Most of us may not be scientists, but neither are we complete morons. Unlike those who spew the drivel you were objecting to.
Posted by: chek | February 28, 2010 4:56 PM
Paul UK said "When someone can't separate politics (voting) from science, we have serious problems."
That's a nice opportunity to segue back to the topic of the post. What is it that motivates people like Bolt and Monckton? How can they claim Pinker is saying one thing, when it is clear she is saying another? Surely they understand what they are doing?
It is extraordinary how divorced from reality the denialists have become in the past few years. As recently as 2007 Bolt said that he had no doubt the Earth was warming and that human activity had a part to play in it. His argument back then was with the extent of it - to my mind a reasonable point of view. You certainly wouldn't get him saying that nowadays. (There's been some interesting experiments where people have posted exactly his words onto his blog to see the reaction. It's as you would expect - unbelievable abuse.)
I suspect the thing is that they really cannot separate politics from science. They're either old fashioned Marxists for whom, "everything is political" or post-modernists, who believe that they really can create their own reality. Or maybe it's a kind of double-think. They have an identity, a persona, a tribal loyalty, that is linked with them believing that AGW is not happening. For them, two plus two has to equal five. Or to use a more recent example, they're like George from Seinfeld who says that it's not a lie if you really, really believe it. Even if you know it's untrue. Or maybe it's as simple as getting back at that lecturer who failed them in first year Physics - form of delayed, redirected revenge... It's pretty obvious that something like that is going on with meme mine.
Anyway, enough speculation about the nature of the denialist 'mind'. A man could go mad trying to unearth its mysteries.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 28, 2010 5:26 PM
The trouble with arguing with someone who does not care about scientific accuracy is they can dribble out irrelevant or plain wrong "facts" at a rapid rate. If you try to take them on by correcting the errors, each error takes a lot longer to rebut than it takes to state, unless you simply say it's wrong. If you do the latter, an uninformed audience sees it as your word against the other person's. If you do the former, you argue against a small fraction of the wrong points, appearing to be nit-picking.
Unfortunately science is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of weighing up evidence vs. theories. A good theory fits the evidence well; a better theory fits the evidence better. Using debating tricks etc. is all very fine in an undergrad debating society, but the science remains what it is at the end of the "debate". The contrary side have no plausible alternative theory, and the evidence for the mainstream is continuing to build. Hence the need to oppose the science with vaudeville acts and the like. If the mainstream was as weak as they claim, they would be able to line up data that is a poor fit to the theory, or come up with a better theory. The way to do this is to write a good paper, not a vaudeville act, trashing scientists' reputations, etc.
The more this sort of attack on the science goes on, the more convinced I am that there is no serious flaw in the mainstream. Big Oil for example has massive R&D resources, with world-class science dedicated to finding new oil wells. Don't tell me they lack the resources to review the literature, find obvious flaws and fund research that addresses those flaws. What is actually happening strongly suggests that they have indeed reviewed the science and found no case for funding real contrarian research – a deduction supported by fact.
Posted by: Philip Machanick | February 28, 2010 5:30 PM
"I take back my nice words on Lambert" Tim, you must be devastated. My condolences. ;-)
Posted by: Deech56 | February 28, 2010 5:32 PM
One of the commentors in the Jo Nova blog (Louis Hissink) references a paper about Venus on a site that:
Heh, heh, heh. The author of the 'paper' also authors the site.
In an earlier comment Hissink says:
AFAIK the Copenhagen Diagnosis doesn't mention the greenhouse effect on Venus. But more importantly it seems the 'paper' is written by someone that says:
He claims Venus is 6000 years old:
"Based on our interpretation of sacred myths... Venus was born some six millennia ago..."
It's a real fantasy land at Jo Novas!
Posted by: Paul UK | February 28, 2010 5:45 PM
BTW following my post @17:
What is even more worrying is that Hissink can be found here:
http://geoplasma.spaces.live.com/
Occupation: Geologist Professional exploration geologist, Editor of Australian Inst. Geoscientists Newsletter.
And he seems to think a paper (http://www.firmament-chaos.com/papers/fvenuspaper.pdf) that states Venus is only 6000 years old is valid science.
Posted by: Paul UK | February 28, 2010 5:50 PM
When the Murdoch changes, Bolt changes his mind. What do you do, sir?
Posted by: Wadard | February 28, 2010 5:54 PM
Meme Mine's, uh, outburst of random words reminds me of this wonderful Onion article.
Posted by: ligne | February 28, 2010 5:58 PM
Paul UK, Hissink is a follower of Immanuel Velikovsky, whose theories on planetary formation can be summarised as "the solar system is a big atom and all the planets are electrons which jump around between energy levels". He claims that Velikovsky's geological theories help him find diamonds. You can tell this works, because of how fabulously rich and influential he is from his controlling interest in all those diamond mines.
Posted by: James Haughton | February 28, 2010 6:08 PM
I notice Hissink has been featured by Tim:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/01/hissink3.php
Posted by: Paul UK | February 28, 2010 6:09 PM
Thanks James. I was reading through the comments and decided to check out the venus thing. I nearly didn't because the site was called "firmament-chaos".
But then thought, for a laugh, I'll have a look.
Posted by: Paul UK | February 28, 2010 6:13 PM
Andrew Bolt, The Australian and The Times conspire to misrepresent the IPCC and deceive their readers yet again.
Posted by: BlueGreen | February 28, 2010 6:34 PM
Wadard, do you have a link for when Murdoch changed his mind? I thought he was still pro AGW.
Posted by: el gordo | February 28, 2010 6:50 PM
Enough to read just one of Nova's blog posts in full to realise that the excerpts you'd previously seen were a fair representation of her "work". Yes she really is that inept, that ideologically driven, that bad a character. I imagine half her regular readers are there because she's blonde and they're wankers.
Note that Monckton is at odds with fellow "skeptics" Spencer and Christy. He refers to the "early" satellite record suggesting that he doesn't like the corrected figures (S & C admitted they'd got the early record wrong and corrected it). This is Richard Lindzen's contribution to debate recently, he's been giving Monckton his talking points on the meme that scientists would falsify data to fit a preconceived hypothesis. I'd like to see Lindzen sacked from his professional memberships for it.
Anonmymous #14
They know that they are using original researchers' work and data to draw conclusions that the researchers would disagree with (being diametrically opposed to the published conclusions which the Moncktons and Lomborgs have of course read).
You can only do this when you know for a fact that you are much, much smarter than the people whose original work you have stolen from .... and of course you only know this when you are as irredeemably delusional and antiscientific as Bolt, Nova, Carter, Plimer, Monckton and their muppets.
Posted by: frankis | February 28, 2010 7:02 PM
@17 Paul UK - Sometimes these guys reminds me of the George Bernard Shaw quote, "I often quote myself. It adds spice to my conversation."
Perhaps, "I like to quote myself to support my own theories."
Posted by: Andrew | February 28, 2010 7:06 PM
Paul UK.
There are many other examples of Louis Hissink's bizarre 'scientific' beliefs sprinkled through other threads on Deltoid if you care to search! Add "Marohasy" or "iron" to your search terms and you'll probably hit some interesting ones.
Speaking of Marohasy, frankis' comment about blondes probably has more than a grain of truth. When the Old Bog dried out Louis Hissink and his fellow hands-in-pockets brethren migrated en masse to Nova's*, to fawn and gush there as they used to over Marohasy. It seems that scientific credibility was not a criterion for their relocation, but then, who's surprised about that?
Their dedication to Marohasy is admirable though - the last thread there has evolved into a rat's tooth etched with the nonsense of self-reaffirming pseudoscience so nutty that its very presence is a fitting epitaph to the demise of Marohasy's credibility.
(*For laughs, read some of the comments in the second link!)
Posted by: Bernard J. | February 28, 2010 8:07 PM
Hissink is Graeme Bird if the latter had manners took his psychotic medications.
Posted by: Eli Rabett | February 28, 2010 8:22 PM
Frankis (#26) said "You can only do this when you know for a fact that you are much, much smarter than the people whose original work you have stolen from ....."
Hmmm... Good point Frankis. An extreme form of Narcissism then? Yes, that's probably on the money.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 28, 2010 8:40 PM
But this is exactly what Monckton does say isn't it ?
Wasn't he saying that the IPCC ignored this effect from clouds or gave it a minimal effect instead attributing 1.7W/m2 of warming to CO2 when in fact twice that amount was actually due to absence of clouds i.e. Pinker's paper ?
Isn't Pinker's entire comment based on the assumption that Monckton was saying sommething else ? Where did she get that idea Tim ?
And in that one sentence, doesn't she effectively issue a statement saying if, on the other hand, what he is saying is .... then it is ok ?
Posted by: codex | February 28, 2010 9:37 PM
Tim, I think you still don't understand that you are being played. No amount of scientific scrutiny or correctness will work here.
The point is that questions (right or wrong) have been raised by "sceptics", scientifically inappropriate behaviour has been documented by people contributing to the AGW theories (it is never OK to withhold data - even if you are being asked by a complete moron) and now the trust in scientists doing all this work has been lost in such numbers that it matters. Hence, we have crossed from science into politics.
The failure of Copenhagen was colossal. Essentially, China and India told the world to bugger off. Also, it is very hard to effect any change in the US, due to their local political scenarios. And without those three, nothing anyone does will really matter. It is chaff.
So, you'll find that your average Australian taxpayer would have changed their mind a bit. They don't care about doomsday scenarios you and AGW scientists are painting any more. They simply say: "Hey, if this means money out of my pocket and my job gone, then heck no - I won't have any of it unless the big boys do it first."
The opportunity has been lost (for now). Can it be gained again? Who knows. I guess once we start hitting depletion of oil/coal in 50 or 60 years from now, we will be forced to correct this, because we'll run out of things to burn, but doing it as a result of some kind of AGW agreement seems rather unlikely at this point. And if ETS gets pushed through by Greens, just you wait until everything becomes more expensive and many lose jobs. The noise we are hearing now will be silence compared to what happens then.
So, in summary, Monckton and others arguing against AGW don't have to be right. They just have to be there. That's the nature of the beast, not in small measure a result of idiotic lack of judgement by those who wrote those climategate e-mails. And unless something really catastrophic happens climate wise rather soon, you'll get played every time. Not you fault...
Posted by: Anonymous | February 28, 2010 9:38 PM
On the technical point here, I believe the issue is that radiative forcing is defined by flux change at the tropopause, which is a completely different part of the atmosphere than the surface. A small change in forcing at the tropopause can cause very large surface radiative flux changes due to the various feedback effects - that's sort of the whole point. In order to back out a surface flux change to the associated forcing you'd need to know all the feedbacks in the first place.
And the effect of that transformation would be to reduce the flux associated with the surface to a considerably smaller number for the actual forcing. Therefore the corrected value for the ratio that Monckton calculates (surface temperature change over flux change as an estimate of sensitivity) is much larger than the number he quotes, since it varies inversely with that flux.
Just to point out that (as is typical) the technical problem here implies a conclusion completely opposite to Monckton's claim.
Posted by: Arthur Smith | February 28, 2010 10:33 PM
Anonymous@32
No one is going to spend their time carefully considering every word they write or speak, in light of the potential for those of bad faith (ie the denialati) to deliberately cast their words in as poor light as possible. Given their penchant for dishonesty, any time thus spent would be wasted anyway.
Posted by: Michael | February 28, 2010 11:14 PM
@2 "Voters would have to have gone to the poles starving from an obvious climate crisis, to have given the proposed taxes and citizen sacrifices the ok."
You meant 'polls', I assume? Mind you: "poles" is a nice malapropism in this spot.
Posted by: paulmurray
| February 28, 2010 11:21 PM
The whole Concern Trollosphere talks about the evils of anonymous comments, but some of us put "Anonymous" in our killfile.
Posted by: Marion Delgado | February 28, 2010 11:41 PM
Michael@34,
That horse has bolted and look at the damage it's done. Always, always, always take the high road. Especially when you're asking for billions of dollars. (Also note that data was denied at various points. A big no-no in scientific world.)
Before all this, it was easy to paint the "sceptics" with a dishonesty brush (big oil etc.). Now it looks to an average taxpayer like both sides are just cheerleaders for their own agenda, but the AGW camp want to take their hard earned money too. Guess which side taxpayers are going to go with in that scenario...
That's why I'm saying that Tim is being played. Scientific rigour is being lost to the bigger picture. Many stopped caring whether science is right or not, for several different reasons already mentioned above.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 28, 2010 11:53 PM
@25 - Actions speak louder than words, don't you think? I'm referring to their war on science.
Posted by: Wadard | March 1, 2010 12:57 AM
At the risk of feeding the concern troll ...
Some troll wittered:
it pretends to know what "ataxpayers" want
it implies that those favouring mitigation want to "take taxpayers' money" rather than redirect it
it implies that public subsidy to the polluters by giving them the right to treat the biosphere as an uncharged industrial sewer and leaving our descendent with the cost as an unfunded debt would pass unnoticed.
How stupid are these characters?
Posted by: Fran Barlow | March 1, 2010 1:08 AM
@2
"climate pansies"?
"neocon-like WMD called CO2"?
Seriously wierd.
Posted by: Gaz | March 1, 2010 1:32 AM
Tim, if you're not already doing it, is it possible for you to work with Pinker to put out another, formal statement on the implications of Pinker's research? Perhaps one that addresses remarks made since the debate (such as Nova's).
I know you and Pinker shouldn't have to jump through such hoops, but for the sake of the public debate I think it could be useful. Bolt and friends should not get away with such muddying of the waters, especially on an issue that goes to the heart of Monckton's thesis.
I wouldn't ask you to abandon attempts at a nuanced explanation, but (without knowing much about it) I suspect the argument could be made a little more clearly. I'm certainly grateful for your efforts thus far.
Posted by: Dave C | March 1, 2010 2:05 AM
"Tim, I think you still don't understand that you are being played. No amount of scientific scrutiny or correctness will work here."
The making of the film the Age of Stupid was obviously more than justified in that case!
"The opportunity has been lost (for now). Can it be gained again? Who knows. I guess once we start hitting depletion of oil/coal in 50 or 60 years from now, we will be forced to correct this, because we'll run out of things to burn, but doing it as a result of some kind of AGW agreement seems rather unlikely at this point."
We are at or close to Peak Oil now, although the real trouble begins as we start on the downward curve on its other side. This decade sometime, I would suggest.
Peak Coal is as further away from your 50/60 years as Peak Oil is nearer. The really silly bit is that what a lot of you are advocating - business as usual - attempts to grow its way out of the current recession via the standard route that involves an economic growth system based on an assumed infinite reserve of oil, coal and gas. The more that you and your kind get their way, the sooner we hit oil depletion, peak Gas and the peak Coal, in that order. Therefore, what you and your colleagues are advocating is burn, burn and crash - total, probably irrecoverable economic ruin, within the 21st Century.
Transition to a low-carbon economy on the other hand prolongs the availability of the fossil fuels whilst at the same time it creates colossal economic and mass-employment opportunities in the energy, transport, construction and food sectors. It also addresses AGW, although we've already committed to at least two degrees increased global average temperature due to lag/residence factors.
It seems to me what you guys want is a crash, and Peak Oil will have a good go at achieving that within ten years, mark my words. Perhaps at that point, it will be much easier to explain to the general public that the economic model of Infinite Growth on a Finite Planet is a 100% flawed paradox!
Posted by: johntherock | March 1, 2010 2:08 AM
Yes, yes don't feed the troll etc. But:
I mean, come on. Seriously. Really. How about the idiotic nature of those who misinterpreted, misrepresented, and stripped all context out of the "climategate" emails?
How about those who still think the "trick" was a big call-to-arms for the conspiracy, rather than a genuine referral to a divergent data problem which was already well publicised in the literature?
I mean, I read this crap every single day from those who wouldn't know a CO2 molecule if a block of them fell from the sky and hit them on the head. Very irritating.
Posted by: Mike | March 1, 2010 2:23 AM
@39, 42, 43:
If you actually read what I wrote, you would know that my kind is not what you're implying it is.
Burying your heads in the sand isn't going to do any good. There is no point denying reality. A couple of years back it would be impossible for any "sceptic" to even get any media attention. Now, they are "equal" opponents in most any debate. They are being listened to, more than you think.
PS. See how our own PM has to eat humble pie daily, because he underestimated how much damage being sloppy can do.
PPS. I don't have to pretend to know anything. Just read the recent polls and see for yourself how the side that denied ETS twice already is gaining strength.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 1, 2010 2:35 AM
It's curious how certain individuals are obsessed by what "taxpayers" may or may not think. Evidently, the future of today's children counts for little.
And speaking of dishonesty,
our concern troll de jour trots out this little lie.
Posted by: Michael | March 1, 2010 3:02 AM
Gore and The UN IPCC should be forced to give back their Nobel Peace Prize. The flaws in Gore's film and the errors in the 2007 UN IPCC Report that have been discovered since the award was given should disqualify both parties. Irena Sendler who risked her life daily during World War II to save the lives of over 2,500 Jewish children is much more deserving. Please sign the petition to demand that Gore and the UN IPCC have their award taken away. http://www.stripgore.com
Posted by: Mark E. Gillar | March 1, 2010 4:01 AM
Thanks for that totally off-topic comment Mark.
When will the denialists obsession with Gore cease??
And if only their concern with errors was universal - but then I guess they would be so busy with Monckton, McIntyre, Watts et al that they'd have no time left in the day.
Posted by: Michael | March 1, 2010 4:05 AM
I assume Monckton get to keep his imaginary Nobel Prize though.
Posted by: John | March 1, 2010 4:09 AM
In the absence of any actual science, shooting the messenger is the only tactic they have, so they won't give that one up. The only way they'll stop obsessing about Gore is if someone else takes his place as a high-profile spokesperson for the science.
Posted by: JamesA | March 1, 2010 4:24 AM
How to stop the obsession with Al Gore (Do the denialists wish that the Supreme Court had let him win that damn election just to shut him up...?]
... start quoting Arnold Schwartzenegger.
Posted by: toby | March 1, 2010 4:53 AM
Mark - Mark! - don't miss Gore's latest in the NYT Mark! Shocking, awful, wicked! Don't miss out Mark!
Posted by: frankis | March 1, 2010 5:13 AM
Schwartzenegger on Climate Change
http://climatequotes.com/politicians/arnold-schwarzenegger/
Posted by: toby | March 1, 2010 5:15 AM
@45:
I had a really good chuckle when I read your post Michael. Although I admit I shouldn't have. For, you made all my points for me. It is exactly this kind of elitist, patronising nonsense that made people start listening to "sceptics".
Posted by: Anonymous | March 1, 2010 5:29 AM
I get the impression that Aussies are well aware of Hissinks views of science, it's something I'm new to.
However don't get complacent. It is often worthwhile highlighting such a persons 'beliefs' and their dabbling with the 'occult' just so that newbies and Aussie layman are reminded of Hissinks crank status.
There are always knew people coming along that will look at what someone like Hissink says at face value. It is wise to occasionally just reiterate what is known about him in the simplest terms, it may be boring, but most jobs are!
Posted by: Paul UK | March 1, 2010 5:39 AM
So in your world view, how does one non-elitely non-patronisingly point out that a falsehood is a falsehood is a falsehood, and continues to be a lie when the three hundredth person confidently states it?
Or point out the difference in values between oneself and themselves?
Because that's the problem in a nutshell. Mindless repetition of known lies by people who think they're accurately informed, and very different (possibly not consciously considered) values.
Seems to me you want to put the truth in a double bind. Point it out and people will complain you're elitist. Don't point it out and people will believe the falsehoods.
If you're happy with that state of affairs, then your concern is useless.
Posted by: Lotharsson
| March 1, 2010 5:55 AM
Could you perhaps string a couple of sentences together where you don't pretend to speak on behalf of 'people' or 'taxpayers' or whoever the hell you're using to avoid direct accountability for your own position?
Posted by: Bud | March 1, 2010 6:46 AM
Patronising? Allow me to introduce myself. I am Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. I don't believe we've met.
Posted by: Christopher Monckton | March 1, 2010 6:54 AM
Meme Mine didn't take his medication today.
I think it's funny when denialists get called out on their bullshit that they switch to non-scientific-related claims to try to win the argument, such as 'eliiiiiiiiiiitist' or 'noooooo wurld oooooooooooorder' or 'the voters know everything'.
Tribalist scumbags they are.
Posted by: Katharine | March 1, 2010 7:28 AM
@55 - 57
If anyone is to have any chance of success in dealing with the problem and "save the children", the causality principle would mandate not to offend the very people that are supposed to pay for the fix, don't you think? As I see it, it seems that some have forgotten that in their desire to push things through. Ergo, instead of facing one problem, now we have two.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 1, 2010 7:36 AM
Thankyou brave Sir @57.
Yours is the kind of honest man-in-the-street opinion that we people-in-the-street want to hear, not any of this elitest ivory tower garbage from our self-appointed betters (AKA Scientists).
My sincere and humble thanks to you m'Lord, from one not fit to kiss the hem of your lordly robes.
Posted by: Michael | March 1, 2010 7:40 AM
Right on @59!
If people believe nonsense that has harmful implications, the highest priority is not to offend anyone.
Though it is increasingly celar that certian elements within the conservtive political sphere see this as the new battlefield upon which they can launch the Culture Wars MkII. It's a pity that they are happy to sacrifice science in their little jihad.
Posted by: Michael | March 1, 2010 7:46 AM
Your kind words have filled my heart with happiness, commoner.
Posted by: Christopher Monckton | March 1, 2010 7:51 AM
Oh Lord, that you deign to notice my unworthy mutterings!!
Please, speaketh to me of the snowball earth and CO2 of 300,000 ppm!
Posted by: Michael | March 1, 2010 7:59 AM
Hilarious :-)
Posted by: Anonymous | March 1, 2010 8:20 AM
Anonymous:
Simply tragedy of the commons playing out. You're obviously very happy that this (tragedy of the commons) is happening.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill
| March 1, 2010 8:25 AM
Indeed. Denying science is a losing strategy. Some people never learn.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill
| March 1, 2010 8:35 AM
Amoeba, over on RabettRun, has already dealt with Mark E. Gillar and his petition :
"It seems the Hootervile Gazette People are all such nice people! They really like Monckton; the OISM; Glenn Beck; Heartland Institute & etc. It's all tied-in to an outfit called the 'Conservative Consumer Coalition'. http://www.conservativeconsumercoalition.com/ It appears their Chief Scientist is either Glenn Beck, or Monckton. It's hard to tell. ;-)"
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/02/framing-al-gore.html?showComment=1267438787978#c1636641896835577218
Posted by: JMurphy | March 1, 2010 10:11 AM
@59, I have a hard time believing that people are offended at what the proponents of action on climate change have actually said and done. This feeling of offense has been formed and nurtured by interests opposed to such action.
I understand the reaction against "elitism", but what can we do? Climate change is a complex issue that, like all other science, requires a great deal of expertise to fully understand. People have to realise and accept three things:
- There are true experts and false experts, and it is not a matter of opinion as to which is which;
- One does not become an expert merely by spewing forth vast reams of opinion; and
- One has little choice but to accept the word of the true experts, unless one wants to put in the hard work necessary to become an expert oneself.
It's not democratic and it can't be democratic. If some people are offended by that, there's precious little that we can do.Posted by: Dave C | March 1, 2010 10:42 AM
Humans are bad at thinking ahead.
Posted by: Katharine | March 1, 2010 10:54 AM
Lambert,
Personally, I think Bolt went far too easy on you.
Posted by: SBVOR | March 1, 2010 12:23 PM
Incoming trolls are courtesy of Joanne Nova.
Posted by: Tim Lambert
| March 1, 2010 12:38 PM
Tim,
Any chance you could get Prof. Pinker to respond, in this thread, in Blot's blog, or Nova's blog? If she does not want to post a message directly, perhaps she might prepare a statement and allow you to post it here?
The denidiots truly have no limits, do they? After denying so much in science and its practice, they deny that statements in English mean what they obviously do!
Posted by: TrueSceptic | March 1, 2010 12:42 PM
15 Philip,
Or more simply, if the "sceptics" really had the science, they would have "won" where it matters, in peer-reviewed journals. To explain their utter failure to do that, they claim some great econazi warmofascist conspiracy to establish a World Governament which will tax us back into the Stone Age. You couldn't make it up could you?
Posted by: TrueSceptic | March 1, 2010 12:59 PM
26 frankis,
I'm sure her fans have much in common with those of Jennifer Marohasy.
Posted by: TrueSceptic | March 1, 2010 1:10 PM
I'm trying to make sense of this debate but it can't be done without full info. Tim I can't find your email to Pinker, can you point me to it please so as I can put this in context.
Posted by: Baa Humbug | March 1, 2010 1:11 PM
28 Bernard,
Yep, looks like Jo is the new Jenny!
Posted by: TrueSceptic | March 1, 2010 1:16 PM
30 anonymous,
If you don't already know it, look up 'Dunning-Kruger effect'. I think only evolutionary biology rivals climate science for the extent of this.
Posted by: TrueSceptic | March 1, 2010 1:25 PM
Lambert-71,
So, all who disagree with you are “trolls”?
Yep, that pretty much validates my original comment (70).
For those with an interest in basic climate change science:
http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2009/10/climate-change-science-overview.html
Posted by: SBVOR | March 1, 2010 1:48 PM
Well, the way I see it, this whole debate is about Tims email request to Pinker and Pinkers reply to Tim. Unless we can all see the full and complete email and reply, none of us can come to an informed conclusion. Anyone disagree?
Otherwise this whole exercise is no different to a bunch of high school kids chattering away on facebook about nothing. All bloggers on this site, no matter their view point, should be offended by that.
Posted by: Baa Humbug | March 1, 2010 2:03 PM
Re:Mark E. Gillar and his nasty little petition
Googling the text of that post revealed 1,190,000 hits, so the slime-balls have been busy.
Posted by: ScaredAmoeba
| March 1, 2010 2:12 PM
I think the clear lesson from this is that if don't accept evolution, that HIV causes AIDS or that we are causing global warming and you think you have found something in a mainstream scientist's paper that supports your views, even though the author quite clearly does not, then the honest thing to do is ask the author of the paper whether your interpretation is correct.
Monckton should write to Pinker and ask whether his interpretation is correct. This is what an honest person would do.
Posted by: Chris Noble | March 1, 2010 3:49 PM
The Mark E. Gelliars of the loony right have been trying to "stop Gore" for even longer than they have tried to Stop Hillary or Stop Obama.
Its what they do and how they define themselves.
Posted by: jakerman | March 1, 2010 3:50 PM
Hilarious. How long before Tims emails are unlawfully hacked by some paranoid sceptics wanting 'the truth'?
Posted by: Paul UK | March 1, 2010 3:50 PM
OK SBVOR I clicked on your link and looked through your work and comments to it. You seem to sincerely believe in what you're saying there (although I've been fooled before).
Here is the weakest part that caught my eye:
To see why you should exercise extreme caution with citing Lubos Motl at the moment it'd be hard to go past reading his contribution to a current thread here at Deltoid: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_economist_calls_a_lie_a_li.php
Mostly though your words "hysteria ... 95% certainty ...! " betray that you have not studied statistics, would that be correct? Given this you should suspect that you're on shaky ground pontificating the way you do - how exactly do you know whose statistical claims to believe when you're unschooled in the subject yourself? I'd suggest the answer to that is clearer than you'd prefer to think; you're picking the arguments you choose to believe on ideological grounds and taking statistical claims made by others on faith.
Posted by: frankis | March 1, 2010 4:32 PM
82 jakerman,
See SBVOR's blog. Who would guess he's a wingnut?
Posted by: TrueSceptic | March 1, 2010 4:32 PM
Thanks SBVOR @ 78
That was an illuminating read, I was previously unaware that photoshop was such a vital scientific tool. You have opened my eyes in ways unimaginable.
I was wondering where on that site I may click to receive my diploma in blog science 101, as I feel empowered now to take on all those nasty climate scientists with my recently acquired advanced knowledge in the photoshop sciences.
Posted by: Ben Breeg | March 1, 2010 4:37 PM
Frankis 84,
Your buddy Lambert is censoring my comments (hence, only Lambert and I will ever see this one).
So, there is really no point in responding to you. Instead I'll respond with a belly laugh at Lambert -- the consummate propagandist -- trying to claim that Phil Jones did not say what Phil Jones CLEARLY said.
What a con man tool this Lambert is!
P.S.) FYI, I have a very solid academic background in statistics.
Posted by: SBVOR | March 1, 2010 4:41 PM
I took a peak, apparently its simply blog censership that is holding back this intellectual giant's contribution to science!
Posted by: jakerman | March 1, 2010 4:48 PM
Hey Lambert (the censorship merchant who will be the only one to ever see this comment):
I knew there was a reason why I virtually never visit your site.
The gang rape smearing of Dr. Lubos Motl in this thread (which you clearly sanctioned) is all the reason I need to continue avoiding your utterly irrelevant and completely biased hate based, juvenile smear merchant site.
Adios, Lambert! Have fun in your pathetic little sandbox.
Posted by: SBVOR | March 1, 2010 5:01 PM
SBVOR, if you can't understand basic stats that's neither Tim's fault, nor Phil Jones's.
Posted by: Michael | March 1, 2010 5:03 PM
"Your buddy Lambert is censoring my comments (hence, only Lambert and I will ever see this one)."
Oh, yeah, and I'll bet he only put that live to make you look stupid. It's all a conspiracy!
Posted by: Neil | March 1, 2010 5:04 PM
always nice to meet the elite of the denialist camp.
wonderful people, aren t they?
Posted by: sod | March 1, 2010 5:06 PM
Hey! Lambert!
Why do you repeatedly censor the clear evidence I have presented on the peer reviewed 10,000 year temperature data?
Can't face the facts? Roger that! No con man can!
Posted by: SBVOR | March 1, 2010 5:07 PM
87 SBVOR,
BHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Posted by: TrueSceptic | March 1, 2010 5:07 PM
Baa Humbug #79
"Otherwise this whole exercise is no different to a bunch of high school kids chattering away on facebook about nothing."
Sounds like what goes on at WUWT, all the time.
Posted by: Revolution9 | March 1, 2010 5:10 PM
For the SVBOR/Dunning-Kruger trolls ...
Those crusading Mmaverick scientists using photoshop to overturn groupthink can now take some comfort in this story ...
I'm willing to risk attack by those who don't get Poe's Law ...
Posted by: Fran Barlow | March 1, 2010 5:10 PM
So, tell me... Is this another site which foolishly throws anything with some arbitrary number of links into moderation?
Is that why some of my comments are not published and others are?
Mercifully, Accuweather.com saw the foolishness of that policy and abandoned it.
Posted by: SBVOR | March 1, 2010 5:12 PM
.....and the spin on Jones' comments just gets bigger and bigger.
Everyone knows what he said. It's on the public record.
It's just that not everyone seems to understand that "not statistically significant at the 95% confidence level" doesn't mean "does not exist" or "will never be statistically significant".
And of those people, many are taking it upon themselves to spread the falsehood that Jones has admitted there has been no warming since 1998.
While the average Joe just does this out of ignorance or misunderstanding, anyone who is good at statistics does it, I presume, either out of sheer dishonesty or out of grossly overestimating their own competence.
Posted by: Mike | March 1, 2010 5:15 PM
Do some more homework SBV.
Posted by: jakerman | March 1, 2010 5:18 PM
SBV your conspiracy complex is starting to drown you. This site has auto moderation set for certain parameters, such as using more than 3 or 4 links in one post (avoiding link spam I assume), or using certain libelous terms such as fra*d.
At least these are two blocks I've set off in the past.
Posted by: jakerman | March 1, 2010 5:25 PM
1) The phony Photoshop claims strike me as typical of Lambert’s acolytes.
2) Since my multi-link comments are not getting published, let’s try another tack to get to the same point.
3) There are two charts in this post which present 10,000 years of temperature data. The data are peer reviewed and published on NOAA’s web site. Anybody can drop that data into an Xcel spreadsheet and get the same result.
In the Vostok example, I have appended data from a British weather station on the exact same location as the Petit, et al study site.
In the Greenland ice sheet example, I have approximated 100 years of warming based upon Box, et al. If anything, this is an exaggeration of the recent warming at the GISP2 site.
At Vostok, we see -- just in the last 10,000 years -- 10 periods which were warmer than today.
In the case of Greenland, we see -- just in the last 10,000 years -- 12 periods which were warmer than today. And, that is based upon the likely FALSE assumption that the MWP was COOLER than today.
In both cases, we see an on-going, uninterrupted 10,000 year cooling trend and we can CLEARLY see that there is nothing even remotely unusual about the latest warming.
Now, if any of you believe the Photoshop LIES, my post provides direct links to all the cited data. Check it for yourselves (if ANY of Lambert’s acolytes are even remotely honest).
Posted by: SBVOR | March 1, 2010 5:27 PM
I wonder - was Jones' "95% confidence level" quote a deliberate trap, designed to capture and expose credulous dittoheads? Because it's working. It's working brilliantly.
Posted by: Neil | March 1, 2010 5:29 PM
"The phony Photoshop claims strike me as typical of Lambert’s acolytes."
Oops, was it perhaps PAINT.NET?
Posted by: Ben Breeg | March 1, 2010 5:31 PM
SBV you cherry pick two sites, I linked you to the global reconstruction for that 10k year period.
Posted by: jakerman | March 1, 2010 5:43 PM
Jakerman (March 1, 2010 5:18 PM)
1) Click here for the link which you botched.
2) The temperature proxy chart at the top of that page presents 12,000 years of data. As the world emerged from the last glacial maximum, temperatures rose rapidly until about 10,000 years ago. When one examines the last 10,000 years (the period most commonly, and most correctly, described as Holocene), your chart agrees with mine. The only remaining difference is that the Y axis on your chart is more compressed -- thereby better concealing the 10,000 year cooling trend.
3) See my previous comment and follow the links to the NOAA provided raw GISP2 data and verify the facts for yourself -- unless, of course, like all so-called “Progressives”, you are a victim of the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority and, thereby, unable to think for yourself.
Posted by: SBVOR | March 1, 2010 5:45 PM
Jakerman (March 1, 2010 5:43 PM) claims I:
“cherry pick two sites [Vostok (Antarctic) & GISP2 (Arctic)]”
Fine, if Jakerman or anybody else has any other equally credible temperature data for the entire 10,000 to 12,000 year period of the Holocene, let’s see it.
Fair warning -- present the infamous Hockey Stick and I’ll just laugh.
Posted by: SBVOR | March 1, 2010 5:59 PM
Erm, a bit of paranoia creeping in. Amongst other things.
Why are American fanatical sites so badly designed? Actually why are all 'fanatical' sites badly designed?
Is it because the paranoia and brain explosions play havoc with the sense of aesthetics?
Posted by: Paul UK | March 1, 2010 6:20 PM
SBVOR:
Maybe you are just incompetent at using any technology.
Posted by: Paul UK | March 1, 2010 6:22 PM
Paul UK | March 1, 2010 6:20 PM sez:
“Erm, a bit of paranoia creeping in.”
When Lambert’s site fails to advise new commentators what will and will not throw a post into moderation, what do you expect?
Lambert should (and easily could) openly advise his commentators of the policy.
But, that would eliminate the fun of childishly smearing those who are new commentators, eh?
Posted by: SBVOR | March 1, 2010 6:35 PM
I've just had a look at SBVOR's blog post about climate and noticed that most of the comments are his own??
Opposing comments with the exception of one have been removed, but SBVOR's replies to them, remain. A bit of control freakery going on.
This is quite common in America. I'm amazed how free speech goes out the window with these extremist web sites.
Posted by: Paul UK | March 1, 2010 6:37 PM
Fran Barlow #96 ...I laughed and laughed. I want to post it in Andrew Bolt's "send me a tip" section
Posted by: Andrew | March 1, 2010 6:43 PM
Re: my comment @110
I take it back. It doesn't look like comments have been deleted. It's just SBVOR likes his own words and comments at least 3 times to every comment made by someone else.
Posted by: Paul UK | March 1, 2010 6:49 PM
From SVBOR,
So, there has been a cooling trend during this interglacial. Who knew?
Posted by: TrueSceptic | March 1, 2010 7:05 PM
Posted by: Paul UK | March 1, 2010 6:49 PM sez:
“SBVOR likes his own words and comments at least 3 times to every comment made by someone else.”
Nope, I simply took pains to comprehensively debunk on my site the lies which the propagandists at RealClimate would not allow me to debunk on their site.
Blogger.com imposes a limit on comment size. That required me to breakup my rebuttal into multiple comments. If I were as inclined to smear you as you are inclined to smear me, I could launch a pretty vicious attack right now on your failure to comprehend. But, that would be childish, eh?
Posted by: SBVOR | March 1, 2010 7:32 PM
SBVOR,
Sorry, but I'm easily confused - what was your point about Andrew Bolt's latest fibs?
Posted by: Michael | March 1, 2010 7:45 PM
SBV writes
Wrong SB I claim you “cherry pick two sites [Vostok (Antarctic) & GISP2's Greenland]”
I then linked you to GISP2 global reconstructions. Note: layer count ages at top depths (in yr BP) where 0 BP represents AD 1950 SUMMER to AD 1949 SUMMER, the data end at BP = -30 = 1980.
Now try reasserting your claims using the GISP2 global data. I.e. please use the global data to critique your claims that:
I.e. these warmer periods disapars when you use global resolution.
SBV continues:
Combine GSP2 global reconstructions with the best avaliable higher resolution reconstructions.
Posted by: jakerman | March 1, 2010 7:52 PM
@87:
Is that how you came to equate (on your site) an absence of statistical significance with 95% confidence in a completely different hypothesis? One marvels at what hitherto unknown rules of probability you must have discovered.
Posted by: Dave C | March 1, 2010 8:27 PM
Ian Plimer didn't, he reckons the current warming is interia from the rise of out the last glacial.
Posted by: jakerman | March 1, 2010 8:34 PM
when and why did global warming become climate change .to a laymen this seems to of happened to make the population one step closer to doom . what is the meaning of changing the agenda. very easy to get sceptical
Posted by: HAMLOCK | March 1, 2010 8:36 PM
SBVOR, I didn't say that anyone who disagreed with me was a troll. I said that you are a troll. You have tried to disrupt the discussion with abuse, complaints about censorship and off-topic rants.
No more comments, please, unless they are on the topic of this post.
Posted by: Tim Lambert
| March 1, 2010 8:43 PM
By cherry picking from two sites and claiming the results were valid for global comparison.
Posted by: jakerman | March 1, 2010 8:45 PM
Sorry, I just read Tim's latest post.
Posted by: jakerman | March 1, 2010 8:46 PM
Some Hamfisted troll reiterated for the umpteenth time ...
[prolonged groan]
This is one of the more annoying features of the agnorati -- their failure to keep up with the stuff they are whining about. Anyone who has paid attention on any side would know the answer to this question, so really it is just an irritating strawman disguised as a question.
Hamfisted, it is time for you to do some homework:
Extra credit:
Posted by: Fran Barlow | March 1, 2010 8:58 PM
[I started out writing this with plentiful apologies and euphemisms to spare SBVOR's feelings but somewhere along the way - perhaps through having read more of SBVOR's comments on Deltoid today - that mood just ummm evaporated I guess]
SBVOR
You wouldn't lie to us would you SBVOR? I'm afraid I'm going to need to see an audited copy of your official academic transcript before I'd be (half) willing to believe your story. Maybe in your own mind you believe that your SBVOR character construct has actually undertaken the statistical studies that you never have but this would be your delusion I'm sorry, not ours. That quote from you is a lie.
Posted by: frankis | March 1, 2010 9:03 PM
Correction: GISP is Greenland only and has no global reconstruction. I'll take it to Open Thread 43.
Posted by: jakerman | March 1, 2010 9:04 PM
SBVOR | March 1, 2010 5:01 PM:
SBVOR | March 1, 2010 5:07 PM:
And I was so looking forward to SBVOR not coming back. Oh, well, guess you can't trust these nutcases.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill
| March 1, 2010 9:07 PM
HAMLOCK the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988, so it's not a new term. it refelcts the fact that global warming is not the only thing that changes in atmospheric consituents can cause - there's changed precipitation patterns and changes in regional climatic conidtions for example.
Occasionally someone will claim it used to be called "global warming" and now it's "climate change" because the warming has stopped, which of course it hasn't, but the weak-minded are often sucked in by this argument.
Posted by: Gaz | March 1, 2010 9:08 PM
thank you gaz a true gentleman fran on the other hand is typical of why this debate has become so harmful playing the man and not the ball.i am justed puzzeled with the weather right now. we seem to be in a cycle just as the weather was in the 70s same rain same temps. all the forcasts of drought cyclones dying reefs bushfires etc etc arent happining. so then, you can see how people are becoming sceptical
Posted by: hamlock | March 1, 2010 9:50 PM
As a teacher, Gaz, I am disappointed that you did Hamfisted's homework for him/her. The text he offers strongly recommends the inference that he or she skyved off at school too.
How will they ever learn if they expect others to do their thinking for them? That surely is one reasonwhy they repeat such crap.
That, or the desire to be annoying ...
Posted by: Fran Barlow | March 1, 2010 9:56 PM
hamlock:
What are you talking about? Melbourne's water supply is still in a 13 year drought. (scroll to bottom of page).
Posted by: Chris O'Neill
| March 1, 2010 10:53 PM
Dave C says:
Even if she wrote another one that even Nova couldn't pretend meant something else, Nova wouldn't accept it. From her latest rant:
And then she goes on to entirely ignore everything Pinker and Wild say about the science.
Posted by: Tim Lambert
| March 2, 2010 12:11 AM
@Chris O'Neill #130: I don't know if mentioning a drought would be effective. I saw some dumb article the other day claiming that the only recent drought in Australia was in 2005 or something like that. Some people have a very bizarre notion of the truth. Of course if the author was born 2004 they may have that impression. Also note how the other poster conveniently ignores the occurrence of bushfires (the 2009 fires in Victoria are so forgettable). Bushfires can occur whether there is a drought or not, but you know you're dealing with someone with a tenuous grasp of reality when they essentially claim that there are no bushfires and therefore no global warming.
Posted by: MadScientist | March 2, 2010 12:26 AM
chris im up here in qld the rain is breaking records 100 year old records.i think some of it is heading your way.remember last year south east qld the dams went aslow as 20% this year after this rain around 80% plus some.isnt it just typical of weather patterns weve had for 100 years because it has happened before.with out any great big theory AS FOR FRAN some ofus can barely type (notice),spelling might be bad to.i didnt go to uni and study science i left school in year 11.FRAN im not wanting you to do my thinking for me i can make up my own mind quite easily it just a shame there are people of your arrogance in this debate
Posted by: hamlock | March 2, 2010 12:34 AM
Fran, if someone else is going to do hamlock's thinking for him/her, it might as well be someone sensible.
Hamlock, do you really think it's the same as it was in the 1970s? You don't notice the nights being a little warmer?
Posted by: Gaz | March 2, 2010 12:40 AM
Hamlock is the eptiome of the anti-intellectual "I know better than any paid-off scientist!" brigade.
Hamlock, I apologise if this sounds patronising and elitist but you know nothing about nothing.
Posted by: John | March 2, 2010 12:48 AM
Gaz said:
In theory yes, but in practice, I'd have liked Hamfisted to actually have to confront the information he'd chosen to ignore so that he/she could be forced to deal with it. In your answer he/she still ducked and refused to retract his/her absurd claim.
My grandmother, a lovely woman let it be said, was one of those people who always agreed with the last person she heard. As a 10-year-old, it used to annoy me immensely to hear her change her opinion every ten minutes and as an exercise one day I asked if I could write down her opinion on something a piece of paper and put it in a draw with the date and time on it. When I'd hear her change her mind, I'd get out the piece of paper and say "excuse me but didn't you say the following just yesterday? and read from the notes..."
It made no difference because she'd simply say: "Oh yes, that's quite right ...". I realised then and there that someone who attaches no importance to the integrity of the process leading to the formation of an opinion really isn't worth persuading of anything. I eventually gave up serious discussion with her. When she would ask me what I thought I'd snort and say "don't you think so?" and giggle. To her credit, she saw the parody and would play along saying "you're probably right".
I suspect Hamfisted isn't really like my grandmother. She changed her mind to avoid conflict but basically had no interest in the state of the world or any matter at all. Hamfisted however, is simply a troll, who wants to pretend to plebeian insight but has nothing but the recycled half-remembered drivel he/she has read on the internet.
Posted by: Fran Barlow | March 2, 2010 1:02 AM
FRAN WHY CANT I HAVE MY OWN POINT OF VIEW. because it not your view i must be wrong in your opinon.the truth of the matter there has been mistakes made in the ippc report some call them minor.some call them major there has been the email thing you know climate gate. there has been al gore movie mistakes(which is not in the report) and more all these things are making people wonder if they will uncover any more errors. iam only but a common person searching for the truth.the internet is probably the forum for finding some truths but there is a more crap as well .if i was ajury memeber ruling on the case of global warming i simply could hold up the assumtion beyond reasonable doubt
Posted by: hamlock | March 2, 2010 1:31 AM
One can post some real hard science explication – complete with an Excel spreadsheet showing how the global climate system works with clouds – of why Monckton is essentially right but, as Pinker rightly points out, for partly the wrong reasons, on Tim Lambert’s Deltoid blog and the warmists all ignore it because they are mentally lazy:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/moncktonsmcluhanmoment.php#comments
Here’s the fascinating part. One can post the very same stuff on Jo Nova and the effect is exactly the same!
Could the problem with this great global warming debacle be simply that we have inadvertently under-educated a whole generation (is it X? is it Y? or both?) with those easy soft options degrees (at best) and good doses at uni of post-modernist claptrap so badly that they all get a headache whenever asked to actually exercise their brains and all they can do is poor quality science or resort to endless nit picking disputes based more-or-less on the political spin surrounding the whole subject.
Or am I just another grumpy old (well educated) Generation Vee Dubya?
Posted by: Steve Short | March 2, 2010 2:30 AM
hamlock:
Lucky you.
Promises promises. We had a low producing Melbourne's record wettest day in 2005 which was handy but it didn't mean the end of the drought.
Continuing to year 11 didn't help your spelling much, so you probably wouldn't have learnt much about science either if you had stayed on. You can stop your trolling now.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | March 2, 2010 2:50 AM
Hamfisted said"
You can. I'm not stopping you. I have the view that you are either a moronic troll, or doing an excellent impression of one.
Because your "view", such as you have one, not only conflicts with what I know to be the case, but is self-evidently based on your obvious ignorance of matters salient. Your "view" has no ground to rest upon.
The rest of your stream of consciousness is every bit as vapid as what you posted earlier. Nobody but a moron could confuse what you have said with anything a rational person of average intelligence and erudition should deem as data.
The last sentence doesn't even make an unambiguous claim, making it entirely in keeping with the drivel you posted above.
Posted by: Fran Barlow
| March 2, 2010 3:07 AM
I stand in awe. One moment we see her parsing Pinker's response to support her claims; the next we see her complaining that "those who promote alarm end up discussing opinions and the minutia of who-said-what, rather than the science itself". What does the word "science" even mean to such a person?
This is precisely why (I thought) another statement from an actual expert might help to settle the matter. Nova must have thought so as well, and it prompted her to issue this bizarre pre-emptive rebuttal.
She's playing games. She's trying to portray herself and Monckton as the experts, while laughing off the idea that a real expert might intervene in the debate.
I'd call her bluff. I still think a formal public statement from Pinker would not be in vain. Nova will carry on, of course, but it might help to further illuminate the issue for the sake of ordinary people.
Posted by: Dave C | March 2, 2010 3:12 AM
Tim, not sure if you noticed but Jo Nova picked up on your comment "Presumably by "use the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative-transfer equation to evaluate the temperature change" Monckton means that you should treat the Earth as a black body, ie ignore the fact that the Earth has an atmosphere. But it does have an atmosphere so such a calculation will not give the correct value for climate sensitivity."
by saying that of course the earth is not a black body and so you use an emissivity term as Monckton has done in eq 18 of this
however Moonckton in that same piece goes on to say (about half a page later): "Since the Earth/troposphere system is a blackbody with respect to the infrared radiation that Eqn. (20) shows we are chiefly concerned with, we will not introduce any significant error if ε = 1,"
So he does indeed revert to treating the earth as a black body.
Do you or anybody have any comment about the validity of treating emissivity as 1 - I note Monckton provides nothing to back up his claim that using 1 "will not introduce any significant error".
Cheers
Matt
Posted by: Mattb | March 2, 2010 3:23 AM
Hamlock said:
Two quick points Einstein...
...and this is exactly why our judicial system is flawed...
Posted by: Bernard J. | March 2, 2010 3:25 AM
Mattb:
Indeed - I noticed that as well, and then I saw your comment. Monckton clearly isn't treating the Earth as a grey body.
It's also not clear from Nova's comments whether she realises that a "grey body" is another idealised situation. It isn't a catch-all category for anything that isn't a black body.
It's possible the Earth might be approximated as a grey body for certain purposes, but I don't think it's something you can just assume.
Posted by: Dave C | March 2, 2010 4:12 AM
FRANNY whats a troll mean to you
Posted by: hamlock | March 2, 2010 4:55 AM
Hamfisted continued:
Trolls come in many forms. You are for the most part what is called a "concern troll" (CT). One well-worn CT tactic is to pretend to be an innocient asking questions and to take umbrage when people object to you posting recycled nonsense, and to try to make the argument about tone rather than substance. If people take you up on it, you succeed in a thread hijack. The ee cummings syntax and poor typography adds to the insult and screams for a spelling/typo flame which allows you to act all bothered by "rudeness". If you watched Ian Plonker on Lateline with Monbiot, he was doing your CT schtick here.
Everyone is entitled to hold whatever opinion they like, no matter how absurd, but they aren't entitled to a supporting set of "facts" of their own choice. If you talk rubbish and get called on it, it's not your right to an opinion that is in question but your sanity or your insight. How you resolve that matter is up to you.
Personally I don't much care whether you really are a moron or are simply pretending to be one because you have personal problems. Either way you have no legitimate business here.
Posted by: Fran Barlow
| March 2, 2010 6:52 AM
Actually, I am very concerned about this - Hamfisted reckons it reached Year11, and yet its grasp of the English language doesn't even reach my 4th-grader's level of ability.
Personally, I believe morons who cannot grasp the basics of spelling, grammar, and punctuation should not be entitled to any sort of an opinion under any circumstances. There should be a bit of quality-control preventing demonstrable cretins from accessing any form of public forum until they have some basic literacy skills.
Posted by: Vince Whirlwind | March 2, 2010 7:48 AM
Incidentally, you'll find some interesting comment on cretins and their opinions here:
http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/2010/02/11/ultra-hyperjingoism/
Posted by: Vince Whirlwind | March 2, 2010 7:51 AM
I seem to recall noting (all by myself! ;-) Monckton pulling that same trick a few years ago, and thus figuring out that his fantastical claims were...bull emissions.
Posted by: Lotharsson
| March 2, 2010 9:27 AM
No Steve Short, you can't post a hard science explanation of how Monckton is "essentially right", because no such explanation exists.
Posted by: Tim Lambert
| March 2, 2010 9:37 AM
I'm still flabbergasted by this quote from Nova:
"[...]even if Pinker thinks Monckton is wrong, even if Lambert gets a quote from Pinker saying Monckton is totally, utterly wrong, or that the IPCC did interpret the full implications of her work, this doesn’t prove he is, or they did."
Eh, say WHAT? Black is white! Up is down! Monckton knows a researcher's research better than the researcher! Fun times! off to bash his head against a wall
Posted by: JasonW | March 2, 2010 2:05 PM
@138, the reason that people are ignoring you, Steve Short, is that Roy Spencer's theories on cloud cover influences have been looked at over and over.
The lazy people are the ones who cannot be bothered looking up the discussions which show why Spencer's arguments were rejected.
However, I can't explain why people are still trotting it out all these years after being discredited. I guess for much the same reasons they recycle all the other previously rejected anti-GW arguments, hoping one day if they repeat them enough times they'll stick.
Posted by: Mike | March 2, 2010 4:39 PM
good explanation franny now i know what a troll is thanks you taught me something today
Posted by: hamlock | March 2, 2010 5:26 PM
Isn't SBVOR fun?
I've already discussed what Jones said with SBVOR, but found it impossible to convince him(her?) that a trend of +0.12C/decade does not equal a trend of 0.0C/decade. Oh well.
As for the alleged 'gang rape' of Lubos Motl, did you read what Motl wrote in that thread to provoke such a response!? Is such venom acceptable from someone who you agree with, just because you agree with them? What Lubos got thrown back at him was perfectly reasonable given what he posted, IMO.
When someone approaches the debate reasonably, regardless of the side they're on, I do my best myself (and encourage others) to respond reasonably. When someone is unreasonable or just flat out insulting, have at it!
Posted by: Stu | March 2, 2010 5:26 PM
118 jakerman,
I love interia. Can I quote that?
Posted by: TrueSceptic | March 2, 2010 7:37 PM
that it stu you sould teach a few of your mates that.this sould be a forum on trying to find true facts.not a personal attack on how they spell type or how smart they are some the people on this site are probably getting retrabution for things that happened to them at school. move on were all here to learn because one way or another this is going to cost you me and everybody else a fair bit of money in rising taxes and cost of living.so souldnt we all know what we are paying for
Posted by: hamlock | March 2, 2010 7:38 PM
123 Fran,
This is nice because of the comment number but even nicer because you nailed the whole stoopid thing so succinctly.
Posted by: TrueSceptic | March 2, 2010 7:43 PM
128 Poe,
Yes?
Posted by: TrueSceptic | March 2, 2010 7:46 PM
156 Poe,
Ditto?
Posted by: TrueSceptic | March 2, 2010 8:02 PM
hamlock:
In the unlikely event that you want to learn anything about the science behind global warming, you should look for what you want to know in the index at realclimate.org. The Deltoid blog is mainly for exposing the lies and other types of dishonesty that are told about the science behind global warming. e.g. this thread was about some of the hypocritical lying by Andrew Bolt and also about some of the dishonesty by Joanne Nova. If you ignore those lies and dishonesty then it doesn't reflect very well on your honesty either.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | March 2, 2010 8:54 PM
TS, Yes :)
You can quote all my mis-spellings, as long as you do so with love.
;)
But come to think of it, why didn't interia make it into Heaven + Earth. It could snuggle in as an appropriate partial descriptor of figure 3.
Posted by: jakerman | March 2, 2010 9:37 PM
thanks for that site chris ill be there after i type this.have you seen catastrophe denied on the climate skeptics site.if not can you watch and then can you give me your opinion on what he says. it goes for 90 min.he raise some very intresting points.i watched with a opened mind,you on the other hand know a lot more than i do on this matter
Posted by: hamlock | March 2, 2010 10:10 PM
Folks, some assistance please.
in the last paragraph in the initial blog post Tim has a go at Monckton for assuming earth is a black body. Jo Nova has a go at Tim on her blog by showing that Monckton uses emissivity = grey body. But as I've shown above Monckton then reverts to black body approximation as earth is practically a black body in the infra-red so it is ok to do this.
Either Monckton is correct, and it is ok to use a black body estimation, or he is wrong. If he is wrong why is he wrong? I assume from Tim's comments in the post that Tim thinks it is wrong, and significantly enough to make a fuss over it.
Cheers, Matt
Posted by: MattB | March 3, 2010 12:21 AM
Matt, poor fellow you are at a disadvantage, in that you care if you get things correct, thus you get stuck with doing Nova'a homework.
Did you catch Arthur's post?
Arthur takes Monckton to task of on his previous use and abuses.
My laypersons take is that:
1) Monckton says he had "kindly done the calculation on the basis that the change in surface radiance mentioned in the Pinker paper would be the same at top of atmosphere." This was wrong as pointed out by Pinker via Lambert and later Wild cited by Lambert.
2) The Stefan–Boltzmann law, states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body in unit time (known variously as the black-body irradiance), j, is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature*
So the SB Law has nothing to do with the atmosheric effect describe by Wild, and hence applying some Stefan–Boltzmann correction factor dose not address nor correct the errors of Monckton assumption that "surface radiance mentioned in the Pinker paper would be the same at top of atmosphere".
Its complete farce. But what would I know, like Monckton I'm no scientist.
Posted by: jakerman | March 3, 2010 1:15 AM
Dave C | March 1, 2010 8:27 PM,
I just updated the first line in my post so as to reduce the likelihood of others becoming as confused as you.
Posted by: SBVOR | March 3, 2010 1:39 AM
In short:
Monckton writes:
Which is wrong as stated by Pinker, explained by Wild and cited by Lambert (i.e. wrong becasue of atmospheric effects).
Monckton continued:
The Stefan-Boltzmann Law calculates raditaion as a function of temperature of a body. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law does not correct Monckton's error in equating the Surface radition with radiation at the Top Of Atmosphere. It does not addresss the atmospheric effects described by Wild.
Posted by: jakerman | March 3, 2010 1:54 AM
Cheers Jakerman. My own investigations lead me down the path of wondering why Monckton thinks that a black body is a good approximation of the earth - ie emissivity. Wikipedia to the rescue explains that terrestrial surfaces of the earth do indeed have an emissivity close to 1, but clouds only 0.5... leading to an earthly figure of 0.64... hardly close to 1.
Posted by: Mattb | March 3, 2010 2:06 AM
Guys I know whan I'm likely out of my depth:)
But Nova has added to her post: "UPDATE: Monckton includes emissivity, then assumes it’s unity, because Earth is considered to be very close to a black body radiating in the IR. This is standard practice and even pro-AGW modellers Kiehl & Trenberth (1997, 2008) assume emissivity is 1 also. (Thanks Mattb for spotting the issue.)"
Tim after your comment above "resumably by "use the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative-transfer equation to evaluate the temperature change" Monckton means that you should treat the Earth as a black body, ie ignore the fact that the Earth has an atmosphere. But it does have an atmosphere so such a calculation will not give the correct value for climate sensitivity."
It would be appreciated if someone could head to nova's site and explain why Monckton has it wrong. I get my words mixed up:) Cheers
Matt
Posted by: MattB | March 3, 2010 8:35 AM
SBVOR:
I did see the point you were trying to make, but it rests on a logical fallacy.
The models rule out a zero trend in temperature at the 95% level, over a period of 15 or more years. Sure enough, the data is consistent with this, showing a positive trend over this period of time, even if not statistically significant.
Finding a non-significant positive trend is very different from finding a zero trend. It certainly does not contradict the models.
To properly test the validity of the models, all you have to do is compare the predicted temperatures to the actual temperatures. If that test were to be statistically significant, then you might have reason to bother us.
Posted by: Dave C | March 3, 2010 10:32 AM
MattB, it's error number 68 in Arthur Smith's list of Monckton's errors:
Posted by: Tim Lambert
| March 3, 2010 12:11 PM