Deltoid

I just finished skimming the paper. It really is impressive. More than 29,500 datasets covering biological, agricultural, cryospheric, and other phenomena, and 90% of them indicate warming since 1970. The mountain of data supporting AGW just gets bigger and bigger, and denialists respond by shrieking that CRU refused to release its original data. Pathetic.

Posted by: Erasmussimo | March 1, 2010 9:45 PM

"I wonder when I became so cynical."

Perhaps when Lord Munchkin and ClimateFraudit and WFUWT were considered impartial sources of "real" science?

Anyone have an idea whether or not higher sea-levels could have been a contributing factor to the breaching of the sea walls in France with this last "bomb" (i.e, rapidly intensifying depression)?

Posted by: MapleLeaf | March 1, 2010 10:46 PM

I highly recommend this video as a reference for the retard that pop up in any AGW comments section asking for proof of AGW.

Just keep on linking to it every time you see that moronic request.

Posted by: Wadard | March 1, 2010 11:19 PM

#7

The "Bolshevik Plot" refers simply to the idea that such a problem, if it exists, can be solved by the methods proposed by the Australian (and other) Government and the United Nations. Those solutions present like socialist makeovers rather than real solutions.

Most laughable: The proposed solution is to introduce an emissions trading scheme that establishes a market for the licenses to emit CO2-e. The to the extent that the govt takes part is to 1) set the number of licenses to issue, and 2) compliance with those licenses.

The rest is entirely up to the private sector. The govt is not "picking winners" or even "taking over the means of production", which is what Bolshevism was/is.

So the ETS is the opposite of being socialist. The ETS is a free market solution that says, "you can pollute as much as you want, so long as the cost of the correction to the pollution is included.

After all, if you want to live in a fun world, you have to pay for the ride.

Posted by: Rixaeton | March 1, 2010 11:28 PM

James @ 7

The crock is the video. No sceptic (or very few) denies the greenhouse effect of CO2. No sceptic denies that there was warming in the three decades up to 2000 (although the extent appears may have been exagerrated). No sceptic would deny the natural consequences of warming (migratory patterns, ice melt etc). Some (perhaps many) sceptics question the extent of these natural consequences and contend that they are overstated.

Now the deniers are misquoting themselves.

Posted by: MikeH | March 1, 2010 11:58 PM

James insists that "nobody is denying the basic phenomena". C'mon, James, do I really have to trot out several dozen quotes from comments on this very blog denying precisely what you say "nobody denies"?

I would be pleased if deniers would be so reasonable as to acknowledge the obvious and move on to the questionable, but my experience leads me to conclude that deniers concede a point only when it was established beyond a reasonable doubt five years earlier. I am convinced that deniers are engaging in a cynical rearguard action, denying everything possible, obfuscating everything possible, and conceding only what has long since been lost.

As to the issues that you claim are questionable:

1. the extent (and unprecedented nature) of the warming.

The temperature records for the last century are beyond question. They show the extent of the warming quite plainly. As to the "unprecedented nature" of the warming, deniers can't seem to get it through their thick skulls that it's the rate of change of temperature that is unprecedented, not the temperature itself. I hope that you're a cut above the average denier, but if you recognize the difference between a value and its rate of change, you wouldn't be calling it "unprecedented".

1. the extent to which anthropogenic CO2 is responsible

C'mon, all the other possible hypotheses have been examined quite closely and there simply isn't any other plausible mechanism -- and the CO2 hypothesis explains the data quite neatly. What do you want -- a deep voice booming out from the clouds, "It's the CO2, stupid!"

1. the effectiveness of the proposed solutions

Now here's something that can be discussed in a reasoned way. Yes, there's plenty of debatable material here -- but all of your fellow riders shut down debate on the subject by arguing endlessly about scientific points when they don't know the difference between a time derivative and a hole in the ground. So yes, let's talk about the effectiveness of proposed solutions, their costs, and the costs of not acting. I'm willing to decide this matter strictly on economics. Let's quit frackin' around with ignorant arguments about science and get down to dollars and cents.

1. Those solutions present like socialist makeovers rather than real solutions.

Since when is taxation a socialist makeover? A carbon tax is the preferred approach of most economists and scientists. If taxation is socialism, then every government in human history has been socialist.

Posted by: Erasmussimo | March 2, 2010 12:13 AM

James @ 7

The "Bolshevik Plot" refers simply to the idea that such a problem, if it exists, can be solved by the methods proposed by the Australian (and other) Government and the United Nations. Those solutions present like socialist makeovers rather than real solutions.

In reality the ETS is a neo-liberal solution to carbon mitigation which is why first John Howard and then Malcolm Turnbull supported it.

Tony Abbott's "direct action" plan is actually a plan to do little more than hand tax payer funds to the major polluters - commonly known as "socialism for the rich".

The Business Spectator columnist Alan Kohler this week commended the Coalition's Emissions Reduction Fund as a plan to pay British utility International Power, operator of the developed world's dirtiest brown-coal-fired power station at Hazelwood, in Victoria, and Chinese-owned Truenergy, operator of the similarly polluting Yallourn station nearby, to switch to cleaner gas-fired power.

Posted by: Mikeh | March 2, 2010 12:45 AM

James@7 has never heard of Tim Ball and a dozen like him. James must be the first PhD in See-no-evilology, and 28 (or 35) years not using the internet.

"The crock is the video. No sceptic (or very few) denies the greenhouse effect of CO2. "

Posted by: Dan | March 2, 2010 1:24 AM

I am a frequent visitor (and sometimes contributor) to Bolt's blog and a number of others. They are punters with opinions, some more, some less, informed. So what? I haven't seen anything worse there than that expressed in "6" above.

Posted by: James | March 2, 2010 2:25 AM

Come on, Vince, it's a blog, a popular one, and a conservative one. I can name plenty of vitriolic trash coming out of left wing blogs but where does that leave us? Interesting to see the types of arguments my comment has attracted. Only one attempt out of eight to even try to debate the substance of what I have written, which was on point. You guys can hardly be critical of Bolt with a scorecard like that eh? You can debate what I have written or not. I stand by what I write, and what I quote. Or would you perhaps like to defend David Marr on ABC declaring that the opposite of an ETS was to "let the world fry....". It's a chicken shit argument. "Those who share your views express them this way therefore you are wrong".

Posted by: James | March 2, 2010 3:11 AM

Nice video.

Although it would have been nicer to see the GHG molecules vibrate when hit by photons.

Posted by: Paul UK | March 2, 2010 5:18 AM

Dear James (#7), you wrote:

"And that's before we start talking about the conduct of some of the more prominent scientists and politicians in the AGW "industry"."

Don't you realise how lame you sound? Translation of your screed: I have no scientific arguments against the video presentation, so I will just call it a "crock" as a substitute. Not having arguments means that then I want to attack a handful of scientists personally in order to distract readers from the weakness of my position.

Get a life.

Posted by: toby | March 2, 2010 6:30 AM

James write:

The crock is the video. No sceptic (or very few) denies the greenhouse effect of CO2.

James who do you speak for a so called "skeptic's" consensus? I've regularly read rubbish such 'CO2 is not a pollutant', and man cannot change the climate'. Sinclare eve used denialist industry video that claim there is no evidence of CO2 warming.

I suggest you need a poll to support your claim that no or few people who call themselves AGW skeptics deny the greenhouse effect of CO2.

James continues:

No sceptic denies that there was warming in the three decades up to 2000

Then James contradicts himself:

(although the extent appears may have been exagerrated).

What evidence do you have for exagerrated warming in the last 30 decades?

James continues:

No sceptic would deny the natural consequences of warming (migratory patterns, ice melt etc).

That would be except if they called it exaggerated instead of admitting to denial:

Some (perhaps many) sceptics question the extent of these natural consequences and contend that they are overstated.

Add to James' denial (or science conspiracy) those who invest the debate with arguments such as the sea ice has recovered. Jame have you ever smacked down a denialist for that type of bogus claim?

James continues:

So in creating what Sinclair would like his opponents' arguments to be, he is then able to effectively rebut them.It is this type of tactic that has the sceptics wondering about conspiracies. The video is the crock.

Sinclare has nailed you James, you've raced to the barricades and you've need to charge scientific conspiracy (exaggeration) to state your beliefs.

Posted by: jakerman | March 2, 2010 6:47 AM

James writes:

The temperature records for the last century are broadly not contended, at least until recently. To the extent that they are, can I suggest you visit the University of East Anglia to discover the reasons why?

Denial and nonsense James. There is no evidence that the Warming has been exaggerated. CRU is not contradicted by GISS nor UAH nor RSS MSU, nor the sea ice loss nor biological response, nor glacial melt. You are exhibiting the denial that Sinclare addressed and you claimed he smacked too low.

James continues:

There is much debate, despite the apparent "consensus" as to what caused the warming of the last century

Really where? Name just 5 papers in credible journals in the last year that showed strong evidenced that AGW was not the strongest driver of recent warming. Or if last years was a bit light, name 10 credible papers in the last 2 years.

For the decade that I have been following this it has become more and more apparent that the arguments, and the methods of argument, on the part of (shall we call you) proponents has been fundamentally flawed.

Empty words James, lacking evidence.

James:

It would seem highly unlikely that the addition to the naturally occurring CO2 in the relatively minute levels that is anthropogenic would be causing the heating that has occurred and is predicted (however incorrectly so far) to occur.

First point is that That you assert with out evidence that CO2 is highly unlikely assertion to cause the warming, and you make this claim without counter evidence. You also sneak in you assumption that something is incorrect, again without evidence.

Second point is you are proving Sinclair correct buy squeezing your self under his nail.

Posted by: jakerman | March 2, 2010 7:10 AM

Further to the comment above, I wouldn't call a ~35% increase in total atmospheric CO2 due to human activity 'a relatively minute anthropogenic addition' (slight paraphrase).

Posted by: Stu | March 2, 2010 9:12 AM

@toby: Sadly, Irena Sendler passed away in 2008.

Posted by: Marco | March 2, 2010 11:13 AM

I'd like to defend James against the avalanche of angry responses to his comments. Not that I agree with his claims. I'd like to point out that James represents a different class of commentator here. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to call him an "opponent" rather than a "denier". His arguments are not in the same class as the idiotic, ill-informed crap that are usual among deniers. I realize that everybody here is so used to seeing outright lies from deniers that there's a strong tendency to attack anybody who takes that side, so the response is psychologically understandable, but I think it's also wrong. Although I doubt that we'll be able to reach any agreement with James, I do think that he'll respond to reasoned arguments with reasoned counterarguments -- don't you think that would be far more productive and interesting than the usual head-bashing that characterizes discussion on this board?

That said, now let ME roll up my sleeves and go to work on James! ;-)

First, I like your idea of characterizing the bell curve of opinions, so we don't argue against each others extremists instead of each other. I'll start by declaring the centerline of proponent arguments on AGW: the IPCC AR4 reports, which you can find here:

http://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/wg1-ar4.html

As to the extrema, I'd put Al Gore at the edge. Much of what he says is true, but he occasionally overstates his case. I see no reason to defend Al Gore when I have IPCC AR4. So I'll ask you to confine your criticisms to statements in IPCC AR4. Another centerline source of information is the National Academy of Sciences brochure on AGW, which you can find here:

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rptbriefs/climatechange2008final.pdf

This isn't so intimidating a document as IPCC AR4, because it presents the case in nontechnical language. But remember this: IPCC AR4 is the core document, the fundamental case, against which all opposing arguments should be made.

To the extent that they are, can I suggest you visit the University of East Anglia to discover the reasons why?

I suggest that you visit this page:

http://www.ipcc-data.org/

to get an idea of why the whole CRU thing is a tempest in a teapot, a trumped-up distraction from the truth.

There is much debate, despite the apparent "consensus" as to what caused the warming of the last century, and I don't accept that the debate is close to concluded.

This is correct, by only in the sense that there are plenty of ignorant people who are presenting idiotic arguments against the science of climate change. If you want to get an idea of the real issues being debated, please consult the NAS brochure and/or the IPCC AR4 report. There really is a strong consensus that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the cause of the recent warming.

For the decade that I have been following this it has become more and more apparent that the arguments, and the methods of argument, on the part of (shall we call you) proponents has been fundamentally flawed.

Then perhaps you should actually read the arguments and methods of arguments used by the actual proponents, not the crap that you see on television. Read IPCC AR4! It's all there for public consumption, and yet nobody ever bothers to read it -- instead they complain that the scientists are being secretive. Until you've read IPCC AR4, you have no ethical basis to comment on the arguments in favor of AGW, because you haven't even seen them.

It would seem highly unlikely that the addition to the naturally occurring CO2 in the relatively minute levels that is anthropogenic would be causing the heating that has occurred and is predicted (however incorrectly so far) to occur.

It is long been known that the earth's surface temperature is 33ºC warmer than it would be without any greenhouse effect, and that most of that effect is due to CO2. So if 270 ppm of CO2 can raise the temperature of the earth by 30ºC, what's so crazy about saying that adding another 100 ppm of CO2 might increase temperatures by another 5ºC?

Moreover, this notion that "tiny things can't have any effect" is absurd. A meteorite with mass of just one billionth that of the earth managed to destroy the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. A few hundred HIV viri on your skin, with a mass of picograms, can kill you. There are plenty of poisons a few micrograms of which can kill you. Tiny things can certainly have big effects.

there is much debate as to what should be the figure for the "forcing effect"(?) of CO2

Please see Table 2.1, IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 2, which presents atmospheric concentrations and changes of more than a dozen different chemicals in the atmosphere, as well as the radiative forcing of each one as of 2005. CO2 forcing is put at 1.66 W m**-2.

I agree with you that most of the schemes I have seen for addressing climate change are pretty lame. They aren't aggressive enough to accomplish much, and they seem more like disguised subsidies. I would much prefer a carbon tax -- as do most economists. I concede that a carbon tax is politically unviable -- but that's only because people don't understand the magnitude of the problem. So let's talk carbon tax, OK? Do you object to a revenue-neutral carbon tax?

Posted by: Erasmussimo | March 2, 2010 11:46 AM

Erasmussimo, terrific post @34.

I have a couple of things to say about your post though, firstly the biggest contributor to the 33C greenhouse effect is water vapour. The part due to CO2 is by no means insignificant though (see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/)

Secondly, HIV on your skin will do squat. Get in a cut though...

Anyway, as I have already said, I agree wholeheartedly with the vast majority of your post.

Posted by: Stu | March 2, 2010 1:01 PM

"I'd like to point out that James represents a different class of commentator here. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to call him an "opponent" rather than a "denier"."

Think again Erasmussimo, he's just your everyday common troll

http://guttertrash.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/weekend-gab-fest-23/#comment-21179

Posted by: Ben Breeg | March 2, 2010 4:24 PM

Eli is often asked to name a few denialists of the Greenhouse Effect, and he has some who have published papers in refereed journals: Gerlich, Tscheuschner, Chilingar, Khilyuk, Sorokhtin, Kramm of the tips of his ears.

Go google some of those worthies and you will find multiple fan clubs. So James, let us not pretend that denial don't deny the greenhouse effect

Posted by: Eli Rabett | March 2, 2010 5:08 PM

Ben said: "Think again Erasmussimo, he's just your everyday common troll

http://guttertrash.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/weekend-gab-fest-23/#comment-21179

Because of course, nothing is ever truly real in moronoland until you've bragged about it to yer "mates".

Posted by: chek | March 2, 2010 5:25 PM

James is just another reminder of the futility of reason when dealing with the wilfully ignorant.

After seeing a video explaining the empirical evidence shwoing some of the relevant papers, we have idiots like James saying - they showed no evidence.

It's just a litle bit amazing that we're in the 21stC but there are people who wear anti-science ignorance like a badge of honour.

Posted by: Michael | March 2, 2010 5:52 PM

Anon,

global warming doesn't have to be 'runaway' to be concerning!

Posted by: Stu | March 2, 2010 6:12 PM

Stu@46:

Runaway global warming caused by CO2 is what IPCC predicts. Everyone knows and agrees CO2 is a greenhouse gas a causes some warming, which if not enhanced by other factors in the system would not be catastrophic at all.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 2, 2010 6:22 PM

Shorter Anon (sounding a bit like James):

I'm gonna make up stuff about what the the IPCC say, don't mind me.

Posted by: jakerman | March 2, 2010 6:26 PM

James, CFCs are trace gases (and measured in ppt compared to ppm for CO2) and look what they have done to the ozone hole, in the stratosphere, above Antarctica.

Your trace gas argument is feeble and a classic contrarian myth that has been discounted repeatedly.

Let's cut to the chance, b/c this is essentially what it boils down to. What is the climate sensitivity to doubling CO2? And I want a reputable reference from the peer-reviewed literature to support your assertion (i.e., not Lindzen and Choi, 2009).

Posted by: MapleLeaf | March 2, 2010 6:51 PM

For those who need further evidence to doubt James er Sancty's credentials as a troll.

http://guttertrash.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/global-warming-has-stopped-says-tony-abbott/#comment-13087

And Stu, to answer your question as to how I found that link, it is because I post over there under the name Tom R. No, don't ask me why I used Ben Breeg here, except perhaps that Tom R is just a boring name (shrug). I typed it on the fly when blogocracy was around, and wanted to maintain it so people knew who I was (to a degree). So I guess I will revert :( to avoid cinfusion.

As to james, his arguments usually end in the 'you post Lambert, and I'll post WUWT' type rant, ignoring completely that one is based in fact, while the other is based on ??? (don't really know yet). Or, his even better one, his mates told him it wasn't happening, so there (the great Barrier Reef escapade).

I guess, in the short of it, it is my fault he is here, so for that, I apologise.

Posted by: Tom R | March 2, 2010 7:08 PM

Stu, I'm no coward and my ability to debate is restricted only by time constraints and general scientific ignorance. I acknowledge that freely but reserve my right to participate as an affected citizen who is capable of applying critical consideration of many of the issues.

TomR has misrepresented one of my points. I am a frequent visitor to the GBR, as an enthusiastic yachtie and snorkeller. I have in the past repeatedly asserted that the parts of the GBR that I visit, and they range on a broad scale, show no visible signs of stress over a period of two decades. I can see for myself that the many predictions of Ove (whatever his surname is) are demonstrably false.

Posted by: James | March 2, 2010 7:48 PM

James:

I can see for myself that the many predictions of Ove (whatever his surname is) are demonstrably false.

All right. Demonstrate it then. Tell us at least one prediction and demonstrate that it's false.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | March 2, 2010 8:08 PM

Anon writes:

Runaway global warming caused by CO2 is what IPCC predicts.

Jakerman wrties:

Shorter Anon [...]: I'm gonna make up stuff about what the the IPCC say, don't mind me.

Anon writes:

jakerman@50: Please read: http://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf

Anon, do your own homework, I say you made it your claim up. Prove me wrong, show me were the "IPPCs predicts" "Runaway global warming caused by CO2". Cite the passage, or the page, the chart or the figure.

Why do I think you are wrong? Cos I've read what climate scientist write:

People often conclude that the existence of positive feedbacks must imply ‘runaway’ effects i.e. the system spiralling out of control. However, while positive feedbacks are obviously necessary for such an effect, they do not by any means force that to happen. Even in simple systems, small positive feedbacks can lead to stable situations as long as the ‘gain’ factor is less than one (i.e. for every initial change in the quantity, the feedback change is less than the original one). A simple example leads to a geometric series for instance; i.e. if an initial change to a parameter is D, and the feedback results in an additional rD then the final change will be the sum of D+rD+r2D…etc. ). This series converges if |r|<1, and diverges (‘runs away’) otherwise. You can think of the Earth’s climate (unlike Venus’) as having an ‘r‘ less than one, i.e. no ‘runaway’ effects, but plenty of positive feedbacks.

Posted by: jakerman | March 2, 2010 9:27 PM

James,

it's all on record, I've justified every claim I've made here (at Gutter Trash) and I simply can't be bothered with your lies any more.

Posted by: Pterosaur | March 2, 2010 10:10 PM

Pterosaur, you want me to substantiate scientific arguments, despite my repeated admission that I am no scientist. I can argue only on the basis of reason and logic. To whit, my original argument on this subject is about the positioning of the sceptical argument in the posted video.

Yet, you come on here, attack my character, accuse me of lying, twice, then refuse to "be bothered" to substantiate your accusation in the forum in which it was made (never mind that you have also failed to do so in the forum in which you have claimed to). Back up your serious charges, Pterosaur, because no matter what side of the debate you stand on, to fail to do so would make you a fraud.

Posted by: James | March 2, 2010 10:22 PM

Anon, stop contradicting yourself, you just had it confirmed that you are using the wrong term yet you opt to keep using it.

So, coming back to the original post, this video does not in any way establish the link between CO2 and global warming that will run away from us.

You were the joker who claimed it should be trying to establish such a link. I called you on your folly.

Your post is utter nonsense, you arn't close to discussing the science nor what the IPCC say or need to say.

Posted by: jakerman | March 2, 2010 10:48 PM

Maple Leaf, there are five papers listed in that blog which give a climate sensitivity figure of less than the IPCC. Again, what constitutes "reputable". On your criteria, it would seem to eliminate anyone who holds a view different to those to which you adhere?

Posted by: James | March 2, 2010 11:01 PM

Anon, looking past your persistent use of misleading terms I will address a question that I hope you are asking:

Can we establish the link between CO2 and global warming that is going to have catastrophic effects?

To address this question first answer me this, do you accept the evidence that greenhouse gases cause global warming?

Posted by: jakerman | March 2, 2010 11:24 PM

there are five papers listed in that blog which give a climate sensitivity figure of less than the IPCC.

James your sources citing of 5 papers does not mean the data supports his claims. Your source is out of date and misses the corrections by Lyman, the updates by Levitus and your source completely dodged Domingues.

This data is compelling.

Posted by: jakerman | March 2, 2010 11:59 PM

MapleLeaf,

Do you really think James could manage to find his own arse even with a flashlight?...... well, maybe if it was posted on a denialist blog, then he might.

Posted by: Michael | March 3, 2010 1:46 AM

my ability to debate is restricted only by time constraints and general scientific ignorance

Isn't that a fact.

I can argue only on the basis of reason and logic.

Reason and logic, of which you are also generally ignorant, aren't particularly useful for addressing empirical matters when one is unfamiliar with, or in denial of, the evidence.

Posted by: Marcel Kincaid | March 3, 2010 2:50 AM

I use the Great Barrier Reef as an example of just one climate scare that is self evidently false. You cannot tell me something is dying when I can see for myself that it is not.

You're a fucking idiot.

http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/200917/3529/Dying-coral-reef-shows-signs-of-spectacular-regrowth

David Wachenfeld, chief scientist at the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, told the program he was heartened to see damaged corals respond. "It's incredibly heartening to see how quickly a really healthy coral reef can respond," he said. "But of course at the same time it's somewhat sobering because it makes us realise that reefs do have to be very healthy to survive impacts of climate change, and also indicates to us that we only have a certain amount of time to do something about climate change if we want to keep coral reefs around the world," Wachenfeld continued.

There those scientists go, scaring people with their sober talk.

Posted by: Marcel Kincaid | March 3, 2010 3:07 AM

So I guess in proving that point, it was a form of trolling.

Indeed, a scientific illiterate coming to a scientific forum for the purpose of having a debate is a case of trolling.

In terms of "tiny trace gas" the difference between CO2 and HIV is that the CO2 is already present in a natural form.

Did you even watch the video, moron? CO2 from natural and anthropogenic sources can be distinguished, and the increase is due to the latter; the fact that CO2 is already present in a natural form is irrelevant. Who are you to talk about "the relatively minute levels" of anthropogenic CO2 and the likelihood that would cause the heating that has occurred when you admit that you're scientifically illiterate? You whine that you're being asked to substantiate scientific arguments, despite your repeated admission that you're no scientist, that you can argue only on the basis of reason and logic. Fine, asshole, give us your deductive proof that the levels of anthropogenic CO2 are insufficient to produce the indicated level of warming.

Posted by: Marcel Kincaid | March 3, 2010 3:34 AM

Calm down Marcel! Quadruple posting :-0

James, I never called you a coward. I merely wondered whether you'd be back. And you are.

I'd appreciate it if you'd respond to MapleLeaf's post @73 if nothing else, as those're good points.

And answer me this: are reason and logic always going to help? I have come across a great deal of scientific results that are counterintuitive. You have to go where the evidence leads, not just to what 'feels right'.

As an example, what is your answer to the following question

Which is better news for the magnitude of global warming over the next century: that aerosols have a large or a small cooling effect?

Posted by: Stu | March 3, 2010 3:38 AM

Calm down Marcel!

Don't patronize me. I'll post as many times as I choose to.

Posted by: Marcel Kincaid | March 3, 2010 3:42 AM

Just love this new robustness in the debate, but I'll throw a bucket of cold water over everyone.

The snowiest decade in US history has just been recorded. Is that weather or climate?

Posted by: el gordo | March 3, 2010 3:50 AM

You will until the filter catches you for flooding.

Thank you ever so much for your concern.

I'm amazed it doesn't put posts with gratuitous swearing in for moderation, TBH.

My swearing is not gratuitous. And I hardly find it amazing -- not everyone is so immature as to recoil at common expressive language.

Posted by: Marcel Kincaid | March 3, 2010 3:55 AM

Just in the nick of time, el gordo wafts in with some non-science.

We could try to present some facts, but if we mention that increased snowfall is expected under warming conditions, poor el gordo wil have a fit.

Posted by: Michael | March 3, 2010 4:01 AM

You top it all of by making pathetic allusions to the failed climate gate smear.

He topped his topping off with this immense idiocy:

I use the Great Barrier Reef as an example of just one climate scare that is self evidently false. You cannot tell me something is dying when I can see for myself that it is not.

It's hard to find more intellectually obtuse "skepticism".

Posted by: Marcel Kincaid | March 3, 2010 4:23 AM

TomR, the term "crock" comes from the title on the video. It is a play on words and hardly abusive in that context. I stand by my words on "Bolshevik Plot". It was put in to mock and characterise all sceptics, and was therefore unfair.

As to a "free market ETS" there is no such thing.

Posted by: James | March 3, 2010 4:51 AM

I'd like to point out that James represents a different class of commentator here. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to call him an "opponent" rather than a "denier". His arguments are not in the same class as the idiotic, ill-informed crap that are usual among deniers.

Here is James/Sancty's characterization of this video, posted at guttertrash:

My comments are in relation to the video, described as “empirical evidence”. It is nothing of the sort, just a bunch of assertions. None of it is evidence, none of it is linked to evidence, hence I felt quite comfortable describing it as a crock.

Read that carefully, then watch the video again, and tell me that this isn't radical denialism.

Posted by: Marcel Kincaid | March 3, 2010 4:53 AM

Amidst it all Marcel makes many valid points. Unfortuantly James is saved from need to to be held to account by these valid points because rage gets top billing, thus letting Jame's multiple misrepresentation slip out the side door for a quiet exit.

Marcel, sorry that I poked fun. I have a shocker every so often, so should't make fun when others take their fair quota of angry venting.

Posted by: jakerman | March 3, 2010 5:01 AM

Unfortuantly James is saved from need to to be held to account by these valid points because rage gets top billing, thus letting Jame's multiple misrepresentation slip out the side door for a quiet exit.

This is nonsense and ad hominem. One always needs to be held to account for their lies and misrepresentations, regardless of the tone of their critics.

Posted by: Marcel Kincaid | March 3, 2010 5:09 AM

James you have been shown why your source is not reputable by me and others. You have been accurately called for misrepresenting Sinclair video. You even managed to squeeze yourself under his hammer ex post facto.

You pretend to want open discussion yet to make continued unsupported claims and run away when you are called on them, even ignoring the multiple times you have been caught out.

Whether you know it or not your traits expressed here are dishonest, and incompatible with reasoned debate.

Posted by: jakerman | March 3, 2010 5:29 AM

In terms of "tiny trace gas" the difference between CO2 and HIV is that the CO2 is already present in a natural form. Either you have HIV or you don't. If you have, say, 380 PPM of HIV infected cells in your body injecting another hundred PPM is going to make no difference. Without treatment, you are a goner anyway.

As I said earlier as far as warming is concerned CO2 is not a trace gas. From a purely, far reaching, broad outlook and with no reference to much science other than to measure the quantities in the atmosphere, then CO2 is a trace gas.

But from the perspective of science and IR radiation it is about 9% of the IR sensitive atmosphere and hence is in no way a trace gas.

Playing with what words mean, deflects from the science. We all know that when some people refer to CO2 being a trace gas, they are often trying to con naive people into thinking there is no problem. It is a lie and a political move, aimed at spreading disinformation.

Posted by: Paul UK | March 3, 2010 5:37 AM

Looks like the snowiest decade and the warmest decade are not incompatible. No need for alarm

Non sequitur.

And in case James is reading, I'm still waiting for James to explain himself and his change the topic runaway traits.

Posted by: jakerman | March 3, 2010 5:48 AM

James, Lindzen has slowly but steadily lost credibility because the quality of his science has slowly but steadily decreased with time. The latest foray, which has been referred to in this thread, is Lindzen and Choi (2009) (about determining climate feedback from satellite data. Which they didn't do properly).

It was so bad that even sceptic's favourite Dr. Roy Spencer stepped in to criticise it.

Posted by: Stu | March 3, 2010 6:07 AM

If my point is sound then we already know the answer.

It would require as stunning turn around for James to cease exemplifying the point to made.

Posted by: jakerman | March 3, 2010 6:17 AM

Marcel, what annoys you most ? 1/ that it won't stop snowing in the northern hemisphere ? 2/ or the troll's that keep reminding you about it ? 3/ the relatively cool wet summer in Australia ? 4/ or the trolls that remind you about it ?

Posted by: sunspot | March 3, 2010 7:29 AM

What annoys me most is that we have to keep reminding the determinedly ignorant that a., weather is not climate and b., local is not global. (Should I add - c, warmer = more snow?).

January was (globally) the warmest ever on record.

Posted by: Michael | March 3, 2010 7:45 AM

SS this annoys me most.

Oh and that some ill informed people think AGW is supposed to stop snow. But that's life when dealing with zealots who's bias fools them into thinking everything contradicts AGW.

Posted by: jakerman | March 3, 2010 7:50 AM

James says "As to your other question*, let me get back to you. I suspect the answer has something to do with whether I think Global Warming is a problem or not."

Well, not really. It does have implications for how much of a problem global warming will turn out to be though. And is an exercise in scientific reasoning (note my preamble about counterintuitive results).

*The question was "Which is better news for the magnitude of global warming over the next century: that aerosols have a large or a small cooling effect?" By which I of course meant, which scenario would result in less warming over the next century :-)

PS sure you can call me Disco, but please, not in public. Disco Stu doesn't advertise.

Posted by: Stu | March 3, 2010 8:42 AM

@ Paul UK

Your intellectual dishonesty is noted. Again, it was Stu who referred to "trace gas", and thus it is Stu who would be subject to your charge "We all know that when some people refer to CO2 being a trace gas, they are often trying to con naive people into thinking there is no problem. It is a lie and a political move, aimed at spreading disinformation."

James is guilty of much, but not that -- he merely said (erroneously) that anthropogenic CO2, as compared to natural CO2, is "relatively minute". Rather than your comment being "simple and to the point", it made clearly erroneous claims about motivation that completely missed the point.

Posted by: Marcel Kincaid | March 3, 2010 9:02 AM

Hi, guys, I'm a new kid in town; please don't beat me up!

I'm pretty durn fascinated by this Great AGW Debate and, if I may join in here, I'd welcome a give-and-take of views.

Somebody wrote above "I like your idea of characterizing the bell curve of opinions, so we don't argue against each others extremists instead of each other." Yessss!

Brief intro: I'm a graduate Manufacturing Eng who dropped out of a physics degree at London Uni. Cards on table: Whilst much of the supporting logic of the AGW hypothesis is watertight, I doubt the overall conclusion. Given that there are bright, educated, informed, sincere people on both sides, I'll welcome energetic counterarguments but, please, no abuse.

I hope it's fair to summarise the video as saying: "This physics is proven, these measurements are solid, these are the trends and feedbacks, and so here is our forecast." If so, here's a question: If, despite this great research work, the forecasts of temperature rise don't materialise (say, the UAH MSU satellite temp stays below the 1998 peak anomaly of 0.75C), would it be fair to consider the hypothesis refuted?

James, in #7 above, wrote that "No sceptic (or very few) denies the greenhouse effect of CO2.. ...what is questioned is the extent (and unprecedented nature) of the warming......" This seemed like a reasonable attempt to agree common ground before moving the debate on, and yet he attracted some pretty nasty replies. Is this neccessary?

Let's seek a meeting of minds: thesis -> antithesis -> synthesis.

Posted by: Brent | March 3, 2010 9:34 AM

If, despite this great research work, the forecasts of temperature rise don't materialise (say, the UAH MSU satellite temp stays below the 1998 peak anomaly of 0.75C), would it be fair to consider the hypothesis refuted?

This is a quite common and reasonable question. But the answer is one that many people find difficult to understand.

Answer: no, not even with "say 10-20 years" attached.

Imagine we start the (say) 20 year clock today. Further imagine that we monitor all of the forcings over the 20 year period, and note that whilst CO2 forcing is going up, the sum of other forcings are going down even more. What would we expect to see? The global average temperature would not exceed the global average temperature this year because the net change in forcing was negative over the 20 years.

[For simplicity I've assumed 20 years is long enough when it might not be in practice; I've ignored feedbacks, changes in feedbacks, short term variation in forcings & feedbacks, and natural variation, and non-equilibrium states. I trust that you can see how these can be added to the simple consideration without fundamentally changing the idea.]

So...if you're looking for falsification criteria based on observed temperature trends, you need to factor in (or at a minimum sufficiently constrain the uncertainty ranges of) all the forcings and feedbacks. And that means you can't pick N and do a simple max temperature comparison after N years.

Strictly speaking if you really want to falsify the current hypotheses, you should aim to create a model that explains observations better than current models do without relying on the current understanding of anthropogenic influences. (And you likely want to show reasons why your model is not only better at explaining observations, but is at least equally plausible in terms of physical considerations.)

I'm sure some actual scientists can weigh in on any errors or misconceptions in my comment - and on other considerations you might also need to pay attention to when developing and validating your competing model - but this should give some idea why "no rise in N years" is not particularly useful.

Posted by: Lotharsson | March 3, 2010 10:09 AM

Welcome, Brent! I had given up on this discussion, as the "fair share of angry venting" seems to have quadrupled in the last day or two. Let me address your questions during this brief lull in the firestorm.

Yes, if temperature shows no increase for an extended period, then we can consider the hypothesis refuted. How long is "extended period"? The general rule of thumb is that the dividing line between weather and climate is about 30 years. Some people squeeze that down to 15 years, but that's pushing it; the historical record shows anomalous temperature excursions lasting that long. 30 years is a good safe number. After all, the general upward trend that we see in the historical record extends over more than a century; if it were confined to the last 30 years, I think there'd be much less confidence in the hypothesis.

The problem here is that temperature measurements show lots of fluctuations. Much more reliable are the integrating phenomena that add up the overall change in temperature over a long period of time. The best of these are the large-scale changes in the cryosphere: melting glaciers, reductions in Arctic sea ice, loss of ice in Greenland and Antarctica. Together, these show much less fluctuation and give us a clearer, if somewhat delayed response.

Posted by: Erasmussimo | March 3, 2010 10:16 AM

Brent, welcome to this discussion. It is good to have you here.

However, I beg to differ with respect to when you said this: Given that there are bright, educated, informed, sincere people on both sides [of the debate]

This is patently false. The vast majority of the academic community - and with few exceptions, climate scientists, meaning the one's doing the actual research - argue that the empirical and theoretical evidence behind AGW is solid. The most amazing thing in my opinion as a senior scientist is that there is any debate at all. The uncertainty lies in the outcome of human-driven climate change, not in its existence. The most cunning sleight of hand amongst those in the denial camp is that they have taken the uncertainty over the potential outcomes of climate change and to have applied that to climate change itself. Aided by a huge PR apparatus, think tanks, and astroturf lobbying groups, all funded heavily by polluting industries anxious to maintain the status quo, they have shifted the debate through a culpable corporate mass media apparatus in such as way as to have undermined a huge and growing volume of empirical evidence. Certainly there are thousands of biological indicators which are pointing to a rapidly warming biosphere. And virtually all of the climate scientists I have spoken to at workshops and conferences say that the human fingerprint is all over the current warming.

Another problem is that controversy sells whereas consensus doesn't. The media will interview two scientists (or a scientist and a think tank 'scholar') on opposite sides of the issue as to create 'balance' whereas in actual fact the 'balance' is actually 95% on one side and 5% (or less) on the other. The media did the same thing a few years ago with respect to discussing the importance (and scale) of biodiversity loss. They would interview a scientist with longstanding expertise on the one side, and a contrarian, such as the late Julian Simon, or Patrick Moore, on the other. In striving for 'balance' they gave the completely wrong impression of the scientific evidence and opinion as well as the qualifications of those on either side of the debate. They will often not say that the denier has also received financial support for a polluting indsutry with an axe to grind.

It is no different with climate change. I have seen interviews given with a climate scientist like Steve Schneider or James Hansen on one side and individuals like Ross McKitrick or Myron Ebell on the other. The fact that McKitrick and Ebell are not climate scientists and are associated with corporate-funded right wing think tanks is rarely mentioned; instead, they are treated like 'experts' whose views are just at odds with experts on the other side who have spent their careers involved in research on climate.

So when you say that there are "well informed and bright people" on both sides of the climate change debate, I am reminded that there are allegedly "well informed and bright people" on the other side of other debates dealing with a wide range of comtemporary environmental issues. Having presented lectures on the anti-environmental lobby in both Europe and the United States, I think you would do yourself a service by looking at who these prominent "well informed and bright people" are in the denial camp and what their pedigree is in the relevant fields of research, as well as what idealogical biases might be motivating them. I think that you will find this quite enlightening.

Posted by: Jeff Harvey | March 3, 2010 11:24 AM

What jakerman said at 102, and what Stu said @ 108

Marcel@101 I fear that you are right.

Brent, welcome, I think you should read the full thread (I know a mission), but it might help you understand why some here have lost it. And remember, most people who understand AGW to be a legitimate threat have, for many years now, been dealing with the same tired old arguments, tricks, tactics and games being played by James here-- it becomes very tiresome, annoying and frustrating that people are so determined to misrepresent and distort the science. Science and scientists are also under assault from politicians and the media and political lobby groups (ClimateAudit, WUWT), run under the guise of "science", with almost all of the allegations fallacious.

Brent, if you want to do some fact checking I highly recommend www.skepticalscience.com

Posted by: MapleLeaf | March 3, 2010 12:25 PM

Brent

You miss the point.

"the UAH MSU satellite temp stays below the 1998 peak anomaly of 0.75C"

Is a cherry pick of a cherry pick. The year 1998 is a cherry pick and UAH MSU are cherry picks as well. This is dishonest. 2005 was hotter than 1998. The reason that UAH and MSU did detect that is that one of them is distorted by El Nino, and the other doesn't measure the temp. in the polar regions (where warming has been the greatest).

You shouldn't cherry pick like that if you want people to take you seriously here.

Posted by: elspi | March 3, 2010 12:57 PM

P. Lewis (127). Thanks for the links to Open Mind. It's going to take me quite some time to read it all. If I may report my early impressions:

The combined GISS/NCDC/HadCRU 1975-2007 graph: The pattern looks pretty darn linear (but then a little cartoon Mandelbrot pops up on my shoulder saying, 'No, you, fool, have you learned nothing from my wisdom?'!)I don't recall seeing it before (I watch Hadley CET and UAH MSU which I judge trustworthy). I guess these are all earthstation measurements; hasn't there been some recent controversy in the news? ;-)

The Open Mind author proposes a chequered flag at 2015 (when one camp or the other is declared champ), but then makes Lotharsson's point about masking: 'even if AGW is completely correct it’s still possible for temperature to show no increase long enough for the “no-further-warming” side to win this wager, IF unexpected events happen...'

I'm going back to read your sites properly now(thanks again), but may I offer this for comment:

When I grew tired of dumbly believing this expert or that one, I went in search of source data, but insisted on framing my own questions. These were: (i)What is the longest continuous direct measurement of temperature anywhere? Ans: Hadley CET since 1659. Conclusion: business as usual. (ii)What is the longest single-glacier record, direct and indirect anywhere? Ans: Mr. Holzhauser's pet glacier, the Aletsch, since 1200BC. Conclusion: Business as usual. (iii)What is the longest continuous direct CO2 measurement record, and is it corroborated elsewhere? Ans: Mauna Loa, and yes. Conclusion: Rising steadily.

Maybe it's parochial to find reassurance in data from just England (i) and Austria (ii), but I still ain't buildin' no ark just yet. As for (iii), I'd dearly like to know if CO2 drives temperature or whether it's vice-versa. In a brilliant talk to the American Geophysics Union, [http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml] Prof. Alley demonstrated the close correlation over centuries, millennia and gigayears, but correlation is not causality.

Posted by: Brent | March 3, 2010 2:26 PM

Brent, I strongly urge you to read the IPCC AR4 WG1 report, which you can download here:

http://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/wg1-ar4.html

This is the nitty-gritty, the real meat of the science of climate change. It is a compilation of everything that we know about climate change. It is very carefully done and its conclusions are sound. And it will teach you a great deal about the science.

Posted by: Erasmussimo | March 3, 2010 2:55 PM

Elspi (132): You say that 1998 is not a fair reference point in the UAH MSU record. Okay, but I'm sure you see what I'm getting at: that for the hypothesis to be confirmed or refuted we need clear criteria that everybody buys into.

Here's a bit of fun: Let's pretend that you and I are the armies' champions: on this single combat swordfight the fates of empires will be decided!

I propose: Have a look at the UAH MSU graph at: http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe.html See the three troughs or 'downspikes' in the past 15 years? They trough at -0.2C. If there are fewer than two downspikes below the 0.0C mark in the next 15 years, I'll capitulate and our armies will hand over their swords hilt-first. I shall declare: "Well it took a while, but my scepticism has now disappeared. I believe in AGW; now let's get cracking on a solution. Mineral sequestration using powdered Serpentine? Go!"

Make me an offer: What would it take for you to declare: "Despite the rational reasoning behind the AGW hypothesis back in 2010, the thermometer beats the theory. The end isn't nigh. Let's all go down the pub instead!"

Posted by: Brent | March 3, 2010 3:26 PM

Brent @ 138:

I propose: Have a look at [...] junkscience.com

No. I'm not going to get information about climate science from people who are paid to lie about it.

If there are fewer than two downspikes below the 0.0C mark in the next 15 years,

You need to look at the trend, not the noise. Read some reputable sources like the ones that have been suggested above.

Posted by: Dave R | March 3, 2010 3:47 PM

I was starting to wonder much the same as you did MapleLeaf.

Brent has made one or two comments typical of concern troll behaviour. I sincerely hope he's not a time waster, because if he is, then the next "newbie" that comes along (who may be genuine) is likely to get short shrift ... which I suppose is part of the plan with such acts of trollishness.

Posted by: P. Lewis | March 3, 2010 4:14 PM

This seemed like a reasonable attempt to agree common ground before moving the debate on

Yeah, right, calling the video a crock, and denying the existence of "sceptics" that we have all encountered is a reasonable attempt to agree on common ground.

I can smell people like you and James from a mile away.

Posted by: Marcel Kincaid | March 3, 2010 4:36 PM

I still ain't buildin' no ark just yet

Which indicates your complete failure at risk assessment, as well as analogy fail. Here's a better one: We're on the Titanic, those in the crow's nest have been seeing the tip of the iceberg looming for quite a while, but you're not willing to start turning the ship until you organize a diving expedition to verify with your own eyes that it's really an iceberg -- by which time it will be way too late.

Posted by: Marcel Kincaid | March 3, 2010 5:03 PM

Quoting someone and making a comment, doesn't automatically mean that the comment is in opposition or in agreement to the quote.

And correlation doesn't automatically mean causation -- but that's a strawman.

Posted by: Marcel Kincaid | March 3, 2010 5:29 PM

Jeff Harvey (128) Thanks for the long comment; from what you say I think that you have had some unpleasant encounters with some slippery customers. I was recently in discussion with fellow sceptics, trying to make a case for "minimum concensus" - areas where both sides can agree some basics and then continue debating at a more elevated level. I got some flak from people arguing for more confrontation, not less. (I'll spare you the kind of vocabulary used, but.... yeah you're ahead of me!)

Right, that's enough luvvy-duvvy stuff... let's fight!

;-)

You mention the massive financial forces ranged behind the sceptics. I think it's the contrary. Yes, theoretically the fossil fuel companies might have a secret slush fund to pay WUWT and Climate Audit. But where's the money going? You can run a website from a spare bedroom on a pension. Compare this with the costs of the Copenhagen meeting: how many thousands of air tickets and hotel rooms? Add the costs of punduts in academia, IPCC, carbon traders, NGOs and we're surely talking billions.

You wrote: "The most cunning sleight of hand amongst those in the denial camp is that they have taken the uncertainty over the potential outcomes of climate change and to have applied that to climate change itself." Would you please expand on that? I guess it's a tactic I meet in my work: Person A gives a reasonable, broad, common sense estimate; person B retorts "See? He doesn't know!"

To turn from the politics to the science, you say that there are "thousands of biological indicators which are pointing to a rapidly warming biosphere" and, yes, I hear this often and I'm sure it is true.

I promise that I am not being disingenuous here: If we all accept that there has been a warming period from approximately 1975 to 1998, or to 2005, why should we be alarmed at the biosystem's adaptation to it? Within Production Engineering (my discipline) lies the speciality of Control Engineering; the engineering principles behind, say, vehicle suspension are found in nature - one example being mammals' temperature regime. Isn't nature's adaptation to climate change entirely to be expected?

Some will doubtless think that the above paragraph is gratuitous and provocative. No! By all means, let's debate climate change, but 'lag indicators' are not supporting evidence. If 2010/2020 turns out to be a decade of cooling, I won't trumpet that "ha! the daffodils are flowering later!"; the thermometer will have already told us what we need to know.

One final point, if I may: I think that our "microscopes are at too high magnification". Whatever the oscillations causing (e.g) the Aletsch Glacier to reverse every century or so, it grinds on, sublimely indifferent to yearly changes. In Victorian times, the Catholic church commenced prayers in an attempt to halt the advance which had started a century before. And it worked! The Aletsch went into reverse in 1860, and continues to do so. They are now praying for it to stop retreating...

I hope I have made my point about timescale. At risk of labouring it, using one's bank balance as an analogy to global temperature, we don't examine our savings daily - weeping on Monday and hooraying on Tuesday. Monthly or yearly is a more appropriate timescale. It is equally absurd to find meaning in the fact that Texas has snow today, or the polecap shrank between 2005 and 2006.

Posted by: Brent | March 3, 2010 5:50 PM

You mention the massive financial forces ranged behind the sceptics. I think it's the contrary.

What a complete idiot. You're about as far along on that bell curve of extreme denial as one can get.

I promise that I am not being disingenuous here

Of course you are; it's classic moving of the goalposts.

More broadly, your inane post clearly puts the lie to both "bright" and "sincere".

Posted by: Marcel Kincaid | March 3, 2010 5:57 PM

Make me an offer: What would it take for you to declare: "Despite the rational reasoning behind the AGW hypothesis back in 2010, the thermometer beats the theory. The end isn't nigh. Let's all go down the pub instead!"

This set alarm bells ringing for me as well.

On the off chance that you're actually genuine though, a protracted levelling off or cooling of global temperatures continuing beyond, say, 2020, coinciding with a continuing rise in CO2 levels, would suggest that there may be something wrong with the established estimates for climate sensitivity to CO2. Otherwise, work showing that estimates for climate sensitivity are far too high would have to appear, and the scientific community could accept its error and move on.

My question to you would be, why are you asking these questions? Nothing has happened recently to suggest that either events are likely. We are coming out of the hottest decade in recorded history, just out of the hottest january in recorded history, and out of the joint second-hottest year in record history after 2005. What reason has there been so far to suggest that people might be wrong? If you aren't convinced yet, by the reams and reams of literature on the subject and by the temperature record which clearly shows warming what would it take to convince you of the theory?

Posted by: Bud | March 3, 2010 6:10 PM

Wow, it's pretty ferocious around here!

• Somebody dismissed JunkScience as a Nest of Denial. I may be wrong, but I thought that it conveyed verbatim data or live links from sources such as NASA and CRU. If it is seen as a partisan site then I apologise: no provocation intended.
• This James guy did start a bit pugnaciously ("It's the video that's the crock"), but didn't he have a fair point about agreeing the greenhouse-physics and then moving on?
• The statement "I can smell people like you aand James a mile away" is rather unfair. I stated from the outset that I was sceptical (no, I think I said "unconvinced" or "in doubt", wishing to avoid the tribalism). And, yes, I will argue the case as I see it and take interest in contradictions, and I'm quite prepared to say, "Oh, I get it now!" -Would somebody please define "troll" for me? -I am using open, friendly language in my postings. When I say, "Right, let's fight!", I hope that the humour and bonhommie is understood; expressions like "I ain't building no ark yet" and "microscopes at the wrong magnification" can doubtless be shot down with scorn and derision. -Some people here have recommended some reading, such as WG1 of AR4 and various websites. I will go there. I have an open mind and current position which I will amend according to evidence. The more aggressive brethren here seem to resent contrary viewpoints. -I don't think I have been rude so far, although others are rude to me. I think that advancing a contrary viewpoint is legitimate. -"Correlation is not causality" should have read "...is not neccessarily.." but I thought the 'neccessarily' superfluous at the time. Come on, guys, it is claimed that CO2 reaches a peak 800 years after temperature peaks. Now this may well be duff information, in which case point me to somewhere that contests it. But sneering, "Correlation is not causation, he says? Pah! Trollspeak!" is unhelpful.

Posted by: Brent | March 3, 2010 6:45 PM

Brent, apologies if you are genuine. You have to understand that a lot of people come up with the same kind of 'new here, interested in real discussion, meeting of minds' stuff only to slowly reveal themselves as being the equivalent of a sniper rather than a machine gunner. I suggest not posting inflammatory nonsense like "the end is not nigh, let's all go to the pub instead", because that is guaranteed to get you dumped on from a great height. I struggle to see how anyone could not consider junkscience.com not a market-fundy front site, but didn't bring it up because it was always possible you are unaware of its true nature.

I'd appreciate it if you answered my questions, cheers.

Posted by: Bud | March 3, 2010 7:00 PM

If [junkscience] is seen as a partisan site then I apologise

It takes work to be this clueless.

but didn't he have a fair point about agreeing the greenhouse-physics and then moving on?

He didn't make a point about agreeing to the greenhouse physics -- he blatantly lied and said that "very few" skeptics disagree with the greenhouse physics and offered this in the context of faulting the video for attacking a strawman -- even though the video includes screenshots from such skeptics. And then along you come, lacking agreement with the greenhouse physics when you blather about "correlation is not necessarily causation" in re the connection between CO2 and temperature.

The statement "I can smell people like you aand James a mile away" is rather unfair.

Not at all -- your posts are riddled with falsehoods, intellectual laziness, and intellectual dishonesty.

When I say, "Right, let's fight!", I hope that the humour and bonhommie is understood

What is understood is you complete disregard for the fact that there is overwhelming evidence and a strong scientific consensus for GW -- it is GW, not just AGW, that you are chalenging -- and thus your BS about fighting and standing at the head of armies and heading off to the pub when we finally agree that there's nothing to worry about is sheer arrogance, whether expressed rudely or not. On what it is to be a troll: as I said of James, "a scientific illiterate coming to a scientific forum for the purpose of having a debate is a case of trolling". If you want to learn, then act like a receptive student.

Posted by: Marcel Kincaid | March 3, 2010 7:05 PM

Thirdly we know the extra CO2 is from humans because of the isotope ratios (carbon from fossil fuels has no C14 due to it decaying, so the ratios of C12, C13 and C14 change)

As was noted in the video which, again, Brent shows no signs of having watched.

Now, OK, maybe I'm giving too much weight to one glacier in one country. But be fair - shouldn't this give pause for thought? Doesn't this call into question the assertation that the Earth is warmer than it has been for yonks?

More indications that Brent hasn't watched the video, as well as his vast intellectual dishonesty as he cherry-picks madly -- funny how none of the other evidence of warming causes him to pause in thought.

Posted by: Marcel Kincaid | March 3, 2010 7:12 PM

Oh for Christ's sakes Brent, of course the climate changes. We know that thank you very much. You know what else? The drivers of climate also change. Whereas in the past CO2 and other GHGs were oftentimes a feedback (lagging temperature change (invoked by Milankovitch cycles for example), CO2 is now acting as a driver and the warming will invoke feedback loops. You are also conveniently forgetting the importance of rate of change.

Something else for you to consider Brent is ocean "acidification"-- no warming needed there. Even if climate sensitivity comes in at 2 C for doubling CO2 (the low end of the range), ocean acidification has the potential to have huge consequences.

Climate scientists know this, there is a whole discipline of paleo-climate. one of the reasons we have been able to estimate the sensitivity of our climate system to doubling CO2 is by using paleo climate reconstructions:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Working-out-climate-sensitivity.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

Anyhow, if others wish to waste their time, fine. But I am done being an echo chamber for you.

Thanks to JBowers at SheWonk for the following list for Brent to reflect on since he is so focussed on Paleoclimate:

"Coupling of CO2 and Ice Sheet Stability Over Major Climate Transitions of the Last 20 Million Years. Tripati et al (December 2009) http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1178296 The carbon dioxide (CO2) content of the atmosphere has varied cyclically between ~180 and ~280 parts per million by volume over the past 800,000 years, closely coupled with temperature and sea level. For earlier periods in Earth’s history, the partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2) is much less certain, and the relation between pCO2 and climate remains poorly constrained. We use boron/calcium ratios in foraminifera to estimate pCO2 during major climate transitions of the past 20 million years. During the Middle Miocene, when temperatures were ~3° to 6°C warmer and sea level was 25 to 40 meters higher than at present, pCO2 appears to have been similar to modern levels. Decreases in pCO2 were apparently synchronous with major episodes of glacial expansion during the Middle Miocene (~14 to 10 million years ago) and Late Pliocene (~3.3 to 2.4 million years ago).

Earth system sensitivity inferred from Pliocene modelling and data. Lunt et al (December 2009) http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n1/abs/ngeo706.html Quantifying the equilibrium response of global temperatures to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations is one of the cornerstones of climate research. Components of the Earth’s climate system that vary over long timescales, such as ice sheets and vegetation, could have an important effect on this temperature sensitivity, but have often been neglected. Here we use a coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation model to simulate the climate of the mid-Pliocene warm period (about three million years ago), and analyse the forcings and feedbacks that contributed to the relatively warm temperatures. Furthermore, we compare our simulation with proxy records of mid-Pliocene sea surface temperature. Taking these lines of evidence together, we estimate that the response of the Earth system to elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations is 30–50% greater than the response based on those fast-adjusting components of the climate system that are used traditionally to estimate climate sensitivity. We conclude that targets for the long-term stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations aimed at preventing a dangerous human interference with the climate system should take into account this higher sensitivity of the Earth system.

Here’s a chart to oggle: http://www.paleo.bris.ac.uk/~ggdjl/conferences/egu2009_ess.pdf

High Earth-system climate sensitivity determined from Pliocene carbon dioxide concentrations. Pagani et al (December 2009) http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n1/abs/ngeo724.html Climate sensitivity—the mean global temperature response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations through radiative forcing and associated feedbacks—is estimated at 1.5–4.5 °C (ref. 1). However, this value incorporates only relatively rapid feedbacks such as changes in atmospheric water vapour concentrations, and the distributions of sea ice, clouds and aerosols2. Earth-system climate sensitivity, by contrast, additionally includes the effects of long-term feedbacks such as changes in continental ice-sheet extent, terrestrial ecosystems and the production of greenhouse gases other than CO2. Here we reconstruct atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations for the early and middle Pliocene, when temperatures were about 3–4 °C warmer than preindustrial values3, 4, 5, to estimate Earth-system climate sensitivity from a fully equilibrated state of the planet. We demonstrate that only a relatively small rise in atmospheric CO2 levels was associated with substantial global warming about 4.5 million years ago, and that CO2 levels at peak temperatures were between about 365 and 415 ppm. We conclude that the Earth-system climate sensitivity has been significantly higher over the past five million years than estimated from fast feedbacks alone.

Palaeoclimate: Global warmth with little extra CO2. Schneider & Schneider (January 2010) http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n1/full/ngeo736.html In the Early Pliocene, three to five million years ago, global temperatures were about 3–4|[deg]| C warmer than today in the low latitudes, and up to 10|[deg]| C warmer nearer the poles. Climate simulations and reconstructions of this relatively recent period (geologically speaking) may help constrain realistic magnitudes of future warming.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations during ancient greenhouse climates were similar to those predicted for A.D. 2100. Breecker et al (October 2009) http://www.pnas.org/content/107/2/576 Quantifying atmospheric CO2 concentrations ([CO2]atm) during Earth’s ancient greenhouse episodes is essential for accurately predicting the response of future climate to elevated CO2 levels. Empirical estimates of [CO2]atm during Paleozoic and Mesozoic greenhouse climates are based primarily on the carbon isotope composition of calcium carbonate in fossil soils. We report that greenhouse [CO2]atm have been significantly overestimated because previously assumed soil CO2 concentrations during carbonate formation are too high. More accurate [CO2]atm, resulting from better constraints on soil CO2, indicate that large (1,000s of ppmV) fluctuations in [CO2]atm did not characterize ancient climates and that past greenhouse climates were accompanied by concentrations similar to those projected for A.D. 2100."

Bye, bye.

Posted by: MapleLeaf | March 3, 2010 7:25 PM

I stated from the outset that I was sceptical (no, I think I said "unconvinced" or "in doubt", wishing to avoid the tribalism).

You were far more honest when you wrote

I was recently in discussion with fellow sceptics, trying to make a case for "minimum concensus" - areas where both sides can agree some basics and then continue debating at a more elevated level.

You so-called "sceptics" are indeed a tribe, committed to a position, and prepared to wage battle with what you percieve as the other side. But it is scientists who are the true skeptics and go where the evidence leads, wherever that is. Science is not a process based on debate as such, but rather on the scientific method -- observe, form hypotheses consistent with observation, attempt to disconfirm the hypotheses, producing new observations, rinse and repeat, while organizing the observations and hypotheses into explanatory theories. Those who waltz into the middle of this process to "debate" these theories are not doing science and are not merely being skeptical -- they are ideologues committed to a position.

Posted by: Marcel Kincaid | March 3, 2010 7:31 PM

Erasmussimo (155): I should've kept my big mouth shut about the funding aspect. What the hell do I know? I was responding to somebody who's mentioned it, and sounded off like an idiot.

There's a little story here: A few years ago, when I believed, I set myself the task of investigating remedial actions to AGW. All the tree-planting I concluded was a con-trick, and found some outrageous schemes, e.g. flying energy-saving lightbulbs half way round the world and sending teams of well-heeled accountancy types to Africa to train the natives how to do their fires more carbon-friendly. (Don't get me started....!) I then heard about mineral sequestration, where certain silicates such as Serpentine will react with CO2 and fix the carbon in a new carbonate compound. Started designing equipment. Started getting supplies from Lizard Point, and conducting trials with bottled CO2 and pressure-vessels. Had a couple of meetings at Nottingham Uni's CICCS. Went in search of funding to set it all up and got "piss off" letters from half of the FTSE 100 Index.

What you said about maverick scientists is of course right: the Nobel Prizes go to groundbreaking pioneers, not conformist clones. But how many 'honest journeyman' scientists are benefitting from research funding linked to AGW? I have heard biologists say "Nobody's interested in buttercups, but if we edit the grant proposal to say, "The effect of Global Warming on Buttercups....."

Anyway, there's a guy above - Calcinations - who's found the silver bullet and doesn't know it. Says, "If there's an 800-year lag, today's CO2 would be the result of events 800 years ago". Bingo! Medieval Warm Period! Shhhhhh! Don't tell Calcinations! That Nobel Prize - Calcination's by rights - will me mine all mine. Hahaaaaaa!

Oh, Kincaid - please don't take the above paragraph literally. Oh, no, he's typing it already: "Hey, Calc, that Nobel's yours man. Don't get ripped off, dude!" Oh, Kincaid - are you allowed to believe in the Medieval Warm Period? No? Then keep schtumm...

Posted by: Brent | March 3, 2010 8:11 PM

Disco, I mean, Stu. To be honest, I really don't get the question. And I am afraid that if I start delving down that path I will be accused yet again of changing the subject.

Is it your suggestion that the prescence of aerosols in the atmosphere has masked the effects of AGW until now, and that aerosols are being replaced, therefore we can expect AGW to accelerate as a result? Look I don't know.

Do I think AGW, if it does exist, is a problem? Well again, I am not sure. I don't believe the predictions of multi metre sea level rises. The apparent melting that has already occured (see video) has had very little effect on sea levels (millimetres? centimetres?). And I would have thought that seasonal ice melt would show some sort of sea level effect if this were the case. From what I can tell, droughts and hurricanes etc at least so far are a bit of a red herring as the CSIRO pointed out only in the last day or so (at least with respect to the drought). I am cynical, to say the least, at the Victorian Government restricting coastal building due to sea level expectations whilst at the same time building a multi billion dollar desalination plant on the coastal flats of Wonthaggi.

Now look, perhaps you guys have it completely right. If that is the case, then you must be extraordinarily frustrated at how the message was sold in the first place, and to some degree continues to be sold. The likes of Gore were showing hockey stick graphs (leave aside the MWP bit) that showed a continuing vertical line. Now for a decade, that line has been largely horizontal. It hasn't gone down, sure, but it hasn't gone up the way it was represented, or, at least, the lay person was allowed to expect. The Arctic ice cap hasn't disappeared. Nor have the polar bears, nor have we seen an increase in the intensity of hurricanes. You can't escape that to the lay person, this was how the message was sold.

Then you look at this blog. I follow it a bit, as I follow many blogs. Due to work commitments, I won't be from Tuesday so please don't think I'm running away at that point. But look what happened when I jumped on and threw in some reasonable points about the video. At least half of it is dedicated to consequences of a warming that is not denied. It warmed, of course it did. We know that. Of course there are going to be consequences of warming so it doesn't add to the argument to list them. It doesn't prove that the warming was anthropogenic, which is the question. Even Monckton doesn't deny that CO2 has a greenhouse effect. The whole question is whether the effect is so great as to have caused the warming of late last century and can we expect that warming (in a directional sense) to resume. So I get on to make those points and, aside from one or two reasonably polite chaps, look at the abuse I copped. Way to sell your argument, guys. It's not just Marcel, but look at this character, Jakerman. I don't think I've yet responded directly to one thing he's said, so he's having an abusive argument with himself. Usually, the louder someone argues, the less convinced I am of their argument.

By the way (and this is generally rather than specific). The HIV analogy doesn't wash as I pointed out earlier. Use white blood cells. They are necessary but if you put too many in your body, it can be damaging (not a biologist by any stretch, just something I saw once).

Posted by: James | March 3, 2010 8:17 PM

By the way (and this is generally rather than specific). The HIV analogy doesn't wash as I pointed out earlier.

You don't understand how analogies work. The point about HIV was simply that small quantities can have large effects; Erasmussimo wasn't making any claim that the mechanisms or an other details are similar. Sheesh.

Posted by: Marcel Kincaid | March 3, 2010 8:25 PM

Well yeah, there are HIV denialists too. And all to often they are the climate denialists and the tobacco denialists.

Posted by: Eli Rabett | March 3, 2010 8:28 PM

DaveR (163): Thanks for the tip on reading up about C02 lags. Yes, I'll google it.

You said I hadn't followed the link suggested in #130, to SkepticalScience.

Gimme a chance, man! They're coming at me so fast now that I'm fending them off with Kung Fu from one leg and Karate with the other. That fecking Kincaid just appeared at the window and yelled "blithering fool" before running off.

Oi, Kincaid! What kind of word is 'blithering'? I had you down as a spotty teenager who can't find a girlfriend. 'Blithering' is old-fashioned. Are you one of those senile delinquents?

Posted by: Brent | March 3, 2010 8:53 PM

If you aren't convinced yet, by the reams and reams of literature on the subject and by the temperature record which clearly shows warming what would it take to convince you of the theory?

Shorter Brent:

The theory might be wrong in some way, and the temperature record is like two swallows.

Brent, what evidence would you accept as cause for serious GHG mitigation such as 350 or 450 ppm CO2?

Posted by: jakerman | March 3, 2010 8:58 PM

I have a copy of Hanspeter Holzhauser's paper "Fluctuation of the Great Aletsch glacier during the last 3500 years", althogh I can't find it online any more.

That might be because the correct title is:

Holzhauser, H. (1997): Fluctuations of the Grosser Aletsch Glacier and the Gorner Glacier during the last 3200 years: new results.

You might be interested in more recent research by Holzhauser; "Holocene Glacier Fluctuations in the Swiss Alps and Dendrochronological Investigations at the Alpine Timberline in the Valaisian Alps", wherein he writes:

These investigations are necessary to find the range of glacier fluctuations during the last 10,000 years - the maximum and minimum extensions during holocene advance and retreat periods. Furthermore, this investigation also shows how far the modern accelerated retreat period of the alpine glaciers is unusual as compared to earlier retreat periods.

Posted by: luminous beauty | March 3, 2010 9:22 PM

P. Lewis nailed it at #142.

What gave it away for me was the preference for UAH, the shortest and (because it is not measuring surface temperature) least "warming" record in the modern temperature context, whilst simultaneously coming out with:

When I grew tired of dumbly believing this expert or that one, I went in search of source data, but insisted on framing my own questions. These were: (i)What is the longest continuous direct measurement of temperature anywhere? Ans: Hadley CET since 1659...

Whatever's convenient at the time, eh?

Of course, the oh so polite beginning which eventually decloaked to show a linguistic pugilist, and the use of many discredited Denialist factoids, both added to the toll of warning bells, but what got me most was that a "graduate Manufacturing Eng who dropped out of a physics degree at London Uni", who professed to be "pretty durn [sic] fascinated by this Great AGW Debate [sic]", could come up with the notion that the temperature record of the planet is fractal.

He's obviously not studied the nature of temperature change over different scales of time, because the planet's temperature record is not fractal.

I smell troll, slathered in the lavender scent of feigned concern and moderation.

Posted by: Bernard J. | March 3, 2010 9:26 PM

Brent's incorrect title did turn up this gem that reveals his true feelings, however (scroll to bottom):

Brent Hargreaves, on September 30th, 2009 at 6:54 am Said:

Hi there, and thank you for helping the AGW debate along. I’m a graduate engineer, and have made determined attempts to obtain the source data behind the AGW hypothesis. My current thinking is that the debate resembles a political or religious debate rather than a scientific exercise intended to confirm or refute the hypothesis. Doubt it and you’re a heretic!! I reckon that the AGW scare is just the latest incarnation of “apocalypticism”: mankind perversely needs to fear some great danger.

Sheesh!

Posted by: luminous beauty | March 3, 2010 9:39 PM

Brent:

What is the longest single-glacier record, direct and indirect anywhere? Ans: Mr. Holzhauser's pet glacier, the Aletsch, since 1200BC. Conclusion: Business as usual.

Here's Holzhauser's "business as usual":

along with virtually every other glacier expert, he is deeply worried. "No one can yet say with scientific certainty that the glacier is shrinking because of a greenhouse effect caused by humans," says Holzhauser. "But the fact is that in the last 100 years the glacier has shrunk faster than ever before. And in the last 10 years it has been reducing at a phenomenal rate of up to 50 m per year."

"The Aletsch is so big it reacts slowly," says Holzhauser. "But what we're seeing already augurs a tragedy."

Yup, sounds like business as usual to me.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | March 3, 2010 9:45 PM

Brent has left a long trail on the Internet. Let's follow it and find out what he really thinks, shall we?

All emphasis mine.

ABC Blogs:

What a good article! I have actually found the Great Climate Debate rather distressing, fearing that the "other side" may carry the day, with catastrophic consequences. (I am teasing you here: I'll reveal "my side" later...) The notion that scientific debate is not gentlemanly but instead a pitiless conflict between ambitious combatants has the ring of truth. "Science" has recently stepped into the void left by theologians; the unwashed public have replaced one set of authority figures for another. And we, the public, find it distressing that our experts are in conflict. Like yer parents arguing with each other. But the daft notion that "science" has it all figured out is, well, daft. It's a dynamic process advancing in fits and starts, and (presumably) even through regressions. And is NEVER settled.

Watts Up With That:

I hereby propose a detailed study of the Urban Heat Island Effect. Its null hypothesis would be: “that there is, to 99% significance, no difference between temperatures at the centre of 100,000-population towns and a temperatures at a 10km perimeter.” And then let the facts speak. The Gore Brigade have failed to demolish the null hypothesis that temperatures in recent decades are insignificantly different to those of past centuries. The general public continue to believe in this null hypothesis. This is not surprising: beneath the byzantine complexity of Statistical Method lies a solid core of common sense, a quality which sadly disappears in some scientists who place their seat on the gravy train before their professional integrity.

Watts Up With That:

Following the advice of Jerome Ravetz here on Wattsupwiththat – “Never forget that you might be wrong” – I had a stroll around the RealClimate site looking for their best shot at validating the AGW hypothesis. It linked to a “Stand Up for Climate Science” petition, http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?clim4tr&1 and a sad little entry by Phil Jones: “195. Prof Phil Jones. Thanks guys, I need all the help I can get. Your support is much appreciated.” I guess he had it coming, but he looked like a frightened old man yesterday in London. Guys, the momentum is with us now: shouldn’t we now concentrate on scientific debate rather than further reviling Jones now that he’s down? Some great victories have been won since Climategate emerged; isn’t it time to look for common ground, to capture the parts of climate science that are agreed by both factions? Please, a little magnanimity. Don’t destroy his dignity.

Ritchie, James, I share your fury at the obscene fraud that is AGW. (RichieP (08:54:05) – “… these wicked conmen”, James Sexton (09:08:39) – “There must be a judgment day…”) If the Hockey Team didn’t believe their own pseudo-science I’d agree with you that the attack must go on. But listen to the interview Mann gave on 26 Feb – http://www.pointofinquiry.org/michael_mann_unprecedented_attacks_on_climate_research/ and I hope you’ll hear what I hear: this guy thinks he’s just an honest scientist being attacked by irrational savages who try to undermine his solid research and the consequent…. aaaah… apocalypse. Yes, he’s barking mad. Steven Mosher, here on WUWT argues that it’s a case of “Noble Cause Corruption”. Mann is wrong, not evil. Ritchie, your references to Virgil and Nelson make your point very well, but the historical metaphors I would offer are 1918 v 1945. The allies foolishly took Germany to the cleaners at the end of WWI, and wisely helped Germany back to health at the end of WWII. Fight the disease (self-calibrating data-withholding gravy-train futurological pseudo-science) not the patient. I suggest that a true victory would be Michael Mann declaring, “Based on the data I then had, the Hockey Stick was good science. But in the light of the new evidence, I agree that recent decades are well within historical range. Maybe the “driver” – if any driver is required – is solar. Whilst we all agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we now know that its variations are a consequence of temperature changes, not a cause.” And they all lived happily ever after ;-)

Never Yet Melted:

I reckon that the hacker (or was it maybe a mole) who blew the whistle on this scandalous abuse of scientific procedure at East Anglia University deserve a Nobel prize! Professor Jones has paid the price and resigned; I hope that in the US a rigorous examination of Michael Mann’s “Hockey Stick” graph will now be conducted. If, upon accessing Mann’s full methodology and data, the Hockey Stick is discredited, then the reputation of its creator must inevitably crumble.

Climate Fraudit:

Steve, I think you made a small typo above. Sumbissions by the public to the Muir Russell Inquiry need to be in by 28 Feb, not 10 Feb as you wrote above. I’m going to propose that Boulton’s links to UEA make him an unsuitable member. Keep up the magnificent work. I reckon that your tenacity in demanding scientific rigour is of great importance, and will be celebrated in future accounts of science at the millennium.

There's a lot more. Follow it up for yourselves if you're interested in what kind of person Brent is, and the puerile game he's playing.

Posted by: John | March 3, 2010 9:57 PM

We shouldn't be too surprised at all this denialist straw grasping.

It's happened before. In the 19thC the denialists of the day (the Flat-Earthers) were quite prominent in the media (ie. gutter-press), issueing challenges (and cash prizes) to scientists if they could demonstrate that the earth was round. Naturally, the Flat-Earther would proclaim all the proofs wrong and then do it all over again some time later.

The similarities with Monckton et al are notable - shameless self-promoters and showmen, who appealed to those sections of the media more interested in spectacle than substance.

Posted by: Michael | March 3, 2010 10:11 PM

Luminous Beauty (183):

Yes, the posting I wrote on Sep 30th was, and remains, my view. Neoapocalypticism indeed.

Had I stated my entire 'current position' at the outset my reception here on this site would have been all the more hostile.

I expect that my reticence will be seen as deviousness and hypocrisy, and I suppose I had better withdraw.

With nothing to lose, here is my parting shot: If a "Troll" is a person who maliciously engages in conversation with the express purpose of disrupting it, well, no, I have better things to do with my time. I was hoping to encounter courteous and knowledgeable people who would, during frank and fiery debate, challenge my current position and thereby help me evolve.

Hasn't been a complete waste of time: People have kindly proposed some interesting leads on C14, on sensitivity, on Holzhauser's latest work.

For those who consider that explicit confirm/refute criteria of a hypothesis is some kind of trap, well this I find revealing. Ask a churchman when his prophet's coming back, or ask a politician when the budget will balance: they will both spout empty eloquence which really means "Ahhhhh no! You're not going to get me on THAT one!"

Ask a scientist what velocity will be a second after dropping an apple and he'll reply "9.81 m/s"

Ask a climatologist, as distinct from a scientist, what are the falsifiability criteria for his hypothesis and (with the honourable exception of the OpenMind website) you'll get a load of waffle that really means "Ahhhhh no! You're not going to get me on THAT one!"

Posted by: Brent | March 3, 2010 10:26 PM

"Ask a scientist what velocity will be a second after dropping an apple and he'll reply "9.81 m/s""

Bang there goes the atmophere! If only science were so simple Brent. That whispy invisible stuff, you'd think physics could almost ignore it wouldn't you.

I find the conclusion to you [latest rant](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/theempiricalevidenceforman.php#comment-2321010 quite removed from the discussion I read here, thought I haven't read it all.

However I find your conclusion quite antagonistic to your method/process.

From this:

I was hoping to encounter courteous and knowledgeable people who would, during frank and fiery debate, challenge my current position and thereby help me evolve.

To this:

Ask a climatologist, as distinct from a scientist, what are the falsifiability criteria for his hypothesis and (with the honourable exception of the OpenMind website) you'll get a load of waffle that really means "Ahhhhh no! You're not going to get me on THAT one

What is missing is the evidnece to support your conclusion. In fact how many climatologist did your interveiw here to gain this conclusion?

Posted by: jakerman | March 3, 2010 10:48 PM

Not accusing you, John. It was a general question unrelated to what you posted about Brent.

Posted by: James | March 3, 2010 10:57 PM

Not accusing you, John. It was a general question unrelated to what you posted about Brent.

Of course it wasn't. Because accusing me of wrong doing in this matter would be a futile and embarrassing excercise.

Posted by: John | March 3, 2010 11:03 PM

John, in my own mind I silently disagreed with you when you wrote Brent is an obvious troll. I thought he was a different class and his approach was not obvious. But your chasing evidence and subsequent developments have altered my position.

Cheers.

Posted by: jakerman | March 3, 2010 11:07 PM

Gack!

At #182 I should have said:

...least "warm" record...

rather than:

...least "warming" record...

They mean two quite different things.

And whilst I'm here - Brent, you might protest a desire to engage others here on the basis of science, but when you walk through the door with so many patently false 'points', you can't expect to be tolerated for too long. As Chris O'neill noted, one of the foci of the Deltoid crowd is to unpick both the deliberate and the ignorant bullshit of pseudoscientific claims, and you walked in with a great big target on your chest.

You were given quite a long grace period by the rough-and-tumble standards of blog discussion, and you failed to demonstrate your sincerity. The problem is yours, and not that of others.

Live with it - or leave your ideology behind and get some real education.

Posted by: Bernard J. | March 3, 2010 11:23 PM

Peter if you read this, I really liked the video, but I didn't like the Obama bit even before James presented it as relateing to health care. I found that bit a little grating.

Posted by: jakerman | March 3, 2010 11:40 PM

James the misrepresention is limited to Obama making this joke against anit AGW conspiracists rather than health care. Video's premise is accurate insofar as it conveys the the anti AGW delusionist who actually agrue there is a conspiracy plot.

My assessment is the the consipracy delustionsist are in greater number on in the anti AGW group than the anti health care group, But with much overlap.

And you Jame are one that resorts to scientific conspiracy theory in this debate if to a lessor extent than some.

Posted by: jakerman | March 3, 2010 11:58 PM

John @188 many thanks!

Brent, lovely comments made at the denier sites. Why do those in denial about AGW have to repeatedly show themselves to be morally bankrupt and deceitful? You only harm your cause.

For what it is worth, my log post #164 finally came through. A good few references to keep you busy.

Posted by: MapleLeaf | March 4, 2010 12:13 AM

Shorter James:

Warmist are only permitted to smack down arguments I have vetted and deemed to represent mainstream sceptics.

Please send arguments you intend to smack down to me for vetting, as I will not let you know in advance which arguments are mainstream and which get a free pass.

Posted by: jakerman | March 4, 2010 12:40 AM

James said:

"Disco, I mean, Stu. To be honest, I really don't get the question. And I am afraid that if I start delving down that path I will be accused yet again of changing the subject.

Is it your suggestion that the prescence of aerosols in the atmosphere has masked the effects of AGW until now, and that aerosols are being replaced, therefore we can expect AGW to accelerate as a result? Look I don't know."

Don't worry, you were halfway there. If aerosols provide a big cooling effect, the immediate reaction is usually 'good, that'll counteract the warming!'. But only for as long as aerosols are increasing in concentration, even if they stayed the same the increasing GHG forcing would cause warming. Obviously if aerosol pollution was cleaned up, the warming would likely accelerate.

To put it another way, large aerosol cooling implies high climate sensitivity, and vice-versa. We've seen 0.7-0.8C warming in the surface temp record over the last >100 years. If aerosols are hardly masking any warming, then great because we'll probably only see a 2C rise this century. Could be 4-6C if they're masking a lot of warming.

I dunno about you (and everyone else), but it seemed counterintuitive when I first heard this. Made plenty of sense after some thought though.

Posted by: Stu | March 4, 2010 2:31 AM

Ah, that's the crux of the matter! We simply don't know James, aerosol forcing is one of the biggest uncertainties in climate science.

Posted by: Stu | March 4, 2010 3:22 AM

I guarantee you that any scientist who disproves AGW will certainly get a Nobel Prize.

The smart money is on two - physics and economics ;-)

Posted by: Lotharsson | March 4, 2010 3:46 AM

An interesting study of the Urban Heat Island effect has just emerged, by Dr. Roy Spencer at Alabama Uni.

If this research "has legs", then it will surely be a useful calibrator of earthstation temperature measurements.

Some troll called Brent was calling for just such a study (#188). Glad we got rid of him.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/03/spencer-using-hourly-surface-dat-to-gauge-uhi-by-population-density/

Posted by: tnerB | March 4, 2010 4:45 AM

Brent droned;

Ask a scientist what velocity will be a second after dropping an apple and he'll reply "9.81 m/s"

And a feather??.........

OMG! Gravity is a fraud!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Michael | March 4, 2010 5:09 AM

Whoops, yes this is the missing words round.

Posted by: Stu | March 4, 2010 5:18 AM

I didn't reckon that video was as conclusive as this one. http://www.tinyurl.com.au/2vb

Posted by: sunspot | March 4, 2010 5:59 AM

Yes, Andrew, it's me.

Given that people found postings I've made elsewhere (which, incidentally, I stand by), I'm wondering whether to withdraw.

It seems that others here consider me some kind of agent provocateur, and 'blew my cover'. But had I wished to visit incognito I wouldn't have used my real Christian name.

I drew some flak for claiming that there were people of goodwill on both sides, and fell foul of some ferocious partisanship. For what it's worth, I'm convinced that this Great Debate will eventually reach some form of concensus, with combatants on both sides conceding points, and over on WUWT I was arguing with sceptic bigots that, e.g., the atrocious attacks on Phil Jones were unfair and utterly unhelpful, and that the two warring factions should be seeking at least SOME common ground.

For instance, a guy called James tried an approach along the lines of "We all agree on these points; but we disagree on some others; let's debate those others." He was howled down, but the howlers may have drowned out other, more courteous debaters who might usefully have continued the debate.

I stated from the outset that I was a sceptic, but initially avoided using that loaded word. I did not claim that I had a virgin record; that I had never expressed grave reservations about the AGW hypothesis. I figured that it would poison the atmosphere here if I tried to describe the full journey I've travelled as a mere member of the public in search of the truth.

I've been reading some of the WG1 document, which begins with a sound statement of Scientific Method (in Ch 1), and refers to Popper's principle of falsifiability. In what I thought was a cheerful tone, I asked the chatroom what it would take to make them change their minds (WG1 says "It is not the belief or opinion of the scientists that is important, but rather the results of this testing." The "test" I proposed was the UAH MSU data, but earthstation data corrected for UHI effect would do). Some had a decent stab at accepting this cheerful challenge which would anyway have zero effect on the high-level players. Some said, "It's more complicated than that: a single temperature series can't do what Einstein's eclipse did. Other factors, such as polecap cover, need to contribute to the chequered flag", which is a very fair point.

The scorn and derision heaped upon language like 'chequered flag' (which men of good will will accept as shorthand for a much more verbose set of validation criteria) is a little offputting. But one must accept that, in such a blogosphere environment, the loudmouth is enitled to his say.

I remain convinced that, on the warmist side (sorry to use that perjorative label) there are people who hold the beliefs they do because they have seen what to them is satisfying evidence, and I'm interested in that. Now that my sincerity is disbelieved, I understand that some will think these are empty words; that fools like me will maintain their stance regardless of contrary evidence.

There's intolerance here to contrary viewpoints, although some have been kind enough to say, "What you just asserted is countered by the following (...)", and I'm determined to follow such leads and question my current stance.

I see a historical parallel between this Great Debate and the theory of Continental Drift which was initially pooh-poohed by the leading lights of geology until observation confirmed the theory. Unfortunately, because the current debate's resolution depends on how the future pans out, we may have to wait a long time.

Posted by: tnerB | March 4, 2010 7:17 AM

Michael (220): You said "And a feather??.........

OMG! Gravity is a fraud!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Surely, you understand the point I was making: that science depends on the comparison of observed and predicted data; that a physicist would stick his neck out and make a forecast; that if some figure other than 9.81 m/s were measured it would be worthy of investigation, with the potential to cause a re-think.

Tell me, if in the future the IPCC forecasts don't tally with actual observation, what would it take for you to say, "Theory refuted!"?

Posted by: tnerB | March 4, 2010 7:36 AM

tnerB @226, sorry but Brent backwards wasn't difficult to crack...

@ 228 , It is already actual observation. If you go back to the beginning of this topic you'll see comments about the 29,500 datasets mentioned in the video.

Posted by: Andrew | March 4, 2010 8:18 AM

Brent @ 228:

Tell me, if in the future the IPCC forecasts don't tally with actual observation, what would it take for you to say, "Theory refuted!"?

I'm not a climate scientist. I accept the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that human caused global warming is a real and serious problem. That's the only sensible position a layman can take. If the theory were to be refuted either by observations or by some new research, that consensus would change and I would follow.

Posted by: Dave R | March 4, 2010 8:25 AM

Brent writes:

Surely, you understand the point I was making

I did, and it was an exemplar point. You tried to make science simpler than it really is and you go caught out, as in gotchya!

Science isn't as simple as you pretend. There are complexities and hence scientists make some caveats. But the uncertainties work both ways. Things could be worst or better than best estimates, timing could be sooner or later than best estimates. That does not mean we ignore nor even reject the most precise estimates achievable.

Posted by: jakerman | March 4, 2010 8:50 AM

DaveR,

An excellent point. I am a senior scientist who works in the field of population ecology. However, in the field of climate science, like you, I defer to the vast majority of my peers doing the actual research who argue that there is a very real human fingerprint over the current warming. Note that the denialiti, for the most part, do not do any research. Like creationists, their job is to sit by on the sidelines and to chip away at the evidence in support of AGW which regularly appears on the pages of peer-reviewed scientific journals. Similarly, don't expect the pages of Evolution or Journal of Evolutionary Biology to publish articles in support of intelligent design, because the evidence does not exist. Instead, there are web sites who dedicate themselves to debunking the evidence behind evolution. This is the same game played by the AGW denialati.

What I tend to find in these debates is that many of the contrarians try to give the impression that they are, indeed, armchair experts, valiantly seeking the truth from the fiction. But, like Brent, they come on here hand waving 'facts' from appalling anti-scientific denialist web sites like Milloy's "Junk Science". At the same time, they do not like to read (or are too lazy to seek out) the primary literature. Instead they rely on interpretations from think tanks, astroturf corporate lobbying groups and web sites set up explicitly to distort the empirical evidence.

When Brent appeared to deny yesterday that there is a huge anti-environmental 'slush fund' I realized his comments were beyond the pale. One of the things I wrote in the journal Oikos with Stuart Pimm ten years ago with respect to separating good science from the rubbish rotuinely churned out by the think tanks is to 'follow the money'. In researching this on and off for the past 15 years what I have found is that huge amounts of cash are constantly channeled from industries opposing government regulation to public relations companies and think tanks who act as third parties in promulgating the corporate view. Check out how much money, for example, the fossil fuel industries and their paid-for lobbyists spend trying to influence government policy in the United States each year, and then compare this with the total lobbying budget of environmental NGOs. The latter's lobbying and PR budget is infintisimally small in comparison. And this is just money spent for lobbying purposes. Add up campaign contributions and then the difference becomes even more stupendous. Of course money buys influence, and this is why the corporate lobby invest so much money in trying to debunk the science that they effectively hate.

With respect to adaptation, humans are challenging natural systems and the communities and species that make them up to adjust to changes that they have not experienced in millions of years, if ever. Besides climate change, humans have simplified ecosystems in a variety of ways, through fragmentation, outright elimination, the invasion of non-native exotic species, chnages in the nutrient and hydrological cycles and various types of pollution. Climate change has been added to the mix. GiThere is little doubt that we are forcing nature to respond in ways in which it will not be able to, given the synergized effects of the human assault. We are already seeing ecological network webs unravel, due to mistimed phenological effects amongst species at different trophic levels that are involved in strong interactions. When this happens, feedback loops within communities are damaged, and entire chains of species are disprupted, with serious consequences for the functioning of ecosystems. The think tanks and astroturf groups do not have a clue about any of this, so they dismiss it. This is a typical contrarian trick. Do not understand something? Then ignore it.

The problem is that natural systems are immensely complex and exhibit adaptive properties. At the same time, given their complexity, ecologists have only been able to examine some communities whereas the vast majority (>99%) are not being studied at all. This means that, if the worrying trends that are being currently elucidated in research were to be extrpolated across ecological communities across the biosphere, we would probably realize how serious the predicament really is. Given that complex adaptive systems do not function linearly, once some critical threshold is passed then we can expect very nasty surprises. Pleading ignorance, as Marcel Kinkaid said quite elegantly earlier using the Titanic analogy, is no excuse.

Posted by: Jeff Harvey | March 4, 2010 9:07 AM

Totally off-topic, guys, but apparently the American Family Association, also known as People Who Should Focus On Their Own Fucking Family, wants to stone Tillikum the orca.

The crazies want to stone a fucking orca.

Posted by: Katharine | March 4, 2010 9:12 AM

Tell me, if in the future the IPCC forecasts don't tally with actual observation, what would it take for you to say, "Theory refuted!"?

I repeat, there is no indication that any of the theories which underpin current climate knowledge and predictive capability are anywhere close to being refuted. Asking the question that you keep asking implies an intransigience on the part of the recipient that is simply not borne out by the evidence.

Posted by: Bud | March 4, 2010 9:19 AM

Brent imagines:

I see a historical parallel between this Great Debate and the theory of Continental Drift which was initially pooh-poohed by the leading lights of geology until observation confirmed the theory.

If that's what you see, you need to have your scientific methodology vision checked.

Disparagers of continental drift, and disparagers of other radical ideas such as a round earth and evolution, were largely holding onto their scientifically untested beliefs through ideology (usually religious) or through habit. Those folk who relinquished their opposition were the ones who examined the scientific evidence and assessed it independently of their ideology.

The physics of anthropogenic global warming has been tested as have few other theories, with no credible refutation resulting. The science underpinning many other climate-related fields has also been minutely scrutinised, and it has emerged ever more robust.

In the case of AGW, the denialist cause is not the equivalent of continental drift, for several fundamental reasons.

Firstly, the idea of human-caused climate change was in fact rejected decades ago by many, when it intially emerged, and it was with the gathering of evidence that it has come to be accepted by most.

Secondly, the testing of AGW physics reinforces the scientific case for it, whilst the testing of the denialist cause weakens the denialist case.

If there really is some extraordinary proof lingering somewhere that refutes AGW, it has hidden itself so well that it has eluded both the rational impartiality of the scientific method, and the desperate trawlings of the pseudoscientific anti-AGW ideologues. Any evidence that might be able to counter the fundamental case for AGW after such searching must be so subtle that it's existence is unlikely to actually make much difference to the case anyway, or it simply does not exist as the Denialati imagine it.

If Brent thinks that he has a serious case for refuting the physics and the empirical evidence supporting AGW, he might consider helping the latest troll on deltoid who has dropped the ball when asked my standard list of questions.

In the end, the only poo-pooing that will happen will be scraped off the faces of the Denialists when the Great Experiment inexorably unwinds in spite of the howls of the ideaologues who claim that there is actually a "Great Debate" in the first place. Unfortunately for many humans, and for many non-human species, by then the rest of us will probably be up to our necks in poo-poo because we wasted so many decades engaged in useless faffing about a debate that was not a debate at all.

I've quoted Francis Crick before, and I'll quote him again:

And so to those of you who may be vitalists I would make this prophecy: what everyone believed yesterday, and you believe today, only cranks will believe tomorrow.

Posted by: Bernard J. | March 4, 2010 9:45 AM

To me the most obvious evidence that the world is warming is that satellites can now see how much electromagnetic radiation the Earth receives and how much electromagnetic radiation the Earth either reflects or radiates away into space. Earth receives more than it emits and reflects. If one understands the concept called conservation of energy then one knows the Earth is warming without trusting the temperature database of CRU or the other multiple organizations as well.

Is this type of concept really too hard to be mentioned on TV, radio, and newspapers?

/Formerly a "a lurker"

Posted by: Childermass | March 4, 2010 10:46 AM

Bud (240): You wrote: ".... but if you consistently refuse to answer the question which I have asked you twice - what would it take you to accept the conclusions of the vast majority of the world's scientific community? - the why the hell should anyone..."

Fair point, Bud, and I see I have tried your patience. It seems I need a bit of a re-think on validation criteria. People here are consistently saying that it's dumb and simplistic to seek validation by some single numerical parameter. Previously, I'd have responded to your challenge with "a UAH MSU temperature anomaly above +0.8C on three occasions in the period 2010-2020".

But (and I'm not being ironic here) I'm struggling to come up with something more sophisticated. I've taken the position that, since we're talking about global warming, the question 'well, is it warmer or not'? was reasonable.

Above, Lotharsson spoke disapprovingly of 'Popperian fundamentalists'. Now don't bite my head off here... I must say that that sounds like a virtue not a vice. Here I am looking for a yes/no validation, and people are saying that it's dumb and simplistic approach to hypothesis testing. And I'm honour-bound to shift my paradigm if I'm shown to have reduced the pass/fail criterion to a meaningless snippet of data.

Assume for the moment that I'm not being cute with you: Please tell me what is an appropriate measure of whether the AGW hypothesis is sound? And please treat me as if I were 'an intelligent but uninformed listener'; be patient. All this angry "Look, idiot, 29000 biological indicators can't be LYING like you are!!!" is a tad upsetting, even via our remote keyboards.

Posted by: Brent | March 4, 2010 12:35 PM

Luminous Beauty, I wonder if it will be lost on Brent that the report you link to was published in 1966, or the facts that the US military has done research on radiative forcing of GHGs.

Brent's faith in the misguided assertion that AGW is a fallacy and/or hoax, and that climate scientists are frauds is unshakable. Why are we engaging such a mendacious individual who have stated such heinous and fallacious statements about climate scientists on the public record?

Why are those in denial so often morally bankrupt, and compelled to lie? Why?

Posted by: MapleLeaf | March 4, 2010 3:09 PM

Brent @ 246:

I'm struggling to come up with something more sophisticated

What specific objections do you have to the more sophisticated approach to which you were pointed in #127?

Here I am looking for a yes/no validation

What specific objections do you have to the simple approach that was suggested in #232?

Assume for the moment that I'm not being cute with you

I don't think that's a realistic assumption.

Posted by: Dave R | March 4, 2010 3:30 PM

They're coming at me so fast now that I'm fending them off with Kung Fu from one leg and Karate with the other.

This is your fundamental problem, moron. Instead of "fending off" the collected knowledge of the scientific community, you should be shutting your yap and listening.

Posted by: Marcel Kincaid | March 4, 2010 3:38 PM

I'm a little outnumbered here.

Not just here, fool; see

Scientific opinion on climate change

@Bud I'm sorry, but with respect, this is not a negotiation, the "two camps" (not that this is an appropriate way to describe the scientific community against the 'skeptics')

Indeed it is not. As I noted earlier, science is not a process based on debate as such, but rather on the scientific method. The basic ethos of debating is winning (witness Brent's fight metaphors) whereas the basic ethos of science is learning. Or, as Quine put it,

The desire to be right and the desire to have been right are two desires, and the sooner we separate them the better off we are. The desire to be right is the thirst for truth. On all counts, both practical and theoretical, there is nothing but good to be said for it. The desire to have been right, on the other hand, is the pride that goeth before a fall. It stands in the way of our seeing we were wrong, and thus blocks the progress of our knowledge.

Posted by: Marcel Kincaid | March 4, 2010 4:05 PM

LB, thanks for the cartoon. What really cracked me up is that they are paying money to hear a lie.

And Marcel, keeps on nailing it. The wise thing for Brent to have done would have left as soon as John outed him and exposed the vitriol and rhetoric that Brent has posted elsewhere. i like that quote by Quine.

I'm beginning to think that Brent may be yet another denialist D-K case.

Posted by: MapleLeaf | March 4, 2010 4:15 PM

apart from the minor explosions

If you don't express contempt for these people, you're playing into their hands -- they seek legitimacy in the form of a "debate", with two "sides" or "camps". Don't give these scum what they want.

Posted by: Marcel Kincaid | March 4, 2010 4:34 PM

Our best tactic is evidence, risk management and effective communication.

Indeed, but it is a (nuanced?) mistake to think that "communication" should include dialogues with anti-science trolls on blogs like this, regardless of how nuanced they are -- it's a waste of time and resources, per #101. And again, on what makes someone like Brent a troll from his very first post: "a scientific illiterate coming to a scientific forum for the purpose of having a debate is a case of trolling". His post was "nuanced" in that it was deliberately designed to present himself as a reasonable, uncommitted person, a non-extremist, seeking a reasonable and rational discussion ... but to a nuanced reader there were all sorts of red flags; certainly his defense of fellow "sceptic" James and his mischaracterization of James's ridiculous attack on this video was a big one.

Posted by: Marcel Kincaid | March 4, 2010 6:47 PM

Thanks James, now we know you’ve got nothing meaningful to contribute. What are you doing back here again?

activates killfile

Posted by: phi1ip | March 4, 2010 7:15 PM

I was trying to engage in some meaningful debate

Denial is no debate, you scientific illiterate.

You see a check of Marcel's form

Ah yes, form ... but substance is what matters, fool.

Posted by: Marcel Kincaid | March 4, 2010 7:30 PM

As a long time reader of this blog, I have to say that one of the main reasons it is so consistently excellent is the relatively civil, science-based exchanges. I understand that it is frustrating to engage with others who are clearly not interested in good faith discussion, but I don't see how gratuitous belligerence and spite do anything but cheapen the discussion and dilute otherwise good arguments.

Posted by: A. Lurker | March 4, 2010 7:52 PM

Marcel, I'd love to check your analyse your comments for substance, but sadly, there is none.

That you are a liar is already well-established; no need to compound it with such obvious falsehoods.

I don't see how gratuitous belligerence and spite do anything but cheapen the discussion and dilute otherwise good arguments.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam. And just what good arguments are there with those acting in bad faith?

Posted by: Marcel Kincaid | March 4, 2010 8:05 PM

I really don't want to sound like a concern troll.

Then stop being one.

I just think such unrelenting hatred and bile is unproductive.

What are you, James's older brother?

Given how many people have said that I'm spot on, my comments don't seem to be all that unproductive. How about yours, lurker?

Posted by: Marcel Kincaid | March 4, 2010 8:41 PM

A. Lurker, are you Brent?

Posted by: John | March 4, 2010 8:53 PM

I'm not sure why you think that my questioning your tone is equivalent to defending James, but whatever. I'm not really interested in arguing about this.

Then stop being one.

Fair enough. I've said my piece.

Posted by: A. Lurker | March 4, 2010 8:57 PM

I'm not sure why you think that my questioning your tone is equivalent to defending James, but whatever.

That's not what I meant. James said that my posts (including my other internet posts) consist of nothing but "vitriolic and obscene abuse", and then you chimed in with "unrelenting hatred and bile"; these are very similar misrepresentations.

Posted by: Marcel Kincaid | March 4, 2010 9:05 PM

Sorry to sound accusatory, but I do get suspicious when threads fill up with a variety of new names after an inglorious exit from a troll.

Posted by: John | March 4, 2010 9:19 PM

Marcel, i largely agree with your assessment of both James and Brent. I just prefer the way John demostrates his case. Its a rare occation that calling someone a liar is more effective than demonstrating it.

Name calling is an equal opportunity sport, any mug can swing back with bluster and noise. Using evidence to make a case greatly favours those who are practicing truth seeking traits.

Posted by: jakerman | March 4, 2010 9:35 PM

Dr. Rabett has been a busy bunny. He posted this today and provides an excellent link as to the theory of radiative transfer.

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/03/simplest-explanation.html

Highly recommended. Also stimulating some discussion going by the number of comments.

Posted by: MapleLeaf | March 4, 2010 11:28 PM

Somehow, they always seem to be considered as one question.

Uh, no; GW and AGW are different terms.

even if you believe natural causes are largely at fault, you can still logically say "Well, I can't control nature, but I can control that part of it that's man-made" and proceed to do so.

But what AGW deniers actually say is that anthropogenic factors are swamped by natural factors and that it's too expensive and demanding to make changes with uncertain and at best minimal benefits.

Bringing down the emotional level would certainly help to achieve the changes we need to make.

The emotional level is pumped up by the huge outlays of money by corporations that don't want to make such changes.

Posted by: Marcel Kincaid | March 5, 2010 1:45 AM

jeff of the "inside". If you have a problem with the debate, then perhaps you'd best start looking internally for the reasons why.

For instance, look at Al Gore's "documentary". If your lot hadn't made such a big deal out of the over dramatics, and outright lies in Gore's and other documentaries, hadn't so blatantly manipulated the media, hadn't sought to suppress the release of data and conflicting views, then our lot might not have so much to work with.

At the end of the day, Jeff of the inside, unless you find yourself a bunch of weapons and a bloody big army, you're going to need to convince our lot that your case is meritorious. So far you have failed dismally. The abuse of the Hamiltons and Kincaids of the world hardly helps. So suck it up, Princess, and make your case. Because so far you haven't.

Posted by: James | March 5, 2010 4:25 AM

, unless you find yourself a bunch of weapons and a bloody big army, you're going to need to convince our lot that your case is meritorious

That would take brain surgery, not an army.

Posted by: Marcel Kincaid | March 5, 2010 4:37 AM

James,

I think that Marcel and others here have pretty much dismantled the nonsense you have presented here with unfortunate regularity. As I said above, the 'debate' over AGW should have been over 10 years ago. That is hasn't has little to do with science and everything to do with profit and power. Given that you, like most of the denialists that come on here, know little about science, I can only surmise that your motivation is also a political and idealogical one. Let me guess: you are politically to the right and perhaps even a libertarian? Gee, that was not hard to predict, was it?

The so-called 'victory' of the denialati is a pyrrhic one. All that this obfuscation of the science does is to push complex adaptive systems towards a point beyond which they will be unable to sustain life in manner that we know. Once this happens (and it already is), we can expect there to be serious consequences.

Nature is unforgiving. Once critical ecosystem services break down as a result of a diverse and ongoing human assault, then there will be profound consequences for our species. There is no way around it. At present we are living off a one-time inheritance of natural capital and are spending it like there is no tomorrow. On top of that, we are altering critical biogeochemical cycles (and climate), forces that operate over very large spatial and temporal scales. As ecologist Peter Vitousek said back in 1994, there will be effects of human activities on ecosystems across the biosphere. We are already entering a period of consequences. Against this background are people like yourselves who are happy to see humanity fiddling while Rome burns. You appear unconcerned that there are likely to be serious repercussions over the current global experiment that humans are conducting on systems of immense complexity but which sustain us. Climate change, given its scale, is likely to exacerbate many of the other stresses induced on nature by humanity.

So go ahead and keep your head buried in the sand. They say that ignorance is bliss. You are a shining example of that.

Posted by: Jeff Harvey | March 5, 2010 4:46 AM

Oh, and the only thing that Marcel has dismantled is any shred of goodwill that interested doubters may have had in your cause.

Posted by: James | March 5, 2010 5:16 AM

"Trading hypotheticals does not work. It is not a real market and must fail."

Someone had better tell the currency markets to hurry up and fail.

Posted by: Neil | March 5, 2010 5:39 AM

Andrew, you would be hard pressed to find me trying to debate the science with out very clearly expressed reservations on this blog......you might want to read my comments rather than the abusive commentary on my comments when assessing this. And sorry, but like it or not there are a bunch of scientists with an opposing view. They are not all paid by Big Oil (I've checked that) and a lot of them make a very good logical case.

They are kind of helped by the flatline temperature graph over the last decade.

Posted by: James | March 5, 2010 5:44 AM

James @ 292:

Oh, and the only thing that Marcel has dismantled is any shred of goodwill that interested doubters may have had in your cause.

James thinks that he can switch back and forth between concern trolling and regular trolling without anyone noticing.

Posted by: Dave R | March 5, 2010 5:46 AM

James, you utterly default yourself from this debate when you write, "And as for paying "climate debts" to countries that have spent the last 50-100 years slaughtering each other well fuck that".

Good grief, where to begin dismantling this appalling remark? Perhaps by beginning with the fact that poverty in the third world has been driven by western foreign policy for years? By the fact that the US and UK have traditionally seen countries in the south as having a service function for comemrcial elites in the north? Hell, man, have you read any planning documents at all? Have you heard of George Kennan? Paul Nitze? Henry Kissinger? The Council on Foreign Relations? Zbignieuw Brezinski? Have you read memos written by these political 'luminaries'?

Samir Amin, perhaps Africa's most renowned economist, said at the World Social Forum at Peurto Allegre in 2003 that the developed world (meaning countries in the 'quad') were only interested at 'looting resources for the south'. Patrick Bond exapands upon this in his book, "Looting Africa: The Economics of Exploitation", as does economist Tom Athanasiou in "Divided Planet: The Ecology of Rich and Poor". Dimitri Simes, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, observed in 1988 that Mikhael Gorbachev’s initiatives would “liberate American foreign policy from the straightjacket imposed by superpower hostility". This meant that the United States can end “the manipulation of America by third world nations.” The manipulation of the rich by the undeserving poor has always been seen as a serious problem amongst western elites, and is particularly relevant in Latin America, which in the preceding five years (1983-1988) had transferred some $150 billion to the industrial West in addition to $100 billion of capital flight, amounting to twenty-five times the total value of the Alliance for Progress and fifteen times that of the Marshall Plan.

The litany goes on. Nothing changes, except that the US now sees little in the way of a military impediment to its control of areas containing vast resource and mineral wealth. This is backed up by the statements of government planners over many yhears and which, not surprisingly, are ignored by the MSM.

I need not spend the next two hours responding to such a flippant remark on your part. It is precisely this comic-level book understanding of the way that the world works which appears to sum up the views of many in the denialati.

Posted by: Jeff Harvey | March 5, 2010 5:53 AM

Sorry, scienceblogs breaks links (just like it says just above this edit box, I now notice). Here is James's "flatline". The only thing that has flatlined is James's mental functions.

Posted by: Marcel Kincaid | March 5, 2010 5:59 AM

lotta inflated ego's in here :)

More irony.

I'm thinkin I might have remind some about the total and monumental fuck up's scientists have made over time, they thought they were right too !

There's a difference between scientists and science.

Posted by: Marcel Kincaid | March 5, 2010 6:11 AM

"I'm thinkin I might have remind some about the total and monumental fuck up's scientists have made over time, they thought they were right too !" - Sunspot

You referring to Roy Spencer &, John Christy and the UAH satellite data?.

Posted by: Dappledwater | March 5, 2010 6:15 AM

Brent 246 - assuming you're still around.

I read from your post that the continuation of the current upward temperature trend would do it for you, yes? Ok, but in that case why - even if all 10 years in the next decade were above your chosen anomaly value - would you choose to ascribe that temperature increase to rising human emissions? Why not the Sun? Or GCR? Or pirates? Whatever?

If you doubt CO2 causes warming now, then it seems you have absolutely no reason to accept that it causes warming just because the world continues to warm in the future.

You have your reasoning backwards. If CO2 causes warming - and we know this to be the case and we have progressed enough to make a reasonable prediction as to the extent of this - then the next decade will not comprehensively confirm or refute anything. Obviously if global temperatures fall significantly outside current estimates, then we will have to find out why, but this is not something that will refute the whole scientific case that we are warming the planet any more than a temperature record complying with current estimates means all the work has been done.

This, in a nutshell, is why being a "Popperian fundamentalist" is frowned upon. You were in effect proposing to rest the entire success or failure of a huge body of scientific work on whether or not the temperature rises above an arbitrarily determined value an arbitrary number of times as recorded by a certain arbitrary dataset. Does this not strike you as a little absurd? Popper's falsification principle has an important part to play in science, but he was not the final word in scientific philosophy. An adjustment of predictions to fit current updated knowledge does not constitute a falsification, yet it most certainly represents scientific advancement. An incorrect prediction which is based on several theories does not indicate the falsification of all those theories. Your error comes in looking at AGW as a 'hypothesis' or a 'theory' as a whole, without component parts.

You may respond to this by saying you don't doubt that CO2 causes warming, but do doubt the current estimates for climate sensitivity (I haven't seen you mention it yet though). If this is the case, then what reasons do you have for doubting the current estimates, and what arguments do you have for suggesting that we should base policy on those doubts, which you must agree are on the fringe of any discussion on the matter, rather than on the best scientific viewpoint? And do you think that the next ten years will comprehensively answer the value for climate sensitivity?

Posted by: Bud | March 5, 2010 6:24 AM

Your error comes in looking at AGW as a 'hypothesis' or a 'theory' as a whole, without component parts.

Bud, you had best look at #188. Brent's actual view of AGW is that its an "obscene fraud" and he's furious about it.

You may respond to this by saying you don't doubt that CO2 causes warming

He has clearly stated that he does doubt that; in fact, he thinks fluctuations in temperature cause fluctuations in CO2: "Whilst we all agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we now know that its variations are a consequence of temperature changes, not a cause".

Posted by: Marcel Kincaid | March 5, 2010 6:31 AM

@Jeff, Marcel and others.

Several years ago, when I used to frequent a certain online discussion forum, a guy signed up with a username which flagged him as a Ayn Rand-loving market libertarian fundamentalist. The forum had plenty of them at the time, and having argued with them countless times I was pretty fed up and short-tempered with the new guy. He spouted the same old garbage, in a manner never less than cordial, and was understandably shot down every time he posted - by myself probably more than anyone else.

After about a week I got a private message from this guy. Entitled "why is it like this?", it was an honest and genuinely confused query as to why no-one considered Rand's libertarianism a valid or benevolent philosophy. I confess to being a little touched, congratulated him on doing what no other Randist had done and actually asked a question with the purpose of learning, and proceeded to set out exactly the problems with her ideas. A few mails later, and he had scrapped his libertarian leanings and his Randist username.

Of course, this made little difference to the rest of the 20 or so Rand acolytes on the forum. Some people are of course completely entrenched trolls. Sometimes it's open to question. It's the same on climate change. I'm aware that debate with certain individuals on here - John Archer, Dave Andrews, James et al - are impossible to debate with, and I'm also well aware that Brent may simply be a concern troll. But he has at least recognised the need to answer questions (with a little prompting, granted), which is why I carry on a discussion. To be honest, it doesn't actually bother me if I occasionally waste a bit of time on a concern troll. I think I've got a pretty decent radar so as not to do it too often, and I'd rather be fooled three times than falsely accuse someone whose position could genuinely be changed once.

That's just my position, different strokes. If nothing else, and Brent merely goes back to places like WUWT and reinforces his position, at least we can point to this thread in future as evidence of the futility of engagement with people on the pseudosceptic camp. Even if they profess genuine scepticism.

Posted by: Bud | March 5, 2010 6:53 AM

James, it's not my sensitivity figure, it's from the IPCC, but thanks. The rest of your nonsense is a key example of why I cited you above as someone not worth bothering to debate with.

Posted by: Bud | March 5, 2010 6:57 AM

James @ 310:

It hasn't warmed for the last decade

Another blatant lie from James. That claim has already been shown to be false. Repeating it again without addressing the rebuttal will not make it true.

What if it doesn't warm for another decade? And another after? What then? I notice you've all neatly avoided that question.

Another blatant lie from James. That question has been answered several times in this thread, for example #127 and #232.

The guts of your science, as you people have explained to me, your words, is that there is no other explanation.

Another blatant lie from James. The mechanism by which the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming was understood long before we had added enough to make a measurable difference.

Posted by: Dave R | March 5, 2010 7:04 AM

Well Gents, it's been fun, yes, I even quite enjoyed the mindless abuse.

Like Tamino and his code, you simply can't be straight, let alone polite. Thanks to Stu and Eras for trying. It's a pity that what could have been a sensible and illuminating discussion got drowned out by a bunch of hysterically screaming extremists. But I guess I got my answer. You can't make a case for AGW and that's clear. Remember it's the "A" in AGW that's important (which is why the 29,500 pointers is meaningless and I'd love to know who sat down and counted them and whether ice loss that has trapped all those boats in the Baltic is one of them).

I'm not running away. I'm away for a wedding anniversary this weekend then start a project next week with work so I won't be available to interrupt your fierce head nodding.

And Tim, if you're an "academic" then God help academia.

Marcel, get help.

Posted by: James | March 5, 2010 7:25 AM

James at #310.

Your misrepresentation of the last decade's temperature trajectory has already been called by Bud, Jeff Harvey and Dave R.

In case the message is slow to reach your brain, after issuing from the monitor in front of you, you might consider spending some time pondering the points posted here. Of course, the same delay in comprehension is bound to operate, but perhaps if you sleep on it, the import may eventually sink in.

Do share your insights with us when they finally deign to visit your chugging brain.

Posted by: Bernard J. | March 5, 2010 7:37 AM

Aw heck, I missed James by that much.

Hopefully he'll at least have read my previous post before departing - this would give him at least a week then to turn the crank and see if his brain can churn out a considered response...

Posted by: Bernard J. | March 5, 2010 7:42 AM

Brent please state in precise terms what you want to verify.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2010 7:54 AM

Most Alaskan Glaciers Retreating, Thinning, Or Stagnating ScienceDaily (Oct. 6, 2008) — Most glaciers in every mountain range and island group in Alaska are experiencing significant retreat, thinning or stagnation, especially glaciers at lower elevations, http://www.tinyurl.com.au/2xa

but wait..................

Mass Loss from Alaskan Glaciers Overestimated? Previous Melt Contributed a Third Less to Sea-Level Rise Than Estimated

ScienceDaily (Mar. 3, 2010) — The melting of glaciers is well documented, but when looking at the rate at which they have been retreating, a team of international researchers steps back and says http://www.tinyurl.com.au/2xb

hmmmm.........astounding

Posted by: sunspot | March 5, 2010 8:00 AM

The hypocrisy of trolls such as James who "cry foul" about "abuse", but are happy to slander researchers such as Mann, Jones, Briffa on the basis of the "climategate" beatup, and anyone who disagrees with their delusions is certainly instructive, if more than tedious.

His hypocrisy is only challenged by his dishonesty and arrogance, IMHO, although his ignorance is in the race too.

I have spent thousands of words, explaining why (e.g) he is wrong to equate his personal "observations" with scientific methodology, but he is apparently unable to process information contrary to his POV.

I fear I may have (in some small part) played a role in bringing him here, as I have used links to this site to expose many of his "arguments" as the rubbish they are - hence his rage, I guess, and trolling here (where, funnily enough, he tries to mount the same "arguments".)

Thus demonstrating his honesty and search for information.

Sorry about that.

James is incapable of having a "sensible and illuminating discussion", which is why I can't be bothered engaging with him any more.

Posted by: Pterosaur | March 5, 2010 8:06 AM

Brent @ 320:

So, guys, would you have me declare: "[...] I'll just have to defer to the experts."?

Yes, since you've apparently just dismissed the more direct method of assessing it that was suggested in #127, without providing any reasoning whatsoever for that dismissal, despite being asked several times.

Posted by: Dave R | March 5, 2010 8:24 AM

Dave R (250): You referred me to a couple of sites which provide useful analysis: at Opinionations and at OpenMinds. Sorry I haven't responded quicker; I have a life outside this debate ;-)

Can I ask for you help here?

The Opinionations chappie writes that "Forcing per doubling of CO2 is 4W/m2 [Hansen et al. 2005]." Does this imply that a doubling of CO2 from the current 385 to 770PPM would add 4W/m2, and from 770 to 1540 another 4W/m2, and from 1540 to 3080? If so, am I right in thinking that the forcing effect would 'level off'? (I understand that higher PPM increases the greenhouse effect, so 'levelling off' refers only to the CO2-insolation ratio, not to temperature, and that 24W/m2 changes can be catastrophic.)

The OpenMinds site takes us through a statistical analysis. Either side of the GISS 'actual' temperature trend (in black) are confidence limits (in red). I assume these are 97% 0r 99% confidence limits, although he doesn't state it. He writes: "When the lower confidence limit (the lower red line) is above zero, we have some confidence that the trend rate is definitely positive." Now, the lower red line sinks below zero in 1996. Am I right in saying that this tells us that we can be confident that there was a warming trend up to 1996, but that more recent data has such wide confidence limits that no conclusion can yet be drawn?

This approach is indeed useful, and I'm grateful. When sceptics say, "the earth started cooling in 1998", the OpenMinds approach proves such declarations to be premature, and possibly just-plain-wrong.

Posted by: Brent | March 5, 2010 9:08 AM

Brent @ 331:

You referred me to [...] Opinionations

I've no idea what Opinionations is.

Either side of the GISS 'actual' temperature trend (in black) are confidence limits (in red)

You want to be looking at the first link in #127, which addresses your question directly. Here is the link again.

Posted by: Dave R | March 5, 2010 9:37 AM

Anonymous (323): You asked "Brent please state in precise terms what you want to verify."

I will, but first let me explain why. Imagine a history of this time being written a century hence. I can imagine three different ones:

(i) From today's perspective in 2110 it seems unimaginable that the unfolding catastrophe fell foul of the infamous "Denialisti". Climatology had proven the greenhouse effect; demonstrated that fossil fuels were raising atmospheric CO2 concentrations; warned of positive feedback beyond 450ppm. And yet the politicians failed to act, partly due to the denial movement. As if orchestrated by perverse Fate, the IPCC disbandment in 2015 coincided with the rapid escalation of temperatures. These led to a major de-gassing of the oceans and tundra, and the vicious circle of positive feedback was unleashed. By mid-century, the human race had retreated to three zones separated by the Great Cancer Desert and the Great Capricorn Desert.

(ii) By mid century it was clear that the painful decarbonisation of the world economy had just - and only just - prevented the Earth reaching tipping point. The catastrophic warming of the 2020s (whose death toll is still disputed but lies between 50 and 150 million) was the final spur to action. The scientists now vindicated, the politicians, armed with their new mandate, took swift and draconian action with almost unanimous public support. Fossil fuel consumption was reduced by a remarkable x%, and PPM at last began to subside.

(iii) From today's perspective in 2110, belief in the IPCC's projections may seem the height of gullibility. Unlike their electorates which (the polls tell us) became ever more dubious in the century's second decade, governments continued to frame policy according to IPCC advice until, in 2030, xxxx

I can think of several comic endings for 'xxxx', but humour doesn't go down well in this nest of po-faced miseryguts.

To answer your question, Anonymous, "In the event that the causal relationship between rises in CO2 PPM and global temperatures are trivial, upon reaching what set of quantifiable parameters should the AGW hypothesis be declared refuted?"

And its opposite: for "trivial" substitute "as per IPCC AR4", and for "refuted" substitute "confirmed".

Posted by: Brent | March 5, 2010 10:33 AM

Brent @ 337:

It might be worth your while looking at the opinion-nation site with its statistical analysis and tell me what you think?

I don't think it's worth wasting any of my time doing your homework for you. If you want to dispute mainstream science then the burden of proof is yours. If you're not prepared to shoulder that burden, the answer you're looking for is here.

Posted by: Dave R | March 5, 2010 10:57 AM

Brent:

humour doesn't go down well in this nest of po-faced miseryguts

Just let us know how you react to being lied to.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | March 5, 2010 12:33 PM

"Nature is unforgiving. Once critical ecosystem services break down as a result of a diverse and ongoing human assault, then there will be profound consequences for our species. There is no way around it. At present we are living off a one-time inheritance of natural capital and are spending it like there is no tomorrow. On top of that, we are altering critical biogeochemical cycles (and climate), forces that operate over very large spatial and temporal scales. As ecologist Peter Vitousek said back in 1994, there will be effects of human activities on ecosystems across the biosphere. We are already entering a period of consequences. Against this background are people like yourselves who are happy to see humanity fiddling while Rome burns. You appear unconcerned that there are likely to be serious repercussions over the current global experiment that humans are conducting on systems of immense complexity but which sustain us. Climate change, given its scale, is likely to exacerbate many of the other stresses induced on nature by humanity."

Indeed. Too many humans think they are important to the universe. Humanity is only important to itself.

Earth will do with humanity as the fundamental constants of physics and the chemistry and biology produced therein and their actions within the ecosystem please.

The universe doesn't give a shit about life. It's already nearly gotten rid of it twice.

Posted by: Katharine | March 5, 2010 12:51 PM

Sorry, mis-spelled your name. Katharine with an A.

Ah, now weren't the Cathars a sect of angry heretics who burnt true believers at the stake?

Posted by: Brent | March 5, 2010 2:52 PM

X(

Here's the preceding two paragraphs:

"In my industry (automotive), when I audit a production process needing to run at, say, 150C, I'll ask: "How do you know we've got the right temperature?", they reply "This temperature gauge", I ask, "How do you know the gauge is accurate?", they say, "From this current calibration certificate", and I say, "That's good enough for me, thank you!"

The sarcastic brethren will now hoot, "This dumb-arse thinks that global warming confirmation is a mere matter of temperature measurement, as if the planet were his welding machine!"

The rest of your post does say, in fact, that one must occasionally defer to experts. However, your post about the industry you work in tells me a few things:

1) You make poor analogies. The issue with what you're saying is that the climate is changing, but not at the same rate everywhere. In addition, a number of factors must be taken into account; the weather, the human contribution to global warming, and what would have happened had we not contributed to global warming.

To compare this to the relatively simplistic task of CALIBRATING A GAUGE shows how much you don't understand about science. (What's your background? Engineering? They don't teach engineers much about the scientific method, if I remember correctly. I mean, they're the subjects of the Salem Hypothesis.)

2) Part of being scientific is releasing your results to others so that they can evaluate them, knowing full well that any individual human may be subject to their own biases. Doing this decreases, generally, the likelihood that an individual's own biases will interfere.

Posted by: Katharine | March 5, 2010 4:59 PM

Jeff Harvey (339): Jeff, thanks for that. What you wrote is measured and intelligent.

The other threats that you mention are indeed serious, distressing, and in need of urgent action. I'll just pick out one phrase you wrote:

"e.g. we have lost about 35-40% of the capacity of freshwater, marine and forest ecosystems since 1970"

and of course you said plenty more which resonates.

My view (and I think this is shared by many Denialists, barring the extremist fringe) is that many urgent nature conservation tasks and anti-pollution tasks are being impeded - not assisted - by global warming hysteria. I would urge people to separate out the global warming issue from the general (and laudable) green agenda.

My reason for spending time on this site is to assess the AGW hypothesis from 'inside', listening to sincere, educated, well-informed people who (apart the abusive ones) argue their case passionately and also with dispassionate evidence. From 'outside' it appears that the AGW believers are a bunch of crazy tree-huggers, neoapocalyptic doommongers, egged on by corrupt scientists with a seat on the gravy train. A bunch of 'watermelons'. So I'm glad to be here and size up the psychology. The caricature is way out.

Although I have endured quite some abuse, (I think a 'troll' is a malicious participant in a conversation attempting to disrupt or deflect progress; some call me this) I have benefited from this contact: I now see more clearly how logical the AGW hypothesis is, and understand how believers see sceptics as anti-nature barbarians, as blinkered, selfish fools trying to hold back the noble endeavour of carbon reduction, as bad people, as spoilers.

Now, although I doubt the AGW hypothesis, I'm prepared to see it validated and (if this happens) be compelled to (sheepishly) reverse my position. But validation depends on the events of the next few years. Until then the jury's still out (or rather, this bloody juror, me, is voting 'unproven').

If the graph shoots up, I'll be crapping myself and I'll find a job within cycling distance, and maybe resuscitate my failed Carbon Capture business. The over-intellectual brethren here say that you can't measure global warming with a thermometer - that is Popperian Fundamentalism.

You say "Given the warning of potentially serious consequences regarding human actions (including climate change),..." Jeff, delete the last three words and I'm with you all the way! In my view, the monies which COULD be spent combating deforestation, combating rhino poachers, combating mercury pollution is frittered away on this issue-that-never-was, and future generations will sneer at us.

You mention 'tipping points' and 'ecological stability'. Can you help me out here? May I query this? (Marcel Kincaid: keep you big rude nose out of this. We're talking like grown-ups here.)

The expression 'tipping point' is of course familiar to me as an engineer, and I understand unstable equilibrium. But I understand ecosystems have embraced stable equilibrium out of Darwinian neccessity. Can you cite me some examples of tipping points? One such would be 'minimum breeding population'. Are there others? At present I think of the term as hyperbole.

As for 'ecological stability', I read about wild swings in some species (locusts, lemmings, in briefly-blooming deserts). Has there in the past been 'ecological stability', or isn't nature characterised by constant change and adaptation, often with vast population swings over a variety of timescales?

Posted by: Brent | March 5, 2010 5:54 PM

Katherine (346):

Salem Hypothesis: Never heard of it before, but reading the definition gave me a right old shock! I'm grateful to you. ma'am. And it certainly gives me pause for thought.

Engineering is an accumulation of human ingenuity founded on maths. Science, on the other hand, is a work of discovery, not of invention, although creativity and imagination are an asset. Two very different mindsets indeed, and I imagine your point is: 'Engineers, having reached almost total mastery of their field, are prone to straying into other areas where their ignorance is comical and their certainty a positive liability.' Scary thought. Plank in own eye?

Before engineering I had two unhappy years at London Uni doing physics. Quantum mechanics especially was my downfall. Maths too hard.

OK, maybe I am being thick, but please be patient: Why is it so dumb to want to validate global warming with a thermometer (yeah, yeah, with due regard to statistical technique)?

There are those who sneer "Huh, that's just Popperian Fundamentalism." They're a bit quiet at the moment, but in case they'e lurking, here's a question:

"Is the expression Popperian Fundamentalism used solely by slippery customers who like to wriggle out of giving a straight answer to a straight question?"

And, for those same people, I'll ask again: "If my thermometer isn't capable of testing global warming, pray tell, what other falsifiability criteria (as insisted on by WG1 section of the AR4) do you propose?"

Katharine, you also say "Part of being scientific is releasing your results to others so that they can evaluate them", and somebody was recently saying here that great reputations are won in science not by conforming but by leaps which overturn the prior state of the art. These two concepts together speak of honesty being at the heart of science.

Would you therefore please comment on Roy Spencer's recent work on the Urban Heat Island effect? If most of the GISS thermometers are truly undercalibrated (figure of speech) by a degree, the Great Debate over a piddling half-degree will be over in a very short time and, with the integrity you describe, the scientists will be bailing out of the AGW movement like a flock of seagulls.

Posted by: Brent | March 5, 2010 6:58 PM

Brent:

So let's call this a 'side bet', just between you and me. It may take a few years to produce a result, and you and I count for nothing, so it's just for our own personal benefit, yes? Deal?

It's a brave man who would bet that this trend has suddenly come to an end, especially one who couldn't be bothered to check realclimate for CO2's logarithmic forcing.

By the way Brent, you still haven't told us how you react to being lied to.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | March 5, 2010 7:34 PM

Oh, Michael (349), another couple of points:

-As I'm sure you understood, I was mocking that guy's scepticism over my acceptance of a calibration certificate. An interesting idea was raised by Australian blogger Jo Nova: she suggested that the opposite to scepticism is "unscepticism". But here we reach the limits of the words. The majority here would define AGW sceptics as "those who are immune to evidence, due either to prejudice or financial interest or from being maliciously antisocial". And the label "unsceptic", were we to adopt it, would mean: "those who unquestioningly accept the doomsday scenario of the Hockey Team, who consider scepticism a vice rather than a virtue; people of 'faith' which is defined as 'holding a viewpoint regardless of contrary evidence'."

-Steve McIntyre: Can we please compare our thoughts on him? Me first, if I may: I see Steve as a dogged pursuer of scientific integrity. Admittedly he has no research of his own; his contribution is one of 'policing'. Using his statistical expertise, he has unearthed malpractice. The title of his website includes the word 'Audit', which is an essential part of ensuring integrity in other domains such as accounting and quality assurance.

Now, feel free to contest any of the above. You say 'with the fairies'. I am sure that you have grounds for saying such a thing, and I'd welcome your further comments. If the guy has a screw loose, well I'll have to stop admiring him.

Posted by: Brent | March 5, 2010 7:53 PM

Steve McIntyre [...] has unearthed malpractice - Brent

No he hasn't you liar. - Dave R.

Sure he has Dave. McIntyre was looking in the mirror when he unearthed it.

Posted by: Dappledwater | March 5, 2010 8:20 PM

When Brent says:

Can we please compare our thoughts on him? Me first, if I may: I see Steve as a dogged pursuer of scientific integrity.

he means:

I reckon that [Steve's] tenacity in demanding scientific rigour is of great importance, and will be celebrated in future accounts of science at the millennium.

Posted by: John | March 5, 2010 8:33 PM

Brent:

Why is it so dumb to want to validate global warming with a thermometer

I must have missed something somewhere but where do you get the idea that global warming is not being measured by thermometers?

If most of the GISS thermometers are truly undercalibrated (figure of speech) by a degree, the Great Debate over a piddling half-degree

You appear to be making a basic mistake in not realizing that warming is detected from changes in anomalies and doesn't rely on absolute temperature measurement. (BTW, GISS doesn't operate its own set of thermometers.) Your attitude is preventing you from learning these basic facts from places such as realclimate.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | March 5, 2010 8:45 PM

Brent:

Sorry I didn't reply to your question, "Just let us know how you react to being lied to." I'm afraid I didn't quite know how to respond. Short answer: Don't like it! Are you referring to the fact that I entered this website claiming to have an open mind and failed to admit that I had a current position, stated on other sites? That, since I have lied to people here, how would I like the same treatment? Chris, if I had arrived at Deltoid saying "Now Hear Ye - Stand aside, peasants, I know better than you!", I'd have caused an unproductive shouting match.

False dichotomy. It is not necessary to say "Now Hear Ye - Stand aside, peasants, I know better than you!" in order to avoid lying.

You recommended visiting the RealClimate site for more background on CO2 forcing. It's not that I couldn't be bothered before, it's more a question of time and knowing quite where to look.

It doesn't take very long to just read their articles without the comments. Perhaps in particular, the CO2 problem in six easy steps, is a good overview but browsing the index for particularly interesting points is a good way to find something interesting.

forecasts are only forecsts until the time comes. When the time comes, they're either "spot on" or "bollocks", and I prefer to wait and see.

So you'd rather wait for the tragedy to occur just to make sure the forecasts are correct. What a clever strategy that is.

Given that Holzhauser's figures show a shorter glacier 2000 years ago, I'm surprised he predicts a "tragedy", but he DID say it, and I'll be trying to find out why.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the glacier has lost 3 kilometres in 140 years and is now retreating faster than at any time in history. At this rate, it won't be very long before it's the shortest it's been in 125,000 years.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | March 6, 2010 12:02 AM

Brent;

Steve McIntyre: Can we please compare our thoughts on him? Me first, if I may: I see Steve as a dogged pursuer of scientific integrity. Admittedly he has no research of his own; his contribution is one of 'policing'. Using his statistical expertise, he has unearthed malpractice.

McIntyre's basic premise is the technician/engineer approach misapplied to science.

And while the 'audit' term is thrown around, it's misapplied as well. McIntyre doesn't look at climate science papers in general, he has focussed on those that are particualrly well known, hence his obsession with Mann. It's also quite clear that McIntyre has been looking to find evidence of what he already believed to be true - that there is some kind of fraud in climate science. This is his second basic premise.

It seems never to have crossed McIntyre's head to 'audit' papers that claim the scientific concenus is mistaken.

Posted by: Michael | March 6, 2010 12:56 AM

John (358): You compared a recent comment I made about Steve McIntyre to an older one on some other site.

Although I used entirely different words, the sentiment then was identical to the sentiment yesterday.

If you are suggesting that:

"as a dogged pursuer of scientific integrity"

is inconsistent with

"tenacity in demanding scientific rigour"

well maybe you should (expletive self-censored by writer).

If Steve McIntyre is a bit loopy I'll be obliged to withdraw my admiration for him, but my current view is that I'd like to buy a cottage by the sea with him and have babies.

Posted by: Brent | March 6, 2010 8:21 AM

Lee (353): Lee, I see the logic in what you say, and can see that within the 110-year timescale the trend looks like - well, a trend (!). And what do we do with trends? We extrapolate them.

You ended with: "How many more years of data do you need, and why?", and I see the frustration behind those words. Somebody less polite than you might equate 'wait-and-see' with 'we can spin this out indefinitely until our wicked plan to destroy the world succeeds'.

Here's my answer:

(i) I don't doubt that it started getting warmer around 1975. So what? Even Phil Jones of UEA accepted that it had been getting cooler before that. So what?

(ii) I don't even doubt that it's been getting warmer since 1860. The Aletsch Glacier has been getting shorter since then. So what? Before that it had been advancing over people's pastureland (and a team of Catholic priests were wheeled in to halt the advance). So what?

(iii) The 'so what' sounds a bit cocky, so let's put it more dispassionately: There is plenty of evidence that temperatures have been oscillating down the ages, long before industrialisation and long before 1975. I see no reason to be more alarmed by the past three decades of warming than the 1910-1940 warming.

(iv) The IPCC forecasts can only be confirmed by comparison with actual temperature measurements, which lie in the future. We should know in the next decade (or, at least, I for one will concede the warmist case). Had we been having this conversation 20 years ago, maybe I'd be a Warmist today. But we are where we are, in 2010, and today I say, "Wait and see."

(v) There is reason to believe that the GISS temperature graph is skewed by the Urban Heat Island effect. I am trying to assess whether any such skewing has already been taken into account, whether it is contested by, say, the CRU, and whether the Hockey Stick needs to be revised. Somewhere above I refer to an interesting new paper on UHI by Roy Spencer of Alabama Uni. If he's right that the UHI signal swamps the piffling half-degree that is alleged to be dragging us to Armageddon, then the Jeremiahs who insist that we're all doomed will have to find a new scare story.

Posted by: Brent | March 6, 2010 10:05 AM

Addendum: the Menne et al paper is focussed on US temperatures of course, but the aforementioned hysteria is extrapolated to the globe from a US basis...

Posted by: Bernard J. | March 6, 2010 5:39 PM

Brent:

(i) I don't doubt that it started getting warmer around 1975. So what? Even Phil Jones of UEA accepted that it had been getting cooler before that. So what?

There was only 0.1C of cooling in the 30 year trend to 1975 and 0.6C of warming since then. And all this was after another 0.5C of warming had occurred in the previous 30 years. You are ignoring the fact that the warming that has occurred is ten times as much as the 1944-1975 cooling.

(ii) I don't even doubt that it's been getting warmer since 1860. The Aletsch Glacier has been getting shorter since then. So what? Before that it had been advancing over people's pastureland (and a team of Catholic priests were wheeled in to halt the advance). So what?

Weren't you paying attention above when I said:

"Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the glacier has lost 3 kilometres in 140 years and is now retreating faster than at any time in history. At this rate, it won't be very long before it's the shortest it's been in 125,000 years"?

Holzhauser says that's it's currently shrinking at up to 1 kilometer per 20 years. Just tell us how much shorter it was in the historical past and you'll arrive at an estimate for how long it will be before it's the shortest it's been in 125,000 years.

(iii) The 'so what' sounds a bit cocky, so let's put it more dispassionately: There is plenty of evidence that temperatures have been oscillating down the ages, long before industrialisation and long before 1975. I see no reason to be more alarmed by the past three decades of warming than the 1910-1940 warming.

That's because you're ignoring cause. A large part of the 1910-1940 warming was caused by a temporary increase in insolation and a reduction in atmospheric particulates. None of these things have happened since 1975.

(iv) The IPCC forecasts can only be confirmed by comparison with actual temperature measurements, which lie in the future.

What on earth are you talking about? Forecasts were being made in the early 1980s. These have been largely confirmed with actual temperature measurements.

Had we been having this conversation 20 years ago, maybe I'd be a Warmist today. But we are where we are, in 2010, and today I say, "Wait and see."

So you think that because you've been asleep for the past 20 years, the rest of the world should also act as if it's been asleep for the past 20 years too? Pull the other one.

(v) There is reason to believe that the GISS temperature graph is skewed by the Urban Heat Island effect.

No there isn't. Urban temperature records are adjusted to have the same long-term trend as nearby rural records in calculating global average.

Somewhere above I refer to an interesting new paper on UHI by Roy Spencer of Alabama Uni. If he's right that the UHI signal swamps the piffling half-degree

His paper is about estimating UHI, NOT about whether UHI has any influence over global average temperature estimates which it doesn't.

that is alleged to be dragging us to Armageddon, then the Jeremiahs who insist that we're all doomed will have to find a new scare story.

Give it a break. You sound like an ideological nutcase.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | March 6, 2010 8:42 PM

A large part of the 1910-1940 warming was caused by a temporary increase in insolation and a reduction in atmospheric particulates. None of these things have happened since 1975.

This quote embodies precisely the kind of issue I was trying to point out to you in my response to your musings on falsifying "the hypothesis", which you seemed to acknowledge and then forget shortly afterwards.

Imagine "the hypothesis" was "pressing on this accelerator will accelerate this car". Can you falsify it by observing 60 seconds without acceleration? Sure, at least for the specific scenario the car is in. Imagine it's pointed up an incredibly steep hill, or on a road with no friction between the tires & road. You can even observe negative acceleration in some cases.

But is this the right hypothesis when you want to predict what impact the accelerator will have on the car under future scenarios - like, say, with decent grip on a flat road, or even going down a hill? Of course not!

A more useful hypothesis for prediction, and more similar to AGW, would be that "pressing on the accelerator leads to more acceleration than not pressing on it". Do you see why?

Posted by: Lotharsson | March 7, 2010 9:23 AM