If the book pictured here, Why Scientists Disagree about Global Warming doesn't look familiar, it soon will. The Heartland Institute (HI), an organization heavily funded by the Koch brothers and fossil fuel companies such as Exxon has started distributing a packet of propaganda in waves to all science teachers in the country with the goal of reaching 200,000 educators. The story was already picked up by Frontline and the Washington Post.
As someone who has taught college-level (Advanced Placement) environmental science for nine years, served on the Board for the Georgia Science Teachers Association, and has inspired dozens of my students to pursue scientific careers, I do not take the condition of our planet, the tremendous importance of science education, or the accuracy of the information I purvey in my classroom lightly.
The Heartland Institute sent their unabashedly biased propaganda to the wrong person. Frankly, I mourn the trees used in this poorly executed effort to undermine quality science education.
Although an outstanding and concise guide for teachers has been created by National Center for Science Education, I read every word of Why Scientists Disagree about Global Warming, and wanted to give my fellow educators a chapter-by-chapter synopsis, lest anyone be led astray or be left with a inkling of doubt about the illegitimacy of its contents.
Foreword
The first paragraph of this text is a mention of ISIS in a sensationalist attempt at distracting the reader from the topic of the book, climate change:
"President Barack Obama and his followers have repeatedly declared that climate change is the "greatest threat facing mankind." This while ISIS is beheading innocent people, displacing millions from their homeland, and engaging in global acts of mass murder" (p. xi).
Contrary to common belief, it is possible as a human being to be concurrently concerned with more than one global issue. But, to the Heartland Institute, it sounds like ISIS trumps climate change in importance.
Fair enough.
Yet, on their own website advertising this book, they contradict themselves in the first two paragraphs. See below:
So, is it ISIS or climate change denial, Heartland? My bet is on whichever causes the most fear-mongering at the time.
The foreword goes on to discuss the Clean Power Plan, an Obama-era legislation aimed at reducing carbon emissions, using hyperbolic language to describe that it will "dramatically increase costs" and "destroy millions of jobs" (p. xii).
The plan was rolled back via an executive order by Trump on Tuesday, March 28th. Teachers began receiving the mailings of this book the week prior. I do not believe that's a coincidence - just like it's not a coincidence this mailing was funded by fossil fuel companies.
Introduction
The introduction lists some temporarily-compelling arguments that fly in the face of accepted evidence for anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change, until one turns to the end of the section and notices that HALF the citations (p. 4-5) are from the Heartland Institute- that's right, the same organization that created the mailings. This self-citation, as it turned out, was a foreshadowing of the echo chamber that was the rest of the book.
Chapter One: No Consensus
Let's start with this nugget: "Many prominent experts and probably (my emphasis) most working scientists disagree with the claims made by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)" (p. 7).
If "probably" means 0.01%, then we're golden:
During 2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed articles on global warming, 0.0058% or 1 in 17,352, rejected AGW (anthropogenic global warming). Thus, the consensus on AGW among publishing scientists is above 99.99%, verging on unanimity.
Such flagrantly unsupported claims by HI probably aren't going to change the minds of the educated and well-qualified science teachers in the United States.
The literature review I cited was from March 2016 in the Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society. The first literature review they cite, which still showed "the scientific community is in overwhelming agreement" that the Earth's climate is being altered by human activities, is from 2004. It examined abstracts from 1993 to 2003. I have high school students that are younger than those most of those abstracts! Why would they use such an outdated source but choose to exclude a more recent, thorough one in their second edition? I'll let you decide.
In fact, the rest of the chapter they try to cast doubt on scientific consensus, but it is apparent they fall short with these self-reported surveys and literature reviews from 2008 (notes here), 2009, 2010**, 2013***, and 2014 (p. 10-25).
Bray and Von Storch, who were mentioned for their work in 2010, published an updated survey in May of last year. This was their findings:
Now, if a schoolteacher with two children and a full-time job can find and share this up-to-date information easily, I beg you to tell me why three authors writing a book on climate change could not. Perhaps, it is because it doesn't demonstrate their point. Cherry picking at its finest!
Ironically, the chapter entitled "No Consensus" pointed me in the direction of sources that demonstrated an overwhelmingly solid consensus among climate scientists. Instead of reading Why Scientists Disagree, read the articles I posted above for yourself.
The chapter concludes with nauseating praise for the Global Warming Petition Project, a statement "signed by 31,478 American scientists" (p. 27) urging the United States to reject Kyoto Protocol (a 1997 international agreement meant to curb carbon emissions in order to mitigate climate change). The Petition Project was debunked by Snopes in this 2016 article:
"It is misleading for the signatories to be considered climate scientists or even top researchers in their field, as some suggest. In fact, based on the group's own numbers, only 12% of the signers have degrees (of any kind) in earth, environmental, or atmospheric science. Further, the petition and its creators are not neutral parties, and the major entities supporting it can be easily described as politically motivated."
Chapter Two: Why Scientists Disagree
This chapter not only attempts to deface climate science, but well-established scientific practices, such as peer review. Yes, you read that right.
To introduce the second chapter, the authors claim that the disagreements "among those participating in the climate change debate may be sharper... than other topics" because it is interdisciplinary and involves insights from various fields such as geology, oceanography, physics, statistics, economics, etc. (p. 31-32). What a specious argument! Doesn't medicine involve biology, physics, chemistry, economics, and psychology? Perhaps we should start ignoring the work of medical researchers as well...
Pages 35-36 are spent quoting a 1996 piece regarding uncertainty in climate science. Yep. It was written the same year the Olympics were in Atlanta.
The legitimacy of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is questioned in the remainder of chapter two. If imitation is the greatest form of flattery, I can't help but wonder if the acronym NIPCC is so similar to IPCC in an attempt to give themselves clout through mimicry. Perhaps they had hopes that teachers may quickly glance at the subtitle and skip over the "N" in NIPCC and be more apt to trust the book's contents. We get paid to decipher handwriting for a living. Bad call.
The chart below, prepared by the National Center for Science Education, illustrates the differences between the two organizations.
Why Scientists Disagree uses the "harsh criticism" (p. 41) from the InterAcademy Council (IAC) as ammunition against the IPCC, but fails to mention that the IPCC invited the IAC to do an audit in order to strengthen their processes and procedures. Additionally, HI hoped we wouldn't do our homework and find that the IAC is a subsidiary of the InterAcademy Partnership, an organization that has issued statements in favor of mitigating climate change for the sake of human health, reducing deforestation to combat rising carbon in the atmosphere, and curbing ocean acidification due to increased carbon dioxide from human emissions.
Another omitted inconvenient truth I suppose.
Chapter 2 not only attempts to discredit climate research but scientific research in general. Let that soak in. It does so by misusing a flawed medical journal article by John Ioanndis with the sensationalist title "Why most published research findings are false":
"Ioannidis work generated widespread awareness that peer review is no guarantee of the accuracy or value of a research paper" (p. 48).
The article wasn't sufficiently widespread to make me aware peer review was meritless. How about you? If that wasn't enough, the concluding remark of the chapter will make any science teacher's skin crawl:
"While it would be ideal if scientists could be relied on to deliver unvarnished truth about complex scientific matters to governments and voters, the truth is they almost always fall short" (p. 52).
Who needs scientists when oil executives give our legislators all the information (and lobbying funds) they need anyway?
Chapter 3: Scientific Method vs. Political Science
Coming in at less than five pages long, this chapter literally and figuratively lacks content. It begins by saying the IPCC's reports are invalid because their "implicit" hypotheses about AGW contain no entertainment of a null hypothesis (p.56).
Why would they? They contain no hypotheses at all (and shouldn't) because the IPCC is NOT performing any experiments! That's why HI had to use the word implicit to describe them. The IPCC's purpose is to have "climate experts from around the world synthesize the most recent climate science findings every five to seven years... It does not carry out new research or monitor climate-related data."
The authors go on to attempt to discredit climate scientists because they are victims of confirmation bias (the tendency to use new information to confirm what you already believe). They purport "the only way to avoid confirmation bias is [the] independent review of a scientist's work by other scientists... This sort of review is conspicuously absent in the climate change debate" (p. 58-59).
Oh wait, isn't that called peer review? Face palm.
Chapter 4: Flawed Projections
Teachers, have you ever had a student turn in a research paper, but failed to reference any sources other than themselves? Welcome to chapter 4. Here, the authors create laundry lists of "facts" concerning global climate models, temperature forcings and feedbacks, climate sensitivity and then cite only the Heartland Institute.
Unbelievable.
Let's take a closer look at the bottom of page 63, for example:
If that weren't enough, they discuss (p. 66-69) a 2015 Monckton et al. journal article to support the idea that the climate is not as sensitive to carbon dioxide as the IPCC claims. They failed to inform the reader that the paper was discredited because of its over-simplicity and "numerous glaring fundamental errors."
I found it humorous that the chart on page 71 conveniently lacks any temperature data from the last 20 years! See for yourself:
Chapter 5: False Postulates
The purposeful selection of outdated information continues in chapter 5. A cursory glance at the references (p. 84-86) reveals that the peer-reviewed articles they employed are, on average, over 15 years old. Consequently, it comes as no surprise that Figure 10 appears to contain data only up until 2000, but if you look closely, the data is really only displayed on the graph until the mid-1900's (p. 76):
Here's an updated graph from NOAA for comparison which helps to explain why HI's chosen data set conspicously omits the consistent warming present over the last four decades:
My *favorite* glaring misuse of data from the authors is when they cite the increase of world grain to suggest that such increases "would be unlikely if rising carbon dioxide levels produced more harms than benefits to the biosphere." (p. 83)
As it turns out, crop yields have steadily increased since the late 1940's due Green Revolution agricultural practices such as mechanization and the increased use of fertilizer, pesticides and irrigation. I do need to give the authors credit for correctly stating that plants prefer conditions with warmer temperatures and carbon dioxide. Bravo.
Unfortunately, worldwide flooding and drought due to climate change will cause soil degradation and decreased crop yields. The authors failed to mention famine and starvation, however.
Chapters 6 and 7 continue on with citing Heartland Institute for climate "facts" and making pleas to politicians to use sources other than IPCC data and turn their attention to the "real problems" in their respective countries. (p. 101)
Finally teacher friends, thank you educating the youth of America in a time where ignorance and intolerance are as abundant as atmospheric carbon. Even though this book may make you so angry you want burn it, please don't. Combustion creates carbon dioxide which actually DOES cause climate change.
Cheers,
Brandie
P.S. If you would like read a legitimate book about climate change denial, check out The Madhouse Effect. To help my students visually understand the global urgency of this issue, I utilize the documentary Before the Flood in my climate unit. Also, if you need vetted lesson plans and teaching resources, see what NSTA has gathered for you.
Notes:
*All pages listed are from:
Idso, Craig D., R. M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer. Why Scientists Disagree about Global Warming: The NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus. 2nd ed. Arlington Height, IL: Published for the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) by the Heartland Institute, 2016. Print.
**I would agree that this survey was poorly executed.
***I found it distasteful that they called the author, John Cook, a faculty member at George Mason University and a textbook author a "wacky Australian blogger."
**I would agree that this survey was poorly executed.
***I found it distasteful that they called the author, John Cook, a faculty member at George Mason University and a textbook author a "wacky Australian blogger."
" Even though this book may make you so angry you want burn it, please don't. Combustion creates carbon dioxide which actually DOES cause climate change." Ha!!!! You crack me up! Thanks for taking the time to do this!
ReplyDeleteDear Angie,
DeleteAs an astrophysicist with a PhD from the University of Chicago, I have a similar background to Neil Tyson, James Hansen, and Carl Sagan. All have worked to popularize science in a political fashion. That harms, not helps, science, because competent science is profoundly non-political.
Brandie Freeman makes the fundamental mistake of trying to argue science from a political perspective. As a science teacher, she should know better. Science has never been about consensus, although she seems to think that all of us support her perspective. That is far from true. From climate alarmists to climate skeptics, most scientists reject the concept of a climate catastrophe from man-made carbon dioxide. As the founding director of the Tyndall Centre at the University of East Anglia, Mike Hulme said: "To state that climate change will be 'catastrophic' hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions that do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science." Hulme is a prominent alarmist.
The real issue in climate science is how much warming we can expect for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 (over centuries). Alarmists see 2 or 3 degrees C, while skeptics see one degree or less. The issue revolves around the feedback from water vapor, which both skeptics and alarmists recognize as the crucial issue.
So rather than burn a book written by three outstanding PhD scientists, please consider what they have to say. Fred Singer is one of the few remaining great Jewish physicists of the 20th century. He got his PhD in Physics from Princeton University in 1948 under John Wheeler, J. Robert Oppenheimer, and Niels Bohr. That alone says that he probably has something worthwhile to say. I am privileged to know him personally.
But if you are determined to burn the book, because Brandie attacked it politically, then please consider that it will have no significant effect on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but you still will.
Even if you burned no fossil fuels or books, you still add significant CO2 to the atmosphere by simply breathing. Each year man releases about 9 Gt of carbon into the atmosphere from the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas as well as the production of cement and breathing. Humans exhale about 0.6 Gt of carbon as CO2 that originated in plants. (1Gt = 10exp15 grams = 10exp12 kg = one billion metric tons).
Hence, human respiration is a significant part of our carbon footprint. But even our total carbon footprint is small compared with the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere (800 Gt) and the amounts naturally in play. For instance, vegetation and the atmosphere exchange about 100 Gt annually.
You should take advantage of every opportunity to learn something about our climate from experts.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA
gordonfulks@hotmail.com
So you are associated with Cascade Policy Institute, a Libertarian think tank, as an adviser and you are criticizing someone for politicizing science. How exactly does that work?
DeleteYou are this guy correct?
http://blog.oregonlive.com/myoregon/2015/01/gordon_j_fulks_on_climate_chan.html
So you immediately default to ad hominems? Doesn't that say it all?
DeleteI don't work for Cascade Policy Institute and never have. But I have advised them on climate science, as I would do for anyone who shows an interest in the real science, not the politicized science.
I do write Op-Eds for The Oregonian and for other publications. But I am not paid to do so. I do battle politicized science, because it has caused such profound harm to my profession.
A whole generation of students have grown up thinking that we face a climate catastrophe. That is completely wrong and dishonest from a scientific perspective. But it is gospel in some political circles.
Students should be taught to think critically not just to parrot propaganda.
You should be able to do better than defaulting to personal attacks. Instead, tell us about your education and experience. Do you really know anything about climate science?
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA
That's rich. Was that you approach when you wrote this?
Deletehttp://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/01/kitzhaber_is_allowing_climate.html
I am glad you have a PhD in physics. My education is in the biological sciences but I have kept current with this issue professionally. Which makes me understand when some cherry-picks and tries to confuse the issue (see below and you pushing the specious Oregon Petition). Having a degree is one thing but using it in that manner hurts our profession.
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2014/09/gordon-fulks-phd-in-cherry-picking.html
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2014/08/more-harassment-from-deniers-in-oregon.html
And on the political side, I will add this gem...
Deletehttp://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/12/trump_win_brings_hope_forscien.html
Scientists (including me) marched in 600 cities globally because of Trump's approach to science.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteBob, please show us the actual evidence that man's CO2 is causing dangerous global warming, instead of attacking the messenger.
DeleteDear Mr. Ferris,
DeleteSo far I have not seen any evidence that you can address this subject in a constructive scientific fashion, despite a claim to have some background in the biological sciences. You fail to cite any degrees.
But more importantly you seem to believe that science is entirely a matter of politically attacking all scientists who disagree with your perspective. You want to win scientific arguments using pure political nonsense. Doesn't that indicate a PROFOUND lack of understanding of science and how it works? Real scientists rely on logic and evidence, not links to political attack sites.
To rescue science from those who are (or were) badly scamming it, I have written many Op-Eds going after politicians and their fellow travelers who misuse science for their own selfish ends. They need to be taken to task for corrupting my profession. Using vast sums of taxpayer money to purchase the answers they want to hear is simply wrong.
Science depends not only on substantial knowledge but also on what Richard Feynman called "Utter Honesty." That is very far from the total politicization of science you are promoting.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA
Thanks Angie! I think we all need a laugh right now :)
ReplyDeleteBrandie, I note your recommendation of a book by Michael Mann.
DeleteHopefully you know that his primary work, the climate reconstruction, commonly called the hockey stick (MBH98 and MBH99), has been thoroughly discredited and subsequently dropped by the IPCC.
The Wegman report, authored by one of the nation's top statisticians, exposed several fundamental errors in MBH98 & MBH99: He misused principal component analysis; he used proxies recognized as inappropriate for temperature; he truncated the data when it showed cooling and spliced in the thermometer record to show warming (hide the decline); due to faulty pre-processing of data, his algorithm was per-disposed to find hockeysticks and even found them in red noise. The fact that he refused to share his data and programs shows that he knew there were problems in his paper. See: http://www.debunkingclimate.com/wegman.html
As to the majority of scientists claim, I am most familiar with the Cook survey which looked at about 12,000 abstracts. His first step was to toss out 64% of them because they DID NOT mention a cause of warming. That means the highest percentage of abstracts supporting the IPCC version of climate would be 34%. But that survey is commonly reported as 97% of scientists (although it was a survey of abstracts of papers). See:
See: http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/watch-the-pea
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThank you Brandie! I will share this information. I will (with my 3 sisters & niece) be marching in DC in support of science & all the blessed FACTS she provides us. You must be an AWESOME teacher! Valerie Beebe (Family Nurse Practitioner...my sisters...one working on her PhD in environmental science, another a history professor & last, a physical therapist). We believe in & support SCIENCE!
ReplyDeleteValerie, I'm so excited to hear that you're doing the March! I'll be at school doing an AP chemistry exam review all day, but I'll be there with you guys in spirit.
ReplyDeleteThanks Brandie. I hope ever science teacher uses your review AND "Why Scientist Disagree About Global Warming" to spell out the truth and show the logical failings of the book. Excellent teaching material for instructing logic
ReplyDelete.
Thank you so much! I hope it is used as well. The sake of our planet depends on us admitting this is a problem and working to address it.
Deletehttp://punditpete.blogspot.com/2017/03/climate-quote-of-day-from-professor-pete.html
ReplyDeleteHow fitting that you quoted yourself as a rebuttal.
DeleteThanks for this! Thanks for taking the time to push back in such a helpful way!
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome Sue! I hope it is indeed helpful :)
Delete“The Heartland Institute (HI), an organization heavily funded by the Koch brothers and fossil fuel companies such as Exxon…” Do you have evidence to back that statement up? Anyway, even if it is true, why does that have to be a Bad Thing?
ReplyDelete… unabashedly biased propaganda… Evidence? Merely saying it does not make it so.
As for your critique of the book, you display no scientific thinking, and no rational argument, resorting to argument from authority and ad hominems almost from the very start. One “good” example: “… worldwide flooding and drought due to climate change…” When HASN’T there been flooding and drought around the world?
You will do yourself and your students a great favour by opening your mind, and applying logical reasoning to the subject, rather than following the scare-mongering herd. As and aside, it is curious that you should end your diatribe by plugging a book by a demonstrable liar, one who has blatantly lied in a congressional meeting.
p.s. – I am well aware that this is unlikely to be published on your site, but at least you will have read it.
No, I'm not the only one that will see this. I made the comments public, as this article is entitled "An Open Letter to Teachers" not "An Open Letter to Internet Trolls."
DeleteRespect!
DeleteRadical Rodent: The funding and story of Heartland is well-documented from a number of sources including the one shown below If you need others I can provide them). And when you look at the senior team at Heartland leading this effort they are generally not scientists and those that are scientists are definitely not climate scientists (also see below).
DeleteAs to calling this self-published booklet a "book" that is pushing it in terms of un-earned gravitas. It is especially not something that has gone through extensive outside review. But what would one expect from an organization that created a group of awards for contrarian scientists because legitimate organization thought them without merit.
Here is there staff and fellows list for their site. Show me which one is climate scientists: https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/?topic=climate-change&type=staff&q=#content
And here is an overview of where Heartland gets its funding and other issues affecting its credibility:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute
Bob. Excellent sources. I tried to attack their work, not the authors' credentials. The lack of merit on their part is unsettling. Thank you, sir!
DeleteMr Ferris: so what if the Heartland Institute has no “climate scientists” in its management? It is not an organisation that was set up to “deny” climate change, which seems to be what lot of people believe it was. Here is its introduction: “The Heartland Institute is one of the world’s leading free-market think tanks. It is a national nonprofit research and education organization based in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.” Climate change is just one of the “problems” it addresses; that it remains sceptical about whether climate change is human-induced or whether climate change is really a problem is a very good point in its favour. Given their mission (“… to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.”) is it any wonder that people such as the Koch brothers should support them? Also, is it any wonder that more State-centric persons should oppose them? One organisation the was set up to counter the climate change alarm was the GWPF (Global Warming Policy Foundation), which does have a range of highly-respected scientists, including climate scientists, on its advisory council. All that said, I treat ALL such organisations with scepticism and a certain amount of cynicism, if not outright suspicion.
DeleteMy own “agenda” (if you want to call it that), is to keep my mind open in this debate, and to encourage others to do the same – to date, there has not been any empirical evidence that climate is changing because of human activity or because of rising CO2 levels; there is no evidence that CO2 levels are rising because of human activity, either. There is certainly NO evidence, at all, that what change we have had over the past 200 years has been detrimental – most of it has been beneficial; why should it suddenly turn nasty on us? Scepticism is essential in all science, but seems to have become forbidden in climate “science”.
Ms Freeman: are you so sure about the sources given? NSTA certainly seems to be suspect, if not outrightly biased: “Even relatively small changes in atmospheric or ocean content and/or temperature can have widespread effects on climate if the change lasts long enough.” Evidence? None provided…
DeleteTo continue: “Since the industrial revolution, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased at an unprecedented rate.” Unprecedented in comparison with what?
“Though climate change and changes in the composition of the oceans and atmosphere are natural, present modifications far exceed natural rates.” Again, it ends with a highly contentious statement – what are natural rates? Over what time period are they comparing the changes? A lot of people fall into the trap of extrapolating the change we have had over the past 3 decades to the minimum that can be determined in palaeontology, which is centuries; that is comparing apples with oranges. Over the past century, global temperatures have risen by less than 1°C – in other words, about the average rate determined by palaeontologists (out of interest, after the last ice age, the rate was in the region of 5°-8°C in less than a century, so even extrapolating the past few decades (~0.6°C) to ~1.8°C per century can hardly be called “unprecedented”).
I was fully taken in by Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”, and set about trying to find out what I could do to counter what effect I was having, and to show others what they should be doing. But, the more I researched, the more I found fault; the more I questioned, the more abusive persons could become. I have yet to find any empirical evidence to support the tales of alarm that we are being bludgeoned with; all I have found is that the world is going on in its usual way, generally ignoring the activities of its inhabitants.
To put things into perspective, do consider that ONE volcano can have an immediate and undeniable effect upon global climates, and that this effect will soon revert to where the world was, which does indicate that there is a very, very strong balance in the system. However, for all the activities of humans, there is not one identifiable global effect that can be incontrovertibly attributed to us.
(I had thought I had posted this earlier – interruptions occurred, so I obviously slipped up. If I had actually posted, but cannot yet see it, please delete this. Sadly, though, your obvious acceptance of the term “denier” used by Joel Ruberman, below, does indicate that you cannot handle any questioning of your belief, so suspect that this posting will deleted, as was the last attempt I made. I take heart in that, once again, you will have read it, and I might have planted a seed of doubt.)
Dear Mr. Rodent: You are from Great Britain commenting regularly on threads in other countries forwarding a contrarian position and trying to convince others that you have an open mind. Really? Freeman Dyson who is on the advisory board of the British organization you mention has written: "[one] of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas." I know Dyson's son and from what he has told me Freeman would disagree with with your last paragraph. Dyson's objections are tricky in that they center not on whether this is happening or who is at fault but rather whether the models are predicting future scenarios accurately. In this he is not saying whether they err to the good or bad. And while you may be comfortable and fairly un-impacted in your country, in the US we have villages washing into the sea in Alaska and storms of increased intensity that have caused human suffering and economic loss. Skepticism is time-honored in science, but that is really not at play here. Folks love to wave the flag of the "free-market" as long as they are able to externalize the environmental cost of their activities. As long as profits are privatized and impacts socialized it is all smiles. In the early 1990s I worked in Washington DC with a group of industry leaders who understood that there was a CO2 problem and that they were responsible. Very soon after that those industries decided to fight the science rather than take responsibility. This is actually the basis for the Exxon-Mobil suit here in the states where their own scientists told them Climate Change was happening and why.
DeleteNow you are more than free to pretend that you are an advocate for "scientific skepticism" while anonymously repeating rhetoric from groups founded at or about the same time this debate started, but as a scientist I tend to gravitate to those science assemblages that focus on science and pre-date this debate. So I am skeptical of your objectivity and specious claim of open-mindedness.
Mr. Rodent: In reply to your other post and the typical denier side-step that it is only 1 degree C (i.e., So how bad could that be?) I am glad you served that up. All models that I have seen dealing with anadromous fisheries (mainly trout and salmon) in the Pacific Northwest of the US collapse under these scenarios because rainfall amounts and timing are altered just enough so that patterns the fish have adapted to over evolutionary time are changed sufficiently to stop their reproduction cycles. That strikes me as a non-trivial impact from an ecological and environmental point of view. Keeping in mind that these salmonids retrieve important nutrients from the ocean that have for millennia fertilized forest ecosystems of the area.
DeleteBut you do not have to be from the PNW to understand the peril changes on this level. NASA citing the European Geosciences Union have also expressed alarm (see below).
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2458/why-a-half-degree-temperature-rise-is-a-big-deal/
In terms of the volcano argument (gee, scientists did not think about that). There are many things that influence climate such as volcanoes, solar flares, ocean current cycles, and on and on but when all those natural factors are included in analyses what we are currently seeing in terms of climate change is much more than can be explained through these naturally occurring phenomena even when added all together. In terms of the volcano smoke screen you have presented (see below)
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities
As to human versus natural influences here is a good survey piece that looks at peer-reviewed articles in sum.
https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=57
(Note to Mr. Rodent: You may think that my posts are about you, but they are about these teachers having to deal with anonymous trolls like yourself who are unfortunately flooding threads like this with misinformation and doubt.)
“I know Dyson's son and from what he has told me Freeman would disagree with with your last paragraph.” [sic] Ah… the classic argument from authority. While I may try to maintain an open mind, but that does not necessarily mean that I am right, and I am readily to admit I could be wrong.
DeleteYour “villages washing into the sea in Alaska” probably refers to Newtok, a small village built on an alluvial plain of a major river. As can be seen, should you care to look on Google Earth at 60°56.5N 164°38.5W, that it is already surrounded by a branch of the river. However, I am sure that this will back up your alarm: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/alaska-village-climate-change/402604/
Of course, if you are referring to Shishmaref (66°15.5N 166° 14.0W), you will find that there are probably more complex issues involved: http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/21/beyond-the-spin-alaska-villages-demise-is-more-complicated-than-yelling-global-warming/
Whichever it is, both their locations are known to be rather transient, on the geological scale; it was only on establishing more permanent settlements that their natures became obvious. In the more densely populated island of Great Britain, there are similarly precarious lands, such as can be found on the Thames estuary or further north, in East Anglia, where, because of the more pressing needs of a larger local population, more intense action has been taken to stabilise the land; the less populated land of Spurn Point is more or less left to its own devices, and has moved over three miles in recorded history.
“… storms of increased intensity…” Which are? The last category 5 hurricane to make landfall in the USA was Katrina, one of 6 USA landfalls in 2005, though it had already weakened to a category 3 by the time it made landfall. There have been only 3 category 5 landfalls in the USA: in 1992, 1969 and 1935.
That there are more people living in hurricane-affected areas is probably the prime reason there are more people affected by hurricane landfalls.
All data from http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/index.php
I try to avoid repeating anyone’s rhetoric; I prefer to see the information myself. Erm, “…specious claim…”? Evidence? Just because I might not agree with you does not necessarily make any of my claims specious.
I see you rely on models to support your argument; now, how have observations tallied with the models on these fish?
DeleteSo sad to see you descend into ad hominems so quickly, Mr Ferris. I prefer to refer to observable facts; I do not see how that is misinformation – doubt, however, is always a good thing in science.
The issues in Alaska with climate change relate to coastal erosion and the thawing of permafrost (i.e., the increase of the depth of the active layer—the part that freezes and thaws). It is particularly acute in many areas where coastal indigenous people try to make their living and are having troubles because of these changes. While it is nice that you have mentioned 2 villages and “discounted” their problems you missed 28 others that are in the process of moving. Here is a sampling of papers written about Alaskan villages, changes in permafrost and related issues (starting with the general and moving to the technical).
Deletehttps://www.adn.com/environment/article/alaska-climate-story/2015/08/29/
https://www.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-alaska
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ppp.3430060404/full
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1005667424292
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1005504031923
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-005-5352-2
What we hear most often regarding storms and weather in general from those studying these phenomenon is that dry places will get drier and wet places wetter.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-global-warming-harsher-winter/
https://www.epa.gov/climate-change-science/understanding-link-between-climate-change-and-extreme-weather
http://www.livescience.com/11703-climate-change-expect-monster-winter-storms.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-climate-change-may-lead-to-bigger-blizzards/
These fish models are scary, but they are not out of line with what we are seeing. These very sensitive species that not only require water but will not swim across water that is too warm (thermal dams).
And are you really going to use the Daily Caller as source for science? What is next Breibart?
In terms of ad hominem, you have self-identified yourself as a rodent so that seems taxonomically impossible.
The salmon picture is indeed bleak and I have talked to those working on these issues that think the only place they may survive by century’s end is in coastal Siberia.
Deletehttp://www.pnas.org/content/104/16/6720.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079661101000349
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-010-9845-2?LI=true
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01497.x/full
But then you have climate change’s evil twin ocean acidification—also a product of fossil fuel use—that is messing with the food chains and making the prognosis worse. Organisms such as pteropods which form the basis for salmonid food chains and those of other food fish are disappearing because lowered pH levels mainly influenced by carbon and sulfur emissions makes their protective shells melt.
http://www.noaa.gov/noaa-led-researchers-discover-ocean-acidity-dissolving-shells-tiny-snails-us-west-coast
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7059/abs/nature04095.html
https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/65/3/414/789605/Impacts-of-ocean-acidification-on-marine-fauna-and
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/320/5882/1490
http://annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163834
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jacqueline_Grebmeier/publication/44301488_Ocean_Acidification_at_High_Latitudes_The_Bellwether/links/02e7e5229f23f3cb7f000000.pdf
Don’t care about salmon or pteropods? What about human health?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240560/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091674908011810
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673609617165
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673607612537
So at the end of the day we have scientists across a broad array of disciplines arguing for the curtailment of fossil fuel use for a variety of well-established and long-argued climatological, ecological, economic and human health reasons and a veritable handful of contrarian scientists and die-hard conservatives who are afraid the world is going to change. I cannot help but think about the mayor in the movie “Jaws” who did not think that closing the beaches was warranted. The greenhouse gas idea has been kicking around since the mid-1800s, Frank Capra made a movie about the danger of carbon emissions called Unchained Goddess (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF9WdV8pUPk) in the late 1950s, President Johnson and Congress were briefed on the issue in 1965 (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/nov/05/scientists-warned-the-president-about-global-warming-50-years-ago-today), Exxon’s own scientists warned senior management about climate change in 1977 (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/) and Bill McKibben wrote The End of Nature of 1989. Those are some of the times when the “shark” of climate change made itself known and the public was persuaded to look the other way. So we who have been talking about this threat for more than a century and presenting information and peer-reviewed studies are labelled alarmist by those who are disturbed by being called denialists because they are hit by a tidal wave of studies and refuse stubbornly to acknowledge they are wet.
Interesting. So the leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party (Nicola Sturgeon) in the UK self-identifies as a fish? How odd.
DeleteIt has been shown (and accepted, even by otherwise staunch alarmists) that the human contribution to the increase in CO2 is not more than 3%; Murry Salby has produced evidence that it could be truly insignificant (unfortunately, of course, he has been summarily dumped and his funding cut for producing such a possibility, so has not been able to further that research). One of the prime sources of CO2 has been identified as out-gassing from the oceans, which actually contain about 98% of ALL CO2 presently extant, so the probability of the oceans dangerously “acidifying” (actually, getting slightly less caustic, with pH dropping (possibly – there is not true “average” pH, and it can vary widely daily, weekly, monthly and seasonally, depending on the locale) from 8.2 to 8.1) is really a non-starter. Considering the paucity of data we have about the 1.3 TRILLION cubic kilometres of oceanic waters, it may be some time before we have sufficient data to construct any realistic scenario of events.
As for the Alaskan villages – once again, it is the relatively new permanence of the population that is highlighting the problems; many of the indigenous people were nomadic, so there would not have been such a problem as eroding villages to worry about. Warmth is not new to Alaska, though, as the melting ice reveals the remains of forests. Surely, for forests to grow as they did, it would have had to have been warmer than it is, now?
Climate has changed, is changing and will change; quite why it should now be considered a “threat” is a mystery to me. Surely, the climate is better, now, than it was in the Little Ice Age of just a few centuries ago? I don’t know about you, but I would rather years without winter than years without summer. As yet, the global temperatures are still below what they were in the Mediæval Warm Period, which were less than they were in the Roman Warm Period, which were less than they were in the Minoan Warm Period, so I doubt that there is likely to be any serious global catastrophe looming because of warming.
Mr Rodent, you are presenting nonsense false assertions found on junkscience conspiracy blogs as if they are factual. In this age of easily available information from legitimate science sources, you must really have to try hard to avoid all the evidence and facts that show your assertions to be pure claptrap.
Delete“… you are presenting nonsense false assertions…” Am I, Ceist? Please show me which assertions made are false, and evidence as to why you think that they are. It is quite fascinating how you and Mr Ferris are so disparaging of any link I offer to support my argument, rather than addressing the arguments and references contained therein; what is your opinion of this site, with regard to ice-engulfed forests now being exposed?
DeleteAnother good site that offers robust debate, rarely moderates contributors off the board, and supplies plenty of references for data to support any arguments is http://joannenova.com.au/. Somehow, I suspect you will find serious flaws with that site, too, just as you will only find flaws with the author of this paper, and the owner of this site, with regards to the Mediæval Warm Period. Then there is the author of this paper, which incorporates not only the Roman Warm Period, but the earlier (and warmer) Holocene Optimum. If it was “optimum” and we are still way short of those temperatures, where is the threat?
Anyhooo….
It is difficult to find articles, papers and studies that do not include immediate reference to climate change and its “devastating” impact, but perhaps the Chenega story might show that climate change may have little effect, compared with other events.
So Murry Salby is your ace-in-hole? Ignoring the pile of ethical issues he has accumulated over the years (see here http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/climate-change-critic-murry-salby-loses-case-against-university/news-story/31cc4d13e601e32acbf383cd6996eb6b), there are also large flaws in his thinking. He basically pushes a false assumption then builds on it while ignoring data that disagree with his hypothesis (see https://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-Confused-About-The-Carbon-Cycle.html, http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/04/murray-salby-and-conservation/ and https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2016/08/10/murry-salby-in-london/). Pretty sad on various levels.
DeleteI would sincerely suggest that you take some time to look closely at the Heartland Institute and Global Warming Policy Foundation because they are both organizations run by folks lacking credentials in the fields they cover (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Benny_Peiser). They both tend to rely heavily on weak, in-house or allied publications (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_%26_Environment) that give voice to fringe scientists lacking the rigor to get published elsewhere in legitimate journals. And when their scientists are not invited to panels or recognized for their work these groups create their own conferences (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Conference_on_Climate_Change) and awards (https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/03/23/heartland-institute-award-winner-compares-work-climate-science-deniers-911-firefighters).
They are both groups heavily funded by few individuals and corporations (largely from the fossil fuel sector) rather than enjoying generous grassroots support because of the public good they offer. The seed money for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, for instance, came from an Australian hedge fund billionaire—not a sector known for pursuing public good or altruism (https://www.desmogblog.com/guardian-reveals-key-funder-global-warming-policy-foundation-michael-hintze).
It is interesting in all this “diligence” and “skepticism” of yours that the fact that the Global Warming Policy Foundation was originally housed at 1 Carlton House Terrace, London in a room rented from the Institute for Material, Minerals and Mining (see http://www.iom3.org/) did not trigger something. Nor apparently did GWPF director Benny Peiser’s advocacy for fracking and shale oil development (http://www.thegwpf.com/benny-peiser-how-britain-is-wasting-its-real-shale-potential/) or similar efforts by Marita Noon (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Marita_Noon) who wrote the forward to the Heartland publication. Marita is fairly notorious as being funded by the natural gas and oil interests in New Mexico and because she was parodied on the Daily Show (http://www.cc.com/video-clips/w5j292/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-the-benefits-of-fracking), on Governor Jesse Ventura radio show (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GR0QwE4axzo) and by myself (http://bob-ferris.blogspot.com/2015/09/high-noon-in-climate-deniers-camp-and.html). These are two your climate change sources—an anthropologist and a Christian writer.
Now I suspect that you will jump back to the whiny-baby, ad hominin defense. But before you do, let me tell you that in my experience the ones who grab onto this defense first are generally the ones whose credentials are most questionable or not stated at all. And please feel free to attack or question my credentials at any point—when I give a lecture or talk my education and experience are considered and examined. I post under my own name and my history are all over the internet. Have at it.
During the Holocene Optimal the mega-fauna of North America were completely different. Moreover, the US Mid-West (our corn belt) was a desert so I suspect that many farmers in that region would object to your reasoning. Right now they are dealing with increased heat but also devastating rain as we move towards what you are considering as "optimal." Corn uses a C-4 pathway which makes it extremely productive but there indications that heat may play a limiting factor and there seems to be a diminishing return scenario for CO2.
DeleteCurrent and Projected Impacts of Trends in Mid-West US:
https://www.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-midwest
Impact of temperature on grain production:
https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/cs/abstracts/39/6/1733
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/2/1/014002/meta
My, but you certainly don’t hold back on the personal insults, do you, Mr Ferris?
DeleteI have no personal agenda to peddle, so much of what you say washes over me, I’m afraid. All I seek are facts, and I have no shame about the sources where they may be found – many, it has to be admitted, are pretty useless for getting the correct, unadjusted information, but there is often enough some nugget in there to be found. This is why I do not find what is happening to be particularly alarming; similarly, I am puzzled as to why others do get so alarmed, but – hey! – each to their own, I suppose. You, however, only look at the cover to judge the contents; bad scientific judgement, I would have thought.
Might I ask: do you have a car? How do you travel, otherwise? Is your home heated in the winter? Do you have air-conditioning for summer? Are your home, your furniture and your clothes made entirely from natural products? If so, was this collected locally, or imported? Sadly, in this modern life, we are all dependent upon fossil fuels – even the keyboard that you pour your vitriol out with. As it is an industry you seem to display no aversion to supporting – as you buy fuel for your car, gas for cooking and/or heating, paints to protect your house, clothing to protect your body – I am not sure why you consider it not sufficiently “grass-root” for you.
We have been on a plateau of temperatures for nearly 2 decades, now. It might (I hope!) be a pause before resuming warming; I fear it might be a peak, and temperatures may start to fall. You might relish that prospect, but I do not – I would rather years without winter than years without summer.
That aside, as in so much of our life, models can be useful, but do need to be viewed with caution, as there might be influencing factors that have been overlooked or ignored. After all, it doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Because the first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool; hence I am always questioning, both myself, and anyone who presents me with theories or “facts,” as I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned. To ramp up your charges of plagiarism against me, I can only agree that science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
Mr. Rodent:
DeleteOn June 10, 2013 you entered into a dialogue on a site and made a similar set of easily refuted assertions. A poster identified as Makhno took you to task for much the same issues. I have attached that dialogue below, because his response works here too. Those lines marked with a chevron (greater-than symbol) are lines he pulled from your comment.
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2013/06/10/how-the-debate-on-climate-change-went-wrong-and-how-we-can-turn-it-around/
“> what about the AGWists, who believe that warming causes cold weather, and the increasing evaporation from the sea causes floods and droughts!
I can best reply to this, RR, in your own words:
> I am not sure whether you realise this, but the atmosphere of Earth is pretty big.
It’s a complex system. It’s been explained thousands of times over, in words of one syllable, how the effects will be varied rather than a uniform degree-by-degree increase all over the world, and how the weather where you happen to live is not the same thing as the global climate.
I don’t for a moment believe you are arguing in good faith here – I’d lay any money you already know the answers. It’s just the classic denier tactic – keep repeating the same questions, then accuse people who get fed up after answering them a thousand times of not having the answers when they refuse to repeat them a thousand-and-first time.
It doesn’t even work in terms of convincing any undecided people, because nobody who’s that stupid is paying attention to the debate in the first place – its only purpose is to demoralise the other side and let yourself feel smug. Well, with the greatest possible respect, (BLEEP).”
Studies that indicate that increased warming in one region can cause more intense rain, snow or drought events elsewhere.
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/anonymous?p=AONE&sw=w&issn=00280836&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA250033124&sid=googleScholar&linkaccess=fulltext&authCount=1&isAnonymousEntry=true
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/317/5835/233
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1023630924100?LI=true
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7066/abs/nature04141.html
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/321/5895/1481
And an additional piece for you as well and to all the Holy Followers of the Oily Shoe
http://bob-ferris.blogspot.com/2017/04/holy-followers-of-oily-shoe.html
I am flattered that you should feel the need to go to such lengths, Mr Ferris, as to trawl back 4 years! Thank you. And then you dedicate an entire blog post to ME! Double thank you!
DeleteLet’s just deal in facts:
the Earth has warmed since the Little Ice Age (if it hadn’t, of course, we would still be in the Little Ice Age, which indicates that, considering how many deaths it caused, moving out of it has to be a Good Thing);
the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased since the end of the Little Ice Age;
human consumption of fossil fuels has increased exponentially;
we now have the technology to measure and monitor these events on a global scale.
I have not seen any empirical evidence that link any or all of those facts – correlation is NOT necessarily causation.
As for your links, few of them could be considered unbiased; only those you offered on the 14th April contained papers that just viewed facts, as opposed to suppositions. Do you not find it in the least bit curious that all prognostications for climate change are negative; not a single Good Thing results from it, even though its overall effect since the Little Ice Age has been beneficial? You obviously are of the opinion that there is an ideal climate, and that we are moving away from it, so... what is the ideal climate, and why?
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?...” Sherlock Holmes
DeleteBoy I wish science was easy and not complicated. But it is not. Most of my work has been in ecology where it is often more an exercise in triangulation but climate change has equal or greater challenges. To characterize what was been done to date as simple correlation is unfair and inaccurate. Certainly correlation has been employed as well as statistical fingerprinting, but these approaches are tools within a process of checking all options to find the last one standing.
When Koch brother-funded scientist Richard Muller went after the methodologies and conclusions in climate change science—looking both at the phenomenon itself and its causes—he went through a process of elimination plugging in all that had been argued by doubters (skeptics and deniers) and basically ruling those elements out as culprits. The same “fingerprint” analyses he used to show that CO2 levels were the drivers also showed patterns for volcanoes, ocean current events, and others indicating that they were not primary drivers. As you can see from his op-ed which contains links to his team’s published research and data sets, Muller remains skeptical on many fronts just not on whether or not it is happening and who is at fault.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html
Since this “climate change is natural claim” has been offered so, so often researcher Shaun Lovejoy did another set of analyses that asked the question of whether or not what we are seeing could be attributed to natural phenomenon. This analysis involved non-classical statistics including long-range statistical dependencies and so-called “fat-tailed” statistical probability distributions. This research found with 99% certainty that what we are seeing now could not have been accomplished through natural phenomena alone (popular coverage and paper below).
https://phys.org/news/2014-04-statistical-analysis-natural-warming-hypothesis-percent.html
https://link.springer.com/search?query=10.1007%2Fs00382-014-2128-2
But since there has been so much noise about statistics the American Statistical Association sent a team of statisticians to check the work of climate scientists and to see if statistical standards were being met. Their statement below agreed with both the methodologies and the conclusions. My sense is that if the professional association thought that scientists were pushing statistics beyond acceptable boundaries they might have raised objections or are you seeing them as part of the conspiracy?
http://www.amstat.org/asa/files/pdfs/POL-ASAStatementonClimateChange.pdf
I know “correlation is not causation” is a fun thing to say much like “hide the decline” but both demonstrate less than comprehensive knowledge of the methodologies involved or the processes which have been checked and rechecked any time that someone has raises an issue.
As to what is the most idea climate? Not my job. That is both a political and economic question. The problem here is that science has collided with political and economic fears. But as even the most conservative estimates indicate massive loss of coast areas (i.e. population centers) and significant impacts to agriculture that we will likely have a lot of folks without homes and no way to feed them (think China) if something is not done and done quickly.
As to whether or not my post was written “about” you, there is that old Carly Simon song that you might want to check out.
So, climate change is NOT natural? Interesting. What unnatural events caused it to change in the past? Why was it warmer in the Mediæval Warm Period? Or the Roman Warm Period? Why is the considerably warmer climates of the Holocene often referred to as the “Optimum” (not my choice of words, which you seem to imply, but it was – and still is, as far as I know – an accepted label)? What caused the temperatures to fall between those warm periods? The climates have been changing since the Earth formed – other than that we are around to actually observe it, what is so different about the present change?
DeleteYou have no idea what could be the ideal climate, but seem eager to follow the political and economic premise that there has to be one. You then express your full support of the premise that it is all going to end in tears, almost relishing the upcoming disasters forecast. How will these coastal areas be lost? Presumably by inundation by rising sea-levels; as these are presently estimated to be around 1mm per year (though some areas indicate they could be static, or even falling), it will be a few centuries before we get the disasters you fear. Interesting that you ignore some of the main alarmists (Al Gore and Barack Obama, to name but two) investing a lot of money beach front properties; do you not see any disparity in their argument? As a nation on a major river delta, Bangladesh is actually growing in area, as are many of the coral atoll islands of the Pacific – even the Maldives are under no threat, so why the panic?
Also, there is the fixation that what is happening is being caused by CO2 – why?
Simple observation of our nearest planetary neighbour, with an atmosphere that is ~97% CO2, shows that, at altitudes where the pressure is Earth-equivalent, the temperatures are what the Earth’s would be, if the Earth was the same distance from the Sun (about 66°C). Surely, if the environment climate sensitivity (ECS) was about the minimum that is estimated, at around 1°C per “doubling” of CO2, then the temperature should be at least 11°C warmer?
What if the present temperature plateau proves to be a peak, and temperatures begin to fall, as many scientists are now suggesting; as we have not really reduced our consumption, CO2 is unlikely to stop rising. Perhaps, as happened in the 1970s, we will be assured that it is – once again – all this cooling is the fault of CO2, and the rising temperature fears we have had will be airbrushed out of history?
The joke in the Carly Simon song was that the song was about the subject, in spite of the implication that it wasn’t.
Mr. Rodent:
DeleteOnce again you have out done yourself. You are like that child that feels they can do no wrong. You make an assertion which is then proven wrong or countered and you either ignore it or pretend you asked another question. You offered up the argument that what we are seeing now is natural, not man-made. I provided arguments against your unfounded assertion.
In terms of preferred climate I said it was not my job to provide that but rather society’s which is extremely different than me not have an opinion as you suggested. Personally, I think your assertion that the Holocene Optimum would be great is naïve as many millions would perish as a consequence either through food shortages or wars over resources and productive habitats. Perhaps there were warmer summers in Britain but other changes elsewhere that we not so benign. That scenario strikes me as sub-optimal. And that climate fluctuation was caused by orbital forcing which is not something that you can just call up. That was the cause then (unavoidable) and now we are dealing with one driven by our CO2 emissions (maybe avoidable).
Your Venus idea? Is just weird. Venus has temperatures in the range of the earth’s surface at 50-70 km (35-46 mi) from its surface. Its atmosphere is ninety times as dense as ours and a day on Venus is 243 earth days (very slow spin). Yes its atmosphere is 97% CO2 but that is kind of the point as its surface temperatures are in excess of 470 degrees C (think melting lead). Where we see earth-like temperatures in the atmosphere of Venus we also see droplets of sulfuric acid which form extremely reflective clouds that completely cloak the planet. It is hard to think why that atmosphere might behave differently than ours (insert sarcasm here).
I think that you might believe that creating doubt and confusion are the same as proof. All that you have provided are tired, old hypotheses that have been analyzed repeatedly and found wanting. And you spread them like rumors from a gossip magazine.
Mr Ferris:
DeleteOh? Where have I said that the Holocene Optimum would be great? I was merely pointing out that what was considered – or at least labelled – optimum was warmer than it is now. All the warming that we have had since the little ice age has been beneficial, providing us with arable land at higher altitudes and higher latitudes, with longer growing seasons. Why should that lead to food shortages? What food shortages we DO have around the world are more the result of politics, not climate – Zimbabwe was once the bread-basket of Africa; now, it is just a basket-case. The odd thing, though, is that we, in the UK, have NOT had warmer summers; we have had mediocre summers, but warmer winters; personally, I like that.
There is a common scientific meme that extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. I would suggest that humans are causing climate change is an extraordinary claim; as yet, I have not seen ANY evidence to support that.
Venus, I am afraid, is not my idea; it was promulgated here: http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html, complete with data, methods and calculations. Curiously, I have not seen anyone attack the argument, they always go for the author; not, I would have thought, correct scientific procedure. It is interesting how you dismiss it, as the point is that the atmosphere is NOT behaving differently from ours; it is exactly as ours would be! What would be the surface temperature of Earth if its atmosphere was 90 times denser? And you accuse ME of evasion – sheesh!
You missed, overlooked or were unaware of my Richard Feynman quotes, but, as you appear a fan of Monty Python, here is one from John Cleese: “I would like 2016 to be the year when people remembered that science is a method of investigation and not a belief system.” He may well be saying the same about 2017.
Mr. Rodent:
DeleteThere was a study recently done of students at Stanford University to see if they could tell the difference between real news and fake news. They had problems with it. Science is tricky too, but there are some clues one should seek out. There is a lot of valuable information on blogs, but there is danger also. The Venus fellow being a prime example. Yes he has a blog and he posts on it and some few people read it—including you. But then the question is whether his blog is a supplemental resource or his only resource. In Mr. Huffman’s case he generates a lot of materials but he has no publications beyond his own self-published materials and what he produces electronically.
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/hdhsciences
Visiting his Lulu page (above) is sad as no one has reviewed any of his publications. Scientists have not criticized him because he is not taken seriously. People rarely talk about his work. I did find one fellow who is a fan and has a blog called the Tall Bloke but his biography contains the following quote: A few years ago I was riding home on my motorbike when a car lost control coming round a bend towards me and knocked me into a tree. This accident broke my spine and left me with ongoing memory and cognition problems, so bear with me (https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/about/). But this is the guy you are posting about here and other places on the internet.
But why should we be surprised by this? You have defended the Heartland publication on scientific debate with a foreword written by a Christian-living writer and fracking advocate as well as a climate change organization run by an anthropologist who specializes in sports. Kind of makes me wonder who you visit when your car has trouble. Podiatrist? Jungian analyst?
And the warming stuff. I am sorry that winters are a challenge for you and it gives you comfort to confuse the issue by visualizing it as warming for everyone. Yippee. But it is climate change which I have often called “climate exchange.” (https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm) As you have pointed out the warming part of it is on average pretty small, which means to make your toes toasty in winter someone else’s must get colder. For every place that gets more rainfall some place gets drier. So making the assumption that it is good for you and therefore good for everyone is a false one. Moreover, with the sea level rises many population centers and agricultural lands (i.e., deltas) will be underwater or be subjected to saltwater intrusion (i.e., places to live and grow food will disappear). The Holocene was an exciting time but it was also a period where most scientists believe the human population globally was below 20 million
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates) and now were are looking at 9 billion by 2050 or 450 times that maximum density estimate for the Holocene. My sense as an ecologist is that increasing a population that much greatly reduces the ability of any natural system to support itself when perturbations occur.
The take-home message here is read some actual science and not just what you are feed by Breitbart or some random blog that does not even deserve criticism. In spite of what you are being told there is active debate on those areas where it is needed. Also you might want to take a science class, attend a science conference or read some primary literature. Here is an interesting and relevant one I stumbled on this morning. I think the world would be better served by a rodent that is informed rather than one that is simply radical.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3545776/
So, Mr Ferris, you are prepared to align yourself with those who prefer to attack the person rather than the arguments. A curious confession for one claiming to be scientific.
DeleteIt is also interesting that you manage to extrapolate the most amazing conclusions about me (like, I want to return to the Holocene Optimum… meh….). What I have defended of the Heartland Institution is their right to propose scientific argument; your ONLY argument against them is their supposed backers, and the scientific qualifications of some of the personnel. Why have you not addressed any of the scientific arguments that they offer?
As for the UK weather – I am aware that what happens in the UK is can be very different from what happens in Oregon; I was just making the observation that the UK summers are not getting warmer, though the UK winters are. Also, using your logic that when it rains here, it gets drier there, surely if sea-levels rise in one area, they must fall in another? That, I admit, is getting silly, just as is your assertion that the sea-levels are about to rise and inundate nations. At the present rate of ~1mm per year (i.e. ~4 inches per century), most nations will have plenty of opportunity to ameliorate the threat; indeed, some nations are having nature do it for them, as the likes of Bangladesh and Vanuatu are actually growing in area. I am not sure if you are aware, but deltas are always growing, as are many coral atolls and islands.
It is interesting how you berate me and anyone I link to for lack of science (though do note that I had not raised Tallbloke in conversation at any time; also, I was unaware of his condition, and would never ridicule him – or anyone else – for his misfortune), yet you offer absolutely no scientific argument yourself.
Rodent Dude:
DeleteNot to point out the painfully obvious but folks lacking background and at the same time taking money from sources that profit from the confusion they might create are not on their face reliable or credible. Period. Peer-reviewed articles give names, provide qualifications, show affiliations and contain statements about conflicts of interest for a reason. When two opposing ideas are presented authoritatively qualifications and motivations are important. Particularly when those presenting dissenting views have a history of misstating facts or cherry-picking data. Benny Peiser of GWPF is a case in point (see below). And if you recall, like the Harry Dale Huffman, GWPF is a group that you introduced into the discussion and presented as credible.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Benny_Peiser
and
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1777013.htm
And if you go back through the thread the person who injected the Holocene Optimum into this discuss was you and not me. I am just responding to your favorable comments regarding this period. And yes deltas grow in geological time frames but when you are waiting for your next meal these time-scales may be problematic.
So, mentioning that the Holocene Optimum was warmer than it is today is a favourable comment? Who knew? And to think that I would just have dismissed it as mentioning in passing. Well, there you go.
DeleteAs for Bangladesh growing, how would you view information from the BBC? – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7532949.stm It is an older article, but I doubt that there is any more recent articles, as it certainly goes against the narrative that you cleave so assiduously to.
Trying to claiming you did not infer a preference for that condition is disingenuous. But that is it. You raise random issues not to inform but to create confusion. I have always found it interesting that those in the doubter, skeptic and denier camps bemoan that they are kept from publishing because their view are different than the prevailing view. That argument seems plausible until you look and find they were not that were not published that often before the debate emerged.
DeleteThe Bangladesh piece is dated and the headline contains quotations around the bit you find remarkable (that is a hint). And an author of the sea level piece similarly says that this does not impact their findings. This parallels the specious arguments set forth by those equating sea ice area increases in the Antarctic with the loss of glaciers and land ice (i.e., ice mass) in the region. Sea ice is not land ice, but is tied to the loss of land ice. Ephemeral delta growth from the loss of land soils does not mean the sea level has stopped rising nor that those who live on the lands soon to be covered with sea water will just blithely move over to those marshy and unsettled lands in the delta. So no it does not contradict the narrative and the article tells you that from the quotes and the statement by the author. But charge ahead. In this country we would tell you that if you believe this that we have some "land" to sell you in Florida. The story behind this saying is very relevant in this instance.
The issues of sediments and population in Bangladesh are complicated (I have provided some links below that not only demonstrate its complexities but indicate that there is healthy debate in science and in the public). Sea level is rising and the delta is growing in spots, but not all spots. But is any of this a reason to think that climate change is not happening or that it is not caused by our burning of fossil fuels? The answer to both is a resounding: No. So what is the purpose of raising these issues?
DeleteWhat Radical Rodent has done with this argument is typical of climate deniers. It is a dishonest tactic but one that is far too often employed. First you take a complicated issue and find that part of it that seems to disagree with the prevailing notion. Present it as a seed of doubt in the hopes that it will create large scale doubt about the entire situation. The most classic example of this is Senator James Inhofe characterizing climate change as global warming and then walking into Congress with a large snowball. That snowball and this delta argument are similar rhetorical devises. No one said that climate change was going reduce or eliminate sedimentation which is a function of upstream develop and rainfall just as no one is saying that climate change will end or reduce snowfall everywhere. And we should not be fooled by someone creating the impression that the delta growth means we should not worry about sea level rising and therefore the climate is not a problem.
http://geoapps.ph-freiburg.de/bangladesh/documents/Terrasse%20English%20Version.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221209631300003X
http://blogs.worldbank.org/endpovertyinsouthasia/bangladesh-challenges-living-delta-country
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/29/world/asia/facing-rising-seas-bangladesh-confronts-the-consequences-of-climate-change.html?_r=0
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2015/02/17/salinity-intrusion-in-changing-climate-scenario-will-hit-coastal-bangladesh-hard
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news-events/giant-quake-may-lurk-under-bangladesh-and-beyond
Mr Ferris: where have I said that it is simple? It is you who is making fatuous comments, such as, “…lands soon to be covered with sea water…” How soon, given that the present sea-level rise equates to about 4 inches per century? I am sure that in that time, the poor folk of Bangladesh (a deliberately patronising reference that I am sure many Bangladeshis could take umbrage at) will do what they are doing now, and what the Dutch, English and Germans have done for centuries, which is build banks, dikes or bunds to prevent sea-water incursion over the land.
DeleteWhere and when have I ever stated explicitly or implicitly that climates are not changing? As for labelling me a “climate denier” – when and where have I ever denied that there is climate? You are getting desperate, Mr Ferris; while I advocate an open mind, with arguments based upon evidence, you can only resort to ad hominems and suppositions – as well as the implication that earthquakes may be caused by climate change. You are venturing into the realm of the ridiculous, Mr Ferris.
There are only TWO incontrovertible facts in this argument: changes are happening, and we are around to observe them. The cause(s) of the changes is(are) under discussion, though I consider it the ultimate vanity to assume that it is caused by humans, considering that 99.8% of ALL energy in the Solar System originates from the Sun. The results of any change are also being debated – you, of course, can only offer scenarios of doom and gloom, which is odd, as the observed results to date have been boon and cheer.
So here another misdirect. All heat comes from the sun ergo climate change must come from the sun and not CO2. But that would only be true if two conditions were met. Our rabid rodent has argued one and is correct that almost all our heat comes from the sun. The second one he/she has not, which would be that changes in the sun track with this current two centuries of climate change.
Deletehttps://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/effect-of-sun-on-climate-faq.html#.WPoSW9LyvIU
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/10/earths-warming-how-scientists-know-its-not-the-sun/
http://history.aip.org/climate/solar.htm
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sun-spots-and-climate-change/
This list of groups and institutions goes on and on, but it is not universal. For instance one group makes the same argument forwarded by Radical Rodent. The Friends of Science at Canadian non-profit but like Radical Rodent they fail to publicly identify themselves or list their affiliations and possible conflicts. But a little research reveals who they are and where they get most of their funding.
Here is their statement:
https://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=1
Here is what research about them has revealed:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Friends_of_Science
https://www.desmogblog.com/oil-companies-funding-friends-of-science-tim-ball-takes-the-brunt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_Science
http://www.triplepundit.com/2014/11/friends-science-blame-sun-climate-change/
So, your evidence is with a group where science has become highly politicised, one of which has been measuring the Sun’s brightness since 1978 – wow! And that will give a detailed insight into its effects during the Little Ice Age, the Mediæval Warm Period, the Dark Ages, the Roman Warm Period… Astounding! A closer correlation exists with Svensmark’s cosmic rays, with which the global temperatures have been remarkably closely linked over the past 200 MILLION years – now THAT’S a timescale I respect!
DeleteAs for CO2 being the most important “greenhouse gas” – do you not find it a little suspicious that the most significant gas in the argument just so happens to be the only gas over which we can construct a perceived link with human activities? If not, then perhaps you should do – it is called “scepticism,” an essential component to ALL science. Consider when it is overcast: in such conditions, the day tends to be cooler, and the night tends to be warmer than those days when there are clear skies – yet water is more or less dismissed as a GHG. How odd. Consider the first of the OCO-2 satellite pictures published (then quickly withdrawn); the CO2 distribution was not quite as expected, with the heaviest concentrations over the tropical rain forests and oceans, completely overpowering the industrialised areas. “Seasonal burn-off” was the lame excuse. Sorry, but if seasonal burn-off has that effect, then we ought to be industrialising those areas – pronto! No – the whole scenario is considerably more complex than you and your ilk are trying to make it, Mr Ferris. Now, I wonder why you refuse to apply any scepticism to what is becoming a cult.
Next, you will be averring that the Arctic is now at an all-time low since 1979. That, oddly, is quite correct, when referring to the satellite observations since then. However, the satellite observations actually began in 1973, when the ice extent was much the same as it is, now. Odd how 1979, when the ice extent was abnormally high, is considered the benchmark; even odder is how you seem unaware of or just ignore this anomaly.
Dude, You offered up the argument that is was the sun I just indicated who was on your side of the argument and who was not. CO2 is important but arguments are also made for methane reduction, SOx, NOx and a host of others as well as concerns about water vapor. I just got back from a nice bike ride you might try that or other exercise. You post is just ramble.
DeleteOnce more, you are more concerned with WHO says it, not WHAT they actually say; hardly a scientific outlook, I would have thought. Also, I was merely pointing out that, on a planetary scale, humans are as nought to that big, glowing ball in the sky; just because we are presently in the ascendancy AND the world is warming does NOT necessarily mean that we are the cause of the change. Did you know that the sale of ice cream correlates surprisingly closely with funerals for people who have drowned? Could it be that ice cream causes drowning, or is there a particular craving for ice cream at funerals for drowned people? Hopefully, you will be able to surmise the reason for the correlation; there are other, similar links, though, which are wholly and utterly coincidental, such as films where Nicolas Cage has appeared in, and drowning by falling into a pool: http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations.
DeleteAnyway – chill…
Rodent you offered up an alternative to the prevailing understanding (a what) that this pattern we are seeing is the result of the actions of the sun. I offered up a different hypothesis that the fluctuations of the sun did not match the observed pattern (another what) AND then showed a list of people who had argued similarly. Then I provided an example of a group that subscribed to the same what you embraced and they were compromised pretty seriously. If you can provide others who hold your belief and are not similarly compromised have at it.
Delete***sigh***
DeleteThis getting very tiresome, Mr Ferris. It matters not who I might direct you to for evidence to back my argument, you will automatically reject it for whatever nefarious reasons you might have – be it the person, with whatever thin excuse you may have against them, the funding, or it is in some other way “compromised” – without once addressing the evidence therein; then, you direct us to highly-politicised sites, all with the same agenda that you have – the facts are irrelevant, let’s go for the insults. So what if their funding is from the oil industry? What are the FACTS being presented? Are these facts verifiable? Are the tests, experiments or observations replicable? As Einstein once said, about a group of one hundred German scientists who contributed to a book criticising him and his work: “It only takes one fact to prove me wrong.” None of those 100 scientists are written in history; Einstein is. Science is not a democracy; it matters not what 97% think or say (or, more accurately, 77 out of 79, which is where that percentage came from); it matters not the source of the funding; it matters not what the race, colour, creed, gender, sexuality or political affiliations of the proponent happens to be – what matters is what the FACTS are. Your arguments are, sadly, very light on facts, and very heavy on suppositions and innuendo. You might be telling what Ms Freeman and her colleagues on this site want to hear; sadly, that is politics, not science.
What will your argument be, should the hottest years evah we are experiencing be the peak of warming, and it starts to cool? Historical evidence suggests that cooling tends to be more dramatic than warming, with drops of a couple of degrees C occurring within decades, while rises take centuries, so global cooling could be quickly identifiable as incontrovertible. All this would be without humans reducing “emissions”, or the rise of CO2 slowing. Should that happen, would that be sufficient evidence for you that CO2 is irrelevant and that humans have very little influence?
Fact One: You claimed that our current warming was the result of the sun.
DeleteFact Two: I countered that the analyses indicate that the pattern we are currently seeing does not track well with changes in solar radiation. And I provided some links to studies that looked at these factors.
Off to go march for science, but somehow I doubt that is your cause.
Fact one is wrong? Wow… what other source of energy is available for us to warm this planet?
DeleteFact two is open to debate; we really do not have the quantity and quality of data to make assumptions that you are supporting (i.e. it is all the fault of human-produced CO2).
Fact three: the Earth has never had a constant temperature. In that case, what was(were) the cause(s) of the many fluctuations in temperatures over the past 4.5 billion years, that humans have had no opportunity to have any influence over?
Science IS, as does not need empty-headed marches for support.
Reading comprehension not your strong suit? I did not say and have never said that the sun in not responsible for warming the earth. But we are talking about what is responsible for the current change in climate. Again you are trying to confuse the issue.
DeleteThe changes in solar radiation do not track with these changes in climate in terms of timing and magnitude. This is the whole point of many of the analyses including the one by Muller who talked about looking at the various influences and ruling them out individually and collectively. Perhaps you need to read his piece again slowly this time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html
Who exactly is the we you keep referencing? I am a member of the scientific community and I have read paper after paper. We in that community have reviewed this thoroughly. So what community are you?
Your last paragraph is asked and answered. Go back above and see discussion about ruling out natural causes. Again read these slowly. Answering your third paragraph is exactly what these analyses are about.
https://phys.org/news/2014-04-statistical-analysis-natural-warming-hypothesis-percent.html
https://link.springer.com/search?query=10.1007%2Fs00382-014-2128-2
Science does need a march because of folks who think there is nothing wrong with self-publishing dribble, dishonest cherry-picking of data or industry-funded contrarian scientists. Your comment in a previous post about superstition was interesting given that you endorse an un-reviewed document with a forward by a Christian-living author and expect the rest of us to accept on faith while posting under an alias. Just wow!
Lovejoy’s paper is all well and good, but where is the data he is basing his conclusions upon? Indeed, where is any of the data so many of these grandiose pronouncements are claimed to be based on? Or is it a case of: “You only want the data so you can prove me wrong” (petulance personified)?
DeleteNow, could Lovejoy tell us why, without any industrial revolution to conveniently blame it all on, there was a rise in temperatures from the Dark Ages to the Mediæval Warm Period, when it was warm enough for the Vikings to settle and grow crops (and bury their dead) on Greenland?
I did give you evidence of the greenhouse theory being flawed, but, in spite of all the evidence, methods and calculations being there to study, you immediately dismissed it, based upon who it was that proposed it. NOT scientific, I am afraid. Come back when you can accept that it is FACTS that matter, not whether or not you like whoever revealed them.
Read the methodology section of Lovejoy’s piece. These data are publicly available and you could step out of alias and offer a paper if you so choose. But here you are repeating the same discredited arguments again and again from behind your mask.
DeleteWow, you love the medieval warming period. But cannot accept that one warming period was caused by one set of phenomenon and another by another set. That is why we try to match condition with actions when looking at these issues. If your “open mind” is not flexible enough to do that, then I do not know what to tell you. Here once again are the reasons for the Medieval Warming Period.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm
Also, you bemoan that I have found fault with the cavalcade of unqualified, irrelevant or compromised scientist and non-scientists you have presented. Fair enough, but perhaps someone with an "open mind" would consider that the option you have elected in not supported by those who are qualified, relevant and un-compromised.
DeleteWhen I look at those who work in this field they have published hundreds of papers in contrast to those arguing against. No, science is not democracy but it is about numbers and stature which do tell a story.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php
Oh, Lor’… Skeptical Skience, yet again. I have had this discussion with others in times past, giving them a whole swathe of papers that disputed what that half-baked site claims. Well, guess what…? You’re right – not one addressed the contents of the papers, just the qualifications/funding/fit in whatever excuse you want of the authors. Well, colour me surprised – NOT!
DeleteWhat you are so utterly blind to is that anyone I might offer who questions “the consensus” (my, how scientific!) is immediately dismissed by you as unqualified, irrelevant or compromised. What about Richard Lindzen? Judith Curry? Bob Carter? Drs Christie and Pielke?
Science is in very sorry state, at present: “Most scientists ‘can’t replicate studies by their peers’” – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39054778. As I said earlier, “Come back when you can accept that it is FACTS that matter, not whether or not you like whoever revealed them.”
So let’s look at what these scientists actually say about this topic.
DeleteRichard Lindzen
Lindzen is interesting as he is well-respected for a lot of his work and has presented an alternative hypothesis but he has met resistance on the Iris idea from his colleagues who are arguing that it would have the opposite impact. He now works for the Cato Institute that was founded by Charles Koch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
Roger Pilke Sr.
“As I have summarized on the Climate Science weblog, humans activities do significantly alter the heat content of the climate system, although, based on the latest understanding, the radiative effect of CO2 has contributed, at most, only about 28% to the human-caused warming up to the present. The other 72% is still a result of human activities”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke
Judith Curry
Judith Curry does not say that it is not happening or that humans are not a major driver but is concerned about whether we contribute 50 percent or just less than 50%.
http://www.npr.org/2013/08/22/213894792/uncertain-science-judith-currys-take-on-climate-change
John Christie
"…it is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy
Robert Carter
The late Robert Carter is problematic and is a denier. Moreover, he selected a short data segment because it agreed with his argument which is species both because it did not agree with those segments surrounding it and because it was too short to make any concrete statement about climate at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Carter
So these are your scientists and they are clearly outliers in this debate. In addition, only one of these scientists agrees with your position that carbon is not a problem and that humans are not responsible. So you are well beyond even the outliers and these are not scientists who are frequently published in this field.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php
Like I said, and you have just demonstrated very effectively, you are not interested in FACTS, you are more concerned about the character who espouses them.
DeleteAs we have consumed over 30% of our total consumption of fossil fuels this century, the rate of rise of CO2 concentrations has not increased significantly, and temperatures have been on a plateau for nearly 20 years, can you not see the disconnect from each and every one of your suppositions?
No. I doubt you can. I was fully taken in by Al Gore’s film, and set about trying to see what I could do to help, small as it may be. The more I questioned, the greater my doubts grew, and the more offensive the responses became. Then I read the “Climategate” emails, and their dedication to “the cause” (their terminology, not mine), which included discussing the ruination of the career of a peer-reviewer who questioned. “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it” — Upton Sinclair.
Thanks, Brandie! You've put a great deal of effort into researching and writing this rebuttal, thereby saving the rest of us from as much effort. Hopefully your rebuttal will reach all the science teachers who have not yet educated themselves about climate science. Without education--or without rebuttals such as yours-- all of us, even science teachers, are susceptible to the siren songs of deniers like the Heartland Institute.
ReplyDeleteThank you so much Joel! Education is always the key :)
DeleteBrandie,
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for taking the time to go through this piece of propaganda and rebutting it. As the author, with photojournalist Gary Braasch, of "How We Know What We Know about Our Changing Climate: Scientists and Kids Explore Global Warming", and the producer of the Young Voices for the Planet films, I find the Heartland Institute's attempt at obfuscation quite frightening and upsetting.
Here is a climate change review and lesson plan that also focuses on solutions:
http://www.yesmagazine.org/for-teachers/curriculum/teaching-climate-scientists-and-kids-explore-global-warming
The Young Voices for the Planet films are on PBS Learning Media (https://mpt.pbslearningmedia.org/collection/young-voices-for-the-planet-film-series/) a great place for teachers to get peer-reviewed scientifically accurate climate curriculum.
Here is a link to the AAAS review of our children’s book on climate change: http://sciencenetlinks.com/lessons/how-we-know-what-we-know/
http://www.yesmagazine.org/for-teachers/curriculum/teaching-climate-scientists-and-kids-explore-global-warming
http://sciencenetlinks.com/lessons/how-we-know-what-we-know/
THANK YOU!
LYNNE CHERRY
You're welcome. What an awesome book you've help create for children! The videos would be great for elementary and middle school, as well. Thank you for sharing.
ReplyDeleteLet me join everyone else in thanking you for this excellent rebuttal to the nonsense spewed by Heartland. Well done and well said!
ReplyDeleteThanks so much Rose. I appreciate that after reading baseless claims about me like those here, LOL: http://joannenova.com.au/2017/04/us-science-teachers-say-trash-books-and-watch-leo-instead/
DeleteJo Nova is an embarrassment to Australia. She is a purveyor of pseudoscience, misinformation, scientist bashing, and nutty conspiracies.
DeleteThat’s it, Ceist! Attack the messenger, not the message! Now, give us some examples of why she is such “a purveyor of pseudoscience, misinformation scientist bashing and nutty conspiracies.”
DeleteThank you so much for this much needed commentary AND the chuckles it evoked for us in the office at Climate Generation (www.climategen.org). We'll be sharing this in our social media for sure! Our newest curriculum, Next Generation Climate, www.climategen.org/ngc is a great resource for teachers looking to develop climate literacy and action competence- feel free to share it-its free to download from our website. We're also open for registration for our upcoming 13th Summer Institute for Climate Change Education- would love to see you there! https://www.climategen.org/what-we-do/education/professional-development/summer-institute/summer-institute-2017/
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing your climate resources! I'm glad it gave you guys a laugh. I haven't heard of your summer institute, but I'll have to check it out :)
DeleteThank you. I received my lovely copy in the school mail room today. I already knew about the Heartland Institute because they stretch all the way back to big Tobacco's denial of tobacco's obvious connection to lung cancer. If you have not seen it yet, the film "Merchants of Doubt" is a great documentary about propaganda groups just like this one.
ReplyDeleteThanks for reading :) You're the second person to recommend Merchants of Doubt to me, so I need to check it out!
DeleteThank you for the extensive analysis. As I looked at the envelope and read the letter, I had my suspicions. Looked up "Heartland Institute," found their funders (and the fact that they are in jeopardy of losing 501 (c ) 3 status for lack of a broad base of funding), I realized this would be a good exercise for my 7th graders, who were, at that very time, conducting their own research into various issues of climate change. I showed them the materials, explained my investigations into "Heartland Institute," and discovery that the Koch Brothers were major funders. Students in at least two classes correctly guessed the major area of investment for the Kochs. A third class just shouted it out before I even asked.
ReplyDeleteWow! Those are some impressive seventh graders! I'm happy to hear they're in jeopardy of losing their nonprofit status. That makes me very happy :)
ReplyDeleteI had those same questions along with where did they get our names and mailing addresses. Sickening.
ReplyDeleteScience teachers should also realize that they have two important characteristics that the leader of Heartlands does not: a college degree and a background in science. This is not scientists arguing about science, it is an advocacy group funded by those who would do away with regulations for the benefit of polluting and extractive industries.
ReplyDeleteThe authors are listed as PhD's but their credentials weren't evident in the text. Thanks for your faith in the members of our profession :)
DeleteI was referring more to those at Heartland but these scientists are infamous and interesting as well. Certainly ones that fit in the 3% of those ideologically unable to accept the notion of climate change and our role in this phenomenon. Idso has a long history with Heartland and is technically a Geographer (probably physical geographer). Carter studied mollusks and 14 years ago was removed as adjunct faculty which indicates something in terms of how his employer and peers thought of him and his positions. Carter died in early 2016 before the release of this version. Singer is 93 and has long history of working for industry on a number of fronts from this to the dangers of second-hand smoke. Not exactly a dream team of scientists (see below).
DeleteThank you for doing this and suffering the "sling and arrows" of trolls. Scientists have to stand up for science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_D._Idso
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Carter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer
Wow. What a sordid history for these guys!
DeleteDear Mr. Ferris,
DeleteYou are profoundly wrong about science. It is not an exercise in character assassination. It is also not an exercise in consensus and authority. It is supposed to be an exercise in logic and evidence only, practiced by those of us with adequate qualifications.
Perhaps you should tell us about your qualifications and then try to give us the real scientific logic and evidence that you think support your perspective. That needs to be more than citations to other opinions. If you give us citations, please tell us how they PROVE that man-made CO2 is having any effect on the Earth's climate.
You should know, but probably do not, that there are numerous causes for natural climate change. The fact that we live on a planet with vast oceans and atmosphere that are NEVER in equilibrium should tell everyone with a scientific aptitude that our climate will always change for perfectly natural reasons. Such changes CANNOT be attributed to man, except by those who are scientifically illiterate!
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA
Curious how you didn’t ask your students to investigate the scientific validation of the arguments provided; what a wasted opportunity!
ReplyDeleteMr Rodent, it's curious why YOU clearly haven't "investigated the scientific validation" of your own so-called "arguments". It's not that difficult - unless you really don't WANT to know the facts.
ReplyDeleteAh, Ceist… once more you attack me rather than my arguments. If you could indicate where I am wrong, and how I can correct this, your comments would be more useful – not only to me, but to any who is reading, too. You are wasting an opportunity to demonstrate scientific reasoning to demolish an argument. Remember, one important part of education has to be to show students HOW to think, not just what to think.
ReplyDeleteI read your review. It spews the same debunked ideology common among those who get their talking points from the mainstream media. I actually feel sorry for your students, being taught by someone who either does not understand the scientific method or ignores it in favor of pushing a personal agenda. It is no wonder, being fed a singularly slanted view, why the next generation lacks robust critical thinking skills.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous: You should understand that this is a blog directed at those who teach science. Unlike your living room where you can offer up most anything without having to defend it, science and scientists do not operate in that manner. Ideas are identified, hypotheses are formulated and then those are tested and tested again. If they are found to have merit those are generally written up in a paper that is peppered heavily with citations and submitted to a journal with credibility. Those papers are then reviewed and if they are judged sound (hypothesis, methodology and conclusions) they go through an intense editing process and are published. Likely they will be presented at scientific conferences and subject to further review and criticism. That is how science works. That is what legitimate readers of this blog understand and expect because they have been trained in science. You have offered no alternative hypotheses and no evidence or citations from the primary literature which simply makes your post ironic.
DeleteSince you do not hesitate, in your posts, to point out that skeptics are funded by those who stand to gain from the skeptical position, it should also be pointed out that the promoters of the global warming nonsense (a carefully chosen term)are themselves almost all funded by government, whose "cure" for global warming is to control all energy and raise taxes. Science teachers are government employees who live by means of the extortion racket called taxation and teach what they are told to teach. The amount of money going to the promotion of your side of the debate dwarfs the amount going to the skeptical side. You know that, yet find it convenient to ignore while pointing at the other side with your ad hominem accusations.
DeleteFunding sources are, of course, irrelevant, but the point is that arguments are strong on both sides, not just one side. So-called "science" is a money game, not a truth game as you imagine. And global warming / climatology claims are not open to repeatable experimentation. They are more akin to history - dependent on references rather than facts.
Reasonable people do not claim to know whether or not the planet is warming since such a fact is, at best, nearly impossible to determine. There are not enough thermometers, their placement is spotty, their accuracy varied, their interpretation debatable.
ReplyDeleteSo the big question is: why do highly ignorant morons choose to believe either side in this silly and spurious debate? Big answer: they are sports fans. Sports fans get drunk and kill each other after the game. Sports fans think either Clinton or Trump - but not both - are telling the lies. Sports fans think skin color is important. Sports fans just like to take sides and then pretend that anyone who disagrees with them is evil. Actually sports fans are evil. They are the opposite of reasonable.
You do understand that the temperature and CO2 concentrations are analyzed and truthed looking at several different measures and data sets from ice cores, mollusk shell chemistry, lake bottom sediments, dendrochronology and others. Which of these approaches do you find problematic? I would be interested in your thinking and please cite peer-reviewed materials in your responses. That would be most helpful and add to this debate. Thank you.
DeleteMr. Ferris, I have read numerous peer-reviewed studies supporting both sides of this debate. Peer Review is PR; it is an argument from authority. It is not evidence.
DeleteThere is not a single type of proxie evidence such as you mention that is not controversial and debatable and debated in the peer-reviewed literature.
However, the peer-reviewed literature amounts to hundreds of thousands of articles and no one in their right mind would claim to be able to sort them all out and then find the truth about the immensely complex and chaotically huge system that is our planetary climate over time. Only a sports fan would pretend to have that all understood and "truthed".
I note, in your numerous posts here, that you specialize in qualifications. You are qualified to be right and others are unqualified to be right. But your blizzard of references has been matched by a blizzard of peer-reviewed references supporting the other side - and I suspect you know that.
I repeat: anyone claiming to know the temperature of the Earth and its long-term trends is as foolish as the morons who claim to know what went on in the first three nano-seconds of their Big Bang, or what day of the week their God made trees.
I am all for science, but claims that your climatology has been "truthed" after having been analyzed are beyond silly. They are pretentious.
Your dendrochronology and ice cores have both been thoroughly debunked as evidence in peer-reviewed studies. But I understand the game: either side can provide a blizzard of PR studies to support its case and that is why only sports fans take sides in such an absurd debate.
Then make an argument and defend it through citations.
DeleteMr Howard: I am afraid you are on a hiding to nothing. You have presented arguments far more cogently than I have managed, and with considerably more authority, but you will find that you are metaphorically trying to knit fog.
DeleteI do not defend arguments by citations, which is arguing from authority. You do that, probably thinking you are winning a debate by marshalling a consensus. However, consensus is irrelevant to scientific fact.
ReplyDeleteFurther, if you will read what I have written, it is that I do not know what the temperature of the Earth is and that I suspect that you do not either. Therefore, the burden of proof is upon you to prove that you do know what it is, not upon me to prove a negative. You seem to have failed not only to understand science, but also logic.
You are fundamentally correct. Scientists do not argue science from literature citations that they mistakenly feel have been authenticated by "peer-review." Peer-review has become little more than 'pal-review,' and provides only a minimal form of agreement by typically two other scientists. A far more stringent form of authentication is replication by scientists not connected to those who wrote the original article. But even that is filled with difficulties, if all are being paid to support the paradigm.
DeleteTo understand how science is supposed to work, you should suggest that alarmists listen to the short lecture at Richard Feynman's website:
http://www.richardfeynman.com/
Feynman is one of the all-time great physicists, who unfortunately died before he could help us take down the climate scam.
One who was able to help greatly was another of the great Jewish physicists of the 20th century, Dr. Edward Teller. Although Teller died in 2005, he was instrumental in promoting the Petition Project:
http://www.petitionproject.org/
The review article that was part of the Petition Project is well worth considering.
If teachers here want to learn how scientists really argue the climate issue, consider this refutation of the National Climate Assessment 2014:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/224538945/NCA-Rebuttal
where we take the Obama Administration's arguments and examine them against robust empirical data. That leads to the conclusion that their "Three Lines of Evidence" are not only flawed but fatally flawed. Fatal flaws take down the entire paradigm, because they are so fundamental.
We also took these arguments to the US Supreme Court with this amicus brief:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/amicus_curiae-ef_sc_merit_12-1146etseq-tsacscientistsfinal_final.pdf
As you will see in both essays, we agree with you that the burden of proof lies with those advocating for a particular theory. All we need do is show that it is PROFOUNDLY flawed. That is not difficult.
Because it is not difficult, alarmists usually sink to a series of ad hominems (personal attacks) that try to divert attention from their inability to argue the pertinent science. Personal political attacks are themselves clear evidence that their theory cannot be defended.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA
gordonfulks@hotmail.com
P.S. I have no conflicts of interest on this subject.
Oh the Oregon Petition I am stunned that you rolled out that piece of deception.
Deletehttp://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=s04201998
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
In terms of your previous comment about politicizing science, you are associated with a Libertarian think tank and Arthur Robinson who helped drive the petition was head of the Republican Party in Oregon. Coincidence?
Again you show no aptitude for honest discussion of the science or even the politics. But I see that you can use a search engine. Unfortunately that is not science.
DeleteThe Petition Project showed that 31,000 American Scientists objected to climate hysteria, 9,000 of us with PhDs. Was the signature of Dr. Edward Teller "deception?"
Also you seem weak on cause and effect. Dr. Art Robinson is a PhD chemist who organized the Petition Project some years ago. Like many other scientists, he has gravitated to the Republican Party, because Democrats have gone crazy with pseudo-science, not limited to Global Warming.
Do you really see the world in completely tribal terms? We scientists do not. If I were sitting in a room with Nobel Laureate in Physics Ivar Giaever, a Democrat who supported Obama for President, I would be happy to sit with him. If Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre were there too, we would all sit together. Allegre is a socialist who was Minister for Education in a French Government. Scientists do not condemn their colleagues for their extraneous politics, because we put our science first. Giaever, Allegre and I largely agree about the climate scam, as do many, many of our colleagues.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA
Dr. Fulks,
DeleteI'm an electrical engineer. Does that make me a scientist? How about a veterinarian? Or a medical doctor? If the ability to use the scientific method is what makes someone a scientist, then wouldn't a very skilled automobile mechanic be as much a scientist as a PhD in physics?
The Global Warming Petition Project (GWPP) that you are promoting is an attempt at fabricating a false narrative, one where 31,487 mostly engineers and non-climate experts supposedly overrules the earned expertise of actual climate scientists. The problem is that actual expertise matters. You wouldn't accept the opinion of a medical doctor who told you that you were wrong about your physics, and a veterinarian wouldn't accept your opinion on the correct surgical technique to remove a bladder stone from a cat, so why are you elevating the opinion of veterinarians or electrical engineers or metallurgists or medical doctors or nuclear engineers over that of authentic experts? Doing so is illogical.
Furthermore, even if I were to accept your illogical criteria for whom qualifies as a scientist/climate expert, the GWPP's signers represent 0.25% of the people who could have signed the petition (as compared to graduation data collected by the US Department of Education since 1970). That's a tiny minority. If you compare the number of signatures to the number of people working in the GWPP's chosen occupations, the signers represent 0.44%, still a tiny minority (as compared to Bureau of Labor Statistics data for 2013).
And even if you bias the criteria as much as possible in favor of the GWPP's signers, the signatures represent a small minority of the US memberships of the American Meteorological Society (5.9%), the American Geophysical Union (7.5%), the American Physical Society (10.5%), the American Chemical Society(4.2%), and the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers (1.4%). (This is the source for all the data and calculations, if you don't believe them: http://scholarsandrogues.com/tag/gwpp-bls-doed2015/)
The GWPP's false, anti-consensus narrative runs counter to the best available science. People like me who accept the reality that climate change is happening, it's due overwhelmingly to the production of greenhouse gases by human industry, and it'll be disruptive to natural ecosystems and human society base that acceptance not on the overwhelming consensus of authentic expert opinion, but also on 200 years of scientific thought and overwhelming amounts of data. Even if our opinions were strictly based on consensus messaging, the fact remains that 90% ore more of the actual experts agree - it's real, it's us, and it'll be disruptive. And the studies that have shown this 90% or greater consensus have been verified repeatedly, using different and independent methodologies. In science, as I'm sure you're aware, this is known as "replication," and it's the gold standard for verifying scientific truth.
At this point, for climate change to be wrong, scientists would have to be wrong about quantum mechanics. As an electrical engineer with a master's degree in optics and communications and who has nearly 20 years using quantum mechanics to make useful products and scientific instruments, I can tell you with certainty that quantum mechanics can't be that wrong.
The GWPP is a false narrative, spread by organizations and individuals like yourself who have economic, social, and/or political axes to grind. It's not science, it's not a counter-consensus, and it doesn't actually dispute the overwhelming scientific consensus in any way. What it is, is bunk.
Angliss ---- “People like me who accept the reality that climate change is happening, it's due overwhelmingly to the production of greenhouse gases by human industry, and it'll be disruptive to natural ecosystems and human society base that acceptance not on the overwhelming consensus of authentic expert opinion,
DeleteME—Would that climate change be global cooling or global warming, because CO2 cannot be the cause of both.
In any case, please show actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming.
Angliss ---- “And the studies that have shown this 90% or greater consensus have been verified repeatedly, using different and independent methodologies
ME----You mean like the Cook study that tossed out 64% of the hits because they did not state a position on AGW? http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/watch-the-pea
Jim, let me answer your second question first, because it's easier to answer. Yes, I do mean Cook et al for one, but also Anderegg et al, Doran & Zimmerman, Verheggen et al, and Maibach et al. They all used different methodologies and came to similar conclusions about how expert opinion is in agreement is on this issue. Again, that's called replication and it's the gold standard for determining truth in science. As for Cook throwing ignoring the papers that didn't have an explicit position on the subject, you'll also find that most physics papers don't stake out an explicit position on gravitation either. I invite you to read Schwed & Bearman 2010 about the nature of scientific consensus (http://asr.sagepub.com/content/75/6/817.full.pdf+html). It shows that mentions of a new idea in the peer-reviewed literature increase until such time as the idea is widely accepted, at which point mentions drop off as scientists move on to researching new subjects opened up by the now widely accepted idea.
DeleteAs for proof, here's what scientists know. They know that the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is from burning fossil fuels due to the changing ratio of carbon isotopes AND the decrease in atmospheric oxygen. They know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas from direct measurements and it's nature as a greenhouse gas is explained via quantum mechanics. They also know that CO2 isn't coming from the ocean because the ocean is acidifying (or, if you prefer, becoming less alkaline - the terms are equivalent) as it absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere.
They know that the Earth is heating up, which means that there's extra energy coming from somewhere. They know that the extra energy can't be coming from the Earth's interior because geologists have estimated geothermal heat loss from the Earth's interior and it's far too low (by several orders of magnitude) to account for the observed warming. They know that the extra energy isn't due to direct solar heating because direct solar heating would warm the stratosphere and the troposphere instead of warming the troposphere while cooling the stratosphere. The only hypothesized source of energy that matches all the available data is a reduction in energy lost to space due to retention by greenhouse gases, with CO2 as the dominant source.
There's details and caveats in many of those statements, of course, but that's the top-level proof you asked for. The details and caveats don't significantly affect the accuracy of any of those statements. And as Sherlock Holmes once said, "Once you've eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
Ferris,
ReplyDeleteYou're much like Bill Mckibben, Bill Nye and David Suzuki.
But if you're from the PNW perhaps you can apply your analytical skills to some of the claims of local evidence of human caused climate change.
Take your pick.
You've already embarrassed your by parroting some acidification junk.
Is there a PNW demonstration you rely upon as sound science?
I am confused. You are saying the I am like an award-winning writer, a holder of 5 honorary PhDs, and the writer of an excellent textbook on genetics. I am looking for the insult here.
DeleteIn terms of ocean acidification are you arguing that it cannot happen or is not happening?
General:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rising-acidity-in-the-ocean/
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/ocean-acidification-25822734
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/our-deadened-carbon-soaked-seas.html?_r=0
PNW Specifically:
https://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/hottopics/oceanacidification.cfm
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4319/lo.2012.57.3.0698/full
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/320/5882/1490
http://www.jstor.org/stable/24861877?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n3/abs/nclimate2508.html
Can you do no better than run a search engine??
DeleteMost of your references are to sources that long ago abandoned any semblance of objectivity. Hence you need to read up on this subject and be able to state your case.
"Ocean Acidification" is an even greater hoax than Global Warming, because our oceans are solidly basic and will remain so because of buffering from calcium carbonate. Actual measurements of a cross section of the Pacific Ocean from Hawaii to Alaska and from the surface to the bottom show no acidity whatsoever.
The only place where you might find a pH less than 7 is in coastal waters where fresh water from a river rides out over the denser salt water before mixing down. Fresh water has always been a bit acidic because of atmospheric CO2.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA
I am sorry, I got distracted reading your silly comments on this thread (http://www.dailyastorian.com/letters/20160513/letter-coal-fired) pushing the Heartland Institute and trying to characterize their step-child the International Climate Science Coalition as independent and objective (https://www.desmogblog.com/2013/09/17/international-climate-science-coalition-s-lacks-credibility).
DeleteI loved those almost as much as your letter to the California Air Resources Board urging them to ignore particulate matter (PM2.5) (http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/fulks102611.pdf). What could go wrong there? But they did not follow your advice. That must have been frustrating. (https://www.arb.ca.gov/pm/pm.htm)
And posting on Gore Lied--that is just science not politics (http://algorelied.com/?tag=dr-gordon-j-fulks).
So let's see. You seem to disagree with most scientists across a broad range of topics if their finding might result in regulations. But your views agree with those held by free-market advocates or Libertarians. That scientist in me feels like making a hypothesis based on this information...
Please, Mr Fulks, do continue. You and Mr Howard have a much better turn of phrase than I have been able to muster. This is FUN!
DeleteDear Mr. Ferris,
DeleteIf the best you can do is see everything in political terms, then you will never come to grips with the science in any field. Scientists who are worth their degrees work with logic and evidence, not the tribal behavior of the 'American Left.' I say 'American Left,' because we have supporters elsewhere around the world who are decidedly left of center but not blinded by their politics when it comes to science, as you are. We put our science first. One of my friends in the United Kingdom reports that he thinks that his Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn is a closet skeptic. That is possible, because Jeremy's astrophysicist brother Piers Corbyn is a solid skeptic. We know Piers.
As to the California Air Resources Board's (CARB's) report on small particulate matter, you apparently missed the conclusion of many experts. The report was COMPLETELY flawed in so many ways. CARB paid $750,000 for the report. But it was not worth the paper that it was printed on.
The problem was primarily scientific, although it certainly had a strong political component that involved CARB's determination to regulate, whether or not there was any reason to do so. And there was even an element of fraud, as one of CARB's members pretended to be a PhD because he had purchased a diploma!
The scientific problem was well hidden in hundreds of pages of analysis but easily understood by anyone with a knowledge of statistics. The authors of the report had found a clustering of enhanced cardiovascular mortality in one area of California and tried to attribute it to diesel smoke. The problem was that the cluster was not statistically significant. In other words, it was a mirage. That same cluster also showed lower than average lung cancer mortality. The obvious conclusion using their logic was that diesel smoke protected against lung cancer. That was absurd.
If you care about science, you need to pay attention to the logic and evidence from real scientists, not to imagined political affiliations. My writings appear many different places, because many websites like to reprint what I have said. In the one you cite at 'Gore Lied,' they are reprinting part of an Op-Ed that I wrote for The Oregonian. The Oregonian is certainly far from "Libertarian" or "free-market advocates."
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that when you look at the comments from science teachers on this blog (i.e., the target audience) there is understanding, respect and appreciation for what Brandie has done here. Rightfully so. This is a lot like what many of us in science experienced during the Marches for Science yesterday. But then there are a handful of detractors jumping in to bolster a self-published, indefensible piece of propaganda from a specious, Libertarian think tank—The Heartland Institute. We see, for instance, Radical Rodent who offers up defense of the document along with giving us another conservative think tank (Global Warming Policy Foundation) that is (surprise, surprise) allied with Heartland (https://www.desmogblog.com/2014/05/20/did-lennart-bengtsson-know-gwpf-and-heartland). Then we have Gordon Fulks (https://denierlist.wordpress.com/2013/12/06/gordon-j-fulks/) who despite all of his protestations has operated more on the political arena than the science pathway which he jumped off in the early 1980s. He has promoted both the Heartland Institute and the International Climate Science Coalition (http://www.dailyastorian.com/letters/20160513/letter-coal-fired) another off shoot of Heartland (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/web-leak-shows-trail-of-climate-sceptic-funding-20120217-1tegk.html). He is also science advisor for the free-market/Libertarian think-tank Cascade Policy Institute (http://cascadepolicy.org/more/about/academic-advisors/) which interestingly is an organization that Libertarian party director Jim Karlock (http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Party_of_Oregon) frequently plays “disinterested” wingman for (see this thread http://cascadepolicy.org/blog/2012/11/02/is-driving-less-a-good-thing/) while trying to block things like public transportation because “cars are better.” Stir into this attacks on the regulation of particulate matter in California by Fulks (http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/fulks102611.pdf ) and that Jim Karlock makes videos of Gordon Fulks (https://appliedclimate.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/jim-karlock-videos-from-climate-change-talks/) and we see patterns and connections. Taken in total we are left with a bunch of free-market Libertarians who do not want to see fossil fuels regulated because of their ideology. They would like us to think that they represent a broad coalition but they do not. When Jim Karlock ran for office he drew about 11 percent of vote (https://multco.us/elections/november-4-2008-election-results) and the following criticism from a columnist in the Oregonian “His opponent is Libertarian Jim Karlock, a fellow who has lots of unusual ideas, many of which would destroy everything that makes his Northeast Portland district so eminently livable.” http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2008/10/_headline_a_full_house.html This seems harsh but not inappropriate given Jim’s contrarian positions and attacks on others. But dealing with these “gentlemen” takes a toll and it is helpful to bathe in a little sanity. A good place to start is to look at the coverage from the March for Science in Chicago and realize that on this single day, in this one city of 600 or so events, more people marched than signed the highly criticized Oregon Petition that was pushed by Gordon Fulks. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-earth-day-march-to-defend-science-20170422-story.html
ReplyDeleteGosh, if you have us out-numbered, you must be right, yes? What could be more scientific than counting marchers to decide climatology disputes? Still, I wonder how you have been able to measure the Earth's temperature. Oh, you didn't measure it, but you know who did and you know their measurements are accurate because they agree with you...wait a minute...you know who to trust because you know who to trust on the subject of who to trust and anyone who disagrees doesn't count because of who financed them? But wait, you still can't measure the temperature of the Earth. So why do you believe all those people who work for the government and promote a theory that results in another theory about the cure involving new taxes and bigger government?
DeleteI must say that your search engine work is almost as impressive as your big hat, but you seem to have missed my point that it would be just as easy to line up hundreds, nay, thousands of links on the other side of the debate and you know it. So is it your contention that whoever fills this comment forum with the most links is somehow winning a debate? Or is it whoever gathers the most marchers in Chicago? What you cannot do is measure the Earth's temperature. Bluffing seems to be your strong suit.
DeleteHere is a better version of the above with more references in a more readable format.
Deletehttp://bob-ferris.blogspot.com/2017/04/connecting-denial-dots.html
John if it weren't a numbers game then why would Heartland be so compelled to create so many new "organizations?" Perhaps they did not get your memo.
DeleteDear Mr. Ferris,
DeleteYou seem to be completely blinded by conspiracy theories. That is hardly a scientific perspective. If you were a scientist, you would surely discuss the logic and evidence of this subject, not just your presumption that all who take issue with your perspective are right wing nuts. I'm surprised by your utter disregard for the science and your utter disrespect for real scientists.
Are you incapable of more than personal attacks on scientists?
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA
Gordon, I know and frequently work with a lot of real scientists and they tend to study a subject and then publish papers in peer-reviewed journals. I have gone through that process as you have. But neither of us have published in this particular arena. Therefore when we comment we provide the work of others to justify our arguments. If you've got some problems with some of the research, either do it that way or do your own research and then submit those findings to peer-review. And that does not mean cherry-picking 17-years of data that fit your expectation and call it "science." As to having Piers Corbyn "on your side" that only brings eye rolls from me as he is another of the Heartland crowd and you probably know that. I suspect you saw the BBC4 apology associated with him and others from your "club."
Delete(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/bbc-apologises-for-documentary-that-criticised-met-office-over-climate-change-a6684896.html).
And I do not know how someone trying to maintain any credibility science-wise could be associated with the Oregon Petition. The letter from the National Academy of Sciences is pretty serious indeed (http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=s04201998).
As to mentioning which scientists support your point of view versus mine, surely you understand that whatever bucket you drawn from mine is much, much larger. I have liked watching this process unfold as each argument is raised and then dealt with to the betterment of the models and our general understanding of what drives what and when. That has been a healthy discussion and I have been pleased to sit on the sidelines observing it. What has not been so pleasant is watching the Willie Soons, Bob Carters and Fred Singers of the world waltz in and throw dust in everyone's eyes because they ideologically cannot accept findings. And golly why would I think those who push this are conservatives or Libertarians? Perhaps it is because 92% of the environmental skeptic or denial books come from conservative think tanks. But you as an advisor to a conservative think-tank ask me to think that you are something different. I have simply not seen evidence for that and I know for a fact that you have received similar input from others.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09644010802055576
93% the alarmist books come from government employees. They feed by taxation and you want us to buy their theory that the sky is falling and only more government and higher taxes will save us. I continue to wait for someone to tell me how to measure the temperature of the Earth. All I am told is that you measure it by reading peer reviewed articles by government employees.
DeleteNo thanks.
John, if it's all about the grant money, then what about all the money that industry pours into organizations like the Heartland Institute? There's so much more money available for them than there is from the government that it's not even remotely funny (source: https://scholarsandrogues.com/2010/05/05/industry-scientists-climate-profits/).
DeleteIf money corrupts, then wouldn't industry money be just as corrupting as government money is? Or are you applying a hypocritical double standard here?
Bob Ferris -----“We see, for instancee, Radical Rodent ....Then we have Gordon Fulks.........frequently plays disinterested wingman ... block things like public transportation because... attacks on the regulation of particulate matter in California by Fulks.....Jim Karlock makes videos of Gordon Fulks”
ReplyDeleteME---- WOW hundreds of words and NOT ONE BIT OF SCIENCE!
I can only assume that you agree with my points about Mann’s work being wrong and that the Cook paper’s 97% consensus claim is really around 34%.
From your lack of any scientific argument against Fulks points, I can only assume that you agree with him 100% too.
Same for Ferris & Rodent. It is good to see you agreement on our facts and science.
As to your ad hominem, I can only hope that you are not teaching our children that ad hominems are a valid scientific argument.
BTW, why didn’t you simply respond with actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming?
I have to mention this brilliant piece of logic:
“They would like us to think that they represent a broad coalition but they do not. When Jim Karlock ran for office he drew about 11 percent of vote.”
It translates thus: Fulks, Karlock, Ferris & Radical Rodent’s science is wrong because Libertarian Karlock got a low vote in a highly Democrat district against a well financed opponent.
Hopefully even you grade school students can spot this logical error.
No Jim, I don't agree with your assessments of the science nor does any major scientific organization. Why would I? And why would I get into a debate on science with a marginal politician on a site for science teachers? You came on here for strictly political reasons because a merit-less, Libertarian publication came under attack. Otherwise this site would not have gained your attention. The same for Radical Rodent and Gordon Fulks. I did teach elementary students three decades ago but my lecturing during the last two decades has been on college campuses. And you?
DeleteBob Ferris--" And why would I get into a debate on science with a marginal politician on a site for science teachers?"
ReplyDeleteME--Every time that I ask for actual evidence that man's CO2 is causing serious warming, I get a refusal. It appears that you and many others do not know of any real evidence - you just assume that since it is warming, it must be man's fault WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE.
I am still amazed that a teacher would resort to ad hominem instead of facts.
Jim, I have looked at your patterns of dialogue. You are not looking for evidence. You are looking for more opportunities to spread falsehoods and doubt. Here is a good example.
Deletehttp://blog.oregonlive.com/myoregon/2013/01/letters_climate_change_scienti.html
You simply continue to reiterate disproved claptrap. There is no reason for someone to engage with someone who continues to go to the same false wells for information. That is not where the science lives and there is no reason other than you wanting to spread your view for you to be on this site. Go to a conspiracy site or one that supports a Libertarian, anti-science point of view.
Bob Ferris—“Jim, I have looked at your patterns of dialogue. You are not looking for evidence. You are looking for more opportunities to spread falsehoods and doubt.”
ReplyDeleteME—Actually I am looking for evidence. You seem to NOT have any. So why are you so adamant, when you can’t show any evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming?
BTWm what does you link, http://blog.oregonlive.com/myoregon/2013/01/letters_climate_change_scienti.html , have to do with me?
Bob Ferris—“You simply continue to reiterate disproved claptrap.”
ME–You mean “claptrap” like man only emits about 6% of the annual CO2 emissions, Nature emits the rest?
You mean “claptrap” like The rate of the current warming is statistically indistinguishable from earlier warm periods.
You mean “claptrap” like In most studies CO2 follows temperature, not leads it (a cause cannot follow the effect)
You mean “claptrap” like Minoan, Egyptian, Roman and Medieval times were probably warmer than recently.
Add up all that “claptrap” and you get a strong case that man’s CO2 is NOT causing serious global warming. If you disagree, why not show some actual evidence?
“Temperatures and sea levels are rising, glaciers and sea ice are melting, and man-made greenhouse gases are to blame.” And you consider that a scientific argument? Where is the evidence? Temperatures have been pretty static for nearly 20 years – long enough for over 60 peer-reviewed papers that tried to explain “The Pause.”
ReplyDeleteSea-levels rising? Just as they have been since the end of the last ice age. Though, over the past few centuries, they have slowed to about 1mm/year (~4 inches/century) – there are some who suggest that they might be static, or even receding; in proper scientific fashion, though, they are monitoring the situation, getting more data before making any pronouncements.
Man-made greenhouse gases? Such as CO2… well, we have achieved over 30% of our total consumption of fossil fuels in this century, alone, yet the rise of CO2 has not been significantly increased – perhaps we humans are not as mighty as you might think; of course, there are other sources of CO2. There aren’t other sources for sulphur hexafluoride, though. This is an extremely powerful greenhouse gas (in the region of 23,000 times more effective than CO2) and is solely man-made – an ironic by-product from the production of PV solar panels.
Now, what if the temperatures start to irrefutably fall, yet CO2 continues to rise? What could we blame, then? Simple little questions for you, Mr Ferris, but I am not holding my breath awaiting your answers. You will, as the more perspicacious of us have noticed, resort to the usual search-engines, and indulge with a plethora of words, with not a jot of science in them.
Despite your declarations of being a scientist, you really do not have much of an understanding about science, do you, Mr Ferris. You should know that, when proposing (or supporting) a theory, it is up to YOU to provide the evidence – the default position is the null hypothesis, for which no evidence is required. Messrs Fulk and Howard, Jim, and my perhaps objectionable self are asking you to prove your claims; you a failing abysmally, there.
Rodent you have just posted a bunch information without a single source to back it up.
ReplyDeleteIf you are looking at increments below 30 years you are talking weather not climate.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html
Sea level is currently rising at 3.4 mm/year and has been accelerating since the 1870s.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
The rate of CO2 has greatly increased over time. Where are you getting these figures?
http://www.noaa.gov/news/record-annual-increase-of-carbon-dioxide-observed-at-mauna-loa-for-2015
And the weather cools rapidly it does not alter the pattern because the have always been bumps up in down in weather while the general trend in climate has been upwards.
Facts and measurements.
Dear Mr. Ferris,
DeleteI see why you ignore the science elsewhere in this comment section. You do not understand it! Your fallback to "weather is not climate" is a dead giveaway. That is just more of the political nonsense. Climate is the summation of weather. You cannot get by with writing off cold periods as weather when you surely tout every hot spell as global warming climate change!
Over the last 70 years since we began substantial industrialization after WW2, atmospheric CO2 has risen steadily but the global temperature has not. In fact the global temperature went down for three decades, up for two, and nowhere for the last two. That makes CO2 a VERY POOR thermostat at best. And the better correlation is with ocean temperature cycles not CO2.
As to sea level, you obviously have not paid attention to the real data that show a rise of about 0.9 mm/year. Those results come from Swedish expert Professor Nils Axel Morner in a paper he presented in Vancouver Washington a couple of years ago. You seem unaware of his criticisms of satellite data that has apparently been fudged.
As to the source for rising sea level, that is probably just a remnant of our continuing exit from the last ice age. It is NOT accelerating. And the main sources (Antarctica and Greenland) corroborate the small increase. Antarctica is actually gaining ice and therefore decreasing sea level, while Greenland is losing ice and increasing sea level. The net is a small loss of ice (perhaps 200 Gt) leading to less than a mm/year of sea level rise.
As to CO2, the concentration in the atmosphere has been rising steadily (according to the IR measurements) BUT NOT greatly increasing over time.
You need to do better than to reference Obama era propaganda. Real science is done by real scientists not government agency propagandists. NOAA's chief propagandist during the Obama era was a PhD dropout, not a legitimate scientist.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA
It would be difficult in the extreme to have a meaningful summation without having a significant series. This is particularly difficult when cyclic and random events drastically influence the results which is why most scientist working in this field suggest 30-40 year study periods. It has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with study design.
DeleteI assume that this is the sea level paper that you reference since citations seem too trouble for you. It is interesting that it is posted on the www.wiseenergy.org site owned by John Droz (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-man-who-makes-sea-lev/) but I will set that aside.
http://www.wiseenergy.org/Energy/SLR/Morner_Paper_604.pdf
That paper makes that claim but then let’s look what other papers say.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n5/full/nclimate2159.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7535/abs/nature14093.html
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6244/aaa4019
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7596/abs/nature17145.html
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113004381
Now certainly there is disagreement on magnitude and contributions so much so that capitals are hardly merited in your response. Moreover, it does not look like that Morner paper has been cited by anyone whereas these others papers have been cited 91-130 times by other papers (all these papers were released in the last four years). Not conclusive but it is usually indicative of peer reception of a paper.
As to the IR measures are you referring to the GOSAT data?
http://www.gosat.nies.go.jp/en/news/20160520pressrelease.html
Oh. Sorry, Mr Ferris – I thought you were going to use your extraordinary powers with search engines to get properly unbiased arguments (i.e. not supplied by li’l ol’ ME) about the subjects. Oh, well, such are what dreams…
DeletePost-glacial sea level rise: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png/250px-Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
CO2 rise: http://intmstat.com/blog/2008/02/co2-data-noaab.gif
Sulphur hexafluoride: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_hexafluoride
Temperatures are a little more difficult, as I have yet to find any site where they have not been “homogenised” out of all recognition; perhaps you might find this one acceptable: http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ (However, I suspect we are now about to get another comment with no science but a blatant attempt at character assassination.)
Very good, Mr Ferris. You can use search engines very effectively! However, you should not that the first paper you referred us to does depend on data within the 30-year parameter that you have declared the minimum to be considered for climate change. It also discusses “the pause,” but we won’t go there…
DeleteThe very first sentence of the second suggests that it is not unbiased research: “ Estimating and accounting for twentieth-century global mean sea-level (GMSL) rise is critical to characterizing current and future human-induced sea-level change.” Given that there is really no universally-agreed upon method for measuring changes in sea-levels, anything that claims that they have the answer should be viewed with suspicion. Here is an exercise that highlights the problems: half-fill your bath; sit in it; now, measure its depth to 1mm. Such is the same with the open oceans – they are rarely, if ever, flat calm, so any measurements will have to involve an element of guesswork. Then there is the problem as to whether any perceived change is the result of changing sea-levels or isostatic movement (i.e. the Earth’s crust moving up or down at that location); this is what is happening to Florida and much of the East coast of the USA. There are quite recent historical records showing considerably higher sea-levels than the present: the town of Battle, where Harold met William the Conqueror in 1066 after he landed on the nearby coast, is now several miles inland. Harlech Castle, in Wales, has harbour walls and docks, but is now also high and dry and several miles from the sea.
Bob Ferris—“ I have simply not seen evidence for that”
ReplyDeleteME—have you ever seen evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming?
If so, please share it.
Okay, I will play this game with you once but it starts with a question. You own a company that sells electrically equipment all of which depends on the flow of electrons. How do you know electrons exist?
DeleteBob Ferris--"How do you know electrons exist?"
ReplyDeleteME-- Again you are showing your inability to show actual evidence that man's CO2 is causing serious global warming.
Are you demonstrating you inability to have a conversation? (I am not the one banned from discussions). Your answer is part of understanding the evidence.
DeleteBob Ferris--"Are you demonstrating you inability to have a conversation?”
ReplyDeleteME–Nope, just asking for evidence for your position. What is the actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous global warming?
So you lack the courage to engage in the simple give-and-take of a discussion?
DeleteBob Ferris —“So you lack the courage to engage in the simple give-and-take of a discussion?”
ReplyDeleteME — start by showing actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming.
So I take that as a "yes" on the lack of courage.
ReplyDeleteBob Ferris ---"So I take that as a "yes" on the lack of courage."
ReplyDeleteME--Take that as a refusal to get distracted from your providing actual evidence that man's CO2 is causing serious global warming. We are still waiting.
It is looking like you KNOW you have no real evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming.
And this is a concern for me...why? And who is we?
DeleteMy point is that you sell products that operate because of electrons. Something that you have never seen and cannot personally prove exists. Yet the existence of electrons was determined by the same process used in the determination that CO2 emissions are what is causing the climate to change in the way that it is. The electron story is an important one in science education because many think that science is just facts and formulas but it is not (see
http://www.nsta.org/publications/news/story.aspx?id=51054).
With climate change there is a pattern and there is a list of influences (e.g., solar radiation, volcanoes, water vapor, etc.). It became a matter of elimination where questions were asked and tested (just as they were for the electron). Could what we were seeing be caused by natural processes alone? That was ruled out in a study by Shaun Lovejoy at McGill (see https://www.mcgill.ca/channels/news/global-warming-just-giant-natural-fluctuation-235236). Then it was just a process of looking at each contributor individually and in tandem with others and see if changes in their patterns matched observed patterns of climate change. This has been done and done as science should be, but the two easily accessible examples are a graphic summation provided by Bloomberg https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/ and the description of the process of elimination described by physicist Richard Muller who with Koch brothers funding went to disprove climate change and ended up with an answer he was not expecting http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html.
Bob Ferris —“Could what we were seeing be caused by natural processes alone? That was ruled out in a study by Shaun Lovejoy at McGill (see https://www.mcgill.ca/channels/news/global-warming-just-giant-natural-fluctuation-235236).
DeleteME—Well, no, not really because another study found that the current climate is well withing historical norms:
“the Holocene records up to 8000 years before present, from several ice cores were examined. The differences in temperatures between all records which are approximately a century apart were determined, after any trends in the data had been removed. The differences were close to normally distributed. The average standard deviation of temperature was 0.98 ± 0.27 ̊C. This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations.”
From: An Estimate of The Centennial Variability of Global Temperatures, Philip J. Lloyd, DOI: 10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.417, http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.417 (Local)
You will note that this paper is a simple compilation of historical data without any slight of hand data processing.
Since the essence of your claim is that our current climate is outside of historical norms, in addition to addressing the Lloyd paper, you have to explain why our current temperature is lower than the Minion, Roman and Medieval times, why the rate of warming is the same in the 1980 warming as it was in the 1880 warming with dramatically different levels on man’s CO2 emissions, why CO2 levels FOLLOW temperature, why solar cycles fit climate much better than CO2, and why man’s 6% of annual CO2 emissions are causing all of the temperature increase although it is recognized that CO2 only causes up to 30% of the warming. Of course man’s 6% of 30% is about 1.5% of the warming that might be due to man.
Oh, one other detail is that your paper used “adjusted” data while the ACTUAL THERMOMETER readings show no warming since 1930. With unadjusted data, there is nothing unusual about our temperature (same for data from undisturbed rural sites in both USA & China.). Links to prove these statements are at: http://www.debunkingclimate.com/climatefacts.html
So that article you cited was cited twice. And one of those cites was in a paper by the author himself. The article that I cited was cited in other paper 14 times. See below on Energy and Environment.
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_%26_Environment
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/feb/25/real-climate-libel-threat
Bob Ferris—“So that article you cited was cited twice”
DeleteME—So what? Please stick to science.
BTW, your argument is merely a variation on the IPCC claim that we looked at everything and could not figure out the cause, so it must be man’s CO2.
As to your electron example, it is easily observable that something is moving in a vacuum that lights up CRT screens, is deflected by magnets, and moves from - to +, conducts a current and causes air to become visible in a partial vacuum. UNLIKE identifying the cause of global warming.
About you reference to wikipedia on E&E: Soon was right about Mann’s hockeystick - it is complete junk. So bad even the IPCC quit using it.
Well here is where we differ. I want to find out what is actually happening and therefore seek the best science and most cited scientists to determine the most likely happenstance and you have an a priori view and are willing to accept any science that supports that. To be purposely graphic when I see a climate science piece written by a petro-chemist like Philip Lloyd (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Philip_Lloyd/publications) who works for the fossil fuel industry and publishes his piece in a compromised journal and then is almost the only one to cite his own work, I smell it and see it for the steaming pile it is and walk around it. You, on the other hand, embrace it. As for the Mann's Hockey Stick in IPCC 5 you draw odd conclusions that you want rather than seeing what is. The section dealing with paleo-climate was written in 2013 or so Mann's paper in 1998. IPCC 5 contains newer citations and the associated graphics. Time moves on and so does science. But your inference here is that Mann and his work were discredited which is not the case as in Chapter 5 on pages 409 and 419 we see a number of graphs that are similar to Mann's. Moreover Mann is the lead author on 5 papers cited in this section while Exxon's favorite researcher Willie Soon (see https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html) is not mentioned at all.
DeleteAnd you seriously miss the point on electrons. All the things that you mention are acts of ruling out other things that it could be. Same process. You accept it when it makes you money and reject when it could mean regulations.
Bob Ferris----“To be purposely graphic when I see a climate science piece written by a petro-chemist like Philip Lloyd ...
DeleteME— You are not looking at the science, only at who wrote it. That is why you are wrong on important things. Can I assume that you would reject a new theory of physics by an unpublished German patent examiner?
Bob Ferris—“But your inference here is that Mann and his work were discredited which is not the case...”
ME—Give us a break! Are you seriously saying that it is OK for Mann to:
1. Use proxies known to be unsuitable or temperature?
2. Hide the fact that Mann’s proxies showed cooling beginning in the mid 20th century, while the thermometer didn’t. Instead of revealing this fatal flaw in his data, Mann chose to do “mike’s nature trick” and simply delete the embarrassing data and replace it with thermometer data.
3. Mann pre processed the data, adding a bias towards hockeysticks
4. Not consult with professional statisticians when doing a paper that relies heavily on statistics?
5. Refuse to share his data and methods.
6. Not notice that if you feed random noise into Mann’s process, you get hockeysticks out much of the time.
See: https://climateaudit.org/2007/11/06/the-wegman-and-north-reports-for-newbies/
Hockey sticks, principal components and spurious significance, McIntyre, *Geophysical Research Letters,* Vol 32, LXXXXX
Next you’re probably going to try to tell us that leaked CRU emails show nothing wrong.
Bob Ferris—“And you seriously miss the point on electrons. All the things that you mention are acts of ruling out other things that it could be.
ME—Wrong again, I stated empirically verifiable facts that lead to the conclusion that something exists that has a negative charge and can carry a current. Your claim is dependent on the false assumption that we KNOW ALL of the possibilities - you cannot rule out all other possibilities when you DO NOT know all relevant factors. But logical error like that are rampant in the climate alarm industry.
CRU: There were no less that seven investigations on both sides and the pond and they cleared all involved but evidently they forgot to call you.
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
But boy you all beat your drums on this one over nothing. Fun wasn't it?
Bob Ferris----“CRU: There were no less that seven investigations on both sides and the pond and they cleared all involved but evidently they forgot to call you.”
DeleteME---- Seriously - you think it is OK for “scientists” to:
1. Refuse to supply data subject to FOI?
2. Ask others to destroy information subject to FOI (a crime)
3. Change dates on documents.
4. Block opposing papers from publication.
5. Replace embarrassing proxy data with thermometer data.
6. Operate on the principle of: “As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations” That is a quote from Michael Mann
7. Plug a leak in a peer reviewed Journal (the “leak” allowed an opposing paper to be published”
8. Try to get editorial boar members to resign.
9. Arbitrarily adjusting data.
10. Make dishonest presentations.
11. Truncate data series because more recent data does not support the claims.
12. Balance the needs of science and the IPCC which are not always the same.
BTW, they also solicited money from Exxon.
from: http://www.debunkingclimate.com/selectedemails.html
How could any reasonable person say the above behavior is OK. This is another example of your careless research.
Bob, we are still waiting for you answer to the CRU emails. Are you really saying that destroying emails, hiding data, adjusting data, committing crimes, tampering with the peer review process, and dishonesty are all OK? (Plus asking Exxon for money!) For that is what the CRU emails show.
DeleteBTW, how many of your 7 investigations contacted any skeptics? How many merely accepted Mann's claim that he did no wrong? How many were cut short.
For those legitimate readers of these threads trying to make sense of what is being said and argued. There are several issues here. The first is that most of those objecting to Brandie’s critique are pushing the positions of various right-wing or Libertarian think tanks like or allied with The Heartland Institute. These think tanks are the source of 92% of environmental and climate skeptic publications in recent times (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09644010802055576) which is why these conservatives and Libertarians gravitate towards them. But it is important to look at the sources themselves and the authors when judging these pieces. One of the papers offered up is one written by Philip J. Lloyd on global temperatures variation in Energy & Environment Journal (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.417). Well Philip J. Lloyd is not a climatologist nor an expert on global temperatures, he is a petro-chemist who works for fossil-fuel interests (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Philip_Lloyd/publications). That should raise a couple of red flags. Then we look at how many other papers have cited Dr. Lloyd’s paper as a reference. In this case, that number is 2, but one of those was him citing himself (the researchgate link above also shows that his other publications are not cited often). In contrast we see Michael Mann’s paper in Nature from 1998 cited 2028 times. Now, as to the journals themselves. Since 1975 journals have been rated as to impact based on a number of measures (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor). The higher the number, the greater impact power of publication and the higher competition in terms of available spots. Not a perfect system but when we look at Energy & Environment their impact factor is 0.513, the journal Nature is 31.434 and the journal Science is 28.103.
ReplyDeleteBob Ferris----“For those legitimate readers of these threads trying to make sense of what is being said and argued. There are several issues here.
DeleteME—You only state one issue - the messenger instead of the science. That is how propaganda masters keep people dump - convince them to ONLY look at their propaganda, instead of the truth. Reminds of the forbidden reading list of the Catholic church.
Bob Ferris----“One of the papers offered up is one written by Philip J. Lloyd on global temperatures variation in Energy & Environment Journal
ME----When are you going to criticize his science - or are you incapable if that?
Bob Ferris----“he is a petro-chemist who works for fossil-fuel interests
ME–SO WHAT? Most of what you say is sourced from the TRILLION DOLLAR climate scare industry, including BILLIONS in government grants that go mainly to the climate scare “scientists.”
Bob Ferris----“In contrast we see Michael Mann’s paper in Nature from 1998 cited 2028 times.
ME–Thanks for a clear statement as to how worthless cites are - 2028 cites to a fraudulent paper!! (Of course some of those will be critical of Mann.)
I looked at Lloyd's paper and the word that came to my mind was squishy. It is hard to imagine "several" ice cores yielding anything approaching "global" so I think he pushes his scope of inference. The statistics are pretty basic and not sure that averaging the standard deviation is appropriate but even if I accept that we are left with him acknowledging CO2 causing warming (which you don't) and then a series of weak weasel words that do not define levels of contributions so we are still stuck with IPCC saying most (i.e, 50% or >)and this guy saying less than most (50% <)--thought I do not see how his sample size and statistic analysis have proven either. Then we have Pielke Sr. saying about 28% and Judith Curry grudgingly saying below but near 50%. All of these folks are skeptics or deniers, yet none of them hold with your view that we cannot assume that it is CO2. But this paper would never have been published in any other venue than this one because of its weakness.
DeleteIn terms of Mann. You seriously need to vet your news sources:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/02/michael-mann-cleared
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/01/michael-mann-climategate-court-victory
Bob Ferris----“In terms of Mann. You seriously need to vet your news sources..”
DeleteME— Are you saying that Mann did not do any of these things, or are you saying he did, but there is nothing wrong with:
1. Use proxies known to be unsuitable or temperature?
2. Hide the fact that Mann’s proxies showed cooling beginning in the mid 20th century, while the thermometer didn’t. Instead of revealing this fatal flaw in his data, Mann chose to do “mike’s nature trick” and simply delete the embarrassing data and replace it with thermometer data.
3. Mann pre processed the data, adding a bias towards hockeysticks
4. Not consult with professional statisticians when doing a paper that relies heavily on statistics?
5. Refuse to share his data and methods.
6. Not notice that if you feed random noise into Mann’s process, you get hockeysticks out much of the time.
So your still have not answered who "we" is. (I would do the old joke of "do you have a mouse in your pocket?" but Radical Rodent might get upset.)
DeleteI do not agree with your statement about the proxies known to be unsuitable as they tracked and then they didn't. In the case of the dendrochronology that was a confusing situation and my surmise on that is that we were seeing a feedback loop where growth was retarded by heat or that the positive response to CO2 has its limits (law of diminishing returns). Both of which have been demonstrated experimentally. But here I think that you--not being involved or familiar with the process--mistake honest scientific debate and methodological disagreement with fraud, illegality and wrongdoing. (I find it interesting giving your hyperbole with this that you think that statements of consensus caution as hysteria.) If you look at Working Group I chapter 5 of IPCC 5 on pages 409 and 419 you will see a large number of graphs done by different researchers that all kick up towards the end. The American Statistical Association reviewed the IPCC report and components and agreed with them in their methodology and findings (http://www.amstat.org/asa/files/pdfs/POL-ASAStatementonClimateChange.pdf) as far as Mann here is the whole sordid tale (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy).
So what was your opinion on the statistics and claims of the Lloyd paper? And why would you agree with his analysis but not agree with his argument that anthropogenic CO2 is affecting the climate? He may disagree on the magnitude but clearly thinks it is a contributor. "This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations." (Abstract http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.417)
In another comment you bemoaned the fact that skeptics were not consulted during the seven CRU investigations. That is such a ludicrous comment. Those seven inquiries were initiated or catalyzed by skeptics and deniers. If you are so keen on legality, where are your demands to investigate who did the hack? We know that was illegal.
Excess CO2 and heat retard plant growth:
http://news.stanford.edu/pr/02/jasperplots124.html
For those readers of this thread who might be trying to make sense of what is being said and argued, there is just one issue, here: what are the FACTS of the case? Are these facts invalid if they come from a source which you might consider suspect, or do you accept that ALL facts need to be verified, and, once done, the provenance of the facts is irrelevant?
ReplyDeleteThe principal exponent that the source of the facts is more important than the facts themselves is a person who has held quite a number of probably well-remunerated jobs in organisations most likely funded by the tax-payer, yet seems to be reluctant to reveal to his qualifications in climate science. Now, why should that be, considering his propensity to depend upon arguing from authority?
Says the anonymous man promoting information from unqualified sources known for their purposeful distortion of the facts. Just exactly what about you do you think inspires trust to anyone with a critical mind? You claim an open mind when all you have done is push one point of view not addressing where you were clearly wrong. You carry a banner of “science” but bridle when someone does research and expresses criticism (hint: that is what science is all about). Your rhetoric is full of free-market, Libertarian buzz and yet you deny that as an influence or driving force (kind of like you deny CO2). But who flies into your defense? A science advisor from a free-market think tank and a director from a state Libertarian party. What a coincidence. As to my qualifications, if you know about my work in non-profits you have viewed my profile which has always been out there for all to see. I am not in anyway a mystery. Unlike...let me think...
DeleteBob Ferris---"a director from a state Libertarian party."
DeleteME--- ENOUGH OF YOU CARELESS RESEARCH - I am NOT "a director from a state Libertarian party."
Thank you for proving my point again, Mr Ferris. I have no aversion to criticism, in whatever form it may come – though I do prefer it to be constructive. Yet again, you manage to extrapolate a lot of nonsense on no information whatsoever; I do not “deny” CO2, anymore than I “deny” sunrise; CO2 is. It is what its effects upon the atmosphere that I question – I would rather have questions that cannot be answered than answers that cannot be questioned. I have not seen any evidence that CO2 has any effect, whatsoever, on temperatures – for instance, concentrations of CO2 have continued to rise throughout this century, yet temperatures have not. I have seen no evidence that the rise in CO2 is because of human activity, either – at the start of the industrial revolution, the rate of rise was about 2ppm/year; human consumption of fossil fuels have grown exponentially since then, yet the rate of rise continues at about 2ppm. (Look above to my answer on the 24th April for links to supporting evidence… somehow, I doubt you will, especially when you see the provenance – or would you suggest that NOAA is funded by Evil Fossil Fuels? (which, oddly enough, it IS, though by rather tortuous and Byzantine means. Oh, the irony! It burns!).)
DeleteHowever, your criticism (if it could be called that) contains NO SCIENCE! All it is is personal attacks on formerly well-respected scientists, with not-so-subtle innuendo about their impartiality, etc., etc… Which is all rather ironic, really, given your own eagerness to expose your own lack of impartiality. You don’t DO science, Mr Ferris; I doubt you really UNDERSTAND science. No; your speciality is character assassination – and you’re not even particularly good at that!
Formerly well-respected...is operative here. You are free to have you opinion, but it is just that and it would mean that you disagree with the vast majority of scientists including those from Exxon in 1970s and even those you have offered as evidence your specious comments.
DeleteAs I said - NO science, just character assassination (and not very good, either). Ho-hum...
DeleteAnyone reading the way too long thread of our conversation will see that I have cited dozens of scientific studies or resources to support my contentions while you have either refuted them out-of-hand, thrown magic dust in the air, or offered up materials from compromised resources. Willie Soon was not nailed for taking money from Exxon he was criticized for not disclosing it. It is important that scientists are currently-respected rather formerly-respected as scientific reputations are important and require maintenance of trust. Scientific ethics are important. I liked this list put together by a science advisor in your country:
DeleteThe seven principles:
- Act with skill and care, keep skills up to date
- Prevent corrupt practice and declare conflicts of interest
- Respect and acknowledge the work of other scientists
- Ensure that research is justified and lawful
- Minimise impacts on people, animals and the environment
- Discuss issues science raises for society
- Do not mislead; present evidence honestly
When Fred Singer who has not published a peer-reviewed article in something like fifty years and never in climate change, is suddenly offered up as an authority on climate change one is absolutely obligated to raise objections. Particularly given Singer's history on second-hand smoke. When Willie Soon take money with disclosing it "boom" another objection.
http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/2007/09/13/a-code-of-ethics-for-scientist/
Wrong again, Mr Ferris. While the list of principles you provide is suitably anodyne, you have NOT provided any scientific evidence to support your claims; you have just offered links to others who make claims similar to your own without much scientific evidence to support them, either – of which Lovejoy is a prime example!
DeleteHowever, I, for those few points which are a little beyond commonly accepted knowledge, have been willing to provide links to sites which contain FACTS. It is interesting that you should dismiss them without even reading. While Wikipedia should always be approached with a certain amount of caution, they do endeavour to ensure the facts are verifiable, though they are subject to assault from a certain group who are intent on corrupting that data. But, perhaps even NOAA are too “compromised” for your sensibilities?
I suspect – indeed, I fear – that, by 2020, we shall have incontrovertible evidence that the present “hiatus” is actually a peak, and global temperatures are falling (and I truly, truly hope that I am wrong, as a cooling world will be far more hostile than a warming one). What will be your arguments, should that dreadful condition come about? (It is also interesting to note that you have studiously avoiding answering this question in previous posts.)
BTW – here is an interesting examination of the person who created that list of principles that you seem so impressed with:
Deletehttps://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/04/19/does-sir-david-king-still-believe-the-drivel-he-spouted-in-2004/
Had you bothered to read some of the comments on the site you linked to, you would have seen that not everyone is as easily impressed as you are.
Actually, I did look at the comments. But giving un-filtered consideration to any comments would be kind of like getting your climate science from a retired accountant who provides no credentials rather than a climate scientist who does. But wow, that is who writes this wordpress blog you cite Paul Homewood. It is a pathetic offering.
Deletehttps://denierlist.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/paul-homewood/
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.global-warming/ycvrvO_iWg0
http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?6,900049,900072
https://mediamatters.org/research/2015/02/10/climate-denial-food-chain-conservative-media-ru/202469
http://zelo-street.blogspot.com/2014/02/not-lot-of-people-believe-that.html
And the list of criticism goes on and on. But here in the biography of the people you are asking me to discount.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_King_(chemist)
But you chose to embrace the accountants view.
Hahahaha... Thank you, Mr Ferris - you never fail to disappoint!
DeleteNow, answer the question I have been asking over several postings.
Bob Ferris---"a director from a state Libertarian party."
ReplyDeleteME--- ENOUGH OF YOU CARELESS RESEARCH - I am NOT "a director from a state Libertarian party."
http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Party_of_Oregon
http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2013/04/updates-on-oregon-libertarian-party/
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Amended-Answer-Affirmative_-Defenses-and-Counterclaims-_P0291820_.pdf
Then these were made up? Or are you a past director? You were named in the lawsuit which meant you had authority (i.e., a responsible officer) in Libertarian Party of Oregon.
Bob Ferris ---"Then these were made up?"
ReplyDeleteME---You are doubling down on your carelessness.
I WAS, not AM, a director. YOU said I AM a director.
Careless, just like your climate logic and "science". But that is what you get from reading only politically correct junk.
Jim it is a distinction without difference. I stand corrected...you were a director. The associations still stand.
DeleteBob Ferris ---" Willie Soon was not nailed for taking money from Exxon he was criticized for not disclosing it. “
ReplyDeleteME—By that standars the CRU and hence the IPCC has NO credibility because they solicited (took?) Money from EXXON.
You honestly do not see the difference between the two?
DeleteBob Ferris ---"You honestly do not see the difference between the two?"
DeleteME--You got us off on a tangent.
Please address Mann's errors. Or are you saying it is OK to hide data, coverup flaws in your data, splice incompatible data sets, improperly pre-process data, not notice the preferential selection of hockeysticks and use proxies known to be unsuitable for temperature?
Are you also saying that criminal activity by scientists the CRU is OK?
Bob Ferris ---"https://denierlist.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/paul-homewood/
ReplyDeleteME—You are still dwelling on the messenger instead of the science.
BTW, why are you refusing to address the many errors in the Mann paper?
Why are you refusing to admit that the CRU emails show that the whole climate “science” field is thoroughly corrupt (in an honest field, many scientists would have immediately denounced their hiding data, arbitrarily adjusting data, hiding the decline, and criminal activity.)
Remind me where you answered the question about who the "we" you mention is. Nor have you responded to my request for you feelings about the Lloyd paper's statistic and his position on CO2. Did I miss responses on those.
DeleteAs to the 1998 Mann paper and his work beyond that I have provided numerous links to discussions and expert reviews of the Mann paper and the Hockey-stick. These cover the evolving process of the science as well as his responses to criticism both justified and not. Was he doing something corrupt and dishonest? No. You view science as dishonest because you do not understand the process. You think things are corrupt because you sit far away from the fray and throw unwarranted criticism because Mann presents a world view that you do not agree with. Where was your outrage when over the Soon-Baliunas controversy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy)? Or when the editor of the Energy & Environment said it was fine for her to select papers based on her political views? Moral outrage over one that been repeated examined and found ethically sound and without conscious deception, while you ignore the other where actually and demonstrable violation of trust occurred seems problematic. Kind of like heavily criticizing someone for making an assumption based on all the available information. But that is you.
So I am not answering any additional question until you answer the three above that you keep ducking.
Jim. I know that you are an exuberant guy, but accusing someone of criminal activity in the absence of evidence--particularly when those persons have been investigated and cleared repeatedly--is legally actionable. You can miss-characterize the "hide the decline" because you clearly do not have the faculties to understand the challenges of dealing with the higher order statistics and getting all the various data sets so they are all "apples" and therefore capable of analysis. Mann's "trick" was not about hiding anything it is about something behaving predictably for an extended period and then not. The tree ring data did not hide cooling it indicated cooling when it should not have that is why I mentioned the feed-back situation with too much CO2 and heat. It was a problem that needed to be accommodated for in the analyses. Having collected a lot of data over the years, I can appreciate and recognize this tree ring record as a valuable proxy as it tracked extremely well with temperature. Much too valuable to throw out so there was an effort to figure out a way to use it knowing that justifiable adjustments had to be made. I suspect that ideology also stops you from having any appreciation of the difficulties involved but that should not over-ride good sense in your comments.
DeleteBob Ferris ---“ Jim. I know that you are an exuberant guy, but accusing someone of criminal activity in the absence of evidence--particularly when those persons have been investigated and cleared repeatedly--is legally actionable.
DeleteME—Oh, give us a break - you know that those investigations were white washes.
As to criminal activity at the CRU:
1. Falsifying dates of official documents.
2. Destroying information subject to FOI request.
Bob Ferris ---“Mann's "trick" was not about hiding anything it is about something behaving predictably for an extended period and then not. The tree ring data did not hide cooling it indicated cooling when it should not have
ME---- That proves that tree rings are unreliable. If they “indicated cooling when it should not have” that PROVES they are unreliable and casts doubt on their reliability everywhere. How do we know they are reliable before the thermometer period? We don’t.
That is why Mann HAD TO HIDE THE DECLINE. That is why he did not properly label his graph as “proxy data up to 19xx, thermometer data after 19xx” He was hiding the fact that his primary data source was garbage. And you seem to think that this is OK. It is not, but it seems to be business as usual among climate alarm “scientists”. The fact that there was never a massive outrage shows the whole field is corrupt, either by overt acts or by keeping silent.
Bob Ferris ---“Much too valuable to throw out so there was an effort to figure out a way to use it knowing that justifiable adjustments had to be made.
ME---- So he merely tossed out the bad data and covered up with thermometer data. Such data splicing is universally looked upon as bad practice except under very limited circumstances.
Bob Ferris ---“ I suspect that ideology also stops you from having any appreciation of the difficulties involved but that should not over-ride good sense in your comments.
ME---ideology appears to stop you from realizing that this is downright dishonest without a great big note on his graph.
You are ignoring Mann’s other errors:
1. Use proxies known to be unsuitable or temperature?
2. Mann pre processed the data, adding a bias towards hockeysticks
3. Not consult with professional statisticians when doing a paper that relies heavily on statistics?
4. Refuse to share his data and methods. (Suggests he knew he was bing dishonest.)
5. Not notice that if you feed random noise into Mann’s process, you get hockeysticks out much of the time.
Any one of which would cause a flunking grade in high school science. But the climate scare industry just ignores it.
“You view science as dishonest because you do not understand the process.”
DeleteWhat an astonishing statement. Mr Karlock quite obviously understands science far more than you do, Mr Ferris – indeed, even I do, too! This is where climate “science” falls down – IT IS BLATANTLY DISHONEST! And with people such as yourself, Mr Ferris, absurdly defending it, in spite of all the evidence against it – thus indicating that you have no idea about science. This is dragging the rest of science in the public view below healthy scepticism to outright distrust (though there are some other branches of science that are not wholly honest).
Here is a comment from one scientist about who he works for:
“ I work for commercial food companies. Tomorrow I’m driving to Inverness to talk about cheese. I do not do dodgy research like the anti-everything shitheads produce. If I don’t think it will work I will tell them that. If they want to pressure me into getting a particular result, I go home. I’m a research consultant, not a PR consultant. You want lies, go talk to ASH or pretty much any politician. If your stuff turns out to be crap or even dangerous, that’s what my report will say. Up to you to publish or suppress it.
[…]
I haven’t ever worked for a salt or sugar producer. I’d love to work for a chocolate company, the freebies would be most welcome. However, working for a company does not temper my comments. I don’t much care about money because I’ve never had very much of it and it’s not interesting in itself. It just lets me buy more train stuff on eBay.
I will, and have, lost research work through honesty. I could have taken the money for projects that were never going to work but I told them at the first meeting – ‘this cannot work because…’”
While no-one (least of all the original author) will claim that that attitude is common in all professional scientists, even though it should be, I suspect that it is not too unusual. You, of course, in your desire to throw doubt on the honesty of selected scientists merely because of who pays their bills, do not realise that it is YOU who are destroying trust in ALL scientists. Such a complex situation, though, is well beyond your capabilities of comprehension, so you will summarily dismiss this.
Now, what is your response to the obvious FACTS that everyone acknowledge: that CO2 continues to rise, yet temperatures do not? That human consumption of fossil fuels has risen exponentially for 2 centuries, yet CO2 concentrations have not? What will be your explanation, should temperatures show an incontrovertible reduction, and we sink into another Little Ice Age, despite CO2 concentrations continuing to rise?
I would gladly be one of the straw-man “we” that you have created against Mr Karlock, though suspect that he may have been referring to the others who have destroyed your arguments more effectively than I – but, like a zombie, you are not going to give up. Ho-hum. Perhaps we should just leave you in your graveyard of illusions.
Bob Ferris ---“ Did I miss responses on those.”
ReplyDeleteME–No they are distractions from the fundamental questions of massive fraud in the climate alarm industry that involves leading scientists.
Why do you ignore bad conduct at the CRU:
1. Refuse to supply data subject to FOI?
2. Ask others to destroy information subject to FOI (a crime)
3. Change dates on documents.
4. Block opposing papers from publication.
5. Replace embarrassing proxy data with thermometer data.
6. Operate on the principle of: “As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations” That is a quote from Michael Mann
7. Plug a leak in a peer reviewed Journal (the “leak” allowed an opposing paper to be published”
8. Try to get editorial boar members to resign.
9. Arbitrarily adjusting data.
10. Make dishonest presentations.
11. Truncate data series because more recent data does not support the claims.
12. Balance the needs of science and the IPCC which are not always the same.
Why do you ignore Mann’s massive errors that are so bad they suggest intent:
1. Use proxies known to be unsuitable or temperature?
2. Hide the fact that Mann’s proxies showed cooling beginning in the mid 20th century, while the thermometer didn’t. Instead of revealing this fatal flaw in his data, Mann chose to do “mike’s nature trick” and simply delete the embarrassing data and replace it with thermometer data.
3. Mann pre processed the data, adding a bias towards hockeysticks
4. Not consult with professional statisticians when doing a paper that relies heavily on statistics?
5. Refuse to share his data and methods. (Suggests he knew he was bing dishonest.)
6. Not notice that if you feed random noise into Mann’s process, you get hockeysticks out much of the time.
That other “scientists” did not speak out about this shows that the whole field is corrupt.
You cannot cover these up with a few references to whitewash investigations which did not even interview skeptics and generally took Man’s word for his honesty.
I suppose there is a lot to be said for consistency.
Deletehttp://www.blueoregon.com/2007/03/new_blog_jim_ka/
Bob Ferris--"I suppose there is a lot to be said for consistency."
ReplyDeleteME---Yep, after years, climate alarmists still cannot come up with actual evidence for their beliefs.
BTW, we are still waiting for your defense of Mann's sloppy science and the CRU criminal activity.
So when you say we is that you, David Clark or Bob Clark? I just get confused...
DeleteBob Ferris----“So when you say we is that you...”
ReplyDeleteME---BTW, we are still waiting for your defense of Mann's sloppy science and the CRU criminal activity. Or do you think sloppy science and criminal acts are OK for climate “science”? Maybe saving the world global warming justifies criminal activity and sloppy science, like Steven Schneider, former editor of a peer reviewed journal, said:
“we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”
And while it is easy to attack those who are dead, what you and others have done with this quote is dishonest, because you did not include the full quote.
Delete"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
https://climatesight.org/2009/04/12/the-schneider-quote/
But golly what should we expect honesty from you?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteBob Ferris--"..because you did not include the full quote.”
DeleteME--The full quote changes nothing - Schneider thinks it is OK to lie for a good cause. And that is from an editor of a peer reviewed journal.
That pretty much sums up the entire field of climate alarm. Lying is OK, fudging data is OK, sloppy research is OK, hiding inconvenient data is OK, attacking opponents (like you do) is OK.
Always keeping it classy, Jim. http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/july/schneider-071910.html
DeleteBob Ferris---"Always keeping it classy"
DeleteME--OK! I revised it: The full quote changes nothing - Schneider thought it is OK to lie for a good cause. And that is from a former editor of a peer reviewed journal.
That pretty much sums up the entire field of climate alarm. Lying is OK, fudging data is OK, sloppy research is OK, hiding inconvenient data is OK, attacking opponents (like you do) is OK.
It is easy enough to find, if that was intent, but we both know that is not the case:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cce-review.org/evidence/MannResponsesUK.pdf
Pretty much what I have been saying. But let guess...it won't be sufficient for you...
Bob Ferris--"http://www.cce-review.org/evidence/MannResponsesUK.pdf
DeleteME—page 5 pretty much agrees with me that he used unsuitable proxies and had to hide the fact that they declined when they should have increased or else his entire paper would be quickly (and justly) discredited.
We are still waiting for your defense of Mann's sloppy science and the CRU criminal activity. Or do you think sloppy science and criminal acts are OK for climate “science”? Maybe saving the world from imagined global warming justifies criminal activity and sloppy science.
I really cannot understand how you could have gotten that out of what was said.
DeleteBob Ferris----"I really cannot understand how you could have gotten that out of what was said."
DeleteME---Schnieder tried to justify “offer up scary scenarios”; “make simplified, dramatic statements”; “make little mention of any doubts we might have.”
Those amount to lying to further your cause. Said cause being, as usual, to save the world from some imagined danger. And doing it at the expensive of the well being of millions of people. Despicable.
For those who actually want to understand the divergence problem her is a link. It is significant the rings tracked very well with temperatures from the 1600-1950 and then they did not. So for nearly four hundred years there was correspondence.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence_problem
Bob Ferris---"For those who actually want to understand the divergence problem her is a link
DeleteME---Of course it never occurred to anyone that maybe the tree rings were correct and the earth as continued to cool after 1950 AS THE THERMOMETERS SHOW (it is only the "adjusted" data that shows warming.)
It has to be admitted, Mr Ferris, you certainly are consistent – consistently evading questions, consistently avoiding the truth, consistently supporting proven liars. You gave a full quote from Steven Schneider (who, on a TV programme, denied that he had warned of an oncoming ice-age in the 1970s, only to be shown that the book in which he had actually written about it – how could he forget his own publication? In other words, he is a proven liar), as if that somehow justified his depressingly unscientific opinions; “…reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change.” Erm… what risks? The sum of all changes to date have been beneficial. That situation might change, should the world start to cool, though; would you rather years without summer or years without winter? I know which I prefer.
ReplyDeletePerhaps what alarmed him most was that people were generally getting richer, and That Is Just Not On, don’cha know?! No, there is no science here, in all the links you provide; there are only opinions based, often enough, on petty jealousy… nothing to see here … move along, please. There is strong evidence that it is all part of a socialist agenda, part of which involves destroying western civilisation, reducing us all down (you will be included, BTW, though more likely be removed as proven untrustworthy – Leon Trotsky was not the only one; and the gulags were full of others) to serfs utterly subservient to an elite of "World Government." Look to Venezuela to see the charms and benefits of that.
Now, what is your response to the obvious FACTS that everyone acknowledges: that CO2 continues to rise, yet temperatures do not? That human consumption of fossil fuels has risen exponentially for 2 centuries, yet CO2 concentrations have not?
What will be your explanation, should temperatures show an incontrovertible reduction, and we sink into another Little Ice Age, despite CO2 concentrations continuing to rise?
As your friend did with the partial quotes you only tell part of the story. Yes in 1971--remember when pocket calculators cost hundred of dollars--he created a simple model which said that aerosols and particulates would cool the earth atmosphere. In 1974 he retracted the paper. But what is interesting is the reason he was wrong...his crude model underestimated the impact of CO2 by a factor of three.
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider#cite_note-6
As to the your two silly posers about rising CO2. All it demonstrates is that you do not understand the elements or complexities of these systems. (Could that be because you get your climate science from a retired accountant?). The general temperature trend has been a rising of temperature (climate). The rate of change plus, minus or pause during at any given point is also influenced by a host of cyclic events like El Nino or La Nina and random events such as volcanoes which make the warming look like a stair step (weather). Climate deniers look only at the steps and the rest of us look at the combination of steps and risers.
http://mrdclassified.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/5/0/13508015/__9619918_orig.gif
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/three-ways-climate-deniers-cherry-pick-facts-about-climate-change
In terms of CO2 emissions rising faster than atmospheric concentrations. (Are you seriously going to make that argument?) This argument assumes that the capacity of the environment to absorb CO2 was maxed out two centuries ago. It was not. You get increases in atmospheric CO2 when natural and human emissions exceed the capacity of the environment to absorb it. In other words when the bath water flows into the tub faster than it flows out the drain. Because tubs are big it takes a while for this to happen but there is a point when disaster strikes.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/big-idea/05/carbon-bath
So here we are with two illogical misstatements followed up with a seasoning of doubt. (I will ignore your obvious digression into political paranoia.)
You are right, Mr Ferris, the system is very complex – though you prefer the simplified version, where, not only is it all the fault of CO2, but it is the even more evil human-produced CO2 wot dun it.
DeleteHere is an amazing thing about the climate models – they are designed to have CO2 as the key control of the climate. Now, when you adjust the CO2 levels – hey! – guess what!? Yes – the climate changes! How very clever! And you cannot see any flaws in that… who is the one who is really in denial?
Anyhoo… I shall leave you in your bizarre world, Mr Ferris. Yours is a mind shut tighter than a vault at Gringotts. While you might feel comfortable in that situation, the more realistic amongst us can only feel pity for you, as you truly are missing out on many of the wonders of science. I shall leave you in your tiny world, and return to mine, with its retired accountants, biological scientists, peers of the realm, mining engineers, university professors, and general assorted individuals, all of whom are prepared to argue and discuss the merits and demerits of the subject, without having to resort to petty insults.
Toodle-pip!
Bob Ferris, let me summarize our discussion:
ReplyDeleteYou think it is OK to “offer up scary scenarios”; “make simplified, dramatic statements”; “make little mention of any doubts we might have.” Those amount to lying to further your cause. Said cause being, as usual, to save the world from some imagined danger. And doing it at the expensive of the well being of millions of people.
You also think it is OK for Mann to have done the following:
1. hide the decline with out even a note that some of the available data is being omitted because it does not show what we want to show.
2. Use proxies known to be unsuitable or temperature?
3. Mann pre-processed the data, adding a bias towards hockeysticks
4. Not consult with professional statisticians when doing a paper that relies heavily on statistics?
5. Refuse to share his data and methods. (Suggests he knew he was being dishonest.)
6. Not notice that if you feed random noise into Mann’s process, you get hockeysticks out much of the time.
And it is OK for the CRU "Scientists" to:
1. Refuse to supply data subject to FOI?
2. Ask others to destroy information subject to FOI (a crime)
3. Change dates on documents.
4. Block opposing papers from publication.
5. Replace embarrassing proxy data with thermometer data.
6. Operate on the principle of: “As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations” (That is a quote from Michael Mann)
7. Plug a leak in a peer reviewed Journal (the “leak” allowed an opposing paper to be published”
8. Try to get editorial board members to resign.
9. Arbitrarily adjusting data.
10. Make dishonest presentations.
11. Truncate data series because more recent data does not support the claims.
12. Balance the needs of science and the IPCC which are not always the same.
After our exchanges, it is pretty obvious why we disagree. You think scientific misconduct and deceiving the public is proper and I do not.
BTW, here is an example of NASA lying to us (notice they make a big deal out of recent arctic temperature and the rate of temperature increase, while ignoring the earlier, warmer, faster rate, warm period at the left ON THE SAME GRAPH): http://www.debunkingclimate.com/co2_didnt_warm_arctic.html
Hope you are happy believing every lie from the trillion dollar climate scare industry.
Bob Ferris, addendum to summary of our discussion:
ReplyDeleteYou judge a paper by its author instead of its content and its citations instead of its quality.
Your evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming is the Lovejoy paper that uses novel statistical techniques to determine that the current climate is outside of historical norms. He concludes this to a 99% probability, a suspiciously high probability. Using novel statistical techniques also makes the paper highly suspect (after all that is how Mann fabricated his hockeystick.) Using “adjusted” temperature data also makes the paper highly suspect. To make it even worse, the author deludes himself into thinking that he knows ALL influences on temperature to a high degree of precision since that is the prerequisite for elimination each one. He also deludes himself by refusing to acknowledge the likely hood that the current climate is NOT warmer than the 1930s.
Finally the author, unlike you, even says this is not a proof: “While the statistical rejection of a hypothesis can’t generally be used to conclude the truth of any specific alternative, in many cases – including this one – the rejection of one greatly enhances the credibility of the other.”
https://www.mcgill.ca/channels/news/global-warming-just-giant-natural-fluctuation-235236
Lovejoy paper: https://www.mcgill.ca/channels/news/global-warming-just-giant-natural-fluctuation-235236
Critique: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/27/a-geological-perspective-on-lovejoys-99-solution/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/13/earth-to-lovejoy-0-9-c-in-a-century-is-not-huge/
https://www.mcgill.ca/channels/news/global-warming-just-giant-natural-fluctuation-235236
One can only admire your patience, Mr Karlock, but Mr Ferris has shown himself to have the mind of a religious zealot; any evidence presented to him that might throw doubt upon his beliefs will automatically be rejected, and will further entrench his view that he is so utterly right. One cannot reason with such a mind, as it is beyond reason.
DeleteJim—You give a summary as if you have been invited to give a talk. Only who invited you and by what virtue do you believe yourself a member of this community? You are not a teacher and you are not a scientist so you are here by indulgence not license. You are a politician. Yet you act like you own the place when everything you do brings further insult to those who conduct their profession ethically and honestly. But you are a ends-justify-the-means kind of guy. You cherry pick data and reports accepting only those parts that agree with your particular vision. The Lloyd paper being a perfect example because it casts doubt (weakly) which you accept but faults carbon which you do not. You take comments out of context so that they suit your purposes rather than reflect the intent of the person trying to legitimately characterize a challenging situation (a much beloved person whose is sorely missed and much honored). You slander scientists repeatedly cleared of wrong doing in investigations catalyzed by those of your thinking and disclaim ownership of those investigations because you do not like the results. You and your colleagues have promoted a petition that has been heavily criticized for its deceptiveness, methodology and meaning. As Angliss has appropriately pointed out, even if we accept that the petition was not trickery it represents a non-significant slice of the scientific community. I’ve also seen strong evidence that you use aliases in climate discussions just as Rex Tillerson of Exxon did. All of these practices are dishonest and unethical. This is likely why people feel so compelled to ban you from sites or create parody sites in the hopes that you will finally get the message but you are obviously monumentally unaware and insensitive. You would think that at some point you would grasp that politically and scientifically you represent a minority and contrarian view of the world and act accordingly. But thank you, Ayn Rand, your view becomes the only view.
DeleteI write this after reading a few of the stories coming out of Miami and remembering that the first industry to truly appreciate the seriousness of climate change was the insurance industry. They are an industry driven by risk and actuary tables rather than rhetoric. (I can speak authoritatively about "industry" because nearly thirty years ago I was one of those in the environmental community who was working with energy companies to deal with their acknowledged carbon problem before they decided to deny it existed.) They are an industry with true skin in the game rather than a handful of fringe commentators in regions unlikely to suffer serious mechanical impacts (the Pacific Northwest and Great Britain). But then when we get beyond the rhetoric we also see that those who do not “believe” tend to want protection when the risk becomes reality (see Trump sea wall below).
Miami:
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2017/02/flooding-is-the-new-normal-in-miami/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/global-warming-impacts/tidal-flooding-sea-level-rise-miami-dade-county-florida#.WQH-cNLyvIU
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/article129284119.html
Insurance Industry:
http://fortune.com/2016/08/23/munich-re-disaster-insurance/
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-linden-insurance-climate-change-20140617-story.html
http://www.naic.org/cipr_topics/topic_climate_risk_disclosure.htm
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2016/10/20/429851.htm
Trump Sea Wall:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/17/donald-trump-ireland-golf-resort-wall-climate-change
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/donald-trump-build-wall-ireland-golf-course-links-doonbeg-county-clare-plans-withdrawn-sand-dunes-a7460381.html