A while back, I blogged on the huge number of scientific organizations that had put out position statements supporting the mainstream theory of human-induced global warming.
Many commenters on my post and around the internet have suggested that one can't trust a statement put out by a professional organization. They argue that these statements are not voted on by the membership, but generally drafted by an ad hoc committee and adopted by the organization's leadership.
If this small clique of members turned out to be advocates, the hypothesis goes, then the resulting statement will not reflect the overall views of the organization.
It occurred to me, however, that this is a testable hypothesis. How do we test it, you ask? We have a professional organization try to put out a statement that its members don't agree with. What would happen?
Well, this actually happened. In the late 1990s, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists put out a statement that essentially said human-induced climate change was a bunch of baloney. When it came time to revise the statement in 2006, the initial draft contained roughly the same statement.
By this time, however, a significant fraction of the AAPG membership disagreed with the position, and a revolt ensued. In his newsletter, AAPG president Lee Billingsley said:
Members have threatened to not renew their memberships if the graduated dues system is passed, or if AAPG does not alter its position on global climate change (although not the same members). And I have been told of members who already have resigned in previous years because of our current global climate change position.
In the end, the resulting AAPG climate change statement was sharply amended to more or less avoid the issue.
It turns out that, if a scientific organization tries to put out a statement many of its members disagree with, the membership will rise up and rebel. If the AGU tried to put out a statement saying that climate change was not caused by humans, I guarantee the membership would not accept that.
Given that, the lack of outrage by the membership at its new statement suggests that this statement does represent the beliefs of the 50,000 members of the AGU.
Another example of the power of the membership within scientific organizations also comes from the AAPG. In 2006, they gave their Journalism Award to Michael Crichton for his novel, State of Fear. Many members felt that this was an enormous embarrassment and complained to AAPG headquarters. As a result, the AAPG executive committee changed the name of the award to "Geosciences in the Media." This is another example where the membership forced an organization's leadership to make changes in order to comport with their views on scientific issues.
I hope it is just as clear that the large number of statements by professional organizations supporting the mainstream view of climate change is an extremely powerful reflection of the strong consensus that exists in the scientific community. (Especially combined with the fact that no scientific organization, even the AAPG, disputes the mainstream view.)
The hypothesis that scientific organizations have somehow been hijacked by alarmists simply does not fit the available data.
20 climate experts call for aggressive U.S. action
‘Sea Change’ documentary highlights threat of ocean acidification
Nature: Hurricanes ARE getting fiercer — and it’s going to get much worse
Comments
View as Flat
Sam Wells Posted 11:34 am
20 Feb 2008
Causality
As a scientist you should know that causation comes in many forms with many qualifiers, and to say that man-made CO2 is "causing" climate change is not exactly a truth that can be debated. At the end of the day you end up with a plausible partial explanation that can be backed by a scientific body, as in a vote where most would agree and some do not.
Mere correlation does not prove causation and that is a major point most non-scientific do not get. Yes, more CO2 from anthropogenic sources such as smokestacks and tailpipes do correlate very well. But geogenic and biogenic sources contribute massive amounts as well, and the trend has been for the climate to warm if you look at estimated temperatures periods of over thousands of years.
Partial, incremental, plausible causation is one of the hardest to prove. It is not as simple as testing a hypothesis against a room full of experts and wonks. If the Earth was in fact warming on its own without the benefit of us humans, then those "feedback loops" would exist at least in elementary form. In fact, major shifts in global climate such as in the dinosaur ages have absolutely nothing to do with anthropogenic inputs: a good part of the northern US used to be covered in glaciers for example, after a period of jungle-like tropical growth.
To date, the consensus is that man-made inputs of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have pushed the envelope to move climate change faster that what we had expected. This is a very critical point, that man-mad inputs have somehow acted in a manner that accelerated global warming. But to say that "man caused climate change and global warming" would be enough to expose you as an outright fraud and possibly an idiot.
What has happened over the last 25 years is that scientists have begun to bring some clarity to climate change issues regarding partial correlation, causation, interactions, and effects. Has anything been "proven"? Again I would have to say the evidence is overwhelming to such a degree that objectors have little ground to argue aside from exceptions to the rule, such as anomalies that show climate cooling.
In most cases of applied science, as opposed to our theoretical cousins, having some clarity and a preponderance of evidence is what matters. Good article, sir.
/sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Steve Bloom Posted 12:41 pm
20 Feb 2008
Not quite
Sam, I don't especially blame you for not being cognizant of the details of paleoclimatology since it's hard for non-scientists to get and keep a handle on the details, but your comment that "the trend has been for the climate to warm if you look at estimated temperatures over periods of thousands of years" (word order fixed) is simply wrong. Just out of curiosity, what was your source for it?
In fact, the 10,000 years or so since the last deglaciation have seen first a temperature rise to the Holocene thermal maximum of about 5-8,000 years ago followed by a slow decline to the start of the Anthropocene a couple of hundred years ago (and with lots of little vulcanism-induced bumps and shimmies along the way, e.g. the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age). Like the glacial cycles themselves, the long-term climate trend in interglacials is controlled by orbital (Milankovitch) cycles; i.e. planetary wobbles that affect the way sunlight falls on the Earth. Study of these cycles shows that the small temperature decline since the mid-Holocene should be continuing (IIRC for another one or two thousand years).
IOW, it's not really much of a leap of logic to pin the present warming to GHGs since of the factors that could do the job they appear to be the only one that's changed. See Chapter 6 of the AR4 WG1 report (not a difficult read IMHO) for the details of this and other aspects of paleoclimate.
Permalink
SammyOwl Posted 12:33 am
21 Feb 2008
The recent AGU statement...
so upset me, as I assumed the one from five years ago would die as per AGU bylaws dictate unless renewed, that I wrote and protested. Nothing happened, no response from anyone I wrote to. Then I sent in an ad with payment that was for a page to publish my protest letter in Eos. I was told that was not allowed as an ad. I then modified it to be a large notice for a meeting of interested members to protest AGU Council actions, as Eos is allowed as a bulletin board for meetings of members. That was also rebuffed and I was told the executive director would discuss it with me before they would allow it, but guess what, now 3 weeks later no contact, no answer, nothing.
AAPG is responsive and a members organization (and I can assure you the majority agreed with the earlier position statement, but leadership was weak), AGU is a closed, political organization for it's elites that rejects members input.
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 12:38 am
21 Feb 2008
unanimous vs. consensus
Sammy-
The problem, of course, is the difference between unanimous and consensus. There's probably no statement that could be written that every single one of the AGU's 50,000 members would agree with, so the goal is to write a statement that most members would agree with.
As the AAPG episode shows, if you don't do that, enough members complain that things change. If one member (you) out of 50,000 complains, nothing happens. And that's how it should be.
As I said above, if there were general outrage about the AGU's statement, it would change. That there's not shows that it does represent the feelings of the organization, excepting a very very small minority.
Permalink
SammyOwl Posted 12:50 am
21 Feb 2008
Dr. Dessler..
then you support the AGU Council not allowing any opinions about the statement except their own? Do you support censoring members and not allowing them free speech rights in their own paid for media publications? Do you support the Council not allowing free open debate and discussion of their actions? Are you really a Democrat or a totalitarian?
Permalink
SammyOwl Posted 12:53 am
21 Feb 2008
And one more thing...
you assume I am the only AGU member upset about the statement, how do you prove that given the facts of how the Council censors and stifles any dissent?
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 1:00 am
21 Feb 2008
Free speech
Given your previous comments on this web site, I can imagine that your "views" were so ridiculous that the editors of EOS had no choice but to reject it outright.
For example, I could send in an ad saying, "gravity is a hoax," and I think it would (correctly) be rejected. There is a minimum level of credibility that material in EOS must pass, and I suspect your views do not pass that threshold.
And I would also reiterate that everyone had an opportunity to send comments on climate change to the committee drafting the statement ... and that the data (the AAPG's experience) shows that this system does work.
If you get a chance, please post what you wanted EOS to print on this thread, and everyone can see if it's reasonable or not.
Permalink
cce Posted 1:51 am
21 Feb 2008
Democracy and Solicitation
The AGU leadership is elected by its members. If people were so outraged by the previous statement, the new one wouldn't exist. Furthermore, they solicited input into the statement. The statement clearly represents the AGU membership.
Permalink
benp Posted 7:54 am
21 Feb 2008
More-on-ic statements by scientific organisations
Andrew Dessler's desire to 'prove' global warming by listing organisations saying "us too" reveals a broken argument. These organisations are not offering any insight into the matters at hand, and merely muddy the water.
Take the AGU's statement, for example... "The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance".
If Andrew wants to argue that it is meaningful for the AGU to make such statements, he ought to be able to explain how the climate is - or ever was - "balanced". What was it balanced on?
Similarly, the AGU statement says "Many components of the climate system ... are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural"
What does Andrew Dessler believe is a "natural" rate of change? Do the IPCC explain what "balance" is? Do they offer explanations as to what "natural" rates of change are?
Andrew does not seem interested in the substance of arguments which appear to concur with the "consensus" position. It only matters to him that they appear to agree with a broad but meaningless position that "global warming is happening", or "we support the IPCC". But even support for the IPCC of this kind does not reveal any analysis by which the position can be legitimised. To say it is worthwhile is not the same thing as agreeing with anything it publishes.
The silly statement by the AGU, like Andrew's own silly statements, will do more to undermine the consensus position. Andrew should be looking for agreement between scientific arguments, not friends in high places agreeing with each other.
Permalink
xchopp Posted 12:19 pm
21 Feb 2008
Silly statements on scientific organizations
The article is about whether policy statements published by scientific societies and organizations can be deemed to represent the views of the core of the membership. The article argues that -- by and large -- they do because otherwise the membership would decline dramatically. In other words, scientists drop their subscriptions if they are not happy with the stated position. The logical conclusion of your view -- in fact, all you seem to be saying -- is that most of the AGU members are mistaken in their view that global warming is a serious and unusual problem (or -- by implication -- that they are too distracted and/or lazy to quit). More likely you didn't want to miss an opportunity to amplify the uncertainties. And I am sorry but "These organisations are not offering any insight into the matters at hand, and merely muddy the water."? What planet are you on? You don't appear to know that of the 50,000 AGU members, most are actively researching and publishing on that research (have you ever looked at the books of abstracts?). So unless there is a mass departure from the AGU in the coming months, I don't think you'll be able to argue that its statement on Human Impact on Climate is offensive to the majority of members.
Permalink
benp Posted 1:43 pm
21 Feb 2008
Xchopp Xchops and Xchanges the AGU statement
If Xchopp is right that the AGU's statement must be true, because otherwise its membership would abandon it, then it is only because the membership give a toss. Dessler and Xchopp imagine that the entire geo-science world is as committed to political projects as they are, and would leave an organisation that didn't reflect their political views.
Does the fact of the 'democratic' organisational structure of the AGU mean that its statements reflect the views of its membership? Only to the extent that the President of the USA reflects the views of the American people. So, all Americans are Republicans and "deniers". Naturally, non-republicans remain in the USA, because staying is preferable to leaving. Or, according to Xchopp - they are too lazy/distracted.
Curiously, Xchopp tells me that the extension of my argument is that "most of the AGU members are mistaken in their view that global warming is a serious and unusual problem".
I have no opinion on what the view of the majority of the AGU membership is- I'm not the one pretending it's important, or that it can be detected from the non-migration of its membership. All I was attempting to explain was that if the statement is reflective of the membership, it would be interesting to know exactly what the climate is supposed to be "balanced" on (sky-hooks, perhaps?), such that it produces "natural" "patterns" and rates of change. They are clearly terms with zero scientific meaning, and it surprises me that 50,000 scientists would get behind what appears to be pseudo-science.
What is more interesting is that Xchopp would defend such terms, not by explaining them, but by transforming the statement so that it reads (in his head), "global warming is a serious and unusual problem". Xchopp is defending a different statement - one that the AGU did not make.
Xchopp continues, what planet am I on? Well, obviously a different one to the earth scientists who would get behind the idea that the climate is "balanced". I call my planet "Earth". I am very interested in hearing more about the planet that the AGU membership inhabit. It sounds very different to my own, which is far more chaotic. They ought to spend some time here, explaining how a 'balanced' climate developed on whatever distant planet they hail from, and to see how different our own climate is.
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 2:11 pm
21 Feb 2008
What is free speech?
If the AGU doesn't publish something you want to publish it does not mean they are suppressing your free speech.
If benp, sammyowl, or manacker were to submit a fictional manuscript to a novel printer and they don't publish it, that doesn't mean they are suppressing free speech. The publishers just think that people won't buy it.
Free speech is like the free market, if people want to hear it the publishers will accept it, if they don't too bad for you.
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 10:49 pm
21 Feb 2008
Good science is the best of all.......
........I suppose.
Can anyone name anything in the human world that is more sublime than a responsible, able and courageous scientist who eschews political convenience, economic expediency and the hoarding of endless wealth in order to speak out loudly and clearly for new and unexpected science, especially when the unforeseen, good evidence has great explanatory power and profound implications for the future of the family of humanity on Earth?
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/
Permalink
benp Posted 11:25 pm
21 Feb 2008
Steven doesn't know what "good" means.
Steven Earl Salmony confuses virtuous scientists with valid science.
He does it to pursue an agenda which is morally bad - he wants to get rid of people, and to regulate human fertility to achieve "sustainability".
How does he advance his argument? By invoking the panic and alarm generated by the incautious statements that the likes of Dessler and the AGU have issued.
"First they came for the 'deniers'... Then they came for the babies..."
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 1:04 am
22 Feb 2008
Dear Ben P...................
Apparently my admittedly poor communication skills are not serving me well, once again.
Let me try a second time. I am certainly not pursuing "an agenda which is morally bad" nor am I suggesting anything remotely related to getting "rid of people" by any means. Where do such ideas come from? It appears that these pernicious ideas you wish to attribute to me actually come from you.
What I am trying to communicate is that the family of humanity faces a growing myriad of global challenges -- air pollution, sea and land contamination, global warming, peak oil, diminishing global supplies of grain, overfishing, the dissipation of Earth's scarce resources, desertification, deforestation, urban sprawl and autoban congestion are examples -- that could soon become unsustainable on a finite planet with the relatively small size and make-up of Earth. What people generally appear not yet to be see clearly enough is that the looming threats to human wellbeing and environmental health can be directly related to the current huge scale and anticipated growth of skyrocketing absolute global human population numbers.
That is to say, the unrestrained increase of per-capita consumption of limited resources, the unbridled global expansion of human production/distribution capabilities, and the rapid rise of numbers of Homo sapiens worldwide are occurring synergistically and could be fast approaching a point in history when these distinctly human, global "over-growth" activities are patently unsustainable.
Your thoughts and those of other Gristians are invited.
Sincerely,
Steve
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/
Permalink
benp Posted 2:00 am
22 Feb 2008
What does Andrew say?
This isn't the place for a discussion on the wrongs and wrongs of "optimum population", Steve, so I will not challenge you about it here and now. Nor on the way you appear to have confused virtue with the scientific method. I will gladly and enthusiastically discuss these matters with you where it would be 'on-topic'.
My point was intended just to illustrate that the unscientific and political statements given by science academies lead to some dark and nasty ideas... Get into bed with the AGU under the pretext of "good science", and wake up with a misanthropic population cult.
Dessler and his ilk do not seem to understand why that is problem from the point of view of advancing the idea of a "consensus" position on the science and politics of global warming, which unifies all people who would agree that "global warming is happening". While there may be some sound science going on, that "consensus" includes a variety of perspectives - many of which are quite distasteful according to genuinely liberal values.
Or maybe it's not a problem for him. Andrew, what do you think? Is it a logical consequence of "climate science" that the number of people on the planet needs to be reduced? Should people themselves be rationed? It's all well and good telling us that the science is settled, what does it actually mean?
Permalink
Steve Bloom Posted 4:47 am
22 Feb 2008
Should be obvious
In this context, "balance" refers to the relatively narrow range of natural climate conditions that have prevailed during the present interglacial and can be expected to continue for another 30,000 years (until the next glaciation signal) or so absent human intervention. (And as long as I mention that, I should emphasize that it's not the case that a new persistent climate state with a lot less ice would necessarily be worse than the present one, but rather that the bumpy transition to it would be unpleasant for all concerned.)
Regarding the AGU, note that attendance at the fall meeting is now well in excess of 10,000. Were there a groundswell of concern about the leadership, it would be pretty noticeable given that those halls are pretty well swarming with journalists. I would point to the reception that Al Gore received when he spoke at the meeting in 2006 as evidence that the membership is in tune with what the leadership is doing. If anything, the new statement is more conservative than what the membership might want (unsurprising given the nature of large organizations).
BTW, there would be no impediment to a member or members circulating a protest petition at the annual meeting. Let us know how that works out.
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 11:16 pm
22 Feb 2008
Dear Ben P. and A. Dessler............
I hesitate to comment here out of respect for Ben P's desire to remain "on topic"; nevertheless, I will inject something now that is related to the topic of science and values.
Ben P, in your comments to A. Dessler you state that "'consensus' includes a variety of perspectives - many of which are quite distasteful according to genuinely liberal values." The history of science indicates with remarkable clarity that advances in science have also "been distasteful" and objectionable to people holding values in conflict with new and usually unforeseen scientific evidence. Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and Darwin are adequate examples of scientists whose views were at least initially found to be distasteful to many people. Each of these giants of science produced good but unwelcome evidence, just like Rajendra Pachauri (with whom I and others had lunch just last week) and the other Nobel Prize-winning scientists have brought forth. Yes, the introduction of unanticipated science seems to regularly come into conflict with human values.
Ben P, you have also stated that I "appear to have confused virtue with the scientific method."
Not I, but you are the one who is confused. The science of climate change evidently conflicts with YOUR liberal values and YOU are reacting to that insult, I believe. The evolution of science is replete with examples of individuals in denial such as you are evincing.
The science of climate change is not something I welcome. It is something that is. Whatsoever is is, is it not? What we wish to be real; what values we hold dear; what we ardently believe to be true, mean nothing if good science directly opposes our wishes, values and beliefs. There are no exceptions, I suppose.
Perhaps this is at the core of the difficulty you and I are having with our communication. I do not like the science of climate change any more or less than you do. But I will not engage in some sort of rear-guard action to deny the evidence of good science because I do not like what the science is showing me, as in instances when good scientific evidence happens to be politically inconvenient, economically inexpedient and socially disagreeable.
Who knows, perhaps changes in the way we organize and operate the global political economy are in the offing, whereby we move from unsustainable current operations toward sustainable business practices in the future.
A conflict between science and values is evident, but that conflict appears to be in your head, Ben, not mine.
Sincerely,
Steve
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/
Permalink
benp Posted 12:39 am
23 Feb 2008
What is "Natural"?
The AGU say "The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance".
Steve says that "balance" "refers to the relatively narrow range of natural climate conditions that have prevailed during the present interglacial..."
We can form a paraphrase: "The Earth's climate is now clearly out of ... the relatively narrow range of natural climate conditions that have prevailed during the present interglacial..."
But how is being outside of a range (which it is only assumed to exist "naturally") necessarily "out of balance"? "Out of range" is not "out of balance". Steve - and perhaps the AGU - has confused "different" with "unbalanced".
The next sentence of the AGU statement reads:
"Many components of the climate system--including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons--are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural..."
All that the two sentences now mean is that "the Earth's climate is now clearly [not natural]. Many components of the climate system ... are [not natural]"
I'll ask again, what is a "natural" rate of change, and how has it been identified? What is "balance", and how has "balance" been observed? Observing that something is different is not the same thing as observing a lack of balance.
Permalink
Steve Bloom Posted 12:42 pm
23 Feb 2008
Defining terms
It's just a matter of definitions. The key concept (which I referred to above by referencing the prospect of a new persistent climate state different from the present one) is that (in the presence of substantial ice sheets anyway) perturbing the climate sufficiently will tip it through a relatively fast transition into a new state that will not quickly retreat back to the prior one even if the perturbing influence is removed.
What this means for us now is that if we add enough heat to the system to melt much of the present ice we will transition into a new warmer climate state that will not quickly recover even if we immediately reduce GHG levels back to pre-industrial levels. It's problematic that lags in the climate system make it hard to know when such a line has been crossed.
My suspicion (I'm not a scientist, akthough I know many scientists share this concern) is that we've already crossed one line that will result in a loss of much of the Greenland Ice Sheet and the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet. There's a line beyond that one that involves a loss if the remaining GIS and a partial loss of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet and yet another one beyond that that involves a loss of all of the ice (which among other things will result in a sea level rise of 70 meters or so). Even the most extreme such state will eventually recover back to the base climate state (which is a function of things like continental position that are beyond our ability to fiddle with), but as this could take a couple hundred thousand years it's hard to distinguish from permanent in a functional sense.
When considering these possible outcomes it's important to bear in mind that the planet has been free of permanent ice for most of the last half-billion years. The present cold climate is a rarity.
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 11:36 pm
23 Feb 2008
Dear Steve Bloom.........
Fundamentally, I am in complete agreement with you about tipping points and prospects for irreversible changes in climate. Your incisive remarks about such a colossally important concern lead me to ask you, Ben P, A. Dessler, Professor Gary Peters, Elizabeth Tjader, Tenney Naumer, John Rynn, Sean Casten, Joe Romm, Eric Hoffner, Katy Balatero, JoSullivan58, Canis, David Roberts, Alan AtKisson, Alex Steffen and Andy Revkin to consider responses to four questions that follow. Please note that I have included my admittedly tentative and feeble responses to each of the questions for your consideration.
1. Where is the beginning?
It appears global challenges and threats like climate change and resource depletion are direct results of the huge scale and unbridled growth of human over-consumption, overproduction and overpopulation activities worldwide, which are occurring synergistically and at an accelerating rate everywhere on the surface of the Earth. We have to begin to see the ways human beings colossally interfere in the workings of the natural world. But of all the ways human interference occurs in the world we inhabit, such interference begins with the propagation of the human species. I would like to submit to you that more people equals more interference; less people equals less interference; and, in any case, no people means no human interference.
2. How has it been possible for there to be a six-fold increase in absolute global human population numbers in the past 150 years?
We have learned from the good science of Russell P. Hopfenberg and David I. Pimentel something simple and straightforward: human population numbers are a function of food supply and the population dynamics of Homo sapiens are essentially similar to, not different from, the population dynamics of other species. Therefore, from a global population perspective, more food equals more people; less food equals less people and no food means no people. The spectacular improvements of food production and distribution capabilities in the 20th century alone have unexpectedly given rise to the skyrocketing human numbers we see overspreading the Earth today.
3. How is the near-exponential growth of human population numbers supposed to stop?
According to Hopfenberg and Pimentel, the human population will grow as long as food is made available to the species and will not level off in the middle of this century as has been projected ubiquitously by the normal science of human population dynamics. Normal science has no sensible explanation for how the stabilization of population numbers of the human species on Earth in the year 2050 will automatically occur, given the fully anticipated young age distribution of a global population of 9+/- billion people at that time. Normal science has nothing reasonable to say about how billions of fertile young people, who are expected to be capable of reproducing in 2050, will be doing with their sexual instincts and drives other than what human beings have been doing during the past several thousand years.
4. If we can so clearly see the nearly exponential increase of absolute global human population numbers in our time, can we not begin now to acknowledge that what goes up can (must) also come down?
If human numbers have increased rapidly, then the human species can choose to take responsibility for decreasing its numbers and doing so just as quickly. According to good scientific evidence produced slowly and incrementally over the past 30 to 40 years by Dr. Jack Alpert, but not yet reasonably and sensibly examined either here or in most other discussions, the implementation of a "one child per family" policy would result in a rapid decline in the global human population. Jack is advocating the formation of a constituency large enough to persuade people of child-bearing age that having one child per family is the most humane, powerful, reasonable and sensible way to protect the future for their children and to preserve the Earth for coming generations. This is not to say that all the responsibility for saving life as we know it and the integrity of Earth falls upon this group of people. Of course not. Every human being will have a role to play in mitigating the damage being done now as human beings ravage and threaten to overrun the Earth. For example, people who over-consume will be given incentives to consume less; people who produce goods and deplete resources in ecologically unsound ways will be prohibited from engaging in unsustainable business practices.
Sincerely,
Steve
Permalink
benp Posted 11:36 pm
23 Feb 2008
It's about inconsistent "defintions"
"It's just a matter of definitions", Steve tells us. Well, of course it is! I was rather hoping Andrew would be kind enough to tell us more precisely what "balance" and "natural" rates of change are. But instead, Steve - who reminds us that he is not a scientist - now tells us that "balance" refers to some kind of 'tipping point'.
Again, what is the "balance" (or tipping point) which the AGU says has been observed, "clearly"? What is a "natural" rate of change?
An interesting thing to notice is that Steve's "key concept", and his fear about the imminent collapse of GIS and WAIS are not reflected in the IPCC literature.
IPCC WGI AR4 (FAQs, pg 123) is relatively clear about this. "Abrupt climate changes, such as the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, the rapid loss of the Greenland Ice Sheet or large-scale changes of ocean circulation systems, are not considered likely to occur in the 21st century, based on currently available model results."
and
IPCC WGI AR4 (Synthesis SPM pg 13) also says: "Partial loss of ice sheets on polar land could imply metres of sea level rise, major changes in coastlines and inundation of low-lying areas, with greatest effects in river deltas and low-lying islands. Such changes are projected to occur over millennial time scales, but more rapid sea level rise on century time scales cannot be excluded. {3.4}"
Century, times scales - never mind millennial - give us a great deal of time to deal with the problem of sea level rise as it affects human society, yet Steve worries that our "transition into a new warmer climate state that will not quickly recover". The transition to these states isn't quick either, according to the IPCC. There is little confidence in the IPCC reports about Steve's fears, and there doesn't seem to be much discussion of tipping points, other than to imply no more than that they "cannot be ruled out".
The difference between what the IPCC say, and what Steve says the AGU say indicates that there is a disparity between the outputs of the two groups of scientists. Yet to highlight this inconsistency is to identify oneself as a "denier" - in Andrew's language. If one can maintain the IPCC position against the AGU's statement, and be a denier, what does that make the AGU, who now seem to be as far away from the IPCC as are many sceptics? What does it make Andrew, who seems to be happy to assume any position on AGW, just as long as it is against the deniers, and damn the inconsistency?
The alarmists and anti-sceptics have allowed their arguments to become inconsistent and unscientific. They depend on a consensus position, but the more they do to attempt to explain what that position is, the more it reveals that they themselves are "out of range" of the consensus argument. This has given rise to the dark and weird moral crusade that the other Steve wants us to join, and which the rest of the movement to act on climate change is impotent to challenge. That makes it so much easier for sceptics to attack the positions here on Gristmill. Andrew recently wrote that his colleague was "surprised that how little substantive criticism the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report had received since its release just about one year ago". That's because the IPCC reports do not tally with the reports about what the IPCC have said. As we say on our blog, "the 'denial machine' is way behind the warmers - media, politicians and the IPCC itself - when it comes to misrepresenting what the IPCC reports have to say... Dessler is doing the trolls' work for them". http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/02/desslers-grist- ...
Permalink
Steve Bloom Posted 11:36 am
24 Feb 2008
Nice rant ...
but why intentionally confuse things? Is there anyone here you think you're fooling? Certainly not me or Andrew, and I doubt anyone else.
Just to rub your nose in it, though:
The science in the WG1 report is now nearly two years old, and there's been a lot of ice sheet science done since then. The AGU statement benefited from that and other recent work.
Did I say "imminent"? No. I said "relatively fast." Note that the IPCC said "more rapid sea level rise on century time scales cannot be excluded." More recent work seems to be headed in that direction. It doesn't sound as if you pay attention to that literature, but see e.g. Rohling et al (2007). See also this current news.
In any case, you missed the key point I made, which is that the commitment to the transition will be made long before it's actually seen. That's true even if we're talking about a scale of one or two hundred years rather than a thousand years.
Now, you're confident that a worst-case scenario along the lines of a ten meter rise in two hundred years is something we could adapt to without too much strain (as compared to the strain of sharp emissions reduction in the near future), but I would disagree. Consider, for example, the implications on ocean productivity of losing all of the current estuaries. They do re-establish, but on a scale of more centuries. As well, we have the small issue of ocean acidification.
The science aside, it seems obvious that you think in terms of these things only relative to your own lifetime, and within those terms your views are very possibly reasonable.
There's a lot more, of course, but you're not listening.
Permalink
Steve Bloom Posted 11:43 am
24 Feb 2008
Population is part of the problem
Steve, of course I agree, but the trick is coming up with solutions. Unfortunately, I think it's rather likely that we will see considerable population reduction this century via warfare, starvation, disease etc. triggered by the loss of water availability in the Tibetan region.
Permalink
benp Posted 12:54 pm
24 Feb 2008
Check your own data, Steve.
Steve believes that this news http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7261171.stm reveals the new science that wasn't available to the IPCC, and was available to the AGU.
Well, the article in question does not attribute the changes in Antarctic ice flows to humans:
"Much higher up the course of the glacier there is evidence of a volcano that erupted through the ice about 2,000 years ago and the whole region could be volcanically active, releasing geothermal heat to melt the base of the ice and help its slide towards the sea."
No mention of CO2. No mention of global warming. Another example of how alarmists will attribute anything to anthropogenic CO2, without even bothering to check whether the evidence supports their case - if there's a change in climate it must be because of a'genic CO2, they reason. And yet he tells me that I'm not listening.
Steve nicely avoids the question of what "balance", "tipping points", and "natural rates of change" are, and how they have been identified. I find his response that they have all magically appeared since IPCC AR4 very unconvincing. The question is still open, and the point that there are disparities between the IPCC and the AGU still stands.
A further inconsistency in his argument is that he says to me "the commitment to the transition will be made long before it's actually seen" and then he says to Steve, "it's rather likely that we will see considerable population reduction this century via warfare, starvation, disease etc".
Permalink
Steve Bloom Posted 3:08 pm
24 Feb 2008
Learn to read
Let's see, what point was I trying to make with those links? Something about AGW? Not exactly. Something about the pace at which ice sheets can respond to warming influences of any sort? Yes! No brass ring for benp.
I didn't say those terms had magically appeared since the AR4. Regarding their definition, I actually think I covered the concepts reasonably well. If you want formal definitions based on those concepts, you should be able to manage on your own.
Disparities between the AGU statement and the AR4? Sure, since they were written at different times based on different science. But I seem to recall saying that. Are you murky on the point that the science might change over two years?
As for your last paragarph, did you notice that the first quote referred to the melting of the ice sheets and the second one to the sociopolitical consequences of Tibet losing its glaciers mid-century? Other than both being consequences of global climate disruption, I didn't say they were related.
So, summing up, you managed to misunderstand or misconstrue everything I said. Just out of curiosity, do you ever get the sense that people become frustrated interacting with you?
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 3:50 pm
24 Feb 2008
Steven Earl Salmony verbiage
I would like to say that I think BenP is absolutely "spot-on", in the various topics he has covered. He has suggested that YOU are off-topic on this blog, and I'm about to express that more strongly. Look Steven, the actual blog topic here is difficult and complicated enough without you introducing distractions. As I have pointed out to you on earlier Gristmill blogs, the people here have other stuff on their minds, and cannot properly handle the imponderables that you raise. Even YOU seem incapable to suggest any sensible actions to handle the world population problem; you just keep shouting that there is a problem, as if no one is aware of it.
What makes the whole thing more bizarre is that probably the solution to over-population would appear to be to emulate what has evolved in the advanced nations, where declining birth rates are beginning to be seen as a future wealth PROBLEM.
You have been severally asked about what should be done by the wealthy nations to relieve the gross suffering of many millions in Africa, and YOU have remained silent. It would seem that with a relatively small unselfish redistribution of world GDP, there could be huge improvements there, and with improved life expectancy and knowledge etc, the appalling suffering, conflict, and the birth-rate would fall.
Perhaps the birth-rate in South America could be reduced by the CIA assassinating the Pope(s), and then corporate interests making big sales in condoms?
But as I've said elsewhere, you may find more productive discussion on other blogs with environmental bent other than AGW, such as at Green Options.
You are taking-up too much page space here!
Permalink
benp Posted 10:18 pm
24 Feb 2008
Steve lacks "balance"
Steve Bloom asks me to learn to read.
I can assure him that it is because I can read that I have been able to identify the inconsistent use of the expressions "balance", "natural rates of change", and the allusion to "tipping points" across the AGU statement, IPCC AR4 Assessment Reports, and his and Andrew Dessler's posts here. Steve does nothing to address that inconsistency, other than to further it.
Steve now tells me, for example, something about the speeds at which ice sheets can respond to warming "of any sort". He refers to the BBC article, which discusses a rise in sea levels of 25cm in just 'decades' as a consequence of geology. Let me ask Steve again, what is a "natural rate of change" if natural processes can outpace anthropogenic rates of change by an order (or two) of magnitude? What is natural "balance" if natural processes can disturb it?
If I want "formal definitions" to resolve this inconsistency, he says, I must "manage on [my] own". But I want Andrew Dessler and Steve Bloom to address the inconsistencies in their own arguments. This is, after all, a debate. They do seem to be fans of inconsistency, but I would rather not do their debating for them, by making sense of their nonsense.
I am not surprised Steve is frustrated, but he ought to take responsibility for his own emotions. And if he wants to change the world, he ought to provide a consistent argument, not expect to be treated as a planet-saving superhero, just because he believes his intentions to be pure. It's the world he needs to convince, not himself.
Permalink
SammyOwl Posted 12:33 am
25 Feb 2008
The ad and meeting I wanted to advertise...
said this, it is the letter I sent to the Council:
"As an AGU member, I must once again protest the recently released position statement by the Council. As in my 2003 objections, this does not represent my scientific views, nor the views of many AGU members. It is acceptable for the Council to express their opinions on this issue (it is a free country and this is a hot Hollywood topic that gets free press), but please leave me, and the many other AGU members who reject your one sided, subjective scientific views and attached political agendas, out of this. You do not speak for the all membership here, and if you wish to run for election to AGU office on a platform of AGW promotion and political support, please make that clear when we vote for officers and section presidents. You should issue a clarifying statement to the press about the narrow opinions expressed in this statement. To continue to leave the impression that you are representing the views of all 50,000 members is dishonest and contemptible. Thank you."
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 1:41 am
25 Feb 2008
I understand now why they ignore you
Sammy-
The lack of outrage by the membership over this statement shows that the AGU's statement does indeed represent the general opinion of the membership. See my post above for an example of what happens if you try to put out a statement that doesn't agree with the membership.
I suggest you resign from the AGU. If enough people did that, you'd get the AGU to change --- like the AAPG experience shows us.
I would certainly resign if the AGU put out a statement that disagreed with what I think is responsible science. In fact, I'd organize a mass resignation to put maximum pressure on the AGU leadership. One thing you've demonstrated will not work is whining.
Permalink
benp Posted 1:56 am
25 Feb 2008
Andrew is an activist more than a scientist.
Would Andrew Dessler resign from the AGU if it put out a statement that Buffy could destroy Spiderman in a fight to the death?
I wonder how many of the 50,000 AGU members would a) noticed, or b) cared about the statement.
Of course, he "would certainly resign if the AGU put out a statement that disagreed with what I think is responsible science". But that's because he is principally an activist, not a scientist.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 3:55 am
25 Feb 2008
benp,
You arguments are weak, you latch on to 'natural' and 'balance' as an argument or really a life-saver. While I believe you are capable of reading, maybe even at a twelfth grade level; your reading comprehension suffers, and I would be surprised if you did well on that portion of the GREs. You have a hard time understanding sentences and your arguments are glued to key words. In other words, your argument fails. Try again.
Furthermore, and this irks me a bit, any science is conducted based on a set of assumptions and personal perspectives. There is no pure science that exists in a vacuum. Closest attempts to pure science receive Ig Nobel Awards, or obscurity, which is the appropriate reward. Science is a human endeavor aiming to, at least hypothetically, impact human lives or perspectives.
Also, while Steven Earl's statements are off topic, and very difficult to address, they are a crucial part of the current global climatic, ecological and economic system. However, it does belong in a different thread.
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 4:41 am
25 Feb 2008
Dear Ben P........
Even though you and I disagree on fundamental issues, my respect for you leads me to say that I will heed your point about my posts not being on topic in this thread.
Inasmuch as I enjoy the repartee, and intend to keep leading the AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population for several more years if my long-suffering spouse of 36 years allows it, please know that I hope more favorable circumstances in other threads will make it possible for us to exchange perspectives on the Gristmill Blog in the near future.
Sincerely,
Steve
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:53 am
25 Feb 2008
Andrew's postulation works both ways
Andrew has asked and then partially answered the question: "What happens when a group's position statement does not reflect its members accurately?"
Chris Landsea resigned with an open letter when his "group's" (IPCC leadership) position did not reflect its member (Landsea) correctly.
Paul Reiter did the same. And there are others.
Of course, most did not go that far when they saw that their "science" was being "bent" by the political reviewers of the SPM report.
So the shoe fits both sides of the argument: Andrew's heavily funded side that ensures an inflow of grant money for the scientists and the less funded side that is willing to forego this inflow but wants more honesty and less arrogance in the reports. But money talks, as we all know, so there are probably only a few scientists distancing themselves from the mainstream source of funding.
But it sure does confirm again that the scientific debate on AGW is far from over.
For a recent report in the Journal of Physicians and Surgeons entitled "Environmental Effect of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide", which debunks a lot of the IPCC claims and projections check:
http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/robinson.pdf
Max
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 5:26 am
25 Feb 2008
For lurkers
I already blogged on why Max's argument is silly. Please see my blog on why it makes no sense for a scientist whose primary interest is increasing funding to argue that the science is settled.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 5:42 am
25 Feb 2008
wow!
Really?
I could have sworn that Physicians and Surgeons don't do climate research, but I guess I was wrong. I could have also sworn that this 'review' was a scandal involving mostly fictitious Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, National Academy of Science, and the editorial board of Climate Research, but I guess I was wrong there also.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institu ...
And umm... yea, physicians and surgeons, yep... Man, could not see that one coming. That one's a great joke! Do people really fall for it?
Permalink
benp Posted 6:16 am
25 Feb 2008
Andrew would shoot himself in a third foot...
... ( if he could even aim.)
Andrew says "it makes no sense for a scientist whose primary interest is increasing funding to argue that the science is settled".
And yet...
We can see that climate scientists are still engaged in climate research. So, if, as Andrew also maintains, the science is settled, and [almost all?] scientists are of the consensus position, then [almost all?] scientists are also frauds, for accepting money where there is no need of further research.
Permalink
benp Posted 6:20 am
25 Feb 2008
Atreyger Swears,
"I could have sworn that Physicians and Surgeons don't do climate research..."
He has not read IPCC WGII AR4 then.
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:26 am
25 Feb 2008
Andrew's earlier postulation
Well now, Andrew, you referred to your earlier blog postulation on political funding for climate science and "common sense". Your point was that since the scientists all agree to the AGW hypothesis this should generate a lower level of political funding for climate science than if they did not agree.
Unfortunately, your logic in this postulation is convoluted.
For an effective counter-argument check Richard Lindzen's take on this topic:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
Lindzen refers to a "triangle of alarmism": "Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes."
If I say, "there has been a bit of warming over the past hundred years with some alternate multi-decadal cycles of warming and cooling, but this has been around 1 degree C since records started back in 1850, and it appears to be part of a natural cycle as we are coming out of a period of harsher climate called the Little Ice Age, so there is no real problem", I will get no funding from politicians at all. (No crisis = no funding.)
If I say, "model studies show that there could be a serious future problem from human-caused warming that may accelerate and we need to do more research to find out just how bad this warming and its impacts on humans as well as the environment will really be plus what steps need to be taken now to avert this potential disaster", I will get funding, particularly from those politicians that see some benefit from the whole hysteria. (Probable serious crisis, but we need to do more work to see just how bad = lots of funding)
That's the argument, Andrew, not your rather illogical take on the argument.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 6:38 am
25 Feb 2008
Lindzen?
He gets $10,000 to give a skeptical talk on climate change.
Now that's a lot of cash. I only wish that being a mainstream scientist paid that well.
Obviously, according to your logic, skeptics can't be believed because of all the money they get.
Keep trying.
Permalink
benp Posted 6:48 am
25 Feb 2008
Andrew Complains...
About Lindzen getting $10K a talk...
Do you know how much Al Gore gets? And he's not even a scientist. You're missing a trick.
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:56 am
25 Feb 2008
Andrew, you are off base again
Hi Andrew,
So Lindzen gets $10,000 for a speech? This is a pretty irrelevant argument, Andrew.
Al Gore has made close to one hundred million since he left Washington. How much does he charge for a speech (also irrelevant)?
What is relevant, however, are the many billions of dollars of taxpayer money being spent on "climate research", because the "researchers" are clever enough to cast the current changes in climate as a potential future disaster that needs more work to be fully understood.
Follow the money trail, Andrew. It's not going to the skeptics.
Nice try, anyway.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Ian Forrester Posted 7:09 am
25 Feb 2008
Of course it's not going to the skeptics
Max said: "Follow the money trail, Andrew. It's not going to the skeptics".
Tax payers would be up in arms if the government gave money to lying, fraudulent hacks. Max that is why they are not getting money, there is no way that government money is being spent on the junk that you have been spouting on about on this blog for far too long now. Go and read some science papers, not the rubbish that you spend all day on.
Good grief, enough is enough of your persistent drivel.
Permalink
benp Posted 7:55 am
25 Feb 2008
Whatever Happened to Dessler's Demanding debate?
For someone who made a bit of a song and dance about wanting a debate, Andrew seems very reluctant to enagage in discussion.
His short bursts of explanation are as 'powerful' as some of the other posts here, so I wonder what would really come out of the debate anyway.
"persistent drivel"... "Keep trying"... "Do people really fall for it"...
All very illuminating stuff, though I'd expect more from a climate science Professor.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 8:18 am
25 Feb 2008
funny...
I wonder if twenty years down the line, when the climate shifts to an obviously different pattern, people like benp will still be disputing the idea. Yea, sure the average minimum temperature in New York in February is now 45, and yea sure, this happened way quicker than in any other time for which we can derive data, and yea sure, there is no other explanatory reason besides GHGs, but can you define 'climate'?
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 8:33 am
25 Feb 2008
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
as a source? Hmmm.
Well that journal also offers such great science like claims that evolution isn't fact its an immoral religious system and the HIV virus does not cause AIDS. This journal is not on the Medline/Pubmed or the World of Science databases. I wonder why not?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Phys ...
Quackwatch calls The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons "fundamentally flawed"
http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/nonrecperio ...
Permalink
benp Posted 9:04 am
25 Feb 2008
Atreyger wonders...
"... if twenty years down the line, when the climate shifts to an obviously different pattern, people like benp will still be disputing the idea"
What makes Atreyger believe that I am disputing the idea that climate shifts, or has shifted? I haven't discussed it.
What I have discussed is the disparity between statements about the shift which are supposed to represent a consensus, and what is the best way to respond to climate shifts based on that "consensus".
Permalink
manacker Posted 11:25 am
25 Feb 2008
Check the data, atreyger...
atreyger wrote: "I wonder if twenty years down the line, when the climate shifts to an obviously different pattern, people like benp will still be disputing the idea. Yea, sure the average minimum temperature in New York in February is now 45, and yea sure, this happened way quicker than in any other time for which we can derive data, and yea sure, there is no other explanatory reason besides GHGs, but can you define 'climate'?"
atreyger should check the global temperature record before he shoots off incorrect statements.
Based on the surface temperature record of the UK's Hadley Centre, the most recent period of temperature increase showed a linear increase of around 0.18 degrees C per decade since 1976, with the rate slowing down to around 0.06 degrees C per decade in the most recent decade since 1998.
This was preceded by a period of cooling from around 1940 to 1976.
Before this we had a period of warming from around 1906 to 1940, where the linear decadal rate of warming was around 0.16 degrees per decade.
This was preceded by a period of cooling from around 1880 to 1906.Before this we had a period of warming from around 1860 to 1880, where the rate of warming was 0.20 degrees per decade, or slightly higher than it has been during our most recent warming period since 1976.
So we have had multidecadal swings in temperature change since the record started and the most recent warming did not happen "way quicker than in any other time for which we can derive data", as atreyger erroneously suggests.
And if it has now slowed down to 0.06 degrees C per decade it's going to take a lot more than "twenty years down the line" before the "climate shifts to an obviously different pattern" as atreyger alarmingly projects.
Relax, atreyger, you don't need to be hysterical because of some computer-generated virtual impending disasters. Things are OK out there in the real world.
As for "there is no other explanatory reason besides GHGs", how about a less arrogant "we just don't know everything about what causes climate changes yet"?
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 9:01 pm
25 Feb 2008
Forrester Drivel Again
I have yet to see you write anything that actually contributes to the debate on a number of other blogs and also this here. You repeatedly imply that what various rationalists advise is rubbish without giving any reason or analysis why you insist that to be so.
You are simply a waste of page space and a waste of time in provoking responses from the more intelligent people writing here.
Why don't you lick your anal sphincter into relaxation and then crawl up it where you belong?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:29 pm
25 Feb 2008
Hmmm...
A denier mental patient ward in virtual space? Good job Andrew.
No surprise that it atracted one of the most virulent strains of dimbulb limboob troll disease, the aussie version.
Universal global virtual mental healthcare? I think it is possible if fora like this are recognized as valid dioagnostic tools.
Local psychologists take note, powerful presciption drugs would seem to be warranted in many of these cases.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:25 am
26 Feb 2008
Andrew does not like real debate
Benp wonders about "Dessler's Demanding debate" and concludes: "Andrew seems very reluctant to enagage in discussion."
Heres how a blog discussion with Andrew works.
Andrew starts off with a lead story about scientific groups that sometimes have internal dissenters who do not agree with the groups' "party line" on a scientific (or political) issue. The implication Andrew wants to get across is that the (more savvy) members support the IPCC version of AGW even when the (more hide-bound) group leaders or managers do not, suggesting that this provides proof that there is a scientific consensus on AGW. "I hope it is just as clear that the large number of statements by professional organizations supporting the mainstream view of climate change is an extremely powerful reflection of the strong consensus that exists in the scientific community."
I counter with the fact that this works two ways, and cite the example of scientific experts in their field who have disagreed with the IPCC "party line" on the scientific area where they are the experts. I mentioned that a small number of these even went so far as to resign from IPCC involvement, even though there are not many who have gone this far, since this could endanger their receiving future research grants.
Andrew changes the subject to research funding and cites a previous blog lead article he has written that states, in effect, that agreeing on a consensus belief should actually result in less research funding than having divergent opinions on climate change, implying that the scientists are not toeing the "majority consensus line" on AGW in order to get more research grants, but, just the opposite, by agreeing to the consensus view they actually reduce the amount of research money they will get.
I point out to Andrew that this reasoning is flawed, since only by agreeing with the so-called mainstream view which predicts an imminent disaster can the climate scientists continue to get their massive funding from the politicians (that exploit this virtual impending disaster), quoting an opinion of Richard Lindzen on this subject, which cites the "no crisis=no funding" principle.
Andrew changes the topic again, this time by attacking Richard Lindzen personally for charging $10,000 for a speech, saying this is more than mainstream climate scientists get, and in effect comparing a paltry $10,000 with the billions of dollars of taxpayer money that are being spent for "climate disaster research".
So round and around we go.
Then some of Andrew's surly surrogates, like josullivan58 or ian forrester, get in the act and start spewing venom, such as "Tax payers would be up in arms if the government gave money to lying, fraudulent hacks", "enough is enough of your persistent drivel", etc. etc.
Believe benp is spot on when he says, "Andrew seems very reluctant to enagage in discussion."
Max
Permalink
atreyger Posted 2:38 am
26 Feb 2008
Shooting your mouth off...
...is not a discussion.
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:24 am
26 Feb 2008
Some temp facts for atreyger
The period 1860-1880 had the highest linear rate of increase since Hadley Centre records started at 0.20 deg C per decade.
This was slightly higher than over the most recent period, 1976-2007, where the rate was 0.18 deg C per decade.
From 1860 to 1880 atmospheric CO2 rose by a total of about 3 ppm.
From 1976 to 2007 atmospheric CO2 rose by 48 ppm.
But, then again, from 1940 to 1976, CO2 increased by 26 ppm while temperature decreased.
Hmmm... Oh well.
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:15 am
26 Feb 2008
Whose scientific qualifications count?
The Robinson et al report published by the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons presents a compilation of scientific papers on various aspects of climate change and the impact of increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
We've heard some "yah-yahing" concerning the "scientific qualifications" of the group, i.e. "since these guys are medical docs, what do they know about climate?"
At least one of the authors (Willie Soon) is a serious and respected scientist, himself. But, more importantly, the papers cited in this report come from serious scientific journals. As an example, 10 each come from Nature and Geophysical Research Letters, 9 from Science, 6 from Journal of Geophysical Research and 3 each from Journal of Climate and Astrophysical Journal.
The authors of these papers are legitimate scientists in a climate-related field.
There are other sources that relate more to fertilization of plants by CO2, energy costs from various alternate sources, etc.
Then there are non-scientific sources, such as Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" and various op-ed articles.
Some examples:
The report cites a study in Science by Keigwin that showed that temperature during he Medieval Warm Period were around 1 degree C warmer than today, based on isotope ratios of marine organism sediments in the Sargasso Sea.
It cites studies by Oerlemanns et al in Science and Greuell et al in Journal of Geophysical Research that showed that glacier melting started well before significant human CO2 emissions started and has continued at the same rate since then.
It also makes reference to reports by Soon in Geophysical Research Letters and Hoyt et al in Journal of Geophysical Research, which show a good correlation between Arctic air temperatures and solar activity.
It shows the multidecadal swings in temperature occurring since 1880 based on the NCDC NOAA surface temperature record.
It lists data from the US National Climatic Data Center showing that the number of severe hurricanes in the USA has decreased slightly from 1950 to today.
It cites two studies from Landsea (Geophys. Res. Let. and EOS), which show there has been no increase in Atlantic hurricane numbers or intensity from 1944 to today,
It refers to reports on sea level rise by Jevrejeva et al in J. Geophys. Res. And Lieuliette et al in Marine Geology, demonstrating that these started long before significant man-made CO2 emissions and have continued at the same rate since then.
It makes reference to a study by Soon et al citing reference to several sources on temperatures during the MWP and LIA, and comparing these with 20th century temperatures.
It compares records on solar activity and human hydrocarbon use with four different temperature records from NCDC NOAA, sea level rise (original studies cited above) and glacier melting (also cited above), to show that there is no correlation with human CO2 and these recorded climate changes.
It compares the NOAA surface record with the UAH satellite plus radiosonde balloon records and cites a study by Christy et al in J. Geophysical Res. to make the point that the temperature in the troposphere has risen more slowly than at the surface.
It cites reports by Goodridge in Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. And Christy in Atmos. Env., which show the impact of urban heat island effect from 1940 to 1996 from 107 measuring stations in 49 California counties, linking the temperature trend directly with the population; it shows that the five of the six stations selected by NASA GISS for calculating the global surface temperature record are in highly populated counties with higher than average temperature trends.
It then goes on to debunk the "cause and effect" relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature (i.e. temperature rise actually came before CO2 increase) in seven interglacial periods, and compares this with the current situation.
It cites reports by Spencer et al in Bull. Amer. Meteor. and Geophys. Res Let., Renno et al in J. Geophys. Res, Soden in Journal of Climate and Lindzen in Bull. Amer Meteor., which suggest that the climate models treat feedbacks from clouds, water vapor and related hydrology incorrectly.
The rest of the report cites various sources in making the point that increased atmospheric CO2 may have some benefits for mankind and the environment, and discussion various alternate energy scenarios for the future and their impact on the environment.
So while the group who published this report is not, itself, a group of climate scientists reporting on original work, it has summarized the conclusions of a number of scientific climate studies, which were published in serious scientific journals.
What this group thinks about AIDS, US politics, abortion or any other topic is totally irrelevant to the issue here.
They have compiled some pretty convincing data from serious scientific journals that raise serious questions about the validity of the "mainstream" view on AGW.
Unless someone can show that they have grossly misquoted these reports, their argument stands.
Max
Permalink
Ian Forrester Posted 8:58 am
26 Feb 2008
Why don't you do some real reading?
manacker you are pathetic. All you have done is cherry picked any data which supports your biased knowledge of the science of climate change. Are you a real scientist? If so you are guilty of gross misconduct since cherry picking of data is considered to be one of the worst examples of scientific misconduct.
If anyone is serious about finding out the truth behind what this apologist for a scientist (manacker) is saying try here:
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=OISM
and here;
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/ore ...
The reason these authors of the JAPS paper are not considered to be scientists is because they are guilty of the same offenses as manacker. If you do not know what real science is about then stop pretending to be one. A quick read of these links will show how badly manacker is distorting the truth.
Permalink
manacker Posted 9:20 am
26 Feb 2008
Reply to Ian Forrester
Ian, you have an uncanny talent for getting all emotional and missing the point.
The point is NOT whether JAPS is a group of climate scientists, or that the report they published was co-authored by a respected climate scientist, Willie Soon.
The point is that the scientific reports, which they cited were written by serious scientists and published in serious scientific journals.
Sure, they were doing this to prove a point, and (just like the IPCC does) they only quoted studies, which confirmed the points they wanted to make.
If you can show me that they have grossly misquoted these studies (please no links to RealClimate op-eds), then you have a valid point. Otherwise you don't. (And, P.S. try keeping cool and watching your language).
Regards,
Max
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 10:22 am
26 Feb 2008
More incorrect statements from manacker
manacker
"Then some of Andrew's surly surrogates, like josullivan58 or ian forrester, get in the act and start spewing venom"
I do not spout venom.
I questioned manacker's reliance on a partisan publication that routinely misrepresents science. I can not, nor can any other person who understands science, take a creationist publication seriously. In a scientific debate there are standards that must be met to make it a scientific debate. Using the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons as a source violates basic scientific principals.
I questioned the assertion that Eos is suppressing sammyowl's freedom of speech because Eos would not publish sammyowl's advertisement in Eos. The editors of Eos are not stopping sammyowl from expressing his views, they just don't want to publish his ad in Eos. Maybe sammyowl can submit his ad to the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.
Permalink
manacker Posted 11:29 am
26 Feb 2008
Reply to josullivan58
Hi Josullivan,
You wrote: "I questioned manacker's reliance on a partisan publication that routinely misrepresents science. I can not, nor can any other person who understands science, take a creationist publication seriously."
I understand science well enough. I also read the JAPS report several times and checked out most of the references cited in this report (which seemed valid), but could not find anything in it about a "creationist" theory.
Can you point me to the page in this report where this is mentioned?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
benp Posted 7:59 pm
26 Feb 2008
Josullivan's rhetoric...
Jo Sulilvan says
"I questioned manacker's reliance on a partisan publication that routinely misrepresents science. I can not, nor can any other person who understands science, take a creationist publication seriously."
Jo raises some interesting points. Without intending to 'defend' creationism, what bearing does it have on the global warming question, either that it 'routinely misrepresents science', or is a 'creationist publication', or is a 'partisan publication'? I haven't seen either the publication, or the articles in question. But it strikes me that Jo's points have nothing to do with science.
The 'scientific' approach should be agnostic with respect to creationism, and robust enough with respect to partisanship to assess the claims made by an argument. Creationist and partisan arguments fall apart in scientific evaluation because of their unsound argument, not because of the religious or political inclinations of their authors and publishers. But Jo reveals that he is not sufficiently confident in the scientific method to evaluate a claim in the 'wrong' journal.
It is convenient for Jo that Max cited a journal he was able to dismiss in this way. But if the point is to mount a serious scientific challenge to Max's argument, Jo's reply is just as shallow as a creationist or partisan attempt at science; Jo didn't treat it as a matter of science.
There is only one form of scientific credibility, and that is a sustained scientific argument. Of course, there are journals to which we turn to for other forms of credibility, but many of these are rarely shining beacons of non-partisanship, especially in their treatment of the global warming debate, just as the AGU aren't -- a position that Andrew Dessler defends when he argues that the opinions of the membership are more important than the consistency of their scientific claims.
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:39 am
27 Feb 2008
Benp is right, of course
In order to refute the findings of the JAPS report, one must show that the report misquoted or misrepresented the scientific studies it cited, most of which I listed in my earlier blog.
These are studies by respected and knowledgeable scientists in their field that were published in respected scientific journals.
I did check many of the cited source reports, and I found that they were not misquoted but accurately represented.
A well-known ploy of the AGW alarmists, when they are presented with scientific data that refute their alarmist beliefs on AGW, is to avoid the scientific debate but to attack the source. This can be an "ad hominem" attack against the individual scientist involved or some sort of smear campaign to make the source not credible (works for Exxon-Mobil, is a crackpot on the fringe of science, believes in creationism, is a political conservative, is a flat-earther, etc.). Andrew personally likes terms such as the "denial machine", "trolls", "bogus scientists", etc.
The reason the alarmists do this is obvious: there is a real danger that they could lose in a true scientific debate (as Andrew did recently on another site with hurricanes, when he let himself slip into a discussion of the facts), so they must avoid the slippery path of the discussion going into that direction.
When josullivan58 writes: "I can not, nor can any other person who understands science, take a creationist publication seriously. In a scientific debate there are standards that must be met to make it a scientific debate. Using the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons as a source violates basic scientific principals", it shows clearly that josullivan does not want to engage in a scientific debate, but rather in rhetoric.
When Ian Forrester writes: "manacker you are pathetic. All you have done is cherry picked any data which supports your biased knowledge of the science of climate change. Are you a real scientist? If so you are guilty of gross misconduct since cherry picking of data is considered to be one of the worst examples of scientific misconduct", it also shows he is trying to discredit me personally, rather than addressing the specific scientific question under discussion.
I am just waiting for one of these guys (or Andrew himself) to come up with a valid counterargument to all of the scientific studies cited in the Robinson et al summary, which was published by JAPS.
So far, they have been very quiet when it comes to debating the science.
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:53 am
27 Feb 2008
Let's look at the physical record
A statement often made by disastrous AGW supporters, such as Andrew Dessler, is that global warming is occurring more rapidly today than in previous recent periods. In the absence of other explanations for why this is occurring, the only "reasonable" explanation is the conclusion reached by the IPCC that man-made greenhouse gases (GHG) are very likely responsible for most of the recent warming.
In effect, this says, we cannot prove our AGW theory, but since there is no contradicting evidence that there is another cause other than man-made GHG, we accept this as proof that our theory is correct. I would call this a "leap of faith".
Andrew Dessler sees it differently when he writes: "As a scientist, I'm always looking for the most parsimonious explanation for a physical phenomenon. If a single, physically reasonable explanation works, why invoke an entire menagerie of explanations, each more dubious than the last? That's why the IPCC concluded that greenhouse gases are very likely responsible for most of the recent warming. And that's why virtually all climate scientists agree with the IPCC reports."
Let's examine this logic. Does Andrew's "single, physically reasonable explanation" really work?
First of all, we should establish that the current rate of warming is really occurring at a faster rate than during previous warming cycles, which occurred before there were any significant man-made GHG emissions. This is a key cornerstone of the evidence proving that GHG are the cause for accelerated warming.
The Hadley Centre in the UK has been recording global temperature measurements since 1850.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...
Since global temperature records have been kept these records show that there have been several multi-decadal swings from warming to cooling, with an overall slight warming trend, since we have been emerging from a period of harsher climate called the Little Ice Age.
Period Trend per decade deg.C Years Linear increase over period deg.C
1860-1879 0.196 20 0.39
1879-1906 -0.047 27 -0.13
1906-1940 0.161 35 0.56
1940-1976 -0.020 36 -0.07
1976-2007 0.180 31 0.56
Between 1850 and around 1860 there was a very slight cooling trend.
This trend reversed to a warming trend for the next 20 years until around 1879 (the highest decadal rate of increase since records have been taken).
This was followed by another cooling trend until around 1906.
Then came another warming trend until around 1940, followed by a slight cooling trend until around 1976.
Following this, we have had a trend with the second highest decadal rate of increase, which appears to have reached a "plateau" or significant slowing down from 1998 to today.
The longer-term trend over all these cycles has been an increase of somewhat less than 1 degree C over the 150+ years of measurement. This average rate of increase is equivalent to the decadal increase the past ten years (1998-2007), which was around 0.06 degrees C per decade (this recent slowdown has also been confirmed by UAH satellite readings, but it is too short to say that there really is a new trend).
Reliable CO2 records only started in the 1950s, although there are estimates for earlier periods and IPCC shows these rising from a level of around 280 ppmv in the mid-19th century to around 305 ppmv in 1940; then came a more rapid increase of around 30 ppmv over the period 1940-1976 and 46 ppmv from 1976 to today.
So we see two things from the above actual records that raise questions about the AGW theory that man-made GHG have accelerated the rate of global warming.
First, the most recent rate of warming since 1976 of 0.180 degrees C per decade is not at all unusual. It is, in fact, lower than the decadal rate of warming during the period from 1860 to 1879, of 0.196 degrees C.
Second, CO2 has risen since the mid-19th century, but the rate of rise does not in any way correlate with the rate of temperature rise upon closer examination.
IPCC believes it knows what has "very likely" caused the most recent warming trend since 1976 (AGW, of course).
Yet there was essentially no increase in man-made CO2 during the period 1860 to 1879, when the temperature increase was more rapid than it has been from 1976 to today.
So the entire basis for accelerated warming caused by CO2 is put into serious question: there has been no acceleration over earlier periods, even though CO2 emissions have increased.
Another serious problem for the AGW supporters is the cooling trend from 1940 to 1976, a period which saw a significant increase in atmospheric CO2.
This cooling trend is barely referred to by IPCC, but is explained by the somewhat speculative suggestion of human aerosol emissions that cancelled out the underlying AGW effect. Previous warming and cooling periods (before there was much AGW) are not mentioned at all.
So it can de seen from the actual temperature and CO2 records that:
· There has been no recent acceleration in the global warming rate despite increased CO2 concentrations
· Earlier periods had higher warming rates with essentially no increase in CO2 concentrations
· A recent period of cooling occurred despite concurrent increase of CO2 concentrations.
Looks like Andrew has to go back to the "drawing board" to look for his "most parsimonious explanation for a physical phenomenon" and a "physically reasonable explanation" that works, since both the suggested "physical phenomenon" (accelerated warming) and the "physically reasonable explanation" (warming caused by GHG) are shown to be seriously flawed by the actual physical record.
Max
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 7:05 am
27 Feb 2008
Makin' your mind up...
Something I would like clarified is the way old temperature records (all temp records for that matter) are used by our "skeptics". One day the argument is that all these measurements are unreliable because of surface stations, old technology that was used a long time ago, poor calibration of sats, etc, etc. The next day they use the same data to show how they are right. Such as good Max here..
What is it guys?
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 7:58 am
27 Feb 2008
You do not understand the science
Max-
The scientific case against CO2 does not depend on 1) today's temperatures being higher than ever before or 2) the rate of today's warming being greater than previous periods.
If you want to talk science, please educate yourself on the science. The first step would be to start reading the IPCC report. It's all in there. I also blogged on this issue here.
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:15 am
27 Feb 2008
Reply to MarkUK on temperatures
Hi MarkUK,
You bring up a good point, which is, however, not directly related to the discussion.
The urban heat island distortion to which you allude, which causes the apparent temperature record to show higher values than are true, is a more recent phenomenon, since many rural stations were shut down, a large number of stations in Siberia were discontinued and others got new buildings with air conditioning units, parking lots and pavement, all of which did not exist at the turn of the century.
So I suppose I would have slightly higher faith in the old records that lacked these distortions than in the new.
But this is all beside the point.
The point is that the physical record shows that there has been no acceleration in global warming in most recent times, which could be attributed to increased emissions of CO2.
Earlier periods showed faster warming with no CO2 increase and significant cooling during a period of rapid CO2 increase.
The physical data essentially negate the premise that underpins the entire AGW hypothesis.
That's all.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:45 am
27 Feb 2008
Show me, Andrew
Hey Andrew,
Don't believe the problem here is that I "don't understand science". This is sort of a wild assumption on your part. And you are again dodging the issue.
BTW, I've read your other blog story on MMGW and it does not resolve the discrepancy. I have also read the IPCC reports (SPM, WG1, etc.) and, while they make a lot of confident assertions, they do not answer the question either.
Your blog and the IPCC report both ASSUME the AGW theory is correct because no other conflicting theory can be proven to be correct today. (You know how "ASS-U-ME" is spelled.)
The physical data do not support the AGW theory, however.
Rapid warming occurred before there was any real increase in CO2.
Significant cooling occurred when there was a rapid increase in CO2.
I know all about Arrhenius' Theory, Stefan-Boltzmann, etc, and the theoretical temperature increase we should see from greenhouse warming due to increased CO2 (all other things being equal).
I also know that "positive feedbacks" from water vapor, etc. are being programmed into the models to project warming rates 3 times those supported by the theory.
I also know that, while IPCC admits not knowing much about clouds, a net negative feedback (from clouds, etc.) is being ignored in the models, since there are no projections that are lower than those supported by the theory without feedbacks.
I also know that solar variability is essentially discounted with the statement that the level of scientific understanding of solar effects is low.
And I can see from the physical data that the actually observed correlation between CO2 and temperature is very tenuous. In fact, one has to make several "leaps of faith" to see any correlation at all.
So, rather than referring me to IPCC WG1 or an earlier blog blurb by yourself address the real issue that I raised and "educate me on the science".
"I'm from Missouri, so show me."
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 9:02 am
27 Feb 2008
Read the IPCC more carefully
No theory other than CO2 explains the modern warming.
The CO2 theory explains it perfectly.
The CO2 theory also explains things like the ice ages, the Eocene, the PETM, etc.
No other theory does.
CO2-induced warming is the simplest and most complete theory for the recent warming, and is entirely consistent with most of the data out there.
Your "analysis" is overly simplistic and lacks any understanding of things like aerosols.
Sorry. Back to school for you.
Permalink
SammyOwl Posted 9:04 am
27 Feb 2008
Perhaps you are right Dr. Dessler...
and I should take my ad (open letter to the AGU Council) to the Washington Post. A bit more pricy, but the circulation would be worth it.
And I do hope you caught the huge response in the just completed voting for the AGU Council officers in Eos (if you are a member or read it at all). Seems a whopping 19% of members cast ballots for Council members. Is that large enough for consensus??? Is it a majority??? How about a purality of members????? No, sorry, like the statement on AGW, just a few members pushing their minority views on us. Look for my WashPost ad, you might want to attend my organisational meeting.
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 9:06 am
27 Feb 2008
AAGP
Sammy: remember the AAPG. If the AGU membership opposed the statement, you'd hear about it from more than just a few cranks. Since we haven't, it's pretty clear that the membership supports the statement.
Permalink
manacker Posted 9:53 am
27 Feb 2008
Bring evidence, Andrew, not IPCC
Sorry, Andrew, your proclamations, as confident as they may sound to you, do not provide any evidence that the AGW theory itself is valid.
Just because "no theory other than CO2 explains the modern warming" does this provide evidence that the AGW theory is valid. It just shows that no other conflicting theory has been proven to be valid. (Just as the AGW theory has also not been proven to be valid.)
You have not answered the points of why warming occurred before CO2 increased and then cooling occurred when CO2 was rising rapidly.
Your "aerosol" reference is a bit of a cop-out. What, exactly are you getting at here? I hope it is not the unvalidated IPCC suggestion that cooling from 1940 to 1976 was caused by anthropogenic aerosols.
The physical evidence does not support the AGW theory, no matter how beautiful the theory may be.
Don't tell me to "go back to school" if you cannot even provide more compelling evidence than you have to date.
And don't use the cop-out : "read the IPCC report". Bring some facts, Andrew.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 11:52 am
27 Feb 2008
Read the IPCC more carefully
The responses to your queries are all in the IPCC report. That report explains how CO2 does play an important role in the majority of climate variations over the last 100 million years, while other theories cannot.
The explanation for the 20th century temperature record and the role of CO2 is explained in it in gritty detail.
Your inability to understand and absorb the concepts in the IPCC reports is your problem to solve. Don't try to push that on me. I'll answer your questions once you demonstrate a rudimentary grasp of the material.
Permalink
Steve Bloom Posted 4:16 pm
27 Feb 2008
Max's favorite journal
Apparently JAPandS publishes all sorts of fascinating items, as befits a "well-known organ of quackery."
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:28 pm
27 Feb 2008
Sorry, Andrew, you're wrong again
Hey Andrew,
I have read very carefully the IPCC report and I see no overwhelming evidence that anything in it is based on actual facts. Lots of good model stuff but no real physical facts.
It tells me that "radiative forcing [RF] is a concept used for quantitative comparisons of the strengths of different human and natural agents in causing climate change". A good story, but, so far, no evidence that AGW is the driving force.
It tells me that IPCC estimates that the "combined anthropogenic RF is estimated to be +1.6 (-1.0 + 0.8) W per sq meter. Again a good story but no evidence.
And it tells me that IPCC estimates that "it is likely to be at least five times greater than that due to solar irradiance changes". Again no evidence. What about Svensmark's cosmic rays and clouds? Why is this not even considered?
It also proclaims that "direct RF due to increases in solar irradiance since 1750 is estimated to be +0.12, with a low level of scientific understanding. Uncertainties in the RF remain large." Wow! I think I am beginning to understand what is going on here!
Then it suggests that "natural RFs considered are solar changes and volcanoes; the other RF agents are attributed to humans". Hmm...clouds are not natural?
I then read that "only the aerosol interaction in the context of liquid water vapor [i.e. droplets in low altitude clouds] is assessed". So only "man-made" clouds are considered, and natural changes in clouds are not? Golly, this is getting stranger all the time.
I read report from NASA Earth Radiation Budget Experiment or ERBE that tells me something totally different: "The latest results from ERBE indicate that in the global mean, clouds reduce the radiative heating of the planet. This cooling is a function of season and ranges from approximately -13 to -21 Wm-2. While these values may seem small, they should be compared with the 4 Wm-2 heating predicted by a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration.
http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/homerbe.html
And since I have also learned (as has any high school physics student) that essentially all of the warmth we receive on Earth comes from the sun, I am baffled by the suggesting that the sun is only one-fifth as important (or as actually suggested by IPCC, one twelfth as important) as anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
So the IPCC has not given me any hard evidence supporting its version of AGW. And you, Andrew, have so far been unable to give an answer to the questions I asked you earlier.
Your "read IPCC" suggestion is a total cop-out. C'mon, are you a climate scientist or not? Can you explain the inconsistencies in the AGW hypothesis, which I pointed out or not?
Be a man, Andrew. As they say in Texas (where you live): 'Splain it for me.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:44 pm
27 Feb 2008
Let's get some facts from Steven Bloom
Hi Steven Bloom,
You wrote: "Apparently JAPandS publishes all sorts of fascinating items, as befits a "well-known organ of quackery."
A cop-out, Steven.
You know very well that whatever other stuff they may publish is not relevant here.
As I pointed out in detail, they published a pretty good compilation of serious scientific studies from reputable scientific journals and sources that were written by serious climate experts (every bit as qualified and respected as Andrew Dessler). These studies did a fairly good job refuting the IPCC claims and projections relating to AGW.
If you want to take issue with these many reports, then, by all means, do so. They are all referenced. Show me which report was either misquoted or based on faulty science, if you think you can.
But don't just "bad mouth" the JAPS who compiled the data, because this is irrelevant. Come with some facts if you can. Otherwise, admit you have nothing to contribute to the discussion.
Max
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 4:59 pm
27 Feb 2008
Don't bother
manacker and his sock puppets have no interest in science.
They are using the same strategy that tobacco lobbyists and the creationists are using.
Its creating a controversy that doesn't exist to push a political view.
manacker does not need to look at the IPCC, manaker (and his sock puppets) should try reading a basic textbook, like the ones Raypierre Humbert and David Archer have written and are online.
I get the feeling that manacker won't.
Permalink
benp Posted 6:10 pm
27 Feb 2008
Dizzy Dessler
I find it very interesting that Andrew says things like, "Read the IPCC more carefully."
If Andrew were to read AR4 IPCC WGI, and the AGU's statement on climate change more carefully, he would find a disparity, as explained above.
Yet he believes that that they 'prove' a consensus.
Physician, heal thyself. http://www.climate-resistance.org/2007/12/physician-heal- ...
The fact is that it's all too easy to show that what Andrew says the IPCC say, and what the IPCC actually say (or actually are) are different. And that's before any science has even been discussed.
Permalink
benp Posted 6:34 pm
27 Feb 2008
More of Josullivan's rhetoric...
Jo says,
"manacker and his sock puppets have no interest in science. They are using the same strategy that tobacco lobbyists and the creationists are using."
It is particularly interesting that this argument rarely comes with any explanation as to what it means. It's no more sophisticated than saying that if you don't take the view that science is 'settled' with respect to mitigation being the best course of action, then you are 'wrong', just as creationists are wrong, and the tobacco lobby were wrong (on matters of science). But by the same token, we could say that any parties divided on the lines of "it's settled" vs. "it's controversial" follow the tobacco-science / creationist-science schema. It means nothing more than "they're wrong", and the point of the argument is merely to tarnish political opposition by association to a historical wrong - just as using the expression 'denialism' is an allusion to holocaust denial. It's a moral statement "you're as bad as a ...", not a scientific statement.
Other arguments along the same lines have compared the argumentation of anti-abolitionists, and climate change deniers. But this again merely looks for geometric congruence in the argument, not any meaningful continuity in moral, or political philosophy. And by the same token, it could be argued that demands for acting on the best scientific evidence and scientific opinion makes bedfellows of greens and the eugenicists of the early-mid 20th century.
"Its creating a controversy that doesn't exist to push a political view."
Jo appears to believe that environmentalism isn't a political ideology. It is. Environmentalists want to reorganise society around its ethics, morals, and principles. It uses 'science' to legitimise that ambition.
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 11:27 pm
27 Feb 2008
No point in me explaining anything to Max or benp
Max-
If you are unable to understand the technical details of the IPCC, then I doubt you'd understand any explanation that any scientist could give you. I recommend some remedial physics classes at your local community college.
Ditto for benp. If you understood the science, you'd find consistency between the IPCC and AGU. I recommend you join Max in remedial physics.
As I said to Max in a previous comment (but he probably didn't understand), his lack of understanding is not my problem. That goes for benp, too. Take some responsibility for being informed citizens, guys.
But all is not lost ... after a few physics classes, particularly thermodynamics and radiative transfer, you two will be able to better understand the IPCC reports. Wallaby should join you. His thermo could use some brushing up.
Permalink
benp Posted 12:47 am
28 Feb 2008
The Arrogance of Andrew
Andrew says that other people's lack of understanding is not his problem.
It is.
He wants to reorganise the world - a political aim. And anyone who objects hasn't done enough physics.
It is a fundamental inability to explain which lies at the core of his approach to the debate. He is infantile - he doesn't feel he ought to have to explain himself, or answer to anyone, but he wants it his way.
A previous argument of Andrew's was the one about the IPCC being the equivalent of doctors to the "sick child" which is the earth.
Very "scientific".
It turned out that the IPCC authors weren't in fact all climate scientists, but economists and social scientists - the very people Andrew thinks should be excluded from the debate.
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 2:26 am
28 Feb 2008
Read the IPCC
benp-
You seem to be losing your temper. Tsk tsk.
I hate to repeat myself, but you force me to. The answers to your questions are in the IPCC reports. It is not my problem if you are not sufficiently technically educated to understand the IPCC report.
Perhaps rather than getting angry, you should read a book on climate physics. It would be an eye opening experience for you. I doubt you'll take responsibility and do that: as with most skeptics, the idea of educating yourself on this issue appears to be anathema. Apparently, for skeptics, ignorance truly is bliss.
Sorry if you don't find that answer to your liking. And good luck.
Permalink
manacker Posted 2:30 am
28 Feb 2008
Try me, Andrew
Hi Andrew,
In your latest cop-out you wrote: "If you are unable to understand the technical details of the IPCC, then I doubt you'd understand any explanation that any scientist could give you."
Try me, Andrew. As a scientist, give me answers to my specific questions, which are not answered in IPCC.
If you can't, then admit it and we'll move on.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 3:45 am
28 Feb 2008
Here's my answer
Read the IPCC. The answers to your questions are in there. If you won't or can't, then just say, "I'm too lazy, and I don't actually care about the science." Then we'll be done with it.
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:47 am
28 Feb 2008
Don't worry about josullivan58
Hey benp,
Don't worry about josullivan58 and Andrew's other groupies.
They are only here to spout venom, not to contribute constructively to an open blog discussion on the current scientific and political debate surrounding climate change.
Gotta admit, though, it's kinda fun reading some of their very imaginative and expressful stuff.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:51 am
28 Feb 2008
Bye for now, Andrew
Well, there we have it. Another "read IPCC" cop-out by Andrew.
As should probably have been expected all along, Andrew (a well-known and respected climate scientist, who is also an AGW political activist) is avoiding the slippery slope of getting into a scientific discussion on climate to explain inconsistencies between the AGW hypothesis (as promoted by IPCC) and the observed facts (as measured by the Hadley Centre and at Mauna Loa).
(This is wise on his part, because he has already lost one debate on hurricanes and AGW on another site, where he did make the mistake of slipping into a discussion of the scientific facts.)
When questioned directly about these inconsistencies, he takes the cop-out position of giving no scientific explanation, but saying "read IPCC".
When he is told in reply "I've read the IPCC and the answers to my questions regarding these inconsistencies are not covered in there so please answer them as an expert in this field", he gives no scientific explanation, but says, "read IPCC more carefully."
As a climate expert (and being a bit arrogant), Andrew cannot hide behind the statement, "well, I really don't know why these inconsistencies exist, because there are a lot of things we scientists still do not know about what is causing the current and past changes in climate".
But it has also become obvious that he cannot explain them.
So he takes the cop-out position, adding in some blah-blah put downs, such as:
· "Your inability to understand and absorb the concepts in the IPCC reports is your problem to solve."
· "Apparently, for skeptics, ignorance truly is bliss."
· "It is not my problem if you are not sufficiently technically educated to understand the IPCC report."
Yet the inconsistencies, which Andrew cannot explain, are still there:
So by copping out, Andrew has lost this part of the debate by default and has thereby confirmed that:
A direct correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature is tenuous based on the actual observations.
Which is the point I wanted to make at the beginning by demonstrating the facts.
Thanks for your support, Andrew, and good luck,
See you on another site.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
benp Posted 4:04 am
28 Feb 2008
Andrew's repeated dizzy arrogance...
... calls for a repeat. It is Andrew's problem because Andrew wants to convince the world that a course of action needs to be taken.
If he can't demonstrate consistency between the IPCC and the AGU - which he seems to be claiming is simple - then he will not succeed in persuading the world. That is why he must resort to shrill nonsense about 'deniers', and the tired doctor/climate scientist analogy.
You don't need to be a physicist to know that Andrew's claim that the IPCC are full of the world's best and most able climate scientists is false. WGII and WGIII - the groups who author the reports looking at "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability" and "Mitigation of Climate Change" are dominated by non-climate non-scientists. Similarly, you don't need to be a climate scientist to challenge the IPCC. I've seen for myself that Andrew is wrong about the IPCC, so why should I take his word for it again that the AGU and the IPCC are consistent? Andrew misrepresents the IPCC, consistently.
Andrew would do better by perhaps suggesting where in the IPCC literature I might find the answer to the questions he believes it answers. Page numbers, perhaps? Maybe even a little quote? Why is that so difficult for a professor of climate science? Surely, by now, he'd be used to shedding a little light on the matter? Or do his lectures consist of nothing more than him stamping his feet?
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 4:04 am
28 Feb 2008
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Sooooooooooo boring. Let's code this up in my new programming language, blogtran (apparently a variant of IDL). That way, I won't have my time wasted.
pro trollRespond
while 1 = 1 do begin
print,"Max & benp, please read the IPCC"
wait(Max or benp response = angry, whiny, demanding)
endwhile
end
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 9:17 am
28 Feb 2008
Marsupial devastated by "blogtran"
Wow Andrew,
With that brilliant display of deep thinking, how can us rationalists possibly continue the debate?
We have nothing to offer that may interest you; just mere facts that do not agree with your dogma.
Like presumably you believe that that huge 5-year project at CERN is a waste of time and money because those fruitcakes at RealClimate say that cosmic galactic rays have no influence on cloud formation!
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 2:21 pm
02 Mar 2008
Benp..........You Awkward S#d!
Benp, you implore:
"Andrew would do better by perhaps suggesting where in the IPCC literature I might find the answer to the questions he believes it answers. Page numbers, perhaps? Maybe even a little quote? Why is that so difficult for a professor of climate science? Surely, by now, he'd be used to shedding a little light on the matter? Or do his lectures consist of nothing more than him stamping his feet?"
Oh yes Benp, it is frustrating to find that Dessler's arrogant assertions cannot be backed-up by him with some evidence in the Bible according to the IPCC.
It is not that you are the first to ask the similar question. Whilst he should have his fingertips on the answers, his typical arrogant response is, a rather unscientific; F#*K off:
Go read the 1,600 pages of WG1 AR4.
Well, I've done that, and others too, and devoid of clarification, we also keep asking him to no avail.
It is easy to conclude that Dessler has no answer to some very logical questions.
His excuse may be that he is an elitist and apart from his exquisite expertise up in the clouds, he has no cross-disciplinary awareness of other matters in the broader disciplines covered by the IPCC.
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:36 pm
02 Mar 2008
Keep it up, benp
Hi Benp,
As our Aussie friend has observed, it appears that Andrew Dessler's M.O. is as follows:
· Toss out a statement in a lead blog that attempts to discredit a specific skepticism of the AGW mantra (hurricanes caused by AGW, validity of IPCC claims and projections, irrelevance of studies linking warming with solar activity, discrediting of AGW skeptics, etc.)
· When the original statement is challenged, refuse to engage in a debate on the scientific specifics but retreat to the "check it out in the IPCC report" mode
In the few cases where Andrew has made the mistake of slipping into a discussion of the scientific specifics (for example on hurricanes or on the correlation between temperature and CO2), he loses the argument, so he is usually very cautious to avoid this.
These guys like Andrew have a whole series of rather simplistic "how to talk to a skeptic" answers (sort of like a catechism), but when the discussion gets into specifics, which are not specifically mentioned in the catechism, the knee-jerk answer is "it's written in the Bible, so check it out there" (where the "Bible" is the IPCC report).
It's tough to have a rational discussion with a true believer of "the faith". But, as a rational skeptic, it is important to challenge the so-called "mainstream" view and force the burden of proof onto the proponents of this view.
This is what makes the ongoing debate with guys like Andrew interesting and worthwhile. So don't give up.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 4:07 pm
08 Mar 2008
Wherefore art thou BenP
Please come back, we need some additional rationality in the debate
Permalink