No bias found

Richard Black continues his excellent series on climate scepticism with a look at the question of whether science journals are biased against warming skeptics. It turns out that they are not.

And he also examines the claims that the sun is the cause of current warming. Nope..

Hat tip: Vagueofgodalming.

Comments

  1. #1 Lance
    November 14, 2007

    Jeez, the “environment correspondent” at that wellspring of AGW propaganda, the BBC, says there is no bias against skeptical science?

    Well that settles it for me. Where do I sign up for my climate catastrophist decoder ring?

  2. #2 Tim Lambert
    November 14, 2007

    Shorter Lance: “La la la I can’t hear you!”

  3. #3 Thom
    November 14, 2007

    Can we get Steve Mcintyre over here to do an audit of the BBC analysis?

  4. #4 Lance
    November 14, 2007

    Yeah, fingers in your ears as usual Tim. It must be nice to be king of your own little insular world,…

    … or maybe it’s just a little sad.

  5. #5 Boris
    November 14, 2007

    Lance has a faith-based position on the bias against what he terms “skeptical science.” If you had evidence, Lance, I assume you’d present it.

    Waiting…

  6. #6 bigcitylib
    November 14, 2007

    Funny, I emailed him yesterday about that project. Can’t say I’m surprised at the result. Although one of my occasional commentors, Tom Harris of the NRSP, said he refused to participate because Black was a “known warmer”.

  7. #7 Demesure
    November 14, 2007

    The BBC wondering wether the BBC has been biased!?! Funny question indeed.

  8. #8 Lance
    November 14, 2007

    Boris,

    Nature’s inability, or more probable unwillingness, to follow its own rules for data access, among other issues, shows it deferential treatment of climate alarmists like Michael Mann.

    Of course since you are a frequent visitor to climate audit you already knew that, but chose to ignore it.

    As far as “faith based” positions are concerned your deep faith in climate models is profound and reverent, considering there is only evidence for less than a degree Celsius of warming in the last century.

    I’m sure St. Al will save a special place in the Gaia after life for fervent believers such as you.

  9. #9 Boris
    November 14, 2007

    Again, please provide evidence that there is a bias against skeptics.

    Waiting…

  10. #10 Lance
    November 14, 2007

    Boris,

    I made no claim as to whether scientific journals exhibited bias against scientists outside of the “consensus”, so demanding that I provide evidence to support this contention is a “straw man”.

    My sarcastic remarks about the BBC pertained to the idea that they could be trusted to present credible evidence against a cause that they themselves constantly champion. You can’t listen to the BBC with out hearing, nearly hourly, AGW scare stories.

    This story, by their “environment correspondent”, would be like a Pravda story claiming that the KGB wasn’t engaged in any nasty behavior. Of course you probably miss the good old USSR so maybe that wasn’t the best analogy to get the point across to you.

  11. #11 Nick Barnes
    November 14, 2007

    Lance, can you substantiate “that wellspring of AGW propaganda”?
    Demesure, I don’t know what articles you’ve been reading, but the ones Tim links to don’t address the question of BBC bias.
    Everyone else, hi, I’ve been away for a bit, should I be applying the JC treatment to these two? They seem to be spouting hot air.

  12. #12 Boris
    November 14, 2007

    Of course you probably miss the good old USSR

    So, I think the world preeminent scientific bodies have AGW right and that must mean that I am a commie. Also, the BBC are commies. And Nature. Why’s it always gotta be the Stalin gambit with you guys?

  13. #13 jre
    November 14, 2007

    Nature’s inability, or more probable unwillingness, to follow its own rules for data access, among other issues, shows it deferential treatment of climate alarmists like Michael Mann.

    I made no claim as to whether scientific journals exhibited bias against scientists outside of the “consensus”, so demanding that I provide evidence to support this contention is a “straw man”.

    Lance #1, you need to take action against Lance #2 using your userid!
    Alternatively, Lance #2, you should stop Lance #1 from preemptively undercutting your arguments!
    Or, yet alternatively, both Lances should get out more, try breathing deeply, and resolve to be a little less paranoid.

  14. #14 Steve
    November 14, 2007

    A good read. This paragraph stood out for me:

    “Others said that with billions of dollars spent each year on climate research, no-one would risk “rocking the boat” by performing, or publishing, work that could refute humankind’s carbon emissions as the cause. ”

    If you’ve had any experience with paranoid or delusional people, then you can see the conspiracy theory mindset at work here. If you have the paranoid frame of mind, it really isn’t that hard at all to build up a compelling story out of nothing. But sensible people can tell (or take the trouble to look) when a superficially logical story of bad stuff happening is implausible at the root. Paranoid people cannot, or do not.

  15. #15 dhogaza
    November 14, 2007

    Why’s it always gotta be the Stalin gambit with you guys?

    Because Godwin discredited the other obvious tactic :)

  16. #16 z
    November 14, 2007

    “As far as “faith based” positions are concerned your deep faith in climate models is profound and reverent, considering there is only evidence for less than a degree Celsius of warming in the last century. ”

    So you’ve resigned yourself to the truth of .6-.75 degrees C warming in the past century. OK, that’s a start.

  17. #17 Demesure
    November 15, 2007

    #16
    A .6-.75 °C per century warming is particularly UNimpressive and ice cores show that much faster warmings have occured many times in the past, naturally. Vostok ice cores show for example that that warming rate was 3.4°C/century around 8178 BP or 2.8°C/century at 129428 BP.

    But don’t expect the BBC to tell you that !

  18. #18 dhogaza
    November 15, 2007

    ice cores show that much faster warmings have occured many times in the past, naturally.

    And of course, none of those ice-age creatures went extinct, there were no significant changes in ecosystems, etc so we don’t need to worry, right?

  19. #19 John Mashey
    November 15, 2007

    re: #17

    Suppose someone knows enough to look up ice-core records should know about sudden events:
    http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/8200yrevent.html
    http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2007/06141/EGU2007-J-06141.pdf?PHPSESSID=b3f6df58394c554154b513
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard-Oeschger_event
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_event
    http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/6/483

    A behavior in which the temperature suddenly drops, stays there for a while, and then flips back up sure sounds like a major state-transition, usually believed to be attached to changes in thermohaline circulation.

    I do believe we’d have noticed two major flips in the North Atlantic Conveyor behavior….

    ===
    I will say, though, this BP notation is dumb … especially for something dated to a specific year. 8178BP was 8178BP in 2000, but it isn’t any more :-)

  20. #20 Demesure
    November 15, 2007

    #18 Of course we should worry about extinction. But to act properly, we should find the real cause. Fact is the current warming is not at all “unprecedented” so if you want to save a species, save the species, not the climate!

    #19 John, BP means in paleoclimate “before 1950″, not “Before Present”.

  21. #21 Lance
    November 15, 2007

    Boris,

    Why don’t you comment on Nature’s refusal to hold Mann to its open disclosure policy on data and methods? As far as you being a “commie”, most people that cling tenaciously to catastrophic AGW use it as a reason to advocate collective world-wide governmental action. If you do not, my apologies.

  22. #22 Lance
    November 15, 2007

    Nick Barnes,

    A Google search of “BBC climate catastrophe” returns 666,000 hits. This is nearly, three times as many as NBC, twice as many as ABC, and one third more than CNN which just presented its pathetically alarmist “Planet in Peril” mini series.

    While FOX shows 575,000 hits a quick look at the titles of the articles however, such as “Catastrophe Cancelled” shows that FOX is trying to counter alarmist pieces by the other doom criers.

    I like to listen to the BBC, that is how I know how shrill and biased is their view on AGW. They have clearly crossed the line between reporting and advocacy.

  23. #24 Lance
    November 15, 2007

    Iain George has presented, as evidence that the BBC is not biased on climate change, an article written by the BBC saying it is not biased on climate change.

    This sort of circular reasoning is all too evident in the AGW community.

    What’s next a report by the IPCC that proves that the IPCC is not biased?

  24. #25 QrazyQat
    November 15, 2007

    Why’s it always gotta be the Stalin gambit with you guys?
    Because Godwin discredited the other obvious tactic :)

    That’s the deniers version of nuance: sometimes it’s Hitler, sometimes Stalin.

  25. #26 Boris
    November 15, 2007

    FOX is trying to counter alarmist pieces by the other doom criers.

    By hiring Steven Milloy? Are you kidding me?

    Why do you demand equal time for liars?

    Sorry I don’t know enough about the Mann vs. Nature thing to respond. I’ll just assume that they are both commies and yet CO2 still has the same properties. Go figure!

  26. #27 Lance
    November 15, 2007

    Boris,

    I was just pointing out that FOX’s high hit count wasn’t due to their being alarmist. I wasn’t holding them up as a paragon of independent journalism.

    Boris, I have seen you over at climate audit. Why haven’t you checked out the Mann-Nature issue? I’ll give you credit for at least engaging the folks there. Do you claim that Steve McIntyre is a “liar”.

    There are some interesting developments there today about new data, from tree ring data generated by “the team” that refutes the subsequent work that allegedly supports the conclusions of the hockey stick.

  27. #28 John Mashey
    November 15, 2007

    re: BP: oops, yes, thanks, forgot that.
    It’s still a weird scale.

  28. #29 dhogaza
    November 15, 2007

    Do you claim that Steve McIntyre is a “liar”.

    Yes, actually.

  29. #30 Lance
    November 15, 2007

    The question was for Boris, but where is your evidence that Steve Mcintyre is a liar dhogaza?

  30. #31 Lance
    November 15, 2007

    “re: BP: oops, yes, thanks, forgot that. It’s still a weird scale.”

    Somewhat less weird than a scale that has as its zero point the birthday of a mythical being.

  31. #32 dhogaza
    November 15, 2007

    where is your evidence that Steve Mcintyre is a liar dhogaza?

    He’s lying when he claims to only be interested in improving the quality of the science.

    He lies when he implies that climate scientists are engaged in fraud.

  32. #33 dhogaza
    November 15, 2007

    How could I forget this one:

    He lies when he says that the “hockey stick” has been debunked.

  33. #34 Thom
    November 15, 2007

    Boris, the phony controversy over Mann was settled years ago.

    How the Wall Street Journal and Rep. Barton Celebrated a Global Warming Skeptic

    Skeptics get a journal

    Are you immune to learning?

  34. #35 Eric
    November 15, 2007

    http://oism.org/pproject/

    Sorry, Tim, but 19,000 scientists disagree with you, and they publish their data in peer-reviewed journals, not in blogs. This link is a petition for the world to refute the Kyoto Protocol as based on faulty data for anthropogenic global warming.

  35. #36 Tim Lambert
    November 15, 2007

    So Eric, [but your Oregon petition is rubbish](http://timlambert.org/2004/05/oregonpetition/). Feel free to point us to 19,000 peer-reviewed papers supportingyour position. Or any smaller number.

  36. #37 dhogaza
    November 15, 2007

    ROTFL! The OISM petition!

    You’re probably the last person on the planet who doesn’t know this is essentially a fraud.

    Oh, tears of laughter.

  37. #38 Thom
    November 15, 2007

    Hey, Eric. Here’s a hint to discredit Lambert. Start digging around in Energy and Environment. It’s a bang up journal that publishes top notch researchers.

  38. #39 Kevin
    November 15, 2007

    Are you kidding? The proof of a lack of bias is the paltry response Richard Black received? Surely there are no confounding issues here, like who the hell is Richard Black, how well publicized was his claim among the relevant audience and how do they perceive his objectivity and their risk/reward for even bothering? This is infra dig. for someone of your skills, Tim, pointing out Gore falsely presenting Mann’s work as Thompson’s as you did.

  39. #40 Kevin
    November 15, 2007

    Hey Tim, MM 2005, invalidated MBH 98 & 99 according to the NAS panel that reviewed the issue and Edward Wegman, Chair of the NAS Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics. There’s one. That seems to meet your challenge of a smaller number of studies than 19000 that “refute the Kyoto Protocol as based on faulty data for anthropogenic global warming.”

    And while it is not peer-reviewed itself, nor is this claim of mine, Gore’s presentation seems to have some issues with circular reasoning. I’ll call the Nobel Prize evidence it is influential despite its lack of peer-review. As for faulty data, citing Mann as validation for Mann but calling him Thompson sounds somewhat problematic, if we don’t want to go all the way and call it “faulty”.

  40. #41 pough
    November 16, 2007

    Kevin, if I say you are essentially correct does that invalidate what you say? Don’t worry; I won’t say that. But that was the NAS panel’s statement on MBH 98/99: essentially correct. Boom! INVALIDATED BY ESSENTIALLY CORRECT. In your face, warmers.

  41. #42 Iain George
    November 16, 2007

    “Iain George has presented, as evidence that the BBC is not biased on climate change, an article written by the BBC saying it is not biased on climate change.”

    A nice athletic conclusion jump. It was merely another BBC article discussing their position regarding climate change, in the light of Richard Black’s series, that I had not yet seen linked to.

  42. #43 bigcitylib
    November 16, 2007

    Eric,

    The guys from the Oregon Petition sent me their latest version when I asked them too, and I’ve returned it with the box checked off indicating that I want more petitions to distribute to my dissident scientist friends. My credentials, I should out, are zero, as is the Oregon Institutes credibility.

  43. #44 Chris O'Neill
    November 16, 2007

    Demesure:

    A .6-.75 °C per century warming is particularly UNimpressive and ice cores show that much faster warmings have occured many times in the past, naturally. Vostok ice cores show for example that that warming rate was 3.4°C/century around 8178 BP or 2.8°C/century at 129428 BP.

    What Demesure is talking about is the rise of 1.47°C from 8178 BP to 8135 BP and the rise of 1.53°C from 129428 BP to 129374 BP. What Demesure forgot to point out is that .6-.75 °C per century warming is for the WHOLE WORLD AVERAGE while the Vostok figures are just for, well, Vostok.

    Since cherry-picking is Demesure’s thing, I’ll point out that the area of the earth’s surface north of 70°N has warmed at an average rate of 3.7°C/century over the last thirty years.

    But don’t expect the BBC to tell you that !

    I won’t epect the BBC to be as dishonest as Demesure.

  44. #45 Lance
    November 16, 2007

    Chris O’Neil,

    When I went to get my coffee a few minutes ago I accelerated at a rate of 3 m/s^2 for one second to achieve a velocity of 3 m/s. By your above logic I would be breaking the sound barrier about… NOW!

    KA BOOM!!!!!

    Damn spilled my coffee!

    At least you admitted it was cherry picking, too bad it’s also total BS.

    The fact that the rate of warming has significantly slowed in the last ten years is not evidence of a long term downward trend, but it certainly doesn’t lend support to claims of a continued upward trend either as is obvious to anyone actually interested in making unbiased observations.

    And since your claims of “unprecedented warming” are the issue it is not looking good for your side of the argument.

  45. #46 Lance
    November 16, 2007

    Thom,

    Your argument that “my biased source is better than your biased source” is pointless. Anyone interested in the hockey stick matter need only arm themselves with a few basic statistical references and dig into the archives at Climate Audit, as I have done.

    It is clear that Mann has used improper statistical methods, selective and manipulated data sets and covered his tracks and refused to make his methods and data available at all turns.

    I recommend you actually look into the matter yourself rather than linking to articles from dubious sources that quote Michael Oppenheimer, “chief scientist” for Environmental Defense, as the authority on the matter.

  46. #47 Thom
    November 16, 2007

    I think we can all agree that Lance is a master magician at raising zombie arguments.

  47. #48 dhogaza
    November 16, 2007

    It is clear that Mann has used improper statistical methods

    And yet, when the proper methods, as spelled out by denialist favorite Wegman, are applied you get …

    The same hockey stick.

    Strange how denialists don’t point that out, isn’t it, Lance? A lie by ommission, perhaps?

    Regardless, the hockey stick is so 10 years ago, who cares?

  48. #49 Boris
    November 16, 2007

    The fact that the rate of warming has significantly slowed in the last ten years is not evidence of a long term downward trend

    No, a false statement is rarely evidence of anything.

    it certainly doesn’t lend support to claims of a continued upward trend either

    And no one claims that the warming trend means there will be more warming. It’s the CO2–you know, the stuff that works to hold heat closer to the Earth’s surface.

  49. #50 dhogaza
    November 16, 2007

    I recommend you actually look into the matter yourself rather than linking to articles from dubious sources that quote Michael Oppenheimer, “chief scientist” for Environmental Defense, as the authority on the matter.

    Why the scare quotes around “chief scientist”, Lance?

    Are you doubting Michael Oppenheimer’s credentials?

    Michael Oppenheimer is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School and the Department of Geosciences at Princeton University. He is also Director of the Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy (STEP) at the Woodrow Wilson School and Faculty Associate of the Atmospheric and Ocean Sciences Program, Princeton Environmental Institute, and the Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies. He joined the Princeton faculty after more than two decades with Environmental Defense, a non-governmental, environmental organization, where he served as chief scientist and manager of the Climate and Air Program.

    1. Oppenheimer is a long-time participant in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, serving most recently as a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. He is currently a member of the National Academy of Sciences’ Panel on Alternative Liquid Transportation Fuels. He is also a science advisor to Environmental Defense.

    What are YOUR credentials, Lance?

    Are YOU a member of the National Academy of Sciences?

    Prior to his position at Environmental Defense, Dr. Oppenheimer served as Atomic and Molecular Astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and Lecturer on Astronomy at Harvard University. He received an S.B. in chemistry from M.I.T., a Ph.D. in chemical physics from the University of Chicago, and pursued post-doctoral research at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

    Oppenheimer is the author of more than 80 articles published in professional journals and is co-author (with Robert H. Boyle) of a 1990 book, Dead Heat: The Race Against The Greenhouse Effect. Ph.D., University of Chicago.

    How many refereed articles have YOU published, Lance?

    In your professional opinion, is an undergraduate degree from MIT and science PhD from the University of Chicago something to be laughed off?

    Is there some reason why publishing 80 peer-reviewed articles doesn’t qualify one as a scientist?

    You’re such an ass…

  50. #51 dhogaza
    November 16, 2007

    Oh, and Lance …

    Can you explain why you think McIntyre is a better scientist than Oppenheimer (or any number of climate scientists)?

    What, exactly, are his qualifications, other than a right-wing bias that fits your own prejudices?

  51. #52 Jon H
    November 16, 2007

    “that warming rate was 3.4°C/century around 8178 BP or 2.8°C/century at 129428 BP.”

    Okay, and what was the coastal human population at either of those times? How difficult was it to move the population, if any, along what we now call the Thames?

  52. #53 Lance
    November 16, 2007

    dhogaza,

    First, take a deep breath. Now I don’t believe I have any “scare quotes” on my keyboard. The use of quotes around the words “chief scientist” reflects the fact that I was quoting the Environmental Defense website that says Dr. Oppenheimer is their “chief scientist”. That is why they are called quotation marks.

    Environmental Defense is not a scientific organization. It is a political advocacy group. Do you understand the difference?

    The rest of your post is an appeal to authority, as is much of the bluster here at Deltoid, except of course for your obscene ad hom at the end.

    If you had anything of material interest pertaining to the claims of McIntyre and McKittrick, as to the problems with certain temperature reconstruction proxie studies, I assume you would have presented this evidence.

    Instead you throw infantile tantrums.

    You posts are rather tedious.

  53. #54 dhogaza
    November 16, 2007

    First, take a deep breath.

    Always a good idea before reading your inherently dishonest posts.

    Now I don’t believe I have any “scare quotes” on my keyboard. The use of quotes around the words “chief scientist” reflects the fact that I was quoting the Environmental Defense website that says Dr. Oppenheimer is their “chief scientist”. That is why they are called quotation marks.

    I’d appreciate a link to the page that you’re quoting.

    Could you please supply that?

    TIA!

  54. #55 dhogaza
    November 16, 2007

    Environmental Defense is not a scientific organization. It is a political advocacy group. Do you understand the difference?

    Which makes heavy use of science advisors and makes every effort to base their positions on good science.

    The fact that Michael Oppenheimer has worked for a conservation organization does not in any way diminish his credentials as a scientist.

    The rest of your post is an appeal to authority

    Nope. I posted Dr. Oppenheimer’s credentials to counter your implication that he’s not a creditable source.

    I recommend you actually look into the matter yourself rather than linking to articles from dubious sources that quote Michael Oppenheimer

    Do you deny that your suggesting that Michael Oppenheimer is a “dubious source”?

    Seriously?

    You posts are rather tedious.

    I’d rather be tedious than lie, as you seem to do with each and every post you make here.

  55. #56 Lance
    November 16, 2007

    dhogaza,

    If you would take the time to wipe the foam from your mouth, and your keyboard, and actually read my remark you would see that my use of the word dubious was not aimed at Oppenheimer but the author of the article that quoted Oppenheimer, Paul D. Thacker.

    Mr. Thacker is a science writer. I was going to use quotes but I fear you may have an attack. Since you are big on credentials he possesses all of a BS in biology. His political piece totally ignores the science and goes about the business of smearing McIntyre and praising, Mann, Hansen and Oppenheimer. Fine “science” journalism indeed.

    Now those quotes WERE intended as sarcasm. See the difference?

    Oppenheimer, by the way, is clearly not a dispassionate party when it comes to the question of bias in climate science. He has a great deal to gain by protecting that bias, for if AGW is knocked from its position as the “consensus” position of the climate science community Environmental Defense is pretty much out of business.

    Now try to respond with out calling me names. I am starting to think it is pointless to try to have a rational discussion with you. Maybe I’m being naive in thinking that is what you are interested in.

  56. #57 Thom
    November 16, 2007

    Lance, you make an excellent point. Mr. Thacker went about “smearing” McIntyre by quoting climate change experts who pointed out that McIntyre and McIntyre’s studies have no credibility.

    So I guess now your an expert in both climate science AND science journalism. Good for you!

  57. #58 dhogaza
    November 16, 2007

    He has a great deal to gain by protecting that bias, for if AGW is knocked from its position as the “consensus” position of the climate science community Environmental Defense is pretty much out of business.

    Lance, dear Lance.

    I asked you to point me to the page on the Environmental Defense that you quoted for a reason.

    Michael Oppenheimer is no longer their Chief Scientist. Please re-read his credentials, which I conveniently quoted above.

    So, see, we know you’re lying when you said you used quotes because you were quoting the ED web site.

    And Environmental Defense works on many, many issues, not just climate change. They would not be “pretty much out of business” if McIntyre’s right and thousands of actual scientists are wrong.

    If you would take the time to wipe the foam from your mouth, and your keyboard, and actually read my remark you would see that my use of the word dubious was not aimed at Oppenheimer but the author of the article that quoted Oppenheimer

    Oh, I see what you meant! Finally! I get it!

    1. Oppenheimer is a credible scientist.

    2. This source quotes Oppenheimer.

    3. Therefore, this source is dubious, and you shouldn’t rely on it. You should rely on reliable sources that quote non-scientists like McIntyre instead.

    I can’t imagine how ANYONE could imagine any other possibility.

  58. #59 Lance
    November 16, 2007

    Hey dhogaza,

    You did it! You managed to make it through an entire post with out calling me a name. Of course you still didn’t manage to state an idea with out wildly spewing sarcasm, but let’s take one thing at a time. And you did say I was “lying” about Dr. Oppenheimer.

    Although you did get me on the Oppenheimer thing. Only I wasn’t “lying” when I said I read that the ED (how sad for them that their initials also stands for erectile dysfunction) website said he “serves” as chief scientist. I just misread it in my haste. It says he “served” as chief scientist and was now just a “staff expert”. I don’t really think it weakens my argument that Dr. Oppenheimer is not a disinterested third party on the issue of bias in climate science.

    But I have to admit I made a mistake and you caught it. I make mistakes and I actually appreciate it when people correct me, well at least when they don’t impugn my motives and call me names for making an honest mistake.

    Maybe you can work on that last part?

    I feel we’re making progress here. Don’t you?

    Do you honestly think that Environmental Defense would suffer no loss of funding, celebrity support, press coverage, credibility, etc. if the theory of catastrophic AGW went down the tubes?

    Now try to understand that I just asked an honest question and try not to respond as if you were attacked by a moray eel.

  59. #60 Eli Rabett
    November 16, 2007

    To continue Jon H’s thought

    “that warming rate was 3.4°C/century around 8178 BP or 2.8°C/century at 129428 BP.”

    Okay, and what was the coastal human population at either of those times? How difficult was it to move the population, if any, along what we now call the Thames?

    Mostly when bad things happened then the people they happened to died. We forget that at our peril.

  60. #61 dhogaza
    November 16, 2007

    Do you honestly think that Environmental Defense would suffer no loss of funding, celebrity support, press coverage, credibility, etc. if the theory of catastrophic AGW went down the tubes?

    I don’t see any evidence that Environmental Defense believes in any theory of catastrophic AGW, though your definition of catastrophic may differ from mine.

    In fact, I just wasted a few minutes looking through the Global Warming section of their site. Nothing catastrophic there, not by my definition. It’s solution-oriented, not panic-mongering.

    So I’d call this a strawman argument.

    I don’t think there’s any chance whatsoever that the basic theory of AGW will be overturned. The science behind it is overwhelming. There’s not a single professional science organization that says otherwise (the American Petroleum Geologists – or whatever they specifically call themselves – recently left the denialist camp)

  61. #62 dhogaza
    November 16, 2007

    I don’t really think it weakens my argument that Dr. Oppenheimer is not a disinterested third party on the issue of bias in climate science.

    Bias of the sort you imply is an absolute disaster to one’s academic career in the sciences.

    As you can see, Dr. Oppenheimer’s academic career is flourishing.

    You’re continuing the denialist meme that climate science is based on bias, fraud, and lies. That’s fairly despicable, to be honest.

    Now, if you want to steer clear of “misinterpretations” in the future, don’t put things like “misterpretations” (or “chief scientist”) in quotes. Otherwise, you’re likely to be understood the way I intend you to understand my use of “misinterpretations”, if you catch my drift.

    We don’t say

    George Bush is the “President” of the United States

    Well, you might if you’re implying that Gore actually won in 2000, but if you’re simply stating the fact, no, it does not go in quotes.

    Though I suspect you’re well aware of that.

    And you know, it makes no sense whatsoever to suggest that a source is a dubious source of information because it quotes credible scientists …

  62. #63 Thom
    November 16, 2007

    Hey Lance, here’s another mistake. You tried to slander Mr. Thacker by calling the article he wrote a “political piece” that “totally ignores the science” even though Thacker quoted the views of top scientists. Not some businessman.

    He then went on by quoting top journalists who questioned the credibility of the Wall Street Journal piece that put McIntyre on the map. I guess that makes you 0 – 2.

    Wanna’ go for the full strike out?

  63. #64 Chris O'Neill
    November 16, 2007

    “that warming rate was 3.4°C/century around 8178 BP or 2.8°C/century at 129428 BP.”

    Okay, and what was the coastal human population at either of those times? How difficult was it to move the population, if any, along what we now call the Thames?

    I should point out that the above “warming periods” at Vostok lasted for 43 years and 54 years respectively. The one between 8178 BP and 8135 BP was followed by a slightly larger cooling over the following 56 years. The one around 129428 BP followed a similar magnitude of cooling over the previous 200 years. So these “warming periods” were not part of any long term warmING period (although obviously they occured during the Holocene and Eemian so they were in long term warm periods) so could not have caused a significant amount of ice-cap melting on their own.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.