I had a glance at Tim Blair's blog at the Sydney Daily Tele the other day (first mistake), and ended up in an exchange with a couple of denialists there (2nd mistake, as they are possibly even dumber than those on WUWT) one of whom asserts, among the usual discredited arguments, that it is "basic physics" that nature cannot involve any positive feedbacks because positive feedbacks "instantly destroy themselves". Therefore global warming is false.
Oh, and he also reckons this is why "no physicists" support the science behind global warming, and tries to imply that he knows a lot of physics!
Could this be one of the most extreme manifestations of Dunning-Kruger even seen?
Ben at Wott's Up With That (not the infamous WUWT) has something to say about Roger Pielke Sr's ocean heat content analysis, deciding to do his own plot using the CPC's original data. Not quite the prize Watts is lauding so merrily.
I didn't get a chance to comment on the Mann/UVA/Nutcinnelli when it was timely, but I'm lifelong VA resident and a UVA alumnus so I'd like to give my fellow Deltoid fans a backgrounder.
-- Attorney General is a statewide elected office in Virginia. The A.G. runs in the same election cycle as the Governor and Lt.Gov. but all three offices are separate items on the ballot.
-- Cucinnelli was never liked by his follow northern Virginia Republican state Senators and he barely won re-election to his own seat a couple of years ago. But he was wing-nut before being a wing-nut was cool, so given the current Fox News driven climate, he got the A.G. nomination at the convention this year.
-- The Democratic party was split due to a 3-way primary for the Governor's slot and that dragged down their A.G. candidate through no fault of his own and allowed Cucinnelli to ride the GOP coattails into office
-- VA is a conservative state, but no previous GOP A.G. has come anywhere close to behaving the way he has. Most of them have used the post to position themselves as moderates (ex, the current GOP Gov rigorously enforced consumer protection laws when he was A.G.)
-- Cucinnelli deliberately timed this request for the end of the semester knowing that this would sparked massive protests on campuses througout the state, if not the country
-- UVA is currently in a transition with the President of 20 years leaving and a former V.P. from the U. of Michigan coming in. UVA has a relatively lean administrative structure, so the President is not just window dressing. He or she drives University policy, so the transition has hampered the response as has ...
-- By a horrible coincidence, a male student-athlete murdered a fellow student-athlete when she ended their relationship the same weekend that the subpoena was served. That has resulted in its own witch hunt so the adminstration has been fighting two fires at once.
The good news is, UVA may finally be getting its act together to fight this and one memember of the General Assembly has already said he's going to introduce a bill to change the law in question to stop this in its tracks.
A shameless plug! I have just started up a bulletin board for discussion of all things related to climate science. It is at Climate Physics Forums. The board has no policy on correct answers with respect to climate issues, but it does have a requirement for courtesy and for a focus on what is being done by working scientists and what they are publishing in the conventional scientific literature. It's intended to focus mainly on the questions of science, rather than of policy or ethics or politics or other such.
We managed to hit the ground running, thanks to the recent published rebuttal of Gerlich and Tscheuschner 2009, of which I am a co-author. Eli Rabbet deserves most of the credit for getting this rebuttal together, co-ordinating input from various sources, and guiding it through the review process. Which was not without its little hiccups.
Tim has some good threads here about Gerlich and Tscheuschner, and it will probably be known to many of the regular readers here.
There's a thread about it on the new forum, which is how we got a lot of visitors, and quite a few are staying to register and help get the board rolling. I am hopeful it will become a useful part of the effort to foster education and understanding of climate and climate change.
>Hydrological Sciences Journal summed up the tree ring evidence to declare that the âRoman Climate Optimum ... (had) temperatures that were (probably) higher than at presentâ.
Well, Tony Abbott's logic is not technically wrong when he makes a statement that says: "It was warmer at the time of Julius Caesar and Jesus of Nazareth".
He just needs to tell us what was warmer than what, or in this case, where it was warmer than where (and when, presumably now). Remember Abbott is a Catholic, and if he, like I did, had Jesuit teachers, then he might be well versed on the art of equivocation. He even went to seminary.
He may well have meant that it was warmer in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus than it is in Hobart in my time... or that it was warmer in Rome specifically the day Julius Caesar was appointed dictator of Rome than it is today in Hobart... or that it was colder on average in the Mediterranean basin at that time than Antarctica is today...
Did he make a specific comment placing his remark in the context of time and place?
Very cunning of you MFS, spotting Abbott's skilful deployment of the indefinite article. Reminds me of one of my favourite bits of Alice in Wonderland:
"`I thought you did,' said the Mouse. `--I proceed. "Edwin and Morcar, the earls of Mercia and Northumbria, declared for him: and even Stigand, the patriotic archbishop of Canterbury, found it advisable--"'
`Found WHAT?' said the Duck.
`Found IT,' the Mouse replied rather crossly: `of course you know what "it" means.'
`I know what "it" means well enough, when I find a thing,' said the Duck: `it 's generally a frog or a worm. The question is, what did the archbishop find?' "
So I think we can narrow Abbott's question down, at least partially, to "Were frogs and worms warmer in the time of Julius Caesar and Jesus of Nazareth (two people whose lifetimes did not in fact overlap, but never mind) than they are today?" Of course, this still leaves the question of location.
Can anyone here boil down the current state of the "tropical tropospheric hotspot" issue to simple English?
I read http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/tropical-tropopsh… and my takeaway was that atmospheric models predict a mid-tropospheric hotspot (a height with a higher rate of warming) for any source of positive radiative forcing. Did I get that right? I have since heard conflicting claims regarding RSS and UAH, saying they've confirmed the presence of such a hotspot, or they've disproved the presence of such a hotspot.
The Roman Warm Period wasn't just local because sea level was considerably higher then.
Over several decades during the Roman Warm Period temperatures were more than 2.5°C warmer than the 1968-98 period, while an interval in excess of 80 years during the Medieval Warm Period was more than 3°C warmer. These observations thus led Martinez-Cortizas et al. to conclude that "for the past 4000 years ... the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period were the most important warming periods."
First off, he cites the wrong paper: it's actually dated APRIL 2009 not December 2009. Here's the paragraph in full:
*Figure 3(a) indicates large fluctuations of temperature during the Holocene period, with prominent minima (e.g. the recent Little Ice Age) and maxima (e.g. the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Climate Optimum and the Minoan Climate Optimum, with temperatures that were likely higher than at present).*
See page 400
The paper he cites in HSJ is authored by a bunch of climate sceptics:
"Koutsoyiannis et.al have been doing what climate sceptics do when their substandard work isnât accepted into climate journals: they shop around, looking for a non-climate related journal hoping they will get accepted.
When you dig, you find that these scientists are outside the mainstream, and in fact are part of the small clique of contrarian scientists like Ian Plimer..."
Real Climate has addressed their work before. They are outside the mainstream...
Don't ask me about how he misrepresents the rest, the man is shameless in cherry picking and misleading.
1) UVA was founded by Thomas Jefferson, who some may have heard of.
Not everyone is aware of the fact he was a pretty good scientist for his era, as well as doing a few other things.
2) Cuccinelli (and his Deputy AG,Wesley Russell) both got their JD's at George Mason University (where Pat Michaels is a Distinguished Senior Fellow, and is teaching a course this summer, and one to which one of whose institutes Fred Signer was long attached, and , and of course Wegman).
3) This is who financed Cuccinelli's campaign.
You can drill down into, for example âEnergyâ, finding that âCoal Mining/processingâ is #1 on that list, including Massey Coal. There are plenty of other local utilities/eenrgy people.
Also under gas is Koch Industries (HQ'd in Kansas). Hmmm, where have we heard of them before?
4) Does anyone guess Cuccinelli came up with the UVA thing by himself? It would be nice to find out who really suggested it.
This variation, if it holds regionally,
may thus provide a proxy of environmental
conditions at the time of atmospheric deposition.
However, a full demonstration that these
indicators are a robust proxy will require comparable
analyses at several sites.
I've been trying to track down some of the papers that these references come from today too. Plenty of leads to various climate "alternative" sites but not one that I could find provides links to the papers referenced. Appears that bogus claims have been made based on some very tenuous threads within some obscure and curiously unavailable papers.
A promising new technique to reconstruct past temperatures has been developed by scientists at the University of Saskatchewan, Canada and Durham University, England, using the shells of bivalve mollusks. Writing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science the scientists say that oxygen isotopes in their shells are a good proxy measurement of temperature and may provide the most detailed record yet of global climate change.
Sounds ok so far...
Oxygen isotope values for the two oldest bivalves in the study show a cold spell between 360 BC to 240 BC that has some of the coldest temperatures in the entire series of observations that stretch to about 1660 AD. Following this period it seems that temperatures increased rapidly such that temperatures from 230 BC are significantly higher. In fact a shell from 130 BC recorded the highest temperature in the entire 2,000-year dataset
Impossible to determine to much from the post but it appears that *a shell* from a particular location seems to have lead to a conclusion that:
Between 230 BC and 40 AD there was a period of exceptional warmth in Iceland that was coincident with the Roman Warm Period in Europe that ran from 200 BC to 400 AD. This Icelandic shell data series suggests that the RWP had higher temperatures that those recorded in modern times.
This stuff seems to represent believeable and rigourous science to our friends like El Gordo.
> Could this be one of the most extreme manifestations of Dunning-Kruger even seen?
That's got to be a strong contender, but there's some pretty serious competition around. For example, Tim Curtin recently implied that if the oceans became acidic (presumably from more CO2, although he switched topics at that point to experiments directly adding acid to seawater), that [they would then be both drinkable and suitable for irrigation](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…). He also argued that the NAS members who signed the recent statement on climate change were scientifically ignorant - because he presumed "acidifying" implied "acidic".
Try hard as he does, Brent from the empirical evidence thread is just not in the same league.
And we haven't even broached the subject of Graeme Birds of the world yet ;-)
It's very technical but I'm struggling to see how it proves Bolt's point. Actually, the paper is about how sensitive society is to climate change:
*Literature from the Viking Age (ca. 790 to 1070) during the establishment of Norse colonies (and later) in Iceland and Greenland permits comparisons between the δ18O temperature record and historical records, thereby demonstrating the impact of seasonal climatic extremes on the establishment, development, and, in some cases, collapse of societies in the North Atlantic.*
Gosh, how very alarming ;)
To be frank, I think Bolt is being feed this stuff by his contacts in the denial industry. H
e put's out a call for help and they send him stuff with nice big arrows saying "quote this".
He lacks the ability to source this himself.
Can anyone else can take a stab at it, send me comments at my blog?
@12: The predicted trends appear loud and clear in the radiosonde data (there's a more recent post on this at Realclimate). Claims the satellites show this or that are two a penny, so given the denialists' long track record of dishonestly misrepresenting data of this sort, I refuse to get excited about their wild claims unless they can get a paper published on it.
I've put up an [Open letter to Tony Abbott](http://astroblogger.blogspot.com/2010/05/open-letter-to-honourable-tony…) about his recent comments on my blog. The Roman Warm Period was not a global event, but a local one, based at least on changed ocean currents (see for example Earth and Planetary Science Letters Volume 213, Issues 1-2, 1 August 2003, Pages 63-78). And the most recent evidence is that it was not warmer than the medieval warm period (GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L20703, doi:10.1029/2006GL027662, 2006).
> ...atmospheric models predict a mid-tropospheric hotspot (a height with a higher rate of warming) for any source of positive radiative forcing.
IIRC I believe this is close with caveats - but I can't guarantee I'm up to date or accurate.
IIRC Gavin Schmidt had correspondence with one of the Pielkes over a paper by Klotzbach et al, and Schmidt [pointed out](http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/08/exchange-with-gavin-schmidt-o…) that his model - if anything - predicted *slightly slower* tropospheric warming compared to the surface *over land*, and faster tropospheric warming over sea. Others have pointed out that most of the radiosonde data is from land locations...
D'oh...The trouble with all this new Roman Warm period stuff is that it undermines the sacred text Loehle 2007 18,sorry 13,non-tree proxy picture. Sho'is dang hard being sciency...
As I did with my simple single degree (mathematics) and much more importantly a life experinece of 60+ years that has seen the scams and snake oils of carpetbaggers like Gore et al to be proven as just that - CRAP. (Think the GBR dying, Global cooling, Ozone holes, running out of oil, disappearing glaciers,.....)
D-KI of the month (or even week) would be more appropriate.
Too many would miss out.
Can we do it by the hour?
That would just cheapen the whole thing. You need to give people something special to aim at; something to really strive for. A really special award for profound scientific illiteracy in the face of all the evidence.
This is definitely a worthwhile idea! Particularly as it is something that might actually generate a little media attention of its own!
@20: sheesh - I see my observation of D-K has extremely tough competition.
A physics "expert" asserting that positive feedbacks are impossible in nature because they instantly self-destruct.
Tim Curtin saying if seawater became more acidic it will become drinkable (that will be shocking news to the desalination industry - after spending all that money and effort, who knew it was so simple?). Yeah, well anyway, we know he is only a gnat's hair away from being admitted to a hospital ward with padded walls and barred windows.
Andrew Bolt, courtesy of his maths degree, saying the ozone hole was all a scientific scam.
How are we going to possibly pick a D-KI of the month/year from such a strong field?
I feel I made a difference today, Andrew Bolt casts his journalistic eye and throws his impressive wit at my blog calling it "Barbarian nonesense" [sic]:
KEVIN RUDD: You know, something, Kerry, I will be delighted to fight Mr Abbott on the next election, at the next election, whenever it is held, on climate change absolutelyâ¦
Okay, for a start the glaciers in the Alps seem to have been in retreat from about 300 BC to 400 AD (Delibrias et al. 1975). They have found Roman gold minds high up in the Alps in the Sonnblick area (Austria) and according to Lamb 'some of which are probably still under the ice since others have only lately come to light as the ice receded.'
This indicates that our Post Modern Climate Optimum is not special and global warming is nothing to be fearful of.
There is a story in this morning's Oz by Michael Asten who thinks we should be looking for the MWP in the SH.
'We see a 700-year stretch of time corresponding to the MWP, which contains perhaps eight approximately 100-year-long cycles, of which five show temperatures similar to or greater than those of the past century. The authors postulate these centennial cycles are driven by variations attributable to the sun. But results from a single site do not prove the warming and cooling to be global.'
Joel @30: they are probably the 28% of Republicans who think that environmentalists blew up the rig to create a disaster so that people would vote against offshore drilling. They are obviously the 28% who are too clever to be taken in by such tactics and will vote against the voting against and HA! to those evil greenies.
Not that Rush Limbaugh directly accused the environmentalists. No, no - he was just saying...
Seriously, when did batshit crazy become an acceptable point of view?
In relation to the idea of a D-K award. Structure it more like the Darwin awards, where there is a year long process of capturing examples, maybe classify them so you have a political one (called the wing nut award or so) have a Bloggers one and then a contribution to a blog etc. A special select committee (to give the foil hat brigade something to talk about) select a short list, and we the masses get to vote.
Murdoch's monopoly practice has left South Australia (population 1.5 million) with a single daily news paper. It as bad as you'd expect.
Though I think today's plunges new depth, doing a dodgy [before and after advertorial](http://i42.tinypic.com/14wu8tu.jpg) on the front page.
Woe is we.
[Note: Murdoch's empire begain in SA with his firt paper (The News) given him by his father. Murdoch bought out the Adertiser in the 1980s (which was a 'Broad sheet'), the closed "The News" and year on year, decade on decade the Advertiser and degraded to the septic pit it is today.]
Just getting back to the Roman period, surely sea level rise is universal?
Around 250 A.D. almost all Frisians disappear from the Frisian coastal-clay districts. The rising of the sealevel makes it impossible to live in the coastal areas of Friesland for the next 150 years (250 - 400 A.D.)
In my original post #25 about a DK award, I meant to imply it should be like the Darwin awards â thank you Post Hoc, #42 for reminding me â and I agree that it could be categorised.
I try normally not to descend into banality, but I feel any such award should have negative and insulting connotations to the winner(s), especially named media writers, so .......
... how about the âD..K headâ award or a word play around that? (smile)
> ...I feel any such award should have negative and insulting connotations to the winner(s)...
Nah, nah, nah - you're not thinking about the *comic* possibilities here. Make it all high-falutin' and respek'ful soundin' and awardees will be so proud they'll trumpet it far and wide and line up to receive it in person - entirely unaware of the irony ;-) ;-)
El Gordo, you've linked to a press release here - one for which there doesn't appear to be an actual published study. It's not in Dr. Silvan's list of papers, nor is anywhere on Google scholar. I am not saying that the study is wrong - just that I have no idea how it was done, or whether the press release accurately reflects the research results.
You didn't just make up your mind based solely on the press release, did you?
El gordo,read your link... apparently sea-levels 800 years ago were 50 to 90cm lower...Damn,that was the MWP. 'Twould be interesting to see how the paper deals with tectonic contributions.
>Around 250 A.D. almost all Frisians disappear from the Frisian coastal-clay districts. The rising of the sealevel makes it impossible to live in the coastal areas of Friesland for the next 150 years (250 - 400 A.D.)
You should try to write stuff in your own words instead of just lifting it straight from [here](http://www.boudicca.de/frisian1.htm) - towards the end of the 'Contact with Romans' paragraph. Nice web site though. Bit like a high school project.
El gordo writes:
>*The AR4 best estimate temperature rise of 1.8 °C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 °C, but with positive feedback it would be hell on earth. Thank gawd for negative feedback.*
>Lets not just move on el gordo, where did you find this rubbish? Or did you simply make it up?
>Do you beleive in setting record straight and thus enabling learning from mistakes?
Is there hope for our species whiles we do what we currently do and are prevented from sustainable transformation due to our habouring el gordos?
el gordo, I notice you continue demonstrate that you value your role as a propagandist more then your do as being part of a a greater organism that is truth seeking and self correcting.
Do you disagree with my assessment of your demonstrated values?
At least el gordo is one of the less skilled in concealing his disregard for honesty.
here one of the questions that I'm going to chase you with el gordo:
>el gordo, I notice you [continue to demonstrate](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/open_thread_48.php#comment-2510…) that you value your role as a propagandist more then your do as being part of a a greater organism that is truth seeking and self correcting.
>Do you disagree with my assessment of your demonstrated values?
Here is more disturbing news with global temperatures predicted to fall by up to 1.1 C degrees over the next 30 months.
And after that they'll go up 1.2 C degrees again, perhaps even more if there is a moderate El Niño. But I can see why the denialists can't wait for some cooling. They look a bit silly at the moment, what with their favourite dataset continuously setting new records.
el gordo, I notice you [continue to demonstrate](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/open_thread_48.php#comment-2510…) that you value your role as a propagandist more then your do as being part of a a greater organism that is truth seeking and self correcting. Do you disagree with my assessment of your demonstrated values?
I.e. you demonstrate you are prepared to make basless claims founded on misrepresentation, and when your lies are caught you simply pretend nothing happens and go on to start of new fabrication. Do you deny this behavior?
How about you answer my question about where you source your erroneous claims about IPPC's calculation of climate sensitivity, or own up if you just made it up. Such information is important to enable learning from mistakes.
'The close relationships between the abrupt ups and downs of solar activity and of temperature that I have identified occur locally in coastal Greenland; regionally in the Arctic Pacific and north Atlantic; and, hemispherically, for the whole circum-Arctic, suggesting that changes in solar activity drive Arctic and perhaps even global climate.'
IIRC this is exactly the issue that biologists have been deeply worried about - the *rate* of change, not whether it is slightly warmer or cooler now than some period in the past.
[This paper](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/04/26/0913352107.abstract?sid=51…) suggests that humans can't adapt to any and all warming - they cannot reliably survive regions where the wet bulb temperature gets too high for extended periods. This criterion will start to apply in some places if there's about 7 degrees C global-mean warming, and will affect the regions inhabited by most of humanity at about 11-12 degrees.
But at least Loehle had a published methodology no matter how naieve#. Kinnimonth can only aspire to rise to the improper and naieve# standard set by Loehle.
[#Lets be generous call call it naieve, but reading Loehle's comments ate CA indicates a pattern that suggest his errors and 'choices' were not only naieve]
DeanL,Loehle 2007 used no tree-ring proxies..but otherwise,you're entirely correct. Loehle,whatever its weaknesses, is poison to Abbott and Kininmonth...or should I call them Dupe and Duper?
Apologies. Should have said "...contradicts all the work done with tree-core reconstructions and that of Loehle that the "sceptics" use to make their claims about the MWP."
el Gordo: "The Roman Warm Period wasn't just local because sea level was considerably higher then."
So that's why most archaeological digs of Roman ports need to be done while wearing scuba gear.... because sea level was much higher then... than... ummm... now...?
Just to clarify William Kinninmoth's status (or not) as a climate scientist, he used to be head of the National Climate Centre (part of the Bureau of Meteorology). The NCC's role when he was head of it was:
"The National Climate Centre is the service division of the Bureau of Meteorology responsible for the provision of climate data services, climate monitoring services and archiving the nation's climate record".
We used to write to the NCC when we wanted meteorological records. As far as I am aware he is not and never has been involved in the research part of the Bureau (mainly the BMRC - Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre). In a fairly standard bit of resume puffing we're supposed to believe that he was a researcher, rather than running a data centre.
I.e. you demonstrate you are prepared to make basless claims founded on misrepresentation, and when your lies are caught you simply pretend nothing happens and go on to start of new fabrication. Do you deny this behavior?
How about you answer my question about where you source your erroneous claims about IPPC's calculation of climate sensitivity, or own up if you just made it up. Such information is important to enable learning from mistakes.
El Gor refuses to answer his critics. There seems to be some kind of weird roll reversal going on, the school teacher badgering the journalist to reveal his sources.
el gordo, put what ever fake narrative around it that you like. You have been caught spouting untruths (for the umpteenth time) and I'm asking your to come clean and help others learn from your "mistake". Did you make up the bogus figures you attributed to the IPCC, and if not prove it by directing us to a reference.
It is a powerful argument against your approach (and against those who share your approach like Dave Andrews and multiple others of who distort climate science) that you have a demonstrated a disregard for setting the record straight, a disregard for correcting the record, and a demostraighted preference for moving on to preach the next untruth (this time your claims about sealevel 2000 years bp).
1) Can any of the otherwise rational-appearing posters explain why they don't just killfile silly trolls and stop filling threads with replies to them? For my sanity, I'm about to start killfile anybody who keeps quoting them and replying... :-)
Once again DDT is taken as an example of bad policies. Their evidence? The ramblings of prof.em. D.E. Waite, and a paper in the Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons.
Funniest idiocy in the paper:
"This lack of scientific forecasts is no surprise to climate scientists: our conclusion is in agreement with the conclusions of the more than 31,000 U.S. climate scientists who signed the Robinson petition."
Yeah, 31,000 US climate scientists signed that petition. And my dog is actually a cat from Mars. Really!
I was hoping someone other than Kane would talk about Iraq and wartime mortality in general, but apparently the climate change issue is what interests people here these days. Anyway, here's Les Roberts's reply on the Congo issue--
How would D-K candidates be rated? Will voting for them be restricted to people who *are* qualified in the subject?
I think there should be a weighting factor for candidates. The higher the qualifications a person has, the higher the weighting for spouting nonsense, e.g., a Physics PhD would get a higher D-K score than, say, a person with only high-school qualifications, for saying essentially the same thing. The PhD has far less excuse for getting it wrong and for being "unscientific". There should also be weighting for the arrogance with which the claims are presented and defended and for appeals to false authority, especially the candidate's own credentials.
Anyway, I have a great candidate. Read 3bodyproblem's wisdom on evaporation and convection starting [here](http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5904750&postcount=2022). It goes on a bit; the sheer persistence and arrogance adds hugely to the D-K rating IMO.
And so as Climategate fizzles into nothingness, the denialist vultures are beginning to turn on themselves.
As Miller and Heartland president Joe Bast noted, it was an extremely odd audience reaction: McIntyre received a standing ovation upon his introduction, thanks to his dogged research and unrelenting demand for information and accountability, but then his blase' attitude about scientists' behavior -- particularly Mann's -- left most of the audience cold and some even angry. The applause for McIntyre was tepid upon the conclusion of his remarks. I don't think I've ever seen that before.
Lindzen's speech at the Heartland conference is up at WUWT. This quote is doing the rounds:
âPerhaps we should stop accepting the term, âskeptic.â Skepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition. Current global warming alarm hardly represents a plausible proposition.â
I crossed swords with one Bill Koutalianos, candidate for the Climate Sceptics party, who turned up on one of the blogs associated with Ross Gittins' latest article on the SMH website.
He just proffered the usual smears against the hockey-stick, Michael Mann and the IPCC.
I ripped into him as fiercely as I could and still get through moderation and then a tone troll calling himself "Hide the Decline" (possibly one of Bill's asssociates) asked me "why the viciousness" and then in the next breath immediately went on to smear Mann some more
I've a couple more comments awaiting moderation but I've tried to be mindful not to give his party any free publicity either. I suspect we'll be hearing more from the likes of him leading up to the election.
It's asymetrical warfare. Claims are cheap, facts and hard evidence are hard won, and require effort to be ready to recall.
Thus point out the asymetry of discussing the issue on a news blog, and refer them to the peer reviewed literature and the statements by NAS, Royal Society etc.
If you want to invest the time, then prod them to produce a some checkable facts and either check out their claims (various good sites to do so) or post them here for others and ask for feedback.
PS. I don't think the Setting People straight study is relevent to those with such a strong cognitive bias as those in the CSP, but of interest for writing for lurkers.
Ah, but you have to understand that some people, not Think Big, of course, would rip Bill Koutalianos a new hole in his chest for repeating such falsehoods as. . . .
But Think, you have to understand, is simply trying to get the facts on the table in a businesslike way
The U.S. National Research Council has just issued three reports on climate change and adaptation. They're worth a read. You can find them [here](http://americasclimatechoices.org/)
Thanks for posting the link to Les Roberts' article. The report Roberts was discussing is [The Shrinking Costs of War](http://www.humansecurityreport.info/2009Report/2009Report_Complete.pdf). I haven't had time to read it completely, but the highlighted conclusions are really counter-intuitive. So counter-intuitive, in fact, that I'm inclined to believe that they're wildly wrong.
The director and editor for the Human Security report was Andrew Mack, and [Tim discussed one of Mack's previous papers](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/more_on_surveys_of_violent_war…) back in December. That paper seemed fairly good, so maybe I ought to withhold judgment. But when you're trying to argue that mortality rates fall during war, well... that's pretty damn hard to believe, no matter how you work the numbers.
Another link re the article Donald Johnson posted in 101: [The Human Security Report Project's home page](http://www.humansecurityreport.info/) currently has links to some articles addressing Roberts' criticisms. (Sorry for back-to-back posts, but I hate going over that three-link limit and winding up in moderation.)
Nobody can ever replace the late [Jon Swift](http://jonswift.blogspot.com/), but for those of us who still feel his absence, all is not lost. I'd encourage anyone who needs a good laugh to check out Scott Clevenger's wicked-smart [World O'Crap](http://www.world-o-crap.com/blog/).
continues apace at WUWT. He gives a list of the kind of persecution honest 'sceptics' have to endure. There's a lot wrong with the list - e.g. attributing words to Greenpeace that that organisation long ago deleted and disowned, however perhaps most slimy is
Joe Romm said that skeptics would be strangled in their beds.
which turns out to be from a comment posted at Romm's place - that Romm deleted.
Got that? It is now acceptable to attribute to blog-authors the sentiments expressed in blog comments. Even when those comments have been deleted by moderators
Now that we know the rules this raises some intriguing possibilities for debate, I am sure you will agree ...
Surprised? No. Viewed outside the cosy confines of WUWT Escehnbach has just dealt his tattered credibility another blow. I guess I am surprised that he continues to walk with so many bulletholes in his feet:
Finally, it was a Greenpeace communication, done by one of their employees on their web site.
Past tense. Willis, it's a shame that you seem to continue to miss my point in all your responses. Attributing a phrase, lifted from a blog post, after that post has been removed, to an organisation seems to be not exactly in the finest tradition of ethical journalism.
Next, you find fault with a few of my examples â¦
Here's the list:
James Hansen of NASA wanted trials for climate skeptics,
Au contraire. Hansen in fact praised scepticism in his piece and he certainly never called for all sceptics to be put on trial, here is the relevant text:
Special interests have blocked transition to our renewable energy future. Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, as tobacco companies discredited the smoking-cancer link. Methods are sophisticated, including funding to help shape school textbook discussions of global warming.
CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.
So a true sceptic would be at no risk from Dr Hansen's proposal. I am reminded of the tobacco executives who testified that they did not believe tobacco was carcinogenic....
Robert Kennedy Jr. called climate skeptics traitors .
No, in reported remarks at a rock concert, his problem was with 'companies that consistently put their private financial interest ahead of American interest and ahead of the interest of all of humanity.' You have conflated that into 'climate sceptics'.
Yvo de Boer of the UN called climate skepticism criminally irresponsible .
No., he described failure to act on the scientific advice as such.
David Suzuki called for politicians who ignore climate science to be jailed.
According to a one-line quote in the National Post. Suzuki never meant it literaly. We know this because he told the 'newspaper' so. Still you give us the quote without the response.
Grist called for Nuremberg trials for skeptics.
Nope, his target was 'the denial industry', those knowingly spreading misinformation in return for renumeration. The opposite of sceptics, you might say.
Joe Romm said that skeptics would be strangled in their beds.
0% true. Romm said no such thing, a cammenter at his blog made this distasteful prediction, which Romm pulled.
A blogger at TPM pondered when it would be acceptable to execute climate deniers .
So? TPM is an open site - anyone can blog there. An example of Sturgeon's Law, no more. If you're worried by this nonsense -which I doubt- you need to develop a thicker skin.
Heidi Cullen of The Weather Channel called for skeptical forecasters to be decertified.
No, she mused over whether forecasters who make statements out of line with the AMS's position should continue to be eligible for that body's Seal of Approval.
You donât discuss Suzuki, the best known Canadian AGW supporter, calling for skeptics to be jailed. That has not been atypical of AGW comments, not on blogs, but by people like Hansen and Suzuki and other prominent folks. You want to get outraged now? Where was your outrage when they were saying those things?
Perhaps because I am not in the habit of reading the National Post, perhaps because I prefer to save my outrage for genuinely outrageous statements, this collection of quote-mined, secondhand, misconstrued press reports, deleted blog comments and faux outrage doesn't do it for me I am afraid.
@DAve H, Yes very interesting papers. Of note is the finding that:
>people who placed themselves ideologically to the right of center, the correction wasnât just ineffective, it actively backfired: conservatives who received a correction telling them that Iraq did not have WMD were more likely to believe that Iraq had WMD than people who were given no correction at all.
So the result seem to be a finding for people self identifying as right wing. Or perhaps it because the anti- Iraq infor is seen as "left wing"?
I'm sure that the same results would not hold for right wingers being "set straight" with "pro-right" data?
We've all heard of Fred Singer and his [SEPP](http://sepp.org/about%20sepp/boarddir.html), but it seems that a few of the people he lists as being on the Board of Directors and on the Board of Science Advisors are no longer with us. Perhaps Fred can't bring himself to delete them; he's getting on a bit himself, after all.
As I said when I gave my speech, it was entirely inappropriate that a humble hack like me should be on a panel with such great men â like a lowly swineherd suddenly finding himself translated to Mount Olympus. Then again, I said, it wasnât such a bad idea that I was there to inject a note of reality to the proceedings.
The truth is, I said, that the scientific debate is over. The scientists on our side of the argument have won (which is why no Warmist will dare debate Richard Lindzen, and while Al Gore wonât debate anyone at all: they know theyâd lose).
John, I'm fairly sure it was *unconscious* satire.
> As I said when I gave my speech, it was entirely inappropriate that a humble hack like me...
What is this - some self-knowledge? ;-) (Then again, "hack" is often used as slang for "journalist" in the UK rather than "eminently crappy journalist".)
> ...should be on a panel with such great men â like a lowly swineherd suddenly finding himself translated to Mount Olympus.
Don't you get the impression from this and the fawning SPPI post that the debate embodied in large part the British old boys club patting themselves on the back for their privileged social status, with a bevy of adulatory sycophants looking on?
Of course this is entirely appropriate because it constitutes an exemplary environment for getting to the truth of a scientific question. ``
> Then again, I said, it wasnât such a bad idea that I was there to inject a note of reality to the proceedings.
Ah, so the other speakers ... were in fairy land? Interesting observation.
And the best they could find to "inject reality" was Delingpole? Hard times indeed.
> The scientists on our side of the argument have won (which is why no Warmist will dare debate Richard Lindzen, and while Al Gore wonât debate anyone at all: they know theyâd lose).
Debate is entirely appropriate to settle a scientific question if you're a classics major, right? Because it's all about swaying opinion rather than being correct...
...and how amusing that Lindzen is juxtaposed with Gore. Why, it's almost like they're afraid to debate anyone representing the science who's an *actual* scientist!
...and amusingly Delingpole is echoing the creationist schtick - "no-one will [take us seriously enough to] debate us, therefore we claim victory".
And Delingpole conveniently forgets that Monbiot destroyed Plimer - a fact he should remember given that Monbiot made Delingpole himself look fairly uncomfortable on TV a few months ago.
Tony Abbott [notes](http://www.smh.com.au/national/climate-change-no-longer-crap-abbott-say…) that Rudd's declining approval ratings appear to be related to abandoning climate change legislation - and one must wonder if the climate change-approval link is related to his new position that the science is no longer "crap".
>The question that people disagree about is whether that one degree of carbon dioxide induced warming would produce two more degrees of water vapour induced warming, which is essentially what the IPCC argues.
>I'm increasingly convinced that the empirical and theoretical evidence doesn't support that view and that on the whole clouds will more likely slow or mitigate the carbon dioxide warming rather than exaggerate it.
>But it's very hard to pull a global climate signature out of a local weather pattern as it were **of a few decades long**. Which is why as you say nobody's quite sure exactly what's happening.
So what has convinced Matt Ridley is if no positive feedback? More than a few decades of observations?
>But, you know, there is absolutely no doubt, if you look at the models, that the number of people in the world at increased water stress as a result of the predicted climate change
Including those experience flooding? Perhaps they will open the doors to the hundreds of millions of water stress refugees?
>The evidence suggests that we are actually going to see higher crop yields, slightly higher rain fall, no major change in storms,
Not were the most vulnerable live in Africa much of Asia and South America. But at leas the well to do in northern Europe, Russia and Canada will open the doors to the starving g hundreds of millions (just like they did in the last century ).
>no significant change in, well, a very slow change in sea level, no huge damage to habitats.
What? Well he's right if you don't count the habitats that will suffer, such as small islands states, alpine habitats, the cryosphere, much of Africa, Asia and South America, Australia. We don't count though.
Then in the following century the Northern rich will start to feel the bite of warming a little more pressingly.
This is concerning. I think I can anticipate how it will be presented.
"mainly in physical sciences", or, to paraphrase, "I'm a physicist, therefore I can do any other branch of science better than the professionals, I just choose not to."
> ...one of these methods, which the authors term "scientific impotence"âthe decision that science can't actually address the issue at hand properly. It finds evidence that not only supports the scientific impotence model, but suggests that it could be contagious. Once a subject has decided that a given topic is off limits to science, they tend to start applying the same logic to other issues.
Hmmmm, wonder how often I've seen that method used before...?
Detailed solar Angular Momentum (AM) graphs produced from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) DE405 ephemeris display cyclic perturbations that show a very strong correlation with prior solar activity slowdowns. These same AM perturbations also occur simultaneously with known solar path changes about the solar system barycentre (SSB). The AM perturbations can be measured and quantified allowing analysis of past solar cycle modulations along with the 11,500 year solar proxy records (C14 & 10Be). The detailed AM information also displays a recurring wave of modulation that aligns very closely with the observed sunspot record since 1650. The AM perturbation and modulation is a direct product of the outer gas giants (Uranus & Neptune), this information gives the opportunity to predict future grand minima along with normal solar cycle strength with some confidence. A proposed a mechanical link between solar activity and planetary influence via a discrepancy found in solar/planet AM along with current AM perturbations indicate solar cycle 24 & 25 will be heavily reduced in sunspot activity resembling a similar pattern to solar cycles 5 & 6 during the Dalton Minimum (1790-1830).
If this is valid, Earth will probably be cooling for decades.
What is also concerning is that quotes from some of the "agnostic" Royal Society members - if accurate, which, based on past performance, one cannot presume - indicate a lack of comprehension and/or poor reasoning for their campaign:
For example, the Royal Society climate change pamphlet currently says:
> "This is not intended to provide exhaustive answers to every contentious argument that has been put forward by those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate changeâ¦"
In response:
> One Fellow who said he was not absolutely convinced of the dangers of CO2 told me: "This appears to suggest that anyone who questions climate science is malicious. ..."
I'm not so sure about that. It suggests that those who seek to "distort and undermine the science" put forth "contentious arguments" - not that everyone who questions is malicious. It appears to be the old "all dogs have four legs, therefore that large four-legged bovine over there is a dog" fallacy.
I think it is clear who is behind the petition. Ultimately, not much will come of it, although no doubt the 'rebellion' will get a lot news coverage than will its resolution later this year.
The Times article does say:
"He (Sir Alan) refused to name the other signatories but admitted that few of them had worked directly in climate science and many were retired."
Shocking new evidence of a NASA scientist faking a fundamental greenhouse gas equation shames beleaguered space administration in new global warming fraud scandal.
Note that well know über-cretin Alan Siddons is involved.
The denial echo chamber has gone into a new tizz over 43 unknown fellows "forcing the Royal Society to rethink their position on AGW" or words to that effect.
Google on terms "royal society 43 fellows" for a few pages from SteveFielding, ClimateChangeFraud, GWPF, etc, the usual duplicators.
The lack of any evidence/research defines these chamber reverbs and no difference here with the usual no references no data, no research, no science. Why is is this stuff entertained, why can't it be said "you've got no research, this is a science based organisation, bugger off but please come back when you've got some data".
"The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for JanuaryâMay 2010 was the warmest on record. The year-to-date period was 0.68°C (1.22°F) warmer than the 20th century average."
I had a glance at Tim Blair's blog at the Sydney Daily Tele the other day (first mistake), and ended up in an exchange with a couple of denialists there (2nd mistake, as they are possibly even dumber than those on WUWT) one of whom asserts, among the usual discredited arguments, that it is "basic physics" that nature cannot involve any positive feedbacks because positive feedbacks "instantly destroy themselves". Therefore global warming is false.
Oh, and he also reckons this is why "no physicists" support the science behind global warming, and tries to imply that he knows a lot of physics!
Could this be one of the most extreme manifestations of Dunning-Kruger even seen?
Ben at Wott's Up With That (not the infamous WUWT) has something to say about Roger Pielke Sr's ocean heat content analysis, deciding to do his own plot using the CPC's original data. Not quite the prize Watts is lauding so merrily.
Worth a look:
http://wotsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/the-decrease-in-upper-oc…
Grounds for the next bout between both sides has probably been found, on top of Venus' perpetual motion climate.
I didn't get a chance to comment on the Mann/UVA/Nutcinnelli when it was timely, but I'm lifelong VA resident and a UVA alumnus so I'd like to give my fellow Deltoid fans a backgrounder.
-- Attorney General is a statewide elected office in Virginia. The A.G. runs in the same election cycle as the Governor and Lt.Gov. but all three offices are separate items on the ballot.
-- Cucinnelli was never liked by his follow northern Virginia Republican state Senators and he barely won re-election to his own seat a couple of years ago. But he was wing-nut before being a wing-nut was cool, so given the current Fox News driven climate, he got the A.G. nomination at the convention this year.
-- The Democratic party was split due to a 3-way primary for the Governor's slot and that dragged down their A.G. candidate through no fault of his own and allowed Cucinnelli to ride the GOP coattails into office
-- VA is a conservative state, but no previous GOP A.G. has come anywhere close to behaving the way he has. Most of them have used the post to position themselves as moderates (ex, the current GOP Gov rigorously enforced consumer protection laws when he was A.G.)
-- Cucinnelli deliberately timed this request for the end of the semester knowing that this would sparked massive protests on campuses througout the state, if not the country
-- UVA is currently in a transition with the President of 20 years leaving and a former V.P. from the U. of Michigan coming in. UVA has a relatively lean administrative structure, so the President is not just window dressing. He or she drives University policy, so the transition has hampered the response as has ...
-- By a horrible coincidence, a male student-athlete murdered a fellow student-athlete when she ended their relationship the same weekend that the subpoena was served. That has resulted in its own witch hunt so the adminstration has been fighting two fires at once.
The good news is, UVA may finally be getting its act together to fight this and one memember of the General Assembly has already said he's going to introduce a bill to change the law in question to stop this in its tracks.
Hope ya'll found this informative. Go HOOS!
(OT) Muhammed cartoonist Lars Vilks attacked during lecture
http://www.thelocal.se/26590/20100511/
A shameless plug! I have just started up a bulletin board for discussion of all things related to climate science. It is at Climate Physics Forums. The board has no policy on correct answers with respect to climate issues, but it does have a requirement for courtesy and for a focus on what is being done by working scientists and what they are publishing in the conventional scientific literature. It's intended to focus mainly on the questions of science, rather than of policy or ethics or politics or other such.
We managed to hit the ground running, thanks to the recent published rebuttal of Gerlich and Tscheuschner 2009, of which I am a co-author. Eli Rabbet deserves most of the credit for getting this rebuttal together, co-ordinating input from various sources, and guiding it through the review process. Which was not without its little hiccups.
Tim has some good threads here about Gerlich and Tscheuschner, and it will probably be known to many of the regular readers here.
There's a thread about it on the new forum, which is how we got a lot of visitors, and quite a few are staying to register and help get the board rolling. I am hopeful it will become a useful part of the effort to foster education and understanding of climate and climate change.
Tim - this anti-science of Andrew Bolt is being main-streamed in various papers. These deceptions and outright lies have to be answered.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comme…
Tim: Some interesting updates on the Lancet/Iraq front.
1) The ORB poll you are find of citing is almost certainly useless. If you care to start a thread about this, we can dive into the details.
2) The folks at Human Security think that Les Roberts is incompetent. I could not agree more!
DeanL, [Pure Poison](http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/category/andrew-bolt/) at Crikey usually does a pretty good number on [the Blot](http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/05/10/we-need-a-staunch-champion-of-decen…) (as does [First Dog On The Moon](http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/10/16/first-dog-on-the-moon-424/) ).
Further to DeanL #6, Bolt [writes](http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comme…) in his article that the
>Hydrological Sciences Journal summed up the tree ring evidence to declare that the âRoman Climate Optimum ... (had) temperatures that were (probably) higher than at presentâ.
And his first take on the Abbott story is [here](http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comme…) complete with all his "evidence".
Well, Tony Abbott's logic is not technically wrong when he makes a statement that says: "It was warmer at the time of Julius Caesar and Jesus of Nazareth".
He just needs to tell us what was warmer than what, or in this case, where it was warmer than where (and when, presumably now). Remember Abbott is a Catholic, and if he, like I did, had Jesuit teachers, then he might be well versed on the art of equivocation. He even went to seminary.
He may well have meant that it was warmer in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus than it is in Hobart in my time... or that it was warmer in Rome specifically the day Julius Caesar was appointed dictator of Rome than it is today in Hobart... or that it was colder on average in the Mediterranean basin at that time than Antarctica is today...
Did he make a specific comment placing his remark in the context of time and place?
Very cunning of you MFS, spotting Abbott's skilful deployment of the indefinite article. Reminds me of one of my favourite bits of Alice in Wonderland:
"`I thought you did,' said the Mouse. `--I proceed. "Edwin and Morcar, the earls of Mercia and Northumbria, declared for him: and even Stigand, the patriotic archbishop of Canterbury, found it advisable--"'
`Found WHAT?' said the Duck.
`Found IT,' the Mouse replied rather crossly: `of course you know what "it" means.'
`I know what "it" means well enough, when I find a thing,' said the Duck: `it 's generally a frog or a worm. The question is, what did the archbishop find?' "
So I think we can narrow Abbott's question down, at least partially, to "Were frogs and worms warmer in the time of Julius Caesar and Jesus of Nazareth (two people whose lifetimes did not in fact overlap, but never mind) than they are today?" Of course, this still leaves the question of location.
Can anyone here boil down the current state of the "tropical tropospheric hotspot" issue to simple English?
I read http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/tropical-tropopsh… and my takeaway was that atmospheric models predict a mid-tropospheric hotspot (a height with a higher rate of warming) for any source of positive radiative forcing. Did I get that right? I have since heard conflicting claims regarding RSS and UAH, saying they've confirmed the presence of such a hotspot, or they've disproved the presence of such a hotspot.
Thanks in advance.
The Roman Warm Period wasn't just local because sea level was considerably higher then.
Over several decades during the Roman Warm Period temperatures were more than 2.5°C warmer than the 1968-98 period, while an interval in excess of 80 years during the Medieval Warm Period was more than 3°C warmer. These observations thus led Martinez-Cortizas et al. to conclude that "for the past 4000 years ... the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period were the most important warming periods."
Picked it up from CO2 science.
News just in warmists - the planet was hotter back when Earth was still a molten ball of lava hurtling through space.
I've been looking at Bolt's article today, especially his sources since he does not fully cite them:
[Herald Sun War on Science #7: cherry picking "facts" to suit your argument ](http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/herald-sun-war-on-sc…)
It has been *exhausting* doing the fact checking, just one of the sources he cited has taken me hours.
The paper I believe he cites is this: DISCUSSION of âThe implications of projected climate change for freshwater resources and their managementâ*
[Hydrological SciencesâJournalâdes Sciences Hydrologiques, 54(2) April 2009](http://www.itia.ntua.gr/getfile/907/1/documents/hysj_54_2_394.pdf)
First off, he cites the wrong paper: it's actually dated APRIL 2009 not December 2009. Here's the paragraph in full:
*Figure 3(a) indicates large fluctuations of temperature during the Holocene period, with prominent minima (e.g. the recent Little Ice Age) and maxima (e.g. the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Climate Optimum and the Minoan Climate Optimum, with temperatures that were likely higher than at present).*
See page 400
The paper he cites in HSJ is authored by a bunch of climate sceptics:
"Koutsoyiannis et.al have been doing what climate sceptics do when their substandard work isnât accepted into climate journals: they shop around, looking for a non-climate related journal hoping they will get accepted.
When you dig, you find that these scientists are outside the mainstream, and in fact are part of the small clique of contrarian scientists like Ian Plimer..."
Real Climate has addressed their work before. They are outside the mainstream...
Don't ask me about how he misrepresents the rest, the man is shameless in cherry picking and misleading.
@13: Nice quote mine, but Martinez-Cortizas was referring to the regional climate in Spain. That's hardly global.
re: #3 and UVA
1) UVA was founded by Thomas Jefferson, who some may have heard of.
Not everyone is aware of the fact he was a pretty good scientist for his era, as well as doing a few other things.
2) Cuccinelli (and his Deputy AG,Wesley Russell) both got their JD's at George Mason University (where Pat Michaels is a Distinguished Senior Fellow, and is teaching a course this summer, and one to which one of whose institutes Fred Signer was long attached, and , and of course Wegman).
3) This is who financed Cuccinelli's campaign.
You can drill down into, for example âEnergyâ, finding that âCoal Mining/processingâ is #1 on that list, including Massey Coal. There are plenty of other local utilities/eenrgy people.
Also under gas is Koch Industries (HQ'd in Kansas). Hmmm, where have we heard of them before?
4) Does anyone guess Cuccinelli came up with the UVA thing by himself? It would be nice to find out who really suggested it.
El Gordo @ 13,
It's already been said @ 16, but Penido Vello, Galicia, is not the world.
The paper also [clearly states in p. 940:](http://scienceonline.org/cgi/reprint/284/5416/939.pdf)
@15
I've been trying to track down some of the papers that these references come from today too. Plenty of leads to various climate "alternative" sites but not one that I could find provides links to the papers referenced. Appears that bogus claims have been made based on some very tenuous threads within some obscure and curiously unavailable papers.
For example:
http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/653-new-technique-shows-roman-wa…
A promising new technique to reconstruct past temperatures has been developed by scientists at the University of Saskatchewan, Canada and Durham University, England, using the shells of bivalve mollusks. Writing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science the scientists say that oxygen isotopes in their shells are a good proxy measurement of temperature and may provide the most detailed record yet of global climate change.
Sounds ok so far...
Oxygen isotope values for the two oldest bivalves in the study show a cold spell between 360 BC to 240 BC that has some of the coldest temperatures in the entire series of observations that stretch to about 1660 AD. Following this period it seems that temperatures increased rapidly such that temperatures from 230 BC are significantly higher. In fact a shell from 130 BC recorded the highest temperature in the entire 2,000-year dataset
Impossible to determine to much from the post but it appears that *a shell* from a particular location seems to have lead to a conclusion that:
Between 230 BC and 40 AD there was a period of exceptional warmth in Iceland that was coincident with the Roman Warm Period in Europe that ran from 200 BC to 400 AD. This Icelandic shell data series suggests that the RWP had higher temperatures that those recorded in modern times.
This stuff seems to represent believeable and rigourous science to our friends like El Gordo.
> Could this be one of the most extreme manifestations of Dunning-Kruger even seen?
That's got to be a strong contender, but there's some pretty serious competition around. For example, Tim Curtin recently implied that if the oceans became acidic (presumably from more CO2, although he switched topics at that point to experiments directly adding acid to seawater), that [they would then be both drinkable and suitable for irrigation](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…). He also argued that the NAS members who signed the recent statement on climate change were scientifically ignorant - because he presumed "acidifying" implied "acidic".
Try hard as he does, Brent from the empirical evidence thread is just not in the same league.
And we haven't even broached the subject of Graeme Birds of the world yet ;-)
@ DealL post 19
I've found others, and it is obscure stuff. I found the one molluscs, and reviewing. Actually, we should ask Andrew, "What's a bivalve mollusc mate?"
Anyhoo, its a PNAS paper: [Two millennia of North Atlantic seasonality and implications for Norse colonies
PNAS 2010 107 (12) 5306-5310; published ahead of print March 8, 2010, doi:10.1073/pnas.0902522107](http://www.pnas.org/content/107/12/5306.abstract?sid=7e922dc1-f84f-47d5…)
It's very technical but I'm struggling to see how it proves Bolt's point. Actually, the paper is about how sensitive society is to climate change:
*Literature from the Viking Age (ca. 790 to 1070) during the establishment of Norse colonies (and later) in Iceland and Greenland permits comparisons between the δ18O temperature record and historical records, thereby demonstrating the impact of seasonal climatic extremes on the establishment, development, and, in some cases, collapse of societies in the North Atlantic.*
Gosh, how very alarming ;)
To be frank, I think Bolt is being feed this stuff by his contacts in the denial industry. H
e put's out a call for help and they send him stuff with nice big arrows saying "quote this".
He lacks the ability to source this himself.
Can anyone else can take a stab at it, send me comments at my blog?
@12: The predicted trends appear loud and clear in the radiosonde data (there's a more recent post on this at Realclimate). Claims the satellites show this or that are two a penny, so given the denialists' long track record of dishonestly misrepresenting data of this sort, I refuse to get excited about their wild claims unless they can get a paper published on it.
I've put up an [Open letter to Tony Abbott](http://astroblogger.blogspot.com/2010/05/open-letter-to-honourable-tony…) about his recent comments on my blog. The Roman Warm Period was not a global event, but a local one, based at least on changed ocean currents (see for example Earth and Planetary Science Letters Volume 213, Issues 1-2, 1 August 2003, Pages 63-78). And the most recent evidence is that it was not warmer than the medieval warm period (GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L20703, doi:10.1029/2006GL027662, 2006).
PS my post @22: The figure in the post I linked to also refers to RSS and UAH directly and shows agreement within uncertainties.
Re: Could this be one of the most extreme manifestations of Dunning-Kruger even seen?
I suggest Deltoid set up an annual competition to award an individual the title D-K Idiot of the year or something similar.
I also post mostly about AGW on a minor UK political forum, but I can assure you I have several serious contenders for the title there.
> ...atmospheric models predict a mid-tropospheric hotspot (a height with a higher rate of warming) for any source of positive radiative forcing.
IIRC I believe this is close with caveats - but I can't guarantee I'm up to date or accurate.
IIRC Gavin Schmidt had correspondence with one of the Pielkes over a paper by Klotzbach et al, and Schmidt [pointed out](http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/08/exchange-with-gavin-schmidt-o…) that his model - if anything - predicted *slightly slower* tropospheric warming compared to the surface *over land*, and faster tropospheric warming over sea. Others have pointed out that most of the radiosonde data is from land locations...
Schmidt had further comment[here](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/muddying-the-peer…), Annan [here](http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2009/11/klotzbach-ad-nauseam-2009.html), and Pielke wrote about a corrigendum [here](http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/12/corrigendum-to-klotzbach-et-a…). Google will find still more...
"I suggest Deltoid set up an annual competition to award an individual the title D-K Idiot of the year or something similar."
D-KI of the month (or even week) would be more appropriate.
D'oh...The trouble with all this new Roman Warm period stuff is that it undermines the sacred text Loehle 2007 18,sorry 13,non-tree proxy picture. Sho'is dang hard being sciency...
Too many would miss out.
Can we do it by the hour?
There's an interesting post on [Slacktivist](http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2010/05/perversely-stupid-co…), which starts off from a poll that found that the recent oil spill made 28% of Republicans **more** likely to support offshore drilling.
This is an actual comment from Bolt's:
He owns everyone.
@27, 29
That would just cheapen the whole thing. You need to give people something special to aim at; something to really strive for. A really special award for profound scientific illiteracy in the face of all the evidence.
This is definitely a worthwhile idea! Particularly as it is something that might actually generate a little media attention of its own!
@20: sheesh - I see my observation of D-K has extremely tough competition.
A physics "expert" asserting that positive feedbacks are impossible in nature because they instantly self-destruct.
Tim Curtin saying if seawater became more acidic it will become drinkable (that will be shocking news to the desalination industry - after spending all that money and effort, who knew it was so simple?). Yeah, well anyway, we know he is only a gnat's hair away from being admitted to a hospital ward with padded walls and barred windows.
Andrew Bolt, courtesy of his maths degree, saying the ozone hole was all a scientific scam.
How are we going to possibly pick a D-KI of the month/year from such a strong field?
I feel I made a difference today, Andrew Bolt casts his journalistic eye and throws his impressive wit at my blog calling it "Barbarian nonesense" [sic]:
[This is barbarian nonesense! What a barbarian](http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/bolt-comments-on-my-…)
I feel special :)
@ DK suggestions, I have a lovely little blog called Kens Kingdom I've come across. http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/
Basically trying to take down the CSIRO/BOM data.
Retired guy, trying to be Australia's Anthony Watts:
[Lies, damned lies and how Australia's denial movement can't read a map](http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/03/23/lies-damned-lies-and…)
KEVIN RUDD: You know, something, Kerry, I will be delighted to fight Mr Abbott on the next election, at the next election, whenever it is held, on climate change absolutelyâ¦
Okay, for a start the glaciers in the Alps seem to have been in retreat from about 300 BC to 400 AD (Delibrias et al. 1975). They have found Roman gold minds high up in the Alps in the Sonnblick area (Austria) and according to Lamb 'some of which are probably still under the ice since others have only lately come to light as the ice receded.'
This indicates that our Post Modern Climate Optimum is not special and global warming is nothing to be fearful of.
There is a story in this morning's Oz by Michael Asten who thinks we should be looking for the MWP in the SH.
'We see a 700-year stretch of time corresponding to the MWP, which contains perhaps eight approximately 100-year-long cycles, of which five show temperatures similar to or greater than those of the past century. The authors postulate these centennial cycles are driven by variations attributable to the sun. But results from a single site do not prove the warming and cooling to be global.'
So, el Gordo, you think the only effect of warming global temperatures will be that we'll be able to dig for gold in the Alps?
Thankyou - now I see why there is absolutely no cause for concern!
Shorter el gordo;
>Europe is the whole world.
And
>Find all the occurrences of warming in the past and say they all occurred simultaneously, even when they didn't.
Its called cherry picking el gordo, and is the opposite of science.
Joel @30: they are probably the 28% of Republicans who think that environmentalists blew up the rig to create a disaster so that people would vote against offshore drilling. They are obviously the 28% who are too clever to be taken in by such tactics and will vote against the voting against and HA! to those evil greenies.
Not that Rush Limbaugh directly accused the environmentalists. No, no - he was just saying...
Seriously, when did batshit crazy become an acceptable point of view?
A
They have found Roman gold minds high up in the Alps said El Gordo ...
I wonder why Rome's most golden minds went up there in the first place ...
In relation to the idea of a D-K award. Structure it more like the Darwin awards, where there is a year long process of capturing examples, maybe classify them so you have a political one (called the wing nut award or so) have a Bloggers one and then a contribution to a blog etc. A special select committee (to give the foil hat brigade something to talk about) select a short list, and we the masses get to vote.
Just an idea.
Murdoch's monopoly practice has left South Australia (population 1.5 million) with a single daily news paper. It as bad as you'd expect.
Though I think today's plunges new depth, doing a dodgy [before and after advertorial](http://i42.tinypic.com/14wu8tu.jpg) on the front page.
Woe is we.
[Note: Murdoch's empire begain in SA with his firt paper (The News) given him by his father. Murdoch bought out the Adertiser in the 1980s (which was a 'Broad sheet'), the closed "The News" and year on year, decade on decade the Advertiser and degraded to the septic pit it is today.]
RIP the fourth estate as a pillar of democracy.
Watchingthedeniers, sorry to burst your bubble but I have it on .... good authority that that Bolt twitter account is a parody and not the real thing.
jakerman, The Advertiser wasn't all that flash before Murdoch bought it, but I agree it's absolutely worthless now.
Post hoc
It is a good idea to spend a year capturing examples and classifying them, I'm sure my comrades here will agree.
Just getting back to the Roman period, surely sea level rise is universal?
Around 250 A.D. almost all Frisians disappear from the Frisian coastal-clay districts. The rising of the sealevel makes it impossible to live in the coastal areas of Friesland for the next 150 years (250 - 400 A.D.)
Mass migration because of sea level rise.
Abbott is right, temperatures around the time of Christ were probably similar to now. Simply on the basis that sea levels are the same.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-01/uoh-tsl012610.php
@ 44 John - noted and corrected. Thanks!
In my original post #25 about a DK award, I meant to imply it should be like the Darwin awards â thank you Post Hoc, #42 for reminding me â and I agree that it could be categorised.
I try normally not to descend into banality, but I feel any such award should have negative and insulting connotations to the winner(s), especially named media writers, so .......
... how about the âD..K headâ award or a word play around that? (smile)
> ...I feel any such award should have negative and insulting connotations to the winner(s)...
Nah, nah, nah - you're not thinking about the *comic* possibilities here. Make it all high-falutin' and respek'ful soundin' and awardees will be so proud they'll trumpet it far and wide and line up to receive it in person - entirely unaware of the irony ;-) ;-)
El Gordo, you've linked to a press release here - one for which there doesn't appear to be an actual published study. It's not in Dr. Silvan's list of papers, nor is anywhere on Google scholar. I am not saying that the study is wrong - just that I have no idea how it was done, or whether the press release accurately reflects the research results.
You didn't just make up your mind based solely on the press release, did you?
El gordo,read your link... apparently sea-levels 800 years ago were 50 to 90cm lower...Damn,that was the MWP. 'Twould be interesting to see how the paper deals with tectonic contributions.
El Gordo # 47
>Around 250 A.D. almost all Frisians disappear from the Frisian coastal-clay districts. The rising of the sealevel makes it impossible to live in the coastal areas of Friesland for the next 150 years (250 - 400 A.D.)
You should try to write stuff in your own words instead of just lifting it straight from [here](http://www.boudicca.de/frisian1.htm) - towards the end of the 'Contact with Romans' paragraph. Nice web site though. Bit like a high school project.
Nick
Yeah, it's noteworthy that around 1200 AD sea level was lower than present. It was the tail-end of the MWP, but point taken.
Andrew
I was just looking for anecdotal evidence that the populace can understand.
Here is more disturbing news with global temperatures predicted to fall by up to 1.1 C degrees over the next 30 months.
http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html
[el thicko](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/open_thread_48.php#comment-2510…):
>global temperatures predicted to fall __by a well known anti-science lunatic__
And how much are __you__ willing to bet on this "prediction" that you are spamming us with?
Dear reader,
el gordo is a non-stop disinformation machine.
[Here is where](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/open_thread_47#comment-2504786) is carried on from:
El gordo writes:
>*The AR4 best estimate temperature rise of 1.8 °C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 °C, but with positive feedback it would be hell on earth. Thank gawd for negative feedback.*
>Lets not just move on el gordo, where did you find this rubbish? Or did you simply make it up?
>Do you beleive in setting record straight and thus enabling learning from mistakes?
Is there hope for our species whiles we do what we currently do and are prevented from sustainable transformation due to our habouring el gordos?
Janet, did you know that Anthony Watts will soon be touring Australia with David Archibald and somebody named Stockwell?
In an election year it will be a cruncher for the warmists.
el gordo went off to post in [another thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/rose_and_mcintyre.php#comment-2…) rather than address the question put to him here.
el gordo, please address the important [questions put to you](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/open_thread_48.php#c2510179).
el gordo, I notice you continue demonstrate that you value your role as a propagandist more then your do as being part of a a greater organism that is truth seeking and self correcting.
Do you disagree with my assessment of your demonstrated values?
I wonder if the Sceptics are doing the organizing?
http://climatesceptics.com.au/watts.html
At least el gordo is one of the less skilled in concealing his disregard for honesty.
here one of the questions that I'm going to chase you with el gordo:
>el gordo, I notice you [continue to demonstrate](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/open_thread_48.php#comment-2510…) that you value your role as a propagandist more then your do as being part of a a greater organism that is truth seeking and self correcting.
>Do you disagree with my assessment of your demonstrated values?
> Here is more disturbing news with global temperatures predicted to fall by up to 1.1 C degrees over the next 30 months.
el Gordo and sunspot seem to be of the [same frame of mind](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…) suprisingly often.
And after that they'll go up 1.2 C degrees again, perhaps even more if there is a moderate El Niño. But I can see why the denialists can't wait for some cooling. They look a bit silly at the moment, what with their favourite dataset continuously setting new records.
Watts is coming to OZ? OIh now watch the denial machine go into overdrive!
It has been a backward Spring in the UK, but the summer could go either way.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC14.htm
el gordo, I notice you [continue to demonstrate](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/open_thread_48.php#comment-2510…) that you value your role as a propagandist more then your do as being part of a a greater organism that is truth seeking and self correcting. Do you disagree with my assessment of your demonstrated values?
I.e. you demonstrate you are prepared to make basless claims founded on misrepresentation, and when your lies are caught you simply pretend nothing happens and go on to start of new fabrication. Do you deny this behavior?
How about you answer my question about where you source your erroneous claims about IPPC's calculation of climate sensitivity, or own up if you just made it up. Such information is important to enable learning from mistakes.
'The close relationships between the abrupt ups and downs of solar activity and of temperature that I have identified occur locally in coastal Greenland; regionally in the Arctic Pacific and north Atlantic; and, hemispherically, for the whole circum-Arctic, suggesting that changes in solar activity drive Arctic and perhaps even global climate.'
Willie Soon
Pretty transparent tactic el gordo, did you think it would cover your continuing sins?
If you continue [running from my question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/open_thread_48.php#comment-2511…) fewer people will be suckered in by your usual baiting spam.
Don't you think its in your propaganda interest to be a little less overt and transparent?
I don't know how legit. this is:
[Bill Kinnimonth - ex Bureau of Met Climate Head - says the GISP2 Greenland ice core temperature reconstruction backs Abbott](https://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/05/dear-mr-abbott).
Someone needs to provide a definitive response to this.
Haven't had time to go looking for the study, but a new paper is said to show that [temperatures are changing too fast for a number of lizard species to evolve and they are going extinct instead](http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/coldblooded-creatures-…).
IIRC this is exactly the issue that biologists have been deeply worried about - the *rate* of change, not whether it is slightly warmer or cooler now than some period in the past.
[This paper](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/04/26/0913352107.abstract?sid=51…) suggests that humans can't adapt to any and all warming - they cannot reliably survive regions where the wet bulb temperature gets too high for extended periods. This criterion will start to apply in some places if there's about 7 degrees C global-mean warming, and will affect the regions inhabited by most of humanity at about 11-12 degrees.
Bill [Kinnimonth claims](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/open_thread_48.php#c2512006) that Abbott is right by 1) using a temperature proxy from one site (why leave out Law Dome, Vostock etc. and 2) using GISP2 data [that ends 95 years ago](ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/i…) (before global warming ramped up). Genius!
(Note Age of last core is 0.0951409 thousand years before present = 95 years before present).
@73
Not only that but it contradicts all the work done with tree-core reconstructions including that of [Loehle](http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N5/Loehle2007small.gif) that the "sceptics" use to make the claims about the MWP.
Self-contradicting arguments are fine if you're a "sceptic" apparently.
Kinnimonth and ideologues at Quadrent will need to [add more than a degree](http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/418944main_global-temp-final-full.jpg) of warming to get close to curent Greenland temps and then they will need to explain why they take Greenland (which shows no evidence that it was warmer than now) and ignore Antartic with shows 2000 BCE [was cooler](http://i49.tinypic.com/2ym604h.jpg).
Loehle undermind himself with the weight of errors and [improper methodology](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/past-reconstructi…).
But at least Loehle had a published methodology no matter how naieve#. Kinnimonth can only aspire to rise to the improper and naieve# standard set by Loehle.
[#Lets be generous call call it naieve, but reading Loehle's comments ate CA indicates a pattern that suggest his errors and 'choices' were not only naieve]
DeanL,Loehle 2007 used no tree-ring proxies..but otherwise,you're entirely correct. Loehle,whatever its weaknesses, is poison to Abbott and Kininmonth...or should I call them Dupe and Duper?
@77
Apologies. Should have said "...contradicts all the work done with tree-core reconstructions and that of Loehle that the "sceptics" use to make their claims about the MWP."
Tim, I think we need a series of posts on silly things Australian politicians say about climate science.
There should be plenty of material. It seems to be a renewable resource.
el Gordo: "The Roman Warm Period wasn't just local because sea level was considerably higher then."
So that's why most archaeological digs of Roman ports need to be done while wearing scuba gear.... because sea level was much higher then... than... ummm... now...?
DeanL
'The vandals did not build bridges but walked across the frozen Rhine River in winter.'
Worth contesting.
Gordo @ 81,
And the orcs and wolves crossed the frozen Brandywine to attack The Shire!
El Gordo said: "Worth contesting"
Wait a moment - are you saying that the contrarians might have to do some *gasp* proper, original, peer reviewed research?
Like that's ever gonna happen...
Just to clarify William Kinninmoth's status (or not) as a climate scientist, he used to be head of the National Climate Centre (part of the Bureau of Meteorology). The NCC's role when he was head of it was:
"The National Climate Centre is the service division of the Bureau of Meteorology responsible for the provision of climate data services, climate monitoring services and archiving the nation's climate record".
We used to write to the NCC when we wanted meteorological records. As far as I am aware he is not and never has been involved in the research part of the Bureau (mainly the BMRC - Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre). In a fairly standard bit of resume puffing we're supposed to believe that he was a researcher, rather than running a data centre.
Neil White
el gordo, I notice you [continue to demonstrate](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/open_thread_48.php#comment-2510…) that you value your role as a propagandist more then your do as being part of a a greater organism that is truth seeking and self correcting.
I.e. you demonstrate you are prepared to make basless claims founded on misrepresentation, and when your lies are caught you simply pretend nothing happens and go on to start of new fabrication. Do you deny this behavior?
How about you answer my question about where you source your erroneous claims about IPPC's calculation of climate sensitivity, or own up if you just made it up. Such information is important to enable learning from mistakes.
El Gor refuses to answer his critics. There seems to be some kind of weird roll reversal going on, the school teacher badgering the journalist to reveal his sources.
el gordo, put what ever fake narrative around it that you like. You have been caught spouting untruths (for the umpteenth time) and I'm asking your to come clean and help others learn from your "mistake". Did you make up the bogus figures you attributed to the IPCC, and if not prove it by directing us to a reference.
It is a powerful argument against your approach (and against those who share your approach like Dave Andrews and multiple others of who distort climate science) that you have a demonstrated a disregard for setting the record straight, a disregard for correcting the record, and a demostraighted preference for moving on to preach the next untruth (this time your claims about sealevel 2000 years bp).
Oh, Gordo's allowed to lie because he claims to be a journalist!
That's a new one!
Gordo's not a liar. He's just protecting his super-secret sources, all of whom can never be revealed!
Hottest 12 month period on record continues to get hotter. Anti-scientists say it has an unknown natural cause and promise it will come to an end.
My sources tell me that the troposphere is predicted to cool when the red spot over Indonesia evaporates.
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/extreme/gfs/current/plan_water.html
It would look great on my wall, very post modern.
Those would be your sources that you either made up or refuse to name. el gordo is [not to be trusted](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/open_thread_48.php#comment-2512…).
1) Can any of the otherwise rational-appearing posters explain why they don't just killfile silly trolls and stop filling threads with replies to them? For my sanity, I'm about to start killfile anybody who keeps quoting them and replying... :-)
2) For something more useful, see Deep Climate's great analysis of SM's cherry-picking the CRU emails, with SM saying exactly the opposite of the real thing.
Haven't been in the Jakerman Zone for awhile and I see nothing has changed....
I came across this and envisioned a young Jakerman et al being brainwashed while singing "the ice caps are melting" in 1967...
Right up Deltoid alley...... [ENJOY](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DEoOdcYKbc)
A reminder of why Betula has become obsessed with trying to regain some [lost face](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2277…).
You seem to have been stewing for some time Betula. Happy to relive [old memories](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2274…).
Ahhh...let's look at the big picture.
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin9.htm
Once in a blue moon el gordo posts something useful!
Next elgord will explain how the last 12 months are [hotter than any other](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/open_thread_48.php#comment-2514…) 12 month sequence is history?
Next elgord will explain how the last 12 months are hotter than any other 12 month sequence is history? in recorded history.
Tim, another paper for you to completely demolish:
http://kestencgreen.com/green&armstrong-agw-analogies.pdf
Once again DDT is taken as an example of bad policies. Their evidence? The ramblings of prof.em. D.E. Waite, and a paper in the Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons.
Funniest idiocy in the paper:
"This lack of scientific forecasts is no surprise to climate scientists: our conclusion is in agreement with the conclusions of the more than 31,000 U.S. climate scientists who signed the Robinson petition."
Yeah, 31,000 US climate scientists signed that petition. And my dog is actually a cat from Mars. Really!
[ENCORE!](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DEoOdcYKbc) [ENCORE!](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DEoOdcYKbc)
Climate inactivist PR gimmick watch: Tom Harris is trying to start a "Register of Climate Realists".
I was hoping someone other than Kane would talk about Iraq and wartime mortality in general, but apparently the climate change issue is what interests people here these days. Anyway, here's Les Roberts's reply on the Congo issue--
link
Just found a link to this in the JREF forums. [Bullying, lies and the rise of right-wing climate denial](http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2826189.htm). Did Tim cover this?
@ TS: Tim covered it [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/clive_hamilton_on_the_war_on_s…).
103 DaveR,
Thanks. It did seem unlikely that he wouldn't have done so.
I see Watts and some local yokels are touring Downunder, tapping the goldmine of angry Aussie pensioners.
http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/watts.html#archibald
I'd go and ask a few questions except I'd have to pay a $20-25 admission fee, and I'll be buggered if I contribute to his financial success...
42 Post hoc,
How would D-K candidates be rated? Will voting for them be restricted to people who *are* qualified in the subject?
I think there should be a weighting factor for candidates. The higher the qualifications a person has, the higher the weighting for spouting nonsense, e.g., a Physics PhD would get a higher D-K score than, say, a person with only high-school qualifications, for saying essentially the same thing. The PhD has far less excuse for getting it wrong and for being "unscientific". There should also be weighting for the arrogance with which the claims are presented and defended and for appeals to false authority, especially the candidate's own credentials.
Anyway, I have a great candidate. Read 3bodyproblem's wisdom on evaporation and convection starting [here](http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5904750&postcount=2022). It goes on a bit; the sheer persistence and arrogance adds hugely to the D-K rating IMO.
Anthony David, you mean the David Archibald?
Surely an evening to inspire the most withering of limericks.
@105
Yep, I've noted Watt's is doing the down under tour. He'll also have co-presenters including Jo Nova.
I'm planning to attend one to see what they have to say and report back on it. Should be informative ;)
Good program on BBC2 last night on how climate change is affecting wildlife in the UK. Sadly only available in the UK. [Chris Packham on climate change](http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00shcl6/Springwatch_2010_Signs_of…).
Anyone who enjoys Denial Depot will also enjoy Baron von Monckhofen's own blog, [The Climate Scum](http://theclimatescum.blogspot.com/2010/05/welcome-to-ny-blog-dear-read…).
And so as Climategate fizzles into nothingness, the denialist vultures are beginning to turn on themselves.
For a laugh, read the comments.
112 John,
They're a nice, reasonable lot, aren't they? Somehow I doubt they will ever be aware just how stupid and nasty they are.
I think that McIntyre realises what they never will. He craves respectability so can't afford to be associated too closely with the wingnuts.
The "Climategate" storyTold in all its gloryOf scientists' conspiracyTo roast our democracy
But ask the tellers, 'Proved it?'And they say 'We moved it'While journos strive for on-siteA substitute for insight
Lindzen's speech at the Heartland conference is up at WUWT. This quote is doing the rounds:
âPerhaps we should stop accepting the term, âskeptic.â Skepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition. Current global warming alarm hardly represents a plausible proposition.â
Shameless.
What do they want to be called now, the Climate Heroes?
This should be a very interesting hearing.
House Select Committee Hearing Thursday On Political Attacks Against Climate Scientists
http://www.desmogblog.com/house-select-committee-hearing-thursday-polit…
I'll bet Ben Santer alone certainly has very much to say.
115 DH,
I'm all for Lindzen rejecting the term "skeptic". Denier is much more appropriate.
I crossed swords with one Bill Koutalianos, candidate for the Climate Sceptics party, who turned up on one of the blogs associated with Ross Gittins' latest article on the SMH website.
He just proffered the usual smears against the hockey-stick, Michael Mann and the IPCC.
I ripped into him as fiercely as I could and still get through moderation and then a tone troll calling himself "Hide the Decline" (possibly one of Bill's asssociates) asked me "why the viciousness" and then in the next breath immediately went on to smear Mann some more
I've a couple more comments awaiting moderation but I've tried to be mindful not to give his party any free publicity either. I suspect we'll be hearing more from the likes of him leading up to the election.
Any tips on how best to handle these guys?
>*Any tips on how best to handle these guys?*
It's asymetrical warfare. Claims are cheap, facts and hard evidence are hard won, and require effort to be ready to recall.
Thus point out the asymetry of discussing the issue on a news blog, and refer them to the peer reviewed literature and the statements by NAS, Royal Society etc.
If you want to invest the time, then prod them to produce a some checkable facts and either check out their claims (various good sites to do so) or post them here for others and ask for feedback.
Re setting people straight. Hank Roberts linked to [this study](http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=deepclimate.wordpress.com&ur…), which is briefly summarized by [Scott Mandia here](http://deepclimate.org/2010/05/14/how-to-be-a-climate-science-auditor-p…).
PS. I don't think the Setting People straight study is relevent to those with such a strong cognitive bias as those in the CSP, but of interest for writing for lurkers.
Ah, but you have to understand that some people, not Think Big, of course, would rip Bill Koutalianos a new hole in his chest for repeating such falsehoods as. . . .
But Think, you have to understand, is simply trying to get the facts on the table in a businesslike way
repeated endlessly
The U.S. National Research Council has just issued three reports on climate change and adaptation. They're worth a read. You can find them [here](http://americasclimatechoices.org/)
Also for those with subscriptions, today's issue of Nature has two interesting items on ocean warming, an article by [Lyman et al.](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7296/pdf/nature09043.pdf), and a letter by [Kevin Trenberth](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7296/pdf/465304a.pdf).
[Donald Johnson](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/open_thread_48.php#comment-2517…), nice to see you back.
Thanks for posting the link to Les Roberts' article. The report Roberts was discussing is [The Shrinking Costs of War](http://www.humansecurityreport.info/2009Report/2009Report_Complete.pdf). I haven't had time to read it completely, but the highlighted conclusions are really counter-intuitive. So counter-intuitive, in fact, that I'm inclined to believe that they're wildly wrong.
The director and editor for the Human Security report was Andrew Mack, and [Tim discussed one of Mack's previous papers](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/more_on_surveys_of_violent_war…) back in December. That paper seemed fairly good, so maybe I ought to withhold judgment. But when you're trying to argue that mortality rates fall during war, well... that's pretty damn hard to believe, no matter how you work the numbers.
Another link re the article Donald Johnson posted in 101: [The Human Security Report Project's home page](http://www.humansecurityreport.info/) currently has links to some articles addressing Roberts' criticisms. (Sorry for back-to-back posts, but I hate going over that three-link limit and winding up in moderation.)
@jakerman
That setting people straight study is interesting.
Of relevance is this [paper](http://www.springerlink.com/content/064786861r21m257/fulltext.html) I've linked to before, and discussed at [bad science](http://www.badscience.net/2010/05/evidence-based-smear-campaigns/). Basically, corrections only serve to reinforce contrary perceptions that have been arrived at through idealogical bias.
Nobody can ever replace the late [Jon Swift](http://jonswift.blogspot.com/), but for those of us who still feel his absence, all is not lost. I'd encourage anyone who needs a good laugh to check out Scott Clevenger's wicked-smart [World O'Crap](http://www.world-o-crap.com/blog/).
92 John,
I just have to mention something. Today I had reason to dig out an old Unix course manual. One section starts
I doubt that there was another John Mashey involved in IT/computing at the time. ;)
The dishonesty of Willis Eschenberg
continues apace at WUWT. He gives a list of the kind of persecution honest 'sceptics' have to endure. There's a lot wrong with the list - e.g. attributing words to Greenpeace that that organisation long ago deleted and disowned, however perhaps most slimy is
Joe Romm said that skeptics would be strangled in their beds.
which turns out to be from a comment posted at Romm's place - that Romm deleted.
Got that? It is now acceptable to attribute to blog-authors the sentiments expressed in blog comments. Even when those comments have been deleted by moderators
Now that we know the rules this raises some intriguing possibilities for debate, I am sure you will agree ...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/22/editorializing/
129 Phil,
Are you surprised? Straw man attacks from "sceptics" are seen all the time. isn't this a deranged strawman-by-proxy or strawman^2?
Surprised? No. Viewed outside the cosy confines of WUWT Escehnbach has just dealt his tattered credibility another blow. I guess I am surprised that he continues to walk with so many bulletholes in his feet:
Finally, it was a Greenpeace communication, done by one of their employees on their web site.
Past tense. Willis, it's a shame that you seem to continue to miss my point in all your responses. Attributing a phrase, lifted from a blog post, after that post has been removed, to an organisation seems to be not exactly in the finest tradition of ethical journalism.
Next, you find fault with a few of my examples â¦
Here's the list:
James Hansen of NASA wanted trials for climate skeptics,
Au contraire. Hansen in fact praised scepticism in his piece and he certainly never called for all sceptics to be put on trial, here is the relevant text:
Special interests have blocked transition to our renewable energy future. Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, as tobacco companies discredited the smoking-cancer link. Methods are sophisticated, including funding to help shape school textbook discussions of global warming.
CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.
So a true sceptic would be at no risk from Dr Hansen's proposal. I am reminded of the tobacco executives who testified that they did not believe tobacco was carcinogenic....
Robert Kennedy Jr. called climate skeptics traitors .
No, in reported remarks at a rock concert, his problem was with 'companies that consistently put their private financial interest ahead of American interest and ahead of the interest of all of humanity.' You have conflated that into 'climate sceptics'.
Yvo de Boer of the UN called climate skepticism criminally irresponsible .
No., he described failure to act on the scientific advice as such.
David Suzuki called for politicians who ignore climate science to be jailed.
According to a one-line quote in the National Post. Suzuki never meant it literaly. We know this because he told the 'newspaper' so. Still you give us the quote without the response.
Grist called for Nuremberg trials for skeptics.
Nope, his target was 'the denial industry', those knowingly spreading misinformation in return for renumeration. The opposite of sceptics, you might say.
Joe Romm said that skeptics would be strangled in their beds.
0% true. Romm said no such thing, a cammenter at his blog made this distasteful prediction, which Romm pulled.
A blogger at TPM pondered when it would be acceptable to execute climate deniers .
So? TPM is an open site - anyone can blog there. An example of Sturgeon's Law, no more. If you're worried by this nonsense -which I doubt- you need to develop a thicker skin.
Heidi Cullen of The Weather Channel called for skeptical forecasters to be decertified.
No, she mused over whether forecasters who make statements out of line with the AMS's position should continue to be eligible for that body's Seal of Approval.
You donât discuss Suzuki, the best known Canadian AGW supporter, calling for skeptics to be jailed. That has not been atypical of AGW comments, not on blogs, but by people like Hansen and Suzuki and other prominent folks. You want to get outraged now? Where was your outrage when they were saying those things?
Perhaps because I am not in the habit of reading the National Post, perhaps because I prefer to save my outrage for genuinely outrageous statements, this collection of quote-mined, secondhand, misconstrued press reports, deleted blog comments and faux outrage doesn't do it for me I am afraid.
Seems I am not alone: http://www.readersdigest.ca/mag/cms/xcms/the-canadians-you-trust_2745_a…
OT -- not climate related
Anyone whose grown crystals in school science class (or elsewhere) might like to see how nature does it writ large in Mexico's Cave of Crystals.
(The video is in the news section, so overseas viewers should be able to access it)
Absolutely bloody stunning!
Aargh!
Whose --> who's.
Duh!
@DAve H, Yes very interesting papers. Of note is the finding that:
>people who placed themselves ideologically to the right of center, the correction wasnât just ineffective, it actively backfired: conservatives who received a correction telling them that Iraq did not have WMD were more likely to believe that Iraq had WMD than people who were given no correction at all.
So the result seem to be a finding for people self identifying as right wing. Or perhaps it because the anti- Iraq infor is seen as "left wing"?
I'm sure that the same results would not hold for right wingers being "set straight" with "pro-right" data?
Amusing post at [Stoat](http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/05/eric_fnorrd_and_his_ouija_boar.php).
We've all heard of Fred Singer and his [SEPP](http://sepp.org/about%20sepp/boarddir.html), but it seems that a few of the people he lists as being on the Board of Directors and on the Board of Science Advisors are no longer with us. Perhaps Fred can't bring himself to delete them; he's getting on a bit himself, after all.
James Delingpole has written an excellent piece of satire:
John, I'm fairly sure it was *unconscious* satire.
> As I said when I gave my speech, it was entirely inappropriate that a humble hack like me...
What is this - some self-knowledge? ;-) (Then again, "hack" is often used as slang for "journalist" in the UK rather than "eminently crappy journalist".)
> ...should be on a panel with such great men â like a lowly swineherd suddenly finding himself translated to Mount Olympus.
Don't you get the impression from this and the fawning SPPI post that the debate embodied in large part the British old boys club patting themselves on the back for their privileged social status, with a bevy of adulatory sycophants looking on?
Of course this is entirely appropriate because it constitutes an exemplary environment for getting to the truth of a scientific question. ``
> Then again, I said, it wasnât such a bad idea that I was there to inject a note of reality to the proceedings.
Ah, so the other speakers ... were in fairy land? Interesting observation.
And the best they could find to "inject reality" was Delingpole? Hard times indeed.
> The scientists on our side of the argument have won (which is why no Warmist will dare debate Richard Lindzen, and while Al Gore wonât debate anyone at all: they know theyâd lose).
Debate is entirely appropriate to settle a scientific question if you're a classics major, right? Because it's all about swaying opinion rather than being correct...
...and how amusing that Lindzen is juxtaposed with Gore. Why, it's almost like they're afraid to debate anyone representing the science who's an *actual* scientist!
...and amusingly Delingpole is echoing the creationist schtick - "no-one will [take us seriously enough to] debate us, therefore we claim victory".
And Delingpole conveniently forgets that Monbiot destroyed Plimer - a fact he should remember given that Monbiot made Delingpole himself look fairly uncomfortable on TV a few months ago.
Tony Abbott [notes](http://www.smh.com.au/national/climate-change-no-longer-crap-abbott-say…) that Rudd's declining approval ratings appear to be related to abandoning climate change legislation - and one must wonder if the climate change-approval link is related to his new position that the science is no longer "crap".
On SwiftHack: crua6.cru.uea.ac.uk, the potentially vulnerable CRU computer that was...
Why is Radio National giving a [free swing to Matt Ridley](http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s2911311.htm)?
This comes on the heels of this unchecked and unresponded to [free swing to Ian Plimer](http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/05/14/2900170.htm).
Some [more from Ridley's archive](http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,994022,00.html), Jeff Harvey will love this one!
Matt Ridley:
>The question that people disagree about is whether that one degree of carbon dioxide induced warming would produce two more degrees of water vapour induced warming, which is essentially what the IPCC argues.
>I'm increasingly convinced that the empirical and theoretical evidence doesn't support that view and that on the whole clouds will more likely slow or mitigate the carbon dioxide warming rather than exaggerate it.
What empirical evidence would that be? A decade of missing heat? Which is [not missing any more](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/plot/wti/trend)? Global Brightening as identified by Pinker and much vaunted and abused by Monckton is consistent with feedback [predicted in models](http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/2009GL037527.pdf).
But give us the theoretical evidence Matt?
>But it's very hard to pull a global climate signature out of a local weather pattern as it were **of a few decades long**. Which is why as you say nobody's quite sure exactly what's happening.
So what has convinced Matt Ridley is if no positive feedback? More than a few decades of observations?
>But, you know, there is absolutely no doubt, if you look at the models, that the number of people in the world at increased water stress as a result of the predicted climate change
Including those experience flooding? Perhaps they will open the doors to the hundreds of millions of water stress refugees?
>The evidence suggests that we are actually going to see higher crop yields, slightly higher rain fall, no major change in storms,
Not were the most vulnerable live in Africa much of Asia and South America. But at leas the well to do in northern Europe, Russia and Canada will open the doors to the starving g hundreds of millions (just like they did in the last century ).
>no significant change in, well, a very slow change in sea level, no huge damage to habitats.
What? Well he's right if you don't count the habitats that will suffer, such as small islands states, alpine habitats, the cryosphere, much of Africa, Asia and South America, Australia. We don't count though.
Then in the following century the Northern rich will start to feel the bite of warming a little more pressingly.
This is concerning. I think I can anticipate how it will be presented.
"mainly in physical sciences", or, to paraphrase, "I'm a physicist, therefore I can do any other branch of science better than the professionals, I just choose not to."
[Imputing "scientific impotence" as a denialism method](http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/05/when-science-clashes-with-b…).
> ...one of these methods, which the authors term "scientific impotence"âthe decision that science can't actually address the issue at hand properly. It finds evidence that not only supports the scientific impotence model, but suggests that it could be contagious. Once a subject has decided that a given topic is off limits to science, they tend to start applying the same logic to other issues.
Hmmmm, wonder how often I've seen that method used before...?
Here is a paper recently submitted to the Arxiv: "Are Uranus & Neptune responsible for Solar Grand Minima and Solar Cycle Modulation?".
If this is valid, Earth will probably be cooling for decades.
>If this is valid, Earth will probably be cooling for decades.
[No it would not](http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/09/14/what-if-the-sun-got-stuck/).
Dave R, thank you, but if the analysis at the BraveNewClimate link were valid, then it should be able to explain the Little Ice Age: does it really?
poiuyt,
[Yes.](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig614.png)
> This is concerning.
What is also concerning is that quotes from some of the "agnostic" Royal Society members - if accurate, which, based on past performance, one cannot presume - indicate a lack of comprehension and/or poor reasoning for their campaign:
For example, the Royal Society climate change pamphlet currently says:
> "This is not intended to provide exhaustive answers to every contentious argument that has been put forward by those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate changeâ¦"
In response:
> One Fellow who said he was not absolutely convinced of the dangers of CO2 told me: "This appears to suggest that anyone who questions climate science is malicious. ..."
I'm not so sure about that. It suggests that those who seek to "distort and undermine the science" put forth "contentious arguments" - not that everyone who questions is malicious. It appears to be the old "all dogs have four legs, therefore that large four-legged bovine over there is a dog" fallacy.
luminous beauty, thank you! that's clear.
#143 and #149
According to an [article in The Times](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7139407.ece) the leader of Royal Society 'rebellion' is Sir Alan Rudge, an electrical engineer who also happens to be advisor to the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Bob Ward, in a subsequent [letter to the Times](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article7141173.ece), identifies another 'rebel' as a metallurgist who happens also to be an advisor to the GWPF (presumably Prof Anthony Kelly).
I think it is clear who is behind the petition. Ultimately, not much will come of it, although no doubt the 'rebellion' will get a lot news coverage than will its resolution later this year.
The Times article does say:
"He (Sir Alan) refused to name the other signatories but admitted that few of them had worked directly in climate science and many were retired."
Quelle surprise!
The liars have really excelled themselves this time. Story at [canadafreepress](http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/23800) accusing Gavin Schmidt of fraud.
Note that well know über-cretin Alan Siddons is involved.
The denial echo chamber has gone into a new tizz over 43 unknown fellows "forcing the Royal Society to rethink their position on AGW" or words to that effect.
Google on terms "royal society 43 fellows" for a few pages from SteveFielding, ClimateChangeFraud, GWPF, etc, the usual duplicators.
From the blog at the Royal Society itself http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/05/nameless_fellows_at…
The lack of any evidence/research defines these chamber reverbs and no difference here with the usual no references no data, no research, no science. Why is is this stuff entertained, why can't it be said "you've got no research, this is a science based organisation, bugger off but please come back when you've got some data".
ooops - how embarrassment - I had not refreshed this page in a few days and had missed the dozen posts previous
Hansen and co-authors report that [the last 12 months have been the hottest 12-month period in the GISS instrumental record](http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/the-warmest-year-yet-s…).
Cue the usual denialist tizzies, complete with a whole load of goldfishes in orbit...
Check out the audience of this David Evans presentation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTUDWy6T050
AGW scepticism will die when these people do.
Lothasson, IIRC, the figure to the end of May was a fraction higher than to the end of April figure too.
From the NOAA State of the Climate for May:
"The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for JanuaryâMay 2010 was the warmest on record. The year-to-date period was 0.68°C (1.22°F) warmer than the 20th century average."