David Karoly – talk on climate change in Sydney, Monday 11 October

David Karoly is giving a free talk on climate change in Sydney on 11 October. Details:

Climate change: Do you want the good news or the bad news?

Professor David Karoly will separate the truth from the spin on climate change, telling it how it is.

There are fascinating good-news stories about real world solutions that have already been implemented, globally, in Australia and in other countries.

But how far do we have to go to avoid dangerous climate change? What is Australia’s fair contribution to a global response on climate change? How bad might climate change get if we decide to continue with business as usual?

Professor David Karoly is Professor of Meteorology and Federation Fellow of the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne. He is active in research in climate change science, particularly on detection and attribution of climate change. He was a lead author of the chapter “Assessment of observed changes and responses in natural and managed systems” in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report “Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” and a member of the core writing team for the IPCC AR4 Synthesis Report.

Monday 11 October at 6.30pm, at Wharf 1, Pier 4/5, Hickson Road, Walsh Bay.

Comments

#1 Rick Bradford
October 4, 2010

Well, if we’re restricted to the prestigious journals, we could start with:

“Decreased frequency of North Atlantic polar lows associated with future climate warming” – Nature, September 2010

“An abrupt drop in Northern Hemisphere sea surface temperature around 1970″ – Nature July 2010

You would think that those papers might cause interested parties to at least recalibrate their views on causation and effects.
#2 adelady
October 4, 2010

Okaaaay. Had a look at the abstracts. Someone with access will have to look at the full papers.

I saw no claim that there was or will be no global warming. The first paper explicitly states that their *model* shows a regional effect of continued warming. The other paper concentrates on differences between the hemispheres. I saw nothing about a challenge to the general theory of a warming climate.

What have I missed? Anything?
#3 Rick Bradford
October 4, 2010

I saw nothing about a challenge to the general theory of a warming climate.

Is that the full extent of the IPCC’s conclusions?

Even I believe in the general theory of a warming climate.
#4 Dave R
October 4, 2010

Rick Bradford, as you have been asked numerous times, state which specific conclusions of the IPCC you think are seriously contradicted by those papers or explicitly concede that none are.
#5 zoot
October 4, 2010

My fault entirely (I hadn’t realised I was dealing with a post-modernist), but when I wrote

Maybe Rick can supply us with the name of a climate scientist of Karoly’s standing and experience, but without Karoly’s bias?

I was hoping he would name a scientist who agrees with Karoly.

So; second try.

Who, amongst the 97% of climate scientists who agree on the extent of human caused global warming and the severity of the situation facing us as humans would Rick not accuse of spin?
#6 jakerman
October 4, 2010

Rick keeps promising the goods and keep delivering damp squips. Come on Rick, I thought you had a truck load of papers that would overturn the IPCC conclusions.

Instead you’ve got a nonscientific non-peer reviewed article from SPPI and two titles from credible papers that do not seriously contradict the conclusions of the IPCC.

Rick’s failure seems to be adding weight to Karoly’s assessment.
#7 Rick Bradford
October 4, 2010

As I have said before, I simply do not have the time to argue the merits of scientific papers bullet-point by bullet-point and graph by graph.

Y’all will defend your sand-castle to the bitter end, I don’t doubt, but nothing that has been said here alters my opinion that Karoly, distinguished scientist though he may be, would be better advised to show some more balance and humility in his public pronouncements, given the broad uncertainties and counter-arguments that exist.
#8 chek
October 4, 2010

[Rick Bradford said: "given the broad uncertainties and counter-arguments that exist".](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/09/david_karoly_-_talk_on_climate.php#comment-2837574)

And as [Bernard J](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/09/david_karoly_-_talk_on_climate.php#comment-2830848) eloquently pointed out you misunderstand those ‘broad uncertainties’ to range from nothing to something, whereas a professional like Karoly understands the phrase to mean ranging from quite unpleasant to very unpleasant consequences.

I’ll go with the judgement of the professional rather than the wishful thinker.
#9 jakerman
October 4, 2010

Shorter Rick:

I’ve got nothing that I can defend properly(which as Karoly’s point). But I still want to argue the point as though I had something. But I don’t have time to argue the scienfic point.
#10 MFS
October 4, 2010

Rick,

There is wide consensus in the scientific community that the earth is round. However there are those who are skeptic of this theory and instead believe [the earth is flat](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society).

Do you think a scientist that has studied the earth is biased if he states that the earth is categorecally round, as all the evidence points in this direction? Do you think the uncertainty regarding the exact shape of the earth, given the flexibility of its crust, invalidate the theory that the earth is round?

Would he have to concede flat earth talking points in order to retain so-called balance? This type of balance you espouse is merely a construct of modern MSM, who act like two conflicting points of view have equal merit even when one is empirically derived from testing and observation, the other from a gut feeling and nothing else.

>As I have said before, I simply do not have the time to argue the merits of scientific papers bullet-point by bullet-point and graph by graph.

So you state that there are 500 papers that contradict climate science. When shown that many of them are not peer-reviewed, many are in journals like E&E that don’t even rate mentioning in ‘current contents’, and among the rest quite a few don’t actually contradict global warming, and challenged to show how they do so, you clearly demonstrate your mettle. You are simply parroting a line from a denier website.
#11 Rick Bradford
October 4, 2010

Oh, come on — the Flat Earth and Media Balance horse is so dead it’s virtually extinct. I’m surprised you didn’t drag in the Creationists as well.

As you may know, those of us in the skeptic community regard the MSM as little more than a craven repository of uninformed and uncritical climate alarmism.

Recently, though, some of the better-known members of the UK media entourage – Monbiot, Pearce, Black, have seen the hole they’re in and have started to try to negotiate their way back to credibility. But there’s a long way to go.
#12 Lotharsson
October 4, 2010

> Is that the full extent of the IPCC’s conclusions?

Piss-weak.

I challenged you at least **twice** to provide a paper **and an IPCC conclusion** which you think the paper seriously contradicts, and thus far all you’ve got is unsupported implication that the “serious contradictions” exist but you have a “lack of time” to explain why.

Apparently you’ve got time to determine that the papers you cite prove that Karoly is not applying appropriate scientific judgement in his public comments, and you’ve got time to put up a pathetic “defense” of your claims about Karoly, but you don’t have time to explain how you reached that conclusion.

Your followup line is that “you trust Christy and Curry” – which merely indicates you aren’t competent to be making the claims about the science – and Karoly’s communications – that you’re making.
#13 Chris O'Neill
October 4, 2010

Rick Bradford:

Don’t presume to know my motives.

Your attitude is completely obvious. You never address any issue of substance such as the fact that climate science papers in Energy and Environment are not reviewed by climate scientists.
#14 Chris O'Neill
October 4, 2010

climate science papers in Energy and Environment are not reviewed by climate scientists

Or at least, with a few exceptions, they are reviewed by people who are not climate scientists.
#15 Stu N
October 4, 2010

>As you may know, those of us in the skeptic community regard the MSM as little more than a craven repository of uninformed and uncritical climate alarmism.

Is that the same MSM that includes the likes of the Australian, the Telegraph, all the others whose steadfast rejection of climate science (yes, including the parts that any reasonably intelligent person could not reject while calling themselves a sceptic) has been documented here at Deltoid?

I suppose some publications are a craven repository of uninformed and uncritical alarmism – the unfounded alarmism being that AGW is all a big conspiracy to form a communist world government and/or send us back to the stone age.

I think perhaps a more apt description of the MSM, or at least a good chunk of it, is ‘retarded’.
#16 Poptech
October 4, 2010

Chris C,

1. No letters to the editor or viewpoints appear on the list. Reports are peer-reviewed in E&E.

2. It helps if you read the intro to the page, “Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 800 papers.” Thus submitted papers are NOT counted.

3. Papers can be listed if they either “support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW.” Brook’s papers fall into the later category and support skeptics argument that tornadoes are not getting worse due to climate change. The disclaimer in the page removes any possible implication of his personal position on AGW.

4. All the papers counted are peer-reviewed. Letters in Nature are peer-reviewed. Articles in economic journals are also peer-reviewed.

5. The purpose of the list is to provide a resource for the skeptical arguments being made in peer-reviewed journals and to demonstrate the existence of these papers. It is not supposed to be a single argument but rather a resource for all of them.
#17 MFS
October 4, 2010

C’mon Rick!

It’s simple. If [there are](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/09/david_karoly_-_talk_on_climate.php#comment-2832588):

>over 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers, some of which I have read, and which “seriously contradict the conclusions of the IPCC.” (my emphasis)

Then how hard is it to tell us which papers contradict which IPCC conclusions? C’mon, you have your list. You clearly state you have read at least some of them! For bonus points, you could even show that said papers were ignored or supressed by AR4.
#18 PT
October 4, 2010

Adelady,

Rebuttal to “450 more lies from the climate change Deniers”
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=3595

Rebuttal to “Poptart’s 450 climate change Denier lies”
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=3650
#19 Bernard J.
October 5, 2010

[MSF](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/09/david_karoly_-_talk_on_climate.php#comment-2837649).

Your comparison reminds me of the old joke about 1 equalling 0 for very small values of 1.

Similarly (if one ignores calculus), the Earth is flat for very small values of surface area, and the planet is neither warming nor cooling for very small values of time.

Except there’s still that darned calculus…

Rick Bradford, if you resent the comparison with Flat Earthers and with Creationists, all you need to do is to indicate what science you accept, and upon what work/publications you base your acceptance.

Is it warming? Why?

If it is, is it warming much? Why?
#20 Lotharsson
October 5, 2010

PT == PopTart? Or just a coincidence?
#21 Rick Bradford
October 5, 2010

@Lotharsson,

What I do not have time to do is to go round in circles.

For example, if I quote the statement: “The effects of global change on extinction risk are difficult to anticipate. Global warming will increase some habitats and their species-holding capacity, just as warming reduces other habitats. The net effect for biodiversity of these habitat expansions and contractions is not obvious.”

as a serious contradiction of the IPCC AR4 claim that:

“On average 20% to 30% of species assessed are likely to be at increasingly high risk of extinction from climate change impacts possibly within this century.”

… you have the standard options: 1) say it is not a serious contradiction; 2) say it was published in a sub-standard journal; 3) say that if I trust the authors, I must be ruled incompetent to debate.

The technique is not new — we’ve all read Effective Agit-Prop for the Committed Activist, but it doesn’t lead anywhere.
#22 MFS
October 5, 2010

Rick,

The statements:

>“The effects of global change on extinction risk are difficult to anticipate. Global warming will increase some habitats and their species-holding capacity, just as warming reduces other habitats. The net effect for biodiversity of these habitat expansions and contractions is not obvious.”

And

>“On average 20% to 30% of species assessed are likely to be at increasingly high risk of extinction from climate change impacts possibly within this century.”

Are not in any way contradictory.

An if you think they are you are clearly incapable of assessing syntax and logic.
#23 Ian Forrester
October 5, 2010

PT is poptech/poptart/popfart.

He has been banned from this site since he refuses to apologize to me for the scurrilous behaviour he showed to me and my family, putting them under undue stress.

He is a despicable little fart and should be banned again.
#24 jakerman
October 5, 2010

Rick tries to debate the science but gets it wrong.

Rick cites this text from [Buckley 2004](http://www.nature.com/uidfinder/10.1038/nature02717) :

>*The effects of global change on extinction risk are difficult to anticipate. Global warming will increase some habitats and their species-holding capacity, just as warming reduces other habitats. The net effect for biodiversity of these habitat expansions and contractions is not obvious.”*

Then Rick wrongly claims this is:

>a serious contradiction of the IPCC AR4 claim that: *”On average 20% to 30% of species assessed are likely to be at increasingly high risk of extinction from climate change impacts possibly within this century.”*

Simply wrong Rick, if we take the pressure off one habitat we don’t get some magic ‘extinction credit’ for destroying a different habitat.

If some habits are degraded further by AGW we will increase the extinction rate, this will occur even if we improve a different species habitat.

You cant add the biomass of rabbits to compensate for biodiversity loss of Betongs.
#25 jakerman
October 5, 2010

Rick needs to add some more “standard options” to his list to include a.1) show Rick how the a paper doesn’t say what he wants it to say.
#26 Lotharsson
October 5, 2010

> …they instead support rejection of AGW alarm.

PT, please provide the working definition of “AGW alarm” used to determine which papers appear on the list.

And PT & Rick Bradford both – please elaborate on the difference between “supports skepticism of” a proposition and “does not outweigh all other evidence for” a proposition – and state whether you think the former conclusion precludes the latter. (Considering the processes needed to arrive at those two conclusions might be relevant.)
#27 Lotharsson
October 5, 2010

> The technique is not new — we’ve all read Effective Agit-Prop for the Committed Activist, but it doesn’t lead anywhere.

It’s interesting that Rick appears to presume (unless it’s merely an attempt to avoid being put on the scientific spot) that the *only* responses that can be forthcoming must consist of “agit-prop”, and thus do not address the scientific questions…especially since he spent a lot of time himself not addressing the scientific questions.
#28 jakerman
October 5, 2010

Re Poptart’s list. He claims all his papers are peer reivewed (expect for all those he lists that arn’t peer reviewed).

But Poptart is more reluctant to divulge that they haven’t all passed peer review. I.e. his list includes [this little cracker](http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1828v1) and [more failures](http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/agu_censorship.pdf) like it.

I suggest that If poptart wants to make claims like 800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism that he take out all the dross that contradict his claim, then we can count what is left.
#29 Chris O'Neill
October 5, 2010

Rick Bradford:

The technique is not new — we’ve all read Effective Agit-Prop for the Committed Activist

Dear Rick, please point out to us where the political statement is in:

“climate science papers in Energy and Environment are, with few exceptions, reviewed by people who are not climate scientists.”

Are you claiming this is untrue or what?
#30 jakerman
October 5, 2010

Some counts from the list

134 Energy & Environment

69 Idso

29 Patrick J. Michaels

24 Bruce A. Kimball

23 [Climate Research](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Research_(journal))

22 Richard S. Lindzen

18 McKitrick

17 Ross McKitrick

17 John R. Christy

17 Henrik Svensmark

17 Willie H. Soon

17 John R. Christy

17 Henrik Svensmark

16 Indur M. Goklany

14 Paul C. Knappenberger

14 Roger A. Pielke Sr

14 Paul C. Knappenberger

14 David H. Douglass

14 Nicola Scafetta

14 Paul C. Knappenberger

12 Roger A. Pielke Jr.

11 Christopher W. Landsea

11 Nils-Axel Morner

10 de Freitas

10 Carter

10 S. Fred Singer
#31 Rick Bradford
October 5, 2010

If you folks truly can see no contradiction (Option 1) between: “on average 20% to 30% of species assessed are likely to be at increasingly high risk of extinction” and a statement that says there is no positive indication of a increased risk of extinction, then we really have no basis for future discussion.
#32 MFS
October 5, 2010

Rick,

You really ARE thick.

Your statement that:

>“The effects of global change on extinction risk are difficult to anticipate. Global warming will increase some habitats and their species-holding capacity, just as warming reduces other habitats. The net effect for biodiversity of these habitat expansions and contractions is not obvious.”

Does not say [what you wish it to say](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/09/david_karoly_-_talk_on_climate.php#comment-2838127). It merely says the effects are not obvious and go both ways. The part that says “… just as warming reduces other habitats…” indeed reinforces the fact that vulnerable species will indeed be affected.
#33 zoot
October 5, 2010

Yep; Rick’s an idiot.
#34 Wow
October 5, 2010

> Re Poptart’s list. He claims all his papers are peer reivewed (expect for all those he lists that arn’t peer reviewed).

It also includes work that the *AUTHORS* have asked to be taken off the list because poptart is misrepresenting their work.

E.g. Pielke.

Pielke may be venal but he has *some* integrity and doesn’t want his work abused even if it helps his “cause”.

But apparently Poptart knows better than Pielke what he meant and it’s Poptart’s list so suck on it, RP…
#35 Bernard J.
October 5, 2010

It seems that I am brought to asking the same questions over and over…

[Rick Bradford](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/09/david_karoly_-_talk_on_climate.php#comment-2838127), like Jeff Harvey I am an ecologist, and population dynamics were the focus of my PhD work. I have many scores of references that discuss the increased extinction risk that will result from alterations in bioclimatic envelopes. The IPCC agrees with this consensus, and the authors of this quote:

The effects of global change on extinction risk are difficult to anticipate. Global warming will increase some habitats and their species-holding capacity, just as warming reduces other habitats. The net effect for biodiversity of these habitat expansions and contractions is not obvious…

also agree: there is no contradiction, as several posters above have pointed out. This is particlarly evidence it one [considers the words that immediately follow your cherry-picked sentences](http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/BuckleyRoughgarden2004.pdf). The piece continues:

…is not obvious, particularly as species ranges may shift poleward from the tropics, where the greatest number of species is currently. Although we contest the species–area approach used by Thomas et al., we acknowledge species’ vulnerability to extinction from
climate change.

[Emphasis mine]

Now, that might require more deconstruction that you are able to cope with, but believe me, the quote – as far as it goes – does not preclude an elevated rate of climate-related extinctions.

Note too that Buckley and Roughgarden, the authors of the letter, are only two workers, and certainly do not represent the totally of the science. Personally, I take some of their points and am dubious about others.

What this quote most definitely is not, is a refutation of the impact that anthropogenic global warming will have on the ongoing survival of species, communities, and perhaps even ecosystems. I note that for your little game you seem to be sourcing a pernicious piece by [Donna Laframboise](http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/another-ipcc-train-wreck-species-extinction-part-1/), who uses a lot of impressive-seeming words to twist science into pretzels, without ever actually properly transmitting the import of the science.

One class act following another…

…or not.

And for what it’s worth, I am sure that someone with more time on their hands than I have at present will soon smack Laframboise down thoroughly.

She certainly deserves it.
#36 Rick Bradford
October 5, 2010

IPCC: “We have identified an overall positive heightened risk of biodiversity loss.”

Buckley: “We have NOT identified an overall positive heightened risk of biodiversity loss.”

If you don’t see that as a contradiction, then as I said, we have no basis on which to continue the debate.

But if Karoly thinks the same way as you, I can just about see how he can say with a straight face that he sees no “serious contradiction” of IPCC conclusions.

It’s all been solved in the last reel.
#37 Lotharsson
October 5, 2010

> …a statement that says there is no positive indication of a increased risk of extinction.

It doesn’t say that…

[To a 1st order approximation, stating that a change that impacts members of a set such that the **net effect** over the entire set is uncertain does NOT preclude the change impacting some members in one way and some the opposite way. To a 2nd order approximation, "increasing risk of extinction" - which is an attribute of an **individual species** - isn't precisely the opposite of "net biodiversity" - which is an attribute of a **region of the ecosystem consisting of multiple species** - so the two are neither direct inverses of one another, nor mutually exclusive.]

…which demonstrates that you’re not personally capable of accurately coming to the conclusions about the science that you use to infer that the scientists are biased.

And that’s not any kind of insult or denigratory observation. It’s true for most of us at varying levels of scientific depth – which is kind of why we have the IPCC and various national science bodies assessing using deep experts to assess the evidence as a whole. And *that* is why PopTart’s list of N-hundred papers is meaningless on its own. The list is designed (consciously or not) to sucker people who overestimate their own ability to assess the scientific claims, especially when pointed at a limited and unrepresentative sample of the evidence…
#38 Lotharsson
October 5, 2010

> IPCC: “We have identified an overall positive heightened risk of biodiversity loss.”

Let us assume for the sake of argument that this new version (goalpost shifting? Fabrication? New misunderstanding? Or merely re-paraphrasing without immediately obvious fidelity? Or citing a previously uncited quote?) is accurate.

Then:

> Buckley: “We have NOT identified an overall positive heightened risk of biodiversity loss.”

Let us assume for the sake of argument that this is also an accurate paraphrase of Buckley.

In order to demonstrate basic scientific and logical competence, please explain under what circumstances these two statements are NOT mutually contradictory. For bonus points reference any of the myriad of similarly logically structured examples from the history of science – or any other field you care to cite.

Once you’ve done that, perhaps you should examine whether your paraphrases are accurate.

Or failing those, perhaps refraining from drawing scientific conclusions might be warranted.
#39 Bernard J.
October 5, 2010

[Rick Bradford attributes to Buckley and Roughgarden the following quote](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/09/david_karoly_-_talk_on_climate.php#comment-2838185):

Buckley: “We have NOT identified an overall positive heightened risk of biodiversity loss.”

when, if [their letter](http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/BuckleyRoughgarden2004.pdf) is read from beginning to end, nothing of the sort was said by them.

There are quite a number of words for describing the doing of something like Bradford just did.
#40 Rick Bradford
October 5, 2010

It is a direct contradiction, and it was framed as such.

The Buckley paper was written as a specific response to the Thomas paper, which was a leading source for the IPCC claim.

The Buckley paper begins: “Thomas et al. argue, contrary to Sala et al., that climate change poses an equal or greater threat to global biodiversity than land-use change.

.We contest this claim, however, on the grounds that Thomas et al. incorrectly apply species–area relationships.”

Buckley thought she was making a contradiction, and so did Nature.
#41 Rick Bradford
October 5, 2010

I guess you really can’t see the contradiction between the IPCC statement of an alarming positive trend, and Buckley’s statement that no such trend can be identified.

I am honestly surprised that you can’t see it, as to me it seems perfectly plain and obvious.

That being the case, I shall leave you to conduct this discussion on your own, and shall withdraw, rather perplexed at the different standards of logic that seem to apply here.
#42 ChrisC
October 5, 2010

I’m going to go out on a limb here an defend Rick Bradford for this statement:

wish Karoly had told ‘Four Corners’ that “blah blah blah”. But he doesn’t. He says “blah blah blah”,

Rick’s, IMHO, is not an unreasonable position. Expecting scientist to carefully consider their choice of words, even when giving interviews to the popular press, is something that’s not unreasonable to expect. While I disagree with Rick’s proposed statement, if I had been in Karoly’s position, I would have said something different. Rick, I kinda agree with you here!

As for this:

The Buckley paper begins: “Thomas et al. argue, contrary to Sala et al., that climate change poses an equal or greater threat to global biodiversity than land-use change.

We contest this claim, however, on the grounds that Thomas et al. incorrectly apply species–area relationships

I’m afraid you’re on your own. I’ve highlighted what I think is the key part of what you’ve quoted. Below are a few bits and pieces from chapter 4 of AR4 (WGII) . I’ll let you work out why I, and just about every other person here, thinks you’re wrong on this point:

It appears that moderate levels of atmospheric CO2 rise and climate change relative to current conditions may be beneficial in some regions (Nemani et al., 2003), depending on latitude, on the CO2 responsiveness of plant functional types, and on the
natural adaptive capacity of indigenous biota… (page 240)

and

Globally, biodiversity (represented by species richness and relative abundance) may decrease by 13 to 19% due to a combination of land-use change, climate change and nitrogen deposition under four scenarios by 2050 relative to species present in 1970 (Duraiappah et al., 2005). Looking at projected losses due to land-use change alone (native habitat loss), habitat reduction in tropical forests and woodland, savanna and warm mixed forest accounts for 80% of the species projected to be lost (about
30,000 species – Sala, 2005). (page 241)

and finally

As indicated in the TAR, climate changes are being imposed on ecosystems experiencing other substantial and largely detrimental pressures. Roughly 60% of evaluated ecosystems
are currently utilised unsustainably and show increasing signs of degradation (Reid et al., 2005; Hassan et al., 2005; Worm et al., 2006). This alone will be likely to cause widespread biodiversity loss… (page 241)

The IPCC readily acknowledges uncertainties and the impact of land use changes in certain biomes. I can’t see any where in the AR4 where the IPCC says that “change poses an equal or greater threat to global biodiversity than land-use change.” across all biomes. Some yes. All no. I don’t see any contradiction.

I do think we’ve been a bit hard on Rick. He’s certainly alot better than some of the trolls we get around here.
#43 jakerman
October 5, 2010

Rick what are you playing at [making up quotes](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/09/david_karoly_-_talk_on_climate.php#comment-2838185) to fabricate your argument?

Did you not think you’d get [caught out](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/09/david_karoly_-_talk_on_climate.php#comment-2838196)?

Sheesh, how low can you go?
#44 jakerman
October 5, 2010

After fabricating quotes Ricks posts become comical:

>*I guess you really can’t see the contradiction between the IPCC statement of an alarming positive trend, and Buckley’s statement that no such trend can be identified.*

Funny that we couldn’t it when you just made it up?

>*I am honestly surprised that you can’t see it, as to me it seems perfectly plain and obvious.*

Did you get ironic just of he is “**honestly** surprised that we can’t see it, as it seems perfectly plain and obvious.

So plain and obvious that … Rick Bradford resorted fabricating quotes to convey his lies as fact.
#45 Lotharsson
October 5, 2010

> Expecting scientist to carefully consider their choice of words, even when giving interviews to the popular press, is something that’s not unreasonable to expect.

To be accurate, we don’t know that Karoly *didn’t* do so. And we don’t know the wider context of the words he did choose.

> It is a direct contradiction, and it was framed as such.

It was not a direct contradiction, at least not as you paraphrased it. And it *still* isn’t when you provide a more direct quote:

> …that climate change poses an equal or greater threat to global biodiversity than land-use change.

This is not even *close* to semantically equivalence with your previous paraphrases.

For one thing, a *relative* claim between **two** factors (one factor is believed to have a greater effect on some outcome than another) is not the same as an *absolute* claim for **one** factor (we can/can’t show/can rule out that the factor in question has a given effect on some outcome). Apples and oranges – just like extinction risk for a species and biodiversity measures across a portion of an ecosystem.

If you literally can’t see the difference between the quote and your previous paraphrases – or between the quote and the IPCC statement that you claim it contradicts, then you aren’t equipped to assess the science.

By way of analogy, what is the difference between “not found guilty” and “found innocent”? Or do you think that they have identical meanings? How many scientific studies can you find in the literature that do not find support for a given hypothesis, but do not rule it out – and for which other studies do find support?
#46 Poptech the Censored
October 5, 2010

Why is Mr. Lambert censoring my replies? Is he afraid that the posters here are incapable of arguing with me?

jakerman, what part of this do you not understand?

“Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count.”

All the papers COUNTED are peer-reviewed.
#47 The Censored One
October 5, 2010

Adelady, the corrections are here,

Rebuttal to “450 more lies from the climate change Deniers”
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=3595

Rebuttal to “Poptart’s 450 climate change Denier lies”
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=3650
#48 jakerman
October 5, 2010

Tarty, read read my post it went over your head. You conflate all the junk and papers together, we keep finding papers that don’t fit the description, you keep saying that there are others. Its just too easy to find junk in your list. How big would it really be without all the junk?

It works out as a ploy for you to avoid criticism. I suggest you remove all the dross so we can see what might be left.
#49 Starwatcher
October 5, 2010

@ Rick & Adelay, Regarding – An abrupt drop in northern hemisphere sea surface temperature around 1970

The paper’s main point seems to be said cooling cannot be attributed to the more common factors; aerosols , volcanic cooling, ENSO, arctic oscillation. Towards the end they weakly state said cooling is a result of the North Atlantic and marine surface air temperature being more coupled then usual due to a slowdown of the thermohaline circulation caused by documented regional drops in salinity in the late 60′s.

Concluding paragraph:
… The spatial and temporal structures of the drop in NH – SH sea surface temperatures suggest that the hemispheric differences in sea surface trends during the mid-twentieth century derive not from hemispheric asymmetries in tropospheric aerosol loadings or oscillatory decadal variability in the oceans …
#50 Sleep Apnea
May 5, 2012

Starwatcher / NAF,

“The paper’s main point seems to be said cooling cannot be attributed to the more common factors; aerosols , volcanic cooling, ENSO, arctic oscillation. Towards the end they weakly state said cooling is a result of the North Atlantic and marine surface air temperature being more coupled then usual due to a slowdown of the thermohaline circulation caused by documented regional drops in salinity in the late 60′s.”

Couldn’t agree more. Utter sophistry to peddle the agenda of those parties to whom climate change is an inconvenience and has implications on their profit margins. Those who commission, carry out and publish these studies should hang their heads in shame.

Disgrace.