By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.
No Jeff, not really …
The discussions here are about the climate scare, the A in GW, and always have been.
It is you who incessantly are trying (knowingly?) or just happen (out of intellectual sloppiness or impotence) to move not only the goalposts, but randomly and erratically switch topics without ever addressing what actually are the core issues.
Nobody brought up frogs, biodiversity, DK, think tanks, CV:s, fossil fuel, denialists, blog support, corporate interests etc, to argue that the A in GW must or should be low or modest. It is the other way around: Those things were brought up by the faithers as ‘arguments’ for why the more scientifically inclined should be wrong and not believed, shouted down, swatted out, or even exterminated.
Don’t try to wiggle your way out of this now! You have made angry accusations many times about those who *‘don’t want to do anything about it’ * wrt to the glaciers. So your ‘argument’ certainly has been about the A. Even if you have forgotten, or more generally (as it seems) aren’t aware of what you are saying or responding to.
As I’ve said many times: Climate change has always happened, especially and even more so on the local habitat-relevant level. To argue that the A in GW is a major factor among stresses on species and their local habitat is far more difficult than only arguing the A on the global scale. And even that is quite difficult. Which presumably we constantly are bombarded with (completely irrelevant) other issues, even from so called ‘scientists’. Some of them seemingly not even aware of that they aren’t furthering support for the A in GW.
You may also want to remember that the natural (substantial, global) climate change that has occurred only in the recent centuries is of larger magnitude that what currently is hypothesized being the anthropogenic contribution. Arguing that species are (because they must be) quite resilient to natural climate change, but very fragile and susceptible to a possible anthropogenic signal would once more be unscientific activism rather than proper science .. I think even you can realize that.
Thank you for doubling down on that yet again, Jonas. Absolutely precious.
This has to be my last post and I want to end it on a civil note. Its a dead end for all concerned. We all agree to disagree. End of story.
You know, Jonas, I realize that you and I will never agree on whether the A in GW is real or not. To be fair, that is just the way that it is. But I will give you some advice. You and GSW are on different wavelengths. I think you ought to get together with him to sort out your approach. You appear not to be questioning whether its warming or not, but what the human contribution is. GSW does not appear to think its warming at all, hence why he thinks that amphibians or other biota are not being affected by it.
Why he decided to go down this road is anybody’s guess, because he really does not understand a whole lot about synergy and direct and indirect effects. I think that it is warming and this is beyond is beyond dispute. I also think that there is plenty of evidence that is is affecting – in some cases deleteriously – biodiversity and particularly phenological processes involving two or more species. Whether its down to humans – well, this is where we disagree. Let’s leave it at that.
GSW cited a few studies suggesting that warming is not a major factor in global amphibian declines. I could cite a lot more suggesting that it is at the very least a *plausible* factor. Again, it does not have to be directly involved to not play a major role in facilitating other direct factors. For instance, one of the species I work with in my research is the large cabbage white butterfly, *Pieris brassicae*. The species feeds on a wide variety of plants in the Capparales. I have noticed that various stressors – humidity, temperature, parasitism, dietary quality etc. appear to affect the susceptibility of the caterpillars to what appears to be a pathogen. The pathogen may be a virus (e.g. a nuclear polyhedrosis or baculovirus) or a bacteria. When the virus is expressed in the caterpillars, they die fairly quickly, usually in early instars. If indeed it is a virus, it may even be integrated into the genome of the insect, and expressed under highly sub-optimal conditions. Sub-lethal effects seem to be to reduce fitness of certain genotypes. But the point I am making is that the pathogen kills the caterpillars, but some alternative stress – such as temperature – facilitates its expression by affecting insect metabolism. This is certainly a likely scenario for frogs and other amphibians, where warming will increase stress on the animals thus increasing their susceptibility to environmental pathogens. Its a case of direct and indirect stressors. There are many other examples I could cite but which I won’t.
Ultimately, it boils down to whether one thinks that humans are forcing climate or not, and whether the current changes fall within the realm of ‘normality’. I don’t think they do, given the time scales involved, but you have a different view. I am going to leave it at that. One of us is correct. I would very much like it to be you, because that would absolve humanity from the blame for at least one of multitudes of ways in which our species is harming the planet’s natural systems. But I believe that most (I never said all) of the scientific community and climate scientists do agree that humans are playing a major role. Having said that, the uncertainty comes down to whether one thinks its a problem or not and on that basis whether we ought to do something about it. Therein lies the rub.
I will leave here now. I have said this many times but this time I mean it. I don’t have time for this to-ing and fro-ing which is not going to settle anything. That will occur only when the empirical data shows us one thing or the other in ways that will only be accepted on both sides of the debate.
Jeff, they’ll still deny it. Even when 12,000,000 Dutch refugees start making their way into Sweden around 2090 or so.
Lovelock in then hands of the right wing well funded denial industry:
What’s going on?
Yes Jeff Harvey
That indeed was (apart from some unwarranted swipe at GSW) a civil comment.
It is good of you to realize that your previous once haven’t been, and not quite as good that it took you eight months to try to argue your case like an adult.
Sadly enough, I see in the open thread that you are back to denigrating other commenters who point out the many and sometimes gaping holes in the various speculations on which you and others base your stance. Firstly, it is unnecessary, and secondly it reveals how shallow your arguments are (if they indeed should be labeled as such) are.
Very little, and very few dismiss the notion that a change (of any kind) will not also have consequences, and that these potentially can be grave and on some aspects negative (not all though)
But to go from this obvious (but general and unspecific) statement to making not only very definite statements about the future outcome resulting from such changes is still just speculation. And making claims about non linear effects (tipping points, drastic changes etc) caused by minor input changes constitutes speculations about the consequences of earlier speculations. And many of your arguments continue to build on such scenarios based other scenarios on combined with endless if:s and may:s and other caveats.
Yes, scientists may speculate, may conjecture, may hypothesize about what tentatively may happen in a far future, and they may attach concerns and grades of severity to such speculations .. but they still are only that: Speculations!
And speculations, especially of the kind described (and so preferred by alarmists) are not science, not even when published, not even if itâs a prestigious journal. They remain speculations, tentative conjectures about what may happen.
Real science makes falsifiable and testable claims about what can be observed, and if these observations also consistently coincide with and confirm the predictions made, such hypotheses may survive and be tested further. Note that they also must survive critical scrutiny and tests, attempts to fail them. And that good real science even tries to fail them before proffering them as a tentative explanation (hypothesis) for how nature works.
Scattergun alarmism does not qualify, nor do sweeping assertions about all kinds of future changes, and that such changes also have (by some definition) negative consequences. That is the very definition of âconsequenceâ and âchangeâ.
I followed the âthreatened polar bearâ back-and-forthâ in the open thread, and it is remarkable how poorly you on the âthreat-sideâ are capable of even identifying and defining what it is you are claiming. The general gist was:
*Polar bears live where there is ice â¦ and they can die, the actually do, for various reasons â¦ and things may change â¦ and they may die â¦ for various reasons, but now maybe others â¦ and ice may change too â¦ for various reasons â¦ and that may change things â¦ and people change things .. and maybe that has consequences â¦ and maybe for the ice â¦ or not .. but anyway .. changes change things â¦ and we know that â¦ and polar bears may die .. and people can speculate about that without seeing .. or knowing â¦ we know we can .. and somehow .. the cause might have been a change .. which maybe was caused â¦ by people â¦*
In an endless circle, never really getting anywhere
Just came across this posted by a ‘tomo’ on unthreaded at Bishop Hill,
It’s a Google trends search for the term climategate.
Top Region: Sweden
Top City: Stockholm
Top Language: Swedish
UK as a region is languishing in 10th place, Australia 2nd. Always had a lot of respect for the Swedes, but does this surprise you also? Either of you have any up to date figures for % sceptics in Sweden?
Ah, blog science by polling… Google hits! But why stop there? While you’re at it, you can use the same techniques to confirm the arguments of the Creationists, homeopaths, Anti-Vaxxers and the 911 Truthers!
Quarantine’s certainly the best place for you guys…
“Ah, blog science by polling… Google hits! But why stop there?”
It isn’t science bill, its a google trend search. I know you guys struggle to tell the difference between what is, and what is not, science, but I’m surprised even you would be confused by this.
As I rule bill, I’d suggest if you do get confused in the future – Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
But anyway, thanks for stopping by.
I don’t know how these stats are calculated, but presumably as a **percentage** of traffic/searches, not total. How else would a small country with a language only spoken there turn up so high? But it was fun to see.
Sweden is pretty early with internet usage and trends, I checked and it was high on other search terms as well. I don’t know about the percentage of skeptics, but we have a very PC-MSM-scene here, and or state controlled TV sounds often like Al Gore did five years ago. It is not surprising that there is a demand for other sources. I noticed that Australia also is high on many climate related search terms. Probably for similar reasons.
Now that Lovelock has recanted, wouldn’t it be nice if Jeff Harvey admitted that global warming is just a silly scare story. Nice, that is, for the six people who have ever heard of him.
Now that Lovelock has recanted
Once an ignorant arsehole, always so, eh, Brent?
The two questions to answer now are:
(1) How – exactly – has Lovelock “recanted”?
(2) Name a single paper of Lovelocks’s referenced in an IPCC report.
Still a bleary-eyed, drivelling denialist tosser, eh Brent? Spewing up second-hand drivel about what you can’t understand. Partial proof perhaps that you can’t even evolve better than a fruitfly.
Yeah, much better that you should stick here with the Scandinavian poseur morons’ club, now that Watts has exposed himself as a defensive little wanker and McIntyre has “retired” himself from the fray.
chek … thank you, and also thank you bill, ianam, Stu, Wow, and all the others for so perfectly demonstrating what the climate scare belief system is about …
Eight months later, and you guys still haven’t advanced to even formulating your own stance comprehensively. And mind you, I don’t require that you even take mutually compatible stances. Just that you can phrase what it is you believe so hard in ..
Chek, haven’t you heard the good news? James Lovelock says that “all that stuff I wrote about billions dying from global warming was wrong. There’s no such thing as global warming and I’m sorry for wasting everybody’s time.”
You got me on the IPCC question. You tell me. Was he the one who predicted that Mount Everest would melt by 2035?
You alarmists are great extrapolators, aren’t you? Given the record levels of polar ice, where does that put us in the year 2112? (My suggestion: you could salvage some dignity by acknowledging the range of natural variation.)
Come on you warmists – sing along – OH MISTER LOVELOCK, WHAT SHALL I DO? THE GLOBE WON’T BLEEDIN’ WARM AND ALL MY FORECASTS TURNED TO POO. Message from Lovelock: ‘When the facts contradict your most cherished predictions, admit you were mistaken.’
James Lovelock says that “all that stuff I wrote about billions dying from global warming was wrong. There’s no such thing as global warming and I’m sorry for wasting everybody’s time.”
No he didn’t say that, you stupid, moronic liar.
That you can only find comfort in your own self-invented version of the world actually proves you to be a delusional public masturbator, and a petty wankstain on the British educational system.
Of couse you could always link to your made-up “quote” if it existed, but we already know you can’t because you’re just a frustrated, desperate smalltime liar.
And Jonas, I spent time reviewing this thread, and a more stupid, insubstantial, self-aqgrandizing, vain, small-minded ignorant little troll than you would be hard to find anywhere.
Welcome back Brent!
James Lovelock backs down after an alleged lack of air surface temperature rise in twelve years?
Tosh! As a wise man once said:
>I concede a rising temperature trend since 1860, and even since the 1998 peak.
Oh! Wait! That man was, wait for it, *you*!
The brilliant thing about Brent is he’s published so many arguments and concessions he doesn’t really believe that the best person to refute Brent is Brent.
Chek, you don’t have to tell us about your re-reading odyssey. We all know perfectly well that you (and you fellow deltoids) travel that route every day. You are obsessed with the Science thread, hence no one has believed in your pathetic statements about not reading it. I’m sure this thread is the most read â and you are too.
And here you are again sharing your feeling with us. 🙂
Since you can’t come up with anything more substantial than a foaming mouth and a street walker swayback, one has to arrived to the conclusion â elementary I know â that you are a masochist in constant need of some spanking.
As usual you actually ‘know’ nothing Petri, apart from the self-comfort your overweening vanity affords you.
And while this thread is choked with examples of Jonarse’s ‘assertion by exclamation mark’ approach to science, unfortunately that only ever impressed knuckleheads like you and your limp boy gang.
John: just suppose:
a. That climate has always varied
b. That the 1975-1998 warming period was unexceptional
c. That the rise in arctic temperatures is down to fiddled figures
d. That sea ice is alive and well
e. That CO2 is a lag indicator of historical solar forcing
f. That global warming is the latest incarnation of apocalypse myth
g. That vested interests are keeping the myth alive
As I say, just suppose the above. If âtwere so, wouldnât we in the western world be wasting a lot of effort and resource when there are other fish to fry?
Brent – just suppose you’re a total moron who swallows every unevidenced denialist canard yet devised that money can buy.
No doubt you’re one who’ll quite gullibly soon believe that the arctic has always been ice free, just as you’re pontificating above about ice core CO2 data you know nothing about and alleging conspiracies about ‘fiddled figures’.
If so, wouldn’t the sane amongst us be better off ignoring your twee, bought and paid for wishful thinking?
Here’s how they (by ‘they’ I mean GISS) change the historical record, adjusting early 20th-century temperatures downward in order to create a spurious warming trend in the Arctic:
I think even you must agree, Chek, that this is a smoking gun.
Ah … once more the blind and boneheaded belief and conviction to know the future
>No doubt you’re one who’ll quite gullibly soon believe that the arctic has always been ice free,
Do you even realize how revealing this is about your (completely non existing) understanding of the matter, chek?
Why not ask Wow, Bernard, or even Stu (who believes(?) that he has studied physics for six years)
Another fine example, chek:
>this thread is choked with examples of Jonarse’s ‘assertion by exclamation mark’ approach to science, unfortunately that only ever impressed knuckleheads like you and your limp boy gang.
Really!? So what would you then call your ‘approach to science’, and whom are you hoping to impress with whatever it is you try?
I think even you must agree, Chek, that this is a smoking gun.
That would be the same smoking gun that could blow half your head off and still miss your brain, I suppose.
Brent, take your garbage link to your fave denialistscum blog such as Watts and then ask them why they’re laughing at you. Better yet, show some guts and take it to the police or Inhofe or Wegman so we can all have a laugh.
What I realise is your inability to understand plain English while thinking you do, Jonarse.
So, Chek, let’s get this straight:
I show you evidence that the Jan 1940 temperature record at Ostrov Dikson has been revised downwards from -27.1C to -27.7C, and at Teigarhorn, Iceland, from +1.5C to +0.6C and…
…and your response is to be rude. Mate, I’m offering you an opportunity to validate for yourself whether there is scientific fraud behind the claim that the Arctic is warming faster than where you live.
Never mind our beliefs, or our different views on natural variation…. can you at least agree that something needs investigating here before you subscribe to the AGW theory? A point of integrity; of honour, even?
[“…in order to create a spurious warming trend in the Arctic”](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-6264841)
[“I’ve been doing some digging, and think I’ve detected data fiddling“](www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/…/2012/…/recovery-in-arctic-sea-ice-con.shtml)
[“The Arctic data is being shamelessly fiddled.“](http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/3/25/is-there-an-environment-conference-on-the-way.html)
No Brent, I’m encouraging you to stand up like a man and stand by your ignorance – just as you have been doing in the comments linked to above and wherever else you’ve been hawking your ‘smoking gun’ around and taking the opportunity to denigrate what you don’t understand.
If you have been led (by the nose) to see wrongdoing, then you go get those evil wrongdoers. Strike while the iron’s hot.
I understand what GHCN is used to compute, but sadly I don’t feel inclined after your above comments to enlighten you. In fact I’d be quite happy to see you drown in a vat of your own spiteful ignorance, or get the shirt sued off your back. Either would be a good result.
I wonder what motivates people like Chek. Sceptics, I reckon, are dismayed at the perpetration of a global scare story and the veritable industry it has spawned. They look forward to the day when the dire predictions of Thermageddon are treated with derision by the general public, and politicians see the AGW religion as a ticket to electoral oblivion. Sceptics want the AGW lie exposed.
But what of Chek? Is he (a) A terminally fractious little squirt with no career, no friends, no home life who just likes squabbling (b) A wild-eyed eco-zealot who considers Man to be a disease afflicting the planet? (c) A jobsworth whose income depends on spinning the AGW story out for a few more years?
I find this curious: he NEVER says anything substantive. Every syllable is negative or abusive. Like some wizened old Marxist, he will cling on to his bitter delusion way beyond its sell-by date.
Go on, Chek, tell us a bit about your life, your loves, your aspirations, your hopes and fears. What makes you tick?
As I said, chek. I don’t think you realize how revealing your comment is:
>No doubt you’re one who’ll quite gullibly soon believe that the arctic has always been ice free
Sheesh, just when I thought this club could not get any more pathetic, in rolls Brent.
Need better trolls. 1.5 out of 10.
Every syllable is negative or abusive.
Brent, you know that’s not true, so why are you lying? I’ve positively encouraged you to take this piece of garbage you’re so enamoured of and spread it far and wide in your crusade to halt the march to world domination of us bitter nazi communist fascist greenies.
Your reluctance to do so and your subsequent pettifogging whining suggest to me that dimly, subconsciously deep down you realise you’re badly wrong and out of your depth, but being clueless denier vermin, you don’t understand why.
Well I say forget all that and go for the AGW jugular with your surely most smoking of howitzers. We could all do with the amusement.
Jonarse, allow me to put this as plainly as possible.
Nobody but your pet fuckwit boys gives a fuck what you think.
>a. That climate has always varied b. That the 1975-1998 warming period was unexceptional c. That the rise in arctic temperatures is down to fiddled figures d. That sea ice is alive and well e. That CO2 is a lag indicator of historical solar forcing f. That global warming is the latest incarnation of apocalypse myth g. That vested interests are keeping the myth alive As I say, just suppose the above. If âtwere so, wouldnât we in the western world be wasting a lot of effort and resource when there are other fish to fry?
Just suppose you are a known liar with an ideological agenda? Just suppose you are wrong? Just suppose you supported whatever crank blog theory that was published as long as it supported your political agenda? Suppose that, eh, Brent? Doesn’t sound like you at all, does it?
At least you’ve stopped blaming you last obsession, volcanoes.
Let’s keep up with Brent’s past statements. There are hundreds of these. I can post contradictory Brent statements for weeks!
>Well, I concede that as a layman my ability to weigh the Gore Hypothesis is limited. I concede that some of the âheroesâ I have picked are less than fully reliable. That some of the participants in this thread match their personal actions to their belief in the CO2 threat, and that such actions are dwarfed by collective action. I concede that the case against AGW is not conclusive; depends on the eventual re-hashing of the Relative Forcing Table which may not in fact have to be re-hashed. I concede that the notion that the Royal Society and the US NAS are making a historic error in buying the AGW theory is barely thinkable and would run counter to a long and proud tradition. I concede that among scientists, sceptics are in the minority. I concede a rising temperature trend since 1860, and even since the 1998 peak. I concede that anecdotal evidence from Station Eureka lends some credence to the claim that escalation is more in evidence at high latitudes than temperate. I concede that my rants about the financial rewards to journeyman scientists were unfair. I concede that a âtipping pointâ caused by polar albedo passing a threshold is feasible.
>Laymen like me are plagued by the neccessity of what I might call ‘pick-a-hero’. That is, lacking the education to, say, check out the computer code and equations ourselves, we latch onto some authority figure we declare knowledgeable and truthful. We all do it, not just laymen. Because even an expert is a layman out of his field. You doubtless play pick-a-hero when you needs to have your airbag or your arthritis checked out. But a wise layman picks his hero judiciously; not at random.
>The temperature here in Central England is a bit less chilly. We’ve had the heating on this evening, but just for a couple of hours to… er… hide the decline! Global warming? I wish!
>Is there anybody out there with the decency to admit that if the globe doesn’t warm there’s no such thing as global warming? Lotharsson’s unshakeable faith in the impending catastrophe must be an embarrassment to any rational Warmist bedfellows he may have. Can we agree on 50 years? If the 1998 record remains unmatched until 2060, will you give up?
On that last point, it was beaten the very year he wrote that comment.
So, Chek demonstrates his positivity in three paragraphs sprinkled with: … not true… lying… garbage bitter nazi communist fascist …. pettifogging whining …. badly wrong …. clueless denier vermi…
No, mate. We’re well aware of what you DON’T think; what you disagree with; what you dislike. The question is: Is there any part of your belief system which describes how you think the world (ecosystem, society, climate, economy – you choose) works and what people need to do differently?
The utter lack of substantive statements from you leads me to suppose that you’re a Turing Machine. How can I put this kindly? Er, so devoid of opinions that your position depends solely on the positions of others. How old are you? What do you do for a living? What’s the REAL Chek like, and how did he get here?
>How can I put this kindly? Er, so devoid of opinions that your position depends solely on the positions of others.
>Laymen like me are plagued by the neccessity of what I might call ‘pick-a-hero’. That is, lacking the education to, say, check out the computer code and equations ourselves, we latch onto some authority figure we declare knowledgeable and truthful. We all do it, not just laymen. Because even an expert is a layman out of his field. You doubtless play pick-a-hero when you needs to have your airbag or your arthritis checked out.
A debate which consists solely of “I’m right, you’re wrong” is pretty sterile. That’s why I wrote a list of concessions to the warmist position. For an opponent to quote them back at me as if ‘concession’ = ‘capitulation’ is illegitimate.
Do you concede anything to the sceptic position?
I’ll venture this statement of it: That climatology is at present insufficiently developed to make decadal forecasts; trespasses beyond scientific practice into the realm of political advocacy; is subject to a groupthink which impedes the application of Popperian falsifiability; has become a tool of misanthropic green extremists with an antidevelopment agenda. Do you concede any of that?
John, thank you for quoting back to me the handicaps that a non-specialist faces when trying to validate the claims of specialists.
If your garage machanic told you that my airbag malfunctions because of a little man inside the steering wheel who lacks the puff… you’d do what I’ve done in climatology: read up on the subject and question the so-called experts.
This approach can yield results. Check out my website at http://endisnighnot.blogspot.com/
It isn’t very professional, I admit, but you may learn something. Your fears that we’re headed for Thermageddon may be assuaged. See the cyclic nature of the Aletsch Glacier – no need to panic!
James Lovelock’s words were: âBefore this century is over, billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic.â – whoops! I hope that you’ll join him in stepping back from extreme apocalypticism.
Shorter Brent: Look at me everybody! I’ve swallowed hook, line and sinker every denialist trope that has been devised! Surely at least some of it must be right?
No Brent, it’s all garbage. All of it.
I’m afraid I have nothing to concede, especially since your first point is wrong and the rest are strawman arguments based on your anti-science denial-driven political beliefs.
Shucks! And here we were *agreeing* with each other!
Brent, do you now concede that your tediously frequent promotion of cold weather as proof of the “obscene fraud” was premature, especially considering 2010 is now the hottest year on record?
Do you concede that you were lying when you claimed that the main driver of the climate was the sun?
Do you concede that you were lying when you claimed Co2 had a short half life in the atmosphere?
Do you concede you were lying when you said “If a “Troll” is a person who maliciously engages in conversation with the express purpose of disrupting it, well, no, I have better things to do with my time”?
Do you concede you were lying when you claimed that you’ll accept AGW “if the annual average GISS temperature anomaly twice exceeds 0.75C in the next 20 years”, which it did the year you wrote that (whoops!), and four times in the decade before?
Turingchek: Are you familiar with the idea of a Turing Machine? It’s a computer program so skilfully written that in conversation it is indistiguishable from a real person.
A dead givaway is the absence of ideas; you fail.
Can we anticipate Chek’s riposte?
C: “Oh, no I don’t fail, you troll, you moron, you vile denialist!”)
B: “Yeah, but is the globe warming?”
C: “Can’t get me on THAT one, you idiot.”
B: “What makes you believe in AGW, Chek?”
C: “You troll, you moron, you dile venialist!”
Since Brent ventured back here with his brand of wilful ignorance, I have kept my distance (writing up 5 manuscripts in two weeks does keep me occupied). But his web site is a giveaway:
*Brent Hargreaves is an engineer in the aerospace industry. Once a beleiver [sic] in Global Warming, he now sees it as a delusion serving the purposes of both despotic government and antidevelopment tree-huggers*.
Anyone who writes such peurile tosh as this does not deserve to be given the time of day.
You (and chek, Stu, Andy S, ianam and a few others too) seem to be obsessed with the word *lying* and/or *liar*. It is usually a good indication of very poor, immature arguing. Especially when what they actually want to say is *’I don’t agree at all’* or *’your are wrong’*. This is how quarreling kids argue. And this is how your latest attempt looks.
I am not aware of exactly what previous ‘claims’ you are attacking, but I would be very cautions to rely on your recount of them. Especially since many of your statements sound very ill informed:
‘AGW’ is not something you either accept or reject
‘Temperature anomaly’ does not measure the deviation from some ‘normal temperature’
The term ‘half life’ for CO2 in the atmosphere is completely misplaced.
Och course, some of these notions may not be yours. But then again, your posts are. And nothing in them indicates that your understanding of the issues exceeds that of a cheering bystander who picked his ‘team’ to root for (in a game he doesn’t understand) based what people around him picked.
Jeff, once again you are factually wrong:
The climate scare serves government ambitions to tax and regulate (for whatever reasons, and is latched onto by antidevelopment tree-huggers ..
I even think that it fairly well describes your stance: Both that the government should enforece all kinds of things, and that you have latched on without knowing what it is you are arguing.
And you are very keen to proclaim who **deserves** to get what, and what not ..
Jeff to Brent: “You put ‘e’ before ‘i’. Mistake!”
Brent to Jeff: “You apply religious belief to a scientific question.”
(Note the revised spelling: some of us learn from our mistakes.)
Come on Jonas, let’s be civil. Brent’s brief rant is akin to something one might hear on Fox News or at a Tea Party gathering. I have no time for this kind of thing. May I suggest you listen to Maria Portnaya’s excellent interview with journalist Chris Hedges on RT yesterday. He spells out in clearly preicse terms the kinds of challenges we face and taxation over GW is not high up the list. Or perhaps you will accuse Hedges of being a closet communist? When one puts Brent’s rant into perpective, it comes out exactly as I suggested: puerile and vaguely fanatical.
Brent: You are a waste of space in my opinion. A bitter old man perhaps? I have never applied any kind of religious beliefs to any anthropogenic environmental problems (given that I am atheist) or to any of my empirical research for that matter. If I did, then my scientific career would be down the drain. But if you write the kind of tosh you do on your web site in describing yourself, which appears to come from the far end of the political right, then no, I will not listen to a word you say.
>You (and chek, Stu, Andy S, ianam and a few others too) seem to be obsessed with the word lying and/or liar.
Wikipedia defines a “lie” as “to hold something which one knows is not the whole truth to be the whole truth”.
Brent doesn’t really believe anything he writes. He cycled through every discarded meme so frequently – returning to them even after previously admitting he was wrong – that he became known as the “goldfish troll”.
At one point or another Brent has supported every loony theory there is, from “global warming is caused by volcanoes” to “it’s the sun!” to “it’s the UHI!”. Either he isn’t smart enough to realise he regularly contradicts himself or he is lying. You make up your mind which.
>The term ‘half life’ for CO2 in the atmosphere is completely misplaced.
I am quoting Brent’s argument.
>And nothing in them indicates that your understanding of the issues exceeds that of a cheering bystander who picked his ‘team’ to root for (in a game he doesn’t understand) based what people around him picked.
I apologise, you seem to have me mistaken for Karenmackspot, Olaus, Pentaxz, GSW, Brent and yourself.
I mean seriously, (apart from the playground level of immaturity), do you really expect any grown up to take you seriously? As a grown up, I mean? (Scientifically, is not even on the table) I mean, just look at the level of those whose âsupportâ you draw upon? Arguments that would embarrass a clever 7th grader. But not you apparently. Well, itâs you call Jonas.
>read up on the subject and question the so-called experts.
That is another lie. You’d already made up your mind about the “obscene fra*d” before you read the Ar4. You only read what you want to hear from sources with the same ideological prejudices you hold because you know deep in your heart it’s all a “scam”.
That is not science and it isn’t real scepticism.
For instance, a real sceptic would not be writing this in the warmest year on record:
>Most of my spare time is being spent on a new(ish) scare story I am hoping to launch: Global Cooling. When the Global Warming lobby cunningly changed its name to “Climate Change” it was a very clever move. If we enter a new ice age they’ll be able to say that their point is proven! Had they branded themselves IPGW they’d be a sitting duck in this chilly decade of ours with its expanding icecaps.
Still waiting on that ice age, Mr I-Question-The-Experts.
Jonas, there’s a history to the expression ‘half-life’ which is borrowed from the familiar radioactive decay.
The lads here on Deltoid were discussing a claim on the Royal Society website that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for thousands of years. I did a little exercise on the Mauna Loa monthly CO2 statistics, which show an annual fall every year. At peak (between July and August, in the N hemisphere growing season) – this hits 0.58% per month being sucked out of the atmosphere. This figure is the same throughout the 1958 – 2010 period.
If the Earth’s orbit were to stop (not very likely, I admit!) locked in the August orientation, CO2 would halve in 123 +/- 2 months.
Don’t tell Jeff Harvey! He thinks science is done with adjectives and coloured crayons, not with numbers…
John, I’d welcome your thoughts on the conjecture that variations in solar power are absorbed and released by the oceans at multi-decadal timescales:
What do you reckon: might this conjecture end up as mainstream theory?
>Brent doesn’t really believe anything he writes
I can see two possibilities here:
One is that you are someone who has the ability to (remotely) **know** what people **really** mean or believe in.
Alternatively, you just claim and believe things because you want them to be true.
(A third would be that you claim things you know to be untrue, ie that you are ‘lying’ to support your beliefs)
I’d say that the first alternative is extremely unlikely. Among the two other options .. it’s harder to tell.
Regarding ‘half life’, I cannot see that you have **quoted** anything. Where you once more ‘lying’, John?
But I found [this by Brent Hargreaves](http://bishophill.squarespace.com/discussion/post/1723187) and the argument is perfectly understandable and presented as a ‘thought experiment’ under the presumption of certain (but ultimately unrealistic) conditions stated beforehand. Apart from an error (typo) in sign, it is perfectly reasonable. For someone who knows the least little bit about physics and science.
And no, I don’t have you confused with anybody else who doesn’t sign with ‘John’ here. I don’t even need to heed whether or not scientifically trained individuals take me seriously. Rather, I am amazed that there are so many (here) who pretend to speak for the ‘science’ but are doing everything else but that.
And you must have completely missed that I don’t lean on any others for my position. However, Jeff Harvey has done that with some of characters here who (like you) seem to have an almost childlike propensity to call everybody not agreeinga ‘liar’ ..
But more generally John (and the others), if you really think that you have well founded arguments, that others must be factually wrong … etc. Why don’t you just present them, point out the gross errors, correct them. Ie argue like grown ups. Why this incessant obsession with what you believe others believe, and your projections about ideology etc ..
Why not argue the science, if you have any and if you indeed understand it?
Brent, our comments crossed. But I am perfectly aware of what ‘half life’ means, and I even found your little calculation at BH. You stated your example and its preconditions in an impeccable manner.
In the climate scare community however, two other CO2-related times are often discussed (and conflated). One is the (average) residence time for one (newly added) CO2-molecule, and the other is the (hypothesized) time it takes for an earth without humans/fossil fuels burning to reduce a substantial perturbation (such as increasing the level from say 280 to 390 ppm in century).
The former is quite short (albeit longer than for the main GHG H2O), the latter is claimed to be in the (sometimes tens) of thousands of years. And is used for scare purposes. And is of course extremely speculative, and in all likelihood very exaggerated. Especially after taking Murray Salby’s findings into account.
And no! Or yes, I will write this for Jeff Harvey to read. Everybody who knows the least bit of science is fully aware of that he *doesn’t do numbers*. And I wouldn’t worry to much about John either. So far he hasn’t even tried to come with any substantial challenges. Just the usual, that everybody else must be lying or a moron or both ..
Funny isn’t it?
Jeff Harvey #
I don’t know why you bring up Fox News, or the tea party. I’d say that you are ranting when that is all you have.
If you think something is factually wrong: Just state this, what is wrong, what it should be instead, and why your understanding of the matter is correct (and others not)
I have challenged you to do so for eight months. You never really go near there. Instead it is adjectives, projections, and worse.
If you finally realized that a civil tone is more conductive, that would be a step in the right direction. But judging from your other comments, you aren’t quite there yet.
And maybe you don’t subscribe to any of the known deities of religion, but you sure subscribe to an awful lot in pure faith, make proclamations in the name of it, and defend it like a true religion by deriding the ‘heretics’ for their lack of faith.
And no, I don’t mock unfounded personal beliefs, and religions are among them. Most often they are just ridiculous if you scrutinize them. But the climate scare variety has been elevated to something else and essentially nothing about it is positive (apart from those skimming of the dollars, wasting them while nibbling some of them for their own good)
I hope you are right that AGW-policies and GW-taxation are slowly fading in both political support and feasibility, but don’t tell me this was for the right reasons, that the politicians realized how futile and ultimately harmful the idea was …
And that in spite of that none of them ever really believed that they could scare the water up the mountains to become growing glaciers again by raising some tax or devising some cap’n’trade scheme …
*Don’t tell Jeff Harvey! He thinks science is done with adjectives and coloured crayons, not with numbers*
Really Brent? At last count I had 118 articles in peer-reviewed journals on the Web of Science (plus another 8 in review). What’s your tally?
OK. Nuff’ said.
Jonas, I am afraid I don’t take anybody seriously who describes those defending the science of AGW as ‘antidevelopment tree huggers’ or lovers of ‘despotic government’. This is sandbox level stuff. If you want to believe as Olaus forever says that this is the ‘science thread’ on Deltoid its time to call the kettle black. Just because Brent is some old geezer who loathes environmentalists is no reason to defend every member of the lunatic fringe who just so happens to think that AGW is not supported by the empirical evidence. Brent’s web site is a joke.
I recall that you castigated me as a liar for suggesting that you conflated warming with tropical deforestation. Fair enough. But then you agreed with GSW who denigrated the ‘Planet Under Pressure’ document which actually said very little about climate change. The focus of that document was a range of other anthropogenic stresses to the environment, including habitat destruction, invasive species, other forms of pollution etc. It was a co-operative effort of many of the world’s leading researchers and complemented the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2006). Both documents argue – with quite some empirical support – that these other factors are affecting the health and vitality of natural systems and the services that emerge from them. So my question to you is this: do you similarly downplay all aspects of negative human effects on the biosphere, or acknowledge that, in your opinion, there are human-mediated problems that greatly outweigh climate change? And in doing so do you distance yourself from the comments of GSW and like-minded people?
As I said before, I really had no intention of getting into a verbal to-and-fro with you because it achieves nothing. But your new pal Brent reappears after a lengthy hiatus with a smear. Of course if I respond by saying that thousands of more people in science know who I am than him (which is certainly true), then I am accused of being arrogant. I have no intention of dipping to the Brent level of discourse which borders, IMHO, on senility. But one is often seen by the company they keep. If you think someone like Brent is able to contribute to a debate on anything, then perhaps that says a lot more about you than you realize.
One final point and I am gone again: if you read any of the my published articles you’d realize that I am very much a numbers cruncher. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2006) was also all about numbers. One cannot publish their experimental work in a scientific journal if the data don’t stack up. Any of the scientists who have reviewed my 118+ articles will tell you that.
If you think that one who calls scientists and others defending AGW ‘antidevelopment tree huggers’ who support ‘despotic government’ is sensible, that that is your prerogative. I don’t. This is the kind of gibberish one would get from Rush Limbaugh or Fox News, as I said before. I made up my mind on the causality of climate change on the basis of speaking with large numbers of scientists – many of them climate scientists – in my own capacity as a scientist. I will admit that I am not anything close to an expert in the field. Is that being arrogant or honest? What I do say is that most of those I have spoken to at length feel passionately about the field, and at the various conferences I have attended there seems to be quite some agreement on the topic. Are they correct? Perhaps not. But as an outsider I defer to them. If that makes me a liar or a fraud or whatever, so be it. But that is where I stand. If temperature trends continue to level off over the coming 15-20 years, which I think is a minimal time scale necessary to elucidate the veracity of current theory, then I promise that I will change my mind. But not yet.
Beyond that, I am working in an altogether different field. I study trophic interrelationships, community ecology and life history evolution in resource-consumer interactions. I find this field quite enough for me to master, as it encompasses a very wide array of theories and hypotheses. I am interested in contemporary environmental issues, especially those that do overlap into my field of endeavor. If that makes me an ‘antidevelopment tree hugger’, then so be it. But of course I have no wish to further engage in this kind of discussion with you or anyone else, least of all Brent Hargreaves. I decided that civil discourse was the way to proceed after months of bitter ripostes. Again, that got me – you – us nowhere. But I will not again stoop to the kind of gutter-level discourse that Brent brings here. I had enough of that before.
I have not seen you defending any AGW-science (that I could have respected, because there is serious science investigating that hypothesis). What I have seen you defending is the notion that those making wild claims about both the climate, about (c)AGW, and even the future, should **not** be scrutinized or questioned. That their ‘science’ needn’t be properly presented and that their scares should be accepted on faith. You did that explicitly and repeatedly with Hansen’s sea level nonsense.
And for that you are criticized. But you seem to be missing the point. Those who ‘defend’ AGW-science, and do so without having the slightest clue about what it actually says or can support ..
.. those may very well be both tree huggers, lefty loons or closet (or open) fascists. If you start that list it would hardly ever be finished.
Again you make a simple logical fallacy: That accusing tree huggers and all kinds of murky and utopian political wishes to having latched on the climate scare bandwagon ..
.. does not equate to that ‘everyone who is concerned with a potential climate problem or just an A in GW also must be a loony tree hugger or a closet fascist’.
Those claims are not made Jeff. And I am surprised that you (who repeatedly call yourself a ‘scientist’) make such elementary logical mistakes.
I don’t know enough about Brent and what he says, or why you want to brand him as my ‘new pal’ .. maybe he has overstated things too, or just expressed them poorly. But he has seemed more sensible than all those mouthing off at him here. You included.
And wrt to ‘sandbox level’: You are hardly the one to utter one syllable. I have eight months of continuing puerile abuse from you to make you blush. And mind you, where you did everything **but** address what I had actually claimed.
But to ne fair and reply to your question:
>do you *similarly* downplay all aspects of negative human effects on the biosphere, or acknowledge that, in your opinion, there are human-mediated problems that greatly outweigh climate change
I don’t know about the ‘similarly’, I can’t speak for others, and even less for your perception of other’s preferences and motives.
But I have indeed told you, for some eight months running, that the possible anthropogenic signal of the always occuring ‘climate change’ is among the least of the environmental problems that can be attributed to mankind.
I don’t need to distance myself from your perceptions of what others might think, or what you define as ‘like minded people’. I try to make my statements in a way that they can be understood and challenged. Once you’d properly address those, there might actually arise (at least the possibility of) a debate.
>I have no intention of dipping to the Brent level of discourse which borders, IMHO, on senility
Well Jeff … as I said, we have eight months of you doing pretty much exactly that. If you have finally stopped, even if only towards one commenter, that’s positive a small step forward .. Keep at it, and slowly start increasing step size and pace … You might be surprised at how much there is to learn.
It’s good to hear that you actually add up numbers in your work. What you have done here however is the exact opposite. When confronted with the absurdities of Hansen’s future sea level rises, you deferred to how ‘respected’ he is and instead attacked those who checked the numbers and what they meant.
The same has been true (and even more so for many others) about the alleged science behind that prominent AR4 claim.
I am sorry if you feel unjustly treated, but in this (these) threads you have been doing exactly that: You have avoided every number, every attempt at quantifying what has been discussed.
And, I am sorry to say, in a way that lead (leads) me to believe that you are completely unfamiliar with how real science works. What it entails to put up a hypothesis, to find support for it, to test it, to try and falsify it.
Let me give you a pertinent example:
Wildlife biologist Charles Monnett partook in a flight over the Beaufort sea after some bad weather, and he and his crew believed that they saw tree (or four) drowned(!) polar bears. They compared that with their memories ~20 years earlier, and couldn’t recall having seen any drowned(!) polar bears. They estimated that they had flown over and surveyed ~11% of the area and thus multiplied their 3 (or 4) dead polar bears by a factor 9 (1 divided by 0.11) and concluded that some 27 (to 36) **extra** polar bears might have drowned this time compared to last. And that this was cause for alarm.
You could say that he ‘was doing number’, yes. But real science? No!
Notably, this report it the sole basis for Al Gore’s drowning polar bears due to global warming scam. You can still see the ripples in the open thread ..
And yes, I have seen plenty of ‘activist math’. It is almost always rubbish (like the above). Are you telling me that your’s is better Jeff?
If so, why haven’t you shown this here?
Now THAT (3607) was worth reading.
Jeff writes: “I will admit that I am not anything close to an expert in the field. Is that being arrogant or honest?”
He says: “Are [climatologists] correct? Perhaps not. But as an outsider I defer to them. If that makes me a liar or a fraud or whatever, so be it.”
Neither liar nor fraud. His worst sin here is a reluctance to think for himself, perhaps a symptom of his soft science background. Defer??? Nullius in verba, dude! But, in all sincerity, he deserves credit for admitting this.
This cartoon hits the hard/soft nail on the head: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl/XKCD_Purity.png
I hope that the hard sciences of physics and chemistry will in coming years distance themselves from the soft pseudosciences where numbers are considered optional. Why? Because the numbers…. reveal…. (how did John Lennon put it? Oh, yes… Just Gimme Some Truth).
@Jonas et al
Apologies Jonas, been pre occupied – Another species of Bear is nearing extinction – the Glaswegian Teddy variety (private joke) all very sad I’m afraid.
Still, things have been busy here, not read thru it all yet. I thought jeff had buggered off for good? this time absolutely, definitely, finally, never to return, he will never visit this place again, finito, it is kaput, that was his last ever post, again.
>What do you reckon: might this conjecture end up as mainstream theory?
Let’s see, your “conjecture” (not theory, because you would have to commit to that and God knows you can’t commit to something you know is wrong) is based on computer models (all wrong, of course), tree ring proxies (hide the decline!), and is instantly proven to be false by the standard you set – we have continued to warm since 1998, and you admit this.
But go on – submit it for peer review and see how far you get.
OK Brent, now that I have been honest, let’s start with you.
What are your professional qualifications in climate science? And what special ability enables you to separate the ‘hard’ from the ‘soft’ sciences? Go ahead, you are on a roll. You liken those defending AGW to being ‘anti-development tree huggers’ and supporters of ‘despotic government’. Evidence please. And can you provide a list of scientists whilst doing so. Or is this the pinnacle of your intellectual discourse? If it is, may I suggest you join up with Wise Use or some other extreme right wing group in the US. They would welcome you with open arms.
With all the self-professed wisdom being thrown about on this thread, I wonder why it is confined here… where are the papers, the lectures? As I have said before, its a storm in a teacup. As for GSW, I suppose he is correct to loathe my presence here, as everything he has written about biology I have countered. And again, his blithe dismissal of the Planet Under Pressure Report without actually reading it says a lot about him.
Jonas: You cite one polar bear study. What about countless others showing an age structure skewed towards older animals? Showing declines in body mass and a loss in per capita fitness estimates? Why be so selective in your condemnation of certain studies as if this debunks many others? I never defended the study in question. But this in no way affects the results of the much more careful research showing worrying trends in Polar Bear demographics. And that is the tip of the proverbial iceberg. ~Hundreds of studies are showing similar affects across a range of biota.
I am willing to be polite and to discuss these issues in a civil manner. But please cut out the patronizing manner. Like it or not, I am a successful scientist and I have a lot of experience over more than 20 years. And if you bothered to read any of the my empirical articles you would find a lot of hard numbers in them.
Jeff, kudos tou you for your patience here in a pit that even David Dunning and Justin Kruger wouldn’t have dared imagined.
Brent hates ‘soft sciences’ but physics and chemistry pass muster with him. I wonder if he even realises that atmospheric physics and atmospheric chemistry are central components of climate science. And Jonas doesn’t believe in sampling – here in the 21st century. He dismissed it with an exclamation mark!
My impression isn’t that the inmates confined here want to learn anything and become less stupid, but rather seek to drag the world down to their level – to wit, Brent’s web page my response to which is a quite unscientific or indeed rational ‘Jeezus Christ…’.
Jeff, you ask: âwhat special ability enables you to separate the ‘hard’ from the ‘soft’ sciences?â.
Man, you is so busted! A hard scientist would ask, âhow are you defining hard v soft science?â, examining the answer for âusefulnessâ (I hope this expression is familiar).
A soft scientist gives greater weight to the ideas of Person A than Person B. Such a herd instinct is laughable. This is the famous âargument from authorityâ, whose motto might be, âhuh! What light can a humble patents clerk possibly shed on the photoelectric effect or the speed of light?!â
You ask what are my professional qualifications in climate science. Answer: none.
I just lurve that question. Itâs very revealing. It suggests that only insiders are entitled to an opinion. Like a medieval churchman, Jeff enquires: âPray tell, little fellow, in what university did you attain your doctorate in theology? None?! How DARE you question the teachings of mother church!â
You fancy yourself an insider, methinks, excluding the citizenry in the belief that only the gifted few hold the gnosos. Wrong! These days itâs enough to have a good general education and an internet link to query the corporate soothsayer. Only retards like John kowtow to their âbettersâ.
Brent, your uninformed, pig-ignorant, untrained and entirely volunteered and unrequested ‘opinions’ are as worthless as those of a monkey with limited typing skills.
That you nurture the dumb idea that your uninformed, pig-ignorant, untrained and unasked for ‘opinions’ are worth sharing on the grounds that science is just like a religion and anybody’s is worth as much as anyone elses, actually demonstrates a disturbing, preening vanity bordering on the psychotic. The same stupid argument could be made while elbowing a brain surgeon out of the way so you can ‘have a go’ with equal validity.
Democracy is a political system that allows you a vote, but it does not encourage or allow you to stick your uninformed, pig-ignorant, untrained oar into whatever profession catches your stupid fancy or be taken anything like seriously.
Aerospace background my arse – or is that how you puff up washing down wheel chocks these days?
P.S. Brent, Einstein was never a mere ‘humble patent clerk’.
He was a physics graduate who worked in the Bern patent office in charge of electrical applications at a time of exponential growth in electrical devices, and a few years later was invited to accept a professorship at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.
Your treasured myth (or to be more truthful ‘lie’) that any whacko, ignorant galoot (like yourself) could be another Einstein (or even that your circumstances are similar) is, again, a delusional device to assuage your overblown vanity and which merely serves to provide you with comfort in your porcine, swill-sucking, wallowing ignorance.
I am interested in your viewpoint of the ‘prominent AR4’ claim.
Just out of interest, is it the quantitative nature of the claim that you are unhappy with? Reading that ‘very likely’ meant 90-95% did you at first assume this could be shown analytically rather than relying somehow on expert opinion?
I’ve followed your ‘expert opinion is not science’ reasoning argument too, but I just wondered if there were other aspects of this claim that caused unease in addition to that.
Jeff, I was giving you an example of a âscientist doing numbersâ, an awful one at that. And one which made the rounds in the climate scare propaganda .. There are many more, but probably less prominent. I have pointed out one thatâs even more prominent from the AR4 , and the Hockeystick is yet another one (from the TAR).
And once more you are either making things up, or at a total loss about whatâs being discussed: Nowhere have I said that one poor study debunks any other, let alone many others. What I did say that the scare of polar bears drowning due to the A in GW is based on utter junk. Nowhere have I said that polar bears arenât under pressure from other factors. I have said the exact opposite: That Iâm quite certain that among all such factors, the possible A-signal in GW is pretty far down on the list! Have you missed that? Really!? Because Iâve said it many times!
And Iâm sorry, but there is no way of pointing out the same thing to you over and over again, reminding you that you cannot just replace what is argued by your own strawmen, without sounding patronizing. Because thatâs exactly how it feels incessantly having to remind you of what the topic is, what is being said, argued and claimed and what is not. Like a patient parent trying to help a toddler to take his first steps .. Sorry Jeff, but as long as you are trying to both fabricate your own âfactsâ about those you are attacking, and cannot keep your eyes on the ball, you will be reminded of this. And wrt to âpatronizing mannerâ â¦ do I really need to remind you of what has transpired in the threads here for eight months, continuously, and from you, and others cheered on by you? It would be the simplest thing Jeff. Please remember: It is you who are ridiculing yourself, not me! I just remind you of what you just said, and sometimes what youâve said earlier.
OK, back to doing numbers: Real science is not done by multiplying what you think youâve seen be the factor of what you have not seen. And even less to claim to know the cause of this, compared to something you have not seen at all some ~20 years earlier. Thatâs just nonsense! As is the idea that sea level rising rates with three- to 15-fold (on average) this century!
Can I ask you jeff: Do you still (and really?) believe that this will happen because the ârespectedâ James Hansen claimed that? Itâs once more a simple Yes/No question. And relevant, because you attempted to deride me for pointing it out. So Jeff: Yes or No?
It is a quantified claim. It is even expressed in a way to be (by laymen, and even untrained âscientistsâ) to be interpreted as even more ominous than what it means by a strict interpretation of the IPCC lingo. Making claims about the tails of a (construed) probability distribution function requires a lot of good information. Generally, you would need to have conducted many more independent experiments than just the inverse of the fraction you believe to lie outside your confidence interval.
No, I never expect such things to be shown âanalyticallyâ!? What do you even mean by that? That the real behavior can be captured by some closed form pdf?
My point is that this very specific and (formally) quite detailed and far reaching claim is not based on any science. Or rather, for the first weeks/months I asked if anyone had seen such science. And informed those who hadnât that they were taking this on faith, that quite a lot did, and that no one whom Iâve asked had ever managed to show any such science.
I have a pretty good idea about how this claim came about (and it was not science) but you wonât read that anywhere. You could of course say it is based on âexpert opinionâ but even that would be a stretch. Bayesian statistics can be used to assess âexpert opinionâ if used carefully, but they can also be used to totally abuse the concept of likelihoods ..
Jonas, as I said before I think more is gained from civil discourse. I realized that bickering on an innocuous blog site gets nobody anywhere. But one point I will make is that you or nobody else here is in a position to judge me as a scientist. You have, for some reason, done that, or attempted to, as if you have the authority to do so. Olaus has done it, GSW has done it, and Brent has also had his two cents worth. It does not wash with me, for the simple reason that none of you are qualified to be able to assess the professional standing of others in any scientific discipline. For some reason you have given the impression to me at least that you think that you do possess this skill. But take it from me, you don’t. There are those out there who most certainly do, and these are the experts in the field who regularly peer-review the scientific articles that I submit to journals. Their criticisms of my work are taken on board for the simple reason that they have professional training in the fields in which I study. But f I was to try and tell a brain surgeon whether I think he/she is a real doctor, I’d be told to jump in the proverbial lake. I have not done that with you or anyone else here, except to say that having some professional training in any endeavor does, in my honest opinion, give them some intellectual authority over those who do not. If that seriously annoys you, then sorry, but that is that way I (and certainly many others) see it. I am not saying that self-trained people cannot make a good scientific contribution, but the point of having universities is to train people a wide array of different disciplines.
So if we are to proceed in a civil manner I would appreciate it if you would stop wasting time judging me and others. As far as Polar Bears are concerned, declining sea ice will affect the populations exactly as I have suggested. There will be costs imposed on per capita fitness rates, and the population demographics will be skewed towards older animals, exactly as is happening. To be honest, I agree with you that an aerial survey of dead animals is not sound science at all, and as you will note I never said it was. I steered away from that study, but there are many others showing climate related effects on species demographics and phenology. And as I said in response to GSWs posting, the effects of abiotic stresses on species is that they will exacerbate often sub-lethal (or hidden) stressors that may be contained within the genome of certain genotypes. In other words the effects will be indirect and cumulative.
As for Hansen’s prediction, perhaps he is wrong, but that will be borne out in time. If many of the positive feedbacks kick in, then we might be approaching a tipping point where we experience a suddet shift to an alternate state. On the other hand, if things continue along a gradual linear trajectory, then he is wrong. And for that we should all be relieved.
“What do you even mean by that? That the real behavior can be captured by some closed form pdf?”
Intentionally vague, sorry. Just that there might be some closed form mathematical expression that could yield that result. I only ask because I have encountered lay people with that expectation who were surprised to find out that there wasn’t a mathematical calculation going on behind that number.
Again, just out of interest, what did you expect to be the origin of the certainty estimate placed on that statement? I may have misread your tone, but at certain points in the thread you seem to be surprised that such an important statement is essentially the synthesis of expert opinion?
Jeff, I am capable of judging you and your arguments based on what you deliver here. I have many (many many!) times pointed out that if you in your âprofessional lifeâ do what you do here incessantly and seemingly compulsively, you cannot be a real scientist. I stand by that. You have now said in three (out of how many?) comments that you will try to be civil. I encourage that attempt. I you keep it up consistently for the next eight months, I will start to believe that you have actually learnt something. And yes Jeff, I do have the authority to evaluate the quality of the arguments you have delivered here. And of others. You have claimed the opposite many times. (Desperately hoping it to be so) And you have been wrong every single time.
Many discussions here have been at pretty basic level (numbers, sums, some probabilities, laws of motion, what is claimed and not claimed etc), all of which are necessary to get right at the very base if you want to be scientific about anything. Replacing the basics by hand waiving is not allowed. And you, and so many more have done that many many times.
For instance: Once more I need to correct you on what is actually said. Climate change is a factor in what species need to cope with. Always has been. It is the possibility of an **anthropogenic** signal in climate change, and one that is distinguishable from natural changes (rates and levels) that is the topic: And I still say, that possible A is far down the list!
And might I remind you that Iâve pointed this out probably more than a dozen times now!?
Regarding Hansen, yes he is wrong! Again this can be demonstrated using simple physics. And yes, I can do that, and you probably couldnât. Which makes me not a better human being, but a better judge of the alleged âscienceâ by Hansen. You will just have to roll your dice and take a pick, or trust me! My point was that you immediately tried to deride me, tell me that I must be wrong (and Hansen right) and this because you **knew** that Hansen was so ârespectedâ ! But I do notice that youâve taken a step back from that, and that too is a step in the right direction. Keep it up, Jeff.
Regarding Hansen, yes he is wrong! Again this can be demonstrated using simple physics. And yes, I can do that,
Of course you can, Jonarse.
However back in the real world, you might not find the science community so impressed by declaratives and the liberal use of exclamation marks. Nor has a shred of evidence been produced by you that you’re anything more than a windbag like Petri, Pentax or Brent on steroids.
The follow up question of course is: why haven’t you? I suspect the answer is contained in the preceding paragraph.
*Regarding Hansen, yes he is wrong! Again this can be demonstrated using simple physics. And yes, I can do that, and you probably couldnât*
OK, Jonas, if you are correct, then why aren’t you writing this up for submission to a major scientific journal. Or are you? That’s my question for you. Is your science limited to the blogosphere or are you willing to expose it to the scrutiny of actual climate scientists? The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I am not saying that you are wrong – I am challenging you to write up your rebuttal and send it to a rigid scientific journal. Then, when its reviewed, tell us here on Deltoid what the outcome was and share the comments of the reviewers with us. That’s what I do with my research and what other professional scientists do. I would be out of a job if I did not publish the findings of my research (or that of my PhD and Masters students). I have had a lot of my papers initially rejected. It goes with the territory. But its a learning process. To reiterate, I am not saying that Hansen is correct. But you cannot expect to make any headway if you restrict your rebuttal to one or two blogs. If you are confident that you are correct on the basis of simple physics, then take the plunge and go for a scientific journal.
As far as being able to judge the qualifications of other scientists, I will amend the last comment I made. Certainly you are welcome to do so, but I warn you, don’t expect scientists to take you seriously. When it comes to this, I don’t. I do not mean this to be offensive, but in my opinion you are not in a position to be able to judge the professional abilities of scientists unless you have done the groundwork yourself. I would still like to know what your day job is. Is this question too personal? I am curious, that is all. What is your professional background?
This AR4 claim, was what made me realize that the IPCC process is not about science but about politics. That statement by it self is so outrageous that it must have upset or seriously disturbed any remaining real scientist in the process who knows the least bit about the matter.
As you seem to be aware of, that claim is a negotiated number based on opinions, and not even the most qualified scientists’ opinions. I further believe (although evidence is only circumstantial) that the AR4 reports needed to be amended after the SPM release wrt exactly that statement. And also that this is why all the references to that main AR4 claim are so conspicuously vague and wrapped and diluted troughout the reports.
Those numbers were for PR and media consumption, not even remotely based on science, I have a very hard way of seeing it any other way.
I hope you are aware of that making these kind of certainty and attribution claims implies that you have a very good grasp on everything that makes the climate vary. That you are so sure about this that you essentially can rule out (with certainty) that any other known or unknown mechanism might have (or just been able to have) caused the observed change.
We are here talking about an increase between 1975 and 1998.
Given that ‘science’ can’t even explain transitions in and out of ice ages (glaciations) properly, such (implied) claims are just ludicrous.
As I said, this is when I realized that pure junk is peddled under the pretense of climate science and the alleged scientific ‘assessments’ of the IPCC. The debauchery with the hockestick is similar and predates the AR4, but had not become known in wider circles back then. And although people started to suspecti it, the behind-the-scenes fiddling with ‘the science’ and ‘the publications’ partly revealed by ClimateGate was not common knowledge yet.
Only the symptoms had been starting to show.
I don’t know if this answers your question. But this is where it finally and definitely dawned upon me.
What I have been doing here, on less than friendly turf, is to ask any of those who firmly believed in that claim if they had seen any such science. As I have asked many other believers. And subsequently telling them that AFAIK nobody has, and that all those repeating that claim are taking it on faith.
But in fact it is even simpler than that: Usually, I just have to ask if they have seen the basis for that (or any other similar) claim, and also have read and understood it, and if they are prepared to argue and defend its merits after they tell me the (their) source .. and people will not ever come back.
Jeff Harvey (#3621)says that he only accepts criticism from his peers (and yet keeps coming back to Deltoid to be mocked for his faith in AGW (‘wrestling with a pig’ as some have described it)).
My jaw dropped when I found that he had a hard degree. In physics, no less! Has a track record in string theory, bejaysus! And then it emerges that there are two Jeff Harveys; our masochistic Deltoid friend (unlike the real one from the Enrico Fermi Institute) merely does descriptive stuff on cabbages.
Our lad says: “declining sea ice will affect [polar bear] populations exactly as I have suggested”. This is no mere scientist…. he’s a prophet who can see the future.
But then he steps back from the normal AGW dogma and writes: “If many of the positive feedbacks kick in, then we might be approaching a tipping point where we experience a suddet shift to an alternate state. On the other hand, if things continue along a gradual linear trajectory, then he is wrong. And for that we should all be relieved.”
Well said, Jeff! You said ‘if’!
There was a wonderful song, featuring Tweetie Pie and Sylvester, where Tweetie Pie persuades the big bad cat to stop being evil and join in the singing. Sylvester says, “Oh, all right then…. I taught I taw a puddy tat a creepin’ up on me…” Now, Jeff, repeat after me: “Global Warming is a load of alarmist claptrap. The end of the world ain’t nigh. Let’s all go down the pub instead and laugh at man’s folly.”
Jonas, I’m also interested in you. Jeffie asked you about your occupation. I would also be interested.
Why are you here? When I arrived in 2010 my object was (a) To test my doubts on Global Warming against people who accepted AGW and then (b)Try to understand the psychology of hard-line AGW believers of unshakeable faith.
I have learned a lot from these people. They made me read AR4. I concluded that its two fallacies were (i) The claim that CO2 is the biggie (is it bollocks) and (ii) A belief in positive feedback and tipping points (negative fb is the one – a tendency towards stable equilibrium).
Why are they (fruitcakes like Chek, John, and some other ugly specimens) like this? My best guess is that yer average eco-loon is anticapitalist; hates mankind more than he loves nature; has an irrational belief in apocalypse myths; likes the idea of Big Government; sees libertarianism as a road to ruin.
The science behind AGW is clearly bankrupt. My big worry is that the Cheks of this world – scary eco-loonies – have persuaded western governments to adopt crazy policies.
When I think how much better these green billions could be spent – e.g., habitat preservation rather than windmills – I could cry. These green extremists – these Watermelons – have done a great disservice to nature.
Thanks Jonarse, for showing (finally) the utter bankruptcy of your ‘objections’.
Leaving aside your utter drivelling gullibility (cf your ‘ClimateGate’ (sic) and ‘politics’ ranting), the situation is really quite simple – the energy entering our planetary system is exceeding the energy leaving it. Therefore energy is accumulating here on Earth, as heat in the oceans and atmosphere, and what Kevin Trenberth in his criminally misinterpreted ‘ClimateGate’ quote was saying is that we should know, but don’t know due to lack of adequate monitoring, where it’s all going. We do however know that the imbalance is the cause of what is popularly known as ‘AGW’ with absorption in the CO2 spectrum identified as being the culprit.
However, I of course realise the this is of no interest to those like you whose true motivations are the cultivation of extremist right-wing gangs of ignorami who prefer to believe the conspiracy-victim tripe that ultimately and predictably underlies the product that you’re peddling to your accompanying gaggle of half-wits.
Perhaps Paul and Jeff will be kinder and more measured in their replies, should they choose to do so.
Here we go again – the watermelons analogy. Its not about science, its about political agendas.
Brent, you are in serious need of psychiatric care.
Following on from my last post, I can say that in all of my years as a scientist I have never personally met anyone in a university or at a conference venue who has spouted this kind if tripe:
*My best guess is that yer average eco-loon is anticapitalist; hates mankind more than he loves nature; has an irrational belief in apocalypse myths; likes the idea of Big Government; sees libertarianism as a road to ruin*
When the denialati reveal their true colors, this kind of insanity often seeps through. Andrew Rowell wrote about it in ‘Green Backlash’ and Dave Helvarg in ‘The War Against the Greens’. Brent is the living embodiment of an extreme faith in unfettered, deregulated markets and it pollutes his views on just about everything else. Sigh. Another libertarian who doesn’t understand that unlimited freedom invokes the tragedy of the commons and infringes on the rights of others unless one lives on a remote, unpopulated island.
Note also how our bottom-feeding denier has to resort to the usual smears against me: that my work is to study the simple cabbage in all of its humble glory. Its a heck of a lot more than that, but I do not need to justify my scientific career to a moron like Brent, not now, not ever. Its a shame that he was ever allowed out of the facility in which he stewed in his own ignorance and back into here.
Jeff, could you please be a bit careful about your language, please? If I am not completely mistaken, you started with the political rants about your opposition, sound just like that, using exactly the kind of language you now condemn from others. Often, repeated, and pretty much unprovoked too ..
Do you now suggest that we should apply exactly your ‘analysis’ to your initial behavior too? And draw the same conclusions you tried to draw?
Because, if one does, if ones ‘analyzes’ your rantings, your attempts to deride and insult others, your many instances of not even trying to address the issue etc, the same ways as you just did/tried …
.. it is not that difficult to draw the conclusions that your
motivation to side with almost anything smelling the least bit alarmist, is **not** based on weighing the facts but on ideology and other similar and emotional preferences.
You can hardly blame others for interpreting you the same way you want to paint them.
And this has been a problem of your for a long time, Jeff. I’d suggest: Leave it, or argue the facts and stick to the topic. Your anger about other people’s emotion will never convince ..
Thanks, that helps me understand your position a little better.
I still have some more questions though. I’m just trying to get a better impression of your views. I hope you don’t mind.
First a more general question about knowledge synthesis in science. Do you think its possible, even in the presence of evidence, in science, to arrive at a consensus statement of the type we see in the IPCC reports about a particular hypothesis, question, or theory? Just to be clear, such a statement would have an accompanying uncertainty estimate.
When only reading your last posts Jeff, Brent’s sum up seem more than adequate. Your comments are hateful big letter rants about right wing evil agendas against climate science (not a shred of evidence to back it up with though), constant name-calling, straw-manology and, not the least, waiving your CV.
With the latter in mind your claim that you “do not need to justify (your) scientific career to a moron like Brent, not now, not ever” becomes hilarious. On the contrary my dear Jeff, that’s exactly what you need and always do. Why, one might wonder? 🙂
I’m sure some libertarians are good at lying, but compared to you and your little bunnies they are white as snow. The fact-inventing tradition is much more prominent in your backyard, it appears, again:
I guess its your strong belief in the protocols of Heartland and stuff like that, that make you see ghosts everywhere, loosing all perspective of what’s right and wrong.
Chek, you’ve done us proud. You wrote something substantive: “the energy entering our planetary system is exceeding the energy leaving it. Therefore energy is accumulating here on Earth, as heat in the oceans and atmosphere,…”
Well done. This is more useful than just hurling insults.
You and Brent deserve each other. And you actually think I need to justify my career to a few people on a single thread on Deltoid? You write as if my whole life was encapsulated in this one thread. Brent’s initial put down was to claim that only 6 people know who I am. May I suggest the both of you get out to more university departments and find out that there are a lot more out there than that. Is this the politics of envy? I have been invited to several universities in Europe and North America this year to present lectures on global change biology. Your last professional invitation was probably a booze-up at your local drinking hole. Certainly you both are minions in the scientific world. God it must pain you both that I have a pretty good CV to wave. Let me stick it right in front of your faces. BWAAHAAAHAAA!!
I think you both ought to get some fresh air and to grow up, you sad, pathetic little men. Brent has at least a weak excuse; judging by his photo, he is a bitter old man. You act like one. Defending someone who writes this tosh: *My best guess is that yer average eco-loon is anticapitalist; hates mankind more than he loves nature; has an irrational belief in apocalypse myths; likes the idea of Big Government; sees libertarianism as a road to ruin* takes some hubris. Trust you to attempt it.
Jonas: I wonder why in your response to Paul H you leave out Keeling’s 1950 predictions or those commissioned by the Johnson administration in the 1960s which both argued that if humans continued to pump copious amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that there would be discernible effects on global climate pattersn by the year 2000. Exactly as has happended. Why omit this salient point from the discussion? Its not like the recent warming came out of the blue. It was predicted.
As for asking me to be ‘careful about my language’ after the kind of shit thrown at me from a senile old man, forget it. I also answered your question yesterday, but you and Olaus never answer my simple little one, which is: WHAT ARE YOUR PROFESSIONS? Is this that hard to answer? I would just like to know. Why are you so reluctant to answer it?
OK, OK, I will answer it.
Because neither of you has a career in anything remotely close to science. Because to admit this would be to greatly weaken the already rickety foundation on which you have built your thesis. Illusions matter.
Correct? Now that is out of the way, you all can go back to your silly, fatuous smears and putdowns.
From the man with absolutely no need to justify himself with CV-waiving at Deltoid:
“And you actually think I need to justify my career to a few people on a single thread on Deltoid? You write as if my whole life was encapsulated in this one thread. Brent’s initial put down was to claim that only 6 people know who I am. May I suggest the both of you get out to more university departments and find out that there are a lot more out there than that. Is this the politics of envy? I have been invited to several universities in Europe and North America this year to present lectures on global change biology.”
C’mon Jeff, get real will ya! Its difficult to find one post where you don’t try to justify yourself â with your CV. 🙂
Based on what you write hear at Deltoid Brent’s description of you is right on target. I’m sure you can do much better, but then you have to step up to the challenge not inventing facts, fantasizing about right wing illuminati, stop the name-calling and inhibit your faiblesse to bolster yourself in self-idolatrine (at least in writing).
No-one is interested in your CV since it has no bearing whatsoever on the topics addressed. Get it? When I, for instance, ask you to share the evidence proving the existence of an evil right wing conspiracy, your CV doesn’t cut it. Its totally irrelevant. The same applies to the Q about the science behind the 90% figure. Its not embedded in your CV, a PhD in descriptive cabbageology or not.
Have you seen any proper science (from 2006 or earlier) based on which one can claim attribution of at least half the warming in the last 50 years on human activities with 90% (or higher) confidence? And if so have you read it and understood it properly. To the degree that you are convinced it is correct. And if so, are you then capable and prepared to argue the merits and answer to criticism and challenges?
Judging from your questions and comments, the answer is No. I just want to ask and have it confirmed for the record. As I said before: Very few have even attempted to present any references or publications that allegedly would be the science behind that AR4 claim. And when read, such claims evaporated very quickly. Thatâs why I now first ask if they have read and understood it themselves. And if they would be prepared to defend it in the face of scrutiny and criticism?
Further, I am a bit uncertain about exactly you are asking. But generally no, one should never make claims and say those are based on science (let alone âthe best science availableâ checked by thousands of experts .. etc) if it ainât so! Never. Thatâs the kind of waffle I expect from politicians. To support an agenda. Regardless of whether or not they believe in their own conviction.
Let me make a comparison: âOur investigation shows that Y was responsible for half or more of the demise of X, and with at least 905 certaintyâ
You may very well hold such beliefs, and express them in that manner, even believe that the claims are true. But for very good reasons, you donât use such âassessmentsâ to convict people.
And also in science, you donât use your won guesses or guesstimates about how certain you are that your first guesses (even if reasonable) also were correct, and assign (guess) confidence levels to how certain you are that you indeed guessed correctly and got it right. You just donât do that!
*No-one is interested in your CV since it has no bearing whatsoever on the topics addressed. Get it?*
Sure, if you say so. I would desist and say it has a very important bearing on biotic responses to climate change, and area where, with no disrespect, nobody here comes close to knowing what I do. That’s not hard because I am a trained population ecololgist and you and the others – well, aside from self-training, you aren’t. I have invoked ecological and evolutionary theory in order to explain species-specific responses to abiotic stresses, and the response to this has on the ‘science thread’ as you call it has been profound silence. The aim of this silence is to belittle it, so that by silence its importance is somehow consinged to the trash bin. But the truth is that silence is not because it isn’t relevant, but because nobody here understands area-extinction models, r and K selection, k-factor analysis, food web theory, and a plethora of other areas scientists routinely use as proxies to explain observed data. Instead, I get responses claiming that I am an ignorant idiot who waves his CV, that I am a watermelon who hugs tress for a living, that I hate humanity and embrace despotic government, and other similar peurile epithets. Perhaps this kind of clownish behavior wins debates on a few web logs, but in the scientific world it won’t cut it. You can pound your chest like an alpha male and stamp the ground proclaiming forever your adherence to the scientific method, but if you don’t understand elementary (at least to me) theories in environmental science that help to explain oberved phenomena, then your victory is a pyrrhic one. And all of your pontificating about cabbage-ology also reveals that you have to resort to the most infantile basal smears to legitimize yourself. Fine, if that’s what gets you off. Its just too bad that ignorance is all too often bliss. Next thing you’ll be doing is belittling some poor sod of a climate scientist because he studies raindrops. As if this smear somehow gives you the intellectual upper hand. I’ve got news for you Olaus: it doesn’t. Just be happy that you are confinend to the blogosphere where you can hide. If you were to behave as you do in an educational establishment, you would be laughed off the stage. But of course, the blog is where you will stay. Same goes for Brent.
As for Jonas, I presented him with a simple challenge yesterday. I have done it before but it is never answered. Here is my challenge to Jonas, and for that matter you, Olaus, Brant and the other silverbacks who strut their stuff on Deltoid (but apparently not elsewhere). You all appear to think that James Hansen is a quack and that his ideas are toast. The question is this (from yesterday):
Is your science limited to the blogosphere or are you willing to expose it to the scrutiny of actual climate scientists? The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I am not saying that any of you are wrong – I am challenging you to write up your rebuttal and send it to a rigid scientific journal. Then, when its reviewed, tell us here on Deltoid what the outcome was and share the comments of the reviewers with us. That’s what I do with my research and what other professional scientists do. I would be out of a job if I did not publish the findings of my research (or that of my PhD and Masters students). I have had a lot of my papers initially rejected. It goes with the territory. But its a learning process. To reiterate what I said yesterday, I am not saying that Hansen is correct. But you cannot expect to make any headway if you restrict your rebuttal to one or two blogs. If you are confident that you are correct on the basis of simple physics, then take the plunge and go for a scientific journal.
I greatly admire James Hansen, Michael Mann, and other scientists who have been the victim of vicious attacks by right wing pundits and those in the blogosphere. That is my opinion, and if you don’t like it, tough. But before you run off into another tirade about cabbages, watermelons, despotic governments etc., tell me if you plan to write up a rebuttal for a peer-reviewed journal to Hansen’s sea level rise estimates. Or will this question be avoided – again? You guys will not win any intellectual victories on a few blogs, in spite of what you think. Its only when you throw your ideas to the wolves that we can see if they stand the test of scrutiny. Again, I see a lot of chest pounding here but when one steps outside the ‘box’, it all withers away.
PS: I never fantasized about a right wing illuminati. But it is intrumental to know that the vast majority of those downplaying AGW – as well as other environmental threats for that matter – come from the far end of the political right. Or are James Inhofe, Joe Barton, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, most of the think tanks et al. closet lefties? Its no conspiracy. It just happens to be the truth.
Jeff, I am somewhat behind wrt to answering legitimate questions found in your comments. Unfortunately you seem to let yourself get carried away by your emotions and again letting your fantasies and prejections getting the better(?) of you.
More ironic even is that you then deride others for practices where you have been among the worst and most consistent culprits! And that you canât help yourself and keep on doing it. Have ever heard the proverb: âWhat goes around comes aroundâ? Are seriously surprised that someone might use the term âwatermelonâ or âtree huggerâ after all the insults you have tried, and still are trying? Really? And as quite often you are being quite liberal(!) with the truth too when describing your previous actions and sweeping claims here. It is really hard to imagine that this behavior is not central to your persona.
You even provide a good example yourself: You admire Mann and Hansen, not for good science they have performed that is testable, stands up to scrutiny and proves itself useful when it meets reality. No, instead you write that this relies on them being (in you view) targets from that âvicious rightâ. Whether or not such criticism is warranted, does not seem to phase you. You did the exact same thing when I pointed out how ludicrous his claims are. The same thing with Mann, you seem to defend him, and attack, smear his critics although you donât have the slightest understanding of what is being criticized. You even held up such ignorance as a virtue! But (by your standards) of course, Mannâs and Hansenâs CV:s are lengthy and look impressive, therefore those criticizing them must be vicious and wrong.
Sorry Jeff, but you have presented these kind of analyses so many times, it is very hard to just imagine that such sloppy thinking is not hardwired into your system.
As for Hansenâs sea level rise rates due to GHGs, they are wrong. Plain and simple! That doesnât need to be âwritten upâ. Every real scientist worth his salt either already knows that, or could find out for himself within a few minutes. I donât even know if Hansen has made such claims and labeled them science, also presenting a scientific basis for them.
Dear Jeffie, if I had questioned that there is a biotic response to climate change you would have had a case against me, but like I have told you many times already, I don’t challenge that. Get it?
So once again: If you want to engage in a civil debate, don’t invent what I claim or what I think or what anyone else thinks and does for that matter. Just read what I say, and take it from there. Ok? I can assure you that its a much more rewarding MO.
My CV is of no more interest than yours – or Jonas’. What’s claimed or questioned is.
If you can’t prove that there is a well funded right wing denial machine working against climate science, the most reasonable conclusion must be that there is nothing of the kind. And your CV will not help you prove it either, even if you can’t help yourself making wallpaper of it at Deltoid â again. 🙂
However, I’m sure Rush, Fox etc dislike CAGW and the politically driven fear mongering haters (like you) that underpins it. But that’s not the same thing as a well funded right wing denial machine working against climate science.
Responses to various quotes from Jonas @3639:
“Have you seen any proper science (from 2006 or earlier) based on which one can claim attribution of at least half the warming in the last 50 years on human activities with 90% (or higher) confidence?”
“And if so have you read it and understood it properly.”
“To the degree that you are convinced it is correct.”
“And if so, are you then capable and prepared to argue the merits and answer to criticism and challenges?”
“Judging from your questions and comments, the answer is No. I just want to ask and have it confirmed for the record.”
I’ve done my best to avoid making any sort of (pre)judgments about your opinions and views. In the interest of civil discussion, can you please avoid doing that? Thanks.
“But generally no, one should never make claims and say those are based on science (let alone âthe best science availableâ checked by thousands of experts .. etc) if it ainât so!”
Well that wasn’t quite what I asked; more on that shortly. Just for absolute clarity, are you simply saying ‘we shouldn’t dress claims up as scientific if there is no scientific backing to the claims’? That is what you appear to be saying, and I agree with that statement (as I wrote it here in italics) when applied generally.
With regards to what I wrote in my previous post @3633, i.e. “Do you think its possible, even in the presence of evidence, in science, to arrive at a consensus statement of the type we see in the IPCC reports about a particular hypothesis, question, or theory?”
You elaborate: “Let me make a comparison: âOur investigation shows that Y was responsible for half or more of the demise of X, and with at least 90% certaintyâ”
I wasn’t asking about statements with a similar formulation to the IPCC 90% statement specifically. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough with “of the type”, which was meant to apply generally to the IPCC’s consensus statements that come in various forms.
I want to try and ask my question in a different way. Moving away from the IPCC and climate change, I assert that, in science generally, in the presence of sufficient evidence, with enough consilience of evidence, that it is possible to arrive at consensus statements about a particular hypothesis, scientific question, or theory. A consensus statement being a statement that can be agreed upon by a sufficiently large portion of scientists working on a specific area of research, and where sufficient expertise exists that a level of certainty may be formulated and applied to said statement. Let me give examples in other areas of science where, in my view, such consensus occurs and could, if we tried, be quantified:
(and to be clear, I am not claiming that the levels of certainty are equivalent to the IPCC statement of interest I am merely using these as examples of consensus)
Do you agree that we could arrive at consensus statements regarding the current state of science regarding these three hypotheses? My question @3633 was intended to be far more fundamental. In a nutshell: can consensus exist in science, and can we quantify those statements if we have enough information?
*politically driven fear mongering haters (like you*
There you go again. Whom exactly do I hate? Its an illusion. I certainly do not hate anyone, although I do question the idealogical and political motives of many. You have no idea what my political affiliations are, yet you also make rather large assumptions. Brent, Jonas and you have worn your libertarian hearts on your sleeves; you couldn’t help it, could you? The rest of us here have not said much of a word about our political leanings.
Jonas: terms like tree hugger, watermelon, loving of despotic government etc. have NO place in intellectual discourse. Nothing I have ever said here comes close to that. I am used to to it, however, but it bounces off me like water off a duck’s back. The anti-environmental lobby has been resorting to this kind of childish stuff for years, no news there. That Delingople has to dredge it up to shift papers and his book is pretty much beneath contempt, but then again the guy is IMHO a quack. In 2005 I was asked to debate two well known Dutch AGW deniers on Dutch radio. I was joined by a Dutch climate scientist. One of the deniers brought up the watermelon analogy in his short talk. In fact, it was the first thing he said. Many in the audience laughed, but not with him but at him. If this was the initial basis for his position, then it was clearly bankrupt. He sure made my position a lot easier. But others ahve used the watermelon analogy more recently. Vaclav Klaus, for instance. It appears that these people are happy to see themselves as laughingstocks. But labeling scientists as ‘doomsayers, watermelons, people who hate humanity, anti-development tree-huggers etc. has a long and sordid history that goes back to the Wise Use Movement that sprung to life in the U.S. in the 1980s. Its clear that its still a hit with a few disturbed minds.
Lastly, you write, “As for Hansenâs sea level rise rates due to GHGs, they are wrong. Plain and simple! That doesnât need to be âwritten upâ. Every real scientist worth his salt either already knows that, or could find out for himself within a few minutes. I donât even know if Hansen has made such claims and labeled them science, also presenting a scientific basis for them.”
This is a cop-out. As I said, science does not work this way. If you want to show that you are correct, then you write up your argument, have it scrutinzed by peers and then, if it passes muster, have it published in a scientific journal. It would not be sufficient for me to say that “Hubble’s neutral theory of biodiversity is rubbish: all ecologists know it”! and expect to be taken seriously. I would be expected to write it up and submit it for a science journal, defending my position and providing alternative hypotheses with some theoretical and empirical support. Clearly, very many scientists take Hansen’s pronouncement seriously. If he is indeed wrong, then the onus is on you or other AGW sceptics to prove it in print in a journal. Saying it over and over on a blog does not make the grade.
>Why are they (fruitcakes like Chek, John, and some other ugly specimens) like this? My best guess is that yer average eco-loon is anticapitalist; hates mankind more than he loves nature; has an irrational belief in apocalypse myths; likes the idea of Big Government; sees libertarianism as a road to ruin.
Brent, stop projecting your hateful ideological faith onto the rest of us. I merely accept that increasing levels of Co2 are enhancing the greenhouse effect and causing long term warming. All other descriptions are a product of your frightened mind.
Hilariously, the science you are using for your pitifully amateur blog posts of “conjecture” (nothing you would ever have the guts to commit to because you know it’s wrong) is cherrypicked from papers that support AGW. You just ignore the conclusions because they don’t suit your faith. Tell me – is that science?
Why are you like this? My best guess is that your adhere to dying extreme right-wing ideology in which there must always be a perceived militant evil to defeat. Global warming has only replaced communism for you lot.
For fun, here is Brent playing at “science”:
>I think we both believe that the sun is the major driver of climate, although explaining the precise mechanism lies in the future.
Anyway, Brent, cheer up you angry little troll! Life isn’t so bad!
Jeff: “Whom exactly do I hate? Its an illusion.”
Exactly my point Jeff. What you hate in capital letters, and its a lot, doesn’t exist in the real world. Its something you have created in your little head so that your goodness can stand out in relief.
You invent stuff about people whose opinions you don’t like, e.g. that they don’t care about the environment, the endangered species, the less fortunate in society, etc. And on it goes.
Yet here you are telling us that you can facilitate “intellectual discourse”. Absolutely priceless coming from a man constantly speaking by and for himself in tourettes tongue. Aside from your inability to actually talk about the topic at hand, your name-calling stats are top of the line. I’ll give you that.
The really scary part is that you don’t know it.
Nope Jeff ..
> This is a cop-out. As I said, science does not work this way. If you want to show that you are correct, then you write up your argument, have it scrutinzed by peers and then, if it passes muster, have it published in a scientific journal
Itâs not a cop-out! Provide me with âthe scienceâ by Hansen that claims sea level rise rates will **on average** three- to 15-fold during this century and presents how this claim is arrived at, and there might be room for a âscientific debunkingâ. AFAIK he made that claim, and related to GHG emissions in a TED-talk. And his claim is nonsense!
You say that:
> Clearly, very many scientists take Hansen’s pronouncement seriously
Well there we are again at the difference between hard and soft âsciencesâ and between real scientists, or those who accept âpronouncementsâ on faith and think that CV-length somehow equates to ârespectedâ which in turn even correlates to âaccuracy of his future predictionsâ . No Jeff, Iâd say the opposite, not one real scientist would take **that** claim seriously based on its pronouncement. Amongst other things, because its quantitative requirements are so easily checked. Among those who canât, couldnât even if they tried, you might have a point. But then we are back to the faithers. Not science ..
Nope Jeff ..
> This is a cop-out. As I said, science does not work this way. If you want to show that you are correct, then you write up your argument, have it scrutinzed by peers and then, if it passes muster, have it published in a scientific journal
Jonas, you so often have told me and others about rigorous adherence to the scientific method. If Hansen is posturing, so are you. Two wrongs don’t make a right. I am telling you and your cheering section here to put your money where your mouth is and put your arguments into a manuscript and then throw it into the lions den. Or are you afraid to do just this? Its one thing pounding your chest in the innocuous little corner of a weblog where nobody on Earth knows who the hell you are, or in the broader scientific arena. You have lectured me very often on what you think constitutes proper scientific methodology, and you claim (perhaps correctly) that since Hansen does not adhere to it. However, you follow this up by suggesting that you don’t have to adhere to it either. Instead, you pour out your heart and soul here where you are safely hidden in obscurity. When asked to throw your ideas into a broader arena, you suddenly back down and say, “Shucks, I don’t need to do that, as my ideas are sound anyway and Hansen’s are crap”. As I said before, my career would have lasted no longer than a millisecond had I taken this same approach. One of the biggest debates in systems ecology is that between the species-stability hypothesis on the one hand and the redundancy hypothesis on the other. This debate has been quite acrimonious at times, but has led to a stimulating discussion in the empirical and theoretical literature. The battle is being fought in the scientific journals, and not in blogs. If you want to make any kind of impression with your ideas in a broader academic landscape, you won’t do so here. You might think you have an audience of thousands, but in reality its probably about 10. I don’t expect to attend conferences where climate change and its effects are being discussed and to listen to a lecture in which WUWT or CA are referred to, let along the mention of your name amongst the prominent skeptics. If you want that you’ll need publications under your name, I am afraid.
Let’s see you enter the fray once and for all and put your ideas to the test. On here you can expect blithe acceptance of everything you say from Olaus, GSW and Brent. If that’s your ambition, then so be it, but it is a pretty insignificant one.
Jeff .. seriously
Where do I say that I don’t have to adhere to the scientific method? You still believe that ‘publishing’ is the scientific method? It is not! Publishing is part of the practice to share and spread your results to a wider audience. In the real sciences, peer review functions as selection method, and coarse screening for obvious errors and/or poor quality. I don’t have a problem with that.
But Hansen’s claim is ludicrous. I could debunk it even here, for every one to review. I mean for those who can ‘do numbers’, calculate energies available and required etc.
And AFAIK Hansens claim isn’t even claimed to be science. He just is introduced as scientist/professor .. but constantly delivers alarmistic hyperbole in public.
The whole idea that publicly uttered nonsense, exaggerations, activism and zealotry … should be countered by first publishing that n.b. **somebody else** publicly spouted nonsense is wrong. Before such BS can be called crap!? That’s ludicrous, Jeff!
Same goes for IPCC. What they publish is alleged to be based on science. We know it is often not. We know that it overstates many things. We know that selection is biased, and we know (now) about the behind the scenes efforts to keep things out.
10 years ago, Jeff, around the TAR, you might have gotten away with the argument that one needed to publish first, and then the IPCC would evaluate it fairly. But right about then the TAR also plastered it’s reports and SPM with a hockeystick, thereby showing it was much more about the ‘narrative’.
It worked then. It even still kinda worked after Al Gore’s movie and with the AR4. But now, you can only fool the already thoroughly fooled with appeals to IPCC and ‘peer reviewed’ climate science.
But, on a completely different topic: How the heck did anyone come up with the idea of putting you on a Dutch radio show to talk about climate science?
I mean really. You’ve spent eight months here avoiding anything relevant about it like poison. How would anyone come up with you of all?
Robust, to the point, arguments indeed gentlemen. Particularly liked this from Olaus,
“You[jeff] invent stuff about people whose opinions you don’t like, e.g. that they don’t care about the environment, the endangered species, the less fortunate in society, etc. And on it goes.”
I can testify to that. There is rarely any relation between what jeff states I believe, and what I actually do believe. It’s either, he’s never listens to what is being said, willfully ignores what is said, or he superimposes a belief on the grounds that that it’s what “that type of person always believes”. It’s quite extraordinary, jeff ” I want the world to be how it is my head” harvey.
“On here you can expect blithe acceptance of everything you say from Olaus, GSW and Brent.”
I know it is an alien concept to you jeff, but that is because he makes a thought thru argument. You just wave your hands, bleat, and pretend the conversation is about something else.
chek, you too sound very angry and very frustrated very often .. and your comments are very often very very stupid .. and very devoid of substance .. I very much wonder what you think you are doing or what you think you may accomplish.
What side you are rooting for is very obvious .. but rooting for carries no weight at all in science about the real world .. and blindly rooting for things you don’t understand may make you look very very stupid ..
Here’s a damning expose of fiddling of the historic temperature record by Norwich Poly (sorry, The University of East Anglia):
Would any Warmist like to comment? Can John or Chek say something like, “Despite all our squabbling here on Deltoid, despite my conviction that AGW is real, I would NEVER support the deliberate corruption of the data in order to strengthen the AGW case. Fraud is fraud, whoever does it.”
The WUWT piece fits nicely with my own humble effort: http://endisnighnot.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/giss-strange-anomalies.html
P.S., on BBC Radio 4 today (The Material World) a Renewable Energy advocate said that windmills in the North Sea would cost Â£100bn. That’s two goddam grand for every man woman and child in Britain. Perhaps ‘despotic’ is putting it too strongly, but that level of taxation (as a remedy for the Global Warming fairy story) is damaging; it’s destructive; it’s a despicable abuse of the public purse.
Jeffie baby, your CV says that ‘advocacy’ is one of your main activities. You really can’t complain about being referred to as a Watermelon – green on the outside and red on the inside. The charge is that Watermelons in scientific jobs exploit the bona-fides once associated with the profession in furtherance of political aims. How do you plead?
New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.
Well, scienceblogs is shutting down at the end of the month. I don’t want all the…
Happy new year!