In an interview in The Australian (behind The Australian's paywall, search for "Gadfly Geoffrey Blainey") historian Geoffrey Blainey gets his history wrong:
In 1970 the overwhelming majority of scientists believed that there was not going to be global warming over the next 40 years.
That's not true, as Ian Musgrave explains.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
In a piece ironically titled "Be prudent with climate claims" (behind The Australian's paywall, search for the title if you want to read it) George Pell declares that, unlike him,
"many politicians have never investigated the primary evidence."
However, if you look at the sources he cites, you'll…
I only wrote my last post on the Australian's War on Science a couple of days ago and already there's more attacks on science from them.
First we have this news article:
Professor Henderson said yesterday the report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, handed down on February 2,…
Note: This is another lightly revised version a piece I wrote some years ago at the oldest incarnation of this blog. It answers a question I get a lot - if people have been saying that the oil is going to run out for years, and if 30 years ago people thought we were going to have an ice age, why…
Media Watch examines the coverage of climate change on commercial talkback radio. While Ian Plimer and Bob Carter are frequently on talkback radio,
Not one orthodox climate scientist - not one - has been interviewed by any of the climate sceptics on Fairfax stations.
As for 2GB, its management…
No John #5 - It is you who are the lier.
"A far larger topic"
A far larger topic? Get serious mate. You are obviously engaged in fraud here.
Have I won the internet yet ? :-)
"Clare" = commercial spam.
Blainey's new book: "The Tyranny of Making Stuff Up" and the sequel, "The Tyranny of Not Checking Your Facts".
Behind a paywall? Fantastic. Great idea.
The first paper to use the term "global warming" and to predict that increasing levels of CO2 would cause it was in 1975.
Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?
Author(s): Wallace S. Broecker
Source: Science, New Series, Vol. 189, No. 4201 (Aug. 8, 1975), pp. 460-463
Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1740491
In 1981, when I began my career as physicist and first became aware of the problem, very few of my colleagues thought about global warming.
yes but Arrhenius was already writing about it in the late nineteenth century I think ..
Allan, until 1975 it was known as "climate change", which puts lie to the popular denier theory that the socialist nazis at the UN invented the PC term "climate change" when the globe started cooling in 1995/1998/2001/2002/2005/2010.
Can anyone point me to a paper that
a)reports increasing levels of CO2 due to industrial activity
b)predicts that this will cause warming
c)pre-dates Broeker
I'm merely curious: the science of climate change in a) and b) is well-established. I just wonder who first raised the warning flag and when.
This being the internet, where tribalism and credentialism rules, I wonder if I should establish my bona fides. Search for my name in the Duff thread and in the Jonas thread.
I'm not a scientist but I recommend Paul N. Edwards A Vast Machine on the history of climate science, for those who haven't read it. On around p74, for example, Edwards writes about Arrhenius and Thomas Chamberlin and their various speculations about exactly these questions. No, it's not quite a "paper" in the contemporary sense ... it is the history of thinking about what and why however. It's a great book, and it's amazing how few people know the history of climate science.
New Ltd has a new CEO, but it looks like the WoS will continue, given he thinks it's everyone else who has a "glass jaw".
Alan
If you want to go to near to origin, try [these]( http://uscentrist.org/about/issues/environment/docs/Revelle-Suess1957.p…) [two](http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/publications/keeling_tellus_1960.pdf).
You can also look up papers by Guy Callendar, referenced in the Revelle and Suess papers.
And in the mass media:
In Time magazine, December 17, 1956, when I was ten;
In a cover article on "Weatherman Carl-Gustaf Rossby",
CO2 Menace
Another atmospheric variable is carbon dioxide. CO2 is comparatively plentiful downwind from industrial areas such as the Ruhr, and there is a good possibility that man's fires and engines are adding so much of it to the atmosphere that the world's climate may be changed drastically by the solar heat that it traps. Rossby wants to find out about this little matter too.
We were warned.
Not really.
Why, did someone in those threads challenge your bona fides?
Here is a newspaper article from 1957 that uses the term "global warming" (and "climate changes") in connection with industrial release of CO2.
[Svante Arrhenius discusses warming due to industrial emissions of CO2 in 1908:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect)
Here is a [timeline](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm) from Spencer Weart's excellent "The discovery of global warming"
Two quotes from the AIP work (@14): "By the end of the 1970s, scientific opinion had settled on warming as most likely, probably becoming evident around the year 2000" and "G.S. Callendar ... in 1938 ... presented sketchy evidence that humanity's use of fossil fuels could be causing global warming through the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide gas. Callendar recalled how nearly every expert on climate rejected his arguments. 'The idea that man's actions could influence so vast a complex," he wrote, "is very repugnant to some.'"
I guess Blainey doesn't know how to use Google.
Thanks for the commenters who set me straight. I didn't know the idea has such a long history.
Climate scientist Gilbert N Plass, writing in Scientific American in July 1959, ["Carbon Dioxide and Climate"](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=carbon-dioxide-and-cli…), concludes:
Plass's tentative projection that climate temperature could increase by 3.6 degrees by the year 2000 was wrong, for reasons that are now better understood than they were 52 years ago, but it is clear now that greenhouse gas effects strongly dominate those of volcanic activity and of changes in sun radiance.
Of course in 1959 Scientific American did not have a web site, but it posted the Plass article online in December 2008, just short of the 50th anniversary of original publication.
Surely no-one expected Geoffrey Blainey to get historical fact right?
We're taking about Blainey after all- an advanced Google search is beyond him!
Naomi Oreskes has done a good work [looking at this history](http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/professor-naomi-oreskes-explains-…):
>...in the early 20th century, when Swedish geochemist Svante Arrhenius deduced from Tyndall's work that CO2 released to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels could alter Earth's climate. By the 1930s British engineer Guy Callendar had compiled empirical evidence that this effect was already discernible.
>Callendar's concern was pursued in the 1950s by numerous American scientists, including oceanographer Roger Revelle [and] Charles David Keeling [...] By the 1960s, Keeling's assiduous measurements at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii demonstrated conclusively that atmospheric carbon dioxide was, indeed, steadily rising [...].
>One early warning that we "will modify the heat balance of the atmosphere to such an extent that marked changes in climate . . . could occur" came in 1965 from the Environmental Pollution Board of the President's Science Advisory Committee. [...] In a special message to Congress in February 1965, **President Lyndon B. Johnson** noted: "This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through . . . a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels."
>A second warning came in 1966 from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences Panel on Weather and Climate Modification, headed by geophysicist Gordon MacDonald [...]
>In 1974, in the wake of the Arab oil embargo, Alvin Weinberg, director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, realized that climatological impacts might limit oil production before geology did. In 1978, Robert M. White, the first administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and later president of the National Academy of Engineering, put it this way:
>>"We now understand that industrial wastes, such as carbon dioxide released during the burning of fossil fuels, can have consequences for climate that pose a considerable threat to future society."
>In 1979 the subject was addressed by the JASON Committee, the reclusive group of scientists with high-level security clearances who gather annually to advise the U.S. government; its members have included some of the most brilliant scientists of our era.
>The JASON scientists predicted that atmospheric carbon dioxide might double by 2035, resulting in mean global temperature increases of 2 to 3 degrees Celsius and polar warming of as much as 10 to 12 degrees. This report reached the Carter White House, where science adviser Frank Press asked the National Academy of Sciences for a second opinion. An academy committee, headed by MIT meteorologist Jule Charney, affirmed the JASON conclusion: "If carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we] find no reason to doubt that climate changes will result, and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible."
>It was these concerns that led to the establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and, in 1992
Gotta love that paywall! :D
Blainey seems to think it's 1990:
"In 1970 the overwhelming majority of scientists believed that there was not going to be global warming over the next 40 years. Suddenly they change their minds and say: this is wonderful, look what science has discovered. They never say, look how wrong science was 20 years ago when they were telling us a completely opposite version. I think science is riding more highly than at any previous moment
In regards to Geoffrey Blainey, Ian Plimer, George Pell, Rupert Murdoch, and several others of their generation:
"Have young men ever understood,
The games that old men play"
[Rupert Hine, ``The Wildest Wish To Fly'' (1983)]
The fact that deniers so often resort to historical revisionism in their desperate attempts to ignore current scientific facts tells you a lot in my opinion. But taken in isolation (not read the entire article) notice how misleadingly phrased his quote was; he only refers to the 'overwhelming majority of scientists', not climate scientists. He could twist that into meaning that he is referring to science overall, which when referring to a period when climate science was beginning to hit an at-the-time-sceptical mainstream, could be argued, given that he phrase the belief in global warming as a negative. Of course, the implied meaning, that climate scientists themselves actively thought there wasn't going to be global warming, is utter rubbish.
Assuming that this is what's going on in this instance, this kind of thing really winds me up, where somebody uses a statement that could be argued to be factual to implant an implied lie in the collective that goes on to be repeated as fact. Is there a word for it? If not, there should be.
Since Blainey is a historian, you would think he would look up the history of the discovery of global warming. Too much like hard work, perhaps. He would rather take the non scientific approach to this issue and just make things up.
I refuse to sign up and pledge money to NI for the privilege noisome experience of reading such garbage.
I wonder if this paywall thing is beginning to melt as Sydney experience new record night time temperatures?
What is it with old white males, although I could be considered one myself, that makes them so oblivious to the climatic events around the world (Alaska being hit by a storm surge and Vietnam now suffering floods)? Maybe it is the secure pensions and other sinecures, along with the certainty that they are not going to be around much longer so will miss the worst of Earth's attempt to shake us off and restore radiative balance.
> I didn't know the idea has such a long history.
> Posted by: Alan
How long have you been reading about the subject, and where have you been reading? I'm curious how you missed the history.
Not that anyone's required to know the history before opining, of course.
But it's interesting to know how people get their opinions, and how they get to the point of opining in public without encountering the history -- like rushing through the forest of information without ever encountering a tree.
How _do_ people do this?
Blainey may have been referring to the myth widely believed by climate denialists that "most scientists" predicted global cooling before they predicted warming (proving how confused and unreliable scientists must be).
There is a grain of truth under the lie. In 1971 the late Stephen Schneider (gasp!) [coauthered a paper](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider), "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate", that said:
Over the three decades from about 1940 there had indeed been an apparent drop in global temperature, which was the impetus for this research. Subsequently, Schneider discovered an error in the calculations supporting the conclusion and published a retraction of the paper in 1976. Furthermore, the observed temperature drop, which was actually confined to the northern hemisphere, disappeared as European and Soviet industry cleaned up its act and reduced the level of atmospheric pollution that it produced.
Blainey may have limited his research to Cardinal Pell's Gospel According to St Plimer.
I suspect that Schneider et al may have been operating in an 'atmosphere' favouring cooling because many geologists at the time really were predicting cooling. Not at the headlong pace of current warming, but cooling nevertheless.
Unfortunately they had their Milankovich/orbital/general geological cycles a bit skew whiff. So they were eleventy millennia off the mark.
Lionel A said:"I refuse to sign up and pledge money to NI"
I agree 100%.
I will never give a penny to Murdoch or any of his organs. I have never bought one of his 'newspapers', even when one of his titles is the last available in the shop. I recall my brother was quite annoyed that I didn't acquire for him a copy of the Microsoft special souvenir edition of The Times the day that Windows 95 was launched, while he was out of the country.
Unfortunaely, I don't use a TV either (what's available to a PC makes up for visual information/entertainment) otherwise I'd also include Sky satellite TV in my list of self prohibitions.
Ideally, the hacking enquiries here in the U.K. would result in the entire Murdoch clan serving out the rest of their days eking out a meagre living from the prison garden on Devil's Island.
So I can only hope that their self-imposed paywall in Australia is a major contributor to their noisome, neo-liberal agenda sliding down the garbage chute of history.
Not surprising to see Blainey among climate change deniers.
As people have said above, his ignorance on this history is complete.
The nonsense about the 1970s world getting colder theory often comes up of course. I remember the speculation about pollution and what effect it might be having on climate, and on whether we were due to head back into another ice age and so on. The kind of speculation good scientists indulge in "I wonder if ..." "What would happen ..." and so on. But there wasn't much data available in those days. In a sense this kind of scientific curiosity led to the establishment of measuring temps in the air and sea and more extensively on land, and led to the start of computer modelling.
The result, over 35 years later, as a result of the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists and specialised institutions, is that we do indeed know that CO2 effects are outweighing pollution, and we know what the future holds. To pretend that the situation now in climate science is what it was in the 1970s is a grotesque skewing of historical reality. And Blainey, whatever else he is, not a stupid man, must know that. Shameful.
Yes isn't it absolutely appalling that climate scientists were researching factors other than Carbon Dioxide that might affect climate.
>I have never bought one of his 'newspapers', even when one of his titles is the last available in the shop.
In several states in Oz we've had no choice. Murdoch has a monoploy in South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania. In SA he bought the oppostion paper then owning the only two he closed one.
Until the internet, if you wanted to find a job or bid for tender or read public anouncments you needed to buy his fiththy rag.
Even withe the internet if we need to advertise a for a job vacancy we really have little choice but to give Murchod hundreds or thousands of dollars.
Murdoch's rag is so distastful that they are giving it away to up their circulation (e.g. comes free daily with gym membership etc.) . But I refuse to take the freebee. I wont add even one more count to their circulation.
" giving it away to up their circulation " So they're doing that elsewhere, are they?
Our local independent supermarket often has them for nothing - initially we thought it was because they had an advertising liftout in there, but they keep on doing it. And my husband actually _brought one home_ from another place the other day.
Although it didn't cover Australian newspapers, [the conclusions of the Reuters Institute 'Poles Apart' report](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15639767
) of climate 'scepticism' in the media are apposite to the Australian's WoS:
chek:
I, in turn, agree 100%.
Unfortunately I think reality will play out differently with commentators in the Guardian taking MP Tom Watson to task for his description of James Murdoch as being, 'the only Mafia boss in history who was unaware of his running a criminal enterprise'.
The comments, at the end of the Guardian piece, gave Alexander Chancellor short shrift though.
Lionel A:
One blogger's take: Whatâs Up With Conservative White Men and Climate Change Denial?
That 'What's Up With Conservative...' link failed for me but this one works:
One of the Climate Denial Crock series
You don't think it could be connected to ...MONEY!?!? Do you?
[You don't think it could be connected to ...MONEY!?!? Do you?]
Probably more to do with Blainey seeing an avenue to continue the assault in his "culture war" against "teh Left"
You got to laugh, low level, largely unpublished IT teacher tells well known, heavily published historian he has the history wrong.
OMG's comment made me think of something once said by Sir Arthur C Clarke to the effect of the older and more distinguished the individual the more likely it is that their present-day pronouncements are wrong, also known as Clarke's Axiom. A bit of the google and I found that my memory wasn't quite right, the actual quote
As I was looking about, I came upon another rather relevant quote; Mark Twain writing about the late 19th C fad over pre-Columbian explorers in North America.
Certainly seems applicable to some of the more prominent "commentators" in the climate change debate, and I'm not pointing at actual scientists and researchers but specifically those who have claimed unearned expertise in the field.
Actually I think "OMG" only happens to "recognize" the authority of Blainey because he likes what Blainey is saying.
If Blainey were to tell the truth, his authority suddenly won't matter to "OMG".
-- frank
When looking back at the ice age prophesy in the 70s one will find that there (among real climate scientist) were few that were adamant about it. It was just a hypothesis among others. When we, in ten years or so, look back at the global warming....sorry climate chan...sorry climate disruption prophesies one will find that the real climate scientist not were dead sure about it. It was just a hypothesis among others.
:-)
That's one of the points Barry Bickmore makes in his "return from the darkside". In it he points out that Monckton, for example, invites people to check out what he's saying but of course the people who want to believe him never do, in spite of them calling themselves skeptics.
Same with Blainey, no-one who wants to believe him (the self-styled "skeptics") ever checks out his claim. They're just fair-weather skeptics.
Olaus Petri:
It was a prophesy about what would happen IF aerosol pollution continued to increase. Fortunately humanity did not act stupidly then.
Sure if you say so. This will only come about IF, like in the 70s, humanity stops acting stupidly.
You're not funny you're just an idiot.
Ten years, Olaus Petri? What do you expect to happen in ten short years?
Thanks for the kind words Chris.
I couldn't agree with you more. The CAGW-gospel will be tuned out when people stop being stu-pid. And they are becoming more and more sane. Soon can we, retrospectively, chek that few real climate scientist were convinced that science was settled.
:-)
Olaus Petri:
Which part of "Geoffrey Blainey gets his history wrong" do you not understand?
-- frank
Dear John, in ten years I predict that the kidnapped CO2-hypothesis will be back in a scientific milieu â where it belongs â and then purged from ideology and politics (e.g. deltoids).
Olaus Petri:
Do you always prove you have the IQ of an idiot? Humanity stopped acting as stupidly in the 70s by reducing aerosol pollution. If humanity wants to stop acting as stupidly now it will reduce CO2 pollution just as it reduced aerosol pollution in the 70s. Unfortunately, if enough of humanity is like Olaus Petri then it will continue to act stupidly.
Olaus Petri doesn't actually know *why* AGW is to be disbelieved - he is just adamant that it is, he is impervious to any evidence to the contrary, and he ridicules anyone that does not share his convictions.
The epitomy of skepticism, I'm sure.
"But it's interesting to know how people get their opinions, and how they get to the point of opining in public without encountering the history -- like rushing through the forest of information without ever encountering a tree.
How do people do this?"
Posted by: Hank Roberts
Yesterday I had to let the solar man into the house next door to finish off the installation, we got to talking about climate change and all he knew was that they had changed it from global warming to climate change.
After explaining a few things to him he became interested, gave me his email and asked for some info.
I emailed him aip org history of CO2 greenhouse effect, he will get back to me after he reads it.
The next place i will send him will be john cook's skeptical science to read through the misunderstandings of the sceptics.
After that the PIOMASS graphic of Arctic sea ice volume heading for zero by 2015 should give him something to relate to.
Chriss @46
As I recall, at about the same time there were calculations on the effects of the Milankovitch cycles. On this basis it was said that, if other conditions were unchanged, Earth would enter a new ice age in about 12,000 years (or failing that, 120,000 years). Journalists then combined the two ideas, became thoroughly confused and forgot the conditional statements.
Olaus compare your guess with the facts. Here are the pertinent facts: compare [1970s](http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm) vs [a Consensus](http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-int…).
Your prognostications are baseless fluff.
A couple of things on the history ...
CO2-forced warming wasn't commonly called "climate change until about 1981. Until then it was often described as "climatic change" as in Gilbert Plass's paper in August 1955 ('The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change')
As Climate Crock of the Week points out November 1939 may be the earliest reference to climate change as a descriptor for the CO2 forcing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqMunulJU7w
[Peter Sinclair's video on the subject of 70s 'cooling'](http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/search/2/XB3S0fnOr0M) deserves a mention.
On another matter:
>>I didn't know the idea has such a long history. Posted by: Alan
>How long have you been reading about the subject, and where have you been reading? I'm curious how you missed the history.
I'm curious also, given that Alan is apparently a physicist who has been working longer in science than I have, although not by too many years. If we're letting trained and working(?) physicists miss this basic history, then there is definitely something wrong in the communication process.
[Olaus Petri](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/11/the_australians_war_on_science_…), your quantification valve has blown (amongst a number of others...). [Jakerman has attempted to enlighten you ](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/11/the_australians_war_on_science_…), however, so do yourself a favour and take note.
Oo, and if you're so sure that AGW is going to be proved a scam, then you must be champing at the bit to [accept one of my wager alternatives](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5784133). Which one suits?
> Actually I think "OMG" only happens to "recognize" the authority of Blainey because he likes what Blainey is saying.
Muller could relate some personal experience with that phenomenon.
> Once you've got that under your belt, then we can talk about why the rest of your post it wrong.
I beg to differ. The rest of the comment was *right*. It *is* so astonishing that Blainey got the history so badly wrong, and was schooled on it by (amongst others, no doubt) a non-historian, that the only viable response is resigned laughter.
Oh, wait, the OP was being sarcastic? My mistake... ;-)
Where is Blainey getting it wrong?
"I beg to differ. The rest of the comment was right. It is so astonishing that Blainey got the history so badly wrong"
No its not astonishing because he didn't get the history wrong, you did. Nor is it likely that Geoffrey Blainey would get this history wrong. He's an historian, and this is not something he would get wrong. Its more like something you would get wrong.
Back in those days, people acknowledged openly that we were in a brief inter-glacial, so it was more than natural to think of the cold snap of the 70's to be part of the known downward trend in temperature.
Bigelow @ 62
Rather than just making stuff up and declaring it "history", you could, ummm, you know, find what science was [actually saying](http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermedia…) in the '70s.
> He's an historian, and this is not something he would get wrong.
FAIL. Classic ad hominem fallacy.
> Back in those days, people acknowledged openly that we were in a brief inter-glacial, so it was more than natural to think of the cold snap of the 70's to be part of the known downward trend in temperature.
Except that Blainey's comments were not about interglacial timescales; they were about "the next 40 years".
And back in the '70's *as following the links will demonstrate* the possibility of anthropogenic warming was a far larger topic in the literature than cooling. If you want to specifically argue about 1970 rather than the popular meme of "scientists predicted cooling in the '70's", then Table 1 of the article linked to in the linked post demonstrates that there was more attention paid to warming in the literature in the few years before 1970 than cooling - and that doesn't include all the research from back in the 19th Century through to the late '60's predicting that greenhouse gases may cause significant warming on much much shorter timescales than interglacials.
The point is that you are wrong and Blainey is right. The "following links" don't demonstrate that Blainey is wrong, because he's not wrong.
Its still the standard understanding that we are in a brief interglacial. So you don't know what you are talking about.
He's an historian, and this is not something he would get wrong.
It's amazing how easily supposed skeptics trot out argument-by-authority when it suits them.
Chris..O
Are you still unemployed.? Been a long time through booms and busts
Recognising that I may as well argue with a tree stump
Blainey stated in his article "In 1970 the overwhelming majority of scientists believed that there was not going to be going to be global warming over the next 40 years...". This is incorrect, as the evidence in Skeptical Science link demonstrate. Global Warming was an identified phenomena in the '70s, and the number of papers that predicted warming during that decade significantly outnumbered those that predicted cooling or neutral conditions. This was clearly presented in the SkSc link.
"Brief" on geological time scales. "40 years", is obviously, not a geological time scale. If Blainey was trying to make the distinction between long time scale orbital climate forcing and short/medium term anthropogenic forcing, as you seem to imply, he did a piss-poor job.
All you've done on this thread is make blanket assertion, without providing any rational basis, much less hard evidence, for them. So, you're "very likely" (to use IPCC speak) to not know what you are talking about.
> The point is that you are wrong and Blainey is right.
You keep saying it, but you keep failing to demonstrate it.
Why, you almost sound like Blainey ;-)
Never been unemployed.
[OMG](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/11/the_australians_war_on_science_…).
Are you still beating your wife?
Fellas, thanks again for your kind words. That said, the dif between the ice age prophesy and the global warming (or what the latest label is) prophesy is rather minor. Both are based on scientific hypothesis' being kidnapped from the lab. The major dif is in scale.
One only has to read the "Jonas thread" to see that the CAGW is more of a sociological product than a scientific one. A lot of opinions and beliefs (from non climate scientists), and little of hard facts, which, is normal if dealing with a hypothesis. And that's OK in the lab, but nonsense and sometimes even dangerous in a milieu alien to it, ergo the society as such where people can turn question marks into undisputed facts, e.g. Deltoid. In other words is the hypothesis then easily converted into a belief system more resembling a religion or cult than science. That, in turn, undermines critical thinking and hence our ability to be objective). Again the "Jonas thread" is a perfect lens making this phenomenon stand out in relief. Deltoids can't handle a rational approach from a critical mind and therefore start name calling in lack of better arguments.
>One only has to read the "Jonas thread" to see that the CAGW is more of a sociological product than a scientific one. [Blah blah blah...]
So, Olaus Petri, why won't you take advantage of the opportunity to fleece me, and accept [one of my wager alternatives](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5784133)?
Bernie, I don't mind you being religious man. You can believe in a doomsday soon to come for all I care. What I don't like is your missionary work trying to impose your fire and brimstone belief system onto others.
But I can't be mad at you. You are blessed with an authoritarian personality.
Olaus is frightened of both opposing views and reality.
>One only has to read the "Jonas thread" to see that the CAGW is more of a sociological product than a scientific one.
As "CAGW" is a term only used by deniers, I fully agree with this statement as your language says a lot more about you and your ideology driven beliefs than it does about us.
Olaus Petri
whenever we see somebody use the CAGW acronym in a post we understand only too well that ideological blinkers are involved - at best, and downright malfeasance at worst. For those that use such terms are trying to ensure that this monstrous crime against humanity continues to gather pace. The crime is that of delaying action to reign in GHG emissions and other activities that are stripping the planet of increasingly scarce resources. Increasingly scarce because of the damage being caused makes it much harder for many of the essential resources to be renewed quickly enough to sustain us.
We are no longer harvesting the planet's resources but mining them. To understand the true significance of this fact then I suggest a reading of Jared Diamond and in particular 'Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed', which incidentally is the new longer title of a new edition.
Every period of increased drought, flooding etc. reduces the planet's ecosystems ability to recover. We are now in a new geological age - the anthropocene because of how rapidly we are driving species to extinction. You should consider some recent literature on that very topic, I have already mentioned examples in other threads.
As for why GHGs have the effect they do why don't you drink deeply at the information presented at the site to which, for some strange reason, your moniker here links. Whilst you are there note the books that show up in the right-hand side bar and try studying these.
You will then understand why your continued obstinate wilful ignorance draws a few choice, and accurate epithets in reply.
>Deltoids can't handle a rational approach from a critical mind and therefore start name calling in lack of better arguments.
What exactly is a 'Deltoid'? Is that somebody who posts here? In that case it seems to be Tim Lambert and eventual guest posters (such as John Mashey). Or is it somebody who replies to these posts? Considering your number of reactions in the last few months, you are a convinced 'Deltoid', one that fits your own description completely. Congratulations.
Funny that some always have the tendency to put people in boxes (Warmers, Deltoids, etc.), which apparently eliminates the need to go into a meaningful discussion with them. Probably some binary processes are going on: we good, they bad. Groupthink is strong in these self-proclaimed critical minds.
I've never beat a woman, Bernard J. If I did I would be a convicted wife beater like you.
Yesterday I had to let the solar man into the house next door to finish off the installation, we got to talking about climate change and all he knew was that they had changed it from global warming to climate change.
Remind that chap that the IPCC was set up in 1988. And tell him what the CC stands for.
Dear Lionel, I understand that fruits of crime taste bitterly. If you are not one of those believing that everybody (not convinced that science is settled regarding the CO2-hypothesis) are right wing science hating a-holes that don't care about environmental issues, I suggest you ask Tim to remove your latest post.
Anyhow, the CAGW acronym fits rather well with the Goregones flying around crying in the "Jonas thread". Chek, Bernie, Jeffie H, Stu, LB, Wow and what not are obsessed (abscessed?) with some kind of illuminati theory that explain to them why people don't swallow their unscientific propaganda stunts about armageddon. It ain't pretty.
Most of their anger is based on the fact that they are losing ground, and they will continue doing so. Real science is gaining momentum, making itself noticeable in the unscientific smog produced by the leading bunch of white, heterosexual, middle-aged guys in their hunt for status and prestige, like many deltoids.
I'm sure you all mean well, but sites like this one is feeding on conspiracies and semi-religious beliefs that construct imaginary dichotomies with no ground in reality. Just like a sect.
Olaus Petri:
What does this have to do with Blainey making up history?
Chris, sorry for not mentioning you in my last post. Please forgive me.
The I thought it was impossible, but are the arguments presented by denialist actually worsening?
Olaus Petri:
What do I have to do with Blainey making up history?
A clip from a 1958 documentary, the claims in the clip are based on a report to the US government by the National Academies of Science.
J., it's like they're spewing their little ideological brains out onto the pavement and expecting you to admire the splat.
Oh how wrong can you be, Oluas/Olaus who can't even spell his sock correctly.
You're most likely thinking of the little clique of young groomed chicken ignorants that Jonas is cultivating.
Sorry Chek, didn't know you were a black, homosexual, teenager. It doesn't make my point less valid though. The biggest loud mouths in the climate scare sect tends to be withe, heterosexual, middle-aged guys. You can be the exception from the rule, if it makes you feel better.
> The I thought it was impossible, but are the arguments presented by denialist actually worsening?
Nah, they just go in cycles, you know? It's all natural variation. Or something. But no trend. (That would require some originality or at least novelty, and there's zero of that in Olaus' latest rants.) Besides, any trend you do detect is fr@udulent. I mean, would you rather believe me or your lying data and the lying liars who have the cheek to "peer-review" the data and the methods used to generate and validate it?
Petri, your ability to deduce is poorer than your grasp of science or the concept of topics, hard to believe as that may be.
> Olaus is frightened of both opposing views and reality.
He's also apparently frightened of putting his money where his mouth is.
But that's entirely normal for those who cry "CAGW is a religion" in the apparent expectation that people will think that claim is a valid argument/observation.
And he's just as unwilling to address Blainey's fallacious claims and would apparently prefer they were no longer the topic of discussion.
Yes, we do laugh at morons like you and their ad hominem fallacies.
Alan @ 86
That clip was fascinating. For the movie buffs, it is part of a science documentary series made for Bell Labs by famous US director [Frank Capra](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Capra#Later_films_.281950-1961.29).
From the description.
"For FIFTY YEARS scientists have known about global warming. This exerpt is from the well known educational documentary "Unchained Goddess" produced by Frank Capra for Bell Labs for their television program "The Bell Telephone Hour." It was so well made, that it went on to live a continued life in middle school science classrooms across the nation for decades."
[OMG](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/11/the_australians_war_on_science_…).
You still haven't succeeded in getting any facts correct. Your second sentence's verb, adjectival noun, and noun are each wrong. Three mistakes in three consecutive words - that must be almost a record...
It seems that you don't like it when you are accused of the sort of unpleasant things that you happily accuse others of. If you have such a fragile glass jaw, why did you accuse Chris O'Neill of being unemployed, eh?
Oh, that's right - you're a troll.
And a troll that is wrong, stupid, and inclined to ad hominem and hypocrisy. You've scored four from four - at least you have that of which to be proud...
Rational (adj)
Hmmm.... seems like you're using definition 4. Not one I was previously aware of. Seems we've all learned something.
OP Opined,
whilst looking in the glass watching himself run around like the Red Queen shouting, 'Off with their heads, off with there heads.'
What a whack-job you are.
PS Also U Tripe,
Whilst you are on about white middle aged males on a hunt for status and prestige you may like to consider the latest in odium from that already well know for odium pair who have managed to dig their gutter even deeper.
McIntyre isn't as low as the pedophiles he exploits for his dog-whistl...er, blatantly fallacious attempts at character assassination through guilt-by-association.
But he's arguably angling to be on the next rung up.
And speaking of contempt for McIntyre's latest, [what Former Skeptic said](http://deepclimate.org/2011/11/11/open-thread-11/#comment-10013). And [Robert Murphy](http://deepclimate.org/2011/11/11/open-thread-11/#comment-10020). And MapleLeaf. And others.
Meanwhile apparently Watts and Bishop Hill laud McIntyre's comments.
Scum.
Meanwhile, editorial practices in The Australian are up to their usual standards:
Local scale absorption of Carbon dioxide by adjacent areas of seagrass and algae proves surprise short term source of hope for reefs at risk from carbon dioxide
[Carbon dioxide proves surprise source of hope for reefs at risk](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/carbon-dioxide-may-…)
A bit off topic friends, but possible good IPCC news coming up:
"Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability".
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/11/leaked-text-of-ipcc-extreme-r…
I know all of us hope for the best! :-)
Dear Ianam, not good enough of course, but better than we thought (before). That's a good thing, isn't it?
Always look at the bright side of life..
>not good enough of course, but better than we thought (before). That's a good thing, isn't it?
No you are comparing a short period with a long period. It has always been known that internal variation dominates the 0.2 deg C/decade warming trend over the short term but upward of the 2-3 decade scale the AGW forcing dominates the internal cycling.
Please demonstrate how this is better that we though before.
No moron, it isn't. You and the rest of the denialati are just too plain stupid to understand what this report says ...
So it will be 20-30 years before the effects of AGW swamp natural climate variability as the cause of weather extremes ... all the while, the number and intensity of such extremes will continue to rise.
The question isn't what we hope for, it's what we do. Sick stupid garbage like you impede efforts to get the best results.
foram -- that's amazing!
somehow the Oz couldn't bring itself to say that preserving sea grass beds near coral reefs will help the reef as well as the sea grass bed.
bastards.
@ foram Re the OO headline - good spot. I'm sure the excluded bits were just simpel printting erorz.
Nice try Olaus! On to the next one!
Ianam, cheer up! :-)
Olaus, you're a shit stain on the universe! :-)
Well, RPJr has really excelled himself this time. I thought, of course he's going to mention the uncertainties in quantifying AGW-related losses to date; that what he does. But for him to stop his review of Black's article on the line before it starts to discuss projections [reproduced by ianam above :)]? Well, that's nothing more than lying by omission.
Steve and Steve (107 & 108),
Just to clarify completely, the strikethrough version is my own précis, not some text that has been literally edited by the Oz. The article actually makes sense if you ignore the headline. How any reading of the body of the piece can suggest CO2 as hero rather than villain is beyond me, yet that meaning is spelled out even more clearly in the url than the headline itself:
".../carbon-dioxide-may-save-some-coral-reefs-from-climate-change-impact/..."
Simple lack of reading comprehension, perhaps?
@ Hasis - like Curry, Pielke Jr seems to be "engaged in a race to the bottom" as the phrase goes. I haven't followed it thoroughly but did dip into discussions at SkS and elsewhere and then had to do more important things, like walk the dog.
@ foram - I did realise it was you filling in the blanks, it's just a pity none of the OO faithful will ever bother reading any further than the headline, let alone beyond the article itself. Of course even suggesting the OO ought to lift its game in reportign on climate science is (in their view) tantamount to repression of free speech.
I suspect what they are going to argue is: growth of sea grass is good for nearby reefs; sea grass is a plant; CO2 is good for plant growth; therefore CO2 additions to the atmosphere are good for reefs. About the same as arguing: shade provision reduces skin cancer; shady trees are plants; plant growth requires sun light; thus increased sunlight reduces skin cancer.
Let's see what they can do with this then:
DOUBTS LIFE ON MARS
But Prof. Arrhenius Thinks Venus May Have a Low Form of Life.
Special to The New York Times. May 01, 1911, Page 3
CAMBRIDGE, Mass., April 30. -- Prof. Svante August Arrhenius, the Swedish astronomer, who is now lecturing at Harvard, does not believe (like Prof. Percival Lowell) that the planet Mars is inhabited, although he admits that life not human may exist on Venus. He differs, too, from Prof. William H. Pickering of Harvard as to the origin of the moon.
Arrhenius was also in the board of the State institute of racial biology (Uppsala, Sweden).
So?
Wow,
Still going through the same old arguments/topics Why don't you do something original Tim?
When Olaus gets his (long overdue?) own thread, can we call it The Petri Dish?
#118 - I suggest "Alas Olaus".
Subtitled: "We punked him well, Horatio"
Hanky babes,
Nice piece about Arrhenius thinking about life on Venus.
2 questions for you to answer:
1. What was the general scientific consensus on life on Venus at that time
2. What data did Arrhenius have available?
Answers on a post card and adressed to Humphrey.b Bear please.
It doesn't seem to be getting any warmer gentle-persons. When will all this 'global warming' start again ?
Interesting to see how Graham Lloyd (todays Oz) spins uncertainty into "it just aint happening".
Excellent source for all information, history, timeline etc
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm#contents
>
I note The Australian's War on Science 74 was printed today under Graham Lloyd's byline. I also note my comment (In other words, The Australian still doesn't understand science) was not printed. There's a surprise...
A
Spot the which headline comes from The Australian:
WTF??
[Lord_sidcup](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/11/the_australians_war_on_science_…).
Are each of those headlines referring to the same report?
Bernard
All those headline relate to the IPCC summary for policy makers published yesterday.
[Lord-sidcup](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/11/the_australians_war_on_science_…).
O.
M.
F.
Mythic deity.
To paraphrase [Inigo Montoya](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/11/the_australians_war_on_science_…), as he would say to the hacks and the editors of the Oz...
>You keep using that [heport]. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I couldn't be bothered to continue to plough through [Graham LLOyd's spin](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/test-of-climat…) after this paragraph:
>But of more immediate interest will be how the official document deals with high levels of uncertainty outlined in the draft and presumably detailed in the full report. Also contentious are the draft findings that while extreme weather events have taken a heavier human and financial toll, this has been due mainly to altered patterns in human settlement and the greater exposure of infrastructure rather than worse weather.
Sorry I messed up the link in # 129:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/test-of-climat…
The oo continues to fail at literacy, particularly when 'reporting' on climate change
"Climate change effects unknown: IPCC report"
Unknown?
http://newsdelimited.blogspot.com/2011/11/you-keep-using-that-word.html
Oi! Wake up 'down there'! Climategate II just hit and it's even worse than the first time.
"It is the cause, it is the cause, my soul".
I'm afraid your 'cause', as Michael Mann describes it, is up the creek without a paddle or even any windpower!
Except of course, just like the first time, it isn't, you desperate little buffoon.
What your playmasters do know very well however is your knuckle dragging consumer profile. 'New', 'improved', 'better than the last nothing effort' is guaranteed to get the droolers drooling, with nary even a hint of substance.
Allow me to predict right now that Climategate 2 will be twice the disappointment for you that Titanic 2 would have been. Another round of smoke without fire with added wind and piss leaving not even a damp patch as an aftermath.
The disappointed droolers will however remain convinced that 'Climategate 3 - The Yawning' will be the One, when to all and sundry with sparking synapses it was obvious the franchise was a dud from the get go.
Cling to that hope, Chek, go on, close your eyes and put your hands over your ears then you will not see or hear this prize specimen, just one of thousands:
"<1939> Thorne/MetO: Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary [...]"
Well, 'who'da thunk it?' Er, well, me, actually!
The Conversation has an article by Roger Jones titled ['Spinning uncertainty? The IPCC extreme weather report and the media'](http://theconversation.edu.au/spinning-uncertainty-the-ipcc-extreme-wea…).
After Graham LLoyd's multiple spin efforts, an editorial, several letters and a Cut and Paste beat up it would nice to see this article get wider circulation. Roger Jones concludes with :
> On climate change, The Australian is behaving like the media equivalent of a fog machine. Its unreliable reporting should be avoided by those with an interest in factual scientific information.
Worse? I don't know, you lot are constantly bad, so I can't say denialist agents efforts this time are worse.
Michael Mann [sums it up](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15840562) best:
>*"truly pathetic"... "Agents doing the dirty bidding of the fossil fuel industry know they can't contest the fundamental science of human-caused climate change,"... "So they have instead turned to smear, innuendo, criminal hacking of websites, and leaking out-of-context snippets of personal emails in their effort to try to confuse the public about the science and thereby forestall any action to combat this critical threat."*
Bluster, bluster, bluster, Jakes, old chap, now take your courage in both hands and read these words from your 'Dear Leader':
"<3115> Mann: By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that
reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.
<3940> Mann: They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a bit.
<0810> Mann: I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I donât know what she thinkâs sheâs doing, but its not helping the cause" (My italics)
"The cause"? I thought this was a scientific endeavour not a religious crusade. Say it ain't so!
Quoting David Duff: "close your... hands over... this prize specimen."
I think we have a Sandusky here.
Duffer, what appears to be beyond your comprehension is that the science has not been faulted despite decades of peer review by thousands of scientists who actually know.
Not even all your Pielkes and Currys and Tols el can do no more than fart listlessly in the general direction of the IPCC and the climate science community.
There is nothing that your stolen email soap operas CAN disclose, despite yout feverish fantasies to the contrary.
But it does keep you hapless mugs strung along panting as if virgins desperate for a sniff of a stripper's knickers.
Pathetic and clueless in other words.
Must be a reason they sat on 'worse' emails for 2 years. Incompetence, lack of commitment to the 'cause', desparation. Take you pick.
Must be a reason they release the 'worst' emails 2 years on. Incompetence, lack of commitment to the 'cause', desparation. Take your pick.
Whoops, sorry for the double posting.
David Duff is like the Brett Hull of Deltoid, only at least Brett Hull was a subject matter expert in his field.
@Luther 138: Well done, Luther, you cut some key bits out in order to reach the conclusion you wanted. Where on earth did you learn that?
@chek 139: Judged by these, er, embarrassing e-mails there does not appear to have been much science, Chek, just lots of almost religious fervour in favour of "the cause"!
M'Lord, there, I suspect, you have made a great eror of judgment. Those e-mails have been held back deliberately in my opinion because the "very naughty boy" who is doing it knows that a steady drip drip feed will be much more effective - not least because it will catch out all the bluster and fibs that were offered up in defence the last time. Also, m' Lord, please note that there are several thousand more yet to be released, so tell your 'Dear Leaders' to be very careful what they say.
@composer99: Who is Brett Hull? Nah, on second thoughts, don't bother.
Duff. Attention!
Did I tell you to stand at ease?
Oh how stupid can you be. Back to 'spud basing' and 'boot bulling' for you.
Grow up. Oops silly me, of course it is far to late for you to do that, old dogs and new tricks an' all.
By the way, before I totter off for my cup of cocoa and bed, can any of you 'stinks 'n' swots' lot tell me if this describes the, er, scientific method:
"<4165> Jones: what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene!
I reckon this can be saved by careful wording"
Duffer spluttered: "Judged by these, er, embarrassing e-mails carefully selected out of context quotes there does not appear to have been much science"
There, fixed that for you Duffer. And the removed science by your anti-science brigade would appear to be rather the whole point, you moron. But continue: "just lots of almost religious fervour in favour of "the cause""!
Careful Duffer, you're projecting your fantasies again.
Hey, here's an idea! When you figure out which Jones is featured, why not email him, tell him you're reading his stolen correspondence and that there's a matter you feel he needs to clarify. Of course being a great big cowardly Duffer you never will and you'll never know. You're just too thrilled to let those pronouns mean whatever you want them to mean. [What a maroon.](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/11/the_australians_war_on_science_…)
Wow 'the cause'. 3 times. Out of context.
That's it? This is 'worse' than the last time?
Your 'gotchas' could scarcely be more pathetic, Duff. Let's face it, these barely-reheated Thanksgiving leftovers from 2 years ago will only appeal to those who are already stuffed.
Duff, [you just made](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/11/the_australians_war_on_science_…)the point Mann [called your lot out for](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/11/the_australians_war_on_science_…):
>*"truly pathetic"... "they can't contest the fundamental science of human-caused climate change,"[...] "So they have instead turned to smear, innuendo, [...] out-of-context snippets of personal emails".
Check, check, check. All the boxes filled by Duff.
[Duff](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/11/the_australians_war_on_science_…):
>Well done, Luther, you cut some key bits out in order to reach the conclusion you wanted. Where on earth did you learn that?
How ironic Duff, how absolutely ironic. You really are blinded to your own actions and to that of those you support arn't you?
>these barely-reheated Thanksgiving leftovers from 2 years ago will only appeal to those who are already stuffed.
And we've already had multiple inquiries regarding the same people and equivalent ouragessly distorted allegatations.
I'll guess we'll now see how 'ownwed' the mass media already are. We know that Fox will lap it up but will any real news network be fooled twice?
> <1939> Thorne/MetO: We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest.
communicating the uncertainty? being _honest_?? noooo! say it ain't so, Peter!
> Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary
aha: collusion!
Duff and dumber:
How dare those 'Warmers' stamp on global cooling before it started warming up. What did they think they were doing? Making testable predictions? How dare they.
Never mid that Timbo. What about Climategate II ?
:-0
So, last time it was 'The Trick', and this time it is 'The Cause', and from these simple words conspiracies are born.
It staggers me that denialists can see horrors, terrors, and catastrophes hiding under the beds of scientists, when the real problem is inexorably creeping toward them on the backs of their own vices, ideologies, and indulgent hypocrisies.
I hope that history is not forgiving of their shortcomings.
I assumed that in context, "helping the cause" meant "advancing public understanding of this quite challenging and abstruse body of science". Perhaps I'm wrong, but "helping the cause" is simply a rather rhetorical way of saying "advancing a project held within the given community to be worthy". That's how I describe domestic activity on Saturday mornings when some seem inclined to become otherwise engaged.
Here are some examples:
Worryingly, the author of this paper was someone called Hansen!!!
This chap meant cause to refer to his shared passion for the lifestyle.
(Sydney Morning Herald recently) Presumably the cause here is the objectives of the Liberal Party and their ideas. They officially have a cause of course.
It seems that the imputation derives entirely from previous claims made by deniers that there is some sort of conspiracy amongs scientists to perpetrate sceintific fraud, in which Curry was expected to be a co-conspirator. As no such conspiracy has ever been shown and is even denied by some deniers, this attribution of malfeasance is simply another case of piling Pelion upon Ossa.
It's malicious tittering in flat denial of common usage, and scarcely to be distinguished intellecutally from those occasions when small children laugh when you say "bottom". Children have an excuse and aren't trying to subvert good public policy.
One might add that in this as in so much that the deniers do, there is massive projection. They of course are willing to cherrypick and misrepresent data in their openly acknowledged cause (subverting public policy) and fancy that the other side must be similarly willing. It's part of their existential paradigm of these misanthropes that the world is just as ethically bankrupt as they are.