On the trick to hide the context

Peter Hadfield (potholer54) talks on the deceitful quoting of the emails stolen from CRU in 2009

Juliette Jowit in The Guardian puts some more of them in context.

Comments

  1. #1 ianam
    December 23, 2011

    those who belief there is probably life elsewhere in the universe, those who believe otherwise – or both?

    Neither, you moron.

    Loth, regarding “False. … False. … True. Gee, that was easy. That Alex thinks there’s any sort of logic here shows how stupid he is”

    See, as I said, Alex is a liar and does read my posts, he’s just too stupid to figure out that their mine.

    in fact it’s considered “racist” whether the generalisation by race is true or not

    No, moron, it’s not — at least not by people who are rational and not just knee-jerk PC reactionaries. I gave such a generalization — most blacks and gays (in the U.S.) vote Democratic — and there is nothing racist about it. Another non-racist statement is that the average black IQ score is lower than the average white IQ score; that’s a fact … but there are many non-factual inferences that racists draw from it.

    As with all forms of class discrimination – and as is the case at this forum – class hatred

    Compete and utter fail.

    the issue is not making false generalisations by race (gender, sexual orientation, etc) – it is simply making the generalisation in the first place.

    What issue? There is no issue about making true generalizations, other than the absurd moronic grossly dishonest sophistic lying stupid one that you are making here to once again avoid your intellectual responsibilities. You have said so many stupid and dishonest things here, but this one that true generalizations about “skeptics” is “class hatred” or “discrimination” tops them all.

    Obviously the generalisation needs to be contentious in some way too.

    Yes, obviously it matters whether its true.

  2. #2 ianam
    December 23, 2011

    Doing an accurate but mocking inpersonation of a Spanish accent in some parts of America might be “racist”.

    It’s racist (rather, bigoted) because “accurate but mocking” is a self-contradiction. And why would it matter where it’s done? Do you think bigotry isn’t bigotry if only bigots are around?

    I’m sure you’ll figure it out if you think hard enough

    He already figured it out, but you clearly haven’t. You talk about respect but you don’t show it, you super mega hyper hypocrite.

  3. #3 ianam
    December 23, 2011

    Obviously the generalisation needs to be contentious in some way too…. I’m sure you’ll figure it out if you think hard enough, Loth.

    Thinking hard enough is something that Alex rarely does. Here was Loth’s statement:

    Then again, ‘skeptics’ don’t usually go into that kind of impact analysis but instead skip straight to “business as usual”.

    So is that contentious? If so, why? Alex has offered no basis for thinking it’s false, rather delving into an absurd and dishonest comparison to racisim, which he has now backed off of without ever admitting it, instead dishonestly and absurdly insinuating that it’s Loth who didn’t “figure it out” … what is it that Loth didn’t figure out?

    See, it’s amazing isn’t it. I just don’t fit your stereotype even a tiny little bit. :)

    It’s not amazing at all; there are intellectually dishonest anuses all across the political spectrum.

    I can see that without discussion and formal training it is very easy to pick up misunderstandings about all sorts of things.

    It’s about time you saw that, Alex. Perhaps we should go back to post `#`1 and start all over.

  4. #4 ianam
    December 23, 2011

    I also tend to think there’ll be a WWIII before 2050 – and this may go some way to reducing the population again – and a nuclear winter may yet solve the global warming problem too.

    Is that some sort of sick joke? Nuclear winter would solve the civilization “problem”.

    The ‘pax Americana’ is anomalous in history and I see little evidence that humanity has matured to a point where a military conflict between emerging (and declining) superpowers isn’t likely. One worthwhile consideration is that any global economic collapse is the sort of thing that could trigger or make more likely a conflict of this sort.

    Absence of global warfare is not anomalous, nor is a general trend toward reduced violence (according to Steven Pinker, although there’s room for dispute), and America’s numerous invasions and wars and the massive U.S. arms export industry fueling conflicts all over the world makes Pax Americana a rather ironic term. There are all sorts of implications of the lack of human maturity — such as the failure to embrace the reality and threat of AGW — but it has little bearing on whether there will be a nuclear conflict among “superpowers”, if that means the U.S., Russia, and China … the evidence does not support any such thing. More likely sources of nuclear detonations are Pakistan, North Korea, Muslim terrorists, and possibly Iran, as well as Israel and India … only the last could be considered anywhere near an “emerging … superpower”, but India emerging as an economic superpower makes it less, not more, likely to use nukes. And of course there is also the threat from terrorists of indiscriminate biological weapons — labs have produced viruses with the very high toxicity of avian flu and the very high infectiousness of swine flu, and Al Qaeda has out a call for jihadist microbiologists; I’d worry about that before I’d worry about nuclear war. And global economic collapse makes local conflicts more likely, but I don’t think there’s any clear basis for arguing that global conflict is more likely.

  5. #5 ianam
    December 23, 2011

    I believe non-hypothetical environmental problems should be given more focus than they are

    Where “hypothetical” is defined as “Alex chooses not to accept” and “non-hypothetical” is defined as “Alex chooses to accept”.

    Reducing black carbon emissions seems like something that could buy us time and have plenty of other benefits – but people won’t consider this because they’re irrationally afraid that it will play into the hands of “delayers”.

    What the flying eff are you talking about? What “people” won’t consider this and what evidence do you have for the given motivation? You are such a hypocrite.

    “even if we fully accept the IPCC science

    You mean like thisIPCC science?

    In its 2007 report, the IPCC estimated for the first time the direct radiative forcing of black carbon from fossil fuel emissions at + 0.2 W/m2, and the radiative forcing of black carbon through its effect on the surface albedo of snow and ice at an additional + 0.1 W/m2.[41] More recent studies and public testimony by many of the same scientists cited in the IPCC’s report estimate that emissions from black carbon are the second largest contributor to global warming after carbon dioxide emissions, and that reducing these emissions may be the fastest strategy for slowing climate change.

    Alex vs. Alex, round ∞.

  6. #6 Lotharsson
    December 23, 2011

    > Is that some sort of sick joke? Nuclear winter would solve the civilization “problem”.

    Well, he actually offered that WWIII may “go some way towards reducing the population again”, and that nuclear winter would solve the global warming problem – but both certainly are sick jokes.

    But he made an even sicker one when you note that there’s already a good chance that anthropogenic warming will “solve” the population problem that Alex is worried about, and the likelihood of that outcome will not be significantly reduced by population limiting measures Alex suggests – but Alex isn’t advocating the kind of measures that *would* have at least a decent shot at mitigation.

    Some recent estimates of the impact of significant warming suggest that the population carrying capacity of the planet could be heavily reduced and that even “global society” may not prove to be maintainable. In other words, the population might be reduced **below** today’s levels by billions, and suffer heavy capability losses at the same time.

    As Ray Ladbury recently commented [elsewhere](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/12/climate-cynicism-at-the-santa-fe-conference/comment-page-3/#comment-222872) in response to Judith Curry attempting to defend her “uncertainty monster” meme (my emphasis):

    > …Risk assessment is my day job, and I can say without any uncertainty that you don’t understand it. First, you don’t even define standard risk assessment methodology, but instead throw up your hands in the face of the “uncertainties”.

    > Risk assessment begins with the identification of a credible threat. …

    > Once the credible threat is defined, the next step is to bound the risk posed by the threat, where risk is defined as the probability of the threat being realized times the cost were it to be realized. … Unfortunately, you are claiming that the models are too unreliable to yield reliable estimates of probabilities. **That means that the risk cannot be bounded**.

    > When a risk with severe consequences cannot be bounded, **standard risk assessment prescribes risk avoidance as the only reasonable strategy**, since intelligent allocation of resources toward risk mitigation is not possible for situations of unbounded risk.

    > For climate change, the only way to avoid the threat is to quit burning fossil fuels and otherwise reduce CO2 emissions. Indeed, without reliable models–as you contend–the only reasonable strategy is to slam on the brakes HARD.

    > Judy, uncertainty is not the friend of the complacent.

    And given that Alex concedes that he can’t rule out a 6 C climate sensitivity (never mind his harping on uncertainties in the models), then Alex cannot legitimately do anything except Ray’s analysis … which leads to calls for heavy duty emissions reduction actions starting immediately, right Alex?

    Right, Alex?

  7. #7 Bernard J.
    December 23, 2011

    >On “what we should be doing” – well I don’t have a fixed opinion on exactly what we should be doing because it’s a hugely difficult question – even if we fully accept the IPCC science.

    Eh, “…even if we fully accept the IPCC science”?

    Something that you really need to understand is that “IPCC science” is actually a very conservative consensus summary of much more detailed material.

    Professional scientists [saw this decades ago](http://i39.tinypic.com/14imuc3.jpg), and from detailed understanding of their fields of science were able to conclude that “it’s a human-caused global warming elephant”.

    The IPCC [saw this in the collation of AR4](http://i42.tinypic.com/2af86x.jpg) and cautiously said “it appears to be a human-caused global warming elephant, and we should assume that it is”.

    Alex Harvey and his recalcitrant denialist ideologues will [see this bearing down on them](http://i41.tinypic.com/2h66kh1.jpg) and will say “rubbish, it’s not a human-caused global warming elephant, and we can’t afford to swerve out of the [w-arghhh…](http://i42.tinypic.com/24vr4t3.jpg)”

  8. #8 FrankD
    December 24, 2011

    Alex @ 694: if I had to pick a single number I’d bet my money on 2 C…

    Alex, please explain where Lindzen is so wrong that you would bet your money on a sensitivity approximately twice as high as he calculated.

  9. #9 Chris O'Neill
    December 24, 2011
    The resolution in Greenland ice cores is better than 0.1 C.

    Alex Harvey:

    Okay, but it still doesn’t easily lead to knowledge of the global average.

    You’re not getting the point that you don’t need an accurate knowledge of global average to be able to rule out the possibility of oscillations in the global average. If there are oscillations in the global average then there will be oscillations in the Greenland ice core temperatures. Therefore no Greenland ice core oscillations of a given magnitude means no global oscillations of the same and even a lot less magnitude.

    And what about time resolution? Time resolution has been the real problem, right?

    No it’s not. NGRIP resolves 50 years right back to 123,000 years ago.

    Well, I had a quick look at the Mann et al. paper and didn’t really see the relevance.

    Obviously too quick. Mann et al’s reconstructions go back 1,700 years, not your “several hundred years”.

    the fact is reconstructions of known oscillations only go back several hundred years.

    Just rubbish.

    This must mean that it is difficult – perhaps mathematically difficult – to find them – to separate the signal and noise.

    So you’re saying that in the late 20th century, the signal all of a sudden becomes much stronger than the noise while previously in the records it has never been anywhere near as strong as it is now. If you believe that, you’ll believe anything.

    I noted to my surprise that Kobashi et al. 2010 concluded, “A multi-decadal temperature fluctuation with periods of 40–100 persisted for the last millennium, and so will likely continue into the future.” If correct, this would be exactly the sort of pattern I am expecting people will find – if they look.

    Well so what? Does that reflect a 0.5 C+ global oscillation that lasts for a century or more?

    It doesn’t take very long at all to look for them in NGRIPd18O50yrs.xls. You can look yourself.

    Yeah, except you need to be a scientist and a mathematician.

    You don’t need to be a scientist and mathematician to use spreadsheet programs any more. Just tell us when you think these 0.5 C global equivalent oscillations were in the past. The biggest one I can see in the Holocene is 0.8 C cooling at the ice core around 2200 BP. The global fluctuation accompanying this would have been far less than 0.8 C.

    who has the burden of proof

    There’s plenty of proof based on the fact that as far as paleoclimatic variation goes, the nature of the current climate change is unprecedented without known forcings (e.g. volcanic CO2) and even ignoring past forcings is still almost unprecedented.

  10. #10 Lotharsson
    December 24, 2011

    > …approximately twice as high as he calculated.

    Worse than that – approximately three times the “most likely” value he calculated in LC11.

  11. #11 Alex Harvey
    December 24, 2011

    Chris O’Neill,

    Regarding “Just rubbish”.

    * From [GREENLAND ICE CORES OFFER GLIMPSE OF WEATHER SYSTEM HISTORY](http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/naopdo.htm) “available meteorological records can only trace its behavior [NAO] back into the mid-1800s”.

    * From [Ice Core Proxy Methods for Tracking Climate Change](http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/icecore/review.php) “some ice cores can be analyzed annually, extending back a few hundred years before the present, allowing for the reconstruction of interannual climatic fluctuations such as El Nino, the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), or the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)”.

    Regarding your spreadsheet, are you telling me it’s trivial to look at those numbers and separate the PDO, AMO, NAO, AO, ENSO – and random noise? How? I could only imagine it is hugely difficult – and uncertain – to separate the signal from noise.

    Regarding

    So you’re saying that in the late 20th century, the signal all of a sudden becomes much stronger than the noise while previously in the records it has never been anywhere near as strong as it is now.

    So look at Kobashi et al. 2010 Fig 15. The reconstruction _doesn’t_ track the present warm period. Is there a known divergence problem in the ice cores as well? It still strikes me as a huge, unjustified leap of faith that we can know much for sure about temperatures of past climates given the difficulty even making sense of the instrumental period.

  12. #12 GWB's Nemesis
    December 24, 2011

    Alex Harvey,

    Kobashi et al (2010) says:
    1. The comparison with Greenland measured temperature is Fig. 3 not Fig. 15. For Fig. 3 the reconstruction tracks the measured temperatures remarkably well.
    2. “Our latest data for isotopes is 1950 C.E. as the air occlusion process is not completed for recent decades. For the period 1950–1993, the surface temperature is estimated
    heuristically by a forward model (Goujon et al. 2003) running various surface temperature scenarios to find the best fit with the borehole temperature record. The method is in principle the same as that used by Alley and Koci (1990) (Fig. 2). The reconstructed temperature is generally similar to the instrumental temperature trend
    (Vinther et al. 2006) (Fig. 3), and temperature reconstruction by Alley and Koci (1990) (Fig. 2). The use of the Alley and Koci temperature reconstruction from 1950
    onward creates a slight deviation from observed borehole temperature in the upper 80 m by <0.3◦C.”

    Did you actually read the paper, or did you just parrot from some denialist website?

  13. #13 Chris O'Neill
    December 24, 2011

    Alex Harvey:

    From GREENLAND ICE CORES OFFER GLIMPSE OF WEATHER SYSTEM HISTORY “available meteorological records can only trace its behavior [NAO] back into the mid-1800s”.

    The issue is the magnitude of the effect of these oscillations on global temperature. Just because we can’t distinguish the timing of the oscillations themselves does not mean we can’t determine that their effect on global temperature is insignificant compared with what’s happening now.

    From Ice Core Proxy Methods for Tracking Climate Change “some ice cores can be analyzed annually, extending back a few hundred years before the present, allowing for the reconstruction of interannual climatic fluctuations such as El Nino, the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), or the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)”.

    Unnecessary for determining century-scale effects, of course.

    Regarding your spreadsheet, are you telling me it’s trivial to look at those numbers and separate the PDO, AMO, NAO, AO, ENSO – and random noise?

    No, it’s trivially easy to rule out that any of those things produced the magnitude of global warming happening now any time previously during the Holocene – because such rate and magnitude of global warming has not previously occurred in that period.

    By the way, I should point that higher rates and magnitude of ice core warming than during the Holocene occurred during the ice-age and ice-age to Holocene transistion.

  14. #14 Susan Anderson
    March 10, 2012

    I am baffled by the early discusson of sublimation. Sublimation is a technical term that denotes the disappearance of ice without interim melting. Surely some of you have been through winters where ice has diminished without producing liquid water.

    What is so difficult about this that cannot be stated straightforwardly.

    Sublimation is very similar to evaporation. It’s not complicated, it’s not obscure, and it is not open to the kind of argument that claims it is some mystical process that does not end up with ice disappearing.

Current ye@r *