Corbyn again

Its fish in a barrel time, but Corbyn seems to have had his International Conference. It doesn’t look very exciting. As RB says: Did the meeting live up to its billing of “refuting, totally, the CO2 theory of warming”? Hardly. Because doing that seriously doesn’t mean refuting it to my satisfaction, or yours, or that of the audience scattered about the Imperial College lecture theatre on Wednesday; it means convincing the greater community of climate scientists, and that brings us back to… publishing. What some in the sceptical camp do not appear to appreciate is that published, peer-reviewed science is not only the sole way of establishing and improving theories; it’s also, now, the only route to the policymakers they want to influence. Modern-day ministers and their scientifically-qualified advisers are absolutely not going to listen to half-developed, unpublished theories or complaints about fraud and conspiracies.

Comments

  1. #1 pough
    2009/11/03

    This is one of the biggest stumbling blocks for the denialists, which is probably why they’ve been putting some effort into demeaning peer review.

  2. #2 MarkB
    2009/11/03

    “it’s also, now, the only route to the policymakers they want to influence. Modern-day ministers and their scientifically-qualified advisers are absolutely not going to listen to half-developed, unpublished theories or complaints about fraud and conspiracies.”

    Not sure how things are done in the U.K. (the contrarians appear to be of the same variety, engaging in the same silly arguments and conspiracy theories), but policymakers in the U.S. are often influenced by lobbyist money and to some smaller extent, public opinion, which is what the “skeptic” conferences are intended to influence. That public includes policymakers. U.S. Republican Congresspersons, on the whole, indicate a fair amount of skeptism in polls.

    And now a nice summary of the contrarian agenda from the article:

    “We are involved in the political debate about climate change,” he told me. “The whole regime is suspect and has to be destroyed.”

    Quite different from the goal of an actual scientist.

  3. #3 Maurizio Morabito
    2009/11/04

    RB: Modern-day ministers and their scientifically-qualified advisers are absolutely not going to listen to half-developed, unpublished theories or complaints about fraud and conspiracies

    Oh, the irony of seeing that published the very same day a UK minister dismissed an “independent” scientific adviser that had the temerity of talking in public about published theories…

    I’d spend less time dismissing Corbyn and more time worrying about what happens of any science that appears to be contrary to, of in favor of a Government’s agenda.

  4. #4 Girma
    2009/11/04

    You don’t need to publish something that is so obvious to everyone, but true believers. The globe has started its cooling phase since 1998. For 1998 it was 0.53 deg C, and 0.33 deg C for 2008.

    [Yes yes, jolly good. Cut. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/ -W]

  5. #5 Marco
    2009/11/04

    And to think I once tried to have an intellectual debate with Girma…So, to counter Girma, I’ll baffle him with his own type of data analysis: we’ve entered a warm phase again, as anyone can see. Compared to 2008, 2009 is currently running at +0.2 degrees (GISTEMP). Woha! 0.2 degrees in 1 year, that’s 2 degrees in 10 years, is TWENTY degrees in a century!

  6. #6 carrot eater
    2009/11/04

    Can’t wait to see what the Girmas of the world do if the El Nino pushes 2010 yet higher.

    Why is it that the deniers live and die by month-month data? I see this on WUWT – like http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/02/hadcrut-watch/

    MarkB: In the US, individual Senators have more influence on legislation than backbenchers in the UK Parliament.

  7. #7 MarkB
    2009/11/04

    “Why is it that the deniers live and die by month-month data? ”

    Same reason they focus on finding cold weather events somewhere in the world. Selectively focusing on short-term trends allows for obfuscation.

  8. #8 Marco
    2009/11/05

    It’s quite ironic to see MarkB’s comment about focusing on local weather almost immediately followed by Girma…referring to local weather.

  9. #9 Girma
    2009/11/05

    Am I allowed to post here?

    [Same rules as for anyone else. If you have anything interesting and relevant to say, yes. Interesting but irrelevant, maybe. Neither, no. Repeating previous: probably not -W]

  10. #10 Girma
    2009/11/06

    Predictions of Cold & Warm World

    From the above chart, we see:

    Warm world around 1880
    Cold world around 1910 (after 30 years)
    Warm world around 1940 (after 30 years)
    Cold world around 1970 (after 30 years)
    Warm world around 2000 (after 30 years)

    Prediction:
    Cold world around 2030 (after 30 years)

    Evidence of previous cold and warm world in the media.

    [As Marco points out, your prediction above is worthless, because you’ve de-trended the data. Obviously if you want to use this to “predict” the future you’d need to add the trend back in. Possibly you’re trying to say that there is a natural 30-year cycle which modulates the larger increasing global warming trend? That would be defensible, though probably wrong -W]

  11. #11 Marco
    2009/11/06

    Girma, you’ve been informed MANY times that you are looking at de-trended data…

    [Oh yes you’re right – sorry, didn’t notice that when I let the comment through -W]

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.