More Monckton

Christopher Monckton's visit gets covered in the Sydney Morning Herald. On Monckton's argument that climate sensitivity us just one-sixth of the generally accepted value:

The argument Lord Monckton mounted has been painstakingly picked apart by several eminent climate-change researchers, but it was an Australian computer scientist, Tim Lambert, who helped collate many of the flaws on his website.

"A lot of the equations used to cover it up were right, but the argument was complete gibberish," Mr Lambert said.

The hypothesis took the lowest possible range of carbon dioxide's known warming effect on climate, multiplied it by the lowest possible effect of the various feedbacks that amplify the warming effect, to give a figure well below that shown by any observation.

One of the implications of the hypothesis was that, given what we know about climate, there could not have been ice ages in the past.

"The hypothesis is completely inconsistent with the observations," said Professor Matthew England, the co-director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of NSW.

"In science, the world isn't wrong so the calculations must be wrong."

John Quiggin reflects on whether it is wise to debate with Monckton:

There is, obviously, little to be achieved by debating lunatic conspiracy theorists, especially if they have plenty of practice and no scruples about lying and dodging questions (see Plimer doing both on Lateline a little while back, and Clive Hamilton's expose of Monckton).

Graham Readfearn agreed to the debate with Monckton and Plimer. Various denialists are trying to help him with debate prep with their comments on his blog.

More like this

Argh - the signal-to-noise ratio in the comments on Graham Readfearn's blog is abominably low.

The sheer number of dimwitted gish-galloping talking-point-recycling deniers in there is just depressing.

Very true Dave. Hard to wade thorugh that muck.

On a slightly offtopic note, only today I read, on a German blog, the ultimate in denial; it makes the Laird sound positively reasonable: "There is no greenhouse effect. Neither natural, nor man-made." Stunning, isn't it? This guy later continued with "We don't need any models. They're all wrong. You will find not one model that is able to correctly represent the past."

I've seen most denier canards, but that level of denial was so far off the chart it impressed even me.

"There is no greenhouse effect. Neither natural, nor man-made." Stunning, isn't it?

Nice. Absent a greenhouse effect, does he offer an explanation as to why the Earth is warmer than the Moon? Maybe some ginormous `heat island' effect?

By Jonathan Dursi (not verified) on 17 Jan 2010 #permalink

Jonathan, please!

We have NO IDEA how warm the Moon is. The so-called moon landings were an obvious put-up job.

By marion.delgado (not verified) on 17 Jan 2010 #permalink

spottedquill, the SPPI Blog really is excellent for laughs. "The Noble Lord Is Right" is exemplary for concern trolling. My favourite quote so far: "the Vikings cultivated the green fields of the then green Greenland."

Further on: "hide the decline in recent temperature". Amazing, they're STILL trotting out that one. Hasn't the good lord caught on? Mind you, this is a transcript from a speech to the House of Lords...

Read for yourselves: http://sppiblog.org/news/the-noble-lord-is-right#more-714

TrueSkeptic I agree, but I think that thread is a little confusing. Not sure it's the most accesible example.

By marion.delgado (not verified) on 17 Jan 2010 #permalink

[JasonW](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/more_monckton_2.php#comment-220…), that is indeed snigger material!

I know that Christopher Monckton reads these threads when they are about him (a side-effect of overweening narcissism), so I have a simple challenge for him in response to his claim:

Greenpeace now has a fleet of ships larger than the British Navy.

and that is - list the names of the vessels owned by Greenpeace, and those of the British Navy.

If Monckton is too bashful to accept the challenge, perhaps one of his groupies might like to take it up.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 17 Jan 2010 #permalink

Can you keep him over there?

Well, I can list the ships chartered by Greenpeace:
- Rainbow Warrior II (soon to be decommissioned an replaced by the RW III)
- Arctic Sunrise
- Esperanza
- Beluga I and II (chartered by Greenpeace Germany, though the Beluga I rarely leaves the dock these days)
- The Argus (Greenpeace Netherlands) usually stays in the port of Rotterdam.
- Greenpeace sometimes rents other ships for special missions.
I do think the Royal Navy has more ships (and that they're a bit bigger!)

Juliette@Greenpeace

Can you keep him over there?

Nah, David Flint would wet himself harder than an Eton boy on his first day. Flint would probably chase Monckton around until the two ended up cohabitting, and the last thing the world needs is a Flint/Monckton spawn issuing forth...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 18 Jan 2010 #permalink

Actually, given the economic downturn and UK budgetary difficulties, I think you'll find Lard Munchkin (chief Hitler Youth spotter) was referring to the undoubted effects that almost certain defence budget cuts post the UK 2010 general election will have: parity with the size of the Luxembourg Navy may have been mooted.

[Paul UK](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/more_monckton_2.php#comment-221…).

Monckton posts Lord Donoughue as saying "Greenpeace now has a fleet of ships larger than the British Navy" (emphasis mine) on the [link](http://sppiblog.org/news/the-noble-lord-is-right#more-714) that JasonW provides. Monckton, or his authorised representatives, titled the piece "The Noble Lord is right"...

Interesting about the Royal Navy... I'd actually typed first that in [my post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/more_monckton_2.php#comment-221…), and then I saw what Monckton had written and altered my reference to 'British'. I assumed that there'd been a name change of the sort that has happened with most 'Royal' institutions in Australia as the monarchy is quietly pushed to the background: apparently the truth is that Monckton himself is in a hurry to disband the monarchy back in Britannia!

Oh dear, does that mean that he is about to disavow his own 'peerage' in the process?!

As an aside, I have only now just read Monckton's CV on the SPPI homepage. What a load of contrived and downright untrue twaddle! It's no wonder that you want him to stay in Australia...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 18 Jan 2010 #permalink

Apparently the good lord Viscount has more or less single-handed saved Western civilisation from itself.

Textbook case of megalomania.

I say let him speak as often and loud as he wants. He is one the best (if unwitting) allies the consensus mainstream position has.

For pity's sake Bernard @ 13 ... show some humanity !! Now you've implanted the thought of the Flint/Monckton lovechild I'm going to wake up screaming every night for the next few weeks !!

@Juliette - I begrudgingly admit the Royal Navy may have more ships but are they as well armed as the Greenpeace ships? Surely the Navy of one of the richest countries on Earth can't match the weaponry arsenal of an environmental organisation?

@John: It is true that the Greenpeace arsenal of yellow banners and black non-toxic finger paint is quite lethal to any climate destroyer, overfisher and toxic dumper that is encountered. I don't think any Navy in the world has weapons on board that are more feared :)

Juliette@Greenpeace

Gack, the above should have been to _marion_delgado. Sorry there.

Re #9, someone should remind Monckton to subtract one from Greenpeace's fleet after they recently lost a vessel in Antarctic waters.

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 18 Jan 2010 #permalink

Re #9, someone should remind Monckton to subtract one from Greenpeace's fleet after they recently lost a vessel in Antarctic waters.

That was actually Sea Shepherd, not Greenpeace ...

Me dumb dhogaza, thanks. You would think that an eco-nut commie (sarc) like I would know better. Actually after doing some searching after reading your message, looks like they are not on good terms, and GP is in fact trying to distance themselves from SS. So especially bad of me to make the mistake of linking the two. We do not want to give LM any ammo to distort things more.

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 18 Jan 2010 #permalink

No, they aren't on good terms. Paul Watson thinks Greenpeace are a bunch of wimps, in essence, because of their adherence to the principles of non-violence.

While Greenpeace is, to say the least, unsupportive of Watson's extremism, which includes the sinking of whalers, etc. They get particularly annoyed when people accuse Greenpeace of carrying out such activities.

Re Bernard J

The only UK armed force that doesn't start with 'Royal' is the British army. The others are called The Royal Air Force, The Royal Marines and The Royal Navy. However I believe all the regiments in the army begin have 'Royal' in the name. eg. The Royal Artillery.

There is another explanation of Monckton, and that is he didn't think anyone outside the UK would understand who the Royal Navy was.

I was actually a little pleased to see that Sea Shepherd boat get rammed. They cross the line between activism and criminality. I will not support those who cross that line.

Actually, activists of all stripes annoy me, but that's another matter.

By carrot eater (not verified) on 18 Jan 2010 #permalink

Carrot eater, you're an inactivist?

I'm not somebody who gets dressed up in silly costumes and protests at meetings like Copenhagen or the G20. I think those who do are a little odd, and I'm suspicious whether they understand much of the science themselves, or are just driven by emotions and philosophy, like the deniers.

By carrot eater (not verified) on 18 Jan 2010 #permalink

[Carrot eater](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/more_monckton_2.php#comment-221…).

I actually have a lot of sympathy now for activists of many stripes, because there are times where it is their actions that save the day, and not those of inert bureaucracies and tokenist lay people.

The [Timburra Gold Mine Project](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbarra_Gold_Mine) is one good example. It was enormously ill-advised from the start, will piles and piles of scientific evidence indicating the ecologically unique nature of the plateau. There was much warning that the tailings dam would present an extreme risk to waterways below it, and of course the mine developers and their allies claimed that this, and other types of damage, could be managed with no impact to the ecosystem.

Environmentalists held up the project by the usual expedient of protesting, chaining themselves to machinery and such, in addition to action through the courts. Without the significant delays that this interference posed, the mine would have been far more advanced and modified much more of the plateau than it had when the rains came that - you guessed it - flooded the tailings dam and contaminated the waterways below.

Some might argue that the mine would have closed eventually anyway, but I doubt that such would have occurred without the attention the activists focussed upon it; at least, until the price of gold dropped sufficiently to put it temporarily in mothballs. The environmentalists saved the plateau from far more damage than occurred, and my hat goes off to them for their stance.

The [Franklin Dam project](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Dam) in Tasmania is another example of a project that would surely have continued without activist action: indded, there are many forest-related examples one could cite. The most recent example is the [proposed Traveston Dam](http://tinyurl.com/y8f5lm6) on the Mary River.

And I suspect that the best thing that could have happened for Sea Shepherd's cause was for the Japanese to sink the Adi Gill - it's advertised the plight of whales, and the scientific insanity of the hunting - far more than a few million dollars of advertising ever would have!

Without activists, even the ones that wear funny suits and/or protest in front of buildings, Australia's (and many other countries', I'm sure) ecological landscapes would be far more devastated than they already are.

The vested interests can hardly complain about it either - they have their Marohasys, Heartlands, SPPIs and such, which are simply activists in pinstripes and carrying pens, digital voice recorders, and briefcases.

As a scientist - an ecologist - who has seen the words of advice from my colleagues fall on deaf government and private industry ears, I say thumbs up to those who have the courage, the motivation, and the initiative to bring matters to the attention of the public, where such matter might otherwise be quietly swept under the carpet of political and/or economic expediency. We need the science, and we need the 'right channels', but given the power of vested interests we also need a balance through activism.

Having seen, from an ecologist's perspective, the difference that it makes, I'm happy to pop a few bucks into a bucket carried by a sweating koala on a street corner in the summer heat.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 18 Jan 2010 #permalink

Bernard - maybe I have led a sheltered life, but I am struck by an observationm to wit - that online and in newspapers I havn't seen an ecologist or similarly biologically involved person who is studying what is happening now saying anything other than "Oh Shit".

But yet they get ignored. The climate change denialists wheel out people who are still working in the field or only recently stopped. But as to whats happening to the global ecosystems, there's nothing but gloom and ignorance.

By https://me.yah… (not verified) on 18 Jan 2010 #permalink

I concur with Bernard. My experience in Maine (U.S.) mirrors the dynamic he describes. Science, in and of itself, does not create social and policy change even when the science clearly shows certain changes are necessary and beneficial. As a professional environmental advocate, I work with all types of people who have different personal comfort levels with various types of advocacy. Some do not like speaking at public meetings, others do. Some are willing to write letters to their elected officials and newspapers, others do not. Some believe lawsuits are the best approach in certain circumstances, others prefer less adversarial methods. Some just want to write a check to support the cause. Others want to stand in the road with protest signs. If you're a good organizer, you can always figure out ways to incorporate each person's likes and dislikes so that they can contribute in some way.

I concur with Bernard and Douglas.

>*Science, in and of itself, does not create social and policy change even when the science clearly shows certain changes are necessary and beneficial.*

Quiggin in his piece "Why I won't debate Monckton" is absolutely correct and very shrewd. Just leave things right where they are post climategate and Copenhagen. After all, to debate could mean another setback. Just keep the argument within the circle of those that are already persuaded.

By Hank Henry (not verified) on 18 Jan 2010 #permalink

Arguing with a fruit-cake like Monckton is a pointless exercise in futility and only serves to give him and his farcical ideas some legitimacy, where none is deserved. So yes, Quiggin is correct.

Science, in and of itself, does not create social and policy change even when the science clearly shows certain changes are necessary and beneficial.

I think that's because Science can only tell us what's going to happen, not why we should care. I'm convinced the reason so many people are apathetic about global warming is that they think it will only happen to other people, not anyone they care about. "Me and my wife, son John and his wife, these four and no more." As for future generations, well, "what have future generations done for me?"

I'm glad I have no offspring. The buck stops here!

By Mal Adapted (not verified) on 18 Jan 2010 #permalink

>*Quiggin in his piece "Why I won't debate Monckton" is absolutely correct and very shrewd. Just leave things right where they are post climategate and Copenhagen.*

Beacuse if your not debating Monckton, then you are leaving things right were they were?

You mean the public only gain awarness about stuff if its through interactions with Monckton?

I, also, concur with Bernard, et al, that activism can be of great social benefit.

Female emancipation, universal suffrage, the right to form trade unions, and countless other "rights" we now take for granted were all achieved through social activism including in many cases violent action.

Whenever I hear the meek advocating inaction I remember the Redgum lyrics:

"You know they took Ned Kelly
And they hung him in the Melbourne gaol
He fought so very bravely
Dressed in iron mail
And no man single-handed
Can hope to break the bars
It's a thousand like Ned Kelly
Who'll hoist the flag of stars

Poor Ned, you're better off dead
At least you'll get some peace of mind
You're out on the track
They're right on your back
Boy, they're gonna hang you high"

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 18 Jan 2010 #permalink

I think that's because Science can only tell us what's going to happen, not why we should care.

Well said. Or, in the case of AGW, science can provide a range of probabilities for any number of possible outcomes. As an organizer, I've often told the actual scientists doing the actual work: what I need from you is the best science you can provide because that's not something I'm equipped to do. Scientists need advocates just as much as advocates need science. I never make claims which lie outside what the science can reliably support. When you do that, you lose the support of the scientists, you damage your own credibility and indirectly you damage theirs as well.

Mark:

"You mean the public only gain awarness about stuff if its through interactions with Monckton?"

We are discussing Quiggin and Quiggin's impact on public awarness not where public awarness comes from generally. So I will repeat what I said another way. When Monckton is in town Quiggin should stay home - if he's smart .... because it would be an exercise in futility for Quiggin.

By Hank Henry (not verified) on 18 Jan 2010 #permalink

Don't get me wrong, there are lots of perfectly good ways to get involved politically; I just think chaining yourself to equipment or throwing noxious substances at a whalers and especially arson are across the line. There are better ways of convincing politicians that your vote may be tied to an issue.

I'm also rather irritated by the sorts who've come to oppose the building of anything, anywhere - including wind turbines.

By carrot eater (not verified) on 18 Jan 2010 #permalink

I'm also rather irritated by the sorts who've come to oppose the building of anything, anywhere - including wind turbines.

There are real, serious issues about specific wind turbine sites, particularly the direct mortality on raptors and other birds, and bats. And also noise, if they are near homes. This is a real problem on Mars Hill in Aroostook County, Maine. These turbines are loud, in the very low frequency range.

I encourage the throwing of noxious substances at whalers, given they are using a transparently spurious excuse for whaling, ie. they are only blowing whales brains out with high explosives to collect "scientific" information to aid in the species' recovery. Right. This reminds me of how, in the 1950s, fisheries biologists in Massachusetts would conduct population surveys of fish in Mass. streams by dumping 50 pounds of rotenone into the water and counting all the dead fish for a mile downstream.

There are real issues in some places. But everywhere one seems to get a knee-jerk opposition to the building of anything. If you want low-carbon energy, it's got to be built somewhere, and outside of nuclear, they tend to require large area footprints. So do your cost-benefit analysis and see where the greater good is.

As for the whalers, two wrongs doesn't make a right. Yes, we all know the 'research' whaling is a crock. But that doesn't justify such aggressive methods.

I don't know how much influence the guy in the weird costume has, anyway. I definitely ignore the crowd of slogan-chanting tea partiers. A fringe group can still put up a decent showing in the public square, but would still be fringe.

By carrot eater (not verified) on 18 Jan 2010 #permalink

Carrot Eater @44 said of opposition to wind farms:

If you want low-carbon energy, it's got to be built somewhere, and outside of nuclear, they tend to require large area footprints. So do your cost-benefit analysis and see where the greater good is.

I agree. One has to look at the entire package. Local avian morbidity and loss of amenity has to be weighed against the damage being caused by the technologies the wind turbines are displacing. Of course, if they are not, really displacing much harm then the calculus tells against them. Mostly, this will be so in the case of renewables. (Geothermal might be an exception in some cases).

As for the whalers, two wrongs doesn't make a right. Yes, we all know the 'research' whaling is a crock. But that doesn't justify such aggressive methods.

Here I disagree. I think it entirely warrants such methods. What else is there?

By Fran Barlow (not verified) on 18 Jan 2010 #permalink

Scientists need advocates just as much as advocates need science.

Agree. The forces for social, political and legal change operate at a number of levels, and you need all of them.

Hank Henry said:

After all, to debate could mean another setback.

From the POV of the more insane elements of the filth merchant agnotologists, any publicity is good publicity. Publicity that suggests rational well-informed people are willing to deem them rational and possibly persuasive is a win. Being left to their own jerk circle is a loss.

It's not as if they would be able to debate in any meaningful sense anyway since they either make no actual testable claims about the matter or start calling their interlocutors rude if they call them on it.

Just keep the argument within the circle of those that are already persuaded.

Exactly. Let them have their moronic roll call and let everyone see who waves the flag and their fools' convention. That's far better.

By Fran Barlow (not verified) on 18 Jan 2010 #permalink

...on the other hand, inviting Plimer onto Lateline worked quite well, don't you think?

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 18 Jan 2010 #permalink

Vince W Said:

inviting Plimer onto Lateline worked quite well, don't you think?

Yes and no. Firstly, Monbiot did allow himself to get off-message with CRU, which was a victory for Plimer.

Secondly, Monbiot is not a scientits but a journo, and is hardly known here outside of us trainspotters, so downside risk was low.

Lateline isn't watched much except by people like us and so potential upside for them was practically zero. Some reactionaries thought Plimer playing all hurt and abused by Monbiot was a kind of victory.

It did give us more ammunition as his performance on Lateline was abysmal, but you really didn't need Monbiot there for that.

At best a new event might reproduce Lateline but the format is unlikely to be allowed to permit this. Their honchos will shut it down if it goes places they don't like.

By Fran Barlow (not verified) on 18 Jan 2010 #permalink

Fran:
chuckle chuckle, "A moronic roll call at a fools convention," good one Fran. Clearly, you and Quiggins should both stay in. No sense sharing gems like that.

By Hank Henry (not verified) on 18 Jan 2010 #permalink

As for the whalers, two wrongs doesn't make a right. Yes, we all know the 'research' whaling is a crock. But that doesn't justify such aggressive methods.

I'd offer that firing 100 mm explosive shells into the brain of a pregnant mother whale for the sole purpose of blowing her brains out is a categorically different type of political advocacy than steering a boat into the wake of the boat with the howitzer that is blowing the whales' brains out.

But that's just me.

Did the German invasion of Poland justify Great Britain & France declaring war on Germany?

That's not two wrongs - it's a simple moral imperative: there are only three choices: you're either one of the good guys, one of the bad guys, or a moral coward.

I'm with the Sea Shepherd - their next vessel should be a submarine. With torpedo tubes.

Instead of hunting whales, the japs should concentrate on apologising for their cowardly and dishonourable behaviour during WW2.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 19 Jan 2010 #permalink

The Ville@52

Erm, what about loss of amenity caused by climate change:

Yes indeed ... that too

By Fran Barlow (not verified) on 19 Jan 2010 #permalink

[Fran](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/more_monckton_2.php#comment-221…)

>"I think it entirely warrants such methods. What else is >there?"

That line of reasoning can be used to justify all manner of violent actions, when you can't get your way politically.

[Douglas](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/more_monckton_2.php#comment-221…)

>"I'd offer that firing 100 mm explosive shells into the >brain of a pregnant mother whale for the sole purpose of >blowing her brains out is a categorically different type >of political advocacy than steering a boat into the wake >of the boat with the howitzer that is blowing the whales' >brains out."

Be careful here. The activists don't like to hear this, but the whaling moratorium was agreed only for getting the different populations back up to healthy levels. Humaneness was not part of the equation, and is a bait-and-switch. You can campaign on humaneness all you want, but do so using legitimate tactics, not violence.

[Vince](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/more_monckton_2.php#comment-221…)

>"Did the German invasion of Poland justify Great Britain & >France declaring war on Germany? "

You're seriously making that comparison?

By carrot eater (not verified) on 19 Jan 2010 #permalink

I am all for their OFFICIAL NICKNAME being, henceforth, the Gibberish Brothers.

After dealing with Plimer's 10Mya time flitches for way, way, way longer than I wanted to.

By Marion Delgado (not verified) on 19 Jan 2010 #permalink

Joe Six-pack has noticed that the climate where he lives has failed to conform to the Hockey Stick predictions made only 10 years ago. When reality is in sharp contrast with climate "science", trust reality every time and then start looking at the science to find out where it went wrong.

One theory is that the radiative forcing due to GHGs (primarily CO2) is much weaker than what was assumed in eleven of the climate models cited by the IPCC. The factor of six quoted by Monckton came from Lindzen & Choi (LC09). Even if you don't like that explanation, it does not change the obvious failure of the climate models.

By gallopingcamel (not verified) on 19 Jan 2010 #permalink

57 gallopingcamel,

Joe Six-pack lives over the whole planet as a single joint consciousness? He can average out his hot and cold areas and remember how that compares with last year or 10 years ago?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 19 Jan 2010 #permalink

Maybe True Sceptic despite all the complex talk of reducing emissions and geongineering, we should just hold a referendum and vote the climate anomaly out of reality.

I wonder if any thought has been given to that? I bet that would be popular with "Joe Six-pack" as a solution. The trick of course would be getting the laws of physics to respect Joe's verdict.

Sadly, compared to those George Harrison-style joint consciousness for peace stunts, this doesn't sound very feasible at all, sadly. Last time I looked, physics wasn't paying any attention at all to Joe.

By Fran Barlow (not verified) on 19 Jan 2010 #permalink

Carrot quoted me:

I think it entirely warrants such methods. What else is there?

and then said

That line of reasoning can be used to justify all manner of violent actions, when you can't get your way politically.

Not at all. The raiders in the SOWS are in express violation of a convention to which their own government is a signatory. There are no other legal means to restrain this conduct, as there would be in a properly policed jurisdiction. In the absence of a 'cop on the beat' such measures are defencible, in just the way that people who are in some failed state may take such measures as are reasonable to protect their legitimate interests against criminal imposition.

By Fran Barlow (not verified) on 19 Jan 2010 #permalink

Joe Six-pack is still hoping that the climate will get warmer so that he can give up drinking beer and switch to the wine his ancestors were enjoying back in the Medieval Warm Period.

If you don't like anachronisms, satellite temperature measurements support Joe's wet thumb that tells him things have been cooling lately.

Can you learned gentlemen explain why IPCCs AR4 and the more recent Copenhagen Diagnosis still show the Hockey Stick temperature trend instead of a drooping noodle?

By gallopingcamel (not verified) on 19 Jan 2010 #permalink

Joe Six-pack is still hoping that the climate will get warmer so that he can give up drinking beer and switch to the wine his ancestors were enjoying back in the Medieval Warm Period.

Unlikely. An old joke about the "wine" of this period suggested that to drink a flask of English wine required five people. One to drink the wine and four to hold him down.

By Fran Barlow (not verified) on 19 Jan 2010 #permalink

>*satellite temperature measurements support Joe's wet thumb that tells him things have been cooling lately.*

Joe's wet thumb is in furious disagreement with Joe's beer goggles. Joe's wet thumb actually tells him that Satelites figures show January is on track to be the [warmest ever measured](http://lh4.ggpht.com/_4ruQ7t4zrFA/S1C6CXmeRHI/AAAAAAAADzE/gU3xXlqxIXc/u…)?

Joe also asks that camel-toe no longer represent him, beacause camel-toe is imbibing too much of the ale.

Joe's wet thumb also informs him that cherry picking weather says little about [climate](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah/trend/plot/rss/plot/rss/t…)

With Joe Sixpack's wet thumb and Ian Plimer's faultless childhood memory, it seems climate science has been dashed once and for all.

"Graham Readfearn agreed to the debate with Monckton and Plimer. Various denialists are trying to help him with debate prep with their comments on his blog."

I must admit , I argue with them there every day, its a challenge. Bolts sheeple are there en masse quoting from greats like Anthony Watts, Monckton, Plimer, McIntyre asking for proof every 2nd sentence...sigh.

"The sheer number of dimwitted gish-galloping talking-point-recycling deniers in there is just depressing."

Agreed, its like a game of whack a mole. But you can pretty much predict what will happen everyday. You will be asked about 1998, greenland, other planets warming, plants love Co2, the hockey stick, milankovitch cycles, its the sun, UHI, models are wrong etc etc. Then after you answer, the same person will ask the same thing the very next week, like it never happened. They are not there to provide an understanding of science. They are there to create uncertainty, spread doubt & delay action.

Gishgallopingcamel demonstrates exactly why a complex scientific issue must never be debated with a denier. The denier spews out the full slate of denier talking points at a gallop; then the scientist has to walk the Joe Six-packs in the audience through the refutation of each long-discredited point. The deniers know they'll always have the advantage in the format, because Joe will award the prize to the faster talker.

By Mal Adapted (not verified) on 20 Jan 2010 #permalink

instead of a drooping noodle?

Not only is Al Gore fat, he takes Viagra!

Science refuted!

jakerman @63, Good one! I need to cut down on the single malt scotch.

Our discussions rest on the IPCCâs prediction that global temperatures at the low latitudes will increase by 2 to 7 degrees Celsius by 2100. For simplicity I call this the Hockey Stick.

The problem with the Hockey Stick is that it is not happening, so with every year that passes it looks more and more ridiculous. If the Hockey Team were real scientists they would spend their time finding out what is wrong with their theories rather than constructing a cover up that breaks our FOI laws.

I say that global warming is a good thing because of what historians tell us. To take a simple example, I drink beer and scotch whisky, products appropriate to todayâs climate in the upper latitudes. Historians say that my ancestors in Littleham-by-Bideford in Devon during the Medieval Warm Period were more inclined to drink wine because of its abundance and high quality.

If the IPCC is right my children will live to see inexpensive good quality wine grown in England once again. Sadly, this appears to be improbable fiction.

Don't get me wrong. I am ready to work with you folks to reduce CO2 emissions. Just because my reasons for doing that are different from yours should not prevent us from working together.

By gallopingcamel (not verified) on 20 Jan 2010 #permalink

Gishgalloping camel,

Please privide citations to support anything you think is worth responding to in your above post.

The noise to signal ratio is currently too high in your present format to do anything but ignore it.

Our discussions rest on the IPCCâs prediction that global temperatures at the low latitudes will increase by 2 to 7 degrees Celsius by 2100. For simplicity I call this the Hockey Stick.

Fair enough.

The problem with the Hockey Stick is that it is not happening, so with every year that passes it looks more and more ridiculous.

For simplicity I call this bullshit.

GC says If the IPCC is right my children will live to see inexpensive good quality wine grown in England once again.

Let's see...Google puts Littleham...51 miles down the A39 from Nanstallon, Bodminhttp://www.camelvalley.com/You want good quality wine? Go buy some!

Whilst we're on the topic of Monckton, for a little light relief readers here might like to have a peak at [The Beast's list of the 14 Most Heinous Climate Villains](http://www.buffalobeast.com/?p=1237).

Monckhausen rates at #14. What I found chuckle-worthy though was the description of his 'comeuppance'; and that for Lomborg, who comes in at 13.

I snorted my teat through my nose (first time in a while) when I read Bjorn's comeuppance...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 21 Jan 2010 #permalink

teat - tea, tea, tea!

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 21 Jan 2010 #permalink

Perhaps the way to deal with the Gishgallopping is to point out it's incoherence. Pick two points that contradict each other and ask the gallopper to decide which of the two he really believes, and so on.

Our discussions rest on the IPCCâs prediction that global temperatures at the low latitudes will increase by 2 to 7 degrees Celsius by 2100. For simplicity I call this the Hockey Stick.

A much simpler thing to do would be to use the term the same way everyone else does, so we can all understand each other. The rest of us, when we use the term "Hockey Stick" in a climatological context are talking about temperatures that have already happened. Which makes your next sentence delightully ironic:

The problem with the Hockey Stick is that it is not happening, so with every year that passes it looks more and more ridiculous.

A warmer climate brings prosperity because it extends growing seasons in the high latitudes where many of us live. It seems I am outvoted on this. While I respect your opinions, a toastier climate sounds good to me.

zoot @70, I admire your brevity. You may be right. Let's revisit this in 2020.

Moving on, do any of you want to reduce CO2 emissions into the atmosphere? If so, I may be able to help.

By gallopingcamel (not verified) on 21 Jan 2010 #permalink

pough @78, the Copenhagen Diagnosis includes several Hockey Sticks. Take a look at Figure 21 on page 50 at:

http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/

This Hockey Stick shows temperature range predictions all the way to 2100.

Another problem with the Hockey Stick is its failure to explain past climate. For more credible temperature reconstructions covering the last 1,000 years I recommend the IPCC's AR1 report or recent work by Loehle & McCullough. L&McC give zero weight to tree ring proxies whereas the Hockey Team gives great weight to them.

By gallopingcamel (not verified) on 21 Jan 2010 #permalink

77 Eli,

Where has that ever worked with denidiots?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 21 Jan 2010 #permalink

gallopingcamel - what do you think the hockey stick does to explain previous temperatures?

Actually galloping camel - can you explain why the IPCC's AR1 report has a more credible temperature reconstruction, and why it is more credible?

(The rest of you shut up, ok, lets see what they say before you say anything, ok?)

[Gallopingcamel](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/more_monckton_2.php#comment-221…) explains:

Our discussions rest on the IPCC's prediction that global temperatures at the low latitudes will increase by 2 to 7 degrees Celsius by 2100. For simplicity I call this the Hockey Stick.

You've been [called on it](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/more_monckton_2.php#comment-221…) once already, but I would like you to clarify further - why do you feel the need to redefine what the 'hockey stick' is, and what gives you the credibility to do so? Why should your reference to future temperatures be used when it confuses the historic context in which the term has been used to describe temperature trends to date? Do you not understand that the IPCC predictions for temperature to 2100 are simply that, and not a part of the hockey stick temperature reconstruction?

The problem with the Hockey Stick is that it is not happening

Ignoring your wrong-headed redefinition of the term, and following on from pough's indication of the irony in your statement, exactly how do you understand temperatures to be tracking over the past few decades, and what do you believe that this indicates with respect to temperature changes over the next century?

How do you reconcile your answer with your statement that:

Our discussions rest on the IPCC's prediction that global temperatures at the low latitudes will increase by 2 to 7 degrees Celsius by 2100.

Moving on...

A warmer climate brings prosperity because it extends growing seasons in the high latitudes where many of us live.

Ah, that non-hoary, but nevertheless very old, chestnut.

So, a few details then. Is it only the length of the growing seasons that will change at "high latitudes"? Where exactly will the crops, whose seasons are extended, be growing? Which crops would they be? Do you anticipate any adverse consequences? What would any such consequences imply for "inexpensive good quality wine grown in England"?

I recommend the IPCC's AR1 report or recent work by Loehle & McCullough.

Why?

L&McC give zero weight to tree ring proxies whereas the Hockey Team gives great weight to them.

So, what of the hockey sticks that have been constructed with [no reference to tree rings](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hockey-stick-without-tree-rings.html)?

And as you're a new troll on the block, you might as well [have a go at the questions that seem to be too challenging](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame…
) for the other Denialists to whom I ask them.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 21 Jan 2010 #permalink

Hey Bernard, let him/ her/ it answer my questions first!
Thanks for the non-tree rings link, I was trying to remember where to find one like that.

As an ordinary punter (and nice girl) I wonder, is there any hope for the survival of the species when we are fed such absurdities?:

1.Sceptics continually sneer at the computer modelling and statistical methods used in scientistsâ submissions to the IPCC. Sceptics then present the findings of top dog mouthpieces for the sceptics - Christy, Spencer, Carter, Plimer, Monckton et al. Can someone explain how the computer modelling and statistical methods used by sceptics are superior to those used by the IPCC scientists?

2.Plimer claims there has been no warming since 1998. Monckton claims there has been no warming for fifteen years. Right â 2010 take away 15 = 1995. However, Robert Carter, âscience advisorâ to the SPPI (of which Monckton is chief policy adviser) claims there has been no warming since 1998. Huh?

3.Plimer claimed that man-made chlorofluorocarbons come from volcanoes. Well I know that hydrogen chloride comes from volcanoes and that they produce a chemical reaction to form chlorine but theyâre not CFCs and even ordinary punters like me know what âman-madeâ means. Huh?

4.Over at OLO, the very "right"eous moderator, has a propensity to suspend those who âslanderâ top dog sceptics. No character attacks permitted â well not on sceptics!

This is indeed baffling to the ordinary punter since the "right"eous moderator, appears bewitched by his own hubris:

a)âWilliams appears to have picked-up the campaigning bug early in life. His father was a public servant and Marxist who sold socialist newspapers on the street. â¦â¦ Fascinated by prestige and fame, he also recalls with relish that Bertrand Russell used to phone friends of his.â

b)âWilliams isnât the only global warming bully, and unfortunately universities are used to give (sic) some of the others added credibility as well. John Quiggin, an economist who specialises in modelling at the U of Queensland, and Tim Lambert, a computer scientist specialising in virtual realities, at the University of New South Wales, are web activists who practice brown-shirt tactics on any who question what they define as the global warming orthodoxy.â

There must be plenty of filthy lucre for these capitalist hirelings to infest the blogosphere with such quackery and alas, my Devonshire tea ladies are succumbing to this swill. En guarde gentlemen for history tells us what happens when good men say nothing!

By Lawless Lill (not verified) on 21 Jan 2010 #permalink

Now that I have your attention, do any of you want to reduce man-made CO2 emissions?

For my part, I support the idea of reducing emissions and would work with any willing person to get it done. Let's turn that around.

Would any of you work with me if I offered to help achieve the goal of cutting the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere?

By gallopingcamel (not verified) on 21 Jan 2010 #permalink

>*Would any of you work with me if I offered to help achieve the goal of cutting the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere?*

I have 50 thousand dollars that I need to get out of Nigeria, I need your help. Will you work with me to get my money out? I need your bank details so I transfer funds to you.

Camel, currently you have close to zero cred here following your performance. You could start to repair your credibility by answering [guthrie's question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/more_monckton_2.php#comment-221…).

you just

jakerman@88, thanks for your prompt response. That makes it 1-0 for the "NO" column.

By gallopingcamel (not verified) on 21 Jan 2010 #permalink

jakerman@90, I am trying to build bridges rather than walls.

By gallopingcamel (not verified) on 21 Jan 2010 #permalink

How benevolent.

>*"I am trying to build bridges rather than walls."*

So rebuild some semblance of credibility, you can start by answering the question.

John Quiggin, an economist who specialises in modelling at the U of Queensland, and Tim Lambert, a computer scientist specialising in virtual realities, at the University of New South Wales, are web activists who practice brown-shirt tactics on any who question what they define as the global warming orthodoxy

I guess that makes me a brown-shirt by association.

Ooo-errr.

Still, even if I am, it's better than being a brown-tongue for the fossil fuel industry.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 21 Jan 2010 #permalink

I wonder what practice are required to qualify as brown-shirt web-activist? Presenting evidence and exposing misinformation, would that do it?

Well thank you indeed gentlemen. I can now provide the ladies at our Devonshire tea with a fair and balanced account on climate change. You, the brown shirts, I, the brownette and and Mr Monckton, the silver tongued "Lord". Good stuff!

Cheerio

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBzR0-j0O0o

By Lawless Lill (not verified) on 21 Jan 2010 #permalink

re brown-shirt: Cool, the Nazi association again. Having called Poe's Law on the batty Laird and his ilk, we can also call Godwin's Law on him. Unfortunately, Murphy's Law will probably also apply: If you don't think it could go any worse, it will.

gallopingcamel: Is that the Reverend's party line? Do the utmost to deny GW is happening - and then offering to reduce CO2 emissions? You do know that to reduce private hoseholds AS WELL AS industry need to do something? By obfuscating and spreading doubt, deniers are creating an atmosphere of confusion, hindering proper legislation to be implemented.

Oh, and do answer those questions, please.

Galloping Camel says: *While I respect your opinions, a toastier climate sounds good to me*

Therein lies the rub. The problem is not whether a toastier climate is nice for you, but whether, given the current rate of climate change against a background of other human-induced changes a toastier climate is good for ecosystems across the biosphere and the species that make them up. You see, GC, humans are subject to the same laws of nature that dictates the structure and functioning of ecosystems across the biosphere. Natural systems permit our existence through a myriad of complex processes and through the generation of services that have few, if any technological substitutes. The real concern amongst ecologists such as myself is not only to better understand how resilient these systems are under the human assault, but how much our species can continue to simplify them before the vital services they generate break down. We already have examples of a range of services - pollination, pest control, water purification, flood mitigation - where the significant destruction of local ecosystems or keystone species greatly reduced these services with huge economic costs. These problems were regional and not systemic. Had they been the latter, we would be in deeper trouble as a species than we are now.

Climate change is just another nail in the coffin. It is synergized with the effects of other anthropogenic stresses on natural systems that are driving the largest extinction episode in 65 million years. Given that individuals, species and populations represent the working parts of our global ecological life-support systems, our continual tinkering on these systems whose functioniung we barely understand but which sustain us constitutes a single, non-repeatable experiment. This is not very prudent, don't you think?

Therefore, the current rate of climate change represents a profoundly serious threat to much of the planet's biota as well as to ourselves. It is important that the scientific community get this into the mindset of people - that it is not simply a choice of a warmer climate and more days in the warm sun, but of the short to medium term consequences of this change on the dynamics and functioning of natural systems that permit us to exist and to persist. Given what we know about past extintion events, the prognosis is not good.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 21 Jan 2010 #permalink

gallopingcamel #87 - I've already started - my flat has much more insulation in the attice, cavity wall insulation, double glazing, and the thermostat is at 18C. I use a lot of second hand furniture and have had many of my clothes for years. Being made redundant fortunately massively reuced my daily commute which could only be done by car, for structural reasons. And the car was purchased for its greater fuel economy than my previous one (10mpg better).

That makes it 7-0 for "NO". I am not quite ready to give up. Let me explain:

My goal is to slash CO2 emissions by methods that require far reaching legislation. Right now there is no chance to make progress due to the war of words surrounding climate science. While it is very entertaining for the participants, as long as the war continues the CO2 will keep building up.

IMHO the only way to pass game changing legislation in short order is to create a bi-partisan initiative. While it is hard to imagine Republicans and Democrats working together, why can't we have Alarmists and Deniers working together?

I sincerely believe that there is a way to bring this about which is why I have been blogging on "hostile" sites such as Deltoid, Climate Progress, Huffington Post and Guardian/Monbiot.

If your "NO" vote is still unanimous, I will wish you well and turn my attention elsewhere.

By gallopingcamel (not verified) on 22 Jan 2010 #permalink

galloping camel,

When you write this kind of gibberish, "why can't we have Alarmists and Deniers working together" then it is certainly hard for serious readers like me to give any credence to your wafer-thin views.

First of all, I abhor your intellectually vacuous use of the term "alaramist" to describe those like me who believe - with plenty of evidence - that humans are forcing climate. The very use of this word to describe the vast majority of the scientific community (me included) makes me think that you have been spending too much time scanning anti-environmental web sites.

A cursory overview of your posts reveals a pretty thin understanding of basic science, which I would expect to be a pre-requisite for you to make concrete suggestions on how to reduce atmsopheric levels of Co2. Next thing you will write is that you will give me suggestions on ways in which to better link variation in the lox gene in wild cabbages and their adaptation to a suite of biotic and abiotic selection pressures in their natural coastal habitats. I do not wish to appear snobbish but are you not the same bloke who suggested that you would like a 'toastier' climate? Given that this remark was about as deep as a puddle, why should I expect you to have anything remotely useful to suggest with respect to carbon mitigation?

You earlier wrote, "The problem with the Hockey Stick is that it is not happening". Says who - you? Or a few psuedo-scientists on web sites you scan? How many peer-reviewed articles have you actually read, GC? Better still: how many of them do you actually understand?

Moreover, you also appear to suggest that there is actual difference in many of the policies of the Republican and Democrat parties in the United States. At least with respect to foreign policy, there isn't a nanometers difference between them. Basically in the US there is one "Property Party" with two right wings. I thank Gore Vidal for that pearl of wisdom.

Give me any reason why anyone on this site should not put your posts into [Killfile]. So far you have not done that. All you have done is wade in here and write comic-book level comments. If this is all that you can do, may I suggest you go away?

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 22 Jan 2010 #permalink

To summarize JH @97...

Natural systems consist of a "myriad of complex processes"..."whose functioniung we barely understand."

"The real concern amongst ecologists such as myself" is to "better understand how resilient these systems are under the human assault"

In other words, because I admit we barely understand the processes and because I realize we need to better understand the affect man has on these systems......I'm right and you're wrong.

In addition, the fact that someone points out that I admit we don't fully understand the processes or their resilience to AGW, proves that they are stupid and I am smart.

Finally, anyone who questions my lack of understanding, doesn't understand the significance of what it is I don't understand, and is therefore, a denier.

Flatula (a more appropriate name for you),

Speaking out of your ass again, I see (no pun intended). Given you have absolutely no scientific acumen whatsoever, I wonder why I waste my time with types like you. But I do.

First of all, we know enough about complex adaptive systems to realize that they sustain humanity through the generation of a range of freely provided ecological services. These services have few technological substitutes, and there are a number of empirical studies which have assessed their economic value after being loss or added to ecological communities. A seminal paper by Costanza et al. (1997) in Nature estimated the combined value of all ecological services worldwide to be twice that of the combined GDP of all nations on Earth. Theis clearly shows that ecological systems are worth more than the sum of their parts.

We also know that as humans simplify natural systems, we reduce levels of functional redundancy in them, thus pushing them closer to points beyond which they will break down. Redundancy is important in maintaining the stability of natural systems because it offers alternate services for the cycling of nutrients, transfer of matter and water across different trophicx levels, and reduces the risk of stochastic (= unpredictable) effects.

Certainly, the study of the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning is one of the most intensively researched areas in the field of contemproary ecology. What we do know is that over vastly differing scales, ecological systems generate life-support conditions for humanity. We also know that the current loss of biodiversity is likely to have huge societal costs. As I stipulated in an early posting in this thread it already is. AGW is alsmost certain to exacerbate biodiversity loss that is already occurring due to other human-induced stresses. Against this background we have know-nothings like Betula wading in with his two cents worth of wisdom.

Betula, given that you probably have no relavnt knowledge of population and systems ecology, I will not go on. But before you wade into areas beyond your competence it is wise to come up with something more than superficial arguments and wise-cracks.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 22 Jan 2010 #permalink

@102

A bit immature with the name calling eh Larvae? (no pun intended).

You accused me of talking out of my ass @101, yet I was using your own words..... so wouldn't that mean you were talking out of my ass? What are you, a ventriloquist?

Your response to my comment, regarding your own admission of what it is we don't know, is to inform me of what it is we do know, ie:

1."ecological systems generate life-support conditions for humanity"

2."that the current loss of biodiversity is likely to have huge societal costs."

3."biodiversity loss [...] is already occurring due to other human-induced stresses"

None of this disproves my statement @101. In fact, you reemphasized my point with this...

"AGW is alsmost certain to exacerbate biodiversity loss that is already occurring due to other human-induced stresses"

You see larvae, "almost certain" is not certain, and the reason it's not certain, as you know, is because of our lack of understanding of many things...

You believe AGW is certain, yet your mind won't allow you to spell it out.

Meanwhile, your arrogance and twisted logic have joined forces, causing you to believe you are somehow smarter than everyone else for pointing out how little it is you know.

Well, yes, Betula, it is the smart thing to do to point out how little you know.

Guthrie,

Finally, we reach a mutual conclusion. Larvae is a genius.

I don't know, who is this larvae you speak of?

Camel writes:

>*My goal is to slash CO2 emissions by methods that require far reaching legislation.*

You're going about reaching it in a funny way. Sort of like this is what you say but not what you do. Remember [how you started](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/more_monckton_2.php#comment-221…)?

>*Joe Six-pack is still hoping that the climate will get warmer so that he can give up drinking beer and switch to the wine his ancestors were enjoying back in the Medieval Warm Period. [...]*

>*satellite temperature measurements support Joe's wet thumb that tells him things have been cooling lately. [...]*

>*...Can you learned gentlemen explain why IPCCs AR4 and the more recent Copenhagen Diagnosis still show the Hockey Stick temperature trend instead of a drooping noodle?*

Your behavior provides ample evidence that you're an insincere baiter. If I'm wrong then prove it by publishing you brilliant solution anywhere. However the reason you are hiding your solution is transparent.

Betula returns to his same game:

>*You see larvae, "almost certain" is not certain, and the reason it's not certain, as you know, is because of our lack of understanding of many things...*

Again Betula skewers his [trusty strawman](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/evidence_doesnt_seem_to_change…). How bold and skillful Betula is to be able to one again slay his own strawman, the one that he just keeps putting up.

Time and time again Betula resorts to the bankrupt argument that if we don't know everything then we don't know enought to discern what a responsible approach to CO2 mitigation is.

Lazy Betula, very lazy. But I suppose what else could you do if you are satisfied with being argumentative but empty.

[Betula](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/more_monckton_2.php#comment-222…).

Jeff Harvey is simply using scientifically traditional circumspection in his statement, but I'll say it explicitly for you - AGW is certain to exacerbate the enormous rate of biodiversity loss that is already occurring due to other human-induced stresses. It will have profound consequences for the functioning and the integrity of ecosystems, and it will have huge negative consequences for human society.

You're an arborist, aren't you? You should be able to identify examples pertinent to your own line of work, and they should be sufficient to raise alarm bells for you - cerainly in the context of the next century or several.

If, after a day or so of thinking time (and probably repeated prompting) you struggle to think of any, perhaps I or others can throw a bone or two your way.

Consider it professional development.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 22 Jan 2010 #permalink

"Larvae is"? WTF?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 22 Jan 2010 #permalink

sim@107, no I was not baiting you; just trying to get your attention. I really am one of those people you love to slap labels on but my intentions are honourable. I want to find out how many can muster the testicular fortitude to work with people you despise.

When there is a bi-partisan group with a simple purpose its chances of success will be much higher than that of any partisan group, no matter how well funded. Even with such a group the road will be long and hard.

My solution is not brilliant and I hope you folks can come up with something better. However, just to get things started here is my idea. For the last 20 years I have been a researcher and teacher in the field of Electro-Optics. Although I am not a nuclear physicist I am a trained "Radiation Worker" with experience managing "Radiation Safety" at a university in the United States where some of the research underpinning this proposal was carried out.

To go back to where I started, Joe Six-pack has the idea that reducing CO2 emissions is another way of saying "Give up your 4x4 truck or Redneck Cadillac". Any solution that aims to cut those emissions has no chance. One needs to look elsewhere.

A solution that allows Joe to keep his truck while reducing his electricity bill may have a chance. In 1977, France started commissioning nuclear plants on a huge scale; in less than 30 years over 80% of the nation's electric power was nuclear.

When France was going nuclear, the US president (Jimmy Carter), trained in nuclear engineering, made the contrary choice so US nuclear power generating capacity stagnated. Carter's decisions also included a ban on the reprocessing of spent fuel, thereby creating the need for Yucca mountain.

The US could enact legislation on the French model but in my view it would be a mistake to emulate the extremely complex reprocessing technology the French have mastered. We can do better by "leap-frogging" the French with advanced fission reactors.

The nuclear reactors I am talking about will look a little different from current designs as they will be smaller and simpler:

1. No containment structures because the reactors are intrinsically safe.

2. The reactors consume nuclear waste very efficiently, including the higher Actinides currently destined for Yucca mountain.

3. The reactors "burn" Thorium which is far more abundant in the earth's crust than Uranium is.

4. The related fuel reprocessing is "dry", much simpler and more efficient than the "wet" French technology. Best of all, it happens at each reactor site.

There are already two technologies that meet these criteria but before they can blossom new laws will have to be written.

There are some fun (at least to physicists) videos and presentations describing these technologies. If anyone is interested in technical details please email me at:
p23305209@yahoo.com

By gallopingcamel (not verified) on 22 Jan 2010 #permalink

Yes Camel I would like to lose weight while eating nothing but Mars Bars.

Its my understanding that the Gen IV including Thorium reactors you decribe are not a silver bullet. The time frames required for sufficient deployment mean their role will be moderate at best.

The economics are not yet clear because of their developmental phase and the various subsidies that are not fully transparent. I'm not sure that the safety issues are as simple as you imply either.

I assume you'd prefer a market solution to the energy problem rather than a centrally planned soviet style imposition and walking over local government and local citizen's rights.

I'm pro-renewable and interested in a price on carbon (which nukies should favour). I'also see the desperate need for Democratic protections against concentration of political power (which has some overlap with protection from energy monopolies and concentration from electrical power).

I don't want some massively subsidized nuclear program backed by highly concentrated power displacing more distributed and democratically consistent renewable program.

It seems to me that internalizing closer to the full price of carbon is in the interest of the the pro-nukes and the pro-renewables. When we've got that we can talk about internalizing more of the cost of nuclear and renewable power.

jakerman@113, you are the one I am looking for. You already understand everything that I am talking about; the good, the bad and the ugly.

We can agree that there are no silver bullets but anything that can be done to reduce CO2 emissions makes sense. Returning emissions to lower levels reminds me of the Hippocratic Oath that says "First do no harm..."

By gallopingcamel (not verified) on 22 Jan 2010 #permalink

gallopingcamel - if that was your best way to get our attention, you just made yourself look like a moron. Do some research before you open your big mouth next time. You could have started talking about good way's of stopping CO2 emissions right from the start without making idiotic comments to wind us up. Now we'll just leave jakerman to talk to you because in terms of communication, you suck.

Good old Betula does not attempt to engage is discussion over the effects of climate change in synergy with other anthropogenic stresses on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning.

Why not? Because, quite simply, he does not even possess a basic understanding of the main theories and empirical findings in the field, let alone how changes in the structure of food webs or communities will affect the way they work. So he does what the ignoranti usually do - resort to personal smears and accusations. Basically, the thrust of the arguments put forward by the anti-environmental lobby is much the same - if you do not understand a process, then there is no problem. Their other refrain is to say without 100% unequivocal proof, a problem does not exit. This strategy has been used to downplay habitat loss, acid rain, loss of biodiversity, the threat of invasive species and climate change. They suggest that if we do not fully comprehend the effects, then there is not concern. Business as usual is the only business until scientists can prove beyond any doubt that these processes are harmful.

Expanding upon this theme, denialists like Betula will claim that nothing should be done to deal with human assaults on natural systems across ther biosphere if we do not fully understand the consequences of these assaults. Basically, we do have more than enough empirical evidence to show that (1) humans are radically altering the surface of the planet, (2) that there are ecological consequences to this, (3) this is occurring through through the effects of anthropogenic stresses I outlined above, including significant regional changes in climate since the 1980s, (4) that this is having a singificantly deleterious effect on individuals, populations and communities (= biodiversity), (5) that this is reducing functional redundancy and thus system resilience and (6) that natural ecosystems are showing signs of fraying. I might as well (6) which is that the loss of biodiversity is having significant economic costs on society.

Now, Betula, you actually made some very important factual statements in an earlier response, one of which is that I know infintely more about this field of research than you do. Many thanks for pointing out that. Second, the views I express here are shared by the vast amjority of professional population and systems ecologists and are certainly not my own. If you were to scan through the pages of about 20 of the most important journals in ecology you would see that they are filled with articles supporting what I have said here.

If you want, Betual, I will debate you any time and any place on the importance of biodiversity in sustaining civilization, on the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioining across various scales in terrestrial and aquatic ecosytems, and what the effects of warming are likely to be on the ecophsyiology of species in their natural habitats.

But, given you know absolutely nothing of the field, I might as well debate a kindergarten child.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 23 Jan 2010 #permalink

Your posts are very informative Jeff Harvey â thank you, however, I detect the same level of disinterest in biodiversity and ecosystems that one encounters elsewhere. I wonder when the disinterested will realise that all things are connected - but hey why donât you come over to Western Australia and give the regulators a rev? WA has only 2.2.million people, is the largest state in the nation but its population growth is the highest in the country.

The SW of WA is offially one of the planetâs biodiversity hotspots with many threatened plant and animal species. Dryland salinity in WA is engulfing the equivalent of 19 footie fields are day.

The major Swan and Canning rivers are polluted with toxic levels of cancer-causing heavy metals, pesticides and hydrocarbons, creosol, phenol etc. Poisons including zinc, lead, copper, mercury and dieldrin were found to exceed guidelines at seven sites across Perth. Lead concentrations peaked âdramaticallyâ around the Maylands and Claisebrook area.

Plumes of BTEX are heading towards the Swan. Theyâre already in the Canning. A toxic plume from a hazardous waste plant chemical fire has reached the major Swan tributary, the Helena River.

Last November, the West Australian government was accused of a cover-up for failing to tell the public that dolphins had been dying in Perth's Swan River for months. Six bottlenose dolphins died over 5 months and at least three had high levels of dieldrin which were among the highest levels reported globally in marine mammals at the present time. Some were covered with severe skin lesions. While dieldrin is bio-accumulative, one needs to question what river remediation has been carried out when dieldrin was banned in WA in 1988?

Mass fish mortalities continue in WA â one incident - 300,000 deaths. 9,000 native birds were wilfully slaughtered by a mining company from lead emissions â poisoning the environment with impunity. 6,500 native birds and animals were slaughtered by another miner when caught in a mining trench where they were unable to free themselves. One mining company dumped 14 tonnes of mercury over the city of Kalgoorlie in two years and got a slap on the wrist for their efforts. Impacts on biodiversity? Who knows?

Thousands of native birds have died in outback heatwaves. Birds around Perthâs lakes and parks are dying in the hundreds from avian botulism.

Rightwing forces who brought us market fundamentalism and the shonky Ponziform schemes simply deny our every ecological calamity. Collaborator, WAâs Premier, Barney Rubble, is over-riding EPA Environmental Impact Assessments and handing out licences to pollute like paddle pops.

Is there any hope for the survival of the species â any species?

By Lawless Lill (not verified) on 23 Jan 2010 #permalink

Before Betula digs himself into an even deeper hole, let us cast our minds back to examine why I entered this debate on this thread.

In an earlier posting, galloping camel made the rather fatuous remark that he/she would enjoy an even 'toastier climate' under the auspices of the current warming. My riposte was to argue that the survival of the human species is dependent on a wide array of conditions and services that emerge from nature for which there are few technological substitutes. Therefore, putting aside the usual anthopocentric posturings of the denialati, we should aim to better understand what a 'toastier climate' means for food webs, communties, ecosystems and biomes across quite large spatio-temporal scales. As a senior scientist, I am fully aware that a rapidly changing climate is challenging many species to adapt and that many will not be able to do so (this is already being shown in numerous studies). The consequences of biodiversity loss, exacerbated by the current warming episode are likely to be dire. I say likely as any scientist would or should; there is is significant evidence that this is correct.

In wades Betula, self-appointed contrarian rescuer of contrarians, not to criticize GCs simple remark but to try and make my own arguments appear to be irrational and thus to give ther impression that I stand out on a limb. I got news for you pal: MY VIEWS ARE SHARED BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF MY PEERS IN POPULATION ECOLOGY. And then pages of journals like Ecology Letters, Ecology, Journal of Animal Ecology, Oecologia, Oikos, Functional Ecology, Global Change Biology, Ecological Mongraphs, and Trends in Ecology and Evolution are filled with peer-reviewed articles that support what I have said here and above.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 23 Jan 2010 #permalink

jakerman@115, thanks for the links, Barry Brook is crystal clear in his analysis. In the USA, the IFR was taken out of play in 1992 by Bill Clinton. Is it politically possible to build one in Australia?

To respond to one of your earlier comments I am not advocating a government managed program. Governments are no good at picking winners and losers when it comes to technology; we need to get them out of the way and let the market place sort things out.

Private enterprise (e.g. GE) will build your windmills, solar cells or nukes; whatever makes economic sense under our laws. Personally I like LFTRs and SCNRs but you can be sure that something even better will pop up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHdRJqi__Z8

By gallopingcamel (not verified) on 23 Jan 2010 #permalink

@gallopingcamel:
Could you please explain how Clinton could take something out of play in the year before his presidency started?

Come on Marco,
The Clenis is so massive that it warps time and space. This is also how
Clinton invaded somalia before his inauguration.

Thus we may assume that the camel a right-wing half-brain (as if there were any other kind).

I think someone didn't read Wikipedia closely enough:

With the election of President Bill Clinton in [Nov] 1992, and the appointment of Hazel O'Leary as the Secretary of Energy, there was pressure from the top to cancel the IFR. Sen. John Kerry (D, MA) and O'Leary led the opposition to the reactor, arguing that it would be a threat to non-proliferation efforts...

But earlier in the page:

The U.S. Department of Energy built a prototype but canceled the project in 1994, three years before completion.

I love watching J. Harvey giving Betula a birching...

Jeff Harvey

In an eco-lodge in Belize, they had a saying carved into the centre which I've always remembered.

"The ecologist walks in a world of wounds."

A

Marco et al, @121-123, many thanks for picking up my mistake.

My point about nuclear power is that the problems are political rather than technical. Perhaps, I should have tried the Sierra Club or Greenpeace instead of Deltoid.

Getting back to technical matters, I was hoping that someone would play the 25 minute video on LFTRs (@120). If you can't spare 25 minutes take a look at this link:

http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/

The excellent IFR was undone because it depends on molten sodium for cooling. Every schoolboy knows what happens when alkali metals come in contact with air or water. The LFTR replaces the sodium with inert salts, thereby resolving major safety issues while eliminating the need for a blanket of inert gas.

The LFTR is by no means the end of this strand of technology (liquid phase fission reactors). I was hoping to be challenged when I said:

@111 "The reactors consume nuclear waste very efficiently, including the higher Actinides currently destined for Yucca mountain."

The proponents of IFRs and LFTRs make no such claims. I was referring to another class of reactors specifically designed to do this; ones you won't find in Wikipedia. The first one we tested was built out of wood by Charles Bowman on his farm in Virginia. You don't see many nuclear reactors built out of "renewables" so this one got my attention.

Our tests and a subsequent series at Los Alamos National Laboratory went really well but the meager funding dried up when the political champion (Senator Peter Domenici) decided not to run for re-election.

SCNRs can burn the higher Actinides; the really nasty stuff destined for Yucca mountain. In addition the reactor can be turned on and off like a light bulb. By definition SCNRs are "Sub-Critical" so there is no possibility of a Chernobyl or 3M Island event. Take away the neutron beam and the nuclear reactions stop in micro-seconds.

For SCNRs to be attractive, the cost of neutrons has to fall. Recently, the art of neutron production made a quantum leap forward following the commissioning of the 1 MW Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

What will it take to create a full scale SCNR? For starters you need a 25MW neutron source but that is not looking so cuckoo since the SNS has proven so successful.

As I said earlier, the real problems are political rather than technical. Can we change the legislation in the USA or perhaps Australia? If not, the next generation of nuclear power plants will be built in India and France.

By gallopingcamel (not verified) on 24 Jan 2010 #permalink

As I said earlier, the real problems are political rather than technical. Can we change the legislation in the USA

Do you mean change the legislation in the US so nuclear power plant operators are fully liable for the consequences of catastrophic failure?

Apparently that shield's not necessary, right?

Owners of nuclear power plants in the USA are liable for any harm they cause and they all have insurance to cover the risks.

My job involved compliance with radiation safety regulation at federal and state levels (North Carolina Yellow Book). If I had the power to change these regulations they would be even tougher than they are today.

While I agree with James Lovelock when he advocates more nuclear power, I oppose his idea that we should accept a higher level of radiation in the environment; that does not need to happen, even with a ten fold growth of nuclear power generation. In the USA every major project has to provide an "Environmental Impact Statement". Some of the technologies mentioned earlier have the potential to look really good in this regard.

The legislation I am talking about discourages investment in nuclear power of any kind. Some of our legislation already expressly forbids technologies that are being used successfully in other countries.

By gallopingcamel (not verified) on 24 Jan 2010 #permalink

"The ecologist walks in a world of wounds"

The full quote is:

one of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds. Much of the damage inflicted on land is quite invisible to laymen. An ecologist must either harden his shell and make believe that the consequences of science are none of his business, or he must be the doctor who sees the marks of death in a community that believes itself well and does not want to be told otherwise.

Aldo Leopold, Round River

Leopold would not be surprised by today's AGW deniers.

By Mal Adapted (not verified) on 24 Jan 2010 #permalink

>*Owners of nuclear power plants in the USA are liable for any harm they cause and they all have insurance to cover the risks.*

Are you sure this is an entirely accurate and transparent claim caemel?

This link might give you some sense of the what dogaza is refering to.

"Owners of nuclear power plants in the USA are liable for any harm they cause and they all have insurance to cover the risks"

Crap. Insurance companies would't touch them with a bargepole which is why they need underwriting by the government AND a pathetically low cap on their liability.

Your entire gibber about Nuclear power is nonsense from start to finish - Thorium reactors don't exist, building a nuke without a containment building has nothing to do with safety but is to reduce costs, there is no nuke design that solves the intractable waste issue, and nobody will ever build a nuke without massive government support in the form of planning law immunity, subsidy and risk underwriting because it is an intrinsically uneconomic and socially undesirable method of generating power if you add up all the real costs associated with it.

I wonder if somewhere in your imagination you aren't even just a tad worried about the idea of a liquid-sodium-cooled nuclear reactor with no containment building? "So safe nothing could ever go wrong".

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 24 Jan 2010 #permalink

Good link, Jakerman.

Now that the Camel has been exposed at having no clue, it will hopefully have the good manners to piss off and inflict its stupidity on others, somewhere else.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 24 Jan 2010 #permalink

Ah! I see dhogaza got there first.

Doh!!!! Make that jakerman! Time for bed.

Jakerman

The reasoning at the link you refer to is flawed.

What Price-Anderson does is force nuclear power companies to pay a large excess and then leave the rest to the public as insurer of last resort. Absent Price-Anderson, if there were a catastrophic accident causing, for argument's sake, $100 billion in damage, the operator would declare bankruptcy and pay virtually nothing. The public would then have to pay all of it.

As things stand, no nuclear mishap covered by Price-Anderson has gone within a bulls' roar of testing the pooled $US10 billion liability. The pooling arrangement actually imposes a discipline on the whole industry not to permit free riders to under cut standards, because they all know that any serious accident exceeding an individual operators capacity to pay will be met by all of them. They also know that if the limit is tested, the pressure to raise the cap will be immense, so fears associated with adverse selection come to the aid of the public.

What it also ensures is that notwithstanding poor business circumstances for an individual operator, the funds for remedial action for foreseeable incidents will be available.

It's also worth point out that no organisation in business is required to meet open-ended public liability. 9/11 showed that operating airlines opened the door to catastrophic losses. A lot more than $US10 billion was lost that day and as we know, there were some 3000 dead and countless others scarred for life. But are airlines required to indemnify for the worst harm that anyone could dream up? Of course not because if they were, there would be no airlines. What sort of casualties do you suppose would ensue if someone chose Superbowl day or Presidential inauguration day to crash a fully fuelled airliner into the assembled crowd? Don't say it couldn't happen.

Nor are other energy operators open-endedly responsible in advance for the harms they might in extremis cause. They all have capped liability and for much the same reason. The services are essential and but for some risk pooling with the beneficiaries, the services could not operate. Indeed, what underwriter can pout a cost on perhaps a multi-trillion dollar risk, even if the operators might be inclined to pay the premium.

To present Price-Anderson as some sort of subsidy without insisting that every other operator of every other business also insure for catastrophic risk is really just misleading special pleading against nuclear power.

By Fran Barlow (not verified) on 24 Jan 2010 #permalink

>*Absent Price-Anderson, if there were a catastrophic accident causing, for argument's sake, $100 billion in damage, the operator would declare bankruptcy and pay virtually nothing. The public would then have to pay all of it.*

Abscent the Price-Anderson Act, would be an alternative act for dealing with the risks associated with various forms of nuclear power chain. What advocates for closer to 'full cost internalisation' are arguing for, is that those in the nuclear profit chain be required to buy full insurance at market prices. (Should be quite cheap for plants that have seeming no risk).

>*Nor are other energy operators open-endedly responsible in advance for the harms they might in extremis cause.*

All should be responsible for the risks they induce, particular as there risk they induce are not equally distributed. That's why I want a price on carbon.

>*They [other energy operators] all have capped liability and for much the same reason.*

Which Act are your refering to? Would be interesting to compare the Act which you imply with the Price-Anderson Act.

>*The services are essential and but for some risk pooling with the beneficiaries, the services could not operate.*

A similar argument is made for protecting coal fire power from internalising more of the costs of carbon. The solution can be similar, bring in the change over-time, telegraphing the policy for internalising full market costs in incramental steps.

Jkerman said:

What advocates for closer to 'full cost internalisation' are arguing for, is that those in the nuclear profit chain be required to buy full insurance at market prices.

I don't disagree as a matter of principle. The question is, how does one calculate this, precisely? The latest iterations of nuclear plants are a good deal safer than the earlier and older ones. Even these are safer than they used to be as our knowledge has expanded. It's worth noting that nothing nin Price-Anderson bars any state from imposing new burdens of liability or prevents anyone suing in cricumstances where the pooled funds don't suffice. All Price-Anderson does is ensure that funds which will almost certainly be adequate are set aside.

You might want to argue for a higher cap. $10.3 billion isn't enough, what about $20.6 billion? At some point though you need to put a number on it for someone to pay it. It also can't be a silly number that could never be paid because that's really just a way of legislating the plants out of business or a number that doesn't relate to a bona fide model of risk. If that would be the result one should simply do that and not pretend it's about full cost internalisation.

I rather suspect that for the next generation of plants, the number is too high, but politically it would be hard to put it down and there's no reason to do so. But nobody is going to insure when the damage could be anything. Even a bookmaker who wanted to bet on me becoming the next Queen of England would insist on me specifying some odds.

All should be responsible for the risks they induce, particular as there risk they induce are not equally distributed. That's why I want a price on carbon.

I agree 100%. Since we aren't sure exactly what that risk is, but fear reasonably that it could be very great, we should put a high price on it and be prepared to adjust upward as needed. To me $100 per tonne sounds pretty good. I wouldn't mind a price on the other toxics as well (such as actinides, mercury, sulphur etc) since this would distinguish coal from say NG which isn't nearly as toxic in the immediate sense.

But I still would have a number on it.

At the moment other energy operators are 'capping' their liability at what they think is reasonable, accepting of course that their insurance company can be sued as can a negliogent nuclear power operator. Of course, if they do get sued and the funds aren't there, they simply go out of business and allow the creditors to fight it out.

As I see it, the problem is that the veryday risk of operating a nuclear plant is quite small but the damage ensuing from a bizarre confluence of events -- is potentially quite large. It's unlikely in the extreme that we or anyone of our descendents will ever see another nuclear accident to roughly compare with Chernobyl in its scope. I saw a quote of possibly one such accident every 4000 years but as the facility itself would have containment ... Price Anderson would cover that easily.

By Fran Barlow (not verified) on 24 Jan 2010 #permalink

dhogaza@128 Do you mean change the legislation in the US so nuclear power plant operators are fully liable for the consequences of catastrophic failure?

I am not advocating anything of the kind. This would mean eliminating the concept of "Limited Liability" with huge ramifications for western civilisation. Oops! A new post by Fran Barlow appeared. I think he explains it rather well.

Insurance is complicated, especially when the government gets heavily involved, as they do in banking and home ownership. When things go badly wrong, companies go bankrupt and that is why Price-Anderson includes an up front insurance bond.

Insurance is an important part of the regulatory framework that investors need to understand before they will commit to building a nuclear power plant. How would you folks modify insurance regulations relating to nuclear power? Try to do better than dhogaza as his idea is a lead balloon.

@132, I never suggested building IFRs with no containment structures or inert gas blankets. In fact the reactivity of the molten sodium was a big factor in the decision to cancel IFR funding. Read @127 more carefully. LFTRs on the other hand do not need the gas blanket. While a containment structure is needed it is pretty flimsy compared to the sturdy double containment structure of current water cooled designs.

SCNRs can be built with very limited containment structures. I am surprised that none of you picked up on my mention of wood (black pine) as an integral part of the reactor. I would be happy to send you more information but so far I can detect no sign that anyone has looked at the links in my earlier posts. I had such high hopes for the savvy jakerman.

@132 Your entire gibber about Nuclear power is nonsense from start to finish - Thorium reactors don't exist, building a nuke without a containment building has nothing to do with safety but is to reduce costs, there is no nuke design that solves the intractable waste issue, and nobody will ever build a nuke without massive government support in the form of planning law immunity, subsidy and risk underwriting because it is an intrinsically uneconomic and socially undesirable method of generating power if you add up all the real costs associated with it.

Vince, you must live in a parallel universe if you believe a word of the Gishgallop shown above. Just for starters, when it comes to burning higher Actinides in a SCNR I can send you the research studies from Charles Bowman, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Duke university, Virginia Tech and the ADNA corporation. Measurements on real reactors, not theory! To avoid exceeding your boredom threshold here is a very brief presentation on GEM*STAR:

csis.org/files/attachments/091007_chang_virginia_tech.pdf -

By gallopingcamel (not verified) on 24 Jan 2010 #permalink

>*The question is, how does one calculate this [full insurance at market prices], precisely?*

Swiss Re or LLyods could employ a few dozen contract lawyers, specialialist engineers and medical specialists and scientists to advise their risk specialsit profecssionals to get a price. And if risk is their business they can adjust the price in response to new nuclear plant and competition from other insurers.

>*It [full cost internalisation] also can't be a silly number that could never be paid because that's really just a way of legislating the plants out of business [...]*

Should they be in business if they can't internalise close to the full cost of their actions? Lets not assume that risks are economic if they are shown to be otherwise.

The following principle might also be apt when considering risk insurance if the numbers get very big:

The above principle @143 is also relevant to my preference to a carbon tax over carbon trading. And it also provides support for the arguemnt of regulating certain high polluting generators out of existance.

I.e. no new coal fired power without CCS or specific emissions intensity.

dhogaza ask:

>*Do you mean change the legislation in the US so nuclear power plant operators are fully liable for the consequences of catastrophic failure?*

camel replies:

>*I am not advocating anything of the kind. This would mean eliminating the concept of "Limited Liability" with huge ramifications for western civilisation.*

*This would mean eliminating the concept of "Limited Liability" with huge ramifications for western civilisation*. Camel, you've perhaps overstated the cosequences of changing this legislation, would you agree?

What are the implactions for the concept of 'limited liablity' if limited liability is removed from nuclear power generators?

JH @117 states...

"Good old Betula does not attempt to engage is discussion over the effects of climate change in synergy with other anthropogenic stresses on biodiversity and ecosystem function."

And Bernard @126 states...

"How's your professional development progressing?"

JH and Bernard,

I owe you both an apology. Somehow I let my ski trip to Vermont with my son get in the way of responding to both of your diverging questions.

As you both know, I have never questioned...."biodiversity loss that is already occurring due to other human-induced stresses" (Bernard @109)

As you also know, I have never questioned the fact that a warming world would effect climate.

What I have questioned, is the ability to directly link any given climate event with anthropogenic global warming, not anthropogenic climate stresses. The fact is, you can't.

This is why JH will use terms like "almost certain"

Bernard on the other hand (again @ 109), boldly states...."AGW is certain to exacerbate the enormous rate of biodiversity loss that is already occurring due to other human-induced stresses."

Bernard, you do realize "AGW is certain to" is not a proven statement don't you? And I'm sure you also realize that your statement doesn't hold the same meaning as "AGW certainly has". By the way, the Minnesota Vikings are "certain to" go to the superbowl.

Your attempt to divert the issue, by saying I question,or am not aware of human induced stresses on climate, is pathetic.

JH @117...

First, let me compliment you on your ability to post a comment without name calling. Very impressive. I'm counting "Betual" as a typo.

Here you state...

"If you want, Betual, I will debate you any time and any place on the importance of biodiversity in sustaining civilization, on the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioining across various scales in terrestrial and aquatic ecosytems, and what the effects of warming are likely to be on the ecophsyiology of species in their natural habitats."

"But, given you know absolutely nothing of the field, I might as well debate a kindergarten child."

Ok. My 4th grade son has a question for you:

How many polar bears have died as a direct result of AGW?

@Betula: while Jeffrey is thinking, I have a question for you:

How many Iraqis died as a direct result of US bombings on Iraq in 2003?

And no, it is not an irrelevant question. It might teach you something about the dishonest question you came up with (nobody believes it was your 4th grade son, cut the nonsense).

Marco...

"How many Iraqis died as a direct result of US bombings on Iraq in 2003?"

I love the thought process. When a question can't be answered, change the subject.

Marco, the death toll from the bombing of Iraq in 2003 is something that can be estimated, since there is tangible evidence. I can also find many sources on the computer that give those estimates and how they were derived. Some estimate that 7500 civilians were killed during the invasion phase.

But since my question was about polar bears and AGW, I have to tell you, I don't think any polar bears were killed during the initial bombing.

Now watch this Marco, you will learn how to respond to a topic, while staying on that topic. Ready?

I can't seem to find the estimated number of deaths caused from the missile strikes on Iraq in 1996 or the 4 day bombing event of Iraq in 1998.

Regardless, I was wondering.....can you tell me what the intended targets were of the 1996 and 1998 bombings?

Hint: It wasn't a carbon emissions factory.

People keep arguing that Price-Anderson sets liability of 10.3 Billion. That is formally true, true irrelevant. Tht is the tota coverage across the entire US nuclear industry - woudl only be triggered if the impossible happened and every plant maxed their liability at once. And if that happened, 10.3 billion would be a pittance.

Accidents happen to individual plants. The Price-Anderson liability PER PLANT is 300 million direct insurance, and up to 112 million per-accident pooled coverage to be paid retrospectively by the entire industry if necessary.

If a worst-case accident happened, containment were breached, and a city rendered uninhabitable - extremely unlikely, but as I said, worst case - the total maximum financial liability to the plant operators and to the industry as a whole is 412 million dollars. Liability and costs above that are guaranteed and picked up by the government.

>How many polar bears have died as a direct result of AGW?

At the risk of being accused of 'changing the subject, Betula, consider the hypothetical that someone (no-one here, I'm sure) were to beat you about the head and shoulders with a length of steel pipe. Given your logic, since the primary cause of your injuries is the direct application of the pipe against your flesh, then there is no amount of evidence that could prove the likelihood of the secondary cause, i.e., the intent of this hypothetical person wielding the pipe. Therefore, anyone beating you with a steel pipe is innocent of assault.

I would question such logic. However, I would suggest that sufficient evidence exists from your comments that this hypothetical attacker might argue a tertiary cause, i.e., you are a taunting and insulting wanker, and plausibly plead to the lesser charge of aggravated assault.

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 25 Jan 2010 #permalink

Bernard @126

"Are you right to review the science of climatological impacts upon species and ecosystems ,as it might pertain to your line or work, or do you need a hint?"

Bernard, your hint is Amandas linked quote @125....

"The ecologist walks in a world of wounds."

"Mal Adapted" expands the quote @130...

"An ecologist must either harden his shell and make believe that the consequences of science are none of his business, or he must be the doctor who sees the marks of death in a community that believes itself well and does not want to be told otherwise. Aldo Leopold, Round River"

As an Arborist, I do find this quote interesting as it pertains to my line of work and your line of questioning. Leopold is talking about a community that doesn't quite see what it is doing the environment, yet the ecologist can.

I find it interesting because here in my community, we have
a variety of committees, laws, organizations and boards that are in place to oversee these things we don't see.

We have Wetland Committees, Zoning Boards and Building Committees. We have Town Tree Departments,Tree Wardens and Parks departments. We have rules in place for licensing professionals such as Arborists and Pesticide applicators. We have posting rules, neighbor notification rules and rules for record keeping. We have the EPA and State by State restrictions on Pesticide usage and applications.
We have in place countless professional organizations such as Tree Protection Associations,Greens Keepers Associations, The International Society of Arbriculture, the Society of American Foresters etc. We also have Nature centers, Audubon centers and the list goeas on....

Incidently, I happen to be on several local committees, and I hardly think that the community I live in doesn't see what it's capable of doing to the environment.

LB @151

You wouldn't happen to be smoking that pipe would you?

I'll rephrase the question for you, with the hopes that you can answer it when the effects wear off.

Can you give me the estimated number of polar bears worldwide and how those numbers have changed over the past 30 years as a result of AGW or GW or climate change?

And please, don't put down the pipe for my sake, take your time.

sim@145, making corporations "...fully liable..." means denying them the "Limited Liability" that corporations currently enjoy. If nuclear power plants are operated with unlimited liability the plants will immediately be shut down. Maybe that is what dhogaza wants.

Anyway, this discussion is an excellent example of what I have in mind, namely revisiting the US legislation framework relating to the operation of nuclear power plants. In the discussion so far, the nuclear industry is not doing too well! I suspect it will go even worse with the Sierra Club!

By gallopingcamel (not verified) on 25 Jan 2010 #permalink

If nuclear power plants are operated with unlimited liability the plants will immediately be shut down. Maybe that is what dhogaza wants.

Well, no. If they're as safe as we're told, "unlimited liability" is well within the bounds that insurance companies will underwrite.

I'm simply suggesting that they be required to operate under the same rules that the majority of businesses operate under.

Like I do, as a self-employed person.

TO ANYONE WITH AT LEAST HALF A BRAIN.

I would encourage whoever is reading this, to look @154 and see the "evidence" provided in response to this question @153:

"Can you give me the estimated number of polar bears worldwide and how those numbers have changed over the past 30 years as a result of AGW or GW or climate change?"

We are doomed.

Betula,

Ever hear about something called the extinction debt? Ever read the seminal paper by Dave Tilman and Robert May in Nature (2004) on this subject?

On that score, have you ever read anything about population lags in response to environmental perterbations? The fact is that changes in habitat 'x' do not instantaneously translate into effects on the population demographics of species 'y'. These perterbations can take decades, even centuries to ripple through ecological communities. Ornithologist John Terborgh provided a good example with respect to tropical forests in Peru (where he does much of his research). He found that areas adjacent to national parks were often heavily grazed by cattle. The cattle made incursions into parks and trampled the understory, killing the seedlings and preventing recruitment. The parent trees still existed but their progeny were being destroyed. A contrarian, using your inane logic, might say that there is no problem because the forest is still there. But of course the forest is the 'living dead', given that recruitment is an essential pre-requisite for perpetuation of the tree species that make up the forest.

Similarly, the loss of the Mata-Atlantica tropical forests in eastern Brazil was a gradual process that began in the 1800s and peaked in the middle of the last century. Many of the regional endemics there are teetering on the edge of extinction, but the process did not temporally mirror the loss of habitat. Instead, species populations descreased and either eventually reached a lower, but somehow sustainable equilibrium or else they continued to decline gradually, until many disappeared.

Now to answer your son. The polar bear situation is no different. Because of AGW, the extent of pack ice is shrinking and shrinking rapidly. There is likely to be an optimum amount of ice that enables the bears to forage for their seal prey most efficiently but beyond this the population remains stable until it exceeds a tipping point. That point is being approached, just as there will be a tipping point in forests if the understory is either burned or grazed continually. The bears may now also be 'the living dead'; extant but doomed if current trends continue.

If you want to understand the machinery of nature, you need some basic grounding on the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning or on the temporal effects of changes in the environment on the population demographics of species such as polar bears or pied flycatchers. Your posts suggest that you think you are well up on these areas when you clearly are not. I would galdly discuss topics like time-lags in deterministic systems and the extinction debt but then you will argue that I am trying to show how clever I am. Betula, this is my field of research. I did my PhD in 1995 and I attend many conferences and workshops where these issues are debated and argued. I work with colleagues with specific expertise in spatial ecology and conservation biology. I would not venture into a field in which I have superficial knowledge and then attempt to belittle the ideas of someone who has worked in that field for many years. Its fine to discuss these topics with you but for you to ridicule the notion that polar bears will decline because of AGW on the basis of bits of information that you possess is most certainly unwise.

As for your discussion of NGOs and environmental regulations in the US, that is wholly pedantic. It is not stopping the inexplicable decline of many breeding birds in North America, for example, as well as the loss of other species in habitats that were ravaged by human actions (e.g. tallgrass prairie) a century or more ago. Restoration has not worked in this case, because ecosystems are quite complex entities and the 'way back' may be quite different from they 'way forward'. Moreover, given the power of the corporate sector in the US, many regulations protecting the environment have been watered down to the bare minimum. The EPA is spineless and has been financially gutted by successive administrations anyway.

As for your attempt to belittle my use of the term 'almost certain', very few scientists would ever say that proof of any process is absolute. Me and my colleagues in population ecology are always circumspect. Most of those who appear certain that the current warming has little or nothing to do with human actions apparently do little in the way of actual science. Many are retired or have mediocre publication records. And they are qutie rightfully called 'denialists'.

Along with the vast majority of my peers, I believe that there is very strong evidence that most of the current warming is due to the human combusition of fossil fuels. I would gladly change my opinion if new evidence came in casting doubt on that, but instead virtually all of the empirical evidence coming in strenghten the view that the warming has a strong human fingerprint all over it.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 26 Jan 2010 #permalink

Betula,

I think you meant to write:

>TO ANYONE WITH AT _MOST_ HALF A BRAIN

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 26 Jan 2010 #permalink

LB,

You're dull but you have a point.

Anyone who had at least half a brain before reading your evidence @153, will likely have, at the most, half a brain when they are thru.

That is why I am now discouraging anyone from going to #154 and viewing the evidence presented in response to my question @153.

Fine, we've got that covered. Now Betula, your response to Jeff Harvey?

Janson ask:

>*Now Betula, your response to Jeff Harvey?*

Betula has already [stated his tactic](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/more_monckton_2.php#comment-222…)
(via projection):

>*I love the thought process. When a question can't be answered, change the subject.*

If Betulaâs moves from that tactic we can expect him to employ [bales more straw]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/more_monckton_2.php#comment-222…), such [as this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/more_monckton_2.php#comment-222…):

>*What I have questioned, is the ability to directly link any given climate event with anthropogenic global warming, not anthropogenic climate stresses. The fact is, you can't.*

Then he huffed and he puffedâ¦

Deltoiders, it has been fun but I have to admit defeat; I failed to get you interested in "Green" nuclear power (aka SCNRs) that would consume most of the higher Actinides destined for Yucca Mountain.

Let's assume that Yucca Mountain will cost $90 billion and that it will store ~120,000 tonnes of high level waste. That works out at about $750,000/tonne.

If the US government put out an RFQ for de-activating that kind of nuclear waste there are at least five existing companies capable of submitting bids. I am familiar with the work of one of them (ADNA Corporation). Given the amount of money involved there would probably be bids from many other companies too.

Studies in prototype reactors suggest that the winning bid would be based on a Sub-Critical Nuclear Reactor (e.g GEM*STAR) with the potential to save the taxpayer up to 90% of the cost of Yucca Mountain while producing significant amounts of electricity as a by-product.

The beauty of SCNRs is that they can be small. At 250 cubic feet, Charlie Bowman's prototype is small enough to fit into Dilbert's cubicle. SCNRs are highly scalable and are "safe at any size" because critical mass cannot be achieved. They also operate at low pressure so a pressure containment structure is not needed.

Take a look at:
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/nuclear_science_technology/nstip/presentation/P…

No need to have a cow about slide 35. This refers to new measurements (Triangle Universities Nuclear Laboratory) on graphite that would have had huge effects on the core sizes for earlier reactor designs. These measurements also affect the "Multiplier Factor" in SCNRs, this being crucial to reducing the size of the neutron source. Dr. Chang expects a multiplier of 34 which implies an output of 450MW (Electrical) using a 2 MW neutron source.

In nearby Tennessee there is already a 1 MW neutron source.

Slide 40 implies a reduction of higher Actinides by a ratio of 10:1 and that has huge implications in terms of the scale of the Yucca Mountain project.

Live long and prosper!

By gallopingcamel (not verified) on 26 Jan 2010 #permalink

Camel, you're selling something which doesn't exist.
The whole breeder-reactor thing *in reality* has been a massive disappointment and has not come anywhere near meeting expectations heaped upon it by the nuke-enthusiasts.
Apparently they are not disturbed by this and continue to sell their pipe dreams.

Interestingly, Yucca mountain, despite decades of work, has been found to be a highly dangerous and inappropriate site for storing high-level waste. The problems encountered by the Yucca mountain project are legion and the only way around them has been for the governent to constantly downgrade its safety requirements.

Even that hasn't stopped the nuke-enthusiasts from continuing to try to sell yet more of the technology that has created vast mountains of waste for which there is at this point in time no known method of safely dealing with.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 26 Jan 2010 #permalink

Betula's tactic: bait and switch.

I think that he should be ignored. Or else the use of [killfile] may be recommended...

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 26 Jan 2010 #permalink

galoppingcamel: Technical issues aside, I am highly unsure on the cost benefit issue of new nuclear plants based on technology that can't really be employed on an industrial scale - nukes are hideously expensive and require massive government backing to be profitable at all. While the same is true for renewables (albeit on a markedly smaller scale, the tech is here, today and being installed in developed and emerging countries right now. Furthermore, government subsidies are starting to be phased out - at least this is true for Germany where they have been supported since 1990. Nuclear may have it's role right now but unless the massive waste problem is solved permanently, nukes are a non-issue - and I don't see that happening. Just remember, something needs to go wrong only once.

Interestingly, Yucca mountain, despite decades of work, has been found to be a highly dangerous and inappropriate site for storing high-level waste.

The US doesn't seem to have much choice for places to put such waste as opposed to Australia which has several salt-pans, one of which it could sacrifice for such a task.

Nevertheless, until breeder reaction is successful, it is an enormous waste attempting nuclear energy.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 27 Jan 2010 #permalink

The whole breeder pipe-dream has been a massive disappointment and costs in the Nuclear industry continue to spiral upwards, which is the reason they are now proposing reactors with no containment building.

As for Yucca mountain - the dawning realisation over the years of the unstable rock, fractures and faults, frequent local seismic activity, thermal activity and underlying magma pocket with evidence of volcanic activity in the recent past and worst of all the lack of impermeability has shown it is a disaster waiting to happen.
In fact it's a disaster that has already happened if you look at the massive costs that have been poured into Yucca.
And that's the *best* the nuke industry can come up with to store their waste.

Nuclear is a total non-starter.

Its proponents see renewables as a serious threat which is why their cynical denialism and bone-headed pro-nukery go hand-in-hand - eg Nick Minchin.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 27 Jan 2010 #permalink

And that's the best the nuke industry can come up with to store their waste.

And the best the fossil-fuel industry can come up with to store their waste is the atmosphere. Interesting co-incidence that the half-life of Plutonioum 239 (24,100 years) is similar to the longest half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere, about 21,000 years (0.7 of the average life-time of 30,000 years.) Calling CO2 the Plutonium of the atmosphere isn't too far from the truth.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 27 Jan 2010 #permalink

>*Calling CO2 the Plutonium of the atmosphere isn't too far from the truth.*

But Chris, humans are arrogant if they think they can effect the atmosphere. How could 0.00038% of Plutonium in the atmosphere make any difference at all?