Johann Hari has written an excellent article in The Nation on the scandalously poor reporting in the main stream media on climate science and scientists:
Yet when it comes to coverage of global warming, we are trapped in the logic of a guerrilla insurgency. The climate scientists have to be right 100 percent of the time, or their 0.01 percent error becomes Glaciergate, and they are frauds. By contrast, the deniers only have to be right 0.01 percent of the time for their narrative--See! The global warming story is falling apart!--to be reinforced by the media. It doesn't matter that their alternative theories are based on demonstrably false claims, as they are with all the leading "thinkers" in this movement. Look at the Australian geologist Ian Plimer, whose denialism is built on the claim that volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans, even though the US Geological Survey has shown they produce 130 times less. Or Sunday Telegraph columnist Christopher Booker, who says the Arctic sea ice can't be retreating because each year it comes back a little... in winter.
Many Americans assume that if a story has been in the news section of a reputable English newspaper, it has been fact-checked. One recent climate "scandal" that spread from Britain shows how these stories actually originate. In its most recent report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--the umbrella organization of the world's climate scientists--explained that 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest is at risk of dying if there is even a slight reduction in rainfall. This is true. It is the view of the most distinguished scientists in the field. The IPCC sourced this claim to a report by the World Wildlife Fund--when, in fact, it should have referred to a report by professor Dan Nepstad, whose work is mentioned only in passing by the WWF.
It was a minor footnoting error--but when a denialist blogger named Richard North noticed it, he announced he had found the IPCC making fake predictions. He tipped off the Sunday Times, owned by Fox king Rupert Murdoch. The newspaper's journalists quoted Dr. Simon Lewis, a leading rainforest expert, who explained that it was a very minor mistake and that the core claim is accurate. The paper ignored the bulk of his comments and mangled his quotes to make it sound like he agreed that the IPCC had been talking rubbish--and ran the "story" under the headline "UN Climate Panel Shamed by Bogus Rainforest Claim." It gave credit for "research by Richard North." The story was then zapped all over the United States as Amazongate, and as a result millions of people are now under the impression that the Amazon is in no danger. The Sunday Times refuses to admit it made a whopping error--in a story that attacks the IPCC for supposedly making a whopping error.
Read the whole thing.
Also worth reading is Mark Hertsgaard in the same issue:
Jon Krosnick, a Stanford University professor who has been surveying Americans' views on climate change since 1995, says that, in fact, Americans remain overwhelmingly convinced that man-made climate change is happening and must be confronted. "The media is sensationalizing these polls to make it sound like the public is backing off its belief in climate change, but it's not so," argues Krosnick, who delivered a paper on the subject at an American Meteorological Association briefing in Washington a day after the Gallup poll was released. Krosnick says that Americans' views have remained quite stable over the past ten years and that in November 2009--the very time the media were full of stories about the stolen British e-mails--a whopping 75 percent of Americans said they believed that global temperatures are going up.
Krosnick, whose academic specialty is the wording of survey questions, suspects his colleagues at Gallup and elsewhere have gotten misleading results because of the way they worded their questions: their phrasing ended up testing whether Americans believed in the science of climate change rather than the phenomenon of climate change. "Most people's opinions are based not on science but on what they experience in their daily lives," Krosnick told me. "So our surveys ask people if they have heard about the idea that temperatures have been going up over the past 100 years and if they agree with this idea." The 75 percent of Americans who answered yes to that question amounts to "a huge number," says Krosnick--a far higher level of agreement than pertains on most political issues. Where climate change deniers have had an effect, he adds, is in reducing, to 31 percent, the number of Americans who think all scientists agree about climate change. "But most Americans have thought that [scientists don't all agree on climate change] for the entire fifteen years I've been polling on this issue," adds Krosnick--further tribute, it seems, to the media's longstanding habit of giving a handful of deniers prominence equal to the vast majority of scientists who affirm climate change.
Hat tip: Climate Shifts.
- Log in to post comments
Yes, the two media big guns here in Australia (Fairfax & Murdoch) seemed to have dodged the subject completely & placed it in the ten foot pole department.
In Murdochs press here in Australia, I could only find a mention in Adelaide:
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/world/investigation-finds-hacked-ema…
Fairfax wasnt much better with only a mention in the Brisbane Times technology section:
http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/breaking-news-technology/uk-climategat…
On Fairfax commercial AM stations its pretty much the same, no mention at all, yet they flew the conspiracy flag with the best of them. No mention on 4BC, 3AW, 2UE or 2GB.
Johann Hari is a good journalist and when he wrote for the Independent was forthright about his support for the Iraq war based on his contact with Iraqi individuals,organisations and trade unions.
He argued valiantly about this for some considerable time, but ultimately changed his mind. Personally , I guess this was because of the considerable amount of vitriol that was no doubt sent his way on a daily basis.
That said it doesn't mean he is right about climate change.
This is a good piece. It's cogenetly argued and well composed.
That said this paragraph troubles me:
Now I am amongst those who is very worried indeed about the releases of methane consequent upon the decomposition of the permafrost, but Hari is surely careless to put an equals signh between these deposits and the world's methane deposits.
Most of these will be located proximate to coal and oil deposits or in seabed clathrates on the continental shelves.
It would be nice if Dave could point out exactly which main points in Hari's article are wrong and why.
You know Tim, allowing the use of the hideous term 'denier' on your blog makes you a zealot and a bigot and therefore one who is not being transparent with your agenda.
I'd suggest losing the holocaust connotation and refrain from dismissing skepticism if you want to be taken seriously.
Do you have another term for people who reflexively deny reality, SamG? One that has never ever been used in the same sentence as a word that might related to the Nazis, as that is apparently your standard for having a "holocaust connotation"?
I mean, me, I only figure someone to be calling a person a holocaust denier when, you know, they use the word holocaust as a modifier to the word denier.
... the number of Americans who think all scientists agree about climate change.
That little word "all" has a big impact on how this American would answer that question.
SamG said something like:
Sasdly, SamG failed to supply explicit reasoning for the link between allowance of the term denier and zealotry and/or bigotry and/or not being transparent with [his] agenda. He just assumed it as self-evident. This is often called concern trolling on this blog.
Note: Some deniers assert that Tim's agenda is all too transparent, which is why they call this a "consensus" blog.
2nd Note: The term "zealot" carries with it negative connotation, most typically, of someone whose focus on a particualr issue or realted sert of issues allows them to lose who these issues affect the wider context within which they must operate, and thus inflict harms on other legitimate interests that would generally be seen as exceeding the benefit of resolving the problem as per the specifications of the zealot.
In some cases, those called zealots may well be characterised in this way, though strictly speaking, a zealot is no more than a person who seeks to apply consistent ethical principle. Being zealous about preventing anthropogenically-forced climate change harm is perfectly reasonable, and I would say, a duty we bear our fellow human beings. Certainly, we should seek to minimise undesirable unintended consequences, nor allow our concern to blind us to other things that ought to attract our concern, but the idea that this is what zealotry over AGW entails is a mere strawman attack.
eRRATUM FROM ABOVE:
The term "zealot" carries with it negative connotation, most typically, of someone whose focus on a particulAr issue or related set of issues inclines them to lose sight of how these issues affect the wider context within which they must operate
Deary me ... hasty composition ...
VOTERS HAVE CONSENSUS, NOT "SCIENTISTS" OR POLITICIANS
It is a moot point anyways considering how Volcanoes show clearly that human's effect on this poor little five billion year old planet is like f a r t i n g in tornado. We are mortal monkeys and not immortal Gods dictating temperatures of planets.So the planet is NOT dying and voter support is gone so get ahead of the curve and be a responsible enviros, not neocon like fear mongers.
Dave @ #2: I don't see how Hari's views on Iraq have any bearing on his article on mainstream media reporting on climate science. If you do, I'd love to hear how, and how you think his article is incorrect, or is it just his views that are wrong?
SamG @ #5: The term 'denier' is in pretty widespread use to denote somebody who uses his preconcieved conclusion to deny a fairly well settled issue. I will not get into the minutae here, but it has been [shown](http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf) that there is about as good a consensus in this as there is in any other mainstream issue in science. If you associate the term denier with a holocaust denier then that's your problem, nobody over here is calling climate change deniers holocaust deniers.
Statisticians Comment on Status of Climate Change Science
http://magazine.amstat.org/2010/03/climatemar10/
"... The views of climate change âskepticsâ and âdeniersâ appear in many media, from blogs and videos to op-eds and congressional testimony. We prefer to think of the views of skeptics as part of the scientific spectrum, but nevertheless believe they are a minority who do not represent the mainstream scientific viewpoint.
Some organizations that feature these views in sophisticated advertising campaigns have manipulated the evidence to create the impression that the consensus among climate scientists is quite different from what it is....
Meme Mine @ #10: If you value knowledge over opinion you might be enlightened enough to research that volcanic activity produces on average [300 million](http://www.cabnr.unr.edu/gustin/ERS765/geologic%20carbonarticleJMB.pdf) tons of CO2 per year, whereas humans produce around [29 BILLION](http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/txt/ptb1119.html)
Michael, the type of elitist mindset your comment displays is what bothers me about any form of zealotry. The real denial is in fact an unwillingness to be transparent with ones own agenda, thus the ardent religious-like qualities of the advocacy.
AGW contains a modicum of truth but you are unable to prove beyond doubt that it is the perceived crisis that you and others have made it out to be.
In reality, none of this matters but the incentive does.
One should always be weary of idealists, environmental groups, non-profit organizations etc. Totalitarianism is always cloaked by altruistic causes.
Now, there's something I can attest to being real.
Yeah that's right Meme Mine. The voters, not the scientists or specialists, are the ones who really know the facts.
This is why I always put my annual ECG to an internet poll to determine whether or not it is normal.
And how long exactly was it that you thought 6 billion humans and their supporting industrial complex has been around for? CO2 belching vehicles, power plants and factories sprang up alongside the first bacteria during the Pre-Cambrian did they?
Fran, seriously, you are playing mind games.
I know perfectly well what is meant by the term denier. Don't pretend that proof of AGW is the reason why you use it.
Proof or no proof, it's a term that seriously compromises the integrity of the user.
The illusion is a fantasy bolstered by consensus.
Speaking only for myself SamG, I have adopted the use of the word "denialist" to describe people who are not convinced of the validity of the science but who also fall into a particular sub-group.
These people, IMHO, are not simply "ignorant", nor do they engage in legitimate debate over global warming. Rather, they systematically and deliberately misrepresent scientific papers, opinions, knowledge and research so that it casts unreasonable doubt so as to fit their preconceived and unchallengeable view that AGW has been, and always will be, an impossibility.
They are denialists, there are many of them, and they deserve no respect whatsoever.
Speak for yourself, Meme Mine.
Interesting framing Mike.
Are you a climate scientist by chance?
@10 Meme Mine
It's amazing how people can miss the most obvious truths when looking for evidence to support their fantasy.
To match even curent human CO2 output (regardless of where we're headed) we'd need roughly 210 volcanoes similar to the Icelandic one belching 24-hours-a-day for a whole year, every year (rather than just for a week or two).
Surely this gives you some idea of the scale of human impact on the planet?
SamG @14: One should always be weary of idealists
Indeedy. I can't read even one of your posts without yawning.
No I'm not a scientist at all, nor have I ever pretended to be.
Is that a pre-requisite for being educated, rational, and able to understand the basic scientific arguments?
I am fairly politically neutral. Never been interested in what Gore says, and I think Palin was extremely funny as far as idiots go. Does that help?
(To clarify, I am not Mike, I am a different person)
I am impressed at your claims to mind-reading, SamG. Perhaps you can also identify my favorite color while you're performing psychic tricks.
Really, how is it bad to be "elitist" when elitism has been defined as "thinks that when the people who have actually looked at the evidence are nearly unanimous, that maybe those people are right"? At that point, the alternative looks like the worst of postmodernism. Are you a postmodernist, then, Sam?
From dictionary.com:
In the context of this post (and most on Tim's blog), this refers to a Global Warming Denier. If you deny multiple streams of robust scientific evidence indicated that the global average temperature is rising largely due to the accumulation of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, then you are, in this context, a denier. This is why I use the term, it's short, direct and correct.
If you think the term is poisoned due to it's connotations with holocaust denial, then the onus is on you to give us a reason not to use this term. That your feelings may get hurt is unlikely to sway me.
Proof is for mathematicians. Applied science rarely deals with "proof". What those on the side of majority of scientific opinion have is not proof per se, but evidence. Reams upon reams of evidence, from solutions to radiative transfer equations through to satellite measurements. The "incentive" or otherwise of environmental organisations does not make a jot of difference one way or another to this. The difference between their "incentive" and that of (say) Exxon Mobil, is that they are (broadly) on the side of the majority of scientific evidence.
Yes SamG, Greenpeace is coming to place you and everyone you care about under the yolk of totalitarianism. My history is a little rusty, but I'm pretty sure that it was concerns about industrial impacts on the climate system that enabled Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin and Nero to take control. [These](http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/tin-foil-hat) may be of interest to you.
Why is it that the media, particularly the Murdoch press, is so willing to deny that global warming has anything to do with human activities?
Newspapers he owns, even those which in other areas are regarded as world class publications, are happy to publish biased or inaccurate views on global warming and its effects.
Do these publications unthinkingly reflect the views of their owner, Rupert Murdoch? If so they â and Murdoch - have a lot to answer for, as have those who indulge in stupid semantics rather than admit that their own views are wrong, misleading and can not be substantiated.
The Australian newspaper, once properly regarded as providing balanced accurate and informed opinion on matters of science and environment is now regarded as being the last place one would go in search of sound reporting.
As evidence of global warming and its causes become increasingly obvious and damaging, the Murdochs of this world and their biased editors will hopefully be thoroughly discredited.
The only problem is that by the time that occurs, the severity of climate change will have advanced to the point where it is undeniable, uncontrollable and unsafe for human survival. Most scientists seek to prevent those conditions arising. None take pleasure in seeing their emergence so that they can say âI told you soâ.
Samg, Mike at 17 nails it. 'Denialist' is a term applying especially to those who quite deliberately mislead and misinterpret fragments of evidence that just might throw doubt on the weight of evidence.
'Climategate' is of course the classic example, and really the efforts of McIntyre, Watts and others to discredit the integrity of the research and the reputations of scientists such as Jones and Mann is thoroughly unethical. And they know it.
Of course there are others who stubbornly refuse to let any empirical evidence get in the way of their preconceived views. These rightly get called denialists, but are perhaps more accurately simply ignoramuses.
The old concern troll trick about the Holocaust has been raised before and we are well immune to it.
DaveA@2
"He argued valiantly about this for some considerable time, but ultimately changed his mind. Personally , I guess this was because of the considerable amount of vitriol that was no doubt sent his way on a daily basis."
Gee, I've never heard of vitriol changing anyone's view before. You'd have a lot more fans here if that was the case. You sure it wasn't the mounting evidence of a fiasco that changed his mind?
SamG, I suppose the next time I hear somebody say that "de Nile ain't just a river in Egypt" I should tsk tsk (and cluck, AND wag my finger) about how they are equating the behavior with the Holocaust.
Balance @ 25: This http://sphaerica.wordpress.com/2010/04/03/mission-accomplished/ is kind of appropriate.
Quote:
"Blogs like Watts Up With That and JoNova make me crazy with the complete, indisputable inanity of their arguments. Media disasters like Times Online and The Daily Mail and Fox News make me crazy. Now even more rational news centers like The Guardian and Der Spiegel are getting it wrong.
The deniers are declaring complete and total and final victory. One can almost picture them, standing in a line, mugging for a photo-shoot, grinning from ear to ear on the deck of an aircraft carrier, with a huge green banner behind them reading âMission Accomplished.â Iâll leave it to the reader to decide if the green stands for ecology or money.
Itâs infuriating, because they are so patently, obviously wrong to anyone that takes the time to look, but almost everyone involved, from journalists to scientists outside of climate science to the average Joe, not only doesnât take the time, they donât even come close."
hat tip Hank's comment on RC.
Shorter SamG:
"I can type and wave my dick at the same time, therefore whatever I type must be true".
My use of "AGW denier" is a quite conscious and deliberate reference to Holocaust denial.
The only difference is that I think AGW deniers are even more reprehensible than Holocaust deniers, as they would destroy us all, not just deny the destruction of 6 million of us.
David @ #30: Your type of exaggeration (they will destroy us all...) does those of us trying to explain things and hopefully enlighten others, no favours at all.
it's a term that seriously compromises the integrity of the user
Uh, no. OTOH, that claim and just about every other one you make throws serious doubt on yours.
SamG writes:
>*AGW contains a modicum of truth but you are unable to prove beyond doubt that it is the perceived crisis that you and others have made it out to be. In reality, none of this matters but the incentive does.*
Sam which part is truth?
AGW contains a modicum of truth but you are unable to prove beyond doubt that it is the perceived crisis that you and others have made it out to be.
Perhaps you can expand upon this and explain, based upon your extensive scientific research, just what truth AGW "contains" and what the possible consequences (with probability estimates -- please show your work) it may have, so that we can judge whether there's a crisis. Also perhaps you could go into detail about your theory of scientific epistemology that requires a "prove beyond doubt" standard.
Or you could just admit that you're an arrogant ignoramus with your own transparent (to intelligent people -- see "Dunning-Kruger") agenda.
[Deleted as off topic -- Tim]
MFS @31 speaking of DI(NR)s claim that AGW deniers would "destroy us all" said:
I suspect you have misinterpreted ADI(NR)s claim. Being familiar with his posts elsewhere, I doubt his substantive claim is that anthropogenic climate change will destroy us all. I suspect his claim was that the deniers'determination to privilege their own perceived interests and indifference to human welfare extended to all humanity, rather than one subsection of it. It's not uncommon to find the deniers adopting a fatalistic pose on the survival of the species -- explicitly comparing past extinction events with today.
Some of therm fancy their chances in heaven, which simply bolsters their panglossian view of future climate developments, since all the righteous will be saved.
I agree that we should refrain from suggesting that all of humanity will be wiped out by the direct and indirect consequences of climate change. This seems most unlikely, though the possibility that 300 years from now, the planet will only be supporting a very small fraction of the present numbers is surely a serious possibility.
[Please Note points 6 and 7 ](http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/04/seasoned-veterans-view-…)
Time to stop wading in the shallow end.
Thank you, Fran. I must admit, I used hyperbole in the interests of brevity, but perhaps I should have been more rigorous.
Tim,
I think you are misrepresenting Richard North with regard to his reporting on the Amazon. He actually engaged in investigative journalism something that is lacking in many MSM reports. He posted six times on the subject and referenced scientific literature to support his claims. Nepstad has clear links with the WWF having worked directly for the WWF and having some of his studies were part funded by the WWF.
With regard to Nepstadâs claim that 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest is at risk of dying if there is even a slight reduction in rainfall he cites studies from Marengo (2009, 2006) Zeng et al (2006) and Coe et al (2002) that refute Nepstad claims.
Marengo offers detailed evidence of significant climate variability in the Amazon basin, of differences in rainfall patterns between north and south, and of a "succession of relatively wet and dry periods (cycles) of approximately 20â30 years, suggesting indicators of long-term variability on multi-decadal time scales." Marengo finds there are âno systematic unidirectional long-term trends towards drier or wetter conditions have been identified since the 1920s.â
I think that a journalist who is prepared to adequately research a subject should be commended even if his views differ from yours. As you are aware for most papers there is generally a rebuttal and an analysis of the literature suggests an uncertainty with regards to risks to the Amazon forest that is at odds with the stated position of the IPCC.
#25 Balance: "Newspapers he owns, even those which in other areas are regarded as world class publications, are happy to publish biased or inaccurate views on global warming and its effects."
He's not the sole owner. Check out who the second largest shareholder is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation#Shareholders
I have read that he's not exactly hands-off with content.
No worries. David: if I misinterpreted you I apologise.
No apology necessary, MFS.
@24
'If you deny multiple streams of robust scientific evidence indicated that the global average temperature is rising largely due to the accumulation of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, then you are, in this context, a denier. This is why I use the term, it's short, direct and correct.'
I accept that GHG's are in part responsible for rising global average temperature but largely put it down to natural causes so I guess that makes me a denier although my only issue is climate sensitivity. Do I find the term offensive,nope I do see no parallel with the Holocaust. What bothers me are extremists, from the right or left so I guess @30 bothers me.
@ allen mcmahon
I've looked at recent papers authored by Marengo and don't see any suggestion of a disagreement about AGW. There may be a difference of opinion regarding the nature of future changes to the Amazon if there were a reduction in rain or change in rainfall pattern or intensity. (I note you are talking about papers published pre and post the latest IPCC report.)
In fact, Tim has done some further research for us:
From Marengo:
Full context here.
Mike, not being a scientist, and particularly one in such an ambiguous field such as climate science; you can not possibly claim ignorance on behalf of skeptics. You can not categorically state that anything hitherto stated by you, is based on anything more than your bent towards listening to the pontifications of a few climate scientists.
To try to claim otherwise is disingenuous.
Give me unequivocal, testable evidence. Give me a science community subsidized to the eyeballs that didn't have their house of cards smashed by just a handful of skeptics.
In fact, state to me what the skeptic position actually entails while refraining from the usual 'big oil', nihilist clichés
Your usage of the term 'denier' may make you feel morally smug, it may even give you a hard on but it is not on par with the Jewish holocaust is it? That actually happened.
And my apologies to victims of the holocaust for having the term denigrated.
Michael Ralston
-evasive
ChrisC
Reams of evidence?
How many institutions deal with the science of AGW and collect/collate raw data. How many of these people have failed to archive and share this data? How much dissent has been censored?
Tell me if you personally know the answer to this. That's 'personally'. Please be astute and be careful not to generalize.
Fascinating rhetorical questions SamG.
No doubt you believe the answers are - all of them, and lots.
And no doubt the amount of time you've spent looking for the real answers is - zero.
"Your usage of the term 'denier' may make you feel morally smug, it may even give you a hard on"
it certainly makes me feel funny, you know, "down there". but then i always did have a thing for the caress of fine fabrics.
Truth machine. The burden of truth lies with you. Why do I have to disprove your theory? Just don't write incriminating emails, refuse to share unadulterated data, change the goalposts every time your theories crumble and plainly just make things up. They are the allegations and it would be convenient for you to accept CRU's vindication without question. They are sloppy and corrupt.
Did you even read the article that inspired this thread?
So SamG is a skeptic ...
If you want the respect given to skeptics trying being one
i.e try actual addressing the science. Until then stop winging about being called a denier.
"Why do I have to disprove your theory?"
since your posts seem indicate you have all sorts of evidence that proves AGW dead in the water, it should be a piece of piss. so please, entertain our ignorance one moment, that we may see the truth.
"They are the allegations"
...since found to be unsubstantiated. i'm sure it was all a whitewash though. after all, you *know* he was guilty, right? you could tell from the way he kept publishing papers whose conclusions you disagreed with. the cad!
Because you're the one who's claiming the AGW theory is "smashed".
Evidence provided: None.
I don't know. Looks pretty sturdy to me. The CRU have been exonerated twice. Is this not good enough for you?
"How much dissent has been censored?"
oh, all of it is suppressed, my dear boy. that's why we've never seen any papers from Lindzen, Pat Michaels, John McLean, Bob Carter, Chris de Freitas, Steve McIntyre, Ross McKittrick, etc. and why you'll never read fact-free, defamatory attacks on the professionalism and integrity of climate scientists in the press.
SamG said @45
If you are going to rip things out of context and deem playing silly word games legitimate I am going to ask you to refrain from insulting black people by suggesting being like them is an insult. Racism simply brings you into disrepute, surely?
Typo acknowledged but it is irrelevant.
I have met plenty of people in real life I would be happy to refer to as 'sceptics', but unfortunately, the vast majority of people questioning climate science you meet on the internet don't deserve the title. In my view, a true sceptic will do more than simply question a thesis; they will go into a debate without prejudice and be open to changing their mind if presented with a sufficiently reasoned argument. This is, in my opinion, what separates a sceptic from a cynic.
But of course, the global warming deniers go a step beyond simply questioning or dismissing arguments. When presented with any evidence or reasoning contrary to what they'd like to believe that they can't argue with, they start attacking the integrity of the arguer, changing topic, asking unrelated questions, spouting rhetoric and smearing individuals. It's like they are incapable of conceding even the slightest point.
By that token, if SamG doesn't deserve the title 'denier', I don't know who does.
It was irrelevant, but the rest of our points are entirely relevant. Please counter them with your super secret scienctific information and conspiracy theories.
ligne,
since when have you possessed a monopoly on scientific wisdom? Your list of 'experts' @55 sums up your predicament. Inadvertantly you have listed about 80% of the prominent denialists, and most of them are either not climate scientists or are shills. You could throw in others like Baliunas, Soon, Balling, Singer, Ball, and then you would soon be running out of names. After this you would be forced to list weathermen, emeritius academics (many old farts) with little or no expertise in climate science to bolster your erroneous claim that there are a sea of sceptics out there. Fact is there isn't. This shows precisely how thin the denial community is.
This alone shows how much out of whack you and the denialati are. The reason their 'data' rarely sees the light of day in peer-reviewed journals has nothing to do with any kind of conspiracy as much as you would like to believe that. It is simply because their data are mostly crap, and do not stand up to scrutiny.
I have been a peer-reviewer for 54 journals in my career and I was a former Editor at Nature, and I can assure you that the system may be flawed but all in all it works. But since the denialati are not interested in the science they have been forced to make ludicrous claims about being excluded from the mainstream because of a broad conspiracy amongst rank-and-file scientists to marginalize them. This is b*s. They are marginalized because their science is poor. Moreover, as most of us should know by now climate change denial has never been about science but about a small coterie of scientists promoting a pre-determined world view based on a brazenly political agenda. The same is true for other areas in the environmental and global change arena where there are policy-related implications. Many of the same names and/or organizations attacking climate change are the same names and/or organizations that tried to downplay the deleterious effects of acid rain and CFCs, as well as the extent and implications of the loss of biodiversity. They are shape-shifters and move from one topic to another based on the amount of scientific evidence that is accrued.
The denialists cannot and never will win the scientific argument, but that has never been their aim. Their aim is to render any action to deal with climate change mute. To do this all they have to do is to shed enough doubt on the process, and it is in this area where their well-funded PR apparatus has been very successful. But do not humor me by claiming that the debate on climate change is about science. It is not and never has been for most of those in the denial camp.
John
Evasive. I've never claimed the non-existence of AGW.
Copenhagen was a failure largely due to a handful of skeptics. If the science were unequivocal, a few pesky skeptics couldn't have hijacked such a politically significant event -surely.
And how many millions have been injected into climate science?
Stop attributing motive.
SamG@61: That claim about Copenhagen just broke the hubris-o-meter. Very few of the delegates doubted the science and certainly none of the key players. It was a failure of politics, not science.
Jeff @ 60, ligne was being sarcastic.
Jeff Harvey: don't worry, i'm not a denialist :-)
i was just trying to point out how utterly moronic it is to go about screaming about being suppressed, when 5 minutes on this very blog makes it plainly clear that no such thing is happening.
in fact, they get utterly disproportionate coverage considering their minuscule numbers, and how easily debunked their arguments usually are.
can we get back to laughing at SamG's stupid arguments now? i'm sure he's going to come out with a real corker any moment now :-)
um Jeff, I'm on your side ... but I think you've misread ligne who was using satire with a fair dose of sarcasm to parody the denialist position.
ligne,
my apologies! Its just that I have no time for denialists.
In my lexicon a climate change denialist is a very appropriate term for most of the those who would prefer to be called 'sceptics'. The world sceptic has been abused by the climate change denialists because all scientists, by defintion, are sceptical; we are trained to be. In the climate change debate, a small group of scientists (many with little pedigree in the field of climate science and/or with poor publication records even in their own fields) are abusing science to promote what is in effect a political agenda. They are not sceptical but are in denial; little in thew way of ewmpirical evidence will change the way they think.
Why do so many people choose to take offense from words. An AGW 'denier' is a person who denies that humans are causing the world to warm and the climate to change, refusing to consider or accept the multiple lines of evidence.
There are multiple definitions of 'denier'. As someone pointed out, one of the definitions is that it is a measure of the fineness used in yarn such as in a stocking.
Neither is the definition of holocaust constrained. That word had meaning from before the 1930s.
Here is the definition of denier from the Concise Oxford:
No mention of holocaust in the definition of 'denier' in my edition of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary.
Not only does SamG wish to deny the science, he/she also wishes to deny lexicographic precedence.
Courtesy of the SOED, the complete definition of "denier":
Note the "LME". This dates the word as being in use from c. 1400 to c. 1700. Note also the lack of reference to denial of any specific issue.
Yes, SamG is truly a denier in every sense of the word, as are all climate septicsTM.
Amazing Jeff Harvey, perhaps you need to adjust your bow tie and clean your (green-tinted) glasses and read before reacting. Your emotions just ran riot.
Scientific my arse.
Point proven. Stop hiding behind intelligentsia and hold yourself together. Down penis, down.
SamG
Just explain the scientific problem you have with AGW. We don;t care if you object to it on political grounds.
SamG,
So what infinite scientific wisdom are you personally bestowed with that gives you the ability to separate a 'sceptic' from a 'denialist'? You said 'scientific my arse'? OK, then, what do you know about science? Are you uniquely qualified to say that you know what the hell you are talking about?
More precisely, since your posts are about as intellectually deep as a puddle, what innate ability to do you possess that enables you to know the scientific state-of-the-art in climate science or any other field of Earth science?
Sou nailed it above. No amount of scientific evidence will shift the deniers from their position. As for me wearing 'green tinted' glasses, this kind of dumb remark tells me all I need to know about an ignoramus like SamG. Its the usual kind of baseless smear used to attack scientists all of the time by the anti-environmental lobby. SamG seems to be a happy member of this motley bunch.
Shorter SamG: "We don't like it when you commie bastards call us bad names."
Sou @ 44 I've skimmed over the Marengo 2009 paper and it definitely does not refute Nepstad et al, seeing as the study deals only with South American climate variability throughout the instrumental record, nothing whatsoever to do with Amazon rain forest susceptibility to drought.
It does however, affirm the connection with ENSO and dry periods in the Amazon & in particular the intensification & increased frequency of El Nino in the later part of the 20th century - part of the basis of why Nepstad and others were investigating the Amazon's vulnerability to drought in the first place.
Furthermore the quotations from Allen McMahon, appear to originate from some other source, not the Marengo paper.
I have to qualify the definition of denier as per the Oxford Concise - to which I referred above. Firstly, when it defines 'denier' as being ' equal to one twelfth of a sou' it is pronounced differently to the 'denier' of AGW, and in any case, if it was so imputed, would be worth much less than one twelfth of marvellous Sou :D
@ Dappledwater - I agree with you. It looks like a case of misinterpretation by allen mcmahon (and North - but I haven't read what North said).
@ Jeff Harvey, take care / beware. Seems as if SamG has the hots for you - lol.
Jeff, you may be a scientist but you're behaving like an imbecile.
Why on earth would a man of your ilk be participating in a political blog? You claim that for the 'denier' camp, it has never been about science but I'll wager that most contributers to this blog are scientific laypeople, yet you consider their opinions meritorious. Why? Because you value consensus, not science.
Stand up those who are scientists and if not, explain how your 'opinions' are superior to those of a skeptic?
Let me reiterate. This is a political blog. Got it?
Please quit the dictionary definitions of the word denier.
It's embarrassing.
SamG, apologies. I didn't write the definition with any intent to embarrass you. It was meant to clarify. That's all.
At least now you should be able to understand what the word means.
"explain how your 'opinions' are superior to those of a skeptic?"
because his "opinions" are backed with scientific evidence, perhaps? that's something that seems in permanent short supply among the denier camp.
@Jeff Harvey
I'm afraid I think ligne was being sarcastic.
[SamG](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/johann_hari_on_journalismgate.p…)
>explain how your 'opinions' are superior to those of a skeptic?
My opinions -- that human caused global warming is a real and serious problem -- [are those of a skeptic](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/feb/22/climate-change-s…). Yours are those of a denier.
Ligne, still contributing to this farce 'eh?
You omitted the beginning of the paragraph.
Now answer it for yourself. Are you a scientist?
R.E. Dave R
Oh Lord.
Are you reading this Jeff.
Sou@44 said
â I've looked at recent papers authored by Marengo and don't see any suggestion of a disagreement about AGW.â
I am not suggesting that Marengo disagrees with AGW theory but his work indicates that he disagrees with Nepstad that a small reduction in rainfall could result in 40% of the Amazonian being reduced to savannah . Marengo essentially agrees with Zeng that PDO is the major influence in the Amazon on decadal scales and that Nepstadâs conclusions are not supported because his analysis is based on too short a timescale. A further problem is that Nepstadâs bases his conclusions in part rest on the output of climate models and Malhi et al (2009) provide a convincing argument that all of the current models underestimate Amazon rainfall. In any event the point that I was making in my earlier post was that Richard North is a credible investigative journalist.
Guys, you've asked the questions, and you've got the answer, he got nothing, and he's just baiting.
Hats off to Tim Lambert for letting me speak. I know this is O.T. but some of your posters have difficulty with comprehension.
SamG,
This is not a political blog. Several scientists contribute to it regularly, and most discussions involve scientific discourse. My motivations for writing in here are that (1) it gives me a chance to correct a number of contributors who routinely ignore (or distort) the effects of anthopogenic processes - including climate change - on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, and (2) it gives me the chance to reach a general audience of readers who are genuinely interested in environmental science but who do not possess a background in that field. It is my view that not enough scientists connect with the public and this is a way for me to do it. At the same time, most of the contributors here make very valuable contributions in their own right and are interested in learning the 'truth', as elusive as that is in science.
I consider those who support the overwhelming empirical evidence in support of AGW, irrespective of their academic backgrounds, to understand that there is a broad scientific consensus on the subject and to defer to that consensus. I am much more dubious of those laypeople attacking most of the scientific community (such as you) who apparently have little in the way of scientific pedigree in the fields they routinely write about on sites such as Deltoid. By the way, IMHO this is far and away the best site I have seen in discussing important contemporary issues such as climate change. For that reason it is about the only one I read regularly or contribute to.
As for the defining the word's 'sceptic' and 'denialist', it is my opinion that you fit snugly into the latter category. Most of those who are mangling the science underpinning climate change routinely do. Again, in my view they are not interested in scientific debate but in promulgating a political agenda which is largely right wing and whose foundation is profit maximization for commerical elites. Certainly the 'debate' has scientists doing science on the one side but who are poorly equipped in the public relations side, and well oiled coporate hacks and a few bought and paid for scientists (or those who broadly support a conservative political agenda) on the other. The major achievement of the denialati has been to give the impression that they are dedicated to uncovering the scientific 'truth'. I do not believe this for a second.
The climate change aspects of this http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2876268.htm unleashed post are coming to the fore as the thread heats up.
*I know this is O.T. but some of your posters have difficulty with comprehension*.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
@ allen mcmahon - scientists often disagree on the detail until sufficient research is conducted. From what I've read of Amazon studies, scientists see an urgent need to do more research on this but it's not easy work. Both Morengo and Napsted agree that any change in the climate of the Amazon could have very adverse consequences.
Re Richard North, as far as I can make out he's just a run of the mill conspiracy theorist - and not just in regard to climate change. He's nutty as a fruit cake.
SamG,
Re #45
Like Mike I'm not a scientist, just a reasonably well informed (I think) layman. But I think I am capable of engaging in an argument on a scientific issue by making reference to the published data, the peer reviewed literature, the considered opinion of experts who work on the matter at hand professionally. If someone disagrees with me and can cite sources to back up their claims I am happy to call them a skeptic, but if they resort to claiming that none of the above can be trusted because the data is fiddled, the peer review process rigged and the experts are conspiring in order to deceive the rest of us, ie if they just plain refuse to deal in the basic currency of scientific discourse, then not only does that make any meaningful discussion of the topic impossible but it is perfectly reasonable to label their behaviour as denial and I make no apology for caling them "deniers".
@84 - Allen McMahon , you either don't know what you are talking about, or are simply misrepresenting facts. From Marengo et al 2009:
" Precipitation records over South America also exhibit decadal and interdecadal variability, although its amplitude is smaller than (typically less than 10% of) the year-to-year changes. Keep in mind that only a few stations have century-long records on South America, limiting our ability to detect interdecadal changes and characterize their spatial patterns"
"This âclimate shiftâis consistent with the change in polarity of the PDO (from cold to
warm) in themid 70s (Fig. 5), but can't be exclusively attributed to the PDO variability because El Niño events have also become more frequent and intense in the 80s and 90s compared with the previous three decades."
And which recent Marengo paper deals with tree mortality in the Amazon?.
@SamG:
This is most certainly not a political blog. It's all about science, and the misrepresentation of science by certain people. Hence our use of the word "denier", rather than "skeptic". Real scientists are "skeptic", and are swayed by solid evidence and argumentation. "Deniers" are 'skeptic' of anything that does not fit their view of the world, and run after any bit of information that may be construed as confirming that position. Like HIV deniers jumping up and down in joy when false positives are mentioned ("See! It's not real!"). Or like evolution deniers still jumping of joy over Piltdown Man. And yes, like holocaust deniers pointing to pictures of happy faces in a 'supposed extermination camp'.
As regards to scientists standing up, here goes another one. Like Jeff (I am sure I can speak for him on this part) I value the opinion of various people here because they provide a coherent argument based on factual evidence. Rather than run after any tiny little new thing, they demand solid evidence if someone goes against a body of evidence. If you want to prove evolution wrong, Piltdown Man is not solid evidence. If you want to prove the HIV/AIDS connection wrong, false positives in testing is not solid evidence. If you want to prove AGW wrong, pointing to short term trends, an article by e.g. Lindzen or Pielke Sr, handwaving from Anthony Watts, a few errors hidden deep in a very thick report, none of it is solid evidence. What we want to see is an alternative hypothesis that explains the observations *better*.
'The major achievement of the denialati has been to give the impression that they are dedicated to uncovering the scientific 'truth'. I do not believe this for a second.'
More fool you. As a member of the Denialati I can honestly say we are only interested in uncovering the scientific truth.
Forget the consensus, according to David Archibald solar cycle 24 will be fairly inactive and we can expect a temperature drop of 1.5 C over the coming decade. I call that 'abrupt climate change' and I hope you can hang around to see it.
"As a member of the Denialati I can honestly say we are only interested in uncovering the scientific truth."
given the definition of a denialist, isn't that a contradiction in terms?
and who on earth is this David Archibald chap? has he actually done any work to support his assertion, or is he just another "we're about to enter another ice-age. i can feel it in my bones" loon?
El Weasel:
And I thought you were never going to tell us when the cooling was expected Gordo! It was in the wrong thread directed at the wrong person but I'm glad you finally dropped it. I assume that when you're proved wrong you'll pull the old "taking the piss" excuse?
SamG:
If global warming really were a leftist plot to overthrow capitalism (I assume this is your reasoning, please tell me otherwise) they didn't do a very good job, did they?
In my opinion, Copenhagen was always doomed to fail. In Australia we can barely get our Labor state governments to agree to our federal Labor governments health plan so I don't expect the nations of the world to be acting in unison on this issue. But if you want to attribute this to your precious "skeptics", by all means be incorrect.
El Gordo @ 94 sez:
Oh, Gordo.
el gordo #94
Is that a new paper from Archibald or are you recycling this one:
[The worst climate science paper ever of all time anywhere](http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html)?
Drat, beaten to it by ChrisC.
Silly old skeptics are never skeptical when it comes to their own personal beliefs.
Shorter SamG: your use of a bare noun implies you used any adjective I say you did.
Shorter SamG: words mean what I say they mean, not what everyone else means by them.
Hey, I think we've discovered the root cause of the disagreement - unusual differences in common semantics! ;-)
Ah, yes, that will be confirmation.
Hmmm, that could be due to the ... er, rather eccentric use of English by SamG.
SamG @47
Can we stick to just one country? I've got a proposal due and responding to you is my form or procrastination. How about Australia (where I live)? I'm just going off the top of my head. I'm also assuming you meant an exclusive and (deal with the science of AGW _AND_ collect/collate raw data).
--Federal Government Agencies--
Murray Darling Basin Authority
Bureau of Meteorology
CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research
Geoscience Australia
Australian Antarctic Division
Australian Great Barrier Marine Park Authority
Australia and New Zealand Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (Paleo Climate stuff)
Australian Fisheries Research and Development Corporation
--Universities--
Australian National University (Climate Change Institute)
University of Tasmania (Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies)
University of New South Wales (Climate Change Research Centre)
University of Western Australia (Climate Change)
University of Melbourne (Earth Science)
Monash University (Department of Mathematical Sciences)
James Cook University (Centre For Tropical Biodiversity & Climate Change)
University of Queensland (Global Change Institute)
There are more (mostly state government departments)
Of those listed, none. The Bureau of Meteorology has data going back to 1858.
Well, there was this [guy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Allegations_of_censorship), who had his research covered up by government drones who did not like the results of his research. It was similar to [this](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24938572/) little brewhaha, in which dissent from scientists was censored by political appointments.
My English is a little rusty but I don't think 'personally' means 'specifically'.
It's a lovely piece of projective ju jitsu, but it doesn't work on this audience.
I find "denier" or "denialist" appropriate for those who claim to be "skeptics" but can't honestly and fairly state the case they're skeptical of, let alone the grounds from which their disagreement stems. (David Brin has a post or two where he develops a similar distinction.)
Almost everyone who self-proclaims "skepticism" will cite almost anything other than reasoned objections to a fairly-stated case for the mainstream scientific position.
Thus far SamG has presented no evidence on this thread to support the assertion that he's a genuine skeptic, but he has displayed behaviours endemic to "deniosaurs" (maybe that term will meet his connotative approval?)
Sorry, internet cut out.
Jeff
this is a political blog in that the majority of posters are opinionated rather than educated. Have another read through the thread. I am more than happy to peruse the other threads in order to back this up.
I don't buy the infallible scientist notion. I might admire your erudition but you are still a man with flaws and desires.
I find it inexcusable that a person of your standing partakes in name calling and then pretends to use the term 'denier' in its literal form.
By your own admission, you seem to abhor skeptics.
"Its just that I have no time for denialists."
"...out of whack you and the denialati are"
Are you telling me that this sort of talk doesn't appease that self gratifying intellectual in you?
Are you suggesting that with all this right wing, conservative political agenda-talk, you don't have an agenda yourself?
Surely you are a socialist, as most intellectuals indeed are?
R.E. blogs. I regularly see criticism of 'skeptic' blogs with little to no contribution by said commenters, yet the standard tone for pro AGW sites is vitriolic, accusatory and quite often censorial (real climate). Rarely does someone like Steve McIntyre or Jeff Id attack an opposing view with the same fervor as several advocacy blogs that I've visited. This really is an indictment on the current state of affairs.
As objectionable as the skeptic community may appear to you, I feel they have raised several relevant points that are conveniently brushed aside or bypassed by conventional wisdom.
I'm not so stupid to claim that AGW doesn't exist but it would be presumptuous to infer that it is an irrefutable fact; that it is settled science, that the advocacy are pure of intention.
Let's put this denier rubbish to rest before it incriminates you further.
SamG.
I'm very late to the party. In the time from my first reading of your nonsense, to being able to sit down and respond, the thread has bounded forward. I am nevertheless compelled to add my $2 x 10-2-worth to the commentary.
You're not the first to make such a puerile confabulation of different meanings ascribable to a non-modified word. There have been at least two people who have done so on Deltoid this year â [David Duff](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/abc_chairman_smears_journalist…) and [Suibhne](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/gerlich_and_tscheuschner_oh_my…) have also presented with righteous indignation.
The problem is, on this semantic point you and the others have no case. As [ChrisC](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/johann_hari_on_journalismgate.p…) notes above, the context of the term 'denier' on this blog is explicitly clear... except perhaps to those with a particular bent.
If you disagree, put your embarrassment aside and point me to a dictionary that specifically indicates where the words "[denier](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/denier)" or "[denialist](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/denialist)" are used in common parlance to refer only, or specifically, to the Holocaust.
Your efforts to merge two separate concepts on the basis of the use of a common word would seem to stem either from mendacity, from poor education, from paranoia, and/or from being the victim of a smear campaign that has been ticking long before you took such misplaced umbrage to the use of a an everyday term.
Congratulations on being yet another in a line of vocabularily-challenged denialists.
Oh, and your [fixation with arses and turgid penes](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/johann_hari_on_journalismgate.p…) might be deemed unhealthy. I suggest that you consider seeking help.
I really must repeat this. It is such a wonderful example of delusion.
As a member of the Denialati I can honestly say we are only interested in uncovering the scientific truth.
Or maybe I have grossly underestimated El Gordo's comedic talents?
Wikipedia comes in pretty useful hey Chris C ?
Dappledwater @ 73 the quote in 39 was direct from the paper @ 92 rather than skim the paper read it particularly the conclusion.
Sou at 75 you say 'i haven't read what Richard North said.' and @90 you call North 'a run of the mill conspiracy theorist.' Have you read anything of North's or are you basing your opinion on conjecture.
"If global warming really were a leftist plot to overthrow capitalism (I assume this is your reasoning, please tell me otherwise) they didn't do a very good job, did they?"
GW isn't a socialist plot to overthrow capitalism but most leftists have welcomed GW mitigating legislation with open arms, and why wouldn't they?
Contrary to this, many skeptics are politically centralist.
SamG, you might be more successful if you actually argued science here instead of attacking the scientists.
A quick Google reveals you're quite the fan of Christopher Monckton so, personally, I don't blame you for not arguing the science. You'd only get slaughtered.
SamG came up with this in a response to Jeff Harvey:
OK, it's now my turn to take umbrage, but with rather more validity that you ever had when you mounted your own high horse.
I am well acquainted with Jeff's use of the terms "denier" and "denialist", as I am with many others' use of the term on this blog and on others, and as I am with my own usage of these two words.
And let me tell you, you little streak of slime (sincere apologies to all mycetozoans), that none of us pretends to any other than the conventionally-accepted usage of the words. No-one here thinks of the Holocaust when using them, and no-one has any overt or covert intention for an implicit association with the Holocaust when using these words.
To say so is a grubby tactic on your behalf, and a breath-takingly hypocritical one, as you yourself are doing exactly what you accuse others of. No-one here wants to confuse global warming deniers with Holocaust deniers, but the fact that you seem hell-bent on creating the impression of such intention where none exists says a lot about either your own psychological pathologies, or about your lack of boundaries to what you will say in order to discredit those with whom you disagree.
Your mother must be so proud...
So then why have 97% of the climate scientists have it so wrong?
Science is not a left/right issue. It's only been turned into an issue by the oil funded right. I am a centrist, and I accept the science.
Oh, LOL:
SamG says:
Yes the hubris from the likes of Phil Jones is quite annoying.
So SamG does think global warming is a plot invented by the left to destroy capitalism:
I am shocked - shocked! - that a denier would lie to me.
Gordo,
You are a member of the denialati only by your own admission. You clearly have no expertise and do not understand the basics of the field of climate science so its clear to me that your interest in the field is ideological rather than scientific.
By 'denialati' I am referring to some of those scientists who partake in denial. It is hardly a coincidence that many of these people are linked with libertarian think tanks and astroturf lobbying gropups funded by polluting industries anxious to maintain the status quo. If these people had a shred of integrity they would steer clear of these groups and the 'conferences' they sponsor by a country mile. The fact that they don't is pretty good evidence to me that they are promoting a political rather than a scientific agenda.
So its rich for the likes of SamG to wade in here throwing his weight around as if has a monopoly on wisdom. Its time SG took off his self-imposed blinkers. Many of those in the denial camp - I more appropriately refer to them as anti-environmentalists because they are cut from the same cloth - do little in the way of original empirical research but take exisiting studies and distort their conclusions. They spend a lot of their time endlessly hounding scientists (the ones who are doing actual research), and then mangling up the conclusions of their studies. Moreover, SG seems to suggest that the denialti are a puritanical bunch who are tirelessly seeking the truth but who are confronted by a baying horde of scientists who are pushing some sort of world government on the basis of a left-wing communist manifesto. Isn't that it SG? is not this the gist of your b*s arguments that contain nothing in the way of science?
What the hell do you think the corporate-funded think tanks are doing and the web sites they sponsor? I have spoken at a number of universities over the past 10 years in which I describe the broadly right wing agenda that motivates (and unifies) those who want to eviscerate the role of the government in the economy in pursuit of private profit. As a population ecologist, its clear to me that our species is headed in the wrong direction. Climate change constitutes one of several serious anthropogenic threats on complex adaptive systems that sustain humanity through the delivery of an array of regulating services. In defending science (for that is what I am doing), people like you accuse me of left wing bias, of being a socialist etc., when in reality my objective is - and has always been - to defend what in my opinion is pretty solid empirical evidence. All of the most important indicators of environmental quality are in decline. Deep rich agricultural soils that take centuries to be generated and maintained are being degraded in decades. Fossil age goundwater supplies are in terminal decline. And most importantly of all, biodiversity - the working parts of our global ecological life support systems - is being extinguished at rates unseen in 65 million years. Certainly these processes are not all due to climate change, but AGW constitutes an important part of the mix in a planet that has already been greatly simplified by man.
I am in no way ashamed to use the term 'denier' to describe those whom I strongly believe do not give a rat's ass about science but who are using it as a tool to aggressively promote a pre-determined world view. I have to put up with innane comments from the likes of Gordo who spends too much of his time gleaning his information from web sites and too little from reading (and understanding) the empirical literature. Just today I had to refute one of his latest ridiculous assertions - that mankind will be better off in a warming world on the basis of an wretched article written by someone who is linked to several right wing think tanks in the United States and who has no pedigree whatsoever in environmental science. I have been doing this for the past several years on Deltoid. Every time some ludicrous argument comes up here, I feel that it is my job to counter it, otherwise there are some uninitiated readers who might end up believeing some of the trash that ends up here. As it turns out, it is not the absolute temperature that matters but the rate of change over local and global scales and how natural systems will respond to this that is important. The 'expert' Gordo cited did not begin to discuss this because they do not understand it and because it does not fit their narrative.
SamG, you can write whatever nonsense you like, but do not expect me and others to have to swallow it. I never said that scientists were infallible. But some appear more infallible than others. It is many of these who I am most critical of, who IMHO do not appear to care about scientific 'truth'. As I said earlier, truth is an elusive concept in science; my belief is that many - not all, but many - of those denying the existence or importance of climate change are pursuing their own agendas.
More SamG lies exposed on Nova...
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/monckton-plimer-tour-australia-dates-v… (comment 142)
The straw men are thick on the ground tonight.
The mind readers are too.
And the concern trolls. What is this, a full moon or something?! Must be a hell of party out there!
Yes, they don't tolerate dissenting comments at RealClimate. That's why I see them on every thread I look at.
Oh, wait, that didn't come out right. Er, maybe that should be that censoring on "skeptic" blogs is a well-known phenomenon.
Oh, dearie me, that doesn't seem to be right either. Quick, let's move on to some other charge.
Maybe it's because they go in for dog-whistling to their audiences and letting the mob do the dirty work? Maybe because they rarely have science or facts or evidence on their side? I actually don't know. I'm not a mind-reader.
>*Contrary to this, many skeptics are politically centralist.*
Where does he get his facts we might wonder?
Sam do respondents get to self identify as centrist in your survey?
You are of course referring to a published survey Sam?
el gordo said "As a member of the Denialati I can honestly say we are only interested in uncovering the scientific truth."
then TrueSceptic"Or maybe I have grossly underestimated El Gordo's comedic talents?
as funny as Andrew Dice Clay, and successful
So further perusal of the Nova threads shows that SamG's "skepticism" is driven by his Libertarian fear that "the left" are using "global warming nonesense" to tear down society.
Nowhere have I seen him put forward a scientific argument for anything.
John @111 gets my vote.
...which is grimly ironic, given that one would think that conserving the climate and ecosystem our societies are heavily adapted to would be a core conservative value.
But then "conservative" in the US and Australia these days often means little more than "let business do what it wants and don't change anything else if you can help it".
And the double irony is that any businessman with an ounce of interest in the long term viability of his business should be considering what the impacts of climate change and ecosystem degradation will be on his business - both directly, and indirectly through changes inflicted on his population of potential and actual customers.
Maybe that's why The Economist is providing reasonable representations of the science rather than a caricature to mislead the gullible. But at this rate they'll corner the market...
Sam, earlier you said AGW had a modicum of truth, I asked which bit. Care to now answer my question? Or do you only bluster?
Jakerman, Sam doesn't understand the science so he sticks closely to whatever his humble hero McIntyre has to say on the subject.
Lotharsson makes a good point, The right (formerly conservatives) could have made mitigation of AGW one of their issues. They handed the science into the lap of the centrists and the Left when they abdicated their brains to their ideology.
John I see, so the truth bit is whatever McI tell Sam it is?
Unempirical evidence suggests that "SamG" is the old "Mighty Matt".
Either way, same puppeteers different socks.
People may not like being noted as deniers, but denialism is now an established term. Google scholar has lots of refs on it, notably this paper: Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?, which lists five main features of denialism. It's much more fun though to read the full Denialists' Deck of Cards.
Climate change denialism seems to have its own bottom line: there is not good reason to significantly reduce fossil fuel profits or change our ways.
John, do get the sense of Déjà vu, sub smarmy over confident (yet utterly empty) comments from Brent for Sam. Then John does your thing and show what is behind the curtain.
Prestow, another pimply little Oz.
SamG, so let's leave the politics out of it.
I just want to know what your opinion on the science is. You know - the collection of data from all over the world by different agencies which shows anomalous warming temperatures which cannot yet be successfully explained by solar activity or any other regular natural process, and which seemingly can be explained by rising concentrations of greenhouse gas for which there is only one known primary contributing cause at present - that being human/industrial emissions.
Which part of all that do you find scientifically challengeable? And how/why?
BTW Sam, most "sceptics" (by their own definition) I know are well to the Right politically. I work in an occupation dominated by male conservatives, predominantly older but also young conservatives too. Almost every time I hear global warming mentioned it is accompanied by a conspiracy theory, remarks about how you can't trust science in general, and frequently by how much they despise Al Gore and the Left (even though I live in Australia!).
What I occasionally have fun with is asking them a couple of simple science-based questions like "what do you think the solar cycle is doing at the moment?" or "how do you think temperature anomalies are calculated?", to which the answer is invariably completely wrong, or they just admit to not having have the faintest clue.
I can't speak for anyone else, but in my line of work that's how it usually goes, and those making the "sceptical" arguments invariably have almost no idea what they're talking about scientifically, but sure as hell have strong political opinions.
If they were true sceptics, they would've carefully studied the scientific arguments on both sides, and would lean towards the weight of evidence. But they don't.
Yep, I'm being evasive when I say that my useage of a word is what I said it was, not what you said it was.
That's right, pure evasion by sticking to a single topic and responding to things someone says. Aren't I a clever boy?
Somewhat late but I think this is a very silly semantic game. Refuting science based on nothing more than "those evil scientists are wrong" is the hallmark of denialism. For more on what makes them tick see http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2010/04/delusional-disorder-part-ii…
Just had to pick out this from SamG.
Surely you are a socialist, as most intellectuals indeed are?
and therefore...what? That stupid people are more likely to be right-wing?
*If they were true sceptics, they would've carefully studied the scientific arguments on both sides, and would lean towards the weight of evidence. But they don't*
Mike, you nailed it. Many of those who claim to be sceptics know little of the underlying science, yet proclaim wisdom on the subject of climate change. The truth is scientists are all 'sceptical' or are supposed to be. Speaking as a scientist, I am sceptical when I read new theories challenging the conventional wisdom in my field (population and evolutionary ecology). I am not a climate scientist, but I respect the expertise of those who have worked in this field for many years, and with the fact that the vast majority of statured climate scientists agree that human activities are forcing climate. Certainly, there are a few scientists with expertise in the field who are genuinely sceptical on scientific grounds. But there are very many IMHO who are actual denialists and will never change their position no matter how much the empirical data proves them to be wrong. And many of these - the denialati - have little or no expertise in the field of climate science.
Look at it this way. Twenty years ago the idea of climate change driven by human activities was seen as a 'doomsday myth' and was dismissed by many of the so-called sceptics. Then, as the evidence grew showing that humans were driving climate both regionally and globally, the so-called sceptics moved the goalposts. While accepting the warming, it was suddenly 'natural' and well within 'normal' boundaries. Then, following the publication of the IPCC documents, which are hardly extreme but which provided more support for AGW, many of the so-called sceptics started hounding scientists for their data sets, coming up with all kinds of conspiracy theories that they were being excluded from the mainstream for purely political reasons. Sustained attacks have been made on the integrity of many scientists. At the same time, some of the so-called sceptics began to accept that humans are at least partially responsible for the warming, but then they argued that the warming is 'good for us' and that we should certainly not limit greenhouse gas emissions. It should also be pointed out that many of those arguing that the warming is natural do little or none of their owen research; instead, they set up web sites where they 'audit' the work of others, attempting to find out any mistakes or loopholes in the data sets. The reason they do this should be obvious: they are trying to find errors in order to downplay the human fingerprint in the current warming. They are not in my opinion honest brokers seeking the truth, but instead aim at undermining the broad consensus that exists in the scientific community on the subject for their own purely political reasons. If they weren't they would get off of their backsides and do their own research. But few of the so-called sceptics do.
All along many of the so-called sceptics have also openly linked themselves with polluting industries or corporate funded right wing think tanks who abhor regulations that may limit their profit-making capacity. As I said before, you think they would steer well clear of these agenda-driven bodiues but the fact that they don't should ring alarm bells.
Why the use of the word 'denialist' to describe many of the climate change 'sceptics' riles them so much is amusing. The truth hurts.
Good grief. SamG is not just anti-socialist, he's also anti-intellectual.
Quite a few concern trolls we are having these days...
I think 'denialist', 'denier' etc are very apt.
I think 'denialist', 'denier' etc are very apt.
Personally, I prefer "tinfoil-hatter".
Golly Sam, I must apologise for missing your comment @45 last night. Though perhaps it's good I did as I probably would've choked on my dinner.
A "few"?????? Yeah sure, only a "few" have made the news headlines but do you have even the foggiest idea how many scientists at how many universities and research institutes are involved directly and indirectly with piecing together what we know about climate/planetary/earth science? You can get an idea by looking some of this stuff up you know. Go and read Chris C's post @103 for just the Australian examples alone, and note that he doesn't even attempt to list the individuals at each of those institutions who are involved, as the list would get ridiculously long.
Oh I get it. It's all about the Government paying for the research? So have your intrepid few "sceptics" smashed the public cancer research institutes' "house of cards" all around the world yet? Surely all their science is tainted by their efforts to get further research grants isn't it? Perhaps they already have a cure but are hiding it for fear of losing research money? Can't wait for your boys to expose that one.
Can you even conceptualise how bloody irritatingly stupid most of your comment @45 sounds?
#30:
#31:
#38:
I wouldn't object to the original contention and I wouldn't apologize for it. While I may not believe that AGW, per se, will directly result in human extinction, I do believe that it will contribute to the synergistic interaction of environmental insults that will drive humans extinct, along with a significant portion of the Earth's biotia, over the course of decades to a few centuries. That is, over a time frame that would appear instantaneous in the fossil record.
Allen McMahon - @ 109 - it's clear I have read the paper and you haven't. Your quotations don't appear in it, and definitely not in the concluding remarks, but these are:
"Among the many factors that determine the interannual climate variability in South America, ENSO plays a major role in many regions. Studies of ENSO-related rainfall anomalies at a global scale indicate that the El Niño episodes are typically associated with below normal rainfall and warmer than normal conditions in the northern part of South America, as well as anomalously wet conditions in the southeastern portion of the continent and central Chile."
"Decadal and interdecadal variability is also evident in many records across the continent, and possibly forced by the Paciï¬c Decadal Oscillation (PDO). PDO-related anomalies of precipitation and temperature over South America have a spatial structure similar to those related to ENSO, but with smaller amplitude. In particular, a prominent âclimate shiftâ around the mid 70s, evident in many hydro-meteorological variables, is consistent with the change in polarity of the PDO (from cold to warm). The differences in mean climate before and after the shift can't be exclusively attributed to the PDO variability because El Niño events have also became more frequent and intense in the 80s and 90s comparedwith the previous three decades"
Now what exactly in the paper do you think counters Nepstad's work?. I would suggest you toddle off and have a read, rather than repeating stuff you read on a blog somewhere. .
Truth machine. The burden of truth lies with you. Why do I have to disprove your theory?
I didn't ask you to disprove a theory, moron. It's one thing to be as stupid and ill-informed as you are, but that would be cause for humility, not your immense arrogance.
Samg @ 105: Out of curiosty SamG, you say you dont like name calling & dont like the term denier. Do you have a problem with the terms "alarmist", "warmist", "catastrophist"? Can you point us to one of the denier blogs you participate in where you have berated other denier commenters for name calling?...........crickets. I'm thinking your A Okay with that.
SamG @ 111: "Contrary to this, many skeptics are politically centralist." Sam, I nearly choked when I saw such dribble. Successive polls from all around the world have shown that denialism is overwhelmingly a conservative phenomenon. They feel it is their duty to oppose anything they perceive the left is standing for, which as you say:
" most leftists have welcomed GW mitigating legislation with open arms, and why wouldn't they?"
So naturally, a conservative feels the need to oppose for oppositions sake, as there is no science you have to back them.
Samg @ 105: Out of curiosty SamG, you say you dont like name calling & dont like the term denier. Do you have a problem with the terms "alarmist", "warmist", "catastrophist"? Can you point us to one of the denier blogs you participate in where you have berated other denier commenters for name calling?...........crickets. I'm thinking your A Okay with that.
SamG @ 111: "Contrary to this, many skeptics are politically centralist." Sam, I nearly choked when I saw such dribble. Successive polls from all around the world have shown that denialism is overwhelmingly a conservative phenomenon. They feel it is their duty to oppose anything they perceive the left is standing for, which as you say:
" most leftists have welcomed GW mitigating legislation with open arms, and why wouldn't they?"
So naturally, a conservative feels the need to oppose for oppositions sake, as there is no science you have to back them.
Jeff, you may be a scientist but you're behaving like an imbecile.
Oh the irony. You actually are an imbecile, and a fine example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
you consider their opinions meritorious. Why?
Because they are logical and comport with the facts, presumably. When they don't, or Jeff thinks they don't, then he doesn't consider them meritorious -- as just happened with ligne, a fine counterexample to your stupid and intellectually dishonest assertions.
Because you value consensus, not science.
You are a clueless git. There was once a dispute in science between proponents of the Big Bang and proponents of the Steady State theory, but eventually consensus was reached around the Big Bang theory and the Steady State theory was abandoned. That is because of the evidence and the science -- the arguments of the Steady State theorists were answered and they could not explain the evidence within their theory. The same is true of evolution, relativity, QM, the germ theory of disease -- there is now consensus that obstetricians washing their hands saves lives, but there wasn't always -- and so on. Consensus in science generally forms around that which the evidence and the research supports, and not around that which it does not -- as one (with a modicum of intelligence) would expect. Thus scientific consensus on a theory or claim is strong evidence that the theory or claim is supported by the science. The same is true in mathematics; the fact that there is consensus among mathematicians that Fermat's Last Theorem, the Four-Color Theorem, etc. have been proven is strong evidence that the proofs are valid, even for those of us who have not examined and/or are unable to follow the proofs. One (lacking modicum of intelligence) might mistake this for a fallacious argument from authority, but it is not -- such a fallacy is the assertion that something is true merely because some authority says it. But here, those most knowledgeable about the subject have looked hard at the claims and have not found an error. To deny the claim in that case requires positing -- without evidence or logic -- a massive conspiracy.
Jeff this is a political blog in that the majority of posters are opinionated rather than educated.
BWAHAHAHA!!! No, the majority of posters are not hypocritical moron ignoramuses like yourself.
it would be presumptuous to infer that it is an irrefutable fact; that it is settled science
Strawman, you scientifically illiterate cretin. It is not irrefutable, but it is settled science.
GW isn't a socialist plot to overthrow capitalism but most leftists have welcomed GW mitigating legislation with open arms, and why wouldn't they?
Contrary to this, many skeptics are politically centralist.
As I said, your (political) agenda is transparent to intelligent people.
Wikipedia comes in pretty useful hey Chris C ?
Of course; it's part of the socialist plot.
I am shocked - shocked! - that a denier would lie to me.
Funny how, when you dig, they look so much alike; SamG could be Brent's clone.
Now that the sack of putrid lying shit that calls itself "SamG" has been unmasked, do you suppose it will have the gumption to show up here again?
Jeff Harvey,
Your are at it again! There's this huge conspiracy of corporations, think tanks and independently minded individuals who don't necessarily accept your view of things and its not fair.
Cool story, bro.
I was going to observe that this thread had gotten a bit off track - it began as a commentary on poor science reporting in newspapers, I think - but then dmabus posted, and I'm having serious difficulty in stopping the hiccups that resulted from laughing hysterically.
And I thought SamG was a tool ...
completely off-topic:
Roy Spencer is promoting his new book with the appropriate word ["BLUNDER"](http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/04/the-great-global-warming-blunder-ho…) in the headline.
among a lot of nonsense, he brings up this gem:
And I predict that the proposed cure for global warming â reducing greenhouse gas emissions â will someday seem as outdated as using leeches to cure human illnesses.
why would he make such an idiotic claim, right at the time when [medicinal leech therapy](http://scholar.google.de/scholar?hl=en&q=medicinal+leech+therapy&btnG=S…) is making a massive comeback?
Your's, sir, is truly a stellar intellect.
and sorry again, but for pure comedy, this is how the Spencer article ends on his [blog:](http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/04/the-great-global-warming-blunder-ho…)
To the contrary â I am hoping the debate will finally begin.
Comments are closed.
let the debate begin. comments are close. priceless.
Yeah, dmabus makes you wonder, doesn't he?
Poor science reporting on CC in the lame stream media is not novel and has been happening for more than two decades.
The journalists are untrained in science and so rehash the press release. The editor is breathing down his neck, so he has little time to even question the relevance of AGW or the outside possibility that a sceptic scientist deserves a say.
Journalism courses these days are primarily concerned with PR.
153 dmabus,
Err...sure...would you like a glass of water or something? Could you point the gun at the ground, because, you know, it makes me so nervous when you wave it around like that.
And Randi's over [that way](http://www.randi.org/site/). He's not here, and neither are the others.
>Yeah, dmabus makes you wonder, doesn't he?
Not only that, but dmabus also makes the case for ScienceBlogs having a universal killfile (unless there already is one, and he has circumvented it).
I read the article.
It sounded as if it were written by a twelve year old.
I'm quite prepared to discuss it further if you can refrain from evasiveness and ad homs.
In the interim, feel free to tell me how many of you are scientists.
163 SamG,
Are you really? How very kind of you! Some of us realise that discussing anything with you is a waste of time and effort.
Lotharsson, TrueSceptic, silkworm
thanks for confirming your bias and therefore providing me an agenda. I do realize that you view the left altruistically.
I'll be back later.
Dave Andrews (continuing his personal fixation with Jeff) writes:
>*Your are at it again! There's this huge conspiracy of corporations, think tanks and independently minded individuals who don't necessarily accept your view of things and its not fair.*
Did Jeff go into a baseless conspiracy theory rant, filling in his gaps in knowledge with fantasy?
No it just another typical Dave Andrews weasel spin, you can't trust what he says about any source he quotes.
What Jeff actually said:
>*many of the so-called sceptics have also openly linked themselves with polluting industries or corporate funded right wing think tanks who abhor regulations that may limit their profit-making capacity.*
The facts are facts Dave. But thanks for your typical weasel spinning slant.
TrueSkeptic -scientist? Just interested.
got to go...
SamG that's not your last scrap dignity your trying to cling to, that is confirmation that you've just served up.
Tim
I thought Deltoid was a science blog but, having read through168 posting, there appears to be more drivel than science. If SamG and responses to his inane views were exclude, there might have been more debate on the subject matter - Journalismgate.
I'm quite prepared to discuss it further if you can refrain from evasiveness and ad homs.
That itself is an evasion, asswipe. And you're too stupid to understand the difference between an insult and an ad hominem fallacy.
In the interim, feel free to tell me how many of you are scientists.
Talk about ad hominem! We're still waiting for you to provide any evidence in support of your views.
Kitchen table scientists, the sort of people who think an early Spring is climate and a late Spring is just weather.
Talking about the weather, the second half of the 20th century saw Siberia winter warming and the warmists were overjoyed. No doubt the children of the gulag were also quite happy.
This past winter was one of the harshest on record in Siberia, so what happened?
It seems the Arctic Oscillation had its largest negative excursion since the beginning of observations in 1900, yet the net effect on the global mean temperature was close to zero.
It has been speculated that the cold air brought south to Siberia, Europe and the eastern US was compensated by warm air going north into other regions, but I can't confirm this.
I thought Deltoid was a science blog but, having read through168 posting, there appears to be more drivel than science. If SamG and responses to his inane views were exclude, there might have been more debate on the subject matter - Journalismgate.
You could always address the subject matter rather than whine.
Yeah, dmabus makes you wonder, doesn't he?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/plonk.php
"The denialists cannot and never will win the scientific argument, but that has never been their aim. Their aim is to render any action to deal with climate change mute. To do this all they have to do is to shed enough doubt on the process, and it is in this area where their well-funded PR apparatus has been very successful. But do not humor me by claiming that the debate on climate change is about science. It is not and never has been for most of those in the denial camp. "
I think this comment from Jeff Harvey should be posted as a sticky on EVERY climate change science blog to remind us all not to elevate the SAMGs and ElGordos of the world.
By engaging them in this manner gives them legitimancy however vicarious that legitamancy may be. As you know I have participated in my small way in many such debates however I have recently given it up mostly because most of the time we engage the deniers on a science level which should be enough, however we are bringing a knife to a gun fight most of the time.
The well funded PR campaigns will continue to use the same tactics of the Swift Boat crew that, for instance, managed to get a draft dodging layabout elected the president of the free world over an actual decorated combat veteran. Do you think that anything climate scientists can do can compete with a machine of this power?
As far as I am concerned the climate debate is over. The climate will go on changing and the climate scientists will go on researching it and the denialist machine will go on picking at the edges finding factoids to impress the ignorant. We really either need to focus on solutions or find a quite corner of the world and see what happens.
IMHO we need to stop sniping at the denialists and simply ignore them because they have no real power or influence save what we give them.
El Gordo
Instead of parading your ignorance for all to see, why don't you [look](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2010&mon…) [it](http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/201002_coldsnap/) [up](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/2009-temperatures…)?
What's that Mark Twain quote about being better to keep your mouth shut and by thought a fool than opening your mouth and removing all doubt?
Edner makes a good point:
>"The denialists cannot and never will win the scientific argument, but that has never been their aim. Their aim is to render any action to deal with climate change mute. To do this all they have to do is to shed enough doubt on the process, and it is in this area where their well-funded PR apparatus has been very successful. But do not humor me by claiming that the debate on climate change is about science. It is not and never has been for most of those in the denial camp."
(JH)
Stephen @ #173: Some trolls like SamG will just change tack or simply attack back when challenged ([here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/johann_hari_on_journalismgate.p…), and [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/johann_hari_on_journalismgate.p…)) rather than back up their claims with any kind of logic or evidence. He is reminiscent of the troll to beat all trolls, Graeme Bird, even down to his getting personal with the abuse.
David @ #42: After reading the ensuing sewarage coming out of SamG's mouth and noticing his tactics, I must indeed apologise for my criticism of you, as it was completely undeserved :P
Apart from the fact that wasn't a particularly fair representation of the original comment - the objection was not on the basis of "not accepting my views" but "denying the actual scientific evidence"...
...what if Dave Andrews' comment had been made in the context of the tobacco health impact "debate", at the time when the scientists almost all said "yep, evidence says it's very likely bad for you" and the tobacco companies and faux scientific institutes and think tanks and hired PR firms said "there's room for doubt and you shouldn't stifle business until you're absolutely CERTAIN they're causing harm", would that comment have been justified?
Given that we now have the "Tobacco Papers" showing the scientists WORKING FOR the tobacco companies knew full well that tobacco was harmful - and their corporate management were fully aware of it - even as the PR doubt machine was claiming "the evidence isn't strong enough and more research is needed", then yes - EVEN Dave Andrews' (presumably sarcastic) paraphrase would be considered entirely correct.
Nowadays we have a number of the same PR companies, faux scientific institutes and think tanks - even some of the same "scientists" - who mounted a deception campaign on behalf of Big Tobacco apparently doing the same on AGW science, using much the same methods.
Could they be right this time? Technically they could, but the chances are minute. And that's just on the strength and breadth of the evidence for AGW and the totally unconvincing "science" the "skeptics" have been reduced to spruiking the last decade or so. If you factor in that the very same methods of selling doubt have been used in any number of public policy areas where science has a key input over the last few decades, it gets close enough to zero to adopt an operating assumption that their "skepticism" is just not going to turn out to be grounded in fact.
Nicely summarised Lotharsson.
@172.
WTF is it with Canadians? I know a whole bunch of really good Canadians, but why is it that we see their worst examples of humanity on blogs about climate science?
Lotharsson said:
I beg to differ. There is no possibility, not even a minute one, of them "being right" because
a) the "doubt" that attends the basic science is the purely epistemic one that all science allows. We can't possibly model everything that could be relevant because we can't know what is relevant without modelling it all -- so we have a bootstrapping problem. Our notions of causality may be flawed, but if so then it is not merely AGW that is in question but all of observable reality. The deniers would face the same problem -- epistemic doubt and thus fall below the level of certitude they proclaim as the sine qua non of science a.k.a truth. Paradoxically they also claim that "skepticism" is the heart of science, and clearly at least one of these has to be wrong.
b) They don't have a coherent alternative theory. Any notionally conceivable set of observable phenomena would prove almost all of them to be wrong, just as it does now. To have a chance of being right, they have to actually propose something falsifiable, but of course they simply string together sets of "alternative theories of the crime" none of which can exist in the same universe as each other and all of which presume facts not in evidence (or contrary to evidence)
Ultimately their bedrock position amounts to a form of epistemic nihilism -- the world is unknowable and models are worthless -- and their constant demand -- gather more evidence (which they will then derogate as more evidence of a conspiracy or fraud) -- is simply the demand to do nothing bundled up in a misleading package. One might wonder why, if the world were unknowable and models worthless, why attempting to gatyher data would serve any purpose. That's another thought they fail to address.
SamG, like all trolls, wanted to score a win over the forces in favour of evidence-based mitigation. His object was to nuke the thread by making it all about him. The best way to do that is to throw out easily debunked nonsense with specious reasoning confident in the knowledge that all his targets would have what for them was an easy comeback. The holocaust denier trope was much the easiest, fllowed by "socialism". That's as good a guarantee of success in this place as you can have and it is a measure of just how comprehensively mugged by reality the deniers are that this is the best they have.
SamG would make an excellent science journalist at the Daily Bugle or in my home country, "The Australian". He has a real flair for it, if the prolific posting on this thread is anything to go by. And has the right slant so desired by the MSN.
To help SamG along a bit in differentiating between sceptical and denial as it relates to climate science, a quick test is whether you read the primary literature in the scientific journals for the science, or whether you stick to blogs and their links as the primary source of your information. Have you read lots of books from both the leading climate scientists and the leading sceptics/deniers, and played devil's advocate with their arguments, to see if their claims stack up?
If you have i) stuck to blogs; and, ii) mainly read books from one camp, then you are firmly in denial territory.
Thanks tim for the links to Johann Hari's articles.
PS: We've now got "Denier" Deniers. The reject the label that their own words tar them with.
PPS: I s'pose it's a bit too late to call "Godwin's Law" on the samG mini-thread?
'IMHO we need to stop sniping at the denialists and simply ignore them because they have no real power or influence save what we give them.'
For gawd's sake, the Judas goat serves a purpose.
"The bottom line is this: there is no global cooling trend," Hansen wrote in his 2009 temperature analysis. "For the time being, until humanity brings its greenhouse gas emissions under control, we can expect each decade to be warmer than the preceding one."
Now that's what I call delusional.
So...on past performance, odds are better than even that it's accurate ;-)
Of course, each decade has been warmer than the preceding one, implying that what is right is for El Gordo, "delusional" and what, presumably by elimination, what is not right is insight.
That's a pretty fair solution to the cryptic stuff El Gordo posts.
Tell you what we'll do, SamG. You give us one scientific reason that the climate has a low sensitivity to anthropogenic Co2 (this is your argument after all) and we'll let you off the hook.
Just one!
Now that's what I call delusional.
Please identify the last decade that wasn't warmer than the preceding one.
Lotharsson and Fran,
we've managed to ascertain that El Gordo thinks
>...we can expect a temperature drop of 1.5 C over the coming decade. I call that 'abrupt climate change'...
this, despite his reluctance to answer the question of 'global cooling: when and how much?' in open threads 45 and 46.
This amount of cooling would result in by far the coldest years in the instrument (and satellite) record. I look forward to seeing it not happen, I'll try and remember this and have a little private chuckle at El Chubster in 2020.
Nitpick (@176):
What's coming out of his mouth, metaphorically, is sewage.
The sewerage would be his mouth.
187: Indeed, I should watch more closely what comes out of my fingertips if I want to call somebody's mouth a cesspit :)
Lotharsson said:
No Lotharsson. They could not be right. There is not even a remote or minute chance of them being right for reasons that have been discussed to death here.
The kind of "doubt" that exists about the basic science is purely notional. It is the basic bootstrapping problem that any attempt to infer causality entails. This epistemic doubt applies to any counter-claim including the myriad and mutually incompatible counter-claims made by deniers. Citing this doubt against AGW is essentially an exercise in epistemic nihilism -- because we can't know everything and model it, refuting everything else -- we can't know anything. Of course, if we can't know anything then we can't know they are right -- so they aren't.
One might well wonder what the point of gathering new data might be to an epistemic nihilist. The answer is simple at least in this case. It is the demand for policy delay hidden in a package that is marked "scientific rigour". Perhaps it should be called scientific rigormortis.
It is testimony to how badly mugged by reality the deniers have become that engaging in silly trolling exercises aimed at nuking discussion such as SamG has done above is the only way they can ease their pain. To give them their credit, they know the rules of their game very well. Make a claims which is overtly specious and for which there are several well worn responses -- deniers = holocaust; AGW socialists etc -- and wait for everyone to respond in the time-honoured way. It doesn't prove anything but in their minds at least a small battle has been won for their side of the culture wars.
We of course get something out of responding, otherwise this tactic wouldn't work. Really we ought to treat such posts with the contempt they deserve, ignore them and stay on topic, but as I've said at least once before, it's like getting a mosquito bite. You know you shouldn't scratch but the immediate satisfaction trumps the knowledge that in the long run you are only making it worse. I'm at least as guilty as anyone of this so this isn't a shot at any who have responded, but in a broader sense I wish we wouldn't.
I'll certainly pay that description. It's definitely *not* a demand to make the best decisions based on what we know and how well we know it; it's an attempt to prevent decision making from occurring for spurious reasons.
I think this should see wider usage:
Would rigour mortis un-scientific add anything to it, given that it can be seen as an appeal to "un-science", the fine art of pretending the science isn't what it is?
Lotharsson asked:
No, it is best to keep it pithy and uncontrived. Noting that what the deniers call for entails the death of science inquiry and it becoming a stiffened corpse does it pretty well. Since the breakdown of respiration triggers the chemical sequence leading to rigormortis, the fact that the deniers propose allowing an asphyxiating gas to accumulate makes this term rather apt.
Yawn
The resident scientist here says
'You are a member of the denialati only by your own admission. You clearly have no expertise and do not understand the basics of the field of climate science so its clear to me that your interest in the field is ideological rather than scientific.'
I want to know what differentiates most participants here from those at skeptic blogs, in light of the fact that almost none of you have any expertise or scientific training.
Answer the question. Are you scientists and if not, what validates your opinions above those of the skeptics?
Again, cowardly use of the term 'denier' is grammatically incorrect if you can not provide unequivocal proof that the science is settled -which you can not.
Further still, how many posters here, who are not scientists; advocate socialism?
It's a pretty simple ask.
We can get to the science later.
So far this thread has ticked all the right boxes for me.
Good to see SamG still desperately trolling away.
But I'll bite anyway - in the lack of any scientific training or understanding, on what basis could you possibly accept the rantings of the denialati over the lay-person representation of, and referencing to, the current scientific understanding?
SamG displays the common thread that runs between Denialism and antisocialism.
Presumably SamG doesn't use public roads, the post office, public transport nor the court system.
Nor public education.
Presumably, SamG would like to see the border guards removed from the Mexican border. And the air marshalls removed from airlines. And the US Corps of Engineers stopped from building levees and tidal barriers.
Actually, I have no idea what right-wing nutjobs are talking about when they start braying about "socialism".
Presumably they have no idea either.
SamG,
You are quite happy to call people 'imbeciles' and then get all huffy when I criticize many of the contrarians by what I feel is appropriately calling them 'denialists'. If you can't stand the heat...
Next, your absurd argument that those defending science advocate socialism is a smokescreen. I advocate social justice and environmental sustainability. If that makes me a 'socialist' then so be it.
Finally, what differentiates the posters here from those of the contrarian blogs is that most of the posters here recognize the broad scientific consensus on the subject of climate change that is multi-disciplinary. The fact is that there are truly very few statured scientists who are contrarians, or as I prefer to call many of them denialists. This means that IMHO those who are not scientists who support the anti-AGW brigade must be driven by some alterior ideological motive; after all, what imbues them with the scientific wisdom that has eluded the vast majority of climate scientists? You cannot back up your assertion that many who are political centrists are contrarians, and that is because the vast majority of contrarians fit snugly into the far right.
As I said earlier, and if you bothered to read, I am not a climate scientist, but I respect my peers in that field of endeavor, the majority of whom are in broad agreement that the major contemporary forcing of climate is anthropogenic. I have spoken with a number of climate scientists at universities, conferences and workshops and I defer to their opinions in a field in which they are the experts. I am much more suspect of the motives of scientists in other fields who are contrarians, and especially those who affiliate themselves with corporate funded think tanks. I am even more suspect of the motives non-scientists who support the denialists. When I read comments from the likes of Gordo and his ilk, the Dunning-Kruger warning lights start flashing.
I am quite happy for you to believe whatever you want to. If you want to think that the tooth fairy exists, then good for you. But do not expect the scientific community at large to take it seriously. We don't.
Swedish television reacently have done a good job on this... here is hoping that other will follow!
http://uppsalainitiativet.blogspot.com/2010/04/swedish-television-goes-…
Vince. You did not answer my question.
Evasive
@SamG
Yawnsome. Coming here with time-wasting demands for information, while refusing to answer any questions directed at yourself.
> Again, cowardly use of the term 'denier' is grammatically incorrect if you can not provide unequivocal proof that the science is settled -which you can not.
What does grammar have to do with evidence? You're seriously confused.
@SamG
Which part of AGW is true?
Evasive.
I can't answer your stupid questions SamG, as you have no authority to pose them to me.
Furthermore, the "ardent religious-like qualities of the advocacy" you display through bizarre assertions such as "Totalitarianism is always cloaked by altruistic causes" and other such feats of intellectual pygmicity means I'm pretty much going to limit myself to farting in your general direction.
"almost none of you have any expertise or scientific training."
you can have scientific training while not being a scientist.
"use of the term 'denier' is grammatically incorrect if you can not provide unequivocal proof that the science is settled"
uh, *grammatically* incorrect? not sure that was the word you were looking for there.
incidentally, see how i can pick up on your misuse of language, despite not being an author?
"how many posters here, who are not scientists; advocate socialism?"
oi! i'm a First International Libertarian Titoist, not one of those soft "socialists" of which you speak. get your terminology right!
"We can get to the science later."
how about we get to it now? how about you tell us about the masses of evidence you clearly have, that can blow AGW (and 200 years of radiative physics into the bargain) out of the water?
you complain about there not being enough science on this blog, but you've dodged every attempt by the other posters to talk about science. why is that?
"So far this thread has ticked all the right boxes for me."
hey, me too! you made an otherwise boring day yesterday not only bearable, but actually quite enjoyable. thanks for being such a great [lol-cow](http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Lol-cow).
by the way, i notice you've just made a number of posts, without once mentioning boners. well done; it must have been very hard for you.
Dave H
evidence is one matter, actual proof is another.
Don't turn the argument around. Remember, you have not answered my questions and are therefore not in a sound position to parade your faith (socialism) as science.
Stop wasting everyones time.
'pygmicity'
Yes, your verbosity is admirable but irrelevant.
Scientist?
No.
Socialist
Yes.
@SamG
Yawn.
> Don't turn the argument around.
Hypocrite, and also unfamiliar with the meaning of the word "grammar" it seems.
Which part of AGW is true?
Evasive.
A much lower level of Dunning-Kruger effect with regard to the science, I'd say. In other words, speaking for myself, a lack of confidence in my own opinion in areas where I am relatively uninformed and unskilled.
It's amusing to find someone coming in here asserting "socialism" as some sort of slur, noting that this is rather common in the US - where most of the country has no clue what "socialism" actually looks like but thinks that all sorts of policies that would be considered mildly-right-of-centre in most other Western democracies are "socialist". I guess the Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaughs and their fellow travelers have also done a great job defining "socialism" as practically the same as both "communism" and "fascism" (Jonah Goldberg's Dunning-Krugerness on that particular topic being expressed for posterity in an unintentionally amusing book entitled "Liberal Fascism", IIRC), at least for their poor audiences who usually don't know any better.
"Socialism" with connotations of communism or fascism is rather uncommon in Australia - where the host and many of the commenters on this blog reside. I've been out of the UK too long to know if it has that sort of resonance there.
So I call "Slur Fail". Try again, Sam.
Why does "Shorter SamG: "Respect my authoriteh!" spring to mind? ;-)
ligne said
LOL.
Can't help thinking that SamG is engaging in the blog equivalent of frotteurism!
"I've been out of the UK too long to know if it has that sort of resonance there."
not that i've noticed. then again, we've got a national health programme, so we're clearly just a step away from being a 70m-strong Red Army Faction.
SamG, I'm going to assume you're not a mathematician with deep expertise in the relevant areas. Given that assumption:
1) Did Wiles prove Fermat's Last Theorem?
2) Was the Four Colour Theorem proved?
Provide reasoning for your answers.
For bonus points detail analogous reasoning for the vast majority of climate science for which you have no deep expertise.
[SamG](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/johann_hari_on_journalismgate.p…).
I am trained at Bachelor, Postgrad Diploma, Masters, and PhD levels.
I've worked in scientific research and in tertiary education for 25 years.
I know a little bit about science.
I know when untrained people, ideologues, and vested interests ignore, misunderstand, and/or misrepresent science in order to avoid the implications of the same.
If you cannot mount a clear, concise and scientifically-evidenced/supportable case, instead of engaging in an [ignorant](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/johann_hari_on_journalismgate.p…) and a [puerile](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/johann_hari_on_journalismgate.p…) diatribe of distraction and irrelevance, then you are a denier/denialist.
Get over it.
Yawn.
So a troll walks into a bar and says in a lound voice:
*None of you have the scientific training to debate the science.* (Except him over there, but I can't understand why he in on political blog, this is a political blog right?).
Then the troll turns and announces, I on the other hand think the scientist are wrong.
The Troll stands and waits for a reaction, and ... the people turn back and ignore the poor troll who's just exposed his own folly.
173 Ender,
Well said. There are some genuine sceptics who doubt the existence of AGW and they can be reasoned with. Most, however, are not at all sceptical. They are highly credulous and show no ability to practise critical thinking. With few exceptions they are delusional right-wing anti-science fanatics and should be treated with the contempt they deserve.
SamG, I am a full professor on an endowed chair in a science discipline in an old, high quality, research-intensive university in the UK. I give keynote lectures at international conferences around the world (e.g. this year in the US, Portugal and New Zealand). I have written the leading (scientific) textbook in my field.
Does that meet your standard of being a scientist?
Its good to see SamG getting his due here now. I certainly enjoy all of the posts coming in rebutting his puerile nonsense.
TrueSceptic summed up the difference between an honest sceptic and a dishonest denialist @213. As far as I am concerned, very few scientists fall into the category of genuine scepticism with respect to climate change. There are some, but not many; most are in denial and that will not change. That many have allied themselves with far-right think tanks is no accident; it merely reflects their own political views.
215 Jeff,
There is the problem of identifying dishonesty. If someone says something that is demonstrably false, or in contradiction to something else they have said, both of which AGW denidiots do frequently, they are liars only if they realise what they are doing. Can someone be a liar if they are too delusional to distinguish truth from falsehood or evidence from propaganda?
Jeff
I said that you were behaving like an imbecile, and you were. Your tirade over a jocular post revealed more about your prejudices than you know.
I don't have to correlate socialist ideology with pro AGW views. The readers have done that for me.
'SamG displays the common thread that runs between Denialism and antisocialism.' -Vince Wirlwind
'The well funded PR campaigns will continue to use the same tactics of the Swift Boat crew that, for instance, managed to get a draft dodging layabout elected the president of the free world over an actual decorated combat veteran. Do you think that anything climate scientists can do can compete with a machine of this power?' -Stephen Gloor
'Nowadays we have a number of the same PR companies, faux scientific institutes and think tanks - even some of the same "scientists" - who mounted a deception campaign on behalf of Big Tobacco apparently doing the same on AGW science, using much the same methods.' - Lotharsson
'and therefore...what? That stupid people are more likely to be right-wing?' -True sceptic
What an incredibly naive perception of the political spectrum; right wingers are evil and the left are benevolent torchbearers of truth. okay....I'm so dumbfounded by your complete neglect of the truth that I now understand how such immensely flawed human beings got away with communism. -Arrogance.
You're not a climate scientist? Fair enough, because a climate scientist wouldn't touch a political blog like this with a ten foot poll.
I concur with 'Balance'
'I thought Deltoid was a science blog but, having read through168 posting, there appears to be more drivel than science. If SamG and responses to his inane views were exclude, there might have been more debate on the subject matter - Journalismgate.' -Balance
Yes, he dislikes me but he clearly doesn't think much of many of you either.
Excellent, GWB's nemesis
We should talk.
Having steered clear of all scientific discussion and attempt to bait people away from science the troll walks into the bar and announce: *I have now turned this into a non-science blog.*
The Troll was very please with his new powers because he new he'd be on foreign soil if he'd had to debate questions of science.
SamG, unless you're all the same person, every week troll clones very much like you drop in here, spout your simplistic, hand-me-down political ideology for a bit, get your annoyingly arrogant misconceptions of something you're clearly clueless about ripped to shreds, then sod off again until the next one arrives.
Apart from the mounting evidence of a commonly encountered brand of off-topic,reality-denying stupid, what impact do you think you (and your like-minded cohorts) think you have?
Believe me, it's much - nay far, far less than you might think.
SamG,
How deep in the quicksand must you wallow? You write, "a climate scientist wouldn't touch a political blog like this with a ten foot poll".
Really? Deltoid is recommened reading by many very qualified climate scientists, including the team at RealClimate. I have spoken with others who have similar views. The fact is SamG that you probably have never spoken with a single climate scientist in all of your life. So that crushes one of your stupid asinine remarks.
Then this, "I now understand how such immensely flawed human beings got away with communism".
No one here denies that communism was not a deeply flawed appalling polticial and economic systems. But how is capitalism faring? The current brand of free market absolutism flouted uinder the 'Washington Consensus' has turned the global economy into something of a casino. It has also been an ecological disaster. And the 'shock doctrine' spelled out by Naomi Klein and others is doing nothing whatsover to alleviate poverty; quite the contrary. Check the ratio of capital flows from the underdeveloped south to the developed north over the past 40 years and you will see that this ratio had actually increased from about 3:1 in 1970 (which is bad enough given the disparity between the two) to 7:1 (by 2003). Moreover, every nation in the developed world is in ecological deficit; that is, the rich world extracts far more from its own land masses than can be sustainably produced. The only way that consumption and waste production as currently defined allows ecological 'debtor' nations in the north to sustain this disparity is through the north foisting completely unjust economic and trade policies on the south. Samir Amin, Africa's leading economist, spelled it out clearly at the World Social Forum at Peurto Allegre (Brazil) in 2003, when he stated bluntly that the 'quad' is not interested in a coherent trading system that benefits the south; it is only interested in 'looting' their resources. Irish economist Patrick Bond (2006) in his book, 'Looting Africa', as well as American economist Tom Athansiou in his book, 'Divided Planet: The Ecology of Rich and Poor' expand upon this theme. Comments by influential politicians and planners such as Kissinger, Kennan, Nitze and Brezinski have echoed this theme over the past 50-60 years. The MSM unsurprisingly gives it a free pass.
Finally some advice SamG: I do not think that GWBs nemesis wants to talk with a nincompoop like you any more than the rest of us would. Your posts reflect a kindergarten level understanding of the world. Methinks you are a neo-Rand acolyte. Several of these sad people have commented on deltoid before, and their views are about as simnple as yours.
The trolls only waste as much time as you'll let them waste.
SamG is funny. He still hasn't answered a single scientific question posed to him, but he's called us all socialists.
Life is so much simpler when you're armed with The Truth, ain't it Sam? Who needs facts or evidence?
I am shocked - shocked! - that a denier would lie to me.Funny how, when you dig, they look so much alike; SamG could be Brent's clone
I am shocked - shocked! - that a denier would lie to me.Funny how, when you dig, they look so much alike; SamG could be Brent's clone
Apparently SamG includes this quote of me in an attempt to "correlate socialist ideology with pro AGW views". Weird - as are some of the other quotes chosen to illustrate his claim.
Based on those and other comments, it's almost like SamG has an irrational fear of anything he thinks smacks of socialism, even though he doesn't quite know what socialism actually is. I've met many a soul with similar fears on US political blogs. One might almost say it's a naive perception of the pol... oh, wait, the irony:
SamG has reversed the directionality of the claimed relation (which is certainly not alleged to be 1:1 let alone on-to) thus making this a fallacious strawman. But heck, don't let me stop SamG happily tilting away at it while he builds up negative capital in the credibility markets.
Brent Hargraves did use quite a few sock puppets.
Though I think even Brent attempted to engage is some science.
"Excellent, GWB's nemesis. We should talk."
we're finally going to hear some science from SamG? hurrah!
Those shortcomings have little to do with capitalism and more to do with unregulated growth, imperialism, corporatism etc.
The same problems exist with communism. But socialism is a purely intellectual ideology which consists of equally ideological converts who conveniently fall under the banner of intellectualism, alternative culture, atheism and benevolent organizations. Their main objective is to regulate human activity via seemingly 'liberal' means.
Almost all environmental groups are guilty of terrorist-style campaigns, missinformation, inducing guilt and 'holier than thou' activism against members of the public.
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/climate/2010/04/will_the_real_climategate_…
The left are not the wise peace stewards they make out to be. They are as flawed and conniving as any member of the public and in many cases worse. It takes a special kind of person to proclaim they have the answers simply because they're a member of a self righteous scene.
Does this make capitalists any better? No, of course not but the answer doesn't lie in bipartisan politics. You had your chance and it killed millions. You're barking up the wrong tree.
This all must be a taste of things to come.
"Are you now, or have you ever been a commenter on an Anthropogenic Global Warming blog? Or any science blog?"
SamG misidentifies what other people think and claim and the reasons for those claims, and passes judgement on the misidentification.
Better trolls, please.
@SamG
200 posts later.
Which part of AGW is true?
Evasive.
First SamG comes up with this whopper: *You had your chance and it killed millions. You're barking up the wrong tree*
May I ask exactly 'who' you are referring to here? Since when did social democracy kill 'millions' of people?
Then we get this gem: *Almost all environmental groups are guilty of terrorist-style campaigns, missinformation, inducing guilt and 'holier than thou' activism against members of the public*
This sounds more accurately like the foregin policy of successive administrations in the U.S. But I suppose state terrorism and the worse crime of aggression are not part of SamGs lexicon. Furthermore, he might as well be describing the infinitely better funded anti-environmental lobby in the U.S. By this I am referring to groups like 'Wise Use' which act as an umbrella for all kinds of far right organizations. But note how our resident right winger leaves these out of his description.
And yes, so far, as others have noted, no science. Coincidence? Hardly. SamG is on his right wing 'rant & roll'.
"You had your chance and it killed millions."
Projecting there, much?
Off topic, but very important?
A *anker (replace * with appropriate letter) has managed to force a university to hand over tree ring data:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18801-uk-university-ordered-to-gi…
I'm guessing the person in question was spending so much time doing amateur climate science, that a few dodgy packages of sub prime mortgages went un-noticed.
This (otherwise excellent) blog could really do with a large "Do Not Feed The Trolls" sign right at the top.
Did someone mention Brent Hargreaves? I noticed (with some amusement) that our Brent has submitted evidence to the [Muir Russell panel](http://www.cce-review.org/evidence/Hargreaves.pdf) in the form of a poison-pen type letter along the lines of "Professor Boulton can't be trusted".
Thanks for pointing that out, Sidcup. Brent is a special person.
Paul UK
That's wonderful news. Why do you think data should be intellectual property?
Very spiteful indeed. Kinda reflect this blog, don't ya think?
Well Brent is after all a subscriber to that website that proclaims itself as run by "a dipstick affected by malodorous thought".
Or something along those lines.
Jeff Harvey
you are continually making stuff up. Communism is the direct outcome of social justice. Let me guess... you want wealth removed from the banks and upper classes. Next you'll ban theology and execute traitors.
;-)
SamG, I've stated before that I'm not actually a scientist even though I do have an understanding and intense interest in many scientific concepts. Could I ask a scientific question directly to do with AGW?
Some sceptics say there is no evidence that atmospheric CO2 rises are from human activities.
Could I just canvass your opinion on using isotope ratio mass spectrometry in relation to this issue? Do you think it produces valid results?
SamG, with the greatest respect, what would you bring to any sensible discussion about the science? To date I have seen not a single iota of evidence in any of your posts that you have you could contribute to a meaningful discussion.
There are many others here, including some without a formal science education, who can contribute meaningfully, which is why I follow (and occasionally contribute to) the discussion on this blog.
"Why do you think data should be intellectual property?"
i thought it was only the Godless communist hordes who had a lack of respect for intellectual property? why do you hate capitalism so much?
isotope ration spec what?
C'mon Mike, your attempt at appearing authentic comes across wanky.
But I don't believe we have a negligible effect on the climate, if that helps.
Paul UK #236:
[Real Climate](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/the-guardian-disa…) posted an interesting bit of info on your *anker a little while ago:
"As an aside, Keenan has made a cottage industry of accusing people of fraud whenever someone writes a paper of which he disapproves. He has attempted to get the FBI to investigate Mike Mann, pursued a vendetta against a Queenâs University Belfast researcher, and has harassed a French graduate student with fraud accusations based on completely legitimate choices in data handling. More recently Keenan, who contacted Wigley after having seen the email mentioned in the Pearce story, came to realise that Wigley was not in agreement with his unjustified allegations of âfraudâ. In response, Keenan replied (in an email dated Jan 10, 2010) that:
.. this has encouraged me to check a few of your publications: some are so incompetent that they seem to be criminally negligent.
Sincerely, Doug"
"Communism is the direct outcome of social justice."
oh dear, does that mean that the [Catholic church](http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi…) is communist now?
Hi GWB's nemesis
regarding Paul UK's reference, what's your slant on this:
'Keenan says he believes the Irish data could bolster the sceptics' case that a thousand years ago there was a widespread medieval warm period on Earth not unlike current warming. But last year Baillie and his colleague Ana Garcia-Suárez published a study showing that Irish oak growth rings are a good proxy for summer rainfall, but not for temperature.'
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18801-uk-university-ordered-to-gi…
Oh dear - I think Samwise Samgee has been overdosing on the cartoon version of Hayek: http://mises.org/books/trts/
so keenan wants to prove that the medieval warm period wasn't just limited to Europe by using Irish tree-ring data? what a cretin.
then again, he seems to think that a warm MWP would disprove modern warming ("fires have happened for millions of years, ergo arson is impossible!"), so i probably shouldn't be too surprised.
Hi SamG
I am a regular reader here and irregular poster. Either start debating science with the scientists here (I am a climate scientist with a PhD and over 100 peer-reviewed papers) or go away.
Like most denialists you have nothing to say. Do you think the earth is flat too?
SamG, it's not an "attempt" to appear authentic. I've already admitted (this will be the third time now) to being nothing more than a layperson. I learned all about isotopes, atomic structures and masses, and the use of spectrometry in my last 2 years of high school (I was one of the uncool weirdos who did double maths, physics and chemistry for 2 years and really enjoyed it).
Yes, you read that correctly. High school. That was a long time ago but I still remember it, and the more I read about climate science, the more bits from high school and Uni come flooding back from being long-forgotten. My curiosity in that was recently rekindled when I read about scientists using it in relation to C13/C12 ratios, so I've been reading up a bit about it.
I mean, it's obviously not the be-all and end-all, but it's decent supporting evidence I reckon. I stand to be corrected on that if necessary. What do you think of it?
Anyway, I think I got the answer I expected. Pretty disappointing.
218 SamG,
You said (105)
I responded with (135)
If you cannot see why I said that, then your comprehension is even poorer than I thought.
SamG, 200 posts later
I suppose the next time I hear somebody say that "de Nile ain't just a river in Egypt" I should tsk tsk (and cluck, AND wag my finger) about how they are equating the behavior with the Holocaust.
Agree or disagree?
Evasive.
Where did Timothy Lambert get his PhD in climate science?
Just asking.
san quintin,
"I am a climate scientist with a PhD and over 100 peer-reviewed papers"
Surely this doesn't quite stack up. Why are you not a professor or something if you have published that many papers?
How long have you been a climate scientist?
How much actual research did you do on those papers or is it just a case of 'lending' your name to a paper so that the publishing record looks better?
Dave Andrews said "Surely this doesn't quite stack up. Why are you not a professor or something if you have published that many papers"
I don't quite understand. Aren't all Professors, Associate Professors and Assistant Professors in climate change also climate scientists?
How much actual research did I do? What do you think?
What are your qualifications?
san quintin,
Not being an academic I couln't possibly say how much research you actually did. Why don't you enlighten me?
@SamG (Rude, abusive, time-wasting, evasive hypocrite).
Now states:
> But I don't believe we have a negligible effect on the climate, if that helps.
Does this mean that you think that the man's effect on the climate is not negligible? Is this you finally answering which part of AGW you think is true?
Like most scientists, I would hardly have authored over 100 papers if I hadn't put some work in. I guess I'm first author on about 40%. Does that answer your question?
Now...your point is?
'Can someone be a liar if they are too delusional to distinguish truth from falsehood or evidence from propaganda?'
In a court of law they may still be guilty. When otherwise rational people express Ignorance about the true nature of global warming it's just an opinion, unless criminal negligence is involved.
Dave Andrews:
What an ignoramus. One does not need to hold a professor's position or similar in an educational institution in order to be a professional scientist. There are lots of scientists outside educational institutions.
262 El Gordo,
I'm talking about the difference between delusion and dishonesty. Ignorance (simple lack of knowledge) is another matter.
"When otherwise rational people express Ignorance..." makes no sense.
I want to know what differentiates most participants here from those at skeptic blogs
Knowledge and intellectual honesty.
in light of the fact that almost none of you have any expertise or scientific training
False.
Where did Timothy Lambert get his PhD in climate science?
Where did you get your PhD in skepticism?
Surely this doesn't quite stack up. Why are you not a professor or something if you have published that many papers?
What, other than your well-established stupidity, makes you think he isn't?
isotope ration spec what?
Ignorant moron.
Those shortcomings have little to do with capitalism and more to do with unregulated growth, imperialism, corporatism etc. The same problems exist with communism. But socialism is a purely intellectual ideology which consists of equally ideological converts who conveniently fall under the banner of intellectualism, alternative culture, atheism and benevolent organizations. Their main objective is to regulate human activity via seemingly 'liberal' means. Almost all environmental groups are guilty of terrorist-style campaigns, missinformation, inducing guilt and 'holier than thou' activism against members of the public.
Sorry, pipsqueak, but Graeme Bird does this act much better than you do.
Meanwhile, in Canada, climate scientist Andrew Weaver is suing the National Post for libel:
http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-scientist-sues-national-post
SamG and Dave Andrews: I have a PhD in biology from an Australian University and have been studying, for the past 15 years, among other things, the polewards range extension of many marine species along the east and west coasts of Australia.
Care to provide alternative hypothesis as to why species, the distribution of which is constrained by the winter minimum water temperature they can survive, are extending their ranges towards the pole? Why are fish like tailor, snapper and kingfish found further and further south every decade, being now regularly caught in southern Tasmania? Why is the N.S.W. spiny rock lobster Jasus verreauxi now caught in Tasmanian waters?
What is your alternative hypothesis as to why the toxic, ciguatera-causing dinoflagellate Gambierdiscus now found as far south as Merimbula, when 20 years ago the southernmost limit of its distribution was Stradbroke Island, 1,100 Km to the north?
If you come to troll on a science blog, expect to be challenged on the science. Measure up or bugger off.
Methinks someone's been listening to Glenn Beck talk about "social justice" and socialism, communism, & Nazism...and is gullible enough to treat his abject incomprehension of the terms as authoritative.
I don't think Beck is trying to be the stupidest person in the media, but he's still a top tier candidate...
["You had your chance and it killed millions."](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFtkJd8w5UQ)
(i make no apologies. any occasion is good for Mr Izzard.)
Social justice entails the empowerment of all people to pursue their legitimate claims -- i.e. a dignified existence, autonomy over matters peculiar to them, scope to engage in activities that further self-awareness. If such a state were approached, it could only produce communism if this expressed the antecedent principles.
Accordingly if the case could be proved that communism were one outcome of social justice, communism would, by definition be a good thing.
It's amusing and revealing that this is what the troll claims to fear.
...because the one thing that Communist states were famous for was that individuals had "autonomy over matters peculiar to them", right?!
Not that I wish to contribute to SamG's annoying requests, since he has yet to utter a single word of substance on this matter, but I may as well just to add to the smack-down he has received.
I'm a scientist with two bachelors and a Grad. Dip. I'm currently working on a PhD in a climate related field. Before returning to academia, I worked for a number of years in industrial research in atmospheric science.
A number of regular posters here are working scientists. SamG may or may not be a working scientist. It doesn't matter, as his idiocy s/he has shown on this thread ranks up there with the best Deltoid has seen in at least a couple of months. SamG could have a Noble Prize, Kyoto Medal and a Fields Medal, and s/he would still be remarkably wrong on climate.
I'm actually finding this thread has developed into something highly entertaining and quite amusing. Tim must surely be just cacking himself at some of the posts.
@263. I almost posted the exact same thing Chris, but decided someone else probably would say it anyway! Dave could always have googled "professor" and saved himself the trouble.
Eli Rabett is a not quite failed professorial techno-bunny, who frequently partakes in gay rounds of whack-a-troll. The trolls have a lot to answer for as they vary comment to comment between rabid and delusional.
Lotharsson said:
Actuallt the key thing wrong here is that the "communist" states most often cited were not an outcome of "social justice" but rather centuries (and in a couple of cases, a millennium) of brutality and misery followed by a violent assaults by heavily industrialised powers that aggravated life yet further. In Indochina alone for example a greater tonnage of explosive firepower was concentrated in this area by the US-led forces than was dropped by all the parties in all the theatres of war in WW2. China, Korea and Indochina were invaded and occupied by the Japanese. And Russia's Tsar put an essentially feudal subsistence agriculture state into war with Germany destroying its agricultural base and much of its agrarian populace.
One may argue until the cows come home about what the right historical name for what issued from this context should be, but whatever it was, it was compatible with the human materiel that this past authored -- i.e. desperate, fearful, ill-educated, riven by hatreds both recent and longstanding and lacking any grasp of the place of the human being in the social world or even the space to contemplate it.
We know that some of the people in some of these states had a vision of a better world, but lacking any means to engender it, they and their project were swept aside by the crushing legacy of generations past and present.
I can assure you it's not just Tim ;-)
Holly Stick @ 270:
Great news! This will have real reprecussions when he wins.
Still waiting Sam. After you, you are the scientific expert here in possession of secret knowledge unknown to us:
Sorry for trapping you with the communist conspiracy thing earlier. See, I was a bit tricky in asking whether you believe global warming was a communist plot. I already knew you did, and I was also certain that you would lie to me if called on it. You did lie. I caught you out. So heh yeah, sorry again. Heh.
Oh, look, Anthony Watts has sent out his attack minions.
Tim, you should do what they do over at WUWT and ruthlessly edit/disemvowel all and any arguments over the use of the word "denier". If they won't debate it there I don't see why the wingnuts should be able to come here and flood the forum with their idiocy.
I'm reading the lawsuit and guess who else is being sued?
Some anonymous commenters.
It seems commenters will now have to be careful if they want to throw words like "fraud", "hoax", "scam", "con" around...
SamG.
As so many others have pointed out, you have not made one comment of substance about the science of climate change on this thread, and you've had seven colours of snot kicked out of you about your offensive semantic confabulation.
Just for the record, can you link to the post on this thread of which you are most proud? Why are you proud of it? For its merciless debunking of mainstream science? For its unassailable correctness of English usage?
Please enlighten us.
He has? I didn't see any. Perhaps he's all out of attack minions, and therefore resorting to his crack squad of fearsome attack goldfish? Be afraid, be very afraid ;-)
"The trolls only waste as much time as you'll let them waste."--Marion Delgado
I agree with Marion and toto: enough of letting this troll have his way. Although some of you seem to find this amusing, I find these engagements with the likes of SamG a waste of time. Yawn. I'd support a move to disemvowel. The one comment I have found interesting is Holly's mention of Andrew Weaver's lawsuit against the National Post. It's about time that scientists started fighting back in this fashion, and I hope Dr. Weaver is successful in his libel suit.
[Holly Stick](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/johann_hari_on_journalismgate.p…).
I too am delighted at Andrew Weaver's decision to go for the National Post's throat. This will indeed be a very interesting case to follow.
The thing is, the NP will have lawyered its articles prior to publication, and I suspect that they will have cunning defenses that might allow them to wiggle out. Of course, I am no lawyer myself, so perhaps someone better qualified could comment?
Perhaps cohenite would consider doing so, even though divorce was his purview...
What I would really like to see though, is for Sir John Houghton to persist with his thought to sue Mr Monckton. I'm sure that there's a solid case there, if only Sir John has the will to jump into the cesspit.
This is amazingly on topic, but I know that our own bastions of science reporting integrity have frequently hidden behind the defence of "I wasn't reporting facts, it was only my opinion" when legal action has loomed.
This has been especially successful for columnists like Piers Akerman, and I imagine probably Bolt too. While calling themselves "opinion" columnists, they regularly and quite deliberately misrepresent factual evidence. Like: "my opinion is that the earth is flat, and I therefore think it is clear that scientists have been lying to us all along".
Indeed. [Popcorn :-)]
John @284 The comments at the National Post usually tend to be appalling, bigoted and ignorant. Unfortuenately, other big media outlets get similar appalling comments, perhaps from the same people under various names; but maybe some of the worst perpetrators will be scared out of their atrocious behaviour by this.
The lists of websites near the end include some notorious rightwing political blogs and forums which follow the denialist line, as well as specific AGW denial blogs that everyone here probably recognizes.
Bernard J. @288 Hard to say; the NP's current owner is trying to sell off most of their papers, and I believe the NP itself has always been a money-loser. It seems to be aimed more at rightwing propagandizing than making money. They would be wise to back down and grovel; but I don't notice much wisdom there.
Having read some of what the NP published, I doubt that they could weasel out of everything.
It will be harder for Michael Mann to sue a satirist,
A link to a [comment about Sir John Houghton's consideration to sue Monckton](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_doesnt_know_or_car…).
And I agree with the previous commenters on the matter of SamG's trolling. There is one benefit arising from the exchanges though, and that is that it has shown how poorly he was able to attempt a defense of his claim that denialism is necessarily and specifically associated only with the Holocaust.
To this end, the SamG exchanges illustrate the moral depauperacy of those who are inclined to resort to this confabulation.
Talk about something blowing up in one's face...
I know Canadian libel law quite well for a layperson, having been dealing with it for years. The problem for The National Post, among other things, is that they attribute statements to Weaver he claims he did not make, and are alleged to present other 'false facts' -- that is, statements presented as indisputable which are denied by the plaintiff. Fair comment defenses work in libel claims, but not so well when based upon untruths. For example, The National Posts' editor wrote an opinion column concerning Weaver jumping ship from the IPCC and how that showed that the IPCC was sinking... the only problem is, Weaver wasn't and didn't, and denies he ever was. The author's opinions may be otherwise fair, but any 'false fact' underlying it may render a fair comment defense impossible.
I could write an insightful piece concerning Tim Lambert's previous life as a bank robber which would leave you all nodding in agreement -- isn't it great how Tim's pulled his life around?
Of course, the opinion would be libelous because Tim was never a bank robber.
Fair comment based on false fact often is libelous.
If Canadian defamation law is anything like Australian law then "good faith" is a test of what constitutes fair comment. If a plaintiff can show that the claims that are the source of the ostensible damage were not merely false but that the defendant ought to have known they were at the time of publication, then the "fair comment" defence collapses.
Journalists are supposed to fact check but this is in the murky area. One may presume that a journalist who knew that a claim to be published could defame would seek first to verify and corroborate such claims, critically including of course the person whose reputation was in jeopardy. If evidence to the contrary was ready to hand -- and that might amount to no more than a claim to the contrary appearing in a simple search of the web on a site that had some credibility, then "good faith" becomes harder to sustain.
GWB's nemesis, do you think it odd that Baillie himself concluded that his chronologies were not good temperature indicators? Perhaps Mann knew this and sought to 'confuse' ring growth caused by rainfall as a temperature proxy?
Similarly, skeptics claim that late twentieth century tree ring data was removed from the 2001 IPCC temperature graph because it showed a decline.
Is there any merit in this?
Further, do you find 'Paul UK's' mockery of data sharing incredulous? I know this is not a scientific question but condescension appears to be a hallmark of this website.
@SamG
Still asking new questions and avoiding old ones?
Evasive.
[Dave H](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/johann_hari_on_journalismgate.p…).
I sincerely apologise for my presumptuousness, but I feel compelled to fix your question to SamG:
There... that's a bit better.
SamG said,
"Similarly, skeptics claim that late twentieth century tree ring data was removed from the 2001 IPCC temperature graph because it showed a decline. Is there any merit in this?"
It's called the divergence problem, and it has been discussed very openly in the scientific literature for over a decade. The decline is a decline in tree ring sensitivity to temperature for some trees in high latitudes. It most certainly is not a decline in temps for the last 50 years - that would go against the measurements of thousands of ground stations and the satellite record. *Skeptics* claim this was all *hidden*, but they are full of it because it has been well known to anyone who has followed the literature, or anybody who read AR4, since it was also spoken of there as well. No *skeptic* uncovered the divergence problem.
SamG 296:
condescension appears to be a hallmark of this website
While smear-and-run, diversionary tactics, avoiding answering direct questions and trying (yet failing) to mount challenges revolving around semantics are yours. Oh, and condescending, overweening posturing. And neglecting to read and understand the science.
If you want to be taken seriously, you at least have to be able to demonstrate that you take the science and the statements made by the scientists on this blog seriously. Failure to do either amounts, in my book, to automatic disqualification from further engagement.
so why was it removed from the graph?
From what I understand, some ground records are in question and satellite measurements began in '78
I don't think skeptics claimed it was hidden but with the omitted data included, the temperature appear to decrease.
Seriously, you haven't figured out yet that including it in a graph intended for non-scientists would be misleading, which is why it wasn't included?
come again?
"From what I understand, some ground records are in question"
Your understanding is wrong. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the instrumental record.
"I don't think skeptics claimed it was hidden"
Sure they did; that's why they insinuate the emails were part of a conspiracy to *hide the decline*. That was the whole *gotcha!* It's nonsense. Everything that was done was out in the open.
"but with the omitted data included, the temperature appear to decrease."
Which is obviously wrong, since by far the best temp record is from the last half century. That combined with other temp signals (sea level, glacial retreat) makes it incredibly unlikely it has been getting cooler the last 50 years.
I guess it depends on how one interprets the text?
'A proxy diagram of temperature change is a clear favourite for the Policy Makers summary. But the current diagram with the tree ring only data [i.e. the Briffa reconstruction] somewhat contradicts the multiproxy curve and dilutes the message rather significantly. [We want the truth. Mike thinks it lies nearer his result (which seems in accord with what we know about worldwide mountain glaciers
and, less clearly, suspect about solar variations). The tree ring results may still suffer from lack of multicentury time scale variance. This is probably the most important issue to resolve in Chapter 2 at present..'
'Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Timâs got a diagram here weâll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
Iâve just completed Mikeâs Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keithâs to hide the decline. Mikeâs series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.'
Straight from the horses mouth
Oh, look, another asshat cut-and-pastes stolen material...
SamG,
The first paragraph is not talking about 20th century temps. The discrepancy between Briffa's reconstruction and Mann's had to do with the 17th and especially 19th centuries, where Briffa's results were warmer than Mann's in parts.
http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/11/mcintyre-provides-fodder-for-skeptics/
The second paragraph is from a completely different letter (almost two months later) and different topic.
SamG @ 296 sez:
... Sigh ... Why do I bother?
IPCC AR4, Chapter 6 "Paleoclimate" page 472-473. This took me, quite literally, 5 minutes to find. The denialists' claim is meritless. The divergence problem is discussed in AR4.
@SamG
No amount of discussion will shake your deeply held religious fervour when you continue to ignore questions and corrections and throw up new timewasting garbage as a smokescreen.
Gish did this. Plimer does this. You do this.
Evasive.
Sorry Robert, first paragraph was referring to Lotharsson's point:
'Seriously, you haven't figured out yet that including it in a graph intended for non-scientists would be misleading, which is why it wasn't included?'
But as I noticed in the comments, there is some discrepancy about your observation that it is not referring to late 20th C temps. The whole 'cut and paste' thing.
"Sorry Robert, first paragraph was referring to Lotharsson's point..."
No, it really wasn't. Read the link I gave. The first paragraph you cut and pasted from is from an email from Sept 22nd 1999. The problem they were talking about had nothing to do with the divergence problem. The problem was Briffa's 17th and more importantly 19th century reconstructions, which showed warmer, not lower, temps from the others. Again, read the link I provided, it explains it better than I can.
http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/11/mcintyre-provides-fodder-for-skeptics/
"But as I noticed in the comments, there is some discrepancy about your observation that it is not referring to late 20th C temps. The whole 'cut and paste' thing."
?? The 'cut and paste' thing is about you selectively cutting and pasting two paragraphs from two unrelated emails separated by 2 months.
@308:
Beats me. I've had hemorrhoids with more intelligence than SamG.
Note how, once again, a denialist troll has derailed a thread. The thread is about the reporting of climate science in the MSM yet here we are arguing about the basics! These people just jump in, totally clueless about the concept of "on topic", when they could've used an Open Thread to shout their ignorant lying mouths off.
Well, SamG can only derail the thread if people let him.
Personally, I find his.. thickheadedness amusing. Let him continue to demonstrate his utter lack of brains, I say! Funniest thing on the web these last few days
From Eli's exalted POV, the whole point of Weaver's suit is to show once more that Discovery is not just a TV channel.
MFS,
So there is a southward migration of some species of fish in the S hemisphere and you have spent a considerable time studying it.
Nothing wrong with that, except you have no idea, for example, if there were similar migrations in the past and what you are now observing is perhaps not unusual.
Dave boy @ 316,
Can you spell out for us the assumptions you have made in 316 and the presuppositions that interweave with them. For example have you assumed that MFS hasn't already investigated any possibility and evidence for past migrations?
Don't forget Dave, science is not the same as sitting at one end of the bar at your local pub and grabbing everyone that passes by so that you can give 'em your opinion.
Or are you just being self aware and trying to wriggle out of answering the points and questions people have put to you on this thread?
BTW Dave my boy, it looks like I won't have to serve you with an FOI request, instead that will now go to Keenan seeing as he has got data my taxes have paid for. Of course my assumption there is that you will never have bovered to get climate data instead you just make a noise about it. Is my assumption right ot wrong Dave?
Dave Andrews, you seem to have missed the phrase you apparently don't understand and which answers your question:
"polewards range extension".
Ask a grown-up what it means.
Why the compulsion to flaunt your ignorance?
VW asks of Dave (the Idiot) Andrews:
316 Dave Andrews,
A Poe, surely. If only it were funny.
Dave @ 316: So you know nothing about the topic and yet choose to dismiss my post out of hand with a thoughtless remark: Polewards movements may have happened before. In and of itself the sort of remark that best shows your own incompetence (I just have to bring up Donning-Kruger once more), as nobody is disputing that the globe has been warmer in the past, at various times.
SamG #296 look for your word "incredulous" in a dictionary you poor sap.
The word you wanted and failed to find is "incredible". Also incredible is your form for vilifying people who correctly use other words you don't understand, like "denialist".
[And on any day of the week, any post] .......
Dave Andrews, meet Dunning and Kruger.
Dunning-Kruger effect, meet delusional Dave.
Better trolls please!
These idiots have no manners and nothing better to do than attempt to derail Tim's excellent blogging (where's Ben, btw?)
One solution for the mainstream meeja to its messing up over science these days can be found here at Deltoid where people have far funnier things to do than taking cranks, fools, poseurs seriously. Lighten up MSM!
SamG has been given some broad hints and some corrective distinctions and even a useful link - which should be sufficient to allow him to seek out one of the many places on the Internet that provide explanations from the scientists of the meaning and import of "Mike's Nature trick" and "hide the decline".
That would allow SamG, assuming he's smart enough and has the desire to do so - neither of which are reliably in evidence at this point - to correct some of his misconceptions and attempt to assess whether the scientists' explanations are defensible. Any bets on whether SamG will be willing and able to do this?
I know which side my money's on, but I do like positive surprises.
[Dave Andrews](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/johann_hari_on_journalismgate.p…).
Omigosh, I think you've discovered something that a professional scientist would never have thought about!!1!!11!!eleventyone!!*
Except that such a possibility is exactly what a professional scientist would consider in any analysis...
I might help your understanding if you bothered to check the primary literature first, and see how the evidence comes together and how the most parsimonious conclusions are drawn.
How about you stop trying to tell us how to do our work, and we won't tell you how to better your own efforts at being a primo numpty.
I will offer one piece of advice though - be careful when sitting in the corner and playing with Ockham's razor: you're slicing yourself to shreds with it.
(*eleventyone: snigger - I never tire of it!!elev...)
[It might help](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/johann_hari_on_journalismgate.p…)...
I wondered where you'd been BJ; btw it was your mate dhogaza that started the penes business at 29.
Special thanks to Jeff for admitting this:
" But do not humor me by claiming that the debate on climate change is about science"
I've ignored the qualifier following; too much irony is not recommended.
The one point of interest in 325 comments was the Amazon[gate] issue started at 73 and embellished at 84, 92, 109, 143. The 143 comment raises the concept of AGW enhanced El Ninos to explain the Amazon susceptibility to drought. The Marengo paper which is referred to at 143 strays from the issue of IPCC referencing and WWF involvement in that and whether there is a "follow the money" element to that:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/20/north-and-booker-on-amazongate-a-…
But that is by the by the by to a number of issues raised by the Marengo paper; firstly, they confirm the 1976 climate break consistent with the PDO phase shift; secondly, and most remarkably, they confirm McLean et al and the idea that natural factors are not stationary and contribute nothing to trend as the Mclean comment by Tamino asserted; from Marengo:
" because El Niño events have also became more frequent and intense in the 80s and 90s compared with the previous three decades"
It is of course uncontroversial that El Nino should be more frequent in a +ve PDO but that they should be more intense tends to lend support that the +ve PDOs are becoming more warm than the -ve PDO's are cool creating a trend from PDO asymmetry, something noted by Sun and Yu and Monahan and Dai. Of course Marengo claims that the more intense El Nino is due to AGW but in a completely circular fashion; that is El Nino is more intense therefore it can't be natural because nature is balanced, symmetrical, stationary and non-trending. This is unsatisfactory.
The concept of the changing El Nino has been treated in a number of papers dealing with the Modoki form but the Modoki occurance has not changed over the 20thC. One competing answer for the intensification of the El Nino is either an increase in solar activity or an increase in insolation due to variations in cloud cover:
http://www.cawcr.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfstaff/jma/meehl_solar_science_2009…
This of course confirms the Pinker et al conclusion.
Cohnite writes:
>*a +ve PDO but that they should be more intense tends to lend support that the +ve PDOs are becoming more warm than the -ve PDO's are cool creating a trend from PDO asymmetry*
The PDO is an index. That a +ve PDOs are becoming more warm than the -ve PDO's are cool would occur if there was a warming trend of any cause (including the eGHG forcing we know is driving most the trend).
Cohenite writes:
>*The concept of the changing El Nino has been treated in a number of papers dealing with the Modoki form but the Modoki occurance has not changed over the 20thC.*
Can you cite a credible source that contradicts that finding that there is no trend in SOI (El Nino)?
Cohnite writes:
>*The This of course confirms the Pinker et al conclusion*
Please quote the conclusion of Pinker et al that you claim is confirmed by your uncited evidece for a change in SOI?
A breif recap for cohenite on Pinker's very useful findings.
[Pinker found]( http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5723/850) a downward trend is surface solar irradience from start point 1983 to 1990, then a stronger upward trend to 2001.
>*We observed an overall increase in S from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 watts per square meter (0.10%) per year; this change is a combination of a decrease until about 1990, followed by a sustained increase.*
This break and switch in trend was very useful. What was the temperature [signal response](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:2004/plot/gistemp…) to this so switch? [Not so much](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1980/to:2004/plot/uah/from:19…), and that is despite a super El Nino in 1998 to push up the trend.
Furthermore, solar driven forcing would produce more warming in days than nights, [that didnât occur]( http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-3-2.html). And solar forcing would not produce stratospheric cooling, [which did occur]( http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us.htm).
"Can you cite a credible source that contradicts that finding that there is no trend in SOI (El Nino)?"
There are 2 in my post.
>*There are 2 in my post.*
There are two quotes from Pinker et al's conclusions in your post?
Correction previous response was in error:
>*There are 2 in my post.*
Which?
Actually there are 3 including Marengo although I don't see that paper appreciated this point. The other 2 are:
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~sun/doc/Sun_Yu_JCL_2009.pdf
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/MonahanDai_JC04.pdf
AGW Skeptic:"Where did Timothy Lambert get his PhD in climate science?"
I suggest you ask the same of Monckton.
Who seems to have far more time with his 'arts' degree convincing US senators etc. that global warming isn't a problem.
from
>*the spatial asymmetry is reversed between the enhanced and weakened intensity periods of the [15 year] modulation cycle, which implies opposite residual effects were produced by ENSO on the Pacific mean state during different periods of the modulation cycle.*
And:
>*Also, the interaction mechanism we postulated here invokes a linearity assumption in which the Pacific state is assumed to fluctuate around a stationary basic state to determine the properties of ENSO.*
I.e. no trend in SOI over the 20th C in this paper.
I'll look at the other. I can find no paper that matches the description of the third.
Dear moderator
I have learned very much from this site. Thank you for giving me some further graduate-level education. And that is an honest compliment.
It however seems to me that we are rather losing the plot. Climategate? Whatevergate? FOIA requests? Legal issues by a scientist at U of Victoria? These are not your best venue.
Data, my friend, just data. Moderate. Would you like a hand?
Cohnite, The second paper: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/MonahanDai_JC04.pdf
Discusses asymmetry (in SST effect) between El Nino and La Nina, but I could find nothing contradiction the finding that there has been no SOI trend in the 20th century.
The Sun and Yu paper says this:
"The El NinoâLa Nina asymmetries provide a possible mechanism for ENSO to exert a nonzero
residual effect that could lead to slow changes in the Pacific mean state."
The Monahan paper says this:
"It is demonstrated that in historical SST and SAT
reconstructions, the anomaly spatial pattern that changes sign between El Nino and La Nina events (the ââlinearââ
signal) strongly resembles that of principal component analysis (PCA) mode 1, while that which does not change
sign (the âânonlinearââ signal) resembles the pattern of PCA mode 2."
This dovetails with the conclusions of the Parker Folland et al paper which also did a PCA analysis of the various trewnd and oscillating factors; that is, there were long stationary natural factors but short-term natural trend factors. The Parker paper is here:
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/~bhatt/CJC/Parkeretal_2007.pdf
The Parker paper is consistent with the Zhen-Shan paper:
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V10/N3/C1.php
Hey Cohenite,
Wasn't it sooo funny in the Monckton Lambert debate when Christopher went on and on and on to the audience about how Dr Pinker was a real satellite nerd and that Dr Pinker had no concern about GW etc as though he, Christopher, knew Dr Pinker intimately and was really familiar with his work.
Then the voice came out of the darkness on the stage informing everyone including Christopher that Dr Pinker is a she not a he. It was a real Maxwell Smart moment.
I can see you are still striving to be adequate by trying to copy Christopher's pat sciency style. I guess you still think peer reviewed papers are just a collection of words that can have any meaning you like.
Oh lordy, cohers is back.
Watch in fascination as he attempts to baffle with bullshit, only to be flummoxed by facts.
Jeremy, you hit the nail on the head.
Cohers is a Monckton wannabe.
He just comes here to trial his latest snake-oil pitch and brush-up on the scienciness.
Cohenite @ 326: I think you got your papers mixed up. Monahan and Dai (2004) discuss the fact that the two oppsite phases of the southern oscillation index (El Nino and La Nina) are asymmetrical, but assert that the physical mechanisms for this asymmetry are still unclear. It has nothing to say about trends. They indeed say that the linear signal resembles principal component mode 1, and the non-linear signal resembles principal component mode 2. If you can explain exactly in which way this shows ENSO to be responsible for a long term warming trend, please enlighten us all, as the authors suggest no such thing in the paper.
Sun and Yu (2008) further expand on it by hypothesising it that the asymmetry of ENSO leaves it in a non-zero state after an El Nino or a La Nina event, and this accounts for the observed 10-15 year modulation in its intensity. It also has nothing to say about long term trends outside this 10-15 year modulation, and certainly does not attempt to explain the long-term warming trend. What it does not say is that any hypothesised mechanisms affect the Pacific mean state on any scale longer than this 10-15 year modulation.
Finally your piece de resistance, Meehl et al. 2009, a Science paper no less, contemplates synergistic effects between two different mechanisms and the variations in the solar forcing, which by itself is too weak to account for all the effects observed. It concludes that these forcings are partly relevant in explaining decadal-timescale changes in the equatorial Pacific. It also explicitly states that this is all very well, but since the solar cycle has not shown a measurable trend in the last 30 years, it cannot account for recent global warming.
Thanks for checking cohers gibberish MFS, but there really is no need. Everything he writes is nonsense.
There is a fine tradition in a wide variety of feilds of ideologically driven types putting togther weighty tomes replete with references and footnotes, but being pure garbage.
You could give cohers any number of 10 randomly chosen climate papers and he'd produce pretty much the same AGW-denying screed in pretty much the same faux-sciency tone.
I concur with MFS, once again you have pointed to nothing that contradictions the finding that there has been no SOI trend in the 20th century.
And I'm still waiting for you to:
>Please quote the conclusion of Pinker et al that you claim is confirmed by your uncited evidece for a change in SOI?
Pinker's conclusion should be something your can quote given your claim.
Michael @ 342: No worries. It's sad but I was actually home alone, and I always enjoy reading the literature for something other than work!
Thanks lads; I was at Joe Id's watching the 'debate' between Fuller and Dr Lambert about civility and general tone at blogs; you've all been everything I could have asked for.
No worries, cohenite, one more for the road:
You cite Marengo et al (which paper?) as saying that the El Nino phase of ENSO has become more frequent and intense during the 1980s and 90s than the three previous papers. You state that this confirms Pinker et al's conclusion. I assume you refer to Pinker, Zhang and Dutton (2005), in the journal Science. This is interesting since research articles in Science have no conclusion, and Pinker et al is consistent with this, they have no clearly identifiable conclusion. However they do find that the satellite record suggests dimming of the globe during the 1980s until 1992, then a brightening since then. Why have I highlited the word dimming? Well, because this finding is clearly totally incompatible with your citation of Marengo suggesting that solar radiation accounts for the increased frequency and intensity of the El Nino phase of ENSO during that same time.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Now if you could also tell me what this has to do with the (apparently) deliberate misrepresentation of science by journalists, so we can get back on topic...
Robert Murphy, that is a matter of interpretation from the source you referenced. You may or may not be correct but you can't present a discussion as fact. McIntyre has responded to that claim but do you want to play tit for tat?
Is it too early for your opinion on Baillie's oaks and do you agree with Lotharsson that it would be 'misleading' to present post 60's tree ring values to the public?
Seems strange that they were used at all.
So, SamG's still asking others to do his homework. Does rather remind one of Brent, doesn't it?
ChrisC
'The above paragraph exists only because of my Review Comments on the Second Draft. Briffa continued the TAR non-disclosure in the AR4 First Draft and AR4 Second Drafts â climate scientists in the field didnât object, but I did. I asked Briffa to show the inconvenient data and explain it as best that he could. He continued to refuse to show the adverse data, but grudgingly inserted the above paragraph in the AR4 Report itself. This paragraph was never presented to the IPCC peer review process. Otherwise, I, for one, would have strongly objected to some of these assertions, which I believe to be invalid. As to Briffaâs decision not to show the inconvenient data in the graphic (while burying a disclaimer in the text â something not done in TAR), the Climategate emails show a keen sense on the part of Overpeck and IPCC authors of this stratagem â see the handling of the Law Dome series, which has a high MWP. I asked that this be shown in the graphic. Once again, they refused. The Climategate letters show that the IPCC authors intentionally used text as an alternative to graphics to minimize disclosure.' Steve McIntyre
http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/14/oxburghs-trick-to-hide-the-trick/
Today's lesson from cohers- it's not the facts that matter, it's the 'tone'.
Ah, 'sweet little lies'.
Actually, [Michael](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/johann_hari_on_journalismgate.p…), I enjoy reading pieces such as [MFS's](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/johann_hari_on_journalismgate.p…), because they explicitly demonstrate how cohenite, when confronted with the real science of the work that he so consistently misrepresents, simply ignores his takings-down and carries on spreading his pseudoscientific memes with gay abandon*.
It's typical of cohenite's modus operandi - he make a pseudoscientific claim, using jargon and references to apparently consensus-repudiating material, and when his nonsense and misinterpretations of papers are exposed, he simply shuffles the cups and hopes that the punters haven't noticed that he's move the pea from where it was originally.
All in the fine tradition of Tim Curtin, Girma Orssengo, the muddle-headed Spangled Drongo, and a cast of others on Deltoid and elsewhere who believe that Dunning-Kruger applies to the professionals in a field, and not to their own evident powers of genius.
What a shame that it ain't actually so.
(*I can just see the collaboration now: Cox A and Abandon G. An alternative theory of everything, based on a me-too analysis of a random sampling of a constrained window of the laws of physics.
Cohenite,
Re: your post @326. One side in the climate change debate is actually doggedly involved in scientific endeavor: the majority of climate scientists who are in agreement that humans are the primary agent in forcing climate. You know - the one's actually doing the primary research, publishing their data in peer-reviewed journals, and attending workshops and conferences where this issue is discussed and debated.
Then you have the other side, largely populated by think tanks, right wing groups and the m-s-media, and a few scientists, primarily on the academic fringe, who are doing little if any primary research on their own but whose job (apparently) is to hound scientists on the other side for their data sets so that they can go over them with a fine toothed comb in a desperate attempt to find any flaws they can, and then to amplify any of these mistakes, no matter how miniscule they are, in an attempt to downplay the significance of AGW. By downplaying AGW, nothing will be done to deal with it. And that is the point: the rank-and-file of those in denial have little in the way of scientific expertise and many have taken little interest in any areas of environmental science until certain fields began to infringe on the market economy, thereby threatening the status quo. Suddenly the political right mobilized itself to combat the threat through various means: funding think tansk to disseminate misinformation to the public; funding or supporting astroturf lobbying groups and PR firms (and by enlisting a few scientists to their cause) to also challenmge the scientific basis of climate change and other nefarious measures. As I said, the debate was never about science and there is no irony intended; the so-called sceptics aim to generate directed conclusions on the topic of climate change in order to ensure that nothing is done about it.
Given that you have apparently no scientific qualifications in climate science or any other field of Earth science, it is clear that your support for the denialati is one that is based on political and economic, rather than scientific, expediency. But you are not unique: IMHO the vast majority of the denialists fall into this category. They do not give a rat's ass for the scientific truth, but have to package their denial as such; hence mendacious propaganda is necessary to cloak their lies as honest scientific enquiry.
Glad to see that others here have debunked all of your simple gibberish.
And a goodnight to you too MFS; Pinker puts forward the usual suspects for your dimming including "instrument defiiencies" but the guts of what she says, despite jakerman's pat objections, all of which I have dealt with before, is this:
"It was found at the surface, there is a positive linear increase of about 0.18 W m-2 year-1, which indicates an increase in surface radiation. At the ToA, the situation is reversed and the decrease is about -017 W m-2 year-1."
Notwithstanding a static sun Pinker observes "clouds are the major modulators of the solar radiation that reaches the surface."
Jakerman has stated that the decrease in S reaching the surface from 1983 to 1992 [the dimming] and an increase thereafter has had no measureable effect on temp; that temps were going up about the same rate during both periods; so, there's the puzzle; with apparent cloud variation causing the fluctuation in S, how is it that when S is declining temp is going up at the same rate as when S is increasing; if AGW is causing the increase during the S downturn how can AGW have the same effect when S is increased? The sun has no or negligible effect at measureable levels of increase or decrease? Is that what you're saying?
cohnite writes:
>*despite jakerman's pat objections, all of which I have dealt with before*
Happy to stand corrected cohnite, show us how you deal with my points that I again [raised here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/johann_hari_on_journalismgate.p…). Including the lack of temperature response, the lack of diurnal temperature growth, the stratopheric cooling, and you can add the fastest rate of warming at higher latitudes, particularly the Arctic. All of which are consistent with GHG forcing and none consistent with and increase in solar isolation.
I believe you had a totally inadequate response to each of these points.
And for the third time, I'm still waiting for you to:
>Please quote the conclusion of Pinker et al that you claim is confirmed by your uncited evidece for a change in SOI?
Pinker's conclusion should be something your can quote given your claim.
Cohnite asks:
>*how is it that when S is declining temp is going up at the same rate as when S is increasing*
A simple explanation is that change in S is small compared to other forcing factors. Remember Wild [(cited by Lambert)]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_takes_back_nice_wo…) explains:
>*The decadal changes in SSR found in the dimming/brightening literature are at first sight often unrealistically large from a radiative forcing viewpoint, as, e.g., presented by IPCC [2007]. Therein, radiative forcings altering solar radiation between preindustrial (year 1750) and present day are on the order of **minus 1-2 W mâ2 on a global average**, while **some of the surface-based estimates show similar or larger changes already within a decade** [...]
Indeed, under the assumption of a climate sensitivity of 0.5-1°C per W mâ2 radiative forcing as suggested by current climate models, a change of several W mâ2 decadeâ1 as inferred from surface observations would imply enormous decadal variations in surface temperature which are not observed. However, one should be aware that the radiative forcing concept as used in the IPCC reports applies to **changes at the tropopause, which cannot be directly compared to changes at the surface**.*
SamG said:
"Robert Murphy, that is a matter of interpretation from the source you referenced."
No, it's a matter of fact. The paragraph from the email was clearly not talking about a problem with 20th century temps or about the divergence problem. It was talking about how Briffa's reconstruction from the 19th century (and somewhat for the 17th too) showed temps WARMER than the other series. The issue was resolved, too.
The first paragraph you copied and pasted was from an email from late Sept. 1999, the second paragraph was from an email from about two months later and had absolutely nothing to do with the first.
"Is it too early for your opinion on Baillie's oaks ... blah blah blah...?"
Is it too early for you to stick to one point and answer it with a little intellectual honesty? Or are you still going pretend against all evidence that the "hide the decline" had something to do with an alleged decline in temps over the last few decades? What's it going to be? Your answer will determine whether I respond again.
Errrrr, Robert, my last post was held back so assuming nothing's changed, you probably won't read anything else from me. I'll see what happens this time.
/\ Oh good
Steve has responded to this
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/
It appears that when I post links, my posts await moderation.
I'm not making this up.
htt p: //climatea udit.org/2009/12/10/ ipcc-and-the-trick/
SamG,
You didn't address my points, you're just flailing now. I already posted a link showing that Mcintyre deliberately and selectively edited the emails to make it appear the discussion was late 20th century temps when in fact it was clearly 19th century (and to a lesser degree 17th century) temps that were at issue. You have completely ignored my post, and have instead resorted to reposting Mcintyre's original dishonest piece. You are hopeless; have a good life. I'm done with you.
Did you read it?
Obviously not.
It isn't McIntyre's original piece, it's his retort.
"It isn't McIntyre's original piece, it's his retort"
From his time machine?
*IPCC and the âTrickâ*
Posted by Steve McIntyre on Dec. 10th at 6:50 PM
*McIntyre provides fodder for skeptics*
posted at Deep Climate on Dec. 11th
You're batting .000 Sam. Give it up. Again, have a nice life.
MFS,
So you agree that polewards movements have happened before. And your science is recording another episode of such movement.
But how significant is it? You weren't around to measure the previous episodes, but obviously life in the sea continued so that you can measure it now. So again how significant is it? Nature constantly changes, why do you seem to think there is something wrong with this?
Ian Forrester,
Your name calling is really rather boring.
I'm new to this particular blog; so far there have been some very helpful points made. So far, Steve Reuland's comment in the thread about Andrew Weaver & the NP sums up much of the issue around what's happening to the public's view of Science.
I understand that you folks value well-reasoned debate, and a spirited discussion, both inside and outside of formal scientific subject areas. However, I'm amazed that as a group you're so willing to feed the trolls, a couple of whom are getting exactly what crave by participating in this thread: Attention.
"Don't feed the trolls" was a truism on many groups ten years ago, and it's still the best means of dealing with people whose ONLY purpose here is to get attention. They're not here for discussion, or to change your mind about climate change, grammar, politics or anything else. They can't be educated to change their thinking on any of their chosen subjects. They are incorrigible.
"Don't feed the trolls" means do not respond to them in *any* way. When they don't get what they're after, they will disappear back into the woodwork (rather like bedbugs) and look for greener pastures. If we apply this principle broadlt to fora where we expect reasoned discussion, they will eventually find themselves relegated to the fringes of the internet, where they can cavort with their peers to their heart's content. If you stop by for a look, make sure to bring your wellies!
Thanks for listening. ;-)
Dave (the Idiot) Andrews said:
Not at all. I think of it as doing a service in case any new visitor to this blog is about to make life changing decisions based on the rubbish and lies you post on this site and around the internet. They have the right to know that you are intellectually and morally bankrupt.
Quite a pathetic case in fact. People like you will, no doubt, provide years and years of case studies to those psychologists and sociologists who study the mindlessness of AGW deniers.
Do you ever think (sorry stupid question) that maybe your neighbours or work mates may actually read the blogs and have a good laugh at your nonsense?
jakerman; this conversation about Pinker and Wild and the points you raise was done before here from 122;
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_43.php#comments
I did not raise Pinker in the context of SOI but in the context of a possible mechanism to explain SOI variation, clouds; ie at comment 326:
" One competing answer for the intensification of the El Nino is either an increase in solar activity or an increase in insolation due to variations in cloud cover:"
And to get back to JournalismGate: The Australian has done it again. There's been no stories at all on the enquiries into the CRU e-mails until now. And guess who it's written by: Richard Lindzen.
Surprisingly for The Australian and climate change opinion pieces, it is open for comments, so if anyone wants to mock the article (and really, honestly, mockery is all it deserves - I read it and got out of it (a) "it's all a conspiracy" and (b) Bingo! on my denialati bingo card) it can be found [here](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/alarmists-keep-ringing-the…). Of course, knowing The Australian, all comments will be moderated and most won't turn up (they seem to get very lax on the weekends and News Limited do have a real crisis ie MelbourneStormGate to deal with right now - oh noes, somebody overpaid a footballer!).
A
Again Robert Murphy, you haven't read the article. Criticism of McIntyre's 'out of context' referencing existed before the publication of the Deep Climate article.
The Climate Audit article also includes the quotation in question, in its full unedited form.
Wishful thinking on your behalf.
Chris C#308
McIntyre also commented on this
'The above paragraph exists only because of my Review Comments on the Second Draft. Briffa continued the TAR non-disclosure in the AR4 First Draft and AR4 Second Drafts â climate scientists in the field didnât object, but I did. I asked Briffa to show the inconvenient data and explain it as best that he could. He continued to refuse to show the adverse data, but grudgingly inserted the above paragraph in the AR4 Report itself. This paragraph was never presented to the IPCC peer review process. Otherwise, I, for one, would have strongly objected to some of these assertions, which I believe to be invalid. As to Briffaâs decision not to show the inconvenient data in the graphic (while burying a disclaimer in the text â something not done in TAR), the Climategate emails show a keen sense on the part of Overpeck and IPCC authors of this stratagem â see the handling of the Law Dome series, which has a high MWP. I asked that this be shown in the graphic. Once again, they refused. The Climategate letters show that the IPCC authors intentionally used text as an alternative to graphics to minimize disclosure.'
ht
tp://climate
audit.org/2010/04/14/oxburghs-trick-to-hide-the-trick/
R.E. # 369
The order of the two articles would also suggest that McIntyre was aware of these problems and wasn't covering his ass in lieu of a previously dated post.
Thanks for the link cohnite, now can you point to the where in the thread that you appropriately "dealt with" my points, as in:
>Happy to stand corrected cohnite, show us how you deal with my points that I again raised here. Including the lack of temperature response, the lack of diurnal temperature growth, the stratopheric cooling, and you can add the fastest rate of warming at higher latitudes, particularly the Arctic. All of which are consistent with GHG forcing and none consistent with and increase in solar isolation.
>I believe you had a totally inadequate response to each of these points.
Amanda S@368 said:
There's a distinct possibility that News Ltd will be implicated in taxation fraud, since if the players din't know the real value of their salary packages they probably didn't declare them fully.
Would it not be sad if the biggest backer of of the war on science in Australia and a major slanderer of climate scientists turned out to be also involved in taxation fraud?
AmandaS - I posted a comment, I'll await to see whether they have the balls to publish it or not.
jakerman; Your Wild assertions have been answered at the link. Your point about there being no temperature reflection of the Pinker SW breakup between 1983-1992 [SW at BOA decreasing] and 1992-2001 [SW at BOA increasing] is here;
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1983/to:1992/trend/plot/uah/from:…
I found your graph confusing because it didn't correlate with the Pinker times.
Your point about the Arctic warming quicker than elsewhere is here;
http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09Chlylek.pdf
Your point about DTR is here:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/easterling.htm
Stratosphere cooling; well, MSU finds some cooling in the lower stratosphere;
http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html
But in 2008 it was 0.334K PD and I still like this graph;
http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Stratosphere1278-1204.gif
cohnite:
1) [Your chart](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1983/to:1992/trend/plot/uah/from:…) (like mine) shows no significant temperature response. (As previously discussed, same rate of warming pre and post S trend switch. (I.e. consistent with anther forcing is having greater influence)
(My chart corresponded with the year 1990 given in Pinker's abstract.)- Similar result.
Caution must also be used when comparing short-term trends or forincing can greatly influence short term trends, and create spurious results. (i.e. Pinitubo or SOI).
2) The AOI seem to have regional impact, however it appears insufficient to expalin the amplification in [inland continental warming](http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/10year.gif) in higher latitudes. Nor the fact that warming is [greatest in winter]( http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php) compared to summer.
There is also [evidence that](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7174/full/nature06502.html):
>*A significant proportion of the observed temperature amplification must therefore be explained by mechanisms that induce warming above the lowermost part of the atmosphere.*
3) Re failure for DTR to increase in response to a slight change is solar insolation: Hughes' un peer reviewed comments on Easterling 1997 provide zero evidence to contradict findings presented of [Vose et al 2005](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-3-2.html).
4) Re stratospheric cooling, Iâm not surprised you like a chart with cherry picked ashort term trend. However the decadal trend is a cooling of the lower stratosphere of [0.3K/decade]( http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html). Nearly twice as fast as the warming at the lower troposphere.
Anthony Cox opening for the defense in court...
"Your Honour, the Prosecution's wild assertions have been answered in this diary. My Learned Colleague's point about my client having punched his estranged wife in the face is addressed in this this link to my client's facebook page. As to my client's whereabouts at the time of the alleged incident, I still like this 'phonebook.
I rest my case".
On the matter of the Australian's publication of Lindzen's piece, mentioned by [AmandaS](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/johann_hari_on_journalismgate.p…), I submitted this comment:
Just as [Connor does](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/johann_hari_on_journalismgate.p…), I wonder if they'll have the courage to publish it.
Anthony Cox closing argument...
"...ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!"
T P Hamilton.
You pre-empted me, but in a good way. Consider this:
There, that sounds like a cohenite argument!
Hello Robert?
Hello SamG?
Which part of AGW is true?
Evasive.
@SamG
> The Climate Audit article also includes the quotation in question, in its full unedited form.
That was retroactively added to the post, without indication that this has happened. Watts pulls the same thing whenever he can't hide from criticism.
What, you didn't know that kind of thing went on at Climateaudit? You must not have been paying attention at the time...
...that co2 is a greenhouse gas; I'll give you that Dave H. But then there are a myriad of factors to consider such as forcings, feedback mechanisms, past climate etc etc... nobody can claim a monopoly on the truth(yet).
...which strangely enough has occurred to climate scientists already. And they've spent some time looking at those things. What do you think they've discovered, with what level of uncertainty, and which parts do you disagree with and why?
[Lotharsson](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/johann_hari_on_journalismgate.p…).
Don't be unfair. You are asking SamG to do science.
That will break the poor boy.
[Sob...]
Nah, Bernard - it's entirely fair, since he made a claim about the veracity of the science.
And yes, it might indeed break him to substantiate his claim on scientific grounds. Which, if it eventuates, would be indicative of the value of his claims...
still no comments published on The Australian op-ed peice. Cowards.
Fran Barlow:
Sorry for the O/T tangent but would there be any point in paying a player more than they're allowed if they didn't know about it? The whole point of paying them more is to motivate them to play for the club paying more, surely. No knowledge: no motivation. Thus I'd be very surprised if the players didn't know they were being paid more.
Lotharsson, let's continue at Robert Murphy's departure.
He thinks that a deep climate post somehow proves that McIntyre's climategate anecdote is erroneous to the late 20th C. (see above)
McIntyre posted an evaluation of these criticisms a day before deep climate presented their post. McIntyre also posted the 'offensive' climategate quotation in its entirety, with detailed explanations.
Of course, Robert is being pedantic by claiming that the climateaudit post is not responsive to the specific deep climate article; being a day older. It is in fact a response to the same topic discussed at real climate.
It's instances like this, where the advocacy claim a win because of small minutiae and misinformation, that really convulote the argument. There are many examples of this.
Now I don't expect you to agree with me but it would be completely fanciful for you to believe that the climategate letters are innocuous and that skeptics don't have a case.
This is the same nonsense that would suggests that FOI request refusals are admissible and that the politically left aren't funded as extensively as you lot claim the right are
There's B.S. in both camps. Instead of trying to create diversions by focusing on my scientific 'rigor', it would be far more honest for you to admit there is some ambiguity in the science, that asserting a radical viewpoint is a flawed approach and personal attacks are a characteristic of political dogmatism, not science.
SamG said:
Quite right, however the converse of this is that there are a number of people and sites which have a monopoly on lies and dishonesty.
In case you have trouble discerning which is which may I refer you to climatefraudit, wattsuphisbutt, co2sceince, icecap, and a host of others which are discussed regularly on this site which seem to be a haven for lies, distortion, obfuscation and personal smears.
Ian Forrester - Funny isn't it? Of course noBODY has a monopoly on the truth, but a veritable fucktonne of people have a consnesus on truth, while a bunch of nobodies try to deny the truth through misrepresentation, mischaracterisation and obfuscation. Ironic, ain't it?
Based on your agreement on monopoly, there is no basis for using ugly terminology such as denier. Correct?
I think the infallible view of the advocacy vs. evil skepticism, allows people to continually justify using this term. But it's total crap.
Whether you drop the D word, I don't know?
My previous post discussed this but I am now moderated. Maybe it will appear tomorrow? Who knows.
Connor, your argument is a logical fallacy. If there's no monopoly on the truth, consensus is irrelevant. Your post displays emotion over logic. (agenda)
It is obvious that SamG is scared of the truth. That is why he wants the word "DENIER" stricken from the English language.
You are a hoot but but what you post is no longer laughable. You are pathetic.
Well everyone is getting exposed to the truth about you. You have a monopoly on stupid, anti-intellectual, ignorant and arrogant.
Us: Science please.
SamG: HOW DARE YOU CALL ME A DENIER I DEMAND YOU STOP USING THAT TERM IMMEADIATELY.
Us: Science please.
SamG: I AM RIGHT WATTS CLIMATE AUDIT NOVA EMAILS CLIMATEGATE DON'T CALL ME A DENIER.
Ian Forrester,
Slur away as much as you like. In retrospect you will prove to be the idiot.
Dave (the Idiot) Andrews said:
In your dreams idiot. Have you never heard that truth will out? The truth is found in the scientific literature, not in the postings of idiots like you. Why do you keep showing how much of an idiot you are? Do you not have enough sense to try and be honest so that people like me will not be able to pour scorn on you?
You are pathetic, do your neighbors and friends ever check out what you post? They must think that you are the biggest fool on the block (unless you live in a nut house).
No, this is fallacious black & white thinking. It assumes you can only exhibit denial when the complete set of truth is fully known with no uncertainty and no prospect of further changes or improvements and pretty much everyone agrees.
Denial can apply to scientific truths in fields where more related truths remain to be solidified and it can apply to the level of (un-)certainty currently attached to a scientific case.
Basically, if you're "skeptical" about some (aspect of a) scientific case but you can't fairly represent that case and show reasonable cause for your "skepticism", you're "denying" that case. Reasonable cause does not include "some out of context e-mails made me suspicious of some people and/or their methods".
Argument by assertion of desired result coupled with belittlement of any alternative. Not very convincing.
The "concerns" about the letters have been explained by the authors. To my knowledge none of the "skeptics" have been able to show a single paper that would be withdrawn or even significantly modified as a result of any "new information" revealed in the letters. Feel free to attempt to be the first.
Furthermore the letters are most commonly used to cast doubt on the CRU temperature record and imply that the scientists involved are out and out frauds - but it appears that Steve Mosher who authored the first book on the letters said that no-one "having any credibility" - by which he means "credible" "skeptics" such as McIntyre, Watts - and Mosher - "...expects to find some huge smoking gun in the [CRU] code. No error that accounts for the warming."
It seems that Mosher himself isn't entirely straightforward with the truth - his book is marketed as showing people that the e-mails are commonly interpreted out-of-context, but in context they are much worse. And yet he basically says that no, really, the CRU temperature record is largely correct and hence not fraudulent. And dobs in Watts and McIntyre as believing the same, despite their frequent appearance in PR campaigns that imply the opposite. Doesn't that make the three of them frauds?
And wow - those letters are proving a huge distraction for you preventing you from showing the scientific case for your "skepticism". Are you unable to provide one, or merely unwilling?
@ 398
I wholly agree with you Dave Andrews.
Comments in posts like this one to san quintin "... or is it just a case of 'lending' your name to a paper so that the publishing record looks better?" or this one to MFS "you have no idea, for example, if there were similar migrations in the past and what you are now observing is perhaps not unusual" are nothing more than sly insinuations and unsubstantiated slurs on people's character and professional behaviour. I agree it must stop.
Oh, wait...
SamG - You misread my post. I said noBODY, ie. no single person, but a consensus can have a polyopoly over the truth. Everyman is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts, or something like that.
Since the term 'denier' is what you are so hotly contesting, let's use an analogy. Do you think that David Irving's 'truth' is as valid as mainstream historians when it comes to the Holocaust? Of course not, he is a lone wingnut, kind of like McIntyre and Watts etc, who goes to great lengths to deny to widely accepted historical truth of what happened to the Jews during WW2.
Connor,
Your analogy fails because, of course, there is considerable provable historical ,and still some eyewitness, evidence that the holocaust happened.
Evidence of the importance of climate change, however, and what it might mean in the future, is far more nebulous and relies very largely on climate models and not on empirical evidence. So people can rightly be sceptical of this and that does not make them 'deniers'.
Dave (the Idiot) Andrews said:
This just shows that he uses big words without even knowing what they mean. There is a huge amount of empirical (look it in the dictionary) evidence that shows that AGW is real.
Try [this thread on Deltoid](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…)
And you wonder why you are the butt of jokes and scorn when you show just how stupid you are. But, hey, being stupid is better than being dishonest, we wouldn't want to call you dishonest would we?
Ian (404), your link to the empirical evidence for man-made global warming fixed.
Connor, your argument is a logical fallacy. If there's no monopoly on the truth, consensus is irrelevant.
Uh, say what?
Logic: ur doin' it rong.
Thanks SteveC, I have to get better at using proper internet techniques.
I said noBODY, ie. no single person, but a consensus can have a polyopoly over the truth.
Scientific consensus has nothing to do with any sort of opoly -- it is simply the fact that those in the best position to judge a matter agree on the matter. Consider the consensus among mathematicians that Andrew Wiles proved Fermat's Last Theorem. It's the best basis for reaching a conclusion as to whether he did -- it sure beats reading the proof and coming to your own conclusion. Or consider the consensus among scientists that the Earth is nearly 14 billion years old -- that is the best basis for reaching a conclusion as to the age of the universe -- it sure beats doing your own measurements.
Dave Andrews - No it's not, the evidence for AGW is overwhelming and is based on direct experimental evidence
http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
You people are called deniers because denial is exactly what you do, and you employ many of the same techniques as other deniers, such as those who downplay the Holocaust, like it or not dem's the facts. So, suck it up, or stop denying the truth, because that's the only way you are going to avoid being correctly labeled a denier.
I have to get better at using proper internet techniques
All you have to do is read the text just above the comment box that says
> Comments: (you may use HTML tags or [markdown](http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/dingus) for style). Please make urls into proper links like this: `[Description](http://example.com)`.
Oops ...
Or consider the consensus among scientists that the Earthuniverse is nearly 14 billion years old
Truth Machine - I stand corrected!
Connor,
No one doubts that the earth is warming, or at least was till around 2003.
If you read what I said it was questioning the importance of climate change and the use of climate models to predict what it might mean in the future.
The latter are basically mathematical models which probably have as much provenance as those that told the bankers et al that they could carry on with their fantasies until reality collapsed about their ears. They are certainly lacking in many aspects of representing the Earth's climate.
Ian Forrester,
Oh dear me, can you actually make any comment without being abusive?
One really feels for those who are close to you, if they exist.
Dave (the idiot) Andrews, do you find the truth to be hurtful? Do you think that maybe if you thought about why you are an object of scorn and ridicule and decided to improve your persona that maybe people might stop telling how stupid and dishonest you are?
Think about it, if you are capable of rational thought.
...because as is widely acknowledged by "skeptics", financial models are based on fundamental physics that can be demonstrated in the test lab. (And climate models are the ONLY reason that climate scientists are deeply concerned about climate change.)
No, really! And I have this great CDO you should buy - guaranteed free of modeling influences, so right up your alley! There's more where that came from...
Dave - No, just because the atmosphere supposedly hasn't warmed since 2003 (which it has, so it's a moot point really) doesn't mean the planet has stopped accumulating heat. Water is a much more efficient heat storage medium than gas, and surprise surprise, oceans have continued to warm at truly alarming rate
See: (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD012105.shtml "An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950")
An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950 (Murphy 2009)
Lotharsson,
The climate models might be better now than they were 20 years ago but they are still a long way from truly representing many aspects of the Earth's climate.
Climate modellers know this, though they are reluctant to admit so in public. (Jeopardises the funding sources)
There are so many aspects they cannot model properly and they still can't basically support projections on less than a couple of thousand kilometres.
So the fact IPCC relies on them demonstrates that the process is a political not a scientific one.
Dave: You are essentially saying models are not good enough, right? Care illustrating the following?
A) How climate models are better now than they were 20 years ago.
B) What uncertainties are inherent in climate modelling and in which way these are accounted for in a climate model. For a bonus point, how are these represented in any one particular model's output, and why is this insufficient.
C) Provide evidence that climate modellers (which ones?) know that they "cannot model properly". Since people are innocent until proven guilty, the onus is on you to prove that deception is going on.
D) List the aspects that they cannot model properly, and explain on what scale of projection they CAN model properly, and summarise why and how this makes climate models unsuitable for use in climate forecasting.
Finally, please ensure you discuss this in terms of climate, not weather.
In essence, tell us what specifically makes which particular climate model unsuitable.
Since you seem so familiar with this stuff, you should have no trouble answering this questionnaire. Show us you know how a climate model works, so we believe your concerns when dismiss what is essentialy the best tool we currently have for climate forecasting. Then we can try to address your specific concerns about climate models.
Failure to do this will clearly demonstrate that you are a troll and a denialist who is only parroting lines (which he does not understand) he read elsewhere in order to disrupt discussion on a topic that had nothing to do with climate models, but was instead centered around bad journalism.
Sorry guys, #419 post above was mine. Somehow it lost my handle.
Dave Andrews - in addition to MFS's questions in 419 above and the request "Finally, please ensure you discuss this in terms of climate, not weather.", please also ensure that your answers do not reference the usual rag-bag of "sceptic" websites (WUWT, ClimateAudit etc.) since the models, assumptions, assertions and projections they use are, shall we say, questionable.
Thank you.
Total pwnage!
Speaking of bad journalism here is a keeper.
[James Delingpole](http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/reader-background/#comment-…) pops at air vent to explain his motives:
April 23, 2010 at 5:04 am
>*Gosh, you guys put me to shame. Iâm just an Oxford English literature graduate and journalist who happened to get lucky with a story â Climategate â which was broken here first. Though Iâm fascinated by the science â reading blogs like this has been a real education for me â what most interests me about AGW as a libertarian is the politics of it all.*
Perhaps James gets all his scienctific education from partisan blogs?
>*Iâm sure most of you would agree that AGW is the greatest lie ever told. You guys are more than capable of explaining why itâs a lie.*
James doen't need a scientific process to get close to seeking truth. James selectes his perefered outcome. He simply finds the blogs that align with his politics.
>*I see my job (as the cultural critic my university degree trained me to be) as being more in the way of analysing how it is that this lie became so widely promulgated, of exposing just how deeply buried in the fabric of our culture, and of trying to suggest what the hell we might do to stop it.
Shorter James: *Lets just assume the science is all wrong, my job is to construct a radical libertarian narative to explain world if this was the case.*
>*Scientifically, Iâm not worthy of you. As a polemicist, though, I hope I do my bit. This is war, perhaps the most important war our generation will fight, and weâre in this one together.*
Thanks for the confirmation James!
The New York Times ran an article about the American Petroleum Institute in April of 1998. It outlines a very specific and detailed plan by oil and gas industry representatives to invest millions of dollars in an effort to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol and discredit the scientific consensus opinion that greenhouse gases are causing the planet to warm.
http://www.euronet.nl/users/e_wesker/ew@shell/API-prop.html
The draft plan, titled âGlobal Climate Science Communications Action Plan,â concedes that opposition to the protocol is not shared by the public or a vast majority of scientists worldwide. âThere has been little, if any, public resistance or pressure applied to Congress to reject the treaty, except by those âinside the Beltwayâ with vested interests,â it notes.
Read: Global Climate Science Communications Action Plan
http://harryhammer.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/global-climate-science-comm…
MFS,
I assume, perhaps wrongly, that as an educated person you read widely about the issues concerning climate change and GCMs. If you haven't apparently come across the many caveats about climate models expressed by the modellers themselves then i am very surprised.
Dave Andrews @ 425
You were asked for evidence to substantiate your repeated claims that
(a) climate models were unfit for the purpose in many respects, and
(b) climate scientists know this.
And your answer is the caveats placed there by the modellers. Is that it?
Dave Andrews @ 425:
Yes, Dave, despite their many caveats, climate models are the best form of climate forecasting available at the moment. Yet you confuse me. You go on a bit of a 'conspiracy' tangent when you assert [Climate modellers know this, though they are reluctant to admit so in public (Jeopardises the funding sources)](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/johann_hari_on_journalismgate.p…). However without missing a beat [you point me to the literature](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/johann_hari_on_journalismgate.p…) saying "if you haven't apparently come across the many caveats about climate models expressed by the modellers themselves then i am very surprised".
Which is it, are they hiding the uncertainties inherent to every model or are they detailing them at length in the literature? If they are hiding them, how do YOU know about them?
So since climate models and their uncertainties ARE our best forecasting tools, can you substantiate your allegation that they are unsuitable? The scientific community has accepted modelling forecasts, with all their caveats and uncertainties. What is your basis for rejecting them? So far you've only given us fluff. I for one hate to repeat myself.
MFS,
Let's put it this way.
A few scientists have indeed published papers outlining the problems associated with the models, eg, Stainforth et al 2007.
Most papers gloss over this, however.The MSM, meanwhile, accept whatever is in the press release, and rarely does a press release point out problems with the models.
Sometimes, asked to comment, modellers will point to the difficulties, eg, Myles Allen commenting on the UK Met Office announcement in June 2009 of new predictions of the impact of climate change to 2080 down to a resolution of 25km2. Allen was skeptical that projections could be supported below resolutions of 'a couple of thousand kilometres'.
His four lines in Nature (vol 459, 25 June 2009)had no effect on the MSM, and Met Office, going over the top.(Even Nature's headline to the small piece in which he was quoted was "Climate projections taken to finest detail", as if he had not said what he had.)
So Dave Andrews is complaining about media coverage of models instead of substantiating his claim that they are unsuitable for many purposes - or indeed even enumerating those unsuitable purposes, let alone the finer nuance of specifying how useful they are (or are not) for a given purpose. Nor is he demonstrating how this substantiates his claim that the IPCC is a "political process rather than a scientific one".
Colour me surprised.
Dave,
So scientists do actually publish their methods! Publishing is in fact "admitting so in public" With this momentous news we can accept that you were [lying](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/johann_hari_on_journalismgate.p…) and move on.
Science is not communicated by press release. The materials and methods are published in the literature. The models are discussed. The methodology is tried by others. If another researcher finds a problem with the model, he publishes this in the literature.
If you have discovered a problem with the models, then please, by all means share it with us, or publish it. I can GUARANTEE you if you can bring a major climate model crashing down, this will be worth a paper in Science or Nature and give you instant fame and fortune as a scientist. There aint no faster way to renown and grant $$$ than by refuting a major piece of widely accepted research.
On a side note I have yet to meet a scientist who did not laugh at the media coverage of a story that they knew first hand about. They mangle it something cronic! The moral is, if you pay attention to the media rather than going to the sources, the joke's on you.
So can you show us a problem with a climate model, one so crucial that it will bring the entire AGW hypothesis crashing down in flames? I though not. Just feeding us recycled garbage from WUWT or other poor, misguided source. Moving on...
MFS,
"The moral is, if you pay attention to the media rather than going to the sources, the joke's on you."
To an extent I would agree with you on this. But AGW is now a political process attempting to persuade politicians and peoples to take certain actions (Lotharsson you need to come out of your ivory tower, if that is where you reside). So scientists can no longer ignore the 'political' nuances that will be given to their papers. They should therefore be far more upfront about acknowledging the problems with their models.
The IPCC, likewise, needs to be much clearer about the uncertainties involved in the science than it is in its summary for policymakers.
As a recent Nature editorial on assessing the impact of climate change said (18th Feb 2010),
" Researchers need to resist the pressures to overstate the robustness of their conclusions and to be as open as possible about where the uncertainties lie"
Dave @ 431,
So you're saying, in essence:
1 - [Modellers lie, they know their models are crap and hide this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/johann_hari_on_journalismgate.p…)
2 - [Oh, no, wait, modellers publish their methods and acknowledge the pitfalls of the models.](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/johann_hari_on_journalismgate.p…)
3 - [Hang on, AGW is now a political issue and climate scientists need to acknowledge their work is crap](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/johann_hari_on_journalismgate.p…)
Now, when will you admit you've been [caught in a lie](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/johann_hari_on_journalismgate.p…) and stop subtly (or not-so-subtly) trying to shift the discussion away from science and models onto media and politics? We can all see you're not comfortable discussing the science, but that's actually what we're here for.
As I've stated a number of times (a) I'm not a scientist and (b) I work in private industry.
You're conflating two things.
The politics of the response to AGW are political. The science of AGW is a scientific process - one that includes publishing all the caveats and uncertainties that you are still claiming are kind-of hidden by the scientists.
You seem to like trying to apply political argument to the science itself when you can no longer argue the science - hence the usefulness of the conflation to you.
MFS,
As you know very well you have misrepresented what I said. There is no point in responding because you will do the same again.
Truth Machine - I stand corrected!