The Australian renews its war on science by printing an opinion piece by Richard Lindzen. Arthur Smith comments:
From his latest piece one can only conclude that either Lindzen has descended into the epistemic closure of paranoia and conspiracy theories that has become far too prevalent among some Americans lately or, worse, that he is consciously participating in the malicious disinformation campaign on climate that has recently been extensively documented by Greenpeace and elsewhere
Smith gives a detailed analysis of how he came to this conclusion.
Marc Ambinder also weighs in:
"Climate Science In Denial," reads a Wall Street Journal op-ed headline. "Global warming alarmists have been discredited, but you wouldn't know it from the rhetoric this Earth Day."
Actually, the subhead should be revised: "Global warming denialists have been re-discredited, but you wouldn't know it from the rhetoric in today's Wall Street Journal." Far be it from me, a non-scientist, to dispute the scientific expertise of an MIT professor of meterology, Richard Lindzen, but then again, Lindzen's selective recitation of the litany of arguments against global warming practically begs a rebuttal.
There's so much that is wrong with Lindzen's piece that there's plenty left for me. Lindzen writes:
In addition, numerous professional societies, including the American Society of Agronomy, the American Society of Plant Biologists and the Natural Science Collections Alliance, most of which have no expertise in climate, endorse essentially the following opinion: that the climate is warming; the warming is due to man's emissions of carbon dioxide; and continued emissions will lead to catastrophe.
We may reasonably wonder why they feel compelled to endorse this view. The IPCC's position in its Summary for Policymakers from its Fourth Assessment (2007) is weaker, and simply points out that most warming of the past 50 years or so is due to man's emissions.
Let us check to see what they actually endorsed:
Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is
occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the
greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.
These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence,
and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of
the vast body of peer-reviewed science. Moreover, there is strong
evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on
society, including the global economy and on the environment. For the
United States, climate change impacts include sea level rise for coastal
states, greater threats of extreme weather events, and increased risk of
regional water scarcity, urban heat waves, western wildfires, and the
disturbance of biological systems throughout the country. The severity
of climate change impacts is expected to increase substantially in the
coming decades.
That is what the IPCC report says, and Lindzen surely knows it. It seems that Lindzen simply does not care whether what he writes is true or not.
Lindzen's not all bad -- it was another one of his opinion pieces that started my blogging about climate change. My conclusion, way back in 2004:
I find Lindzen's systematic misrepresentation of the report that he helped author completely inexcusable.
- Log in to post comments
"Lindzen's not all bad -- it was another one of his opinion pieces that started by blogging about climate change"
One letter makes a big difference. I think you mean "my", not "by".
For those who think Lindzen has any integrity left.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/11/a-note-from-richard-lindzen-on-st…
"Look at the attached. There has been no warming since 1997 and no
statistically significant warming since 1995. Why bother with the
arguments about an El Nino anomaly in 1998? (Incidentally, the red
fuzz represents the error âbarsâ.)
Best wishes,
Dick
==================================================
Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
MIT Cambridge, MA 02139 USA"
In the above email Lindzen is coaching Watts on how to cherry pick dates to minimize the warming, that and to cherry pick a window of time which is known to be too short to obtain a stat sig warming trend. Anthony Watts in response states "the man has a point". That is, he agrees. This from two contrarians who routinely falsely accuse others of fudging the data and conducting sub-par or faulty data analysis.
This posts on WUWT blew my mind. IMHO, Lindzen suggesting this type of data manipulation is quite simply scientific misconduct.
If Jones et al had said this in an email, it would have been blasted all over the net, and rightly so. Yet, the media and even some pro science bloggers remain mute on this little gem despite knowing about it. Why Tim?
Quite funny/ironic then how he accuses CRU of data manipulation, because:
1) Two independent inquiries have found no wrong doing at CRU, and he knows that but is insisting on continuing to disseminate misinformation
2) In my post above he seems to be suggesting ways to manipulate the data to hide the warming or to avoid obtaining a stat sig warming trend
Oh the hypocrisy Dr. Lindzen!
I don't understand. Lindzen abandoned all claim to honest science a long time ago. Why is anyone surprised by his recent comedy turns?
Some passages that I thought particularly interesting:
"In what has become known as Climategate, one could see unambiguous evidence of the unethical suppression of information and opposing viewpoints, and even data manipulation."
"The results were whitewashes that are incredible given the data."
Anybody else reminded of our dear contributor Graeme Bird? I could not get past my mental image of him screaming at his computer at the top of his lungs as he wrote comment after comment extolling us all to READ THE EMAILS!!! for incontrovertible evidence of a worldwide conspiracy...
If we want to be snarky, we can juxtapose comments apparently made by Mosher to the effect that "no-one with any credibility [in skeptic circles, presumably]... expects to find some huge smoking gun in the [CRU] code. No error that accounts for the warming."
Mosher names Watts & McIntyre (and himself, despite his book that appears to allege otherwise) in that list of those "with credibility", but does not name Lindzen. Maybe now we know why ;-)
Or maybe he's finely parsing a distinction between data manipulation executed via code and data manipulation performed in another fashion...
Oh, and earlier in that thread Mosher says the GISS temperature code looks fine.
The sceptics really tie themselves in knots.
How many times I've had them say "oh but just because someone is climate scientist doesn't mean they're right", then two sentences later they say "now look at Professor Richard Lindzen - he says they faked the data - and he's a climate scientist! How much more proof do you need?"
Talk about having their cake and eating it too - many sceptics must be getting mighty porky by now.
Arthur Smith's response ought to be required reading for anyone who read Lindzen's piece!
I just read this elsewhere:
"The manmade climate change contrarians have already lost the "genuine debate" - which isn't on TV, or on blogs, or in newspaper op-ed pieces. The "debate" on manmade climate change is in the science journals, and there, the contrarians have come up empty - devastatingly so. Sure, they can try the shell game of emails, Al Gore, and slurs against scientists and the science, but that tactic has just about run its course.
As more and more confirmatory observations of the changes in the earth's climate that we're causing roll in, it's the contrarians who have become "maniacal". The interesting debate isn't about climate change, it's about why some people refuse to acknowledge reality. Is dogma that powerful?"
'The interesting debate isn't about climate change, it's about why some people refuse to acknowledge reality. Is dogma that powerful?'
This is the story of the century and it's all about the great delusion.
There - linked it for you ;-)
Lotharsson winz the Internetz!
> Lindzen's not all bad -- it was another one of his opinion pieces that started my blogging about climate change.
We can all thank Lindzen for that much - your contribution to the 'debate' has been invaluable, Tim.
Very funny, Loth. There is someone else who may be suffering the same malady, Professor GO has a guest post at Watts.
14 EG,
Yes, [it's true](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/25/predictions-of-global-mean-temper…).
I thought you were joking, but there really are no limits to crazy (or stupid) in the world of AGW denialism.
TrueSceptic @ 14:
Priceless!!! They argue against warming predictions by drawing a sine wave, and forecasting that the end of the century will correspond with the wave's trough and therefore the warming by 2100 will be less than forecast in the IPCC report!
Even if it were true, they've provided a helpful trend line to show that, were their scenario to play out, the temperature would keep oscillating over a steadily rising average, with overall the same result as IPCC projections!
Since there is no Materials & Methods section, we can't really know how they came up with this gem, but I wouldn't hold my breath till it appears in a peer-reviewed journal.
Sorry for the OT excursion
If it is about global warming, its causes and its consequences and if it is published by the Murdoch press, particularly if it appears in The Australian, I automatically assume that it is (a) anti-science (b) misleading or wrong and (c) not worth commenting on.
16 MFS,
You might not be aware of GO's history. He was largely responsible for the longest ever thread here (I think). He also picked up a few tips here.
One thing I will say: he is only the second person to accept a climate-related bet with me, so he does believe what he says.
It think this is the thread. [2160 comments](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…). Enjoy!
Brent's been trying on the "empirical evidence" thread, assisted by sunspot, but they seem to be running out of steam. The latest sunspot comment was apparently debunked in about 4 seconds, and the latest Brent comment was all accusations that AGW is religious belief for the gullible. Seeing as Brent had no evidence that AGW is a religious belief, it seems he wants us to take that assertion (ahem) on faith.
We now return you to our regularly scheduled programming - the never ending saga of The Australian's War On Science!
I do not generally agree with the opinion of Lindzen. But if any professional societies really said "continued emissions will lead to catastrophe" without fully explaining what they meant by the word "catastrophe", they deserve the criticism. It is not simple rewording of "The severity of climate change impacts is expected to increase substantially". Excuse me for not checking what those socieies actually said, and I hope that they did not use such "alarmist" expressions.
They're still not publishing comments, the cowards.
off topic:
those who have been around a little, might want to take a look at post by our friend Girma Orssengo on [WuWt](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/25/predictions-of-global-mean-temper…)
when you fit a sin function over a linear trend, you get very god correlation to temperature. (what you would expect, when fitting a function)
his "model" predicts slight cooling for the 21st century...
Kooiti Masuda said:
Lindzen's info is taken from this letter signed by 18 associations to the US Senate.
Here are some relevant quotes:
[Letter to the US Senate](http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/media/1021climate_letter.pdf)
As usual Lindzen is being dishonest.
Argh! Bernard, this is *your* fault, for [mentioning him](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/johann_hari_on_journalismgate.p…) in the Johann Hari thread. Now, like Candyman, he has been summoned once more to perform acts of unspeakable violence against reason and logic.
@21 Connor - I don't think it's cowardice. The Australian gets very, very bad at putting up comments on weekends; often none at all turn up. This weekend they didn't even manage to get the letters page updated, so I think MelbourneStormGate has thrown them completely. I would imagine there is panic and flailing.
Though I am unsure whether to be most amused by the fact that (a) they claim they are hard-hitting investigative journalists but failed to notice that their own company was doing illegal things until a whisteblower turned up or (b) that they freely toss around conspiracy theories whilst being part of a conspiracy themselves.
A
'Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring'. That is definitely true.
Hi,
I'm getting continuously hassled by well-meaning friends telling me climate change - and all the scary stuff it's supposed to cause is a hoax. Whenever I counter with the usual stuff I've heard, like hottest decade on record, or sea-level rise, or more storms, or more droughts, they always laugh at me and tell me these aren't proof.
If all this stuff isn't proof, then what can I tell them that is definite proof of human caused global warming?
Cheers and thank you.
George, there is not one single item of "proof" for AGW that will change your friends' minds, there is an avalanche of it. Please see http://www.skepticalscience.com.
John,
Thanks. I've spent a fair bit of time looking over skepticalscience.com and realclimate.org already - mainly realclimate.org. There's nothing on those sites that can't be called circumstantial or anecdotal. Is that it?
Surely there must be some definitive evidence. Something the skeptics can't say could be natural.
Thanks
Realy? Documented scientific evidence is anecdotal? 29,000 biological indicators showing warming is circumstantial? The continuing verified melting of sea ice and glaciers are anecdotal? The rising temperatures (2010 is on track to be the warmest ever) is anecdotal?
Look closer.
I mean really look.
It would be a shame if your friends weren't able to see the plainly obvious.
Such silly friends.
@George
I always found the basic physics to be pretty hard to argue with. ie:
That CO2 causes a greenhouse effect is indisputable.
That increasing concentrations will increase the effect is measurable and obvious.
That we've known this since the 19th century and used this to predict that there would be warming from anthropogenic CO2 before any such warming was observed.
That 150-year-old initial estimates for climate sensitivity based purely on physical calculations are in line with modern analyses based on a variety of different methods.
That everything that has come since the initial hypothesis that anthropogenic CO2 emissions will cause warming has just been confirmation upon confirmation and refinement upon refinement.
That the question really is is why *wouldn't* extra CO2 in the atmosphere cause warming.
Oh, and George?
Would you care to qualify some comments for me?
Specifically, this comment made only five days ago:
How about you read some science instead of obsessing over Al Gore you tedious little troll?
George, start [here](http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-fingerprint-in-global-warming.html) then try this little longer but [informative 6-part series](http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part…).
Ignore George everyone. He's an Al Gore obsessed troll.
So there's nothing you can't point me to that proves the warming is caused by CO2. Otherwise, everything else you've told me, numerous and compelling thought they may be, is only circumstantial. 2010 may be on track to be the hottest year ever - why does that prove it is caused by CO2?
Worst. Concern Troll. Ever.
@George
Oh dear. Time waster, and off-topic to boot. Thank you killfile.
Well, the formatting messed up, but the point is that George Grisancich just made the most transparently lame attempt at concern trolling ever.
Says George:
What an anti-intellectual buffoon.
He tried to troll Climate Progress as well. Gave them a heads up.
This is yet more proof that denialists can't get anywhere without resorting to misrepresentation and lying.
OT perhaps, or maybe on topic for @George: hot off the presses of the internets:
The Geological Society of America has just updated its Position Statement on Global Climate Change . The position statement:
Good news and, Hooray for science :)
Thanks to those that have provided some info.
Sadly, John and Bud feel that I'm trolling because I have stated elsewhere I think global warming is a scam. But I guess that's how they advance an argument.
I am trying to get a straight answer to a simple question and take offense at being labeled a troll. I am posting under my real name, something I note many do not, so clearly not misrepresenting who I am. I stand behind my first 2 posts here (27 & 29). Clearly I have not provoked an argument.
If you would rather circle the wagons than assist with some facts, so be it.
@Rixaeton. Societies don't do science, and science doesn't do consensus.
Must... not... feed... tro..
bugger it:
You are right; Scientists in societies do science :) And, denialist trolls don't do reading and comprehension.
As for consensus, if the vast majority of climate scientists said "the science says global warming is not real" you would be out there with blog comments on how global warming must be real and we must take action because most scientists say it isn't? What a strange world you must live in.
No I feel you're trolling because you came here with a false agenda. That's what trolls do. Maybe you think it's clever but I am smarter than you and I caught you out. You have failed.
Tough shit.
As am I. But that doesn't make us more virtuous.
Except you lied to us about your motives.
I've read what you've written on the net and you've never once adressed the science, instead preferring to attack Phil Jones and Al Gore (like that isn't getting old).
I'm a nice guy George and I'm going to humour you. Your entire argument is that there's no evidence linking Co2 to the climate. You're wrong.
Please tell us what you dispute in the link provided, whereupon we will have a robust discussion and you will be humbled.
I don't do troll-feeding, but for anyone lurking who might feel that not engaging people like George = avoiding debate and "circling wagons":
[This comment thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…) shows exactly what happens when people like George are engaged with. Attempts to honestly answer questions are met with avoidance, goalpost-shifting, sly digs and snark followed by protestations of innocence, and above all no evidence whatsoever of an ability or willingness to engage with the scientific evidence provided.
It's a great 1300+ comment case study in why so-called "debate" is for these people nothing more than an exercise in time-wasting. The change in tune from Brent - who I initially spent several posts engaging with - from innocent enquirer to rabid climate-sceptic idealogue justifies the short shrift given to his type.
I actually read the issue of The Weekend Australian in which that was printed (I know, I know...) - not only did they have that piece, but a couple of other editorials decried the practise of allowing "experts" to make decisions (for example, in regards to the Eyjafjallajokull-related airline closures). They shouldn't be involved in the process, apparently.
I didn't imagine it'd been getting that Fox-like in the time since I last read it. But maybe it already was.
Quite right Bud@46 ... it's not even amusing, artful or creative trolling ... and thus utterly undeserving of the respect that such a thing might attract ...
That they are so unconvincing and unoriginal does underline how beleagered the filth merchant spruikers feel. That gives me some pleasure. Humanity might yet secure the policies it needs to stave off disaster, the howls of outrage from the delusionals from Cave Hollows or the Tea Party notwithstanding.
Reuters have run a good article on the climate 'debate' today:
[Murderer, liar, fraud, traitor](http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE63P00K20100426)
Includes quotes from Michael Mann, Stephen Schneider, Kevin Trenberth, David Karoly, Andy Pitman and Roger Wakimoto.
Palin, Monckton, and Morano put the 'case' for the 'sceptics'.
@John,
Thanks for the [link](http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.h…) Some interesting reading.
Although a I'm a little troubled with the math, and if it wasn't for the sheer magnitude of the error, I'd let it go.
The author claims:
"From 1970 to 2003, the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 GigaWatts with the vast majority of the energy going into the oceans. Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 GigaWatt, imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants pouring their energy output directly into our oceans. "
Surely this must be an error. The average nuclear power plant is indead about 1GigaWatt, but that's 1GigaWatt per Hour, not year. So the extra energy entering the ocean is 21.7 nuclear reactors, not 190,269. A non-trivial error.
Anyway, I'd like to read Harris 2001, Griggs 2004, and Chen 2007 before commenting further. But it certainly is a step towards evidence.
Thank you.
42 GG,
You are a liar and a fraud. We don't care what your real name is.
AGW Observer seems to maintain a solid list of [Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties](http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measur…)
Yes. I'm a AGW skeptic. But I'm open-minded.
George, you are mixing GigaWatts (power) with GigaWatt Hours (energy). One GigaWatt is the same as one GigaWatt hour per hour. "1GigaWatt per Hour" is not a meaningful measure.
"that's 1GigaWatt per Hour"
This is a wind-up, right?
Anyone,
Thoughts on answering someone who clearly doesn't know the difference between energy and power but is only too ready to make a claim based on that ignorance? Just ignore?
Epistemically closed troll:
"But I'm open-minded."
In the immortal words of Spike:
"I'm a rebel, You're an idiot."
Anyone from ANU here? It seems Tim Curtin will give a lecture there on Thursday (12:30) about CO2 as plant food. Should be 'good', he claims he has found an amazing correlation between wheat harvests and temperature/CO2/rainfall.
Anyone out there want to have a laugh (I'm quite a few thousands kilometers away, so I can't myself) ? Do read the "tim curtin thread" first!
I'm also too far away Marco, but it should be..um..interesting.
I for one would be fascinated to know when this natural bounty will suddenly kick in, what with us being in the midst of one of the greatest mass extinctions the planet has ever seen.
Fluff your cushions and fasten your seatbelts, everyone - this is going to be one hell of a ride...
Oh, and you might want to bring a wet towel.
Aaarggh!!!
<rant>
Ok, I have to jump in. John Cook should know better. While it is denoted 'GW' with capital letters when written as a symbol, when the symbol is expanded to the name of the unit it is *always* lowercase - 'gigawatt'. Units named after people have an uppercase symbol, but they are *always* lowercased, just like other units, when written as the unit name. It's 'joule', not 'Joule'; 'pascal' not 'Pascal', 'ampere' not 'Ampere', 'ohm' not 'Ohm, etc. And 'watt', not 'Watt'. Prefixes are also always lower-cased when written out. Units are not proper nouns, so they do not get upper-cased (or camel-cased!) in English usage.
</rant>
There, had to get that off my chest. Oh yeah, George is a little mixed up... :)
George, I honestly can't blame them, if that really is your opinion.
A "scam" is where someone sells you a bottle of "ACME magic water" and says it will cure your liver cancer. Or when a car salesman sells you a rebadged stolen vehicle. Or where your accountant keeps two sets of books showing different incomes, and pockets the difference. Or where a faith healer you paid 20 bucks to see along with 2000 other people, smacks you in the head and tells you your multiple sclerosis will be gone by Monday.
A "scam" is not the result of literally hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers from highly qualified individuals with impeccable reputations within their field, which all suggest that the temperature observations are valid and are extremely likely to be caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
Can you see the slight difference between the examples I have provided, and the scientific case for AGW?
What the troll does not care to realise is that one cannot prove CO2 causes AGW, just as one cannot definitively prove that tobacco smoke causes cancer. This is a red herring used all the time by the denialists and concern trolls.
The troll also conveniently ignores the fact that Lindzen does agree that increasing CO2 will warm the planet. However, Lindzen is under the illusion that the warming will be paltry, and Lindzen has failed repeatedly to demonstrate his claim without having to resort to cherry picking and/or massaging the data. The troll of course ignores that too.
Given that the troll is allegedly so open minded they will find this of value and convincing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9SGw75pVas
Of course, said troll will more likely just move the goal posts, argue straw men and obfuscate.
Advice to troll, apply your "skepticism" to the contrarians like Lindzen instead of giving them a free pass, b/c they are ultimately going to be the ones responsible for screwing us all over.
I find Lindzen's systematic misrepresentation of the report that he helped author completely inexcusable.
But Mann's "trick" to "hide the decline" is a-o-k, right Tim?
AGW"Skeptic", there was nothing nefarious in what Mann et al. did. So stop perpetuating debunked internet myths.
I'm curious, please explain to us all here in detail exactly what the whole "hide the decline" issue was about.
Also, have you read my post at #2. Can we gather that you are OK with Lindzen cherry picking data to get the answer he wants, to get an answer to confuse and mislead the public? He has also been shown to have cherry picked data in Lindzen and Choi (2009) to get the answer he wants. Are you also OK with how McLean et al. manipulated/massaged their data to get rid of a signal that they did not wish to see? How about McKitrick and Michaels undertaking seriously flawed analysis? The list goes son and on of flawed/debunked contrarian papers written by skeptics who have massaged and cherry-picked the data. Yet you seem to be oblivious to them, or unwilling to apply your skepticism to those flawed papers.
In fact, have the 'skeptics' managed to publish a single paper recently that challenges the theory of AGW, which has passed peer review in a reputable journal carried by the ISI which has not been debunked after publication?
It is not too late for you to jump ship AGW"Skeptic". And please change your moniker, you are not a true 'skeptic' at all it seems, so please stop hiding behind that misleading facade.
Shorter AGWskeptic @ #63
You are aware, AGWSkeptic, that the "trick to hide the decline" has been extensively explained in context, are you not?
It has about the same conspiracy connotations as the "trick" I use to make smooth vanilla custard. No, I do not engage in a vast and systematic conspiracy to fool dinner guests. It really comes out thick and smooth, without lumps at all, and is perfect draped over a Christmas pudding. Yes indeed, I know how difficult this is to believe given how many people make lumpy custard. Submit the FOI paperwork, and I might give you the recipe so you can see for yourself.
We could debate all day whether you have any microscopic shards of credibility remaining among your sceptical arguments, but bringing up the email about divergent tree-ring data really hasn't helped you at all.
Former Skeptic
Given your cartoon link ...
Perhaps you are now skeptical of the people who think "hide the decline" refers to something nefarious? Perhaps you should call yourself "True Skeptic" to distinguish yourself from those dissembling proponents of anti-science who merely misappropriate the title. ;-)
'What the troll does not care to realize is that one cannot prove CO2 causes AGW' and that's why the whole global warming thingy is based on the 'precautionary principle'.
67 Fran,
Well, that would be really confusing. ;)
True enough, though, FS now *is* a sceptic, whatever he/she was before.
@Mike:
I have no desire to audit your recipe, nor to spread muck regarding its efficacy to a legion of denizens who really prefer cream on their puddings anyway. I would, however, like to see how it could apply to my own deserts. I am particularly interested in its potential for improving my apple pie and custard. Would you consider sharing your recipe with me for this purpose? ;-)
Another day, another stupid statement from the El Gordo troll, since there is no causal connection between the highlighted portion and the clause that follows.
Again, the El Gordo troll surely knows this, but I thought I'd get in first so nopbody else need point this out.
Pretty sure Lindzen's piece first appeared in the Journal, though it's behind a paywall there so can't confirm. It had the wingnuts over here all atwitter. I guess Murdoch likes to stretch his propaganda dollars.
Poor Lindzen- destined to be amongst the few who will be remembered down through history as the cynical, immoral buffoons who eagerly volunteered to lead rubes like George down the garden path on account of their silly little narrow interests, all the while knowing better. To paraphrase O'Neil, "What the hell was it they wanted to buy?"
This man will be despised by future generations. His name will become a tool de jour amongst demagogues- 'Richard Lindzen thought much the way you do...', 'You lie!! If anyone here is acting like Richard Lindzen, it is you!!', and 'Richard Lindzen would love this bill', etc. His line will be so proud.
Presumably that's a big clue as to the enduring mystery if how they decide editorial policy and topics and who writes them then ;-)
Without the sulfate adjustments, 'the observations are consistent with there being sufficiently little warming as to constitute a problem not worth worrying about much.'
Sounds perfectly fair and reasonable.
Marco, I'm at ANU. When/where is Tim giving this lecture?
@71, Thanks Fran.
All those in denial about AGW have to offer are distortions and lies. Honestly, I have come to the conclusion that they are serial liars. What more is there to say really?
George @ 27, 29, 35...
[Incontrovertible evidence of global warming](http://www.funnyhub.com/content_images/4131_2066_global-warming-swimwea…)
Thank you for the warm and courteous reception. Frankly, I deserved it for not being direct. Although I wonder what reception I would have received had I been more honest about my reasons for asking and prefaced my questions by first stating that I was highly skeptical that catastrophe will result from the little warming we are seeing.
So I will start afresh.
My current positions is thus: I believe the earth has warmed in the past century but I am not convinced that CO2 is the main reason for this. I am highly skeptical that catastrophe will result from the little warming we have seen, or from the warming the IPCC predict for this century from CO2 alone. I am also not convinced that the current warming is unprecedented in the last 1500 years.
Can you point me to some definitive evidence that CO2 is the cause if the warming and therefore cause for alarm.
Apart from the many insults, some of your answers (thanks John) have been informative.
Thank you.
Regrding the link to [Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming](http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.h…) previously discussed regarding the energy going into the oceans. The article used the term GigaWatt in camel case (something I was slammed for doing). Further the article refers to energy going into the oceans.
Judging by the blasting I received for suggesting the math was out, some clarification is in order. Firstly, I do understand the difference between GW (power) and GWH (energy). Since the article claims 190,260 GiGaWatts (sic) of energy going into the oceans each year, can that not be expressed as 190,260GW/YEAR?
If so, then the 1GW typical nuclear power plan produces 1GW/hr x 24hrs x 365day = 8,760GW/YEAR
Is there anything wrong with these two assumptions?
'I am also not convinced that the current warming is unprecedented in the last 1500 years.'
If we go back a little further to the Holocene Climate Optimum, about 6000 years bp, we see unprecedented warming since the Eemian. Now, at the tail end of our interglacial.......oops O/T.
How about a new open thread, Tim?
George, what's your scientific/mathematical background?
Eli, George is unconstrained by the handicap of any formal training - this allows him to see through the communist IPCC consensus and get at the heart of the truth of the matter.
George, it's perfectly simple:
190,000 GW could be produced by 190,000 power plants rated at 1GW.
190,000 power plants running at 1GW would produce, in 1 hour, 190,000 GWHours.
Goddit?
Finally, "GW per hour" is something I struggled to figure out how I would use, but how's this:
"The sun went super-nova: its production increased by 190,000 GW per hour until it reached 1,000,000,000,000,000 GW and our instruments failed."
BTW George, you're clearly poorly-educated. There's no law against that, but what it means is that you should be listening to other people's opinions instead of inflicting your own half-baked and poorly-informed opinions on others.
I don't believe anything from a man who once said:
You are a troll.
Yeah, you're right, John. I should have said 'I want you to know I am an AGW denier and proud of it,' and this is why.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63K2CB20100421
I as referring to George you moron. Those are his words.
What else can one say?
On another matter: [Vince](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/the_australians_war_on_science_…), you should have used [a wet towel](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/the_australians_war_on_science_…) - then your instruments wouldn't have failed!
George @ 78
You keep writing gigawatt years as gigawatts/year. Gigawatt hours is gigawatts times hours. Gigawatts/hr (if it means anything) is gigawatts divided by hours.
George @ 78, I have had a few of these "show me the evidence" discussions. Usually, I find that the person is a victim of the "missing-link fallacy" which creationists also willingly fall into. For example, creationists claim that there is no fossil record of human evolution, that there is a "missing link". When various parts of the fossil record are pointed out (e.g. Lucy) they claim that there is no link between Lucy and humanity. Thus every piece of evidence that is added, to them, creates two more missing links between that evidence and the evidence before and after it, and these newly-discovered gaps are somehow proof that the concept of evolution is flawed.
Similarly, every time I have pointed out a piece of evidence for climate change to an adullamite, assuming they are capable of rational discussion at all (as opposed to being GB or someone decanted from the same clone-vat) they respond by raising uncertainties, some valid (from a statistical pov, there are always some uncertainties, which is why we have error bars) but most spurious, about how that evidence is linked to other evidence, and the discussion tails away into technical trivia which has little actual relevance.
Assuming for a moment that you have some potential openness to being convinced by what I and most others think is good evidence, and in an effort to avoid this kind of problem, could you please clearly indicate what problems (if any) you have with the basic logic here:
1) CO2 (used as a shorthand for all greenhouse gases, here) in an atmosphere partially blocks the emission of heat (Infrared). This was first demonstrated by Maxwell IIRC, over 150 years ago.
2) Therefore, any body with an atmosphere to which CO2 is added will warm up until it reaches a new thermal equilibrium point at which increased outward radiation balances the increased heat retention. This follows logically from 1 and the laws of thermodynamics, and was first calculated by Arrhenius in 1896 IIRC.
3) Humans have added CO2 to the atmosphere of Earth. This has been demonstrated rigourously by the Mauna Loa series of measurements, various Isotope studies, ocean acidification, etc and is intuitively obvious from the fact that we keep burning coal, oil, and trees, chopping down trees, and breeding more cows.
4) The earth has warmed in a manner calculated to be entirely consistent with the warming one would expect if one added CO2 to the atmosphere of a body with all the properties of the Earth. This was first calculated by Callendar in 1938 and has been recalculated in hundreds of studies since. Temperature records both direct (thermometers, satellites) and proxy (melting ice, species migration, biological changes, tree rings, etc) confirm the warming.
5) No other factor (solar emissions, cosmic rays, Milankovitch cycles, etc) has been found which could explain the Earth's warming (and we have looked very hard) (read any published literature about climate modelling).
Both the physical evidence and Occam's razor therefore dictate that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real, is happening, etc.
@James Haughton #75 (Tim, perhaps you can forward this to him?)
http://rspas.anu.edu.au/seminars.php
Thursday April 29, 12:30, room B, Coombs Building.
El Gordo is another whose bottomless pit of lack of knowledge *should* preclude him from having opinions.
In his latest installment of know-nothingness he presents this argument:
"I am sceptical of AGW because manufacturing bio-diesel from soy-beans produces CO2."
Honestly, El Gordo, is there any limit to your inanity?
James Haughton @ 90: thanks for that comprehensive explanation of AGW. Quite coherent to me, a non-scientist. If George is open to it, he shouldn't have much trouble understanding that.
... El Gordo might have a bit of trouble with it, however, but you never know...
That's a rhetorical question Vince, isn't it?
BTW ... I don't suppose your last word was a typo ... did you leave out an "s"? ;-) I'd have gone with both.
@67, 69:
I think I told someone else (think it was Mashey?) who raised this issue that my ironic moniker refers to twisted misuse of the term "skeptic" by the denialati.
"True Skeptic?" Nah. Besides, TrueSceptic's right - the confusion would be too much :)
@James Haughton,
I cannot understand by what logic one feels compelled to automatically group everyone that has questions (for whatever reason) with creationists, or the tobacco lobby, or holocaust deniers, or right-wing crackpots. Further, why you find it necessary to label and insult by referring to some obscure British political movement (I had to google that one) is truly irrational. Also, I have no idea who or what GB is, and frankly do not care.
I can only assume that you are compelled to first insult, before getting down to the business of open discussion, as to somehow prove you solidarity and to claim some intellectual superiority. Or perhaps to show which team you are on. Anyway, can we stow the chest pounding and get down to it.
Now to your questions:
1) I prefer GHG as shorthand for all greenhouse gasses, rather than CO2 because it broadens the discussion. I consider this especially important for the question at hand. Indeed CO2 does absorb (blocks is a poor descriptor) some of the outward infrared, but it does so only within a narrow wavelength range of around 600-700 cm-1. Other GHGs absorb infrared different wavelengths, with CH4 (methane) absorbing infrared mainly around 1300wm-1.
My question at this point, is a what CO2 concentration do we reach absorption saturation. Some skeptics are suggesting that a doubling from pre-industrial as being the effective point of saturation, say 560ppmv. Has anyone done the math? A doubling sounds little more than a convenient number.
2) Yes, adding CO2 will warm the system until new thermal equilibrium is reached. Up until all outward infrared radiation in the 600-700wm-1 range has been absorbed.
3) Yes. Now close to 400ppmv. Up from around 270-280ppmv baseline.
4) Perhaps not. The warming has been irregular and not directly consistent with the steady increase of CO2. There have been significant periods of cooling in the last 150 years. Granted, the net result of the warming and cooling periods have trended upwards. For what it's worth, a fragile Jones recently admitted there has been no statistically significant warming since 98. Regardless, the trend is upwards.
Is it consistent with increasing CO2 - I'm not convinced. Especially as I would expect to see temperature climb faster in response to CO2 when CO2 first started in increase because infrared absorption is non-linear. The other factors you mention, melting ice, species migration, and etc., are only evidence of warming, to which we all agree, but carry no fingerprint.
5) It must be CO2 because we can't think of anything else reminds me of argument for the existence of God. Arguing from ignorance, no matter how smart we might be or how deeply we have looked is not an argument that glorifies us. No doubt our understanding will improve over time. This may or may not prove change this.
Frankly, when you consider the lack of understanding the IPCC claim for everything other than LLGHGs. See AR4 WG1 [Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-1.html), the we considered all other forcings argument seems very weak.
Yes. AGW is real, but I believe limited and not catastrophic. This is what I stated in post 78. I would like an answer to the question I raised following may answer to q1.
Thank you.
George Grisancich said,
"For what it's worth, a fragile Jones recently admitted there has been no statistically significant warming since 98. Regardless, the trend is upwards."
You messed up your talking point. You were supposed to start with '95, not '98. What Jones actually said was that from '95 to '09 there was a 10 year warming trend of .12 degrees C, but that it just missed being statistically significant at the 95% level because the time frame is too short. Guess what; if you start at '94, the warming trend *is* statistically significant. The questioner couldn't have been cherry-picking a starting date, could he?? NO!! Skeptics are always pure and noble!! lol Of course, using 15 years of data to find ten year trends is not going to be very informative. You want to look at 20-30 years or more of data.
BTW, after this year, if you start from '95 and go to '10, you will also get a statistically significant warming trend. For what it's worth.
Read this story from he ABC - it's a flawless example of AGW propaganda.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/27/2883282.htm
Probably because global warming is only questioned by right wing crackpots, many of whom are creationists, have paid off by big tobacco or are members of the UKIP or BNP.
Judging by your obsession with all things Al Gore, and your jolly presence on fringe right-wing extremist sites like "Climate Change Fraud", Andrew Bolt's blog and "Al Gore Lied" it's pretty safe to say you are also a right-wing crackpot.
Also, nobody has comapred you to a Holocaust denier so get off your high horse. In your own words you are a "climate change denialist". You picked those words, not us.
George writes:
>*Especially as I would expect to see temperature climb faster in response to CO2 when CO2 first started in increase because infrared absorption is non-linear.*
Quantify How fast? What calculations support your favoured speed? Or is this argumentum-makem-upem-as-you-go-alongum?
George writes:
>*AGW is real, but I believe limited and not catastrophic.*
What warming do you calculate will result? What impacts do you calculate to result from said warming?
George Grisanovitch wrote:
> I cannot understand by what logic one feels compelled to
> automatically group everyone that has questions (for
> whatever reason) with creationists, or the tobacco lobby,
> or holocaust deniers, or right-wing crackpots.
You behaved like a [concern] troll, of which Deltoid has had plenty over the years.
Why are you so aghast at such a predictable reaction?
Your posting history elsewhere doesn't bolster your reputation one whit.
The saturation argument is a canard.
There appears to be no upper limit to CO2 concentration at which absorption stops. That's what spectroscopy finds. Are you disputing fundamental physics?
See here:
[RealClimate](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy…)
[Skeptical Science](http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm)
You go on to write:
> The warming has been irregular and not directly consistent
> with the steady increase of CO2.
There are other forcings in play. CO2 is an important factor, not the only factor. See the difference?
> For what it's worth, a fragile Jones recently admitted
> there has been no statistically significant warming since
> 98.
Phil Jones was given a leading question about a non-statistically significant trend (1998-2010 is too short a period of time to determine a meaningful trend).
[Skeptical Science](http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm)
[Open Mind](http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm)
> It must be CO2 because we can't think of anything else
> reminds me of argument for the existence of God.
Strawman argument. CO2 isn't the only player in the game, and you admit as much with your later comment on forcings.
CO2 is an important factor in the recent warming because:
[solar activity doesn't explain the trend](http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming…)
[it isn't cosmic rays](http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm)
[it isn't a change to global reflectivity](http://www.skepticalscience.com/earth-albedo-effect.htm)
[it isn't CFCs](http://www.skepticalscience.com/CFCs-global-warming.htm)
[it isn't ozone](http://www.skepticalscience.com/ozone-layer-global-warming.htm)
[cloud feedbacks are not enough to explain warming](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lindzen-and-choi-…)
Arguing for a hitherto undetected factor that is more powerful than the known forcings in the absence of evidence seems much more faith-based than your strawman argument that 'it must be CO2'.
> Arguing from ignorance, no matter how smart we might be
> or how deeply we have looked is not an argument that
> glorifies us.
It certainly doesn't glorify you.
You claimed earlier to have looked at Real Climate and Skeptical Science. You don't seem to have understood what you read there, if anything; the comment about 'çircumstantial evidence' reveals deep ignorance about scientific method.
Rob O'C @ 100,
I see you suffer from the same name calling and chest pounding prior to discussion. Or was that your attempt at humor?
Poor Lindzen, he seems to have fallen prey to exactly the same trap as Plimer. I recently caught Plimer [lying again about the level of CO2 from volcanoes](http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/ian-plimer-caught-ou…) is greater than human emissions - despite the repeated attempts to point out his basic error of facts, Plimer continues to well, errr... tell a porky.
BTW, also going to tag team you Deltoid on Murdoch paper's war on reason....
[HUN War on Science #6: What IPCC models failed to predict... more babes in bikinis.](http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/herald-sun-war-on-sc…)
Luckily, the HUN corrects this glaring and shocking failure of the IPCC. Bikini-gate will bring the whole rotten edifice that is science crashing down!
/wink
George will you engage in the questions of substance?
Rob O'C @ 100,
My surname is not Grisanonvitch. Please leave out the childish insults.
Tone troll. You lied to us so I wouldn't be dictating behaviour.
jakerman @ 103 wrote:
"George will you engage in the questions of substance?"
Indeed I will, as I did with James Haughton @ 96.
[Well George](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/the_australians_war_on_science_…)?
jakerman @ 103,
I think I'll sit back and see how many more choose to insult my name. Argue against me. Ask me to support my beliefs. Fine.
Insulting my family name is unacceptable under any circumstances. Especially from cowards not posting under their full or real names.
>*Another day, another stupid statement from the El Gordo troll, since there is no causal connection between the highlighted portion and the clause that follows.*
>*Again, the El Gordo troll surely knows this, but I thought I'd get in first so nopbody else need point this out.*
Fran's statement still holds. No need for anyone to waste time time with EG.
@ 96 George Grisancich
With very good reason we group the deniers with the tobacco lobby and other anti-science movements;
The denial movement grew directly out of the tobacco lobby in the early 1990's with Steven Milloy's "The Advancement of Sound Science Association" (TASSA). The very same lobby groups set up, funded and supported by tobacco interest also [started to deny climate change](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advancement_of_Sound_Science_Center):
*"Initially, the primary focus of TASSC was an attempt to discredit research on Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a long-term cause of increased cancer and heart problem rates in the communityâespecially among office workers and children living with smoking parent. It subsequently advanced industry-friendly positions on a wide range of topics, including global warming, smoking, phthalates, and pesticides. Later still, they extended the role of TASSC to Europe using Dr George Carlo. TASSC used the label of âjunk scienceâ to criticise work that was unfavorable to the interests of its backers...."*
[Documents obtained through the litigation process](http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/the-damning-evidence/) clearly outline out exactly *how* these lobby groups came to select climate science as their next target after they lost the second hand smoke issue. TASSA operates still and runs the site "Junk Science". It accepts funding from energy companies, and Milloy appears on Fox News all the time.
Here is the *original* memos that outlined how they did it and why:
The deniers blew up "climategate" into a scandal that really wasn't there. Actually, we have the evidence - real, tangible evidence - of their deceit which they work very hard not to admit in public.
My personal challenge to deniers is to read the original leaked documents that show exactly how they manipulate, lie and mislead.
Go on, read them.
Then come back and discuss. Please.
If you are a true sceptic, then be prepared to examine the evidence. Otherwise, it concern trolling.
Please, explain away the very clear evidence of deceit - not quotes taken out of context, not cheery picked data but the full text memo's and documents which clearly outline how they aimed to shape public opinion.
I'll be here waiting. See you soon.
So George, you prefer to focus on the non-science. And you decline to engage on the [questions of substance](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/the_australians_war_on_science_…).
Guys and gals, you should see George's near contemporaneous (21-23 April) output elsewhere before engaging him. He started here on 26 April with the concern troll act to hook you and now he's reeling you in.
He is disingenuity personified. It's another Brent-type episode.
George,
I think you are atracting a lot of negative reaction because of two things:
1. You write with a condescending manner, as perhaps demonstrated by your discursive style in answering points put to you
2. You have been distinctly economical with the truth regarding where you are coming from and your history on the topic of AGW.
Now in this instance you might be genuine but the posters here have been subject to the above two points for years by deniers who have not been honest in public discourse and these deniers continue without let up even when the science is spoon fed to them. If you are genuine then perhaps you are going to have to take a bit of time to think about how to demonstrate it here. Repeating that you really do desire to know if CO2 is causing warming doesn't really cut it because of what deniers have done this many years and as people have pointed out to you there are many places you can go to for information that requires thinking plus some high school and perhaps under grad physics texts to help. But you have to sit down and work with the stuff rather than immediately coming back. Most subjects require thinking as discourse takes place. The questions you are asking seem to be 'directional' questions i.e. what direction do I take to get to the shops.
I have a question for you. In your posting of @96, you used a number of units in sections 1 and 2 that seem to show you are confused about what you are thinking about. Can you explain how you were using these units, what they are and where you got the information.
As others have pointed out, we don't. The "saturation" argument is usually made by those who don't understand the physics - admittedly because often all they've heard is a simplified explanation that leaves out some of the dynamics.
The key insight is to ask yourself what happens after a CO2 molecule absorbs an outgoing IR photon? Does the CO2 molecule hold on to the extra energy forever? If not, where does it go? And what happens then, and after that?
Or to attack it another way - if an atmosphere has enough CO2 to absorb essentially all the outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 absorption bands within the first few metres of atmosphere above the surface, can any longwave radiation ultimately escape the atmosphere - and if so, how?
In other words, how does the presence of extra CO2 ultimately contribute to a change in the radiation balance at the top of atmosphere?
You might also look at the satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation to see how attenuated they are in the CO2 absorption bands (coupled with knowledge from experiments that the absorption bands widen as CO2 concentration increases). There seems to be room for plenty of additional CO2 reduction of outgoing longwave radiation yet.
...apart from the fact that's a somewhat misleading representation of the argument - what do you suggest we attribute it to if (a) the evidence fits CO2 + known feedbacks within the uncertainty bands we currently have; (b) several different lines of evidence all suggest equilibrium climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 concentration is most likely in the range of 2-4.5 degrees C; and (c) the evidence doesn't fit every other explanation proposed over the last several decades?
Will you now reconsider your answers in the light of information provided in response to your answers? Have any of them changed, or are susceptible to change pending further confirmation of the points raised?
Momentarily succumbing to "feeding the troll", before imploring people to follow John's and Dave H's advice about George...
GG, have you got Vince's "Goddit?" yet, because when you ask "can that not be expressed as 190,260GW/YEAR? it suggests that, despite your assertion to the contrary in the same breath, you don't really know the difference between power and energy?
If it helps, then, before I take up John's and Dave H's advice, think of the linked article's points on ocean heat and NPPs in this way:
"...the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 [GJ/s]...".
"...a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 [GJ/s], imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants pouring their energy output directly into our ocean..."
After all, it is a well-known fact of which you must have been aware (seeing as you said you knew the difference between power and energy) that 1 W = 1 J/s and that 1 W h = 3.6 kJ.
[PS Good <rant> Arthur.]
I got that impression pretty early on, but I've been waiting for a little more data...
One very interesting comment from George:
I have to say that given George's questions on this thread, it looks like either he is gilding the lily in that comment, or that he really didn't understand the evidence he was reading - or (more likely given other evidence) he's a bog standard denialist.
And from George? Silence...
Anyone else find it strange the way these "libertarian" types invariably act like unpaid, indentured vassals for the corporate agenda?
Give him a chance, WTD. He needs to research his answers from AlGoreLied.com before he can respond here.
@ 120 John... your right, time to zip round the denial blogosphere and marshal the "facts".
Has anyone heard of a deranged fellow named "iamdigitap"?
I made some comments on Marc Ambinder's column over at The Atlantic, and then this guy popped up and went on a three-post rant (lots of words in ALL CAPITALS) giving the Monckeyton view of things.
I believe this individual to be mentally ill.
Grisancich:
No it doesn't. It says 190,260 gigawatts of power are going into the oceans (in the form of heat). The amount of energy going into the oceans each year is 190,260 gigawatt-years.
No, because the unit GW/YEAR is meaningless in this context. The unit you really mean is the GW-YEAR, i.e. a gigawatt MULTIPLIED by a year.
No, the 1GW power station produces 1 GW-YEAR/YEAR = 1GWhr x 24hrs/day x 365day/YEAR = 8,760GWhr/YEAR
Yes, heaps, as I pointed out.
I don't see George's posts (thank you killfile) but I do feel the urge to respond to some quotes others have made:
> I cannot understand by what logic one feels compelled to automatically group everyone that has questions (for whatever reason) with creationists, or the tobacco lobby, or holocaust deniers, or right-wing crackpots.
George, your first questions here were treated politely and you received honest responses. I for one tried to lay out the basic physics for you in an easily digestible form and you showed no interest, engagement or even a glimmer of understanding. You dismissed all reasonable responses casually as "circumstantial" and pretty soon it became clear that you arrived under false pretenses.
Based solely upon the evidence at hand, I conclude you are a lying, dishonest, ignorant, time-waster. That you complain about ill-treatment adds hypocritical whiner to the list.
When you say things like this:
> It must be CO2 because we can't think of anything else
I can only conclude you have difficulty with reading, comprehension, and very simple logic.
James showed that *we had reason to suspect CO2 from fundamental physics*, that we calculated its effects and compared them to reality, and that we diligently ruled out other alternatives. This is the precisely the opposite of the way you have represented the argument.
I'm confused. How is misspelling his name as "Grisanonvitch" an insult? I do that sort of thing all the time - I just decide a name is Russian or German or whatever, and interpolate the spelling of the end based on what language I assumed it was. This can end badly if I'm setting up someone's user account, but it's an honest mistake. If it's not, I just don't see how it's insulting at all.
It's almost like George realized he was on the ropes, and grasped at the earliest opportunity to take umbrage and leave.
Surely, if that's not the case, he'll answer some questions of substance. Otherwise he's just taking the coward's way out.
@126 Tacroy - yep, once he had to start supporting his unsupported claims with evidence he took his leave. At heart, that is what is denial is about: the moment the facts become discomforting or one's cognative dissonance feels threatened the denier runs.
It's not cowardice - it's how they preserve the idea they are "right" and the warmists, Al Gore, IPCC, scienitsts and "reality based community" are lying.
Oh I forgot to add that those aren't my opinions, it's just that I'm continuously hassled by well-meaning friends telling me that George Grisancich has no basis in reality for his position. Whenever I counter with the stuff he's said, like the magnificent posts at 42, 50 and 78 they always laugh at me and tell me that they contain no proof.
If none of that stuff he's said is proof, then what can I tell them is definite proof that George has an opinion supported by the facts?
Well, he wasn't much of a stayer, was he!?
Unlike the other pair of retards I could mention, who are still hanging around here despite being exposed as morons with every new post they offer us.
Two [little questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/the_australians_war_on_science_…), then suddenly a contrived excuse used to avoid to engaging in the substance.
Nice blow up George, very convincing.
His excuse will probably now be that global warming is a hoax because we weren't polite to him. Sure, he may have lied but it's our fault for forcing him to lie. He's the victim here, don't you see? All he wants is the truth...
My apologies for not replying sooner. Other commitments, and fresh developments, have kept me busy elsewhere.
Here's a little mood setter from Andrew Bolt:
>THE great fraud has been found out, and his country saved - for now - from the greatest of his follies.
>Hereâs the worst lie that Kevin Rudd, perhaps our most deceitful Prime Minister, once told about global warming and his Emissions Trading Scheme: âThe biggest challenge the world faces in the decades ahead is climate change.
>âIt is the great moral and economic challenge of our time.â
>But on Tuesday Rudd decided âthe great moral challengeâ of our time wasnât, after all.
>It was just âaâ challenge, he said. And with public trust falling in his ETS âsolutionâ - a great green tax on gases - he cut and ran.
>His ETS would be shelved until at least 2013. Two elections away. Yet only last year this same Government claimed âdelay was denialâ, and we could not wait to save âour jobs, our houses, our farms, our reefs, our economy and our futureâ. To stop â700,000 homes and businessesâ on our coast from drowning. (Another lie.)
[I'm sure you can't wait to hear what else he had to say](http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comme…)
Why am I telling you this, and why does it matter? Simple. The Australian government has dumped their ETS legislation. This is the ETS we had to rush through parliament before Coppenfloppen, otherwise Australia would be unable to hold its head up. We had show our leadership. We are now going to wait until after 2012 to see what the rest of the world is doing.
The U.S cap-n-trade Waxman-Markey bill is effective dead, now Sen. Graham seems to have withdrawn his support for a [replacement climate bill](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/24/john-kerry-puts-climate-b_n_55…) that he was co-sponsoring. Like Rudd, Obama has dropped his [climate change tough talk](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/us/politics/19climate.html) and has shifted focus to energy security and green jobs in his [state of the union address](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/us/politics/28obama.text.html?pagewan…). The same is happening in other countries.
All this adds up to the same thing. Politicians have woken up to the fact that cure is worse than the climate change disease. They have woken up that if they foolishly impose additional and unnecessary taxes on their citizens they will not only lose elections but needlessly cause suffering. They have woken up to idiots like Hansen, who is endorsing [calls for acts of sabotage and environmental terrorism in blowing up dams and demolishing cities in order to return the planet to the agrarian age](http://wearechangemelbourne.org/newsupdates/climate-change/1648-the-tel…), claims he later tried to [distance himself from.](http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100325_Clarification.pdf)
They have woken up to the multi-billion dollar environmental machine that values all life other than human. They have woken up that environmentalism is little more than the [new religion](http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2008/9/our-new-established-re…) and global warming is its [crisis d'jour](http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/environment/epa/5271-EPA-Fascism-vers…)
I know none of this will sway you "champions of the environment". I know it will only strengthen your resolve, double your efforts to make us see the light. Only fools would advocate banning fossil fuels while [over a billion people](http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=179) live on $1 per day or less. You condone the [diversion of food production](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/22/quarter-us-grain-biof…) and [forest destruction](http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html) for the production of biofuel. Soon, farmers will [grow trees](http://cleantechnica.com/2010/03/02/money-doesnt-grow-on-trees-but-biof…) instead of food because it is more profitable. Already people are dying because food production diversion to biofuels. Jean Ziegler, while he was the The United Nations special rapporteur on the right to food said, ["Biofuels are a crime against a large part of humanity"](http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/UN_rapporteur_calls_for_action_on_food_cris…)
Regardless of ANY validity to your CO2 is causing warming argument (which you clearly demonstrated), we must first find affordable replacements for our cheap fossil fuels. Otherwise those advocating CTS, or limits on the use of fossil fuels are really only sentencing billions to death but are too stupid or gutless to understand or admit this. Good intentions are meaningless without good outcomes.
Lord Kelvin's unverified remark to British Association for the Advancement of Science (1900), "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now." is a great leveller of how cleaver we think we are. But more so, it shows that the future will bring scientific wonders beyond our current ability to imagine. I believe that the world 50 years from now will no longer be reliant on dwindling fossil fuels and if AGW was indeed a threat, it will have long ago been solved.
So I am taking a stance. I am advocating that we continue to use cheap fuels while searching for alternatives. I am advocating we stop subsidising solar power and wind generation otherwise they will remain ineffective expensive non-alternatives and because it diverts funds away from other uses. I am advocating we replace coal powered electricity with nuclear power on an as needed basis and to meet future needs. We can replace nuclear with less potentially dangerous technology when we develop it. I am advocating we build as many dams for the production of hydroelectricity as possible. Yes, this will have an impact on wilderness areas and wildlife, but bigger issues are at stake and the environment will adapt. I am advocating that we must ensure that we keep food prices as low as possible because to let prices rise will cause many people to die. This will mean ensuring the transportation and storage of food remains cheap and efficient too. I am advocating we assist Africa, India, Asia and South America build coal fired power stations as soon as possible - hydro-electric would be better. Access to cheap energy is best way to alleviate poverty. I am betting my future to solutions as yet undreamed.
I have sent through a long and detailed response that is not showing up? Tim, any ideas why not? Is there a word limit?
Sometimes comments get held up for human moderation - perhaps due to certain words they contain, or the number of links, or other criteria not known to me. Tim usually seems to get to them within a few hours to a day or so. When they show up they're usually in posting chronology (i.e. may be further back in the thread than subsequent posts that weren't held up), so you may want to watch out for it and post a short heads-up when it does appear.
Thank you Lotharsson. Was about to re-post in 2 parts, by will hold off until I later or Tim asks me to re-post.
Words like "fra*d" are blocked George, so excuse me for thinking that your response may not be of the highest intellectual calibre.
George, if your response really exists send it through in blocks with no more than 4 links per block. Or 3 links to be safe.
I have emailed Tim a copy and have asked him to post it.
One link wasn't safe earlier today jakerman.
Through the wonders of the interweb, my reply apeareth @ 132 above.
Happy reading and sweet dreams. :)
132 GG,
So you have given up talking about the science as you clearly lack understanding even of basic terms and have moved on to the usual "cure worse than disease" argument.
My view on "sentencing billions to death"?
The âusualâ lies of the deniers are annoying enough but I feel real anger when these right-wing (insert favourite word for worst possible human being) claim that AGW is a leftist plot to kill the poor, or at least to prevent them from climbing out of poverty.
Where have these creatures been all this time? Why havenât they been helping the worldâs poor for the last 10, 20, or 50 years? Why have they made every effort throughout history to maximise the wealth of those who already have most of it while opposing basic human rights? Why have they opposed every effort to prevent industry polluting the environment and poisoning (mostly poor) people? Why have they opposed every improvement in working conditions to protect profits at the cost of workersâ health? Where are all the power stations they could have built for the worldâs most disadvantaged when CO2 wasnât an issue? Where are all the âcleanâ power stations they could be building now?
"Where have these creatures been all this time?"
Shilling for the tobacco industry.
142 Neil,
Yes, but apart from that? ;)
Trueseptic @ 142 wrote:
>The âusualâ lies of the deniers are annoying enough but I feel real anger when these right-wing (insert favourite word for worst possible human being) claim that AGW is a leftist plot to kill the poor, or at least to prevent them from climbing out of poverty.
Right-wing? Me. ROFL. What left-wing plot are you linking me to? Are there any labels you won't use?
>Where have these creatures been all this time? Why havenât they been helping the worldâs poor for the last 10, 20, or 50 years?
Where have I been. well I've been out help the world's poor. I have worked for major NGOs Aid organisations for many years, and made many personal sacrifices while doing so.
Don't misrepresent me, and certainly don't preach to me. I've put my money and my body where the rubber meets the rodd. Have you? Perhaps you have too. If so, good for you. If not, then clearly you're a just another extremely rude, over-opinionated loudmouth.
Must apologize for these all the silly typos. Recently upgraded my Mac and it came with the silly tiny little keyboard about the size of 2 sheets of toilet paper. Having 3XL hands don't help.
144 GG,
Well, most AGW "sceptics" *are* right-wing or libertarian. There are exceptions, I know.
As for the rest, are you just pretending to be that stupid? Are you admitting to being a right-wing denier? That is who my rant was aimed at.
As for the insults, reread your own offensive tripe, you "extremely rude, over-opinionated loudmouth." (and I'll add ignorant and dishonest in your case).
Neil @ 142 replied to Trueskeptic:
>>"Where have these creatures been all this time?"
>Shilling for the tobacco industry.
Seems you've been too busy sling mud to bother looking at your target. Check out the [Philip Morris International website](http://www.pmi.com/eng/tobacco_regulation/smoking_and_health/pages/smok…)
>Smoking causes many serious diseases including cardiovascular disease (heart disease), lung cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (emphysema, chronic bronchitis). Smokers are far more likely to become sick with one of these diseases than non-smokers. Smoking is also addictive and can be extremely difficult to stop.
And it has been their stated position since 1999. See New York Times, [Philip Morris Admits Evidence Shows Smoking Causes Cancer](http://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/13/us/philip-morris-admits-evidence-show…)
Perhaps you got some of you own mud in your eyes and missed it for 11 years. My guess is you're only repeating what you keepers have told you.
Trueskepic @ 146 wrote:
>As for the insults, reread your own offensive tripe, you "extremely rude, over-opinionated loudmouth." (and I'll add ignorant and dishonest in your case).
Yes. I did go to far, and I apologize the remarks you have noted.
147 GG,
Again you can only be pretending to be so lacking in comprehension. Shilling for tobacco is what the denialist filth merchants *used* to do until the science could no longer be denied. Lying about tobacco and health is what the tobacco industry did until the science could no longer denied.
What did they say before 1999?
[George Grisancich ](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/the_australians_war_on_science_…).
So much of your blather is nonsense that I won't even attempt to address most of it: I'll leave that for other brave souls.
In response to your last paragraph, however, I have a question for you... After you've flooded the world in dams to provide cheap electricity, and after you've smothered the planet with coal fired power stations to "alleviate poverty", do you know what will happen?
I'll give you a clue. Humans will continue to live as they currently do, and expand their enterprises to the maximum permited by the energy available to them. It's the gas (and the bureaucracy) principle. Just as when fuel is cheaper, and people drive further; or when they earn more, they spend more; or when you 'supersize' them and they eat more...
And then what? The cheap fossil energy will still run out, and humanity will still face the same precipice of accute energy shortage, with an aggravating incidental of more people having been born to face the consequnces than might otherwise have been, in a planet warmer than it should be, and with more damaged resources than might have otherwise been.
Your solution is merely a new section of freeway that moves the traffic jam from one place to another, slightly further away but far more inconvenient.
Managing our impact on climate is a part of the greater problem of managing our profligate overexploitation of the finite natural capital of the planet. Our politicians' hesitancy over CO2 reduction is simply a reflection of a widespread reluctance in society to address the emissions issue, and to address our overconsumption more generally.
We get the politicians that we deserve, and unfortunately it seems that we get the idiots that we deserve too.
Although I'm not sure that any society deserves the idiocy that is rife amongst the AGW Denialati...
148 GG,
Thanks. What about the claims of "environmental machine that values all life other than human" and "sentencing billions to death". Do you stand by those, and do you understand that environmentalists are often conflated with the left/socialists, etc ?
George,
You started your postings asking if CO2 aka GHG was causing global warming. If I understand your rather long rant you do accept that but don't believe its a problem.
Can I ask:
1. When were you covinced of GHG causing AGW, before you started posting here or after (through reading what was posted)?
2. What is your argument that AGW is not a problem
3. Why the sudden rant accusing posters here of wanting to kill or enslave millions of people across the world with your expression of a materialistic philosophy ( i.e. more and more and more cheap energy at the expense of the environment whihc keep sus alive). Was that because you considered the posters here to be stoopids but are angry because your arguments were so lacking so your ego has been hurt hence the slide into rant
4. Sooo you have worked for NGOs. Which ones and what did you do with them? I haven't worked for NGOs but have a whole raft of friends that do e.g. Tearfund, Actionaid just to name two. I would be interested to see if you are being genuine when you say you have worked with NGO sothen tell us, because you gonna know what my next question on that is (I'll give you a hint.... the policy of various NGOs on AGW).
George, as I put in my question to you before, the posters here and scientists around the world have had to put up with smearing from deniers for years, hence why it you can't gull them (why did you ever think you could). Now I don't believe that you are being influenced by any sinister cabal of oil companies, instead my take on people like yourself is that you believe man to be the centre of the universe, a pervervsion of enlightenment thinking, free to do what ever gratifies. AGW is the universe wagging its finger and saying "don't be silly little man, open your eyes", and deniers can't stand being faced with such reality.
> My guess is you're only repeating what you keepers have told you.
And who might *they* be, pray tell?
So, I was right - George's comment was automatically blocked because of the word "fra*d". I must be the clairvoyant of stupid.
I just spat drink all over my screen. Do you have no awareness?
Right-wing? Me. ROFL.
For someone who isn't right-wing you certainly have extremist right-wing libertarian free market views.
Something that can be useful is to collate someone's posts, or relevant parts of them.
and then
Is this someone who is confused, delusional, or just dishonest?
153 Neil,
Well, obviously the warmofascist environazis hell-bent on establishing the socialist world government that will tax us all back to the stone age!
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Finally, a voice of calm reason! It's so nice to see something other than the usual alarmism here.
I noticed that should have been 1 GW = 1 GW-YEAR/YEAR = 1GW x hr/hr x 24hrs/day x 365days/YEAR = 8,760GWhr/YEAR, not that George would have noticed.
158 Chris,
Aaaargh!
How about 1 GW = 1 GW-year/year = 31,536,000,000,000 W-s/year
= 31,536,000,000,000 J/year ?
George will go to great lengths to avoid engaging is the substance.
George, how about [addressing my questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/the_australians_war_on_science_…)?
George @ 96:
"I cannot understand by what logic one feels compelled to automatically group everyone that has questions (for whatever reason) with creationists, or the tobacco lobby, or holocaust deniers, or right-wing crackpots."
As for 1, 2 and 4, as other people have pointed out, a large number of AGW related Adullamites are creationists, the tobacco lobby, and/or right wing crackpots. In any case, I was making a comparison to the form of argument used by creationists, which you have in fact proceeded to use.
As for 3, I find it amusing that, even though I have used a term originating in 19th century british politics, you still somehow manage to believe that I have called you a holocaust denier. Learn to control your projections.
"Further, why you find it necessary to label and insult by referring to some obscure British political movement (I had to google that one) is truly irrational."
My God! You had to google something! I am so sorry to put you to any effort.
Adullamite ([Cave of Adullam](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_Adullam)): "used generally to refer to groups of political outsiders plotting their comeback or the overthrow of the status quo, especially after recent defeat".
"The Adullamites are dangerous, because they know what they want; and that is, all the money there is going. They inhabit a series of caves near Downing Street. They say to one another, 'If you will scratch my back, I will scratch yours; and if you won't, I will scratch your face.' It will be seen that these cave-dwellers are not refined, like classical men. That is why they succeed in getting all the money there is going. " [Microcosmographia Academica](http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/iau/cornford/cornford2.html)
I find it revealing that any reference beyond your education is, to you, "truly irrational".
"Also, I have no idea who or what GB is, and frankly do not care."
Lucky you.
"I can only assume that you are compelled to first insult, before getting down to the business of open discussion, as to somehow prove you solidarity and to claim some intellectual superiority."
I am not compelled per se. I do it because a) it's a fitting response to your own insults, disingenuousness and bad faith and b) because it's fun. Likewise, I prefer to claim intellectual superiority not by insulting you but by endeavouring to show that your arguments are full of crap.
Now we've beaten our chests and hurled some faeces, on to your allegedly substantive points! I will note at this point that you have, as predicted, largely followed the creationist strategy; instead of disputing the logic, you have introduced spurious arguments about saturation, temperature and CO2 not perfectly tracking each other (noone ever said they did, or would) or Phil Jones' media appearances in an effort to turn quibbles into disproofs.
CO2 saturation is not an issue, because the key variable is the level of CO2 in the top layer of the atmosphere and the atmosphere is not nearly saturated anyway. See [Realclimate: A Saturated Gassy Argument](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy…).
The fact that GHGs and temperature do not match precisely over the last 150 years is hardly suprising, given that the climate contains lots of random fluctuation (weather) and feedback effects, and is significantly influenced by aerosol emissions (which also peaked with industrialisation) and various natural and random events such as volcanoes, El Nino and the PDO. However, random events, fluctuations and cycles can only conceal, not create, long term trends. We are also quite capable of measuring them and their effects on climate, and when we do so and add all the forcings together, they match the climate record [extremely well](http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century.htm).
"I would expect to see temperature climb faster in response to CO2 when CO2 first started in increase because infrared absorption is non-linear."
Your "expectations" are irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the forcing [calculated](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-i…), not eyeballed, from CO2's absorption properties matches the temperature record. When added to all other known forcings, it does.
Incidentally, it took me only a few minutes work with Google to find answers to your various questions. You should try it sometime.
"It must be CO2 because we can't think of anything else reminds me of argument for the existence of God". Actually, it should remind you of the argument for the non-existence of God. Occam's razor states that we shouldn't needlessly multiply entities and that the most parsimonious explanation is the correct one. If we can explain temperature trends in terms of known factors, namely GHGs, which we can, it is an error to invoke additional unknown factors for which we have no evidence. This is not to say that we should not try to think of other factors, or investigate them when we have thought of them. We have done this. No other known factors match the data. The IPCC's statement of uncertainties is rather more about the range of error bars than a claim that we can't even account for these factors. Even with the error bars, without GHGs, we can't explain what's going on, with GHGs, we can.
Whether you "believe" AGW is limited, catastrophic, or not, is a statement about your beliefs, not a statement about the reality of AGW. It is an [Argument from personal incredulity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_pers…) to suggest otherwise.
Furthermore, since you have worked in developing countries with NGOs (as have I), you must know how extremely vulnerable peasant herders and farmers, the majority of the world's poor, are to natural disasters such as drought, flood, epidemic, crop failure, rising salinity, hurricanes, etc. AGW will directly exacerbate all these causes of poverty, hunger and death, and given that so many people worldwide live on a knife edge, even a 1-2 degree increase in average temperature could be catastrophic in any meaningful sense of the word.
I am also suprised that anyone who has worked in international aid would be such an advocate of massive hydroelectric projects, given the human misery and ecosystem destruction these usually cause (for example, see the World Commission on Dams report: "For example, dams have physically displaced 40-80 million people worldwide, and most of these people have never regained their former livelihoods. In many cases, dams have led to a significant and irreversible loss of species and ecosystems, and efforts to mitigate these impacts have often not been successful." [summary](http://www.internationalrivers.org/en/way-forward/world-commission-dams…) ).
"Access to cheap energy is best way to alleviate poverty."
Most studies I have read indicate that: 1) Direct transfer payments 2) Education, particularly for women 3) Improving public health, hygeine, and public education and understanding of disease 4) Improved health care, especially vaccinations and deworming 5) Improving [human capabilities](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_approach) and individual/community empowerment 6) improved access to credit (disputed) 7) reducing government corruption and increasing government democratic accountability 8) Land reform (can easily be done badly and backfire) 9) Reforming institutions to be more open and market friendly (also disputed) 10) better access to information and communication and 11) better transport and access to markets are the best ways to alleviate poverty. "Cheap energy" (cheap for whom? The millions displaced by hydroelectric dams? the miners buried in a chinese coal mine or city dwellers suffering from everything from asthma to lung cancer from burning coal? urban slum dwellers who have no legal address and can't get an electricity connection?) is waaay down the list.
Trueskeptic @ 156, don't hold back like this! Tell us what you really think! ;)
Hi George,
I'm skeptical of global warming and was really excited to see you posting here. My friends keep telling me that "deniers" are a bunch of drooling dimwits and lunatics, but I've just been waiting patiently for your brilliant responses to some of the issues of substance addressed to you here so that I can reassure my friends that its all a hoax. I'm starting to get worried. You haven't fallen ill, have you?
Ah, the fine art of pwnage.
It's amazing how the explanation you proffer is one that both fits your preconceptions - and that you apparently presume must be the only true explanation. Why, it's almost like an argument from personal lack of imagination!
Only dissemblers would attack straw men like you just did. No, wait - there ARE other explanations, but that one seems the most likely on the evidence available to me thus far. Feel free to submit additional evidence.
You presume that which is not in evidence, at least regarding my opinions.
And you seem ignorant that the First World has been producing far more food than it needs for many years - but not shipping the surplus off to poorer countries - and engaging in trading and other policies with the Third World that essentially transfer net wealth from the poorer countries to the richer and make it difficult for them to be agriculturally self-sufficient. It's not biofuel production in the First World that drives Third World hunger - especially hunger over many previous decades. There's enough food and wealth to go around - if there were corresponding political will.
You also ignore that climate change will disproportionately impact the poorest people of the world by severely disrupting their (limited) agricultural capabilities. Driving towards this outcome even faster (as your proposals would) seems ... well, misguided at best.
I'm not sure where you get "billions of deaths" from - but I'm sure you have well-founded numbers of deaths from the impacts of your "faster climate change in the name of more energy for the poor countries" proposal, right? And you've figured out the net difference with "let's try and keep the climate so they can at least maintain their current prospects" proposals? Would references be too much to ask?
Given that the poorest peoples of the world today don't use much in the way of fossil fuels, how exactly does raising the price of fossil fuels hurt them? And what would the cost of mitigating any impact of a price rise be and would that be feasible to provide (e.g. by the richer countries who created most of the climate damage) as part of a climate change solution? (Once more you appear to have imagined that you have assessed all possible solutions and only the one you propose has any merit...)
George links to a piece on the UN special rapporteur on the right to food, quoting "Biofuels are a crime against a large part of humanity" but somehow failing to include the following:
and
(although someone else disputed this and the article doesn't provide strong evidence either way)
and
Hmmm, perhaps it's not quite as simple as "biofuels are doing it!"
Especially when you consider that the prime example is US biofuel production from corn - given that corn is (a) heavily subsidised, and (b) so cheap and plentiful that it is being used for cat litter.
Let's get back to the science for now.
First. I've been accused of writing in a condescending style. This may well be true, but it is unintentional as English is not my first language.
In response to my original request for hard evidence, on more than one occasion I was directed to [Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
](http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.h…). After reading it, I did say I would like to read [Harries 2001](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html), [Griggs 2004](http://spiedl.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PSISD…), and [Chen 2007](http://www.eumetsat.eu/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_P…) before commenting further.
Unfortunately, I could only read the abstracts as I'm not prepared to pay for the privilege of downloading the full text. Also, the link to [Chen 2007](http://www.eumetsat.eu/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_P…) is not responding, so I will be skipping that. Since [skepticalscience.com](http://www.skepticalscience.com) doesn't bother correctly attribute authorship or provide a list of references, I have no idea of the title, co-authors, or publisher for Chen. Seriously, you wouldn't know that Harries 2001 had 3 co-authors, or that Griggs 2004 was co-authored by Harries, and it is a only conference paper. As for Chen 2007, well the title of the document in the dysfunctional link contains the words **conf** and **harries**. So my guess is that it's just a conference paper and Harries had a finger in that article too. Great, three references given, same author in all three. It better be good!
So Harries it is then.
It's a pity I'm only left with Harries, because I was hoping there would be something supporting post AR4. Some new evidence. I am curious why skepticalscience cites Harries as proof of that CO2 traps heat because the IPCC only cites Harries et al. (2001) in 2.3.8 **Observations of Long-Lived Greenhouse Gas Radiative Effects**, and not in 2.3.1 **Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide**. Regarding the IPCC assessment reports, I find the best path to understanding is to track any section through its lifecycle, [FOD](http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:FHCL:1196736) -> [reviewer comments](http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:FHCL:1199536) -> [SOD](http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:FHCL:1197085) -> [reviewer comments](http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:FHCL:1199151) -> [final report](http://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/wg1-ar4.html). Doing so with Harrie et al, turns out to be interesting, as usual.
[Expert Review Comments on First Order Draft](http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/7795174?n=130)
The paragraph on Harries et al. (2001) received the foillowing comments:
**Andrew Lacis** (NASA GISS) _"This section should be omitted since radiative forcing is not an observable quantity. Flux changes at TOA and ground surface are of course observable, but they are also subject to major ambiguity since many contributing factors to the radiative fluxes may be undergoing changes that obscure the signal being sought. ..."_
**Robert E. Dickinson** (School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology) _"This section on long-lived GHG appears sparse and with inadequate framing. Perhaps is out of place - or not needed?."_
**Robert Kandel** (Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique, Ecole Polytechnique) _"Should so much be made of Harries et al and the Philipona et al results? They go in the right direction, but they relate results from extremely limited samples both in space and in time."_
**Eugene Rozanov** (IAC ETHZ and PMOD/WRC) _"I guess that they finally showed that the observed increase in LW radiation is local and reflects water vapor increase, which was not homogeneous over the (sic) Europe. I do not think these results can be used to illustrate global greenhouse effect."_
Although not directly related to Harries et at, I am including the next reviewer comment as it refers to the only other citation, Philipona et al. (2004) in this paragraph (actually the entire section for that matter) because it is by Philipona himself.
**Rolf Philipona** (Observatory Davos) _"Please add this sentence: In an extended study that includes the evolution of temperature and integrated water vapor over Euroupe (Philipona et al. 2005) they show that 70% of the clear sky longwave radiation increase is due to positive water vapor feedback strong enhancing greenhouse warming in Central and Northeastern Euroupe."_
[Expert and Government Review Comments on Second-Order Draft](http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/7786003?n=63&imagesize=1200&jp2Res=…)
There is only one comment by **Wayne FJ Evans** (NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory) It is [very long at 2 pages](http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/7786003?n=63&imagesize=1200&jp2Res=…), and ultimately rejected at any rate.
What we are left with in the published report can best be described by the ending sentence, **" While both types of observations attest to the radiative influences of the gases, they should not be interpreted as having a direct linkage to the value of RFs in Section 2.3."**
Quite frankly, I'd say this debunks your evidence because your evidence stood atop of Harries. Everything else now falls back to tenuous links and model predictions. The hard evidence you pointed to does not hold water. The starting premise was that Harries was _"direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect"_ is not supported by any of the expert reviewers or by the closing sentence.
Therefore, direct evidence that CO2 is the cause of the minor increase in temperature observed during the last 150 years is not supported by evidence.
Now where is that mythbusters burning brand, **BUSTED.**
Jeremey C @ 152 wrote:
>Sooo you have worked for NGOs. Which ones and what did you do with them?
Please contact me by email. Happy to talk about it but certainly not on a public forum, especially one that is trashing me. co2yesorno_AT_iinet.net.au I have just set this account up for this purpose, might take an hour or so to become active.
I have recently posted a lengthy rebuttal on the science and it is currently awaiting moderation. Therefore I retract any concession I gave @150.
Anyhoo, I'm off for beers with friends. Back later.
I'm not sure I quite understand how Curious George can come up with a "lengthy rebuttal on the science" when he's made it quite clear he has little or no understanding of basic scientific principles.
Well said James Haughton@161 above.
It was far more than Mr Grisancich deserved, but nevertheless, a very fine piece of exposition that sits nicely with your substantial account the other day about the basic science.
Shorter George @ 167
"Because various people made comments I don't understand about a single paper I haven't bothered to read, which I selected from a long list of papers I also didn't bother to read, Global Warming is a myth".
Fran, I concur, James Haughton clarity is much apprciated.
If anyone missed them see [part 1](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/the_australians_war_on_science_…) and [part 2]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/the_australians_war_on_science_…).
George, there is a George Grisancich across the net listed as having worked for a particular NGO.
On Bolt's blog you refer approvingly to the NGO MSF while being corrected by a World Vision employee about disparaging remarks you make about World Vision. Those comments give me cause to think you have been exposed to NGOs.
But thats not the point. I'm not going to email you to discuss what NGOs you may have worked for. You bring it up you can list it.
I don't buy your line about your condescending tone being due to english as a second language because reading your comments on other blogs more congenial to the views you have expressed here there is no hint of superority in your language.
As to your complaint that people here have not shown why GHG is causing AGW it just comes back to my earlier comment that you are treating science as 'directional' i.e. 'what are the directions to the shops'. Your long posting in which you work your way down Harries and expert comments for the IPCC draft on AR4 (I think) is an example of this and hilarious in that you triumphantly proclaim this to show that AGW is "busted". Wonderful logic! Cherrypicking without even having looking at what the authors are saying, even Cohenite does better than that with his sciency bits
George, will you address [my questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/the_australians_war_on_science_…)?
162 James,
What did I miss out? ;)
167 GG,
Earlier you said AGW is real. Now you are again arguing for the opposite.
Which is it?
George it wasnât hard to find another link to [Chen et al.]( http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.131.3867&rep=r…)
Lets look the the [Second Order Draft Comment on Harries et al]( http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/7786003?action=jp2zoomin&imagesize=…)
Evans notes:
>The fine paper by Harries et al (2002) which does a satellite comparison of the changes from the IRIS instrument in 1970 with IMG measurements of radiative trapping in 1997 has been included briefly [â¦] This type of information demonstrating that mankind has caused an increase in the radiative balance of the planet is much more convincing than theoretical model simulations [â¦]
Evansâ suggestion:
>I believe you should increase the short summary on the measurement of radiative forcing from greenhouse gases and the bright future for progress that will be made with new satellite and ground based systems [â¦]
>[Wayne Evans]
Lead Author Decision on the suggetion:
>Rejected. Surface forcing is already alluded to briefly, but is not the main focus of the chapter. [â¦] We think our current section gives the right thrust and introduction to the discipline. It is not our job to suggest research pathways.
So what are you claiming is wrong with Harries?
TrueSceptic, I think you've missed out 3 zeros.
(60Ã60Ã24Ã365) GW s/year = 31,536,000 GW s/year = 31,536,000 GJ/year = 31,536,000,000,000,000 J/year (or 31.536 PJ/year).
You guys don't half flatter. Any blogger who was feeling bored with his job at the time would have done the same.
Slightly more seriously, and contra various other views, I think it is worth engaging with "concern trolls" every so often because these blogs are often read by non-commentators who are actually sincere about learning the answers to the various questions posed.
Mark @ 178 wrote:
I can only guess that you have provided this to support my argument. As you note the reviewers comments have been rejected.
Thanks for the Chen link. Pity skepicalscience.com didn't reference or link it correctly. And thanks, was it a conference piece, or was it published somewhere? I was right on the Harries co-authorship.
George, you'd guess wrong. The suggestion that was rejected was made clear and had nothing to do with the merits of Harries. I'm surprised you didn't comprehend this from both the statements in suggestion and the statements in rejection.
So what is your problem with Harries?
My my, George really is avoiding my [simple questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/the_australians_war_on_science_…).
And such a shame after George claimed he would engage in questions of substance. George was I correct with my guess?
Jeremy C,
Be careful, your comments regarding my previous employment are bordering on libelous. Don't think for a second Tim Lambert won't give up your email and IP address rather than put his neck on the line for you.
Your obsession with re-posting posts I have made elsewhere are most likely cyberstalking as defined under Australian law. Certain, your behavior is unwarranted harassment.
I am asking you, and the others that have engaged in the same behavior, to cease this behavior immediately.
**copy emailed to Tim Lambert**
George another contrived excuse to avoid my questions?
How about you [just answer](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/the_australians_war_on_science_…)?
179 P.Lewis,
Yes, I was afraid of something like that. I should have added 9 zeroes for G (giga) but for some reason I added 6. Thanks for checking it.
184 GG,
So, you post comments at a public blog and claim that citing them elsewhere is some sort of "stalking".
This is sheer fantasy. If you don't want to get shown up for the dishonesty of what you write, consider what you post and where.
Stop whining and answer the questions.
[James Haughton](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/the_australians_war_on_science_…).
Your modesty becomes you, but in truth you truly pwnned GG. You cerainly demonstrated far more patience and consideration than I was prepared to expend upon GG's nonsense, and for that I tip my hat to you.
Speaking of [said litigiously-inclined troll](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/the_australians_war_on_science_…), it needs to grow a spine, because there is no case at all for its hysterical claim of "cyberstalking". Its own behaviour, on the other hand, constitutes undue agression in my not-so-humble opinion. Said troll needs to pull its head in, and grow a thicker skin.
And a scientifically-functioning brain.
180 James,
I agree with what Bernard and others have said about your posts. It takes a lot of patience to dismantle stupidity and dishonesty in such a painstaking way.
I have banned George Grisancich. Please do not make any more comments about him, since he will be unable to reply.
190 Tim,
Am I allowed to ask why a ban was appropriate at such a late stage?
George was banned because of what he wrote in an email to me that he asked to be kept confidential. I think the ban was in his own best interest.
George said:
>Now where is that mythbusters burning brand, BUSTED.
erm for someone claiming not to be very familiar with English, George had a very detailed knowledge of American TV shows.
And may I add, good use of written English that seems to contradict his own claim.
Where have these creatures been all this time?
Shilling for the tobacco industry.