Steve Brown sends in this report from the Guardian Debate on 'Climategate':
I've just got back from the Guardian "ClimateGate" debate in London and here are some of the notes I made of the event.
On the panel chaired by George Monbiot was Fred Pearce, Prof Trevor Davies (Vice-chancellor at UAE and former Director of CRU), Steven McIntyre, Prof Bob Watson (UK Gov scientific advisor and former IPCC chair) and Doug Keenan.
In the audience were various luminaries: Benny Peiser, Piers Corbyn, Roger Harribin and......Jonathan Leake!!
The format was 5 mins for each panelist, 15 mins of open discussion, then audience questions for 45 mins.
Prof. Davies: Said CRU will be exploring initiatives later in the year to open up public space for engaging in the scientific discussion. Also said that lessons have been learned.
Steve McIntyre: Gave an overview of his main criticisms aired on ClimateAudit in recent weeks - nothing really new. Monbiot tried to challenge him about the Muir Russell finding that any competent individual could reproduce a temperature series from publicly accessible data, which McIntyre deftly sidestepped.
Bob Watson: Thinks reviews had high integrity and gave a robust rebuttal of criticisms. He accused the printed media of being guilty of getting carried away with the "skeptic" allegations" (and made a specific dig at the Guardian), though thought the TV media were much fairer in general. Says we need more balanced reporting and that he estimates that 95% of scientists accept the mainstream consensus on AGW.
Doug Keenan: Says he will not retract fraud allegations made against Phil Jones over Chinese station data. Says bogus fraudulent research is rife throughout science. Seemed to say that because Phil Jones is not as good at statistics as him, AGW is a fraud.
Fred Pearce: Said reviews didn't go far enough and that he is still disturbed by some of the e-mails. The enquiries were not a "whitewash" and this saga is more a tragedy than a conspiracy. He though the 3 CRU inquiries were better conducted than the Penn State Uni one, which he described as "kafkaesque".
Over to the audience....Bob Watson says that CRU had nothing to hide - all data is available if you approach the national weather agencies who own the data. Made a good point about the Saudi Govt hiring "some very good" people to find problems in the last IPCC assessment, so they could have an excuse to drill for more oil. They found nothing.
Keenan said that peer-review is rubbish on the basis that he's submitted a paper 35 times to journals for it to be rejected each time.
McIntyre is asked to explain the source of energy that has warmed the planet since 1980. Deftly sidestepped by claiming he's more interested in ancient proxies and hockysticks and not CRUtem. When pressed further he said he agrees with what Lindzen says.
Monbiot is asked if he thought he was a bit quick and rash to fall for the serious allegations when the "scandal" broke. He replied "The Guardian chose me to chair as I've alienated everyone in the debate". He also admitted his judgments were hasty.
Keenen then claims that none of the evidence for AGW stands up to scrutiny and Piers Corbyn starts heckling.
Piers Corbyn gets the chance to ask a question, but ends up making a speech on how AGW is a fraud and it's really the Sun and the Moon that cause climate to change. They move to a different questioner. Corbyn continues to heckle and interrupt. Monbiot tells Corbin he'll have him ejected if he doesn't shut up.
Jonathan Leake asks McIntyre about the "explosive" allegation that Muir Russel didn't interview Phil Jones. Prof Davies said Muir Russell did meet Phil Jones and the detailed interviews were conducted by the expert members of the inquiry.
Expect an expose in the Times tomorrow about how AGW is a scam because Phil and Muir didn't do a round of golf together.
Monbiot finishes off by saying "An interesting and fiery debate and as usual we've got absolutely nowhere".
All in all, it was a fascinating experience to attend and to see the main players in the flesh. I thought Fred Pearce and Bob Watson came across well. Pearce has gotten a bit of stick over this, but he's certainly in the premier league of science journo's. Doug Keenan is a fascinating character - very sinister looking and would make a great Dr Who baddy. McIntyre was quiet spoken and reserved - didn't really set the ground on fire. There was about 300 in the audience - judging by applause, I'd guess a third were "skeptic" faithful and the rest were normal people and journalists.
Update: Report from Damian Carrington at the Gurdian, along with audio is here.
I'm somewhat taken aback by this rather denialist-sounding editorial in The Atlantic by Clive Crook:
The Penn State inquiry exonerating Michael Mann -- the paleoclimatologist who came up with "the hockey stick" -- would be difficult to parody. Three of four allegations are dismissed out of hand at the outset: the inquiry announces that, for "lack of credible evidence", it will not even investigate them. (At this, MIT's Richard Lindzen tells the committee, "It's thoroughly amazing. I mean these issues are explicitly stated in the emails. I'm wondering what's going on?" The report continues: "The Investigatory Committee did not respond to Dr Lindzen's statement. Instead, [his] attention was directed to the fourth allegation.") Moving on, the report then says, in effect, that Mann is a distinguished scholar, a successful raiser of research funding, a man admired by his peers -- so any allegation of academic impropriety must be false.
I'm intrigued by "Pearce has gotten a bit of stick over this, but he's certainly in the premier league of science journo's" because I was considering writing to New Scientist demanding he be sacked - he's not been a journalist on the "climategate" he's been an activist attacking scientists with baseless accusations. His book seemed terrible, and his piece on the rebuttal of John McLean's paper was pathetic, faming it al "Climategate" when it pre-dates the email theft, getting a completely incorrect claim "They say El NiÃ±o only explains 15 to 30 per cent of recent warming" and making it just debate, not reality
I'm not defending Pearce - I too have been disappointed with some recent articles of his, particularly the McClean one, though I thought most of the series he did for the Guardian was pretty fair. He's also obviously trying to sell a book at the moment. The impression I did get last night is that he genuinely feels concern for the wider impact on science in general and the potential loss of public trust in it, which is very serious with far-reaching implications. He's certainly "on-side" with the scientists and definitely no friend of the "skeptics".
I'm with davidp.
I was livid at a full-page spread by Pierce in this week's Guardian Weekly (almost put pen to paper but haven't had time). His main/only point was that "climategate" will result in opening up the data for everyone to see ("science will never be the same again"), that there are great uncertainties etc - but not a mention that every review (five I think?)had agreed that 90+ percent of what CRU had done was OK and that the fundamentals are still valid. The tone was like a teacher dressing down a pupil for acting suspiciously. On this topic, the Grodian has no more credibility than any other newspaper. Pierce in the premier league? - that would be the same one as Rooney and Lampard?
> I thought Fred Pearce and Bob Watson came across well.
No surprise that Bob Watson shone. He's both well-informed and not afraid to speak his mind, so it's always a pleasure to hear him talk on the matter.
The link isn't working, by the way, and I can't seem to find it on The Grauniad website.
[Here](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/15/uea-hacked-emails-cli…) is the Guardian's report on last nights debate (stupid me missed it). Its the only thing I can find so far, perhaps George Monbiot and Fred Pearce are preparing pieces about it as we speak.
"Keenan said that peer-review is rubbish on the basis that he's submitted a paper 35 times to journals for it to be rejected each time."
Or could it be that Keenan is rubbish??
I mean, if I try to park my car in a space and fail 35 times, I don't think I'll be allowed to blame the car parking space...
I was going to attend this, but had too much work to do. Sounds like an entertaining evening.
I'm wondering whether the police are going to take advantage of McIntyre's presence in the UK to ask for his assistance in their investigations.
Good summary Steve - I went along as well and thought it was an interesting evening.
I wouldn't say that McIntyre "deftly sidestepped" the question about the cause of recent warming, I thought he blustered and prevaricated - much to the amusement of many of us in the audience. In general he came across ok though, despite his tiresome attempt to rehash the "hide the decline" argument. He certainly looked good in contrast to Keenan who was arrogant and unpleasant - accusing Phil Jones of fraud and questioning his basic competence as a scientist and unilaterally declaring most of published climate science to be unsound.
Leake will no doubt publish his "revelation" that the interview with Jones was not conducted by Russell himself - Davies didn't make a very good job of answering the question and Leake looked very pleased with himself.
In general Davies did ok but could have been more forthright in defending Phil Jones's integrity. Watson was good, but given their respective positions they both had to take a conciliatory line and couch criticisms of others in polite language. It would have been nice to have someone on the "pro-AGW" side who was prepared to "mix it" with the likes of McIntyre, Keenan, Corbyn and others in the audience and speak out more strongly against the tactics of the "skeptics" and certain parts of the media. Of course Pearce could have done this but although I didn't disagree with most of what he said (apart from when he compared "climategate" to the MPs' expenses saga) he didn't seem prepared to really fight to defend the science. In general I agree with some of the criticisms of him above and find him a bit "slippery".
Overall though I thought the pro-science side came out well - everyone agreed that the scientists were at fault for lack of openness and that there is a need to improve certain practices but the "skeptics" were unable to come up with any serious and credible criticisms of the science, either that done by the CRU or climate science generally, or produce real evidence of lack of honesty or integrity on the part of Jones et al.
If I had been able to make a point during the audience discussion it would have been that given the intense scrutiny climate science has been under in recent years if there had been any genuine malpractice by CRU or if the science supporting AGW was really suspect then the skeptics would surely have some hard evidence. Instead they have to cling to the "climate" emails because they are all they've got.
> Monbiot finishes off by saying "An interesting and fiery debate and as usual we've got absolutely nowhere".
So, why did Guardian host the debate anyway? Was it just to make some noise?
So, why did Guardian host the debate anyway? Was it just to make some noise?
Well yes, they are in the business of selling advertising and newspapers
I find it hard to believe that anyone has faith in the recent reviews. Had they been about any other subject, the bias and vested interest of the review panels would be obvious indication of whitewash.
When it comes to climate, there's none so blind.
Well yes, they are in the business of selling advertising and newspapers
Though Fred's book signing in the hall outside was completely coincidental, of course.
> I find it hard to believe that anyone has faith in the recent reviews. Had they been about any other subject, the bias and vested interest of the review panels would be obvious indication of whitewash.
Ah, so now we're down to the basic conspiracy theorist tactic of whining about credibility and demanding new investigations ad infinitum. If you could actually point out anything that is factually wrong about any of the reports, you might come across as something other than your standard denialist troll.
Fred Pearce is disturbed by some of the emails.
Does he actually use email??
I'm sure a lot of the emails he sends are 'disturbing' unless he lives in some sort of time anomaly.
Mind you some of the people that send me emails seem to live in the past and their emails to me have all the formality of a posh letter.
I have to confess I'm a bit like that Paul. I even punctuate my text messages.
I was there, I thought you might appreciate, a 'lukewarm' perspective of the meeting:
RealClimate to their credit, have allowed a post, with many different and varied opinions of the debate, including linking here.
Audio of the meeting now here:
A bit edited out appently for legal reasons (probably Doug Keenans strong opinion against Phil Jones)
George Monbiot actually came across very well, a fair âchairâ and with a sense of humour saying:
âHe was the ideal chair, because he had managed to alienate, everybody!â
You do really need to listen to the audio, to see how bad the UEAâs Trevor Davis was, especially how, the admission that Phil Jones was not seen by Muir Russell after the enquiry panel had formed, was dragged out of himâ¦
I think the Time journalist, asked for confirmation from Davis, whether Mcintyre account was correct, ie the head of the enquiry, had not the head of the department (Phil Jones) to be formally interviewed, after the panel had formed.
George to his credit, did not allow Davis (UEA) to get away with anything, George pursued the question, with Davis, until after much note shuffling, not sures, mumbling, refering to notes, Davis eventually mumbled Phil Jones,- met Muir Russell in January, Steve Mcintyre said, âconfirmingâ, BEFORE the panel had formed.
Bob Watsonâs admission, that he had only read a FEW emails was just laughable, given the debateâ¦
Fred Pearce did come across very well (Fred and George came across as journalists)
Keenan was very concise and tough, maybe overstepped the mark, saying all climate science was rubbish (assuming man made kind)
What may be lost because he said that, is he talked about the human âcostâ of it all, hundreds of millions of poor affected, because we âmustâ do âsomethingâ about AGW,even as the uncertainties get bigger for AR5.
His other valid point, that struck a chord, was how there is no processes, for challenging academic fraud, incompetance, no way to hold anybody academic to account,(fraud/incompetance) Citing an example, (not climate science) that he was pursueing, where the university, said no method to do this.
Keenan I think impressed the journalists, like Fred, George Roger Harrabin, The Times, etc with his conciseness, and interest in accountability of academia, no âwaffleâ.
Former IPCC man Bob Watson, could only keep repeating, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, 95% scientists agree, very superficial platitudes, that just did not work in a debate, where every one was knowledgable.
Roger Harraibin asked him a question from the audience, and the response from Bob was very poor, totally not answering the question, which I heard at least one of the journalists present, saying Bob did not answer the question.
Fiona Fox asked a question, pretty much attacking the Guardian journalists, for being irresponsble for reporting about climategate. Fred Pearceâs reply was perfect, comparing to how reporting MPâs expenses was referred as attacking democracy initially, but long term better for democracy (cf climate science)
Fiona Fox, sounded to be like a very strident âactivistâ, really need to here it for yourself..
The journalists present could not fail to see, what the Muir Russell enquiry was really about, following UEAâs and Bob Watsons poor performance here
George Monbiot, WAS a very good chairâ¦
I had thought â oh huh, when he started of with the âClimate Change DENIAL communityâ, but it would be picky to highlight any detail.
He fulfilled the role of chair correctly. (if only heâs stop denial stuff in his blog â that totally alienates me, annd many others,)
Fred Pearce is disturbed by some of the emails.
Does he actually use email??
I'm sure a lot of the emails he sends are 'disturbing' unless he lives in some sort of time anomaly.
Well, given how disturbing his *public* columns and statements on climategate have been, it's easy to imagine his private correspondence is even worse ...
Report from Damian Carrington at the Guardian, along with audio is [here](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/jul/15/climategate-publ…).
For the record Monbiot repeats the idiotic claim that McIntyre and Keenan are mathematicians. This claim is false. In this talk McIntyre repeats his tired old talking points and Keenan is barking mad. It was Pearce's book launch after all.
This debate again demonstrates why oral debates of this kind are perfectly useless for settling science issues, even with competent moderation. There just is no time or opportunity to point out the "porkies".
As an example Keenan's misrepresentation of Jones et al.'s 2008 paper. Yes, it found a significant UHI effect, but only because the data period was extended compared to the 1990 paper, with a period of frantic urbanization. In the graphs for the original period [every wiggle matches perfectly](http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/guardianstateme…)! Of course Trevor Davis didn't have the debunking handy...
About Keenan BTW I wonder whom he has in mind that should do the work of providing accountability for the science, if not other scientists. Lawyers? Journalists? His buddies? The good Senator James Inhofe? I see no recognition of the role of expertise, that the only folks that can judge the work of an expert are other experts on the subject. Not addressing this is fundamentally dishonest.
...and if you consider every scientific result fraudulent that you don't like, then fraud is obviously rampant...
I like the point someone, I think Doug Keenan, made drawing a parallel between the micro kernel dominated computer world and climate science. The parallels being that computer science was dominated by the same appeals to authority, group think might be a better term, as climate science is now.
It does seem a bit like group think when you have the academies putting out press releases - something almost unheard of in science. I cannot see this as being at all helpful.
Then look at these pages:
Loads of "press releases". Now, try and find those about climate change without using a search. List how many "climate change" versus not "climate change" and tell us your findings.
With that evidence in mind, care to amend your claim that press releases put out by academies is almost unheard of in science?
I'd also like to note that the idea of "group think" in climate science is laughable. Briffa and Mann have had their harsh discussions (just see the e-mails). Jones and Hansen probably disagree which of their respective surface station record is best. Etc. Etc. Etc. But there simply is no credible alternative to the AGW theory. None. Whenever someone tries one, people find significant shortcomings. The only group think that is obvious is that new ideas are challenged by other scientists. And when they fail, they are discarded. That is what science and scientists do. That horrible group think of not just accepting anything new as better.
You know, I wonder why people in these debates who are given some guff by a denialist doesn't just make plausible (or not deniable) stuff up themselves.
Keenan: "Jones paper found a significant UHI effect"
Me: "Which was accounted for in the corrections done with the data used in models"
You know, just like Keenan, don't bother with actually worrying if your message is RESEARCHED correctly, just whether it's probably right. After all, UHI *has* been corrected for.
Note that Barry Woods is not actually a "lukewarmer". He's just a denialist talking point amplifier.
The reason I say group think, and I should have been clearer, is that I do not believe all the effects of climate change will be bad. Surely, warmer weather will mean longer growning seasons in some areas, as well as other benefits. Why do we only hear of doom and gloom.
Is this not so, no? Is this not group think? Or are they also researching this? I would wish to know.
Still, we only hear of gloom by the academies. At least this is what the TV reports.
Basically what you are saying is that the global experiment humans are conducting on immensely complex systems - both biotic and abiotic - may have net benefits in some areas. Is this not what you are thinking?
The problem with this argument is that humans are unable to manage complex adaptive systems and thus the potential repercussions of this global experiment may be very, very bad for humanity, for the simple reason that no species derives more from nature or depends more on nature - in the context of direct and indirect services - than we do.
Speaking as a senior scientist, I think that it is important to highlight these facts, and especially the point that we are throwing the dice with non-linear systems and that there are potentially serious consequences of doing this. Moreover, the question of climate change is not how we can respond to it, but how natural systems will respond, and especially what effects there will be on soil and above-ground food webs, for it is these that largely determine systemic productivity and resilience.
In the end, given our ignorance, I think that it is important for universities, institutions and scientists to point out the grave risks involved in rapid climate change and through other human assaults across the biosphere. It would be therefore irresponsible, IMHO, for us to try and downplay the potential consequences by saying, "Heck, we are gambling with the future for humanity, but in doing so some good may come out of it"!
Brigette, nice try at moving the goalposts, but no cake. Or should I take your evasion tactic as a tacit admissal you said something horribly wrong?
Regarding regional effects: plenty have been studied and discussed, including "positive" effects. Those are also reported. See for example:
But read that story with great care, and perhaps you understand why you hear so little about positive effects: there hardly is any positive effect with an associated problem. Not directly noted in the article, but just imagine if Canada and Russia can grow more crops. Who benefits? Neither country has a problem with feeding its population at the moment (in particular Canada). Thus, either the food goes to the customer (=somewhere abroad, in particular the 2nd/3rd world), or the customer comes to the food. See a problem growing there?
I can only repeat my comment I made at RealClimate, which they PRINTED...
"I even enjoy reading RealClimate, after all it was recommended to me by a close personal friend that co-edited the 2001 IPCC synthesis report!!!!!
he hasnât called me a deniar, or even a sceptic! yet ;)"
I would perhaps call my self an unconvinced 'lukewamer' comments like denier just drive most people, me included ,towards the sceptic side.. That sort of attitude, actually CREATES sceptics... Be nice
I only got interested in AGW, pre-copenhagen, my friend directed me to RealClimate.... Their response led me, shall we say elsewhere..
Once more, your previous comments elsewhere show quite conclusively that you're just someone who amplifies the usual crop of denialist talking points.
> Be nice..
Tell that to the evidence. Tell that to the evidence that is your own previous writings. Because it's the evidence that's not nice to you.
My thought are my own, I comment wherever anybody lets me..
Why the agression, as I left the meeting, I think Bob Watson and Doug Keenan were of to have a drink together, as were many people there, TOGETHER, sceptic and pro-AGW
I have a young family, as well, and I am concerned for the planets future as anybody...
You labelled me, what should I label you, a fellow human being, or as someone who apparently even has their own pro AGW website, should I call you a part of the 'alarmist consensus'.
We merely have different interprtations of the impact of a scientific theory, Ipcc projectios range from 1 - 10 degrees C, (some alrmists, say tipping points, etc). I just remain unconvinced of the upper projections, should there be negative feedback, or only small positive ones, not a lot to fuss about..
Of course as someone whose family has not flown for 9 years, anywhere, my carbon footprint, is TINY compared to many, politicians included, that would call me a 'deniar'
Next IPCC conference, copenhagen style jolly. Leave the 'private' jets behind... someone offer a lomi (1400 in copehagen) get out and walk. A general public perception there.
To follwo on from Marco's point, we must address the effects of warming on (a) plant physiology, (b) soil biology, and (c) assorted aboveground organisms associated with crops including both mutualists and antagonists.
Some of the major fallacies made by those suggesting that a warmer climate would allow longer for growing seasons and for crops to be grown at higher latitudes is that they do not take into account limitations imposed by acid soils (e.g. in boreal regions of the northern hemisphere) that limit the movement of biomes to the north, nor of the effects of warmer climate on native plant enemies (e.g. pathogens, herbivores) or mutualists (e.g. natural enemies, pollinators etc). Given that phenological processes involving various links in the food chain (both above and below-ground) are vital in determining plant growth and fitness, it is patently absurd to ignore the effects of warming on interaction network webs in ecological communities, as well as constraints imposed by soil chemistry and biology. Sadly, the bulk of those drawing simple conclusions on the basis of warmer climate know virtually nothing about plant or system ecology or physiology; they argue as if there was a simple correaltion between one variable (e.g. temperature) and plant biomass, whilst ignoring vitally important context and trait-dependent parameters. I have been arguing this to Tim Curtin on his own thread on Deltoid, but, given that he apparently does not understand it, he ignores it.
They also ignore the fact that humans have already greatly altered the surface of the planet, fragmenting natural ecosystems and thus making it very difficlt for some organisms to track a warming climate. When previous climatic changes occurred, there were not vast urban and agricultural expanses that acted a physical barriers and thus made it very difficult or even impossible for some organisms to disperse. Bear in mind that many plants are involved in strong mutualisms with specialized organisms such as pollinating insects or mycorrhizal fungi, and that the ability of these to track poleward movements of plants may not be straightforward.
The bottom line is that we cannot isolate different biotic and abiotic parameters in determining what the likely effects of rapid warming are likely to be. The outcome is based on a highly complex interplay involving both that will lead to all kinds of consequences - including many nasty ones (e.g. the breakdown of ecosystems and vital ecosystem services) that are virtually impossible to predict beforehand. This is why I, and most of my colleagues, are very critical of those arguing that the current global 'experiment' is nothing to be worried about.
Why do you hate this thing called "evidence" so much? You can't offer any evidence to counter my point showing that you were dishing out cookie-cutter denialist talking points on BBC's blogs. You can't offer any evidence to substantiate your own claim of being a "lukewarmer". You can't offer any evidence that Trevor Davies was wrong; you just don't 'like' him. You can't offer any evidence that Doug Keenan was right; you just 'like' him.
You can't offer any evidence for anything. Just a lot of hot air. Why do you hate evidence so much? Is this hatred of evidence part of your "concern" for your "family" too?
Piers Corbyn did come across as a bit of a 'loon' and I have said the same at Watts Up......
The audio is evidence, that he was a terrible pr representaion of the college.. And YES, He did confirm, eventually, what a journalist asked him, AND it had to be dragged out of him, the audience, could see this..
He could have said a dozen things, simple deflections, made a brief statement, anything, he was just uninformed and very bad at his job..
Listen for yourself, George Monbiots first question to him, was what about the car crash response to the 'hack' that UEA made,and why was their media person so bad at handling the media..
Why the agression?
UEA would be HELPED by better PR/media representation
Yes. Very much. There must be some net benefits In some areas. At least when the warming is still small. If we spend all our research only on how things might be in the more distant future we will lose out on many benefits along the way.
This too is part of the group think problem, and it is not so smart. If all everyone here sees is gloom, then this blog is not help for our future.
I see you post some more for me and I see you truly are scientist because I cannot understand what are trying to tell me. I think you are trying to say humans have changed the environment so it is all our fault for other organisms. It is for this reason we have no chance? Perchance Mr Curtain does not understand you too.
Maybe you look at this as being big problem only? I think you will see many farmers making much profit from global warming because they will see opportunities where scientist see only doom. For sure for next 20 or 40 years there will be many opportunities for smarter people.
"I see you truly are scientist because I cannot understand what are trying to tell me."
Ah, the Sarah Palin of Deltoid...
~I afraid me not understands your message. Please if you forget the hairpin turn ahead and not stop accelerator now, fall of cliffs will be future for you.~
Today I buy garlic at the supermarket from Mexico because I did not want to buy garlic from Israel. Australia is not 2nd/3rd world. This very bad way words, like words used many years ago for black people. We should call them developing world.
Mexico can grown surplus garlic and send to Australia. Perhaps Canada and Russia can do the same too, no? I think garlic and onions too do not like the earth to be wet too much. In Europe, garlic is cheap. When I see how much garlic costs in Australia I think garlic must be exoitique. But my friends, they tell me it is not so. Maybe they can grow garlic in Australia if it gets warmer here too.
Brigette, Australia is not the developing world. You can afford to buy your Mexican garlic (and note that Australia already produces garlic). It's the developing world which already has trouble feeding itself from its own limited agricultural production, that will have to buy just about everything from the rich countries. How will they pay? Making money depends on your customers. If your customer is a Somali, you can't get your 1 Australian dollar for a bit of garlic. That would be their daily salary for a bit of garlic, so that's a no go.
And you do realise that moving stuff halfway across the world isn't cheap either? And requires fossil fuels? Which then cause even more heating?
> There must be some net benefits In some areas. At least when the warming is still small. If we spend all our research only on how things might be in the more distant future we will lose out on many benefits along the way.
"i know that peptic ulcers are horrible. but just think of how much weight you'll lose!"
*Ah, the Sarah Palin of Deltoid*
Wow, I think you have nailed it. Sadly.
Brigette: IMO there's a lot Tim Curtin does not understand. But he never admits it, whereas at least you do. For what it's worth, this is a start.
I never said that I only see gloom & doom. But I am a realist, and I know how badly some experiments can turn out to be. Humans are conducting a global experiment by tampering with the planet's thermostat and by simplifying nature in a multitude of other ways. In combination, these changes threaten the future quality of life for everyone. Most importantly, given that we have only one planet in which to live, and also given how little we understand the array of complex ways in which it functions and permits humans to exist and to persist, don't you think its a bit unwise to continually tinker and tamper with it?
Here is an analogy. Say that a person is connected up to a life support machine in hospital. The patient represent Homo sapiens; the machine - acting as a proxy for natural systems acros various scales of space and time - is made up of millions of tiny parts that all play some role in the way that it works. Each of these components may represent biodiversity in terms of species or genetically distinct populations; we know that, when expanded over larger scales, biodiversity provides life support systems for humanity in terms of consumables and indirect services such as nutrient cycling, pest control, climate control, detoxification and breakdown of wastes, flood control, seed dispersal, and also a large genetic library in the language of DNA.
Back to the story: Nobody really know how the life support machine in the hospital it works but the life of the patient depends on it working effectively. Suddenly someone comes into the ward and says that they need just one part of the machine for some task in another ward. The patient says, "OK, I guess that one small component will not be missed". But then another technician comes in and another, each in turn saying they need to take a small component from the machine. Would the patient think this is a prudent idea? If his or her life depended on the machine functioning correctly, what would they think about hospital workers taking bits and bobs out of it? Don't you think at some point they may take out some vital component, leading to the breakdown of the machine and the patient's death?
This is exactly what humans are doing across the biosphere - except in slow motion. We are fiddling with systems whose functioning we barely understand but which we do know sustain us as I said above. Throw climate change into the mix and we are talking about changes that may indeed precipitate a massive reduction in the quality of life for most of humanity. A stronger way of putting it is that we are pushing natural systems towards a point beyond which they will unable to siustain themselves and us. Climate change plays a central role in this because much of biodiversity will not be able to adapt to changes that are faster than those that have occurred in many millions of years. This is set against a background of a human dominated planet where other processes - pollution, invasive species, overharvesting, and habitat destruction - are all impacting natural systems in quite negative ways. Humans are not exempt from the laws of nature - if we continue on the current path then the future will be a very bleak one indeed.
Your comment abvout farmers profiting from warming is, unfortuneately, exceedingly naive. If you read and re-read my earlier postings on this thread, I have tried to make it clear that agricultural productivity depends on much more than just temperature. Increased temepratures will affect soil and above-ground food webs as well, and plants, including crops, depend on interactions with terrestrial biota. The loss of even a small percentage of pollinators, for instance, would be a disaster for crop production. Similarly, climate warming may negatively affect natural enemies such as arthropod predators and parasitic wasps, which are worth hundreds of millions of dollars to the economy every year. And what about soil and air-borne pathogens, pest outbreaks, and changes in plant chemistry due to warming and changes in atmospheric C02 concentrations? What aboput changes in rainfall patterns, the frequency of heat waves, and the like? Have you considered these possible outcomes?
My point is that you would not not gamble with your property if you knew that this gamble had even only a 20% chance of ending in disaster. The stakes are far higher now; humans are fiddling with systems with consequences that are difficult to predict but which are quite likely to be profoundly serious. I for one know full well the limitations in human technology in replacing vital ecosystem services and of the fact that every natural indicator of planetary health is in decline. Our species will not be able to muddle its way through if we continue on the current path; we are running out of time as it is, but my view is that we ought to do everything in our power to ensure that we stabilize carbon levels in the atmosphere and work towards creating a socially just world in which our economic system is based on sustainable production and not excessive consumption.
Australia *does* grow garlic. But the stuff from China is cheaper so that's mostly what's on offer. As for Australia's farmers liking or wanting it to get warmer. How many Australian farmers do you know?
I've spent quite a bit of time in the Riverland, mid-North and southern Flinders areas of South Australia in the last few years. I have never heard of anyone who thinks warmer would be better. Every farmer complains about every season for various reasons - but many years drought without let up is no joke. Warmer climate for Australia means more and worse droughts in the south with more and worse floods in the north. Seeing Lake Eyre fill 2 years in a row is exciting, but it's no compensation for a more amenable climate.
You like it warmer. Come to arid Adelaide or Melbourne when we have 10 days of 40c heatwave and you'll see the future of many regions of the world withering in front of your eyes.
Don't think for a moment that global warming only means cold places will get warmer with no other secondary effects such as decreased rainfall or soil drying up faster. It doesn't. Upstate New York may be nicer in winter, but if it gets less rain as a result, then the native vegetation could still be wiped out or nearly so, and the overal environment won't be made more pleasant.
Also, HUGE numbers of people live, and grow their food, nearer the Equator; and if upstate New York sees much milder winters, chances are the Equatorial regions will see withering summers and not nearly enough rainfall to support any farming.
I find it absolutely infantile and disgusting that so many deniers try to pretend that global warming will have benefits that will even compare to the costs, let alone exceed them. Last night NPR had some idiot saying that turning up our air-conditioners was a valid response to global warming. The whole denialist movement has become downright babyish in their desperate refusal to face reality.
> Listen for yourself, George Monbiots first question to him, was what about the car crash response to the 'hack' that UEA made,and why was their media person so bad at handling the media..
> Why the agression?
Yeah, why are people here so fanatically religious about finding the actual truth behind the so-called "Climategate"? Why are people here so fanatically religious about facts, evidence, and logic? That's so evil! People should just believe whoever has the smoothest-talking voice!
* * *
Please do not pay any attention to the fact that "Climategate" is still dead.
I'm equally capable of cherry picking franks comments and posting them on 'sceptical' blogs. But what would the point of that be..
If frank has a problem with me, maybe I should just have a chat with him at his website ( I don't have one), here we are both guests at Deltoid..
I just followed a link from ReaCLimate to here, where they posted my original thoughts of the debate.
RealClimate also posted a link to CLimateAudit's discussion about the debate. So I thought, as I had come across Tim Lambert at Collide A Scape, commentors here might be interested in a 'different' perspective..
If frank speaks for this blog, if Tim could let me know, I won't bother to come back.
'smoothest talking voice' !! ??
I also just posted at real climate the following! (not appeared yet)
"Does that mean that being a REALLY bad orator make you right ;) (only joking)
ie I said Piers Corbyn came across REALLY (REALLY, REALLY) badly, if you follow the climate audit link about the debate, lots of people there, said how badly he came across, and how George handled him correctly!
> I also...
> ie I said...
Here's a clue: climate science isn't about your own emotions.
I see there are many stupid people on this site. You think you are smart people but this is not so. Only little stupid people are rude like you and do not have open mind. Did not your mother teach you some manners?
Sarah Palin is a foolish woman that thinks climate change is a trick. I do not say that and I do not think that.
For sure we can not stop climate change by buying prius or riding bicycle to work or eating only vegetable one day each week. Maybe we can not stop climate change even if we leave all fossil fuel in the ground. For sure the world will be terrible place if we do look for opportunities too and behave like scared little infants waiting for the world to finish. I say we must be smart to look for the opportunities also.
au pays des aveugles les borgnes sont rois
> Only little stupid people are rude like you and do not have open mind.
Oh, the irony.
> Did not your mother teach you some manners?
Didn't your mother teach you facts, evidence, and logic? Maybe not.
> For sure we can not stop climate change by buying prius or riding bicycle to work or eating only vegetable one day each week.
No facts, no evidence, no logic. Just bald assertions.
> Maybe we can not stop climate change even if we leave all fossil fuel in the ground.
No facts, no evidence, no logic. Just bald assertions.
> For sure the world will be terrible place if we do look for opportunities too and behave like scared little infants waiting for the world to finish.
No facts, no evidence, no logic. Just bald assertions.
> I say we must be smart to look for the opportunities also.
No facts, no evidence, no logic. Just bald assertions.
Frnk, vs ts vrmnt n mbcl.
Au contraire, Brigette, les imbÃ©ciles sont ceux qui refusent net dâaccepter les faits mais prÃ©fÃ¨rent faire des discours flous et illogiques sur des sujets dont ils sont ignorants.
V t fr ftr.
Telling that Brigette needs to use foul language in response to a non-offensive statement by Vince. Also quite interesting it is grammatically incorrect.
"Also quite interesting it is grammatically incorrect."
She did that before. The first post grammatically correct. Then when she did her Sarah Palin act, it all fracturing english Ive not understand.
She's probably a hick who works for the Australian coal mining industry, trying to put on airs she doesn't have to appear more educated and therefore more worthy of listening to (she's got a chip on her shoulder about the elite, but she's the one putting it there), but when rushed or emotional (her job is at stake, hang the consequences!) she loses the time needed to polish a post before making it.
Nice 'friends you have here..
Probably best to actually discuss thing with you, elsewhere..
Consider me 'chased away' 'taken down', etc...
Are you suggesting it's too cold to grow garlic in Australia? Seriously? Do you have any idea in which areas it grows in Europe?
Please tell us who you mean. Comment numbers will do.
I have to say that some of the most stupid comments here have been yours.
Well I don't know if anyone else is enocountering this, but the Denia-worm might be slightly turning against McIntyre. McIntyre says he'd act on climate change if he were in government.
He noted that if he was running a government, he would be taking action on climate change. Hardly a classic sceptic.
A number of denialists are backing themselves into a corner over this, as it clearly means McIntyre must trust the scientific consensus on climate change to make that kind of comment. When hard pressed for a comment all they can point out is that McI has never doubted global warming, or listen to the wind as the tumbleweed rolls across the sleepy town.
After his criticisms of Cuccinelli-style persecution of climate scientists at the Heartland pantomime, I can't help but feel he could become a target of the extreme denialists before long as they can no longer pretend that he legitimises their positions on the political aspects, nor the scientific.
I see there are many stupid people on this site.
Amazing. A stupid person calling other people stupid. Oh the hypocrisy.
> > He [McIntyre] noted that if he was running a government, he would be taking action on climate change. Hardly a classic sceptic.
Does this herald McIntyre's entry into politics? Steven McIntyre, the future founder of Canada's self-styled True Balanced Climate Science Party?
re #60, well, she's added one to the count at least...
Brigitte says lengthened growing seasons are a good thing. Just now in Russia they have an opportunity to appreciate the consequences in detail:
Russia swelters in heatwave, many crops destroyed
(Reuters) - Soaring temperatures across large swathes of Russia have destroyed nearly 10 million hectares of crops and prompted a state of emergency to be declared in 17 regions.
On Friday the state-run Moscow region weather bureau said it expected the heatwave, which has gripped the country since late June and is estimated to have already cost the agricultural sector about $1 billion, to continue into next week.
Saturday could see temperatures in Moscow hit 37 Celsius (98.6 Fahrenheit), which would break the previous record of 36.6C. set in 1936.
"It looks like tomorrow could just break the record," the weather bureau's Moscow head Yelena Timakina said.
The high temperatures and tinder dry land have exacerbated the problem of forest fires. Billowing smoke and orange flames encircle Moscow as peat and forest fires resist attempts to extinguish them.
A state of emergency due to what the grain lobby says is the country's worst drought in 130 years, has now been imposed in 17 Russian regions, up from 16 earlier this week.
The area affected sprawls from the southern Urals and central European Russia to the Volga, the Agriculture Ministry said in a statement on Friday. A state of emergency might be declared in a further two regions.
As of Thursday crops on a combined area of 9.6 million hectares have been destroyed. This comprises some 12 percent of all lands sown to crops in Russia, or a territory roughly the size of Hungary.
LESS GRAIN, HIGHER PRICES
Analysts have said that after months of low inflation Russia may again miss its 2010 target as food prices are set to rise toward the end of the year, but Deputy Economy Minister Andrei Klepach said it was too early to review the inflation forecast.
"So far there are no grounds to review the 2010 inflation target. Russia targets 7 percent inflation in 2010. Prices are up by 4.6 percent compared to the start of the year," he said.
SovEcon agricultural analysts on Friday cut their forecast for Russia's 2010 grain crop further down to below 75 million tonnes from 77-81 million tonnes.
SovEcon kept its forecast for wheat crop at 49-51 million tonnes but cut it for barley crop to 11-13 million tonnes from the previous estimate of 12-14 million tonnes.
The Agriculture Ministry said: "In the Volga and separate regions of the Central, Urals and Southern federal districts, lower grain yields and total grain harvests are forecast due to the adverse affect of the drought." It did not elaborate.
Agriculture Minister Yelena Skrynnik said earlier this week the government may lower its forecast for this year's grain harvest again, to below 85 million tonnes from the original target of 97 million tonnes.
The Emergency Ministry said on Friday the amount of peat burned in the Moscow region so far this year was four times higher than last year, RIA Novosti news agency reported.
With his back turned on a fire ripping through a forest about 130 km (81 miles) southeast of Moscow, the deputy head of the ministry's Moscow region said rapidly drying soil was causing flames to spread fast.
"If there is an open fire somewhere, then wind could spread the sparks to the distance of 20-30 metres and we have to catch the fire," Alexei Gudiyev told Reuters.
Just think how fabulous those yields would have been otherwise.
I forget, Brigitte, how do you say "let the good times roll" in French?
I believe that it is "les bontemps roule", but since I'm American, I only speak one (Monckton might consider it none) language.
Since a discussion of possible ecological effects seems to have broken out here Watts seems to have misinterpreted an interesting new paper on phytoplankton population dynamics in the North Atlantic (link to paper here.)
The anti-science responses are pretty funny -- a single mention of the possible impact of increased ocean stratification due to climate change is jumped on, but as far as I can see the concern seems well founded. Increased heat content in the mixed layer would probably have an effect on the winter time mixed layer depth increase. It is a reasonable concern, but is far from the central point of the paper. Of course maybe only one or two commenters seem to have bothered to RTFR...
I live in the very south of Australia. I grow magnificent garlic.
Near me is a commercial garlic enterprise.
What is your point?
Brigette had only two substative points to make, both at #37:
*I cannot understand what are trying to tell me.*
*Perchance Mr Curtain does not understand you too.*
She is absolutely correct on both counts.
Good Lord! Are you lot still here? Still banging the drum? Honestly, you're sooo 20th century - if not 19th century because you sound increasingly like an old temperence march. Look, it's over, OK? You've been rumbled. Good try, and all that sort of thing, and you nearly made it, but now, over, finished, caput - no-one's listening anymore!
However, being a kindly chap and knowing your predeliction for 'the end is nigh' scenarios, I keep nudging you to take a look at all these near-earth bits of detritus that the 'Intelligent Designer' forgot to clear up - polluter!!! - and which are hurtling towards us and when they hit it will make Hiroshima seem like a firecracker - or Tim Lambert getting a Christmas card from Lord Moncton:
More than 25,000 new asteroids have been discovered in just six months by Nasaâs newest space telescope.
The Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) has discovered 95 of these asteroids are classified as ânear-Earth' objects, meaning roughly 30 million miles from the planet.
So, come on, boys and girls, all together "Stop the haemorrhoids, sorry, I mean, asteroids - NOW!"
[How has this tiny 2-3% sliver of fringe opinion been reinvented as a perpetually âgrowingâ share of the scientific community?](http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/15/bad-science-global-warmi…)
I know exactly what you mean, David. Except that's you and your fellow travellering deniers being described recently in a staunchly conservative paper.
I see wishful thinking claims like yours all the time - and they all emanate from Morano's increasingly fact-free, upside-down logic echo chamber, which now makes flat earther planned expeditions to the edge seem somewhat rational in comparison.
"Look, it's over, OK? You've been rumbled. Good try, and all that sort of thing, and you nearly made it, but now, over, finished, caput - no-one's listening anymore!"
"However, being a kindly chap and knowing your predeliction for 'the end is nigh' scenarios..."
Oh, the irony!
Shorter David Duff:
Dave H, #70: say what you like about the information content of his posts, but you have to admit that it compresses efficiently. you can never take that away from him ;-)
Following on from that, do you think that it might be possible to unzip a 0 kB file and end up with David Duff's 1000 page opus magnum?
David Duffer talking to a thermometer:
Good Lord! Are you still high? Still banging the satellite record? Honestly, you're sooo 2005 - if not 1998 because 2010 sounds increasingly like a new temperature record. Look, it's over, OK? You've been rumbled. Good try, and all that sort of thing, and you nearly made it, but now, over, finished, caput - no-one's believing your records anymore!
Of course. You simply pass the output through a random noise generator with a filter to remove any phrases that accidentally make sense or resemble the truth in any way.
I just realised - I said "opus magnum.
Well, someone has to make them BJ :)
Well, Brigette (#49,51,53) and Vince (#52), as a latecomer to this thread, I'd just like to say "Thanks" for helping lift my French just that tiny bit higher. Cheers!
In Defense of Brigitte:
I was going to give her a good lashing, too, but realized you are all missing what she's saying due to language issues. Yes, she's a bit clueless about how non-linear systems work, but to be a denier you have to be, right? Or... in denial. Or... a liar.
No, she doesn't get soil biology, but then, who does beyond about twelve people not scientists, gardeners or permaculturists? So, can't really hold that against her.
But, the comment about the coming changes and what we may or may not be able to do about it is where you all went completely off the rails. A bit of smelling blood and moving in for the kill and all.
What Brigitte is trying to say is that moderate climate change may be positive, so let's stop all the doom and gloom. Fair enough, but it brings us back to non-linear and chaotic systems. Climate is the former, the whole of global activity the latter. When the two get together, crazy-bad things can happen. Brigitte's naive hope that climate will level off and leave us with garlic growing in Nunavut is where she is lost.
Systems thinking should be part of education from primary school.
Or even an understanding of averages would be a good start, Killian.
As a recent visitor was keen to point out to us, all the fuss over "a few lousy tenths of a degree" fails to comprehend that's a global average that manifests itself as 5-10 degrees in polar regions for instance.
Likewise, just because average life expectancy in the west is increasing, that's not been much comfort to several friends only in their mid 50's who have begun dying off at an apparently alarming rate to one in the same age group.
Good riddance! You are the worst kind of denier: the infiltrator. It is a very common rhetorical and infiltrative device to enter an arena claiming to be the voice of sincere, sympathetic moderation and work to steer the debate toward inaction. This is exactly what the climate denialists planned. Now, we have the documents, we have the memos, we know where your stance came from. (Oreskes, NYT article.) We know the plan and approach.
By pursuing this tactic, you are the least honest of the denialist pack. The strident denialist is obvious, and easy to refute. They are probably ideologically married to their denial, and their ideology is what causes their denial.
But your type? Your type isn't caught up in ideology. You are making a direct attempt to stop the issue from moving forward for no better reason than you don't want the way things are to change. You're too comfortable, too satisfied, too well off. So, you lie and pretend you are not a denier so you can sway others who are honestly not sure of their stance.
And, yes, your posts prove this. Your "review" was pretty gentle on the denialists and pretty tough on the others. Now, how can this be when there is no scientific support for doubt? There's not a single peer-reviewed paper that comes anywhere near to disproving the Greenhouse Effect and its anthropogenic drivers that has stood up to peer review. Papers have been written, of course, but have yet to pass peer review.
So, I ask, if you have zero support for your position, how do you maintain it? And, yes, it is simple:
1. GHGs trap heat.
2. GHGs increase, thus trap more heat.
3. GHGs have chemical signatures.
4. GHGs can be attributed to natural and anthropogenic causes.
5. The increase in GHGs is chemically traced to anthropogenic causes and resultant feedbacks in natural systems.
Now, if you can show any of the above to be untrue, you have a stance with merit. If you cannot, you are an idiot because you cannot understand very simple facts and logic and are choosing to believe something there is no evidence for.
So, Mr. Woods, kindly shut the $%^& up so my young son and his progeny can have at least some tiny chance at living on a planet that is **only** 2 or 3 degrees warmer.
"What Brigitte is trying to say is that moderate climate change may be positive, so let's stop all the doom and gloom."
How about "immoderate" climate change?
After all, if we're currently past moderate (we're already seeing many downsides, so we're past the "it's better for us" stage), we have to stop now to avoid immoderate climate change.
And the doom and gloom is because idiots keep complaining that we shouldn't do anything, it'll be all right, mate!
Now it appears from " The Times" 19/7/10 that Exxon funded Climategateto to the tune of a million quid.
The key question is ; how much of this funding went to the originator of Climategate ,McIntyre, and will he fess up on his connections with them.
The Monckton thread at Joanne Codling's site has numerous posts from people demanding that others "stop quibbling over Monckton's House of Lords membership" (seeing as they've been proven wrong about it), so I thought I would try commenting on just 5 of Monckton's 466 questions.
I wonder how long she will let it stay there, thought I would preserve it here to save having to reproduce it:
"These three questions, for example, are puzzling, to say the least:
â17: Please provide a full academic resume. Though you have described yourself as a âprofessorâ
more than once in this presentation, are you in fact an associate professor?â
Monckton, of course, is not only not a âprofessorâ, he doesnât even have an undergraduate degree in any kind of science, so this question is just pointless.
â18: Please explain which (if any) of the scientific topics covered in my talk fall within your particular field of scientific expertise, and, for each such topic, why your expertise is relevant.â
Another own-goal, Monckton being an ex-journalist with no scientific expertise.
â19: Please provide a full list, with references, of all peer-reviewed papers you have published on the science of climate change, including those specifically having a bearing on the scientific topics covered in my talk.â
Gee whiz, Iâm willing to bet Abraham has *at least as many* as Monckton does. Seeing as Monckton has none himself. What a pointless question.
But anyway, quite apart from the huge number of argumentative âquestionsâ of Moncktonâs which have no bearing on the science, what about questions of actual fact?
â30: What evidence do you have for your assertion that I said or misled my audience into believing that âSea levels are not rising at allâ? Did I display, during my talk, a slide showing sea-level rise since 1993? Hint: the slide is below.â
Yes, and the slide says in big letters âSO SEA LEVEL HAS NOT RISEN FOR FOUR YEARSâ which is misleading and a false statement. It begs the question â Why did Monckton, working in late 2009, exclude the data for 2008?
Here is a factual graph (up-to-date for 2009, as well):
Itâs almost impossible to find even a 12-month period where no sea level rise occurs.
Is Monckton going to contact all the people who attended his talks to warn them that this particular slide mis-led them?
Obviously not if heâs trying to argue that Abraham was wrong to call this slide misleading.
Just one more:
35: Did I display, during my talk, a slide stating that Arctic summer sea-ice area âis recovering from a 30-year low in 2007â? Hint: The slide is below.
The slide says âArctic summer sea-ice area is just fine: it is recovering from a 30-year low in 2007â³.
This is two false statements â Arctic summer sea-ice is not âjust fineâ, and it certainly isnât showing any sign of recovering at the moment.
Here is the facts:
As you can see, 2010 is flirting with breaking the 2007 record.
I canât say Iâve checked every single one of Moncktonâs 466 questions, but Iâve tried and failed to find even one which addresses any actual mistake made by Abraham.
If Moncktonâs worried about his reputation, he would do better to revise his presentations so that they accurately reflect the facts, rather than embarking on ranting attacks on harmless inoffensive academics.
Wow, I'm back..
What is MY motive Killian, we do after all shatre the same planet, ask yourself WHY, am I a 'DENAIR' An appling labe to dehumanisesomeone, and ignore the preson.
Judith Curry has just given up on RealCLimate, with guys like Killian around I'm not suprised.
all the stuff that doesn't get past RealCLimate mods, is here...
Can I cut and paste Killians respeonse EVERYWHERE, as an example of the intolerance..
The issue is the sensiticities and feedback, ie unknown..
the IPCC has computer models rnagein from 1 - 10 C...
if we KNEW, we would not have this range of models..
so are the feedbacks, weekly negative, or strongly positive - catastrophy, or somewhere in between..
Climate scientist, do NOT know this...
What do you think will happen, if we get a few more cold winters, will it take 1, 2 or 3 before the general public, say enough, all the predictions have failed... go and do some science, stop playing with computer models, which are poorly understood.
Even Brian Hoskins says they are lousey.
and find out what the sensitivity/feedbacks really are...
I have three young children as well.
stop a moment and think for yourself, about motives.
Personally, a powerful one was, 5 year old child crying about a child leaping into a tree to escape a copenhagen opening video - Tidal Wave -
Whatever hapens to sea levels, we will NOT be getting a 'tidal wave'...pure CGI propagnda, designed to shup down any debate..
Their Are MANY things to worry about with respect to all our childrens futures. I just do not believe that CAGW alarmis is one of them,and I will FIGHT against this sort of blatant, propagand, to scare the masses.
I am accused of not wanting my lifestyle changed..
Whatever happens, I will be able to adapt, so probably will you..
yet the CAGW alarmists, will effect hundreds of millions of the world's poor, by the focus on CO2 delusion, vs real environmental and political issues..
All the trillions to be wasted, could save every rainforest (ie logging), stop the loss of biodiversity, stop all'real' pollution, protect endangered species, feed, clothe, provide clean water and educate the world's poorest...
Whatever my government does, and they BELIEVE in CAGW, it will not effect me that much, I am insulated, energy efficient (ie saves money) , etc allready. I can adapt, change and I will probably have to, given my governments delusion.
I haven't even been on an airplane for 9 years, nor has my family.... Have you - killian - been on an airplane...
Just one single return trip to Australia, is the equivalent of my cars trotal lifetime CO2 emmisions, (12 years old)
Check out a carbon calculator for yourself....
oh look, JPMORGAN Chase BANK are goingto make a profit out of carbon offsets.........
SO MY carbon FOOTPRINT is tiny compared top those like you, and the politicians, that private jet, that would call me a 'deniar', so let anyone cast the first stone yourselfs, if you can stomach your own hypocrisy. Where your carbon footprint is higher than mine.
BArry, you sure wont catch me calling you a deniar!
Your posts are virtually impossible to comprehend. I mean this both in terms of grammar and science (both of which are appalling).
First of all, I find your remark that increases in sea levels caused by climate warming climate will not lead to tsunami's to be about as childish as one can get. Whoever made this ridiculous assertion? It appears that you rely to heavily on science fiction films for your scientific information.
The effects of of warming will certainly be manifested on natural ecosystems, and on the populations and species of organisms that make them up. Certainly we can expect to see fraying food webs and a generally negative effects of rapid warming on critical ecosystem services, such as nutrient cycling, pollination, pest control, detoxification of wastes, local climate regulation, and other vitally important services that have few if any technological substitutes. Anyone who is concerned about the future for their children ought to reckon with the fact that climate change, in concert with other anthropogenic stresses on nature, is likely to impact ecosystems in ways that reduce their capacity to support human civilization. Given that most ecosystem services do not carry prices, and whose value is therefore externalized in economic pricing, we are likely to realize the impacts of climate change only after services are lost or severaly degraded. The economic costs are likely to be huge.
I suggest that you read Clive Hamilton's quite excellent book, "Requiem for a Species". In the book Hamilton examines the many factors that are responsible for climate change denial in the face of overwhelming (and growing) empirical evidence supporting AGW. Perhaps the term 'cognitave dissonance' might describe your form of denial quite appropriately.
The SCIENCE FICTION was in the Copenhagen Cop 15 opening Conference VIDEO. Used to promote CAGW alarmism
Repeated, uncritically across the media....
HERE: Cop 15 Conference video
Blatant CAGW propaganda!!!!
Sorry, my typing skills are lacking, when I'm cross... Also had to dash it off, whilst my 2 year old is having a late nap...
Grammar, spell checks next time.. please ignore typos, and concentrate on content.
Barry Woods: I think it is quite the opposite, RC has given up on Judith Curry. First she makes grand claims, is asked to back them up, comes with points that Gavin shows are highly flawed, and then angrily claims they are not HER points! And then she points to a blogpost by McIntyre, failing to recognise he disses one of her own pet publication stories: teleconnections in climate.
It really seems Judith Curry has gone into the Stockholm Syndrome mode.
What exactly is it about CO2 that you think is a "delusion"?
>please ignore typos, and concentrate on content.
You'll need to post some content first.
groupthink, stockholm syndrome works both ways..
I wonder if Phil Jones, et al, are still 'hoping' that the next decade or 2 might not be cool.
(see the climategate emails for that missive)
What will the general public do, if they suffer another 2-3 cold winters (AGW right or wrong). Such has been the hyping of weather events, their may be a poltical backlash...
Barry, just who is likely to suffer cold winters? That would be people subjected to much stronger extremes of weather. That would be many of us.
Unfortunately it won't probably happen where it's needed, say, to save some of the forests in Yellowstone from the beetles that can overwinter in the mild enough temperatures in winter there now.
We've now had 304 consecutive months where the temperature has exceeded the 20th century average. How many more months will it take to convince you?
The hunt for strawmen turns up a dream sequence from a pre-conference video. Whatever next?
"Personally, a powerful one was, 5 year old child crying about a child leaping into a tree to escape a copenhagen opening video - Tidal Wave"
voice=lovejoy "won't somebody think of the children!" /voice
A girl has killed herself because a boy said he didn't like her. Does this mean everyone has to say "yes" to a date?
The problem here (if this story is not a shaggy dog one) is that the parent should have been a PARENT.
But I suspect this story is just that: a story to scare adults though.
The planet warms the planet cools....
How many time do people have to repeat, that this is not eveidence of that man is doing it.
I have listened to Bob Watson himself say, that thier is a great dela of uncertainty. anmd sceptcal voices should be heard.
Also Brian Hoskins say, that the computer models are lousey..
Temps, have plateuead since the late 1990's, which is against the forecast of the computer models, so that there would appear to be other factors at work.
The questions is not AGW yes/no.
but what is the sensitivity/feedback..
1.0C a century, no one will notice. (or less if negative feedback)
10.0 will be noticed.
I'm just not convince, beyond the 1.0C
It is largely irrelevant,what the readers of RealClimate, Climate Audit, Deltoidd or Bishop Hill or Watts up think anyway..
99.99% of the worlds population have never heard of these websites, they have only heard a simple, for sake of argument 'alarmist message' (al gore, wwf, etc, not scientists) like no artic ice by 2014, or the glaciers are melting, or in the UK no more snow (followed by more snow, in decades that the UK has seen.)
When nothing much happens in the next fews years, the public wiill in my mind (rightly OR wrongly) just stop listening completley, and any politician trying to force through climate change policies, mainly in the form of taxation (I'm thinking mainly USA, etc) will be given short shrift..
That is just an observation, I recycle re-use,don't fly, have a low CO2 emitting car, have enegry efficient boiler, use a green tarif, have the maximumn possible loftinsulation, maximun cavity wall insulation, etc, etc,etc.
All good stuff, that save me MONEY.
I won't be effected by the planned CO2 taces/increases , in car fuel duty (I do a very low mileage) or flight taxes, or many other things. So please don't let anyone say to me I'm in denial, because I don't want to change...
If the scientists spent the next year or 2, trying to identify with observation experimentaion the ACTUAL climate sensitivities/feedback. It would benefit everyone and leave no room for this neverending discussion....
But, to even say some of this, to some people, just receives abuse like 'deniar'.
Seriously what des that mean 'denair'
I'm in agreement with an IPCC projection at the lower end of the scale.. And disagree, with what are called 'future 'scenarios' - not certainties.
Were those scientists with that model 'deniars' as well
That will not help anyone, and actually is counterproductive.
Ok. It is not a straw man, it is a valid criticism, it is not real so why use it?
Will someone explain, what the purpose of the CO2 inspired tidal wave in the Copenhagen video was? and we can move on..
It just irritates me, as it seems to be non-science based propaganda, in an attempt to close down any debate.
Please will someone enlighten me to what it was for.
Barry, there are several GCMs that give long-term (as in a decade or more) 'stasis' of temperatures. You also have to cherry-pick starting points to not have an upward temperature trend. 1995 may not be statistically significant, but it is still up. And as many forget, it also is statistically non-significant from TWICE the warming trend.
Also, there have been zillions of studies on climate sensitivity. With very few exceptions, they all are in the 2-4.5 K per doubling range (note: equilibrium warming). It is very unlikely that we can ever get that to one single value within 0.1 degrees. If we wait for that, we WILL be too late, even at the lowest climate sensitivity considered plausible. Why are you not convinced of these studies? I can only come with one explanation: you do not want them to be correct.
Also, you neglect that a mere 1 degrees globally, actually is a LARGE 1 degrees globally. First of all, the temperature increase would then be higher at the higher lattitudes, especially for the Northern Hemisphere. Second, the 'mere' 0.7 degrees since the early 1900s already has resulted in very noticeable changes. Many glaciers have decreased significantly. The ice volume on the arctic has decreased enormously. Migration of the plant and animal kingdoms has been observed.
It is not a straw man, it is a valid criticism, it is not real so why use it?
I don't think the dream sequence in that video is intended to be an accurate representation of scientific opinion, so why do you pretend that it is?
In case you are interested and want to hear the full interview and full context, Barry Woods is mining the "climate models are lousy" quote from this Brian Hoskins interview:
[Brian Hoskins on Climate Change](http://audiovideo.economist.com/?fr_story=337236bd018b5e33ce1c9b7c695ae…)
I'm not pretending it is..
I'm saying it is defineltly not reprsentative, and you seem to agree with me... and am merely asking WHY show it, if as we agree, is meaningless.
It seems like, they are pretending it is a a real represenation of scientific opinion... for 'propaganda' purposes.
So why was it shown, for all the activists, media and politicians to see...
They were not saying, look here is an unscientific video, it was put across as real..
Politicians are a bit dim, they probably took it as gospel..
So what was it for?
>Will someone explain, what the purpose of the CO2 inspired tidal wave in the Copenhagen video was? and we can move on..
Watched it. Looked windy. Looked a lot like a storm surge.
(Please watch the video. As well as demonstrating my point, it's freaking incredible).
So it may still be propaganda to some people, but it is at least related to climate science.
I DID provide the full link, earlier, via Bishop Hill. So what are you implying?
>I DID provide the full link, earlier, via Bishop Hill. So what are you implying?
No, I meant watch the video I linked to.
Here's the URL if hyperlinking's not yer fortÃ©:
The planet warms the planet cools.... How many time do people have to repeat, that this is not eveidence of that man is doing it.
Scientists aren't "repeating," Barry, they're coming out with new infnrmation. Your command of the facts is as bad as your spellng. Seriously, boy, did you just now learn to write so you could come here and pretend you could grapple with grownup issues?
"The planet warms the planet cools.... How many time do people have to repeat, that this is not eveidence of that man is doing it."
How many times must a frigging idiot drooling his way across the universe be told "that's not the evidence that man's doing it"?
Here's the evidence:
And as for strawmen, why do you fantasize about that child jumping up a tree all scared?
How am I fantasing,. I am stating a fact.
IN the Video, the child does jump into the tree, scared and screaming, from a CGI tidal wave.... In the Copenhagen Cop 15 opening conference video, repeated all over the media... !!
That is not a strawman. It is a real video, that drew criticism, for being blatant propaganda.
Don't tell me, you haven't watched it.
How will our descendants look back at the mass CAGW hysteria in 50-100years. No doubt thinking they are superior to us. Whilst, no doubt having their own future mass panic/delusion.
Philipp Stott has some thoughts how it might end. In a rush, or slowly fade away..
âThe death of a grand narrative is often protracted and largely unnoticed, until, one day, its metalanguage, its corpus of words of magic, its âpoints de capitonâ, to use the phrase proposed by the Freudian psychoanalyst, Jacques Lacan (1901 â 1981), which for so long have kept people sub-consciously in its thrall, eventually lose all of their power and meaning, and prove no longer relevant to the lives of the majority. Such is the fate of mainstream Christianity in Britain today. For other grand narratives, by contrast, the collapse may be unexpectedly swift and dramatic, as with the tearing down of the Berlin Wall in 1989. The work of the âmauerspechteâ can thus take centuries, but it may also be accomplished within days or months.â
Maybe it will be one Polar Bear, video too many that draws a laugh, from someone important enough to stop it.
Or just a gradual, fading away, over a few cold winters and average summers.
Barry, did you read my posts and watch the video I linked to at @102 and 104?
>*The questions is not AGW yes/no. but what is the sensitivity/feedback..*
But Barry also writes:
>*will effect hundreds of millions of the world's poor, by the focus on CO2 delusion, vs real environmental and political issues.. All the trillions to be wasted, could save every rainforest (ie logging), stop the loss of biodiversity, stop all'real' pollution, protect endangered species, feed, clothe, provide clean water and educate the world's poorest...*
How do you know that the mitigation is wasted money? I thought your were just saying that:
>*The questions is not AGW yes/no. but what is the sensitivity/feedback..*
Can you demonstrate that sensitivity will be less than 2 degrees per [doubling of CO2](http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ClimateSensitivity.html)?
Then perhaps you could explain a path to limiting CO2 to a ["mere" doubling](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-3-3.html)?
Finally please demonstrate how the rich nations limiting their wasteful [over consumption](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/World_map_of_countri…) will hurt the poor nations, especially give that currently the flow of wealth is from the poor to the rich.
I direct you to IPCC WG2:
*âAfrica is likely to be the continent most vulnerable to climate change. Among the risks the continent faces are reductions in food security and agricultural productivity, [â¦] increased water stress [â¦] and, as a result of these and the potential for increased exposure to disease and other health risks [â¦]*
*Approximately 1 billion people in South, South-East, and East Asia would face increased risks from reduced water supplies [â¦] decreased agricultural productivity [â¦] and increased risks of floods, droughts and cholera [â¦] Tens of millions to over a hundred million people in Latin America would face increased risk of water stress [â¦]*
*Low-lying, densely populated coastal areas are very likely to face risks from sea-level rise and more intense extreme events.â - (IPCC 2007, WG2 chapter 19 pg. 791).*
You don't know the climate sensitivity, but there is no doubt that risks of damage from climate change are real and significant.
The planet warms the planet cools
The planet is not cooling. You are in denial of the fact that it is warming.
Interesting idea from some that warmer must be better.
Personally, after having just been through our warmest 'winter' night ever here (27 deg C), I beg to differ.
>*Interesting idea from some that warmer must be better.*
Jeff Harvey pointed out on a recent thread that biodiversity increased to it's maximum in the recent x millions of over that period that CO2 (and temp) fell below greenhouse planet levels.
>*Interesting idea from some that warmer must be better.*
A view appealing to those feeling entitlied and favoring a political lens gained from sitting in an climate controlled office in rich nations. The rest of the world has different perspecitves, such as perspetives relevent to [workers making a living in south Asia](http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2010/05/heat-stress-in-india.html).
Yes I know what a storm surge is, saw the video, also part of the process that builds up coral reef, ie, tuvalu is not sinking...
ie the process that Darwin discovered over a 150 years ago, seemed a surprise to a 'kiribati climate scientists'.. see New Scientist for that inadvertantly funny interview. (behind a pay wall unfortuanetly now)
also reported at the BBC:
BBC: Low-lying Pacific islands 'growing not sinking'
111.. My point is it warms it cools it warms it cools, etc
It has doen repeatably..
It warmed over the last century as a general trend, with periods of cooling, and warming (so much so, some scientists media thought we were heading for an ice age)
When ever anybody says to me, as if it measn something.. The planet is warming, I just say, so what, what is that proof of, it has done it before, all by itself.
I can find no scientists, stating there is proof of any human signature, yet.. just correlations and projections of computer models.
Little does it matter, though what Deltiod or Bishop Hill say..
I imagine when the general public discover, higher energy bills because of the CAGW policies in America. They will say enough, show us PROOF..
Before eanybody complains, about me not changing my lifestyle.. mine relative to the average US citizen has changed.
We(UK/Europe) allready have high energy bills (because of a green tariff) and petrol has a massive taxes, that no Amrican will suffer. One example, that a US ctizen can realet to. Petrol prices. In the UK Â£5 plus per imperial gallon. of that ~Â£4 is TAX, based on the excuse of it's environmental, when of course it all just goes into the governments pocket, to be squandered on it's latest extravagnce.. IN the UK and EUrope, the public are ALLREADY paying CO2 taxes, more than in America...
So, mine is an observation of how perhaps the general public will react, because of Skyrocketing energy prices (ref Obama)
If another cold/snowy winter or 2 right or wrongly linked to CAGW or not. What will the American public do?
Will they continue to go along with it or not?
As I'm A UK resident, what do you guys think the mass of the general public in america will do?
>My point is it warms it cools it warms it cools
Your ignorant "point" has [already been answered](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/report_from_the_guardian_debat…).
>I can find no scientists, stating there is proof
>just correlations and projections
Liar. This misrepresentation has [already been answered](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/report_from_the_guardian_debat…).
Barry no [response?](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/report_from_the_guardian_debat…). Why did you avoid these questions?
Instead Barry Gishes with this canard:
>*My point is it warms it cools it warms it cools, etc It has doen repeatably..*
Hardly a meaningful summary of the [underlying trend](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/plot/gistemp/mean:240/plot/gistemp…).
Barry also gives us this:
>*When ever anybody says to me, as if it measn something.. The planet is warming, I just say, so what, what is that proof of, it has done it before, all by itself.*
Barry bast climate warming is what informs competent scientist about [climate sensitivity](http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-…).
>*I can find no scientists, stating there is proof of any human signature, yet..*
Science doesn't working in proofs, it works on a preponderance of the evidence, which takes us back to the questions I asked and that you avoided. How about you go back and try and answer my challenge.
This sort of behaviour is why the general public, will never do what you demand of them..
I have also read Working Group 1, you know the SCIENCE bit, and the leaps of imagination to working group 2 and 3 are laughable..
This was picked up by Professor Kelly in the Oxburg enquiry.
I am also, close friends with the Co editor of the IPCC 2001 synthesis report, (you know the one with 'the hockey stick' in) We are good friends since our son's were babies.. We can discuss this, in a civilised manner and remain friends..
My friend also thought working group 2 was a bit of a mess, but has a big disconnect thinking, that politics has nothing to do with them.. And to show the groupthink, has not looked at any of the climategate material... Why do I find that odd. because my friend HAS SENT/RECEIEVED some of those emails.. So group think at work - blinkers on.
Still very good friends..
Re. 89 Barry Woods: "The SCIENCE FICTION was in the Copenhagen Cop 15 opening Conference VIDEO. Used to promote CAGW alarmism
Blatant CAGW propaganda!!!!"
Good, wasn't it. At least they make it clear that it was all a dream.
Ever seen that cartoon attacking Michael Mann?...
challenges ? confrontations? abuse?
Is that all deltoid has to offer.....
All that some blogger can offer..?
I have suggested whilst we can self induge, writing comments to each other which each ignore, we look at the bigger picture outside of the sceptical /pro blogs..
What of my observations about the general public above...?
Who are by and large oblivious to all the blogs..
And of course my carbon footprint is smaller than those that would abuse me, so excuse me whilst I ignore hypocracy.
Not to kooks like you who are deliberately spreading lies about this subject in order to deceive the public.
>I have also read Working Group 1
Then you do not have ignorance as an excuse. You are simply a liar.
>And of course my carbon footprint is smaller than those that would abuse me,
Aside from the fact that yet again you are using the tu quoque fallacy, what exactly is your evidence for your claim that your carbon footprint is smaller than mine? Nothing at all. You are a liar.
119# I have do not think it helped either..
My point is, and the original reason to comment here, that the Guardian debate was largely very civilised with key people sceptical/pro being polite to each other and afterwards chatting with each other having drinks.. Contrast that with some of the attacks I have received here by bloggers.. for a 'sceptic' daring to come onto a 'pro' blog..
I thought, what is the point of the 2 'tribes' just hanging out at their own blogs, chucking abuse at each other, that 99.99% of the public are oblivious to. Especiallyy, as I have friends that I can talk to civillly, that are far more involved scientifically/poltically than the average blog commentator, that calls me a 'deniar'
A close relation, is very much a part of the UK Green party, as far as being a parliamentary candidate, and being a former editor of GREENWORLD. They are quite happily reading a copy of 'the hockey stick illusion', and the real global warmingscandal, and 'The Deniars' as I said it might explain to them, where some sceptics are coming from.. Not that they have to agree with it, but it might give them some understanding.. No abuse.
Last month I spoke to Sir Jogn Houghton - Chair/Editor of the Synthesis report.
He was giving a presentaion at my local church, we talked, we disagreed. but at no point was anybody abusive.
He knows my friend well, obvoulsy.
Similarly Bob Watson, former IPCC chair seems a very nice person, had a brief chat with him and Fred Pearce. and NOT suprisingly no abuse..
so, a piece of advise, if you will indulge me, if you want to persaude, be nice...
dave Rs drives a hummer,
"How am I fantasing,. I am stating a fact."
Yes, it's a fact you are fantasizing.
You seem to be concentrating on the thought of a little child being terrified.
Why are you fantasizing about a child so terrified?
"How will our descendants look back at the mass CAGW hysteria in 50-100years. No doubt thinking they are superior to us."
Well, to you, anyway. And they'd be right.
"Whilst, no doubt having their own future mass panic/delusion."
The current delusion being that the science is all wrong because it's politically inconvenient to accept the facts and that mitigation would destroy the western economy, destroy the developing world (and thought up to do so by the west, see earlier statement...), is a tax scam, is a grant scam, is a waste of money, could never work, will never work, needs proving and isn't happening anyway, so no need to mitigate.
It is a very complex delusion, but Wooden Barry is deep in there.
The future delusion will probably be "Why didn't the scientists TELL us?!?!?!".
Barry, you keep [running from the science](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/report_from_the_guardian_debat…).
That's not nice, [lives are at risk](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/report_from_the_guardian_debat…). Be nice, address the science.
Barry, what will it take to convince you that the world is warming ?
p.s barry, don't let anyone here upset you, coming in here is similar to visiting the looney bin, you wouldn't be upset by a snide remark from a retard, would you ? I see akerz is trying her same old pathetic stratagem on you.
Barry, your arguments are really quite infantile. For instance, if the costs of fossil fules were internalized by taking into account the effects of extraction, refinement, and delivery on nature and on the vital services that sustain human civilization, then we would be paying many times more for fuel at the pump than we currently do. The problem has always been that the effects of human activities on natural systems and on key ecosystem services is always externalized in economic scenarios, and thus placed on everyone in society who have no choice but to accept them. The consequence is that a reduction in the planet's ability to support mankind is effectively being subsidized on a mass scale (hence the term, 'perverse subsidies'). If the value of ecological services was captured in full cost pricing, then we would be rapidly shifting away from a dependence on fossil fuels.
Your comment about the rise and fall of temperatures in the historical record reveals that you do not understand anything about the importance of scale. At small scales we expect processes to be much more stochastic than at large scales. Shifting large scale determinism out of short-term equilibrium require some massive external forcing and that is currently what humans are doing to the climate-control systems across the biosphere. By pumping vast amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmsophere, we are forcing climate in ways that would generally take many centuries if not thousands of years.
Your Polar Bear comment was completely and utterly fatuous, and revelaed a total inability to grasp the effects of warming climate on individuals, communities and ecosystems. Previous periods of rapid climatic warming or cooling resulted in a significant increase in the biological turnover of communities as the extinction rates spiked. Certainly there is little doubt that some species will benefit in a warmer world but a huge number will not, and since ecological services emerge on the basis of a vast array of biotic interactions in food webs, as these webs begin to unravel - and they already are, as an accumulating body of empirical evidence is showing if you read the most important ecological and environmental journals - then the stability of resilience of these systems will be reduced. Ecologist Daniel Janzen once said that the 'Ultimate extinction is the extinction of species interactions' and he is correct. For example, for every species of tropical plant that becomes extinct, tens to hundreds of species intimately associated with that plant (both mutualists and antagonists) will disappear as well.
Your problem, like many of the denialists (I use this term as all scientists, including myself, are inherently sceptical, but the vast majority of those arguing against AGW appear to show little doubt that the whoile thing is some kind of vast conspiracy) is that you stick your finger to the wind and don't see any kind of change. This is one of the major human frailties: our evolved inability to register changes that we perceive as gradual but which, in geological and evolutionary time, are actually profoundly rapid. This is because we can perceive instantaneous threats to our well-being, such as severe storms, earthquakes, and large mammalian predators, but changes we feel are long-term in the context of a human lifetime simply do not register.
Yesterday you claimed we ought to be putting more effort to counter other anthropogenic assaults across the planet. Bear in mind that many of the same people who are in the denial camp with respect to warming also downplay such threats as habitat destruction, loss of biodiversity, other forms of pollution etc. as these may impact society in terms of los or reduced ecological services. This reveals that there is a pattern in denial that goes well beyond any single process. That pattern is generally based on promoting a right wing/libertarian agenda that aims to reduce or eliminate public constraints in the pursuit of private profit.
What is remarkable is how well organized and funded groups are in promoting denial. They will never win with respect to science but that is not their aim; their aim is to sow enough doubt amongst the public and policymakers as to render mitigating action mute. On that account they have been very successful indeed. Again, I return to the term 'cognitive dissoance' as an appropriate way of describing the motives of many of those in denial. Many others do not question those with power and priviledge because, let's face it, why question policies that may drive vast inequities in the world (e.g. through social injustice and maintaining poverty) as well as ecological destruction if many (= most) of us in the developed world are, to some extent, short term beneficiaries? IMHO both of these factors play a major role in the success of the backlash against environmental science and the results of years of empirical research. So your views, as shallow as I see them, are hardly exceptional as far as I am concerned. Par for the course.
Spotty, [top this!](http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/maxmin.jsp)
akerz, you do get sucked into that propaganda don't you.
Here try this one, http://www.tinyurl.com.au/egm
Re. 131 sunspot
And that has to do with US temperature highs and lows how, exactly?
To get this clear, are you saying that NCAR are deliberately lying? Are you saying they have some secret agenda to deceive us all? Would that be a fair description of your view on NCAR? Are they plotting something? What would be the purpose and goals of this grand scheme? I'm interested to know what goes in your head. It's a bit fascinating. Not much, but a bit.
Barry seems a bit confused. We should "be nice" here to help convince the public, but the public is "oblivious" to these same blogs.
Though that makes as much sense as anything else Barry has written here.....repeated allusions to his anonymous friend of the 2001 synthesis report, and all the very important people he chats with, and his clairvoyent like ability to know his carbon footprint is smaller than everyone else's here.
Forget nice Barry, just try constructing a vaguely rational argument.
Spotty that appeal to bogus conspiracy is a sorry follow up to the peer review I linked to.
But hey! They don't call you a denialist for nothing!
J Bowels, Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?
>*Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?*
why would anyone continue to bother talking, with some the behavior here? It is only a blog. it can only divide and harden attitudes. Maybe I'll just watch for a bit
OK, who has upset Barry with their poor behaviour?
And no, poor behaviour does not include lying, misrepresenting and distorting.
Not being nice is the real problem.
>*why would anyone continue to bother talking, [...] it can only divide and harden attitudes. Maybe I'll just watch for a bit*
Barry, readers can discern what your comments mean, especially in [this context](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/report_from_the_guardian_debat…).
*It is only a blog*
Barry, you are correct. So why don't you go down to the library and check out a wide range of journals with articles showing climate-change related effects on ecological communities and ecosystems, as well as on network interaction webs via changes in phenological interactions? Oh, I see: you are now saying that "These are only peer-reviewed scientific studies that can divide or harden attitudes". Am I correct?
As for childish old Sunspot, he's "pasting, baiting and switching" again. A few months ago he attached news clips showing cold weather events in Eurasia, I suppose as proof that there was no AGW. Many respondents argued that the cold weather events were exactly that - short term stochastic events that had nothing to do with longer term climatic warming. I then showed that, using sunspots innane anti-scientific logic, one might just as well cite the data showing Canada had just had by far its warmest ever winter. At least that covered a 3 month period and not just a few weeks. Then what does Spottie do? Charges me with mistaking weather for climate, and then argues that the record warmth in Canada was due to El Nino!!!!!! What a bloody hypocrite.
Now he has done it again. Cold snaps in southern South America are supposedly cited as evidence downplaying AGW. I might as well cite recent temperature records across most of Russia revealing a baking hot summer, the hottest on record. And what will Spottie do then? See my last paragraph. The guy is, in addition to being a hypocrite, a broken record.
The thrust of all this is that he should be ignored as a Grade A Poe.
>*why would anyone continue to bother talking, with some the behavior here? It is only a blog. it can only divide and harden attitudes.*
Though Barry Woods' long winded ravings can be read @17, 25, 29, 31, 34, 35, 46, 47, 57, 84, 85, 86, 89, 92, 96, 97, 101, 103, 107, 108, 115, 118 & 120.
But not enough time for Barry to address [the science](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/report_from_the_guardian_debat…) relevant to his claims.
Pinocchio, the only time you insulted me was when you said, "Look, see spot run."
Yeah, that was a real cracker. hahaha.
You got your moniker because of your lies by omission, now you try to twist it, look in the mirror there is shit running down your chin.
Pinocchio eventually you said,
"I never said that Canada's winter was not correlated with EN/SO; I just was sick and tired of people like you and Brent and other know-nothings wading in here and cherry-picking in an attempt to downplay AGW, which by now is occurring beyond any reasonable doubt."
Jeff Harvey April 5, 2010 5:55 AM
It seemed to take a while for you to work out the difference between cimate and weather.
I guess Tim might be on holiday, if Tim asks me to leave, or say I'm not welcome I will..
I'm obvioulsy stirring up a hornets nest, this is not my intention..
I have just observed that the sceptical and pro blogs are quite insular, the same people seem to crop up at the same type of blog.
I have read a lot of the science, and have a different interpretation, as have others. I can also discuss it with people, that are MORE involved in the IPCC than probably anyone here.. politely and in friendship.
So why, all the attention. I was at the debate, and I'm trying to get across, if anyone wants progress, then civilised debate is the way to go...
As it is only a blog, the media, the world, etc are not watching, surely it is possible to talk without, having to be seen to defend a 'position'
The 'polar bears' mention, is relevent, in the context that this is what the the general public see. along with silly season stories about mammoth hunting causing global warming, etc (in the TIMES) and other such stuff.
They just see the this type of media message, polar bears, artic ice, glaciers, etc.. They have no idea about any science.. and I believe that they are just starting to tune it out now... the louder the 'shouting' get, the more public alienation.
For example, in the X-factor final, (watched by millions of the general public in the UK- Simon Cowells money spinner) one of the singers was performing a highly emotional song, and some imagary of 'polar bears' appeared, the audience 'laughed' as did the judges. It was noticed in the media with some puzzlement, would not have happened 3 years ago, and one passionate and vey commited AGW activist, gets it below..
"I point out that when the environmentalists put out posters about Polar Bears, that the audience pretty quickly realised that the Polar Bears were being used as a âposter childâ for Climate Change, and they started to mock the campaigning.
Ten years ago, or even less, a poster depicting a tragic human or endangered animal was still a useful communications tool, but the potential recipients for these communications are now highly sceptical of this device, this attempt to pluck at their emotional/heart strings."
Jo Abbess sees it, and she is on YOUR 'side'
This would indicate that the public are becoming immune to the preaching of the wwf,IPCC and politicians and would think it alarmism. I'm sure many here will say so what, and say I'm not addressing the science.
But my point is, if the general public are not with the politicians, the politicians will follow the public and leave the bloggers 'blogging at each other in ever decreasing circles'
If those 'message' are wearing thin, both sides will have to talk about the science, as BOB Watson, and Pachurri, and others have said, the 'sceptical' voice should be heard, and more openess and honesty about the uncertainties.
This was one of the key outcomes, all in agreement, from the panel at the Guardian debate.
My 'ravings' and long winded. has been pointed out to me, what exactly is that language going to acheive..
My thoughts are my own, so I don't see how the following applies to my own thoughts?
'does not include lying, misrepresenting and distorting.'
My friend will remain anonymous, otherwise she might suffer 'embarrasment' in her career, for associating with 'deniars'. such is the poison..
I will verify, speaking to Sir John Houghton..
My local church, recorder an audio of his presentation, last month, in the public Q/A session, I ask him a question about Carbon Offsets. and had a 'private chat afterwars, whill i will not repeat the content.
see links below. His brother goes to the church and his grand niece is in the same primary school class as my son...
If Tim wants to verify what I say, in good faith, if he emails me, I'll try to verify things, without compromising my friend.
What Are Tim's thought on me commenting here?
I found my way here via Collide A Scape, where Tim Comments on occasion.
Barry you say you want to have a debate, but there is an awful lot of typing there 100% free of any science discussion/debate.
The idea that the 'sceptics' voices might not get a hearing is just bizarre - they get a voice in the media massively out of proportion to their incidence, and astronomically out of proportion to their contribution to the science.
What you ask for is opinion (often poorly informed) to be given equal billing to objective science.
This thread was about the guardian debate, and I thought how the debate was discussed, and the behviour of the pro/sceptical side lead to PROGRESS. vs 2 'tribes' shouting at each other.
We may have to agree to disagree about some things for the moment..
Do you have any thoughts on my opinions on how the general public see all this. ie the poster child, etc
JO Abbess, a very pro acttivist seems to have a similar thoughts...
The science argument is one thing, yet we have endless comments regarding the sideshow, that is monckton and Abrahams, I am not a fan of either, bot a distraction.
"vs 2 'tribes' shouting at each other."
Says Barry, shouting at others...
"Not being nice is the real problem."
You mean "Not being nice TO BARRY or someone Barry likes is the real problem".
Barry (and Monckton, Watts, McIntyre, et al) can be as nasty as they like. That's fine.
What's your point Barry? That because you have an unidentified friend you also have license to go unchallenged? Somehow I imagine your friend treats you the same way you might treat a child, with a smile and a nod and a pat on the head for your guile.
People like you read too many denier blogs and are far too ideologically bound to accept what's smack obvious. You don't want science, you just want to hear whatever backs up your personal beliefs. Your refusual to engage with the science is evidence enough of this. But who needs science when you have Bishop Hill's terrible book?
On the other hand if you can go to the AR4 and point out scientifically why it's all wrong we'd be more than happy to hear from you.
Spotty says to me, "You got your moniker"...
From you? You are the only wingnut who calls me that, and given your standing and reputation on Deltoid, I take your insult as a compliment.
Moreover, give me one example where I lied; just because I, along with most others here, continually undermine your vacuous nonsense does not make me or them liars. I was just fed up with your posts suggesting that short-tern cold snaps in parts of the NH undermined the evidence behind AGW. The truth hurts, eh spotty?
But hey, keep on linking sites to short-term weather events in your feeble attempt to downplay AGW if that makes you happy. But my advice is to take your brand of stupidity someplace else where similar D-K types as yourself hang out.
why the anger....
I tend not to leave my children with a friend, if I think they are a bit of an idiot, and I'm sure vice versa. We have multiple science degrees, MSc, Phd's between us..
I was just trying to explain where I'm coming from, and it turned into the opposite of my intent..
Why do you think I comment here in bad faith.
It is NOT all about the science, it is also about the political implications..
Does anyone think carbon trading or offsets are a good idea... Or chopping down rainforests to grow bio fuels.
or wind farms vs nuclear with respect to security of supply.
This is what will be foisted on us, against many environmental groups protests because to question anything, is to be shouted down..
Barry, get one thing straight. Very few blogs are 'sceptical'; they are, in fact, run by denialists who are abusing science to promote a pre-determined world view. Its not like the people (generally non-scientists with little standing in any academic fields) who run these blogs are generally sceptical as scientists should be. Instead, in their view every tenet of climate change that suggests a human fingerprint is vehemently denied.
Many of these blogs are also run by people who deny other negative effects of human activities on the biosphere. Whether its Milloy or Morano, they appear to believe that business-as-usual is the ONLY business. A few years ago Morano wrote a piece entitled 'Amazon.con' in which he argued that very little of the Amazon rainforest had actually been damaged by human activity. To support his evidence he interviewed just about the only two pseudo-prominent academics he could scrape up - Patrick Moore and Philip Stott - neither of whom IMHO know much of anything about tropical ecology. Moore was once interviewed in the Observer as a born-again sceptic and he said that "No families of beetles, birds, amphibians or mammals have become extinct. There have been very few extinctions in tropical rainforests, and the few extinctions that have happened have been limited to islands". To most lay readers this sounds quite convincing. The problem is that extinctions are not measured at the level of families but at the level of species and genetically distinct populations. Take the family Felidae for example. Using Moore's innane logic, every species of big cat - from the leopard and the lion to the tiger and the jaguar - could become extinct but so long as one member of the family is still extant (for example the domestic cat, Felis domesticus) there is no problem. Thus every species in the family (I think there are 35 wild species) could be wiped out but so long as domestic cats were still around, then the family is technically not extinct. Of course Moore's aim as I see it is to confuse the public many of whom cannot separate an order from a family from a sub-family from a genus from a species from a sub-species. And he is wrong anyway - apparently a family of mammals endemic to the Caribbean is no longer extant, anyway. And to think this was one of Morano's 'experts'.
Morano's pierce was appalling because it ignored the effects of high grade logging practices, partial clear cuts, fire (which has altered micro-climatic regimes over much of the Amazon and made them more susceptible to future fires), and his inclusion of second-growth forests in his calculations, which are ecologically very different from primary (primevel) forests. It also ignored the fact that in poll after poll Brazilians overwhelmingly think that protecting their forests should be of primary importance.
And this is the same Morano who runs a promienet climate-denial blog.
You seem much more concerned by form over substance. I don't mean to be impolite, but it would to me you are using politeness as a passive/aggressive cudgel with which to bash those with whom you disagree. That is not nice. You seem oblivious that your baseless assertions of ethical superiority might be construed as highly insulting. In a debate that inspires a great deal of emotional response, it would seem to me it behooves the rational actor to thicken his skin and assume the basic good faith of one's opponent, and shed the affective content of any given expression. Your behavior really does not inspire much confidence in this regard.
If you are really desirous of a dialogue, it would seem to me you should readily accept the idea that uncertainty is a two edged sword. That is, climate sensitivity may well be less than 3C/2XCO2, the most likely value from a number of independent lines of evidence, but may just as well be more.
So how about it? Can you find it in yourself to make this small concession? In the interests of collegiality?
>It is NOT all about the science...
Yes it IS all about science. Science exists apart from politics. Warming continues no matter who is elected. If you can't seperate the two you're more of an ideologue than I thought.
I suspected that you're only in this because you see global warming as the evil Left foisting their communist agenda upon us, and I was right.
Which science degrees and PHD's do you have, incidentally? These should help you debunk the AR4 with all that expert knowledge you obviously have but won't share.
LuminousBeauty, Barry is a tone troll.
We may all disagree, the tone troll maunders, but surely we can all agree to be polite and show each other respect.
>Now who could possibly object to that? Of course, this merely opens the door to allowing other invading spammers and trolls simply posting and reposting their talking points as if they have not yet been civilly dealt with. It can't possibly rein in those trolls who come to the group with outlandish and utterly unfounded slanders -- which those of us who see them for what they are are supposed to dignify with counter-argument.
Everytime we point out where Barry is wrong he shrieks that we're all being horribly *rude* to him and this must mean that global warming is obviously fake and don't we know that he has imaginary friends in the IPCC?
Tim if John and others speak for this blog, I will leave.
If anyone IS interested in a sceptical thought or 2, please say so...
Threatening to leave is what trolls do.
my point, was my IPCC co editor friend and I DISAGREE about a lot, but can do so without the mistrust and accusations, that stop debate and still be firends.
I have also, suggested TIM Lambert contact me, so that this can be verified. So that he can advise you I 'don't have 'imaginary friends' and am acting in good faith.
Yes, Barry, he's your friend. He's *everyone's* friend. He loves all gods children.
Who is your "friend", Baz? Right Said Fred Singer?
>If anyone IS interested in a sceptical thought or 2, please say so...
>If you are really desirous of a dialogue, it would seem to me you should readily accept the idea that uncertainty is a two edged sword. That is, climate sensitivity may well be less than 3C/2XCO2, the most likely value from a number of independent lines of evidence, but may just as well be more.
>So how about it? Can you find it in yourself to make this small concession? In the interests of collegiality skeptical thought?
Personally, I think 1-3C is probable range. Still uncertain.
and am leaning towards the 1-2C personally given empiracl evidence observed, so I'm close to agreeing with you in the first place, lets call it a concession.
Can we agree that the 6-10-12C pronoucemnets of some groups, are being used to proclaim tipping points/catastrophy and are looking increasingly unlikely.
THat is what makes me sceptical, worst case, computer projections being used as fact, by certain lobby/activist groups, trying to push their own agendas onto governments.
What impact a 1-3 C change over a century wouldhave is also unceratin..
ie how that possible rise would actually translate into effects on the climate 1.0C we may not be able to determine, to 3.0C will make changes..
Then the question follows, is it best to adapt?
All this needs investigation, given that it is unlikely that any political agreement is going to happen for a year or 2, couldnot the sceptical scientists, like Lindzen, Spencer, etc actually work with the more pro sceintists, quietly, and thrash out, ways to actually find out the uncertainties.
Should action need to be taken, but at the lower end. then the rush is not needed, maybe 10-30 years with nuclear as part of the solution on the way to a low dependency on fossil fuels.. I am no more happy, of russia cutting of the supplies of gas to the EU than anybody else, for a politicalreason. Invest in fusion research serioulsy, invest in energy storage solutions, wind/solar is half a solution without storage.
Enough for today, children's bath and bedtimes coming up.
Wooden Barry said:
Personally, I think 1-3C is probable range. Still uncertain. and am leaning towards the 1-2C personally given empiracl (sic) evidence observed, so I'm close to agreeing with you in the first place, lets call it a concession.
What utter tripe.
First of all you have no scientific background to dispute what scientists working in the field have reported.
Secondly, your tone is so condescending that it is sickening. What with your imaginary friends and all. That is what children say, they blame everything on imaginary people (it was the black hatted man that broke the window). Grow up for goodness sake.
Thirdly, in a previous post (#114) you claimed that of the 5 BPS cost of petrol, 4 BPS was tax. That is utter rubbish, why should we believe a word you say when you try and foist such nonsense on us.
Science is about honesty, some thing which you seem to be not well acquainted with.
How do you know what my scientific background is?
My friend is very real, she Disagrees with me!, so I'm hardly able to use her to prove my sceptical point, I was merely saying we can discuss it politely and remain friends.
As was observed at the Guardian debate (back on topic ;) ) that had sceptics and pro people chating afterwards, having drinks gettin to know each other. I was pleasantly surprised, I thought it might be acrimonous.
EU /UK fuel taxation is betwen the 65 - 75% mark..
Your figure of Â£4 out of Â£5 give 80% which is NOT what I said..
Would a US citizen countenace paying over $8 per gallon.
This is what we are paying now (US gallon = 4.2 l, UK galoon = 4.5)
Fuel tax and VAT add up to a % of tax that I cannot imagine any american standing for, the fuel tax escalotor has been in place for over a decade, in the name of the environment.
Figure are per litre.. you do the maths/exchange rate for yourself.
Purchase prices on cars are now subject to a CO2 linked tax. As are the UK annual car tax disc, some bands recently doubled from 200-400 pounds a tear, all CO2 linked emissions.
USA have low CO2 taxation, how will the US public react faced with CO2 taxes like this? Ie this will be pointed out by other governments in any global co2 negotiations..
"Your figure of Â£4 out of Â£5 give 80% which is NOT what I said.. " - Barry @163
"In the UK Â£5 plus per imperial gallon. of that ~Â£4 is TAX," - Barry @115.
"Can we agree that the 6-10-12C pronoucemnets of some groups, are being used to proclaim tipping points/catastrophy and are looking increasingly unlikely." - Barry
Any evidence for this or just wishful thinking?
Please do make some comments that demonstrate sceptism.
We (everyone here who accepts the findings of mainstream science in preference to the claims of frauds and pseudoscientists) are sceptics by nature.
BTW Tim Lambert is extremely tolerant of dissenting views. People have to go a long way to get banned, and in any case Tim gives some their own thread instead. How fair is that?
>*and am leaning towards the 1-2C personally given empiracl evidence observed*
Barry, asserting that there is evidence to support your claims is not good enough, please share it (as I have, on [more](http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ClimateSensitivity.html) than [one](http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-…) occasion).
I believe you.
It means nothing. I'm sure we all have friends with whom we have great differences (politics, religion, etc.).
I suspect your friend is humouring you when you raise scientific subjects.
Wooden Barry not only lies about what other people say he lies about what he says himself.
Barry at #114:
We(UK/Europe) allready (sic) have high energy bills (because of a green tariff) and petrol has a massive taxes, that no Amrican (sic) will suffer. One example, that a US ctizen (sic) can realet (sic) to. Petrol prices. In the UK Â£5 plus per imperial gallon. of that ~Â£4 is TAX
Barry at #163:
Your figure of Â£4 out of Â£5 give 80% which is NOT what I said
Barry it is time you fessed about your addiction to lying. If your lies are as obvious as what I have shown then it is almost certain that things that you say which are not as easy to prove are also lies. That is why I know you have very little experience of science. To get anywhere in science one has to be scrupulously honest. You fail. QED.
am leaning towards the 1-2C personally given empiracl evidence observed
The empirical evidence doesn't suggest 1C over the next century at all. The rise has been at least 0.5C over the past 30 years and the rate of CO2 accumulation is now faster than ever before. Even on the hopelessly optimistic assumption of 0.5C/30 years, the next century will see 1.5C of warming.
You have no idea what you're talking about when you say "empirical evidence".
"We have multiple science degrees, MSc, Phd's between us.."
I confess that I'm genuinely surprised. You don't write like someone who's well educated. That is just my opinion, nothing more!
>*"We have multiple science degrees, MSc, Phd's between us.."*
Like Usain Bolt and I, we ave multiple sprint world records between us.
> "am leaning towards the 1-2C personally given empiracl evidence observed"
exactly what empirical evidence would that be?
> "given that it is unlikely that any political agreement is going to happen for a year or 2"
considering that it's already going to take years before we get any visible political action, even with the current level of concern, what makes you think that putting things on hold for a year or two is going to help in any way?
that is, other than delay any meaningful action. and greatly exacerbate the damage (and cost!) if AGW does turn out to be the problem most experts believe it will be?
> "couldnot the sceptical scientists, like Lindzen, Spencer, etc actually work with the more pro sceintists, quietly, and thrash out, ways to actually find out the uncertainties."
uh, what do you think the scientific community is doing, other than trying to narrow down the uncertainties? there are hundreds of papers published each and every year on this very topic.
> "Invest in fusion research serioulsy, invest in energy storage solutions, wind/solar is half a solution without storage."
what makes you think that there is not major investment in fusion and energy storage?
anyway, can we have Passing Wind back now, so i can return to pisstaking? all this seriousness really isn't becoming.
I'll need to check the details but you are broadly correct on UK taxes on fuel and annual "Road Tax" (aka vehicle licence).
Today I filled up my car. Â£1.169/litre. That's
TBH I don't think this is worse in *real terms* than what we paid decades ago. We've always paid a lot in tax on fuel, even before the advent of VAT. Americans have always had cheap fuel.
You have to remember what taxes are used for (ignoring the current financial crisis).
I'm sure Barry's friend must be very impressed when Barry starts babbling on that global warming is fake because it's being used by environmental activist groups to destroy capitialism.
Bulletproof scientific reasoning there.
> US gallon = 4.2 l
I'm **skeptical**, because my recollection from living in the US and buying fuel by the gallon matches this page that claims the [US liquid gallon is about 3.78 L](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallon).
And that error makes the US-UK price comparison over 10% better than one would claim if one used the 4.2 L value.
> We've always paid a lot in tax on fuel, even before the advent of VAT. Americans have always had cheap fuel.
Americans also have massively subsidised fuel. Last time I saw the figures the annual subsidies to American oil companies were (IIRC) in the tens of billions of US dollars - and that's not counting any of the huge annual military expenditure that arguably goes in part towards securing oil supplies. If you merely took away the subsidies the prices would move a bit closer.
> My friend will remain anonymous, otherwise she might suffer 'embarrasment' in her career, for associating with 'deniars'
If it's Judith Curry, I'd say she has more than adequately embarrassed herself as far as her reputation for scientific and sociological judgement goes.
Barry is very keen to let us know that he has views that are at odds with competent people that he meets:
>*I am also, close friends with the Co editor of the IPCC 2001 synthesis report, (you know the one with 'the hockey stick' in) We are good friends since our son's were babies.. We can discuss this, in a civilised manner and remain friends..*
>*I have friends that I can talk to civillly, that are far more involved scientifically/poltically than the average blog commentator[...] Last month I spoke to Sir Jogn Houghton - Chair/Editor of the Synthesis report. He was giving a presentaion at my local church, we talked, we disagreed. but at no point was anybody abusive. He knows my friend well, obvoulsy.*
>*Similarly Bob Watson, former IPCC chair seems a very nice person, had a brief chat with him*
>*my point, was my IPCC co editor friend and I DISAGREE about a lot, but can do so without the mistrust and accusations, that stop debate and still be firends.*
>*My friend is very real, she Disagrees with me!, so I'm hardly able to use her to prove my sceptical point, I was merely saying we can discuss it politely and remain friends.*
Barry, I accept that you have views at odds with many competant people. But your problem lies in not being able to properly support your views [with evidence](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/report_from_the_guardian_debat…).
"But the hellish heat itself was the main killer. City papers began reporting on a shortage of coffins. Overcrowded morgues had to lay bodies on the floor.
About 200 horses a day died of heatstroke, and their bodies littered the streets, adding to the overpowering stench of steaming excrement and rotting garbage."
Read more: http://www.tinyurl.com.au/ejt
Re sunspot at 177: "Only on the last day of the crisis did the city finally take action, directing the police to deliver free ice to those in need. The distribution was at the urging of police commissioner -- and future president -- Theodore Roosevelt."
What! What a communist! Close to destroying the economy he was...
One heat wave in New York City, and yet we know that global temperatures in 1896 were significantly cooler than they are today due primarily to anthropogenic inputs.
Thanks spotty for putting the current warming into historical perspective - it shows exactly the kinds of serious calamaties that we can expect as the number of crippling heat waves increases due to the warming.
Just another case of spotty shooting himself in the foot. Nothing new there.
Pinocchio you will be able to utilize that ever growing nose as a heat source.........
Tropical Pacific Ocean temperatures continued to cool over the past fortnight, and are now approaching levels typical of a La NiÃ±a. Similarly, other ENSO indicators are also at or exceeding La NiÃ±a thresholds. As computer models predict the central Pacific will continue to cool over the coming months, it is now highly likely that the Pacific is in the early stages of a La NiÃ±a event, and that 2010 will be considered a La NiÃ±a year.
Signs of an emerging La NiÃ±a event have been apparent in the equatorial Pacific for several months. Pacific Ocean temperatures have cooled steadily throughout the year and are now more than 1Â°C cooler than average in some areas on the equator. The Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) has increas.....
Notice that ocean heat lags the solar cycle
Yes, Barry's conversion was wrong.
1 US gal = 3.785 l
1 Imp gal = 4.546 l
(For anyone interested in converted litres to Imp gallons (for calculating mpg, perhaps), the reciprocal, 0.22, is easier to remember. It is accurate to 4 dp.)
>*Notice that ocean heat lags the solar cycle*
Notice the 30 year trends for solar and SST [are opposite](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/normalise/mean:60/plot/hadsst2gl/…).
*2010 will be considered a La NiÃ±a year*
Sun 'D-K' spot, you forgot to add that, in spite of 2010 being a 'La NiÃ±a year' as you argue, its alomst certain to be, by quite a large margin in fact, the warmest year since records were kept.
Ouch. This must hurt, eh? More evidence that you are speaking utter b*%*&#%$*, although everyone posting on this thread knew that long ago. It must also hurt that you have no standing whatsoever in science whereas at least I do in my field of population ecology. How many peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals do you have spotty? Um - er - at last count it was nil. Lemme guess: it is still nil. Correct?
Correlation of solar luminosity and temperature over the last 1000 years.
The temp. might not be overly accurate, it's one of hockey stick boy's graphs.
judging from the bullshit you spew forth, you read tea leaves and are a novice practitioner of ESP, as for your qualification's, big deal, there is good and bad in all fields of endeavor, you continually pat yourself on the back in an attempt to portray a false image. It's easy to see that your just a hack for the official line, looking for fame and funding !
>Correlation of solar luminosity and temperature
[Back around the goldfish bowl](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/brent_thread.php#comment-2601587).
As has been demonstrated to you numerous times, the correlation over the period of recent global warming is with CO2, not solar activity. Why do you continue to lie about it?
My research has nothing whatsoever to do with climate change. Nix. Nil. Get that through your thick head. When you write, *It's easy to see that your just a hack for the official line, looking for fame and funding* you are literally speaking out of your butt. My 'fame', if you want to call it that, but which is really more of my reputation in science, is based on the research I do in my own fields and on the studies I have published and on lectures and seminars I give at universitiesa, conferences and workshops. Which appears to be more than can be said about you.
I base my opinion with respect to climate on the empirical evidence and on the views of the vast majority of climate scientists and not on a few contrarian blogs run by pseudo-scientists and/or shills. You wear your right wing/libertarian heart on your sleeve every time you write something in here.
Most importantly, I do not have the foggiest idea why you write on any Deltoid thread. Most everyone here thinks that you are an idiot.
>*Correlation of solar luminosity and temperature*
lol, solar variance used to be the greatest forcing anomally, but your correlation cuts out right at the [point of divergence](http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/chris/cycleT.png), that being where [CO2 boomed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg).
Spotty you are funny.
"Most everyone here thinks that you are an idiot."
Worse than that: he's an arrogant, offensive, dishonest idiot. He's almost the perfect example of a science denier, in fact.
Aplogies for the wrong US gallon/litre ratio.
I hope I showed my point about the high UK/EU CO2 taxes already, on fuel, CO2 car emmisions, annual road fund/tax and purchase tax..
And proposals that would increse the costs of home electicity are very close.
I'm wondering how the American public will react to similar levels of CO2 taxation on car fuels and home electricity bills..
THe UK/EU citizens have been surprising non-vocal about.
We get the impression that the USpublic would kick up more of a fuss..
Would they tolerate this level of taxation...
ie global agrrements might hinge on why americans pay so little CO2 taxaes on fuel. Then it all gets very political.
Is Tim away?, as it is not really on topic, for a guardian debate thread.
The exact conversion doesn't matter. Your point stands: Americans simply aren't used to, and are probably unaware of, European fuel prices.
Can someone tell us how Australian prices compare?
TS my rule of thumb is that fuel in Australia and Europe costs the same in "numbers".
The last time I filled up here a couple of weeks ago I paid about AUD 1.35 a litre for premium unleaded. Ordinary unleaded is about 10c cheaper.
Barry, [still running away](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/report_from_the_guardian_debat…) from backing your claims with evidence. Poor form.
The propaganda you engaging in depends on the unsupportable claims that you perpetuate. You are aiding the deceit of sections of the population.
It's currently costing me about A$1.10 - $1.20 per litre for fuel, with diesel being about .10c per litre more expensive than petrol.
1 GBP = 1.75 AUD at present so I think there's quite a difference there.
AUD 1.25 = GBP 0.72
UAD 1.20 = GBP 0.69
(My price was for ordinary unleaded).
I wonder how many are aware of teh price effect on driving efficiency?
>*Driving one mile in the United States currently requires 37 percent more fuel on average than in Europe, due to both the larger average size of vehicles and to less efficient engine technology. [McKinsey Inst, 2007](http://www.compete.org/images/uploads/File/ESIS%20Progressive%20Downloa…)*
And efficiency means [longer term](http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/01/2586451.htm) sustainablity as fuel becomes scarcer.
Europe's forward thinking on the pricing of depleating and polluting fuels has gone hand in hand with better rail options.
Those blind to the public interest of restraining [externalised cost](http://www.isf.uts.edu.au/publications/riedy2007subsidies.pdf) are setting us up for a crash.
TS, you may find [this comparison](http://www.gtz.de/de/dokumente/en-international-fuel-prices-data-previe…) interesting.
However it does not include the level of detail as per the [Reidy report](http://www.isf.uts.edu.au/publications/riedy2007subsidies.pdf) (i.e. Reidy includes tax breaks for driving long distance  and fuel rebate for mining companies (and agriculture) use of fuel that encourage fuel use).
 At the end of financial year in Aus, people (including relatives of mine) actually kiss their kids good night then go out on the highway for the sole purpose to clock up miles in order to get over an annual threshold to maximise and FBT tax break.
I concur with #196, it's extremely common around me for drivers of leased vehicles to deliberately spend additional time on the road to achieve the annual threshold.
196# it used to be like that in the UK with comany car mileage, one threshold was 4000 miles, and I remember 'having' to schedule a 'meeting' in leeds once a months... ;)
All chnaged about 10 years ago, to CO2 emmission base company car tax bands.. There was a BIG jump in road fund(car tax) this year, and a change of bands, whereas the previous top band cost Â£210 it is now Â£400. Which actually caught out a lot of older cars, that the poorer members of the public might be driving, ie 8 year old 2.0l mondeos, ,etc. not just big expensive 4x4's
If the american public will NOT put up with this sort of taxation, everybody in the US, can 'discuss the science' for ever on blogs. If the public vote out of office, any politician that would put up domestics petrol/energy prices to EU/UK levels or higher.
Barry writes, "If the american public will NOT put up with this sort of taxation, everybody in the US, can 'discuss the science' for ever on blogs".
I should add, 'While Rome burns'.... You ought to know that the whole argument about economics and global change is that once something becomes too expensive, there is pressure to find cheaper alternatives... I agree that Americans will not stand for higher taxes, but there are two alternative's: one, prices rise, driving a switch to cleaner technologies, or else, two, we continue to subsidize environmental destruction, costs are therefore forever externalized and eventually natural systems 'bite back', meaning the chickens come home to roost. If we continue along the current path, externalizing the environmental costs of our overconsumptive western societies, then at some point something will have to give. Every developed nation fosters an ecological deficit that can only be offset through neoliberal trade regimes (which, incidentally and neither new nor liberal) that enable us to reach beyond our own borders to plunder (for that is what it is) natural capital from less developed nations in the south.
"If the american public will NOT put up with this sort of taxation, everybody in the US, can 'discuss the science' for ever on blogs".
I think you'll find, Bazzer, that the American Public WILL accept it, as long as it's fair.
The American Public are actually fairly progressive in outlook. It's just the noisy nutters who get all the screen time (because controversy sells when you can't get tits on the screen) who will not put up with it.
Though how would they not put up with it? Make their own oil?
"Which actually caught out a lot of older cars, that the poorer members of the public might be driving, ie 8 year old 2.0l mondeos, ,etc. not just big expensive 4x4's"
But if the big expensive 4x4s are less polluting, then there's less externality.
And cash-for-clunkers gave the owners of the trading in of old 2L mondeos a better deal than those who traded in big expensive 4x4s.
And, having traded down to a newer efficient 1.4L supermini or small estate, the running costs were halved, making much greater difference to the poor old 2L mondeo driver than the rich person driving a new 4x4.
Barry, increased fuel tax's have only ever slowed the usage for a week or two. Just as increased tax on tobacco never decreased smoking. A carbon tax will do absolutely nothing that improves the environment, the consumer will pay more and not reduce CO2 output at all, the powers behind this scam know that it doesn't matter though because CO2 is not the major cause of the warming we have seen, only a moron would think that it was, plenty of them in here as you are starting to see.
>*If the american public will NOT put up with this sort of taxation, everybody in the US, can 'discuss the science' for ever on blogs.*
Barry, the price of oil is [going up](http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=RWTC&f=M) regardless of carbon pricing and the US is suffering for short sightedness in this respect. The blind who fail to see this inevitable rise are setting populations for further and deeper suffering.
But this topic is another diversion on your series of shoot and run claims. I note your [continued refusal](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/report_from_the_guardian_debat…) to substantiate your claims with evidence. Why the need to make [unsupported claims](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/report_from_the_guardian_debat…)?
>*increased fuel tax's have only ever slowed the usage for a week or two.*
>*Driving one mile in the United States currently requires 37 percent more fuel on average than in Europe, due to both the larger average size of vehicles and to less efficient engine technology. McKinsey Inst, 2007*
You are funny spotty!
Thanks. I've not see that before. Useful info.
History of fuel taxation in Australia
ask yourself akerz, who doesn't drive or heat their house because these taxes have been increased over time.
another tax wont save the world, the masters are too greedy for that
Look at [the data](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/report_from_the_guardian_debat…) spotty, it aids in the process of sorting reality from misguided reckoning.
This is a ridiculous argument. No one stops driving or heating their homes when fuel prices rise (unless they were only just able to do it before). They realise: this is costing me a lot more; perhaps I'll walk or cycle instead of drive for short journeys, and I'll buy a more economical car next time. When my boiler (furnace) needs replacing, I'll replace it with the most efficient one available (as I did last year).
What you get is a *trend* towards greater efficiency as fuel prices rise (for whatever reason). Nothing happens overnight.
trueseptic, so your saying that it's a good idea to implement a co2 tax so then the people that can't afford to use their heater will now freeze to death because they can't drive to their low paying job because they can no longer afford the fuel, or at 60 yrs of age they should ride a push bike ? just because you think it will save the world ?
Petrol tax scams
akerz, i think your barrel of laughs tooo
>*so your saying that it's a good idea to implement a co2 tax so then the people that can't afford to use their heater will now freeze to death*
Why the need to misrepresent?
Petrol taxes have driven innovation and efficiency. The welfare state provides the necessities of welfare. The poor are better cared for in the UK than the US. Its a matter of priorities. Carbon tax will provide revenue that can be distributed to prevent unintended perversions.
shake shake shake, wake up akerz !!!
your talkin' in yer sleep
>Why the need to misrepresent?
I assume you're being rhetorical.
"unintended perversions" healthcare will go through the roof !!!
Fiasco for planet-healing L.A. mayor: After getting on a bike "for the first time in years"he almost immediately collides with a taxi and breaks his elbow...
He's then taken to the hospital by the security officer trailing him in a car. Afterwards, he claims that he likes to bike in L.A.
"Why the need to misrepresent?"
Because representing the actual situation is devastating to his case.
>*healthcare will go through the roof*
Windy UK and much of Europe already have [green taxes](http://www.gtz.de/de/dokumente/en-international-fuel-prices-data-previe…) and their healthcare is in [better shape](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate) at [lower cost](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=110997469).
It seems you can't read. Try again.
In response to one of your questions, though, I'll still be riding a bicycle next year, when I'll be 60. This is hardly unusual, at least among people I know.
Did I mention at [lower cost]((http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:International_Comparison_-_Healthcare…)?
Worse for spotty, you are also ignoring the rise in revenue to fund the better allocated spending.
Life [style illness](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity) are the largest burden on the healthcare system in rich nations. [Shifting people](http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity) out of their cars will reduce health costs.
So one politician having an accident invalidates the use of bicycles? No doubt when you next hear of a pedestrian falling over, you'll say that no one should ever walk any further than from their house to their car.
>*So one politician having an accident invalidates the use of bicycles? No doubt when you next hear of a pedestrian falling over, you'll say that no one should ever walk any further than from their house to their car.*
And no climbing trees, nor swimming, and football in dangerous better stop that hey spotty?
Yes, it's a win-win. More walking and cycling is better for everyone. It even makes it easier for sunspot to cruise the less congested roads! He should be all for it. ;)
The CO2 tax will do nothing for the environment, oil, coal, gas ect are economically too important to power brokers, they won't stop selling them.
If you understand quaternion algebra then you might see the demise of CO2 here. http://www.cheniere.org/
Or maybe pump a few bucks into Stan Meyer's contraption's, there are many other alternatives.
This article in the Times Higer Education Supplement may be interesting to many.. They are not generally sceptical, far from it.
The Danish windfarm energy experience described may be a lesson, that I hope the UK learns.. Wind is expensive, and only half a solution, ie the other half is the need is for energy storage.
Regardless of AGW or not a transition (if only for energy security) to non fossil fukes would be desireable..
The problem withthe current rush/subsidy to green energy, is the technology is not yet mature enough to take up the demand. And a few will get rich (due to subsidy) at the expense of the poor.
So the public face , higher energy costs and CO2 taxes without the means to fully replace the old.
If the sensitivity of AGW proves to be low, then the rush, is just an uncessary damaging expense.
Fossil fuels won't last forever and the price will escalate as reserves are depleted. The cost of exploring and exploiting new reserves, wherever they might be, will also escalate (hint: BP in the Gulf!). This will increasingly make renewables more attractive.
I can't see renewables ever replacing fossil fuels, though: we simply use, and are used to, too much energy. Nuclear is the only answer, and I hope fusion can be made to work in the next few decades.
No kidding Sunspot. The same Tom Bearden who can also cure AIDS. Monckton has some competition! Yet another example of your skeptical mind completely failing you.
> A carbon tax will do absolutely nothing that improves the environment, the consumer will pay more and not reduce CO2 output at all...
Ah, so sunspot is not only widely acknowledged to be an irrefutable source for debunking conventional climate science, but also for debunking rather fundamental economics as well. Who knew?!
Sunspot has to be fooling with us. I've never heard of Tom Bearden but that site is one of the most insane I've ever seen.
I think some sceptical minds ;) have a sense of humour..
Tom Beardon. wow.. Where can I buy one ;) !
Buy a Tom Bearden? I don't know, but that one looks a bit old. I'd get a younger one.
john said, 'The same Tom Bearden who can also cure AIDS.' Tell me john, where did he say that ?
and maybe the other moron's in here would prefer the working class to pay for this http://www.tinyurl.com.au/eqa this http://www.tinyurl.com.au/eqb and this http://www.tinyurl.com.au/eqc stealing resources requires massive funding, admit it, you all are only glorified bean counters that need dysfunctional computer models to see the future, Madam Harvey uses tea leaves.
If Bearden, Tesla, Meyer and others had been given the budget for this http://www.tinyurl.com.au/eqd then you all wouldn't be suffering from aGw phobia's now. Not one of you has the foresight to look for real solutions.
Spotty have the black helicopters been to visit you? The military already take the lion share of the budget.
And you'll be paying [more tax](http://securityandclimate.cna.org/report/CNA_NatlSecurityAndTheThreatOf…) to keep [the poor out](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/31/pentagon-ranks-global-warmi…) as the climate worsens.
So if you want the working class to pay more to the military, just keep denying AGW and keep denying the impact of pricing carbon.
Sunspot, I have successfully taught my 7-year-old the correct usage of apostrophes.
If a 7-year-old can do it, what do you think is the major flaw in your make-up which prevents you from displaying a similar simple skill?
it's a dog eat dog world akerz, i thought you wanted to reduce CO2 ? I have asked you before about alternates to a tax, you still only follow the pied piper.
vince, are you sure your 7 year old is your seven year old ?
>*it's a dog eat dog world akerz, i thought you wanted to reduce CO2 ? I have asked you before about alternates to a tax, you still only follow the pied piper.*
I see that spotty resorts to gibberish as a substitute for reason.
Spotty no even you knew what you were trying to say do you?
akerz, open your eyes.
Using random comments to introduce your links now spotty.
As I said:
>*I see that spotty resorts to gibberish as a substitute for reason. Spotty no even you knew what you were trying to say do you?*
How about a little tiny bit of coherence?
spotty's link from 2008:
>*the system alone costs about Â¥2,000,000 (roughly $18,000 U.S.) but if mass produced, the cost can be reduced to about $5,000 or less. Some people have reacted with disbelief and questioned the carâs legitimacy, claiming that the technology appears to violate the First Law of Thermodynamics . Genepax is reportedly in the midst of filing a patent for its groundbreaking technology. Without more in-depth details, we canât say for sure if the car is too good to be true*
Wow not only would that make cars CO2 free, but the units also would also enable generation of year round clean power for homes and industry. Did you feel the least bit skeptical about this spotty?
Genepax message fom 2009:
>*We at GENEPAX have strived to develop new technologies to enable environment friendly energy systems [...]ãThe systems that we have proposed have received warm words of support from many people. However, we have yet to overcome the many obstacles we face in the current world, to bring our systems to market. Moreover, the costs of development have become very large. As our resources are very limited, we need to retrench and reassess our resources and our development plans at this time, and we are accordingly closing our website.*
If you lived in 1865 would you have believed the realities of this ?
Spotty I think you need to see a doctor. Your mind appears to have closed in on itself.
Was it your goal to come here and prove you could make denialsts look worse?
sorry akerz, i should have pointed more accurately at this.
The world's first operational nuclear-powered submarine, the United States Navy's USS Nautilus (SSN-571) was named for Verne's fictional vessel.
The breathing apparatus used by Nautilus divers is depicted as an untethered version of underwater breathing apparatus designed by Benoit Rouquayrol and Auguste Denayrouze in 1865. They designed a diving set with a backpack spherical air tank that supplied air through the first known demand regulator.
and so on, some things once fiction can become real
>*some things once fiction can become real*
This can be enabled and accelerated with provision of incentive (price singnal) to bring forward important future innovation.
Sunspot, from Wikipedia:
>Bearden has extended his views on electromagnetism to encompass the effect electromagnetic fields have on biological cells. He has stated that, as a result of his theories, "inexpensive, quick, nondebilitating, cures can be developed for most major dread diseases, including cancer, arteriosclerosis, and AIDS".
Free energy for all! Funding a pie-in-the-sky free energy machine is *far* more sensible than investing in rewnewables, according to Sunspot.
I wonder how he finds the time to post here in between building his perpetual motion machine.
>and so on, some things once fiction can become real
Except global warming, obviously.
In your opinion, how amusing does sunspot think Bearden is? Very, fairly, slightly, or not at all?
Are you having us on again? Do you have any idea what this claim entails?
Lutec has sold out to the highest bidder, and no doubt will never be seen again.
trueseptic are you technologically advanced enough to use a screwdriver ?
Do you think science is at an end, and we've discovered all there is to know, right or wrong, anything can be debunked to throw punters off the trail, you should know that.
John @ 242,
A few years ago I was inflicted with acute osteomyelitis in my femur, it was brought under control with IV antibiotics in hospital and then I was to take large doses of ciproxin at home, supposedly for eternity, they didn't agree with me. So I built a Rife/Bare device, stopped taking the cipro and used the device instead. After 4 mths of using the device, 6 mths after being released from hospital, I had a follow-up MRI, the infection specialists jaw hit the floor, it was completely gone ! He was amazed, elated even, until I told him what I had done. So basically John, your a numb nuts that doesn't have a clue what you are talking about. The Rife/Bare device has been heavily debunked as a fake by morons that know nothing !
> I wonder how he finds the time to post here in between building his perpetual motion machine.
Isn't the process of building the perpetual motion machine - by definition, as it never ends and always seems to generate more motion and no-one involved in building one will ever admit they wasted any efforts on it - a kind of recursive perpetual motion machine?
What spottyface meant to say:
The Rife/Bare device has been heavily used by morons that know nothing !
There I hope you are glad you have been corrected, since I don't want other morons to be deluded by junk science.
Sunspot, I will be in my cold, cold grave before I believe a word that comes out of your mouth. You're a gullible sucker who believes whatever they want.
That said, I have some magic beans you may be interested in...
Lotharsson @248 kinda gave me an idea for an ad slogan in the same vein:
"Denialism - it never stops, so you don't have to".
"Rife/Bare devices - because there's one born every minute".
yes.... a relation of mine told me it was a load of crap, she even brought around her fancy microscope and lots of different little critters, we hooked the scope up to a computer, this was very beneficial to me as it allowed me to do some fine tuning, she now has her own plasma device. Like I have said before most of you have done nothing and as a consequence you know nothing ! The dogma has you all dumbed down.
sunsplat @ 252.
Well it's like this. On the one hand a miracle, moncktonesque cure and on the other, yet another of the many, many contrarian liars. Then Occam's razor is applied and it doesn't cut in your favour spotty.
Very funny. Do you fall for every scam going, no matter how idiotic? Do you have any idea at all about basic physics?
1/ do you believe there is a higgs boson ?
2/ do you believe that a new energy source is more important than spending it at CERN ?
3/ is the scalar field theory to much for your puny brain ?
4/ how do you think 1 2 & 3 may be connected ?
Damned Spot's modus operandi:
"4/ how do you think 1 2 & 3 may be connected ?"
By the insane ramblings of an internet troll, sunny side up?