Time for a new open thread.
Copied from the end of open thread 60:
Anyone come across [this graph](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/290/5490/291/F2.expansion.html)? Strikes me as a great illustration of the anthropogenic effect and I'm surprised I've not seen it before now. (From Falkowski et al. (2000) The Global Carbon Cycle: A Test of Our Knowledge of Earth as a System. Science 290, 291-296. DOI: 10.1126/science.290.5490.291)
I see that Curtin has got himself into another fine pickle over at Tamino's place:
And Jerk does not mean what you think it might before reading the article.
I was going to post that Curtin has zero embarrassment, but I think it's worse than that. He appears to possess a kind of negative embarrassment that seeks to maximise the amount of behaviour that regular people would find embarrassing.
Tim et al.,
You have to listen to this 2GB interview with Lindzen on 6 April 2011.
Apparently they also interviewed Christy recently....wonder if he touted his DDT fallacies?
Anyone read anything useful on the Steve McIntyre's current fettish? The Yamal conspiracy and assorted goings on over at Climate Audit?
Falkowski et al. (2000) The Global Carbon Cycle: A Test of Our Knowledge of Earth as a System. Science 290, 291-296. DOI: 10.1126/science.290.5490.291) seems to be behind the Science Magazine paywall.
C. Mather, here you go.
You can find a great many full version papers by going to google scholar and pasting in the title of the paper.
You do realize that the paper you linked to is chalk full of admitted uncertainties...don't you?
And you do realize that all the authors are either co-chairs or members of the International Geosphere-Biosphere
And you must aware that the IGBP's purpose is to implement their vision of global "societal tranformation", part of which is to "eradicate poverty"...correct?
So how do they do this? Well, they need find a way to start changing government policies at all levels ie, "local, national,regional and global".....but how?
Hey, how about AGW! Sure, AGW is a problem that is full of uncertainties and speculations in regard to it's current and future impacts, yet, one which we must act on immediately and on a global scale!
All we need is the backing of scientific results, no matter how uncertain, to begin painting our vision!
Chris, as the paper you linked to states: "This uncertainty should not be confused with lack of knowledge nor should it be used as an excuse to postpone prudent policy decisions based on the best information available
at the time."
NEVER LET UNCERTAINTY GET IN THE WAY OF A PRUDENT POLICY!
So the conclusion is always predetermined, regardless of how uncertain the results are, in order to create policies that will help to implement the "vision". How convenient and how scientificky is that!
Remember, it's all about the "vision", and without the proper scientific conclusion, the "vision" is lost...
I often see deniers going on about CO2 increases in the past coming after periods of warming. I don't think that means what they think it means....
Does anyone know of a natural increase in CO2 that preceded -- i. e., was not caused by -- a climate change?
That would be "chock full"...unless I was using a blackboard to make my point.
Duckster said: "Anyone read anything useful on the Steve McIntyre's current fetish? The Yamal conspiracy and assorted goings on over at Climate Audit"?
I don't think anyone cares anymore.
McIntyre doesn't have the chops to even know what he's talking about, so he throws up some ludicrous [numberwang](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_6RbP3CNUg) chart to the best of his limited abilities, yelps "team" and "Climategate!" for the nth time, then lets the resident horde of conspiracy nutters take it from there.
After the DC/Mashey exposure of the Wegman/GMU fiasco, he's yesterday's dead duck whose 15 minutes expired some time ago.
McI is still yammering on about Yamal? And the "hide the decline" graph from 10 years ago?
>Does anyone know of a natural increase in CO2 that preceded -- i. e., was not caused by -- a climate change?
[The Permian/Triassic extinction event](http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-01/uoc-rfs012111.php).
Damn, new PC and killfile needs repopulating, so I'm subjected to...
You do realize your what an Ad Hominem fallacy is...don't you?
The "Snowball Earth" conditions that prevailed in the late Precambrian were most likely ended by the build up of GHG's in the atmosphere. With rocks covered by icecaps, weathering slowed and CO2 built up, reaching very high levels before the resultant climate forcing finally caused those icecaps to melt.
Beloved of skeptics (*coff*) because it proves you can have high CO2 and widespread glaciation (allowing the false conclusion that CO2 and temperatures are not related). The point that is missed is the fact it was a *process*. It's a bit like saying a photo of a man falling off a building proves that humans can fly.
Wow. And I mean, WTF?!?!?! WOW.
That is seriously reckless arrogance. There are NO excuses for that sort of thing, unless you are in an genuine emergency situation and have to land immediately. He should have permanently lost his licence on the spot.
Gives a good insight into the kind of deranged obnoxious mentality we are dealing with âÂ somebody who really thinks he is special and excused from all normal restraints and obligations to both reality and other humans.
It is also the sort of behaviour that can lose you support among your own political base, some of whom will work in the aviation industry, or other industries where safety is a critical issue, or know somebody who does.
Betula@8 relies on fallacious conflation of the scientific use of the term uncertainty - as in "uncertainty bounds" or "confidence intervals" - and the popular use of the word as in "don't know" and "could be completely wrong".
Accordingly Betula's hysterical conclusions are not justified by Betula's references...
So are the likes of Betula "denialists" or "rejectionists"?
Truth is that the Watt's Up With That, Climate Audit, Judith Curry crowd are not denialists, they are rejectionists, and this extends, as Ethon will show, to the Roger P Jr. and Sr., Shellenberger, Tol and Lucia bunch with able assistance from the Heartland, GMI, Fred Singers and beyond. Frequently, actually most often, the rejection of climate science emerges from political views.
duckster (#5): I seldom look at CA, unless directed there, as from your link. I glanced at this one, and left feeling rather sickened. The usual smug, pompous stuff from McI, complete with quotation marks around "inquiries", the tart chiding of one poster who is told to confine his remarks to Yamal, while the snide comments of Loehle, Watts and others, having nothing to do with Yamal, are allowed to pass without comment. Nauseating stuff. And what does this guy have to show for all this huffing and puffing over all these years?
C.Mather (#6): you can gain free access to research articles in Science more than 2 years old simply by registering at their website, and logging in each time you want to search for content. I can't remember the conditions, but it's probably a "fair use" policy (i.e., use articles only for private research, no distribution, etc.) The free access does not, however, extend to all content. Cheers
Riman Butterbur, #9: Indeed, I don't think these episodes from the geological past have the significance that the contrarian crowd thinks they have. It is accepted that during the most recent deglaciations (the ones that have been characterised through ice-core measurements), the global temperature increased by about 6C, and that 4C of this was purely the warming associated with the orbital changes, while the other 1/3, or about 2C was due to the feedback associated with increasing CO2. Thus, at Termination III (240,000 yrs BP), CO2 was involved in the last ~4200 yr of a deglaciation lasting ~5000 yr. See Caillon et al., Science, v.299, p.1728. It is an aspect of this paper, little remarked by the contrarians (though they like to cite this paper, as they seem to think it provides them a "knock-out blow"), that the following words can be found in the Abstract: "The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800+/-200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation." So, according to these authors, the NH deglaciation occurred AFTER the CO2 increase. Should a contrarian hound you with this argument again, asserting that "the ice cores show that CO2 lags the temperature by 800 years", or some such, point him or her back to this paper and then ask him or her: which is cause, which is effect? Part of the problem here is that Antarctic ice cores measure Antarctic temperatures, and not necessarily global temperatures. Always remind the contrarian that the two should not be confused.
The contrarians, as is so often the case, read all this selectively, to arrive at the answers they are predisposed to accept.
AGW denialism is climate creationism, but ClimateAudit in particular are the Birthers of the Tea Party Science movement. "Release the data!" when you actually HAD the data for 3 years and just didn't tell anyone is actually worse than Birtherism. Plus, given that his having the data all along from the actual source means he knew very well he was lying - it's more like demanding Obama's birth certificate from the Maine Bureau of Vital Statistics. What are you hiding, Maine!?
Nice interactive graphic on Pew Environment Group's report on [Clean Energy Investment](http://www.pewenvironment.org/news-room/other-resources/investing-in-cl…).
A few facts that surprised me.
* Italy has 6520 MW of solar compared with Spain at 4710 MW.
* worldwide investment grew 30% in 2010 to $243 billion. Imagine the spend if we got a international climate change agreement.
* USA got 75% of all venture capital investment but has fallen to third in overall investment because of lack of support for deployment. Thank you flat earthers.
Read [Green China? You'd better believe it](http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/56670.html) for a review of the report.
I have invested a few $ in a [community wind farm](http://hepburnwind.com.au) at Hepburn Springs. Best money I ever spent and amazingly our economy did not come crashing down.
Chris S.: "I'll be travelling down to see you tomorrow, I'll get there between one and two o'clock depending on the traffic & whether I need to stop for fuel - sorry I can't be more certain"
Betula: "UNCERTAINTY! You ain't coming at all! I know this because you said you weren't sure*"
I'm glad my link has provoked some discussion, I'm sorry it dragged that speil of ad hom rubbish from Betula. For those who can only access a full paper the figure I was referring to is fig. 2.
*N.B. As Lotharsson points out, this isn't the uncertainty talked about in the paper, the above hypothetical conversation is just an illustration of the absurdity of the rejectionist argument against scientific uncertainty.
Mulling over the abstract to Fall et al 2011 (A. Watts' yet to be published paper on USHCN classification and trend analysis), I was drawn to the diurnal range trends, which are out of line with global trends anticipated by mainstream climate science. That is, there was no significant diurnal range trend for the US, when the expectation is that the (global) diurnal range will narrow over time (minima will rise faster than maxima). We are told that 'nights have warmed faster than days, winters faster than summers'.
Of mean temps, we can say that warming is almost uniform around the globe on continental scales, and for regions as large as the USA and Australia, particularly WRT to the last 30 years or so. This lends confidence to the notion that the globe has warmed.
But the same cannot be said for diurnal range trends. For Australia, the diurnal range trend is positive (maxima rising faster than minima) since 1976 (Aus Bureau of Meteorology data). No trend for the US according to A Watts.
I would have expected that the same parameters giving us confidence on mean trends would apply to diurnal range trends. But even such a large area as Australia, and even with a 35 year time period, we get results at odds with global expectations (unlike mean trends).
Can someone explain, or is there any material out there, that explains why what holds for mean temps doesn't work so neatly for diurnal range trends?
'Course, the reason I'm asking is because I'm talking to a skeptic, and they are saying that the anomalous diurnal range trends *prove* that warming isn't from GHGs!
Yeah, yeah, I know that Australia and the US don't represent the globe, but when we point to mean warming in the US and Australia for last 35 years we do it to buttress our case ("See, every continent, all the large countries are warming"). I'd like to be able to explain why that time period, and these scales don't work equally well for expected diurnal range trends.
#19 "what does this guy have to show for all this huffing and puffing over all these years?" - no action on climate change by governments around the world over all these years.
On reflection, Betula's post #8 deserves a fuller response:
1)Betula says "You do realize that the paper you linked to is chalk full of admitted uncertainties...don't you?"
The paper has precisely four (4) uses of the word uncertainty, that's less than one per page, hardly either chalk or chock full no? The first ("considerable uncertainty about the ability of terrestrial ecosystems to mitigate against rising CO2") is self explanatory, the other three are in the paragraph that Betula qoutes part of (see below).
2) Betula says "And you do realize that all the authors are either co-chairs or members of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme...don't you?"
No, I didn't, should this matter? Also, were these authors menbers when they wrote this paper? Does Betula know this? Can he prove it?
3) Betula says "And you must aware that the IGBP's purpose is to implement their vision of global "societal tranformation", part of which is to "eradicate poverty" ...correct?"
Ah, now we see why their affiliation should matter - Betula doesn't want to eradicate poverty.
4) Betula says "So how do they do this? Well, they need find a way to start changing government policies at all levels ie, "local, national,regional and global".....but how? Hey, how about AGW! Sure, AGW is a problem that is full of uncertainties and speculations in regard to it's [sic] current and future impacts, yet, one which we must act on immediately and on a global scale! All we need is the backing of scientific results, no matter how uncertain, to begin painting our vision!"
Here's the crux - according to Betula the IGBP are using AGW to promote societal change, however a quick perusal of [their website](http://www.igbp.net/page.php?pid=100) reveals that they've been around since 1987 and only updated their vision in 2010 (to quote: "At the beginning of 2010, IGBP began a process to update its vision to take account of the new vision for global sustainability research developed by the International Council for Science." why did they update the vision? The old vision was as follows:
"The vision of IGBP is to provide scientific knowledge to improve the sustainability of the living Earth. IGBP studies the interactions between biological, chemical and physical processes and interactions with human systems and collaborates with other programmes to develop and impart the understanding necessary to respond to global change."
How has this changed? The new (draft) vision states:
"IGBP's vision is to provide essential scientific leadership and knowledge of the Earth system to help guide society onto a sustainable pathway during rapid global change."
So, Betula's assertion is completely backward - the IGBP are not using AGW to promote societal change, they've studied AGW & now see the need for societal change to adapt to global change and that scientific leadership is needed, after all there is "considerable uncertainty about the ability of terrestrial ecosystems to mitigate against rising CO2". Whether you agree that adaptation is needed or not is beside the point - Betula has put the cart before the horse.
5) Betula says "Chris, as the paper you linked to states: "This uncertainty should not be confused with lack of knowledge nor should it be used as an excuse to postpone prudent policy decisions based on the best information available at the time." (followed by some shouting)
Here we get to those other three uses of uncertainty mentioned under 1) above. Betula provided one use but let's look at the paragraph as a whole:
"As we rapidly enter a new Earth system domain, the âAnthropoceneâ Era (64), the debate about distinguishing human effects from natural variability will inevitably abate in the face of increased understanding of
climate and biogeochemical cycles. Our present state of uncertainty arises largely from lack of integration of information. Nevertheless, scientistsâ abilities to predict the future will always have a component of uncertainty.
This uncertainty should not be confused with lack of knowledge nor should it be used as an excuse to postpone prudent policy decisions based on the best information available at the time."
The authors (and Lotharsson in #17) point out - uncertainty does not mean "don't know". As Betula stated in his part of the quote "This uncertainty should not be confused with lack of knowledge" but Betula went ahead and confused it anyway :-) The authors also point out that there is always uncertainty in predicting the future - we can never account for every possible event as we all know. Betula of course won't cross the road as there is uncertainty that a car won't come screaming around a blind corner at top speed...
6) Betula says "So the conclusion is always predetermined, regardless of how uncertain the results are, in order to create policies that will help to implement the "vision". How convenient and how scientificky is that!"
It's really scientifiky - so much so that they can go back in time and publish papers to help implement the "vision" 10 years before they publish the "vision" - these pesky scientists and their secret time machines! Of course that's ignoring the fact that Betula has decided that a conclusion based on the available knowledge is "predetermined". Betula of course has "predetermined" this is wrong because of his cock-eyed view of the scientists in question, how convenient.
In answer to SteveC at #18, I think this is classic rejectionism. You can see that, apart from the stock claim of uncertainty (chock full with four mentions, three in one paragraph!) there is nothing in Betula's comment about the science of the paper or it's findings. Just lots about the perceived political agenda of some organisation that the authors may, or may not be members of. The paper is therefore rejected because of this perceived agenda, never mind it was published 10 years before the updated vision that Betula objects to!
I still think it's an interesting graph.
"Does anyone know of a natural increase in CO2 that preceded -- i. e., was not caused by -- a climate change?"
But why is one needed? Do the photons emitted by the earth "know" how the CO2 got to be there and act differently if it is the result of warming or the result of supervolcanic action?
Seems highly unlikely, doesn't it.
> the global temperature increased by about 6C, and that 4C of this was purely the warming associated with the orbital changes, while the other 1/3, or about 2C was due to the feedback associated with increasing CO2.
I believe you have it approximately the other way around.
Of the 6C (nominal) warming, 2C is from orbital changes and 4C from greenhouse gasses. Of that 4C, probably a bit less than 1C is from CO2 alone, but this is part of the evidence (as in "that which is seen" for you denialists) for a climate sensitivity of around 3C per doubling of CO2 where CO2 doubling "only" produces 1C warming in and of itself.
>For Australia, the diurnal range trend is positive (maxima rising faster than minima) since 1976 (Aus Bureau of Meteorology data)
Barry what source?
[This](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V95-3YRS4V8-…) don't agree with the claim you cite:
The 5 year mean on [these charts](http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/amtemp.shtml) show greater anomalies in for Tmin (compared to Tmax) for the 20 years prior to the last decade.
Have you got a link to data with a contrary story?
And considering **global** warming involve **global** climate change also consider the global picture to allow for changes in circulation patterns that can result from climate change:
>Observed DTR over land shows a large negative trend of 0.4 C over the last 50 years that is very unlikely to have occurred due to internal variability. This trend is due to larger increases in minimum temperatures ( 0.9 C) than maximum temperatures ( 0.6 C) over the same period
Finally, it is Watts you are talking about, wait and see what fun is found with Watts' claims.
> As Betula stated in his part of the quote "This uncertainty should not be confused with lack of knowledge" but Betula went ahead and confused it anyway :-)
Yes, I thought that was somewhat amusing ;-)
I just calculated a linear slope for [this data](http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/meant03.txt), from from year you cited 1976.
The linear equation is y = 0.0013x - 0.0071
Where y = is Tmax (depature from mean) - Tmin (deparuture from the mean) for each year in the period, and x is the year.
Plotting the DTR shows that the more recent years have more erratic deviations from the mean. There were 2 years (1994 and 2002 with are large spike in DTR despite the overall slight downward ward trend.
Wow@30: I disagree. I got the figures of 4C (orbital) and 2C (Co2 feedback) from one of the authors of the paper I cited (private corresp.). I doubt that there was a mix-up. I will try to find additional sources for these numbers.
#26: Point taken, David. I guess I should have written: what has he achieved *scientifically*?
It seems like the wrong way around, but a lot depends on whether the "CO2 alone" bit really IS "CO2 alone", in which case there's not a lot of difference between what I thought I knew and what the paper authors know.
@ peterd / Wow:
[RC says](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-t…) 1/3 of the forcing was from CO2 and 2/3 from albedo.
2K from CO2 would give 3.6 for sensitivity: 2 / ((280 - 180) / 180).
How much of an effect would this have on warming?
[Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations](http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/howarth/Howarth%20et%20al%20%202011.pdf)
Dave R (#37): that seems about right. :-)
I guess another finding from this work that is lost on the denial crowd is that the increase in CO2 by ~100 ppmv at deglaciation took place over a period of ~4200years. Humankind has added caused a comparable increase over a very much shorter period.
Marco@27 - Thanks! I've used that site before but didn't think of it this time. Exactly the resource required.
jakerman@30 - Different time period. I used BOM data (see below) and rinky dink Excel to plot a linear regression.
And considering global warming involve global climate change also consider the global picture to allow for changes in circulation patterns that can result from climate change:
I was wondering why dirunal range trends are not as uniform as mean temp trends over the similar time periods/area. Eg, for the same period, the US and Australia have been warming, as expected for such large land area and the time period, but diurnal range trends are opposite (global) expectations- at least with the data I used (see below). Wondering if diurnal range trends are more influenced by factors that mean temps aren't.
jakerman@33 - I used data from 1976 to 2010 from this page:
(click on 'raw data' if you want to verify)
Barry that checks out for me. My comment would be that plotting the data shows the whole data set has a more consistent trend down, and the small subset of data (1976 to 2010) its sensitive to a 7 year period from 2002-2009 where there was variation from the longer term trend.
I'd look for circulation changes or cloud change or ENSO factors to see if they are associated with the 7 year anomaly.
I.e. IIRC Trendberth predicted warming feedback from less cloud allowing [more solar insolation](http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Staff/Fasullo/refs/Trenberth2009FasulloGRL…).
Thanks for your comments, jakerman. I'll follow your advice as well as Marco's link.
You state..."The paper has precisely four (4) uses of the word uncertainty, that's less than one per page"
Heh Heh. So how many "uncertainties" does a chock-full make?
How convenient that you ignore all the other "uncertainies" in the paper. Here are a few of the better ones that apparently don't exist:
1. "There are significant gaps in our knowledge"
2. "Our present knowledge of the factors
that determine the abundance and distribution
of key groups of marine organisms is so
limited that it is unlikely we will be able to
predict such changes within the next decade with reasonable certainty"
3. "Humans have affected virtually every
major biogeochemical cycle (Table 2), but
the effects of these impacts on the interactions
between these elemental cycles are
4. "we have considerable information
about specific aspects of the carbon cycle,
but many of the couplings and feedbacks
are poorly understood."
5. "we severely test the limits of our understanding of how the Earth system will respond."
6. "A look at the current understanding of
glacial-interglacial CO2 changes illustrates
the problem. Perhaps surprisingly, there is no
consensus on the causes of these changes."
I declare that the less we understand, the stronger our policies should be...based on that lack of understanding!
Chris, with that logic, we should have a policy just for you.
Lotharrson @32 states...
"As Betula stated in his part of the quote "This uncertainty should not be confused with lack of knowledge" but Betula went ahead and confused it anyway"
The paper also states..."Knowledge of these feedbacks does not give us predictive capability for the coming decades or centuries"
So...never let our uncertainty or lack of predictive capability be used as an excuse to postpone prudent policy decisions based on the best lack of understanding we have at the time."
Nothing confusing to see here. Move along now...
Loved that story about Inhofe's total disregard for aviation rules, what a prat to do that.
I can understand the situation of those workers on the runway having been in similar position in the mid 1960s when sorting out a Sea Venom stopped off centre of the duty runway at a FAA (Fleet Air Arm) airstation with a burst nose tyre which we were changing and then we all rolling for the grass as a Sea Vixen landed on and screamed past nearly clashing wing-tips with the Sea Venom. By the time we heard it and acted it was almost on us!
Since it is impossible to predict exactly which individual wasp will sting any precisely defined point on Betula's skin, Betula concludes it is a good idea to poke a wasp's nest with a stick.
I was responding to Chris and Lotharsson, both of whom you just declared to be equivalent to a species of predators, parasites and scavengers. That's not nice.
The queen protecting the nest?
In see Chrisopher Monckton is coming to Australia for a speaking tour in the middle of the year. Ross McKittrick will be accompanying him.
What would be the best way to organise to counter Monckton's falsehoods and turn his gift-of-the-gab against him. One of the few bright spots of Monckton's last tour was Tim instructing him in Dr Pinker's gender. I doubt even Monckton will make that mistake again.
> I was responding to Chris and Lotharsson, both of whom you just declared to be equivalent to a species of predators, parasites and scavengers.
No wonder you are confused by the science if your comprehension of straightforward English is that bad.
Good to see the same old 'open-mindedness' here at Deltoid - ie like SLotharsson #49. What is is with you people.
P.S. Tim I hear Monkton is coming again. Dare for another 'debate' ?
@12. Being a front seat driver for a large aussie icon myself, I can say with a degree of authority (as if you needed any) that Inhofe's behaviour is not only grossly unprofessional, but also quite bizarre and extraordinarily dangerous. I'd be tempted to relate this lack of thought process to his poor grasp of science, except that many of my colleagues exhibit the latter (poor grasp of science) too!
@43. Speaking of logic Betula, you should apply some to your own arguments.
There are many uncertainties in the theory of gravity, yet still things fall and we have a rough idea that walking off a 15th floor balcony will be severely detrimental to your health. There are many uncertainties in our knowledge of the immune system, yet vaccinations still prevent disease, and we can even develop new ones. There are many uncertainties in our knowledge of evolution, yet it is clear that we have been around a long, long time, more primitive creatures were around long before us, and the planet has been around far longer still.
If you want to dismiss AGW as a viable proposition, then you should perhaps be equally dismissive of all of the above topics, and more, given that you apparently believe that a particular number of uncertainties automatically invalidates any scientific topic.
Not sure if anyone's covered this at Deltoid, but John McLean is apparently [making rather interesting predictions](http://www.skepticalscience.com/mclean-exaggerating-natural-cycles.html), although it should be noted that elements are quite specific and other aspects are vague with no apparent credible interpretation at hand.
And this may also have been noted, but Watts apparently thinks [a few harp seals are predictive of cooling](http://climateprogress.org/2011/04/01/wattsupwiththat-psychic-seals-hav…).
That's the same Watts who's apparently happy to accept the results of scientific work ... [only as long as it agrees with his preconceptions](http://www.salon.com/news/global_warming/index.html?story=/tech/htww/20…).
@50 "Speaking of logic Betula, you should apply some to your own arguments."
Mike, you seem to be upset with the authors of the paper. I simply used their own words as facts...no argument.
Just to be certain you understand, I have posted some of these quotes again. Pay attention now:
"There are significant gaps in our knowledge"
"Our present knowledge of the factors that determine the abundance and distribution of key groups of marine organisms is so limited that it is unlikely we will be able to predict such changes within the next decade with reasonable certainty"
"Humans have affected virtually every major biogeochemical cycle (Table 2), but the effects of these impacts on the interactions between these elemental cycles are poorly understood"
"we have considerable information about specific aspects of the carbon cycle, but many of the couplings and feedbacks are poorly understood."
"we severely test the limits of our understanding of how the Earth system will respond."
"A look at the current understanding of glacial-interglacial CO2 changes illustrates the problem. Perhaps surprisingly, there is no consensus on the causes of these changes."
"Knowledge of these feedbacks does not give us predictive capability for the coming decades or centuries"
I intentionally left out 4 phrases that contain the word "uncertainty" so as not to upset Chris. Chris, who apparently was upset enough to go through and count the number of times "uncertainty" was used as way to validate the certainty of it's usage.
The only thing the authors appear to be certain about, is the need for prudent policies that will somehow counter act
their non existing predictive capabilities in order to achieve a vision.
Mike, your vision, as well as others on this site, is the same vision as the authors of this paper. It's called tunnel vision.
The problem for you is to explain how the consequences of what are known to be destructive, yet unpredictable, effects must necessarily be benign.
>I was responding to Chris and Lotharsson, both of whom you just declared to be equivalent to a species of predators, parasites and scavengers. That's not nice.
You flatter us, sir, with the implication that our wit and reason hath found its mark and stung thee so grievously.
I admire your humility and self-abnegation, insofar as concerning parasitoid wasps, you would compare yourself to a horned caterpillar, a pernicious agricultural pest.
I was directed to an article by Bob Carter and co in online Quadrant a little while ago, and couldn't resist summarising the main points.
Hope you don't mind this plug:
@54..."The problem for you is to explain how the consequences of what are known to be destructive, yet unpredictable, effects must necessarily be benign."
No bright light,the problem with the authors of the paper is to explain how prudent policies will correct the unknown causes and the unpredictable consequences.
"There are many uncertainties in the theory of gravity, yet still things fall and we have a rough idea that walking off a 15th floor balcony will be severely detrimental to your health."
Mike, good comparison and I understand what you're saying....uncertainties in the theory of gravity should not be confused with lack of knowledge nor should they be used as an excuse to postpone prudent policy decisions to reduce global gravity.
"There are many uncertainties in our knowledge of the immune system, yet vaccinations still prevent disease, and we can even develop new ones"
Excellent point and right on subject as usual. So it would be prudent policy to create a vaccination program for a disease we are uncertain of with a vaccine that is poorly understood, all the while knowing we have no predictive capabiliy. You can be the guinea pig.
"There are many uncertainties in our knowledge of evolution"
Once again, relevance is your forte. Maybe we can reach our vision of eliminating poverty throughout the world with prudent policies designed to reduce global evolution.
Pardon my French, but Betula's argument seems to be like this: "We don't know what we're fucking with, so let's just keep fucking with it."
Uncertainty cuts both ways. Scientists can predict fairly confidently what large effects we will see from continued warming. What *is* uncertain is when those effects will occur and how serious they will be. Now there are also, I'm sure, numerous smaller effects that are much harder to predict.
Climate science estimates tend arguably to be on the conservative side. Time and time again we see effects happening faster than predicted. Time and again we also see unexpected negative consequences of warming. The uncertainties you highlight really shouldn't make you that confident in delaying "prudent policies", but apparently they do.
I always find a quick, smart riposte far more convincing than data. All you need now is for Koch brothers to fund a good graphic designer to work for yhou and you could become as famous Joanne Codling.
Speaking of Ms. Codling, I wonder why she doesn't take up the suggestion to aggregate the huge mass of amateur weather observations available from farmers all over the world in a project like [Old Weather](http://www.oldweather.org/). Whoever pays for her site could easily afford to do so and it would undoubtedly reveal that the trend line has a gradient of zero.
> ..good comparison and I understand what you're saying....
Er, saying it does not make it so. For example, you continue:
> ...uncertainties in the theory of gravity should not be confused with lack of knowledge nor should they be used as an excuse to postpone prudent policy decisions to reduce global gravity.
Cogitate for a moment on why that analogy does not correspond to what Mike was saying.
If you can't understand why...perhaps you should cogitate on the fact that the conclusions that you draw may not be on as firm an intellectual footing as you seem to think they are.
> So it would be prudent policy to create a vaccination program for a disease we are uncertain of with a vaccine that is poorly understood, all the while knowing we have no predictive capabiliy.
Interesting. Isn't this is roughly what happens reasonably commonly in the medical field? There are many diseases that we are "uncertain of" - in the more precise senses that we don't know precisely how they work, and/or even precisely how to detect them with 100% reliability, and/or let alone precisely how to predict how any given patient will respond to any given treatment or vaccine - and yet we still develop and test and prescribe new treatments and vaccines for them.
You're trying to hang your argument on uncertainties expressed in one paper and desperately hoping that everyone ignores the bounds placed on climate response with reasonable confidence by a mass of other evidence. That's scientifically naive - or deliberately disingenuous.
The interesting thing is your current argument seems to depend on an assertion that this paper is absolutely correct (AND that your interpretation of its results are correct, but we'll leave that aside for now.) One wonders how you determined that this paper means what you say it does and that it outweighs all the other scientific evidence that suggests your interpretation is not justified.
Well, I say "one wonders" but of course it's a rhetorical question...
> Betula's argument seems to be like this: "We don't know what we're fucking with, so let's just keep fucking with it."
Pardon my edit, but I think it goes more like this:
"We don't know what we're fucking with, but we're pretty certain that fucking with it won't cause any significant problems".
In other words Betula's argument is self-refuting: there's an implicit assumption of low uncertainty about outcomes under one set of climate forcing scenarios that contradicts the assertion of high uncertainty from outcomes under different climate forcing scenarios. Betula can't argue that low uncertainty for business-as-usual scenarios derives from the science, because Betula has already asserted that it's too uncertain to be useful for deriving policy.
At this point the goalposts are usually shifted or the argument becomes "climate has always changed" - which ironically also depends on the science - or one of the other unsupported denialist talking points.
OK, now you are showing yourself up to be a complete dill-pickle (excuse the insult, but if you want to play that game, I'll bite back).
The entire point of my argument, which apparently flew at 50,000 ft over your head, was that there are substantial uncertainties in many well established scientific endeavours yet those uncertainties do not preclude making certain realistic predictions, conclusions, actions, and so on.
I don't know how hard this is to understand. Maybe I'm just weird, because I don't have a problem with the context of the argument. You, on the contrary, seem to be prone to listing particular uncertainties, or even particularly vague statements about uncertainties, and leaping to the conclusion of "....and therefore we can see the entire proposition is all a load of crap".
You can be a sarcastic fuckwit (sorry Tim, it's the most accurate word I could think of) all you like, but I'm quite clearly not alluding to "reducing global gravity" or "reducing global evolution". Only a completely brainless tosser would so grossly misinterpret what I said in that way. I was stating in very simple terms for you Betula, that uncertainties in a field of knowledge do not invalidate the founding principles, or the predictive ability, or the consequences of that field of knowledge.
Now I can sit down here in front of my computer and try to explain this in terms I might use with a 5 year old, but even then I'm not sure you'll get my point. But let's just put it this way:
It is abundantly clear and perfectly well understood that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we are producing very large amounts of this in addition to what comes with the normal carbon cycle, the world is quite clearly warming, there is a paucity of evidence for explanations other than greenhouse warming, this warming has consequences, some of which may be good, but many of which are most likely not, and that it might be an idea to consider how we'll deal with the consequences of our actions.
It's not really that hard, conceptually.
Life is too short to waste time feeding trolls.
To paraphrase Betula (and many other idiots) argument:
We don't know what powers the great spot on Neptune, therefore we don't know the moon exists.
"Chris, who apparently was upset enough to go through and count the number of times "uncertainty" was used"
Betula has evidently never used the 'find' function in documents.
I used said function to find the quotes Betula presents, here are the first couple with context added:
"There are significant gaps in our knowledge that limit our ability to predict the magnitude of changes in oceanic uptake, but the likely changes in the biological pump are too small to counteract the projected CO2 emissions in
the coming century."
"Our present knowledge ... marine organisms ... with reasonable certainty. These uncertainties affect our ability to predict specific responses, but not the sign of the changes in atmospheric CO2 or the impact of this change
on upper ocean pH."
I could go on, but it is obvious that Betula's point only stands if these quotes are presented out of context. It is also important to note that none of these quotes has anything to do with the graph I posted first up. From the first Betula has studiously avoided referring to this figure, instead choosing to attack the paper for:
1) Rightly stating the uncertainties (it's perhaps cogent to note here that nearly every scientific paper published will talk about uncertainty at some point - if we knew the answer why study the question?)
2) The affiliations of the authors and their organisation's stated aims based on a document published ten years after the paper was published.
As stated early on in post #17: "Betula@8 relies on fallacious conflation of the scientific use of the term uncertainty - as in "uncertainty bounds" or "confidence intervals" - and the popular use of the word as in "don't know" and "could be completely wrong".
Accordingly Betula's hysterical conclusions are not justified by Betula's references..."
And this still hold true throughout the rest of Betula's contributions on this thread...
Sorry, after posting the above I went & had a look at some more of Betula's quotes & found that these two posted seperately:
"we have considerable information about specific aspects of the carbon cycle, but many of the couplings and feedbacks are poorly understood."
"we severely test the limits of our understanding of how the Earth system will respond."
are actually from the same paragraph!
Let us look at the paragraph in full and wonder why Betula chose to elide certain parts of it...
"The global carbon cycle is affected by human activities and is coupled to other climatological and biogeochemical processes. As discussed above, we have considerable information about specific aspects of the carbon cycle, but many of the couplings and feedbacks are poorly understood. As we drift further away from the domain that characterized the preindustrial Earth system, we severely test the limits of our understanding of how the Earth system will respond."
(Betula's next quote is the start of the next paragraph.)
Betula states "I intentionally left out..." which is possibly the truest thing in any of Betula's posts.
And further to Chris S.(#66), why all this fuss about an ELEVEN-year-old paper? Has Betula shown that the "uncertainties" mentioned there are still reflected in current knowledge? I suspect not.
> "As we drift further away from the domain that characterized the preindustrial Earth system, we severely test the limits of our understanding of how the Earth system will respond."
...which, apart from the quote-mining that is evidence of spectacular dishonesty or misunderstanding, reinforces my earlier point: Betula is arguing low uncertainty if we continue with business as usual, but the science is calling bullshit on that proposition, even in the very paper that Betula cites as support for Betula's proposition.
I think this troll has had enough from me. It's clear Betula is deeply misguided and does not care to be disabused of erroneous notions.
#68 peterd: That would involve Betula trawling through the 289 papers that cited this one in the past 11 years, rather than trolling through deltoid - I don't think we can expect that much of Betula.
>No bright light,the problem with the authors of the paper is to explain how prudent policies will correct the unknown causes and the unpredictable consequences.
Since the particular cause of any given house fire is unknowable in advance, and it is impossible to predict which houses in a community may suffer fires, nor the extent of how widely those fires may spread; then there is no self-evidently prudent reason to have a community fire department, nor to establish building codes designed to prevent or reduce house fires.
Have I got it right?
luminous, I think you're right. And now I realise all our advice to parents is misguided.
We have no way of knowing in advance which particular litre of water in the uncountable number of litres of water in the world might drown a toddler. So there is no point in supervising infants in the bath. And it would be a waste of scarce resources to spend money on swimming lessons because we can't even tell whether it would be seawater or freshwater that might drown any given child.
Time and effort is thereby released to deal with more constructive activities than fruitless hand wringing over a child's inability to swim.
I'd just like to go on record to say that I quite like dill pickles. Usually accompanied by slices of nice salami.
Anyway, do you think the person posting at Jo Nova's as "BobC" is *the* BobC?
If so, then I am astounded at the low intellectual calibre of somebody who has managed to pursue a long and otherwise apparently successful academic career. He's a blithering idiot with no research or analysis skills and given to making easily demonstrated false assertions.
And this is the guy (if it *is* the guy) that the Liberals wanted included on the government climate change panel.
#70, ChrisS, yes, I doubt Betula would bother reading them. In Google Scholar, when I checked yesterday, there were 400+ citations listed to this paper. I followed up a few and I will try to post separately on just one of those, which I found in a most interesting place.
Don't feed them zoot. (#64) Listen to them ! They may know a thing of two that you don't ! Especially about CO2 nonsense :-)
Dim Lit @71...
I don't recall the authors of the paper referring to house fires, but considering your inability to stay focused, I'm not surprised you would go that way.
You may not believe this, but the results of a house fire, left unchecked, are not unknown or unpredictable...there is no upside.
According to your logic, fire departments and fire codes are formed with a poor understanding of foreseeable causes and a complete lack of predictive capability. I need to run this by my neighbor who is a Captain in the fire department:
"Hey Doug, is that wiring code for the new library based on uncertainties and a poor understanding of electrical fires along with a complete lack of predictive capabilities from the fire marshal?"
"Funny you should ask! We had a panel of experts made up of politicians, union representatives, economists and a few electricians (hand selected and paid by the unions), plug some data into our Global Electrical Fire Model and come up with a variety of numbers. We then used the average to create hypothetical scenarios from which the code was based on. This way we can complete the building as we visioned it and also end poverty!"
Dimmy, based on your brilliant comparison, I can only imagine the fire policy you must have implemented in your own home...
I can see it now, someone has turned up the thermostat 1 degree in Dim Lit's house. Feeling the rise in temperature, Dimmy sets off the sprinkler system and runs pell mell into the night screaming for the fire department...
Adelady, as a child, were you ever held underwater for a considerable length of time?
Betula, to help you understand some of the comments you seem to have misinterpreted, try reading [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony).
Also, look upwards from time to time, as most of the commentary here seems to be going way over your head.
OK. The story goes as follows. Following up, through Google Scholar, on papers that cite Falkowski et al (2000), I was led to a pdf of Siegenthaler at al (âStable Carbon Cycle-Climate Relationship during the late Pleistoceneâ, Science, v,310, p1313 (2005)). I already had the pdf on my hard drive, but the link to the free pdf from Google Scholar caught my eye:
Closer investigation indicates that this is the website of the Tuolumne County Republican Party.
Now, I havenât checked my map to see to see where in CA Tuolumne County is located, but somehow the thought of Republicans gathering (over a Tea Party?) to talk about ice cores rather amuses me.
Betula: how is the reading going?
If you don't have time for the full papers, how about trying the abstracts? From the Abstract of Falkowski et al:
"Our knowledge of the carbon cycle within the oceans, terrestrial ecosystems, and the atmosphere is sufficiently extensive to permit us to conclude that although natural
processes can potentially slow the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2, there is no natural savior waiting to assimilate all the anthropogenically produced CO2 in the
> Adelady, as a child, were you ever held underwater for a considerable length of time?
Desperate troll sounds desperate.
> You may not believe this, but the results of a house fire, left unchecked, are not unknown or unpredictable...there is no upside.
Unintelligent troll does not grok analogy.
And berates analogy provider for being dumb, to wit.
The Poe index is increasing with every comment. Keep digging!
betula "... as a child, were you ever held underwater.."
As it happens, my family made sure that we kids were never left alone in the bath. And I did the same for my kids.
And I had swimming lessons - and so did my kids.
These are sensible things that parents do for children. Not because they're fearful or unrealistic, but because they understand that children and water mix well only when the dangers of that mix are avoided.
You spend money giving your kids swimming lessons? Surely you should wait until there is more certainly that you kids would drown? While any uncertainty exists you should argue resist all precaution.
Socialist plot by the swimming instructors!
LB likens Betula's denial of the need for CO2 mitigation, based on on the argument that some uncertainty eixists, to denial of the need for for fire departments based on the arugment that there are uncertainties surounding development of future fires:
>Since the particular cause of any given house fire is unknowable in advance, and it is impossible to predict which houses in a community may suffer fires, nor the extent of how widely those fires may spread; then there is no self-evidently prudent reason to have a community fire department, nor to establish building codes designed to prevent or reduce house fires.
Betual restorts to fooling himself like a child playing peekaboo:
>*According to your logic, fire departments and fire codes are formed with a poor understanding of foreseeable causes and a complete lack of predictive capability.*
Betula's need to misrepresent LB's argument indicates the weakness of his own.
Betual has it in reverse. LB want's a fire department. Her analogy relates to both having sound evidence and justification despite uncertainties.
If Betula's argument is simply an apeal to uncertainty then its a looser. The [uncertaintly is skewed](http://cdn.greenoptions.com/e/e1/1000x800px-e12af180_sensitivity-big.gif). There is [far greter downside possibilites to AGW](http://www.skepticalscience.com/detailed-look-at-climate-sensitivity.ht…) than anything elese.
#74 peterd: I was looking at the ISI citations rather than Google Scholar, both metrics have their advantages & disadvantages.
Two citations that caught my eye:
The oceanic fixed nitrogen and nitrous oxide budgets: Moving targets as we enter the anthropocene? Codispoti et al (2001) Scientia Marina 65 pp 85-105
Abstract: "New data force us to raise previous estimates of oceanic denitrification. Our revised estimate of similar to 450 Tg N yr(-1) (Tg = 10(12) g) produces an oceanic fixed N budget with a large, deficit (similar to 200 Tg N yr(-1)) that can be explained only by positing an ocean that has deviated far from a steady-state, the need for a major upwards revision of fixed N inputs, particularly nitrogen fixation, or both..."
Plumbing the global carbon cycle: Integrating inland waters into the terrestrial carbon budget Cole et al (2007) Ecosystems 10 pp 171-184
Abstract: "... By taking published estimates of gas exchange, sediment accumulation, and carbon transport for a variety of aquatic systems, we have constructed a budget for the role of inland water ecosystems in the global carbon cycle. Our analysis conservatively estimates that inland waters annually receive, from a combination of background and anthropogenically altered sources, on the order of 1.9 Pg C y(-1) from the terrestrial landscape, of which about 0.2 is buried in aquatic sediments, at least 0.8 (possibly much more) is returned to the atmosphere as gas exchange while the remaining 0.9 Pg y(-1) is delivered to the oceans, roughly equally as inorganic and organic carbon. Thus, roughly twice as much C enters inland aquatic systems from land as is exported from land to the sea ..."
Unknowns become uncertainties become estimates become (sometimes) known. This is how science works.
> Also, look upwards from time to time, as most of the commentary here seems to be going way over your head.
Either because the brow is too low and the thoughts glance off, or the troll keeps ducking and complaining about how it's all so difficult.
Betula, we don't understand how gravity works, so I guess we'd better stop spending money on airplanes since we might learn how to fly! Worse, those "proofs" of how fixed winged flight works is based on COMPUTER MODELS! GIGO!!!
>You may not believe this, but the results of a house fire, left unchecked, are not unknown or unpredictable...there is no upside.
You may not believe this, but ecosystems and civilizations have been known to collapse. The results are predictably a downer.
It may well not be possible for ecologists nor historians to reconstruct the precise causality of the unraveling of species interactions in the former nor the fragmenting of supporting social institutions in the latter, nor exactly which failures in particular were most critical, nor the timing and sequence of their consequent loss of viability. This uncertain knowledge makes it difficult to predict how other existing systems, which are, in addition, structurally different in many ways, may suffer similar catastrophic changes. We are nonetheless certain beyond a reasonable doubt, sudden climate change, many times linked to imprudent land and resource use policies, has often been a precipitating factor for both.
If imprudent policies continue to be followed, it would be small comfort were the precise details of the timing and sequence of our downfall perfectly predictable.
The statement you posted says nothing. In fact, it's very similar to this one, which also says nothing:
"Again, as in the case of marine ecosystems,
we can predict that the negative feedback
afforded by terrestrial ecosystems in
removing anthropogenic CO2 from atmosphere
will continue; however, the sink
strength will almost certainly weaken. The
exact magnitude of the change in sink
strength remains unclear."
Yes, the sink strength will "almost" certainly weaken. We're not certain when, we're unclear about how much, but we're almost certain it will weaken!"
(So our almost certainty is confirmed by our uncertainty)
Now, if each of you could grab a few of our brochures titled "Our Vision To Eliminate Poverty" on the way out, we would appreciate it. And be sure to distribute them to your friends! Thank you.
And by the way, anticipating another trenchant comment like this from Chris @28...."Betula doesn't want to eradicate poverty", I will simply say that I don't believe enacting fire codes and giving swimming lessons is the way to go about it.
Ask a scientist whether the sun will rise in the morning & she'll say "almost certainly".
Betula - do you have any proof of the existence of these "eliminate poverty" brochures? Aside of course from a draft document produced last year. Any evidence ofany brochures or similar in existence at the time the paper was published?
No, didn't think so...
That statement actually says a lot, but you need context. There was a hope in some corners that the earth might be able to absorb more atmopsheric CO2 as CO2 concentrations increased. Basically, that statement says that was a false hope. That means ~50 of the CO2 we emit will continue to accumulate in the atmosphere, as it has in the past. In fact, the likelihood is that it will be more that 50% as CO2 rises.
@72 Adelady, as a child, were you ever held underwater for a considerable length of time?
Betula, there are ways and means of convincing readers here that you have the maturity to listen to and understand reasoned argument and technical facts.
That is not one of them.
I can see it now, someone has turned up the thermostat 1 degree in Dim Lit's house. Feeling the rise in temperature, Dimmy sets off the sprinkler system and runs pell mell into the night screaming for the fire department..
I'll be glad if I have totally misinterpreted this as an attempt to compare the consequences of a 1 degree increase in a house heating thermostat with a 1 degree increase in an average planetary temperature.
For if not, it would truly be one of the most ridiculous "apples versus oranges" comparisons I have ever heard.
Ol' Betula is doing a fine job in reminding us that denialism is still a strong force. Mainly in the intellectually challenged, but that's budget cuts for ya.
But nevertheless so too should we drench ourselves in tears, along with Betula, weeping at all the lost opportunities that horrid AGW believers have erected to obstruct Betula and his corporate allies from relieving the burden on the world's poor, if only they could.
Whoa, whoa and thrice whoa. Diddums.
Of course some malcontents may maliciously suggest that Betula Inc. were quite happily engineering, and seemingly entirely unphased by world poverty until another, larger threat to the wallet materialised.
But then, in the face of such breathtaking hypocrisy and worse naivete they would, wouldn't they?
Betula: I think youâre missing the point, yet again.
You have tried to quote- rather selectively in my view- from an ELEVEN-year-old paper that summarised aspects of the carbon cycle, emphasising the word âuncertaintyâ to suit your point of view. The gist of the paper is given in the Abstract, as I wrote [I paraphrase]: we already know enough about the carbon cycle to know that there is no ânatural saviourâ that is suddenly going to take up the CO2 that we are adding to the atmosphere. Therefore, it can be expected that CO2 in the atmosphere will continue to rise. They also suggest that we do not know enough about the cycle to know what the effects on the cycle itself, and its feedbacks, through efforts to offset the rising CO2 (as by carbon sequestration) are going to be. This is where uncertainty becomes more relevant. You continue to play on the word âuncertaintyâ as if you have made some Great Discovery that undermines the entire argument about AGW. You have not.
I asked whether you had made any effort even to determine whether the âuncertaintyâ or âlack of consensusâ about some aspects of the science mentioned in this 2000 paper is reflected in the current (todayâs) accepted knowledge. Your lack of a response indicates that you have done no independent reading, to verify how the accepted knowledge in the various aspects of the C cycle covered in this paper has developed since 2000. According to you, then, scientific knowledge, and specifically climate-science knowledge, is static? Consider just one example: the âlack of consensusâ (p.294, para. 4) concerning the causes of the processes occurring at glacial terminations. Is there really a lack of consensus *now*? Recall that it was not so long ago that the denialosphere was all abuzz with talk of the paper by Stott et al., âSouthern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warmingâ (Science Express, Sept. 27, 2007). This paper was cited by some know-alls as âproofâ that CO2 always lags temperature (so letâs not do anything about CO2, right?). But this paper clarifies the sequence of events at the last termination: as the Royal Society explained it (I use and adapt their wording), the end of the last ice age began in the higher latitudes of the southern hemisphere before sweeping into the tropics, and this study confirms previous data that elevated levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lagged behind the initial warming event - by about 1000 years - and that the principal driver of climate change is the sun, with carbon dioxide ( CO2 ) amplifying the effects. It acted to reinforce what was previously only suspected, and therefore helped solidify scientific understanding.
I suspect that you- like many others who post their nonsense on climate blogs- have a very limited comprehension of how science works, Bet. As Chris S noted, science involves, in part, a move from the completely unknown, through stages of decreased uncertainty, to accepted knowledge about how nature works. But âaccepted knowledgeâ is probably a term thatâs completely foreign to your vocabulary. Like the fools who cavil at conditional terms like âmightâ or âcouldâ or âsuggestâ or âindicatesâ in scientific papers, you want absolute certainty on everything. Unfortunately, neither science nor life are about absolute certainty, Bet.
Anybody else feel like betula has hijacked the thread with his/her bullcrap?
I think killfile is indicated...
Yeah. You know, I don't have a problem debating with genuine sceptics or even ignorant ones.
But when their entire argument rests on the interpretation of a few vague and imprecise terms listed in a decade-old paper, and is completely devoid of any actual A+B=C science, it gets very tiring, very quickly.
If Betula walks off a very tall ocean cliff it is probable that he will die (but heck, there may be a convenient rock ledge just 6 feet below).
However "probable" in Betula's own native tongue means "so much uncertainty that the premise can't be trusted at all and you needn't worry yourself too much about it", therefore I trust that Betula will have no problem in finding said tall ocean cliff and proving to us all how smart he is.
I have asked this elsewhere but not had any good references yet...
I would like comments on what I have been told:
The world has about one person per two hectares of land.
Before the famine in Ireland, potatoes and a cow could feed 20 to 30 people per hectare.
Chinese families could feed themselves on 1/16th of a hectare. That is about 50 people per hectare.
Permaculturists can grow food almost anywhere (e.g. Sepp Holzer in the Austrian Alps, Geoff Lawton in the Jordanian desert)
Whatâs the biological barrier to feeding only one person for every two hectares of land, when 50 per hectare may be possible?
THE IMPORTANT BIT
There appears to be no âscientificâ work in the UK on this but plenty aiming to feed the world on internationally traded monoculture produce. Anyone know of good research anwhere? Peer reviewed if possible.
> But when their entire argument rests on the interpretation of a few vague and imprecise terms listed in a decade-old paper,...
Oh, it's much worse than that!
Betula's argument relies on arguing that scientific uncertainty is a good reason to avoid using the science as input to public policy...
...whilst simultaneously acting as if the very same science and any associated uncertainty do not apply to the "keep emitting as much as you like" public policy that Betula appears to advocate. And those actions are taking the climate system and ecosystem firmly out of the (geologically and ecologically) recent normal.
The valid argument is not "do we or do we not know enough to decide whether to do something about climate change". That's a false frame. The valid argument is, "given what we know about climate change along with our confidence in the various pieces of knowledge, what should we do"? "Keep emitting what you like" is merely one possible policy, and arguing that its outcomes are somehow more certain (let alone prudent) than those of other policies is somewhere between deeply naive and a flat-out con.
If Betula understands this, then Betula is simply hoping to deceive less sophisticated readers.
If Betula does not understand this, then evidence suggests Betula is not competent enough in this arena to even understand why Betula is wrong - let alone to determine what prudent policies might actually be.
I don't know about the rest of your question, but the statement "before the famine in Ireland, potatoes and a cow could feed 20 to 30 people per hectare" is utter tosh. Even it if were remotely true (it isn't) it would reflect a diet we would consider totally inadequate, so as a basis for comparison its useless.
Firstly, its just wrong - lets do the maths.
While yields of up to 100 tons per hectare have been achieved with modern practices, before the famine in Ireland, crops of ~6 tons per acre (15 tons per hectare) were normal.
Many estimates point to consumption by labourers of 10 - 16 pounds (4.5 - 7 kilograms) of potatoes per day - that sounds a lot, but this was pretty much the only food they ate. So 15 tons per hectare would feed 6 - 7 labourers for a year - women and children consume between 30% and 80% of that depending on age. Discount the 18 - 24% lost to wastage, need for seed potatoes for next year etc. Given the "statistical" family unit from the 1841 census, (3.49 people - source below gives breakdown of age profile) I would estimate you could maintain 8 people of all ages per hectare, eating nothing but spuds.
Although the idea that such a smallholder could afford to keep a cow is rather laughable, lets consider animal consumption. For meat, the conversion rate for beef and pork works out about about 35 kg of spuds to 1 kg of meat on a cow or pig (it depends a lot on their "housing" though). Meat consumption per capita varies between the richest (100+kg/capita/year) and poorest (3 kg/capita/year), but the global average is ~50 kg per head. Raising that much meat would take 1.75 tons of potatoes - so again, 1 hectare could support enough livestock to raise enough meat for about 7 people per year to consume the global average amount (that's just the meat for them, not their whole diet). I don't have data for milk production, but just to keep a cow alive takes a minimum of 3.5 tons of potatoes per year (10 kg/day).
Secondly, it kind of implies that eating nothing but potatoes would be okay with people today, which is silly. Smashing the above together, adjusting for a more modern diet (since these numbers are supposed to prove something about today), and allowing for leaving enough potatoes and livestock to produce next years food, 1 hectare would produce enough meat and potatoes (and very little else) to feed the statistically average family from the 1841 census - 3.5 people. That's broken down between about 4 tons of spuds (half the just-potato diet amounts above) and about 11 tons split between fattening animals for slaughter and maintaining animals to make more animals for food (and some milk, probably). And that does not come within cooee of a modern western diet.
Most of the stats come from here: http://www.tara.tcd.ie/jspui/bitstream/2262/7818/1/jssisiVolXXIPartVI_7…
Geoff Beacon "Peer reviewed if possible."
There's the rub. A quick Scholar look gives lots and lots of references to Mollison and Holmgren and very few others. afaik, agricultural scientists have been very dismissive of the approaches of organic and permaculture proponents. (I don't blame them when it comes to biodynamics), but the notion that soil was merely a passive structure allowing the passage of air, water and NPK has been very strong until very recently.
I know there's some good work being done by various NGOs and charities. As for scholarly work, I expect searching for work on soil structures, water retention, "multiple use" strategies and other creative word-smithing might bring up some references. My expectation is that anyone wanting to produce publishable work in the agricultural science area would avoid words like permaculture like the plague. Career suicide is no way to get further grants.
Geoff, there's this:
Evaluation of permaculture in Malawi. Moses et al. (2008) Annual Report - Soil and Agricultural Engineering Commodity Group, 2007/08 pp 40-53
Abstract: "The current cropping systems such as monocultures have led into many environmental problems such as pollution, soil infertility, low crop production and lack of food diversification. There is a need to design systems that will help to reverse the current problems. One of such a system is Pamercaulture which mimics nature and involves a multi-approach in addressing environmental issues. Hence, the purpose of this research was to design and evaluate the effect of the designed permaculture cropping system on soil fertility, crop production and food diversification per unit area under Malawis conditions. The research was conducted at Chitedze. There were 13 different treatments (Maize, Soybean, Common beans, Ground nuts, Sunflower, Cassava grown in different combinations) in a RCBD replicated 3 times. In general there was more increase in soil reaction and OM values in permaculture plots over the conventional system ranging from 2.5% to 8% and 100 to 200% respectively. The results of individual grain crop yields were significantly different at P=0.05 among the treatments. There were also significant differences of the overall crop yield per unit area in terms of monitory values at P=0.05. Permaculture cropping system with water harvesting technologies gave the highest overall grain yield that was valued at an equivalent of MK514,395/ha followed by permaculture on flat beds with income of MK447,180/ha while the lowest was soybean at a value of MK131,681/ha. Permaculture is better than the conventional cropping system in soil fertility management and farmers are likely to benefit more per unit area with crop and food diversification."
But I'm not sure if it's peer-reviewed. The lack of citation is potentially problematic...
FrankD, adelady, Chris S.
Thank you all. That is all very helpful. I'll post something on this open thread when I have had time to consider - a few days probably.
Hope you can look back later to comment.
Peterd @93..."You continue to play on the word âuncertaintyâ as if you have made some Great Discovery that undermines the entire argument about AGW."
Sorry Peterd, but it is you and others who play on the word while pushing aside the "poorly understood", the "remains unclear", the "limited knowledge" the classic "no consensus on the causes of these changes" and the apparently hard to remember "Knowledge of these feedbacks does not give us predictive capability for the coming decades or centuries"
Peterd again @93... "You have tried to quote- rather selectively in my view- from an ELEVEN-year-old paper".
And @68..."why all this fuss about an ELEVEN-year-old paper?"
Your emphasis on the "ELEVEN" to imply insignificance contradicts your comment @74 which implies significance. At 74 you stated, "In Google Scholar, when I checked yesterday, there were 400+ citations listed to this paper"
When you figure out what it is you are trying to imply, let me know.
Peterd @68...."why all this fuss about an ELEVEN-year-old paper?"
Now, check out Peterd's extemeley long fuss about an eleven year old paper @93.
"Betula - do you have any proof of the existence of these "eliminate poverty" brochures? Aside of course from a draft document produced last year. Any evidence ofany brochures or similar in existence at the time the paper was published?
Chris, the brochures were added for emphasis, though I didn't expect you to pick up on that, just as there wasn't really a person in front of you asking you to pass them out to your friends. But are you denying that reducing poverty was one of the main objectives of the International Geoshpere-Biosphere Program back in 2000?
Chris @89..."Ask a scientist whether the sun will rise in the morning & she'll say "almost certainly"
Chris,let's see how this sentence works with other words and phrases in the paper:
1.Ask a scientist whether the sun will rise in the morning & she'll say "it remains unclear".
2.Ask a scientist whether the sun will rise in the morning & she'll say it's "poorly understood".
3.Ask a scientist whether the sun will rise in the morning & she'll say "we have limited knowledge".
4.Ask a scientist whether the sun will rise in the morning & she'll say "Knowledge of these feedbacks does not give us predictive capability for the coming decades or centuries"
Are you beginning to see how ridiculous you sound?
pz needs his medication
CRISS ANGEL MINDPHOQUE
"105 (snip) Are you beginning to see how ridiculous you sound?"
Try looking at it this way. Ask, not a scientist, but any lucid person whether you are positively guaranteed to kill yourself by playing one round of russian roulette.
The answer must be "not certainly".
Ask any lucid person whether you are /likely/ to kill yourself by doing that.
The answer must be "extremely".
Ask any lucid person whether it is an intelligent recreation for the person who wishes to remain alive and healthy.
The answer must be "no".
Then ask the same lucid person whether it makes any sense to take the same chance with the planet, rather than just a single individual.
Are you beginning to see how ridiculous you sound?
Penny Sackett's replacement is Ian Chubb
I think Prof. Sackett left because she could not get through to the pollies here. By all accounts, she was well received by Gov Schwarzenegger and could talk to that mob. But our mob shunned her.
The Australian anon editorial thinks the appointment is great and hope to "lift the debate". This worries me. Does Chubb entertain the idea of scientific progress can be made via debates between evidence and made up stuff?
Yes, I was disturbed by Ian Chubb's comments about encouraging "debate" in order to resolve the issue (can't remember his exact wording). Certainly his view seemed to be that this is a genuine debate, of the kind that scientists have at conferences, trying o resolve disagreements about, say, the Higgs Boson, or some issue in embryology or genetics, where there are some conflicting hypotheses which can be resolved by a careful consideration of the data. My feeling was that here was someone who has paid little attention to what has been going on in the last ten years of science versus denialism.
The proposition that the deniers can be swayed by facts when their approach has been formed not by conflicting data but by ideology, religion, and money from big business, is extremely naive if that is what he actually thinks. I would hope that as a scientist he would stand up to the denialism in parliament and speak loudly to both Gillard and Abbott. Whether they will listen is another matter, but as chief scientist his role seems to me to be that of a QC brought in to speak on behalf of a client in a high profile case. And we are all clients now.
For all Betula's recent sniping, I note that Betula continues to avoid addressing the level of uncertainty associated with the policy "emit as much as you like", despite having a number of people point out in different ways that it's rather trenchant.
Betula still doesn't seem to have twigged that if Betula's own argument from that single paper has any validity then it must also apply to this scenario as much as it does to any other.
And I've been waiting with some amusement to see whether Betula cottons on to the fact that the uncertainty Betula cites provides clear justification for emissions reductions in order to keep the climate system and ecosystems within recent norms rather than rapidly driving them away. Zibethicus' recent comment provides yet another way of putting this. If you claim that scientific uncertainty means that we can't predict well enough how our actions will change the climate, then you must argue that we shouldn't engage in actions that change the climate.
...unless you're Betula.
One wonders who wins when Betula argues against Betula, especially since at least one Betula doesn't seem to understand science much, and neither seems to be able to follow an argument to logical conclusion, let alone detect mutually exclusive propositions...
David, I don't know whether Chubb is across all the issues here, let alone the passionate negativity of the denier machine.
If he's in the role of a QC science advocate, I fancy he's a much tougher proposition than our passionate drones are accustomed to. He just might take them on in unexpected ways. And I very much doubt he'll allow himself to be brushed ff by the govt - they'd be afraid of repeating the Sackett experience.
Chubb's a passenger, and has been for 25 years.
Betula, #102-104: I responded at some length to you because you seemed like a resonably intelligent person, but you still don't seem to "get it", do you? Your response to Chris at #104 makes it appear to me that you really believe a scientist (or any other intelligent person, for that matter) would not say "almost certain". Bet, how can you be sure that the Sun will rise tomorrow? We cannot be certain. We can be pretty certain, though, with very a high degree of probability. (That said, I think that science is something more than a collection of probability statements.) As to your #102 and #103, my too-long response (too long, because I wasted time responding to you), being an attempt to get you to justify your basing an argument on what you take to be the summary of the state of the science in an eleven-year-old (no capitals!) paper, was also pointless. You still have not justified your implicit claim that the knowledge of the science now is no better than it was 11 years ago. BTW, # of citations of a paper is not necessarily an indication of its validity.
They called you a troll and- to my regret- I ignored the advice. Now I realise: you are a time-waster. It's time for you to go and play with the trucks on your nearest roadway.
Zibethicus - I don't think lucidity is one of Betula's strong points.
Maybe we should have a thread where all the time-wasters and boneheads can be confined.
Not one each. They're not worth it.
Why do you guys keep biting? Can't you see Betula it's just a lure to waste your time and content, and eventually get you to stop making the effort when a person with genuine questions wanders in?
>To Troll: To disrupt the operation of an online community, particularly by luring others into combative argument.
When trolls appear, 't'is a wise head who keeps his own counsel; and with that, I shall.
I saw Ian Chubb's interview by the ABC and he sounded reasonable with regards to his answers. As others here have wondered, I too wonder whether he thinks that the profesional AGW-rejectionists can be persuaded by appeal to the scientific facts and reasoned argument based on those facts. If that is what he thinks then he'll be in for a quite nasty surprise. I'm hoping he is a bit more politically aware than that. We'll see.
Donald, I'm hoping it was just a politician's answer, not wanting to stir up confrontation too early. But we shall see.
This to prove how ridiculous I sound...
You compare playing one round of russian roulette to the effort of implementing global policies designed to eradicate poverty by taking from the government of rich nations and giving to the government of poor nations. Policies that are based on the uncertainties and unknowns surrounding the complexities of the earth's systems and topped off with hypothetical future scenarios to create fear and urgency under the guise of climate change.
Nice, I like that!
>You compare playing one round of russian roulette to the effort of implementing global policies designed to eradicate poverty by taking from the government of rich nations and giving to the government of poor nations.
Betula is irrationally reversing the intended analogy of Zibethicus comparing russian roulette to the policy of business as usual to that of devising policies aimed at mitigating the consequences of business as usual while still allowing the for the continuing development of poor nations. Betula also leaps to the irrational conclusion that policies that allow for the development of poor nations is a zero sum game that will of necessity impoverish wealthy nations. Betula does not seem to understand that investment in the egalitarian economic development of poor nations will ultimately result in the overall increase of commerce between and enrichment of all nations.
This kind of dis-affective intellectuallization is symptomatic of DARVO; Deny, Attack, Reverse order of Victim and Offender. It isn't simple denial of fact or consequence, but a vicious form of pathological behavior exhibited most often by rapists, drug addicts and career criminals.
Betula undoubtedly believes this nonsensical mental ju jitsu is clever and witty, but he is really behaving like a dullard and a fool. At root, Betula is in denial of Betula's own affective response to the threat represented by disruptive climate change. Wishing to exorcise Betula's natural emotional discomfort from contemplating the threat represented by disruptive climate change, Betula projects Betula's own affective response to the threat represented by disruptive climate change as the fault of those who do recognize and accept the emotional component of the threat represented by disruptive climate change. Betula is apparently such a delicate flower who believes recognizing and accepting Betula's own fears and desires will throw Betula into a pit of unreason, ironically throwing Betula into a pit of unreason by repressing Betula's own fears and desires.
It is plain Betula can likely never be convinced of his error by rational argument due to Betula's deep emotional commitment to Betula's ideological beliefs. It may well be Betula feels justified in clinging to those ideological beliefs because Betula's perceived standing and status within Betula's social environment is dependent on not disrupting the groupthink power structure among Betula's peers and superiors who share Betula's ideological beliefs.
Betula is more to be pitied than despised, but Betula does serve as an example of how denial can distort human reason.
Would someone please give PZ his meds and get rid of the spam at 106 and 119?
Robert Murphey @122...
"Would someone please give PZ his meds"
LB, I just read your comment @121. Please give PZ his meds back.
...umm...at the risk of continuing a troll-feeding...
Betula @ 107: "You compare playing one round of russian roulette to the effort of implementing global policies designed to eradicate poverty by taking from the government of rich nations and giving to the government of poor nations. Policies that are based on the uncertainties and unknowns surrounding the complexities of the earth's systems and topped off with hypothetical future scenarios to create fear and urgency under the guise of climate change."
As far as I can tell, you seem to conflate action to mitigate climate change with some seemingly-imagined effort to "eradicate poverty" to which you object on some sort of ideological grounds.
You then object to action on the basis of what you admit to be "unknowns" which, for reasons you have never clearly explained, you assume must necessarily be in favour of your preferred laissez-faire ideology (as Lotharsson said).
Your discourse has thus advanced from an advocacy of the 'safety' of playing Russian roulette, since the outcome of any individual trigger-pull is 'unknown' before the event, to an angry insistence that if you were on one of the lifeboats on the /Titanic/, you would pull the plug out if you had checked all the occupants against the passenger list and found one or more of them to have been travelling third class.
I don't find either argument convincing. At least, not in the sense which I imagine you intend...
MIT Professor of Atmospheric Science - and Republican - had a few trenchant words in his testimony [PDF](http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/docu…) to the US House of Representatives hearings on "Climate Change: Examining the Processes Used to Create Science and Policy".
> I am here today to affirm my professionâs conclusion that human beings are influencing climate and that this
entails certain risks. If we have any regard for the welfare of our descendents, it is incumbent on us to
take seriously the risks that climate change poses to their future and to confront them openly and
After discussing the long history of climate science and the evidence that validates conclusions derived from much less data many decades ago:
> We are undertaking an enormous experiment, and so far the response of the planet has been pretty much along the lines predicted more than a century ago.
> And yet our understanding of the climate system is far from perfect. We do not fully understand such issues as the feedback effects of clouds and the cooling effect that manmade aerosols have on climate. These uncertainties are reflected in climate projections, which at present range from benign to catastrophic.
Note carefully that uncertainty does not mean "everything will be fine" - or even "everything will probably be fine". It means not being even close to ruling out very very bad outcomes from continuing as we have.
> These risks have been well catalogued ... but let me here focus on just one: the changing distribution of the supply of water. One of the more robust consequences of a
warming climate is the progressive concentration of rainfall into less frequent but more intense events.
Dry areas of the world, such as the Middle East, are expected to become drier, while flash floods should
become more frequent. We are already seeing evidence of these changes in rainfall data. Reductions in
rainfall in semi-arid regions lead to decreasing agricultural production, which in turn leads to food
shortages. The potential for political destabilization of these regions is large and is matter of great
concern to our Department of Defense...
...who are well-known hippy ideologues focused on drumming up political support for "poverty elimination and wealth redistribution" by any means including unjustified scare campaigns?
> ...Among the recommendations of this [Department of Defense] report is one that states that "The U.S. should commit to a stronger national and international role to help stabilize climate change at levels that will avoid significant disruption to global security and stability."
One should also note:
> In assessing risk, scientists have historically been notably conservative. It is part of the culture of science
to avoid going out on limbs, preferring to underestimate risk to provoking the charge of alarmism from
our colleagues. A good example is the recent tragic earthquake and tsunami in Japan. Examination of
seismic risk maps prepared before that earthquake show that the seismologists had estimated that the
magnitude of the largest earthquake that one could reasonably expect to encounter in the region was
about 8.2, substantially weaker than what actually occurred. ... Far from being alarmist, scientists have historically erred on the side of underestimating risk.
And almost as if it was written for some of the commenters on this thread:
> In soliciting advice, we should be highly skeptical of any expert who claims to be certain of the outcome. I include especially those scientists who express great confidence that the outcome will be benign; the evidence before us simply does not warrant such confidence. Likewise, beware those who deride predictive science in its entirety, for they are also making a prediction: that we have nothing to worry about.
...although it seems more likely it was intended to illuminate some of the highly-confident non-scientist witnesses the Republicans called on to testify that there is nothing to worry about...
"As far as I can tell, you seem to conflate action to mitigate climate change with some seemingly-imagined effort to "eradicate poverty" to which you object on some sort of ideological grounds."
Zibethicus...Is it really all just my imagination? Really?
So, according to you, action to mitigate climate change has nothing to do with an effort to eradicate poverty? Please confirm this for me if you will, before I waste my time with a response to prove how ill informed you really are.
You might want to do some research before you embarrass yourself with a response.
That was great. I particularly like the beginning where you gave his entire testimony merit by pointing out he's a Republican. That did it for me.
Some people would say some of his statements were untrue, but given the fact he's a Republican, we know that can't be the case, especially since the person making the claim is a non scientist who was praised during testimony by a scientist from liberal Berkeley, who must be a Democrat....because we like to assume.
That was great. I particularly like the beginning where you gave his entire testimony merit by pointing out he's a Republican. That did it for me.
Some people would say some of his statements were untrue, but given the fact he's a Republican, we know that can't he case, especially since the person making the claim is a non scientist who was praised during testimony by a scientist from liberal Berkeley, who must be a Democrat....because we like to assume.
(yawning) 125: "Zibethicus...Is it really all just my imagination? Really?"
Probably. It's your claim. Now substantiate it, for instance by addressing the points at #28, like "Betula's assertion is completely backward - the IGBP are not using AGW to promote societal change, they've studied AGW & now see the need for societal change to adapt to global change and that scientific leadership is needed".
You were called there, and as far as I can you ducked and ran; in precisely the usual dully predictable manner of your kind. Now I challenge you to substantiate your claim - which in any case is the usual deniosaur cherry-picking of /one/ target out of thousands. Either way, prove it.
Otherwise, no more feedy-troll from me...
"You might want to do some research before you embarrass yourself with a response."
(mutely holds up mirror)
I feel there is a metaphysical eggdom to Betula whereby the possibility of hatching out of constraining mental shells like fear and politics into a more fundamental realm like world standard humanness is an inconceivable nonsense - in the way a monkey doesn't know the gamut of intelligence. So I suggest see the monkey but don't feed it, just love the science of our 6 trillion, trillion tonne planet.
Zibethicus @123..."you seem to conflate action to mitigate climate change with some seemingly-imagined effort to "eradicate poverty"
This is too easy. A simple search of some key words would give me days of material, but we'll stick with just a few.
Let's start with this...
"As the United Nations climate conference approaches, world leaders from both developed and developing nations must work together to address these intertwined challenges of mitigating climate change and lifting populations out of poverty."
The intertwined what? Ok, that doesn't count because it's from Al Gores web site and he's not a scientist.
Now,let's address your diversionary question (that wasn't yours)about the IGBP. By the way, it's funny how you used the "duck and run" cover to duck and run from your statement @123. Classy.
We know that currently, part of the IGBP vision states...
"A sustainable future for the planet and an end to poverty are the overarching challenges for society" and that "IGBPâs sponsor, the International Council for Science (ICSU), recognises that the international research
community needs to fundamentally transform the way it defines and carries out globalâenvironmentalchange
research. This transformation is an essential part of a much wider societal transformation towards global sustainability and poverty eradication."
This alone puts to bed your comment @123.
But again, the IGBP paper we were talking about is from 11 years ago, you know, the paper that emphasizes implementing policies based on, well, a lack of "predictive capability for the coming decades or centuries"
So what was the IGBP doing 12 years ago? Are you familair with The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)? Their most recent "vision" is as follows: "To reduce poverty and hunger, improve human health and nutrition, and enhance ecosystem resilience through high-quality international agricultural research, partnership and leadership."
That's all well and good. Now here's one of their progress reports from 1999 titled "REDUCING POVERTY THROUGH CUTTING EDGE SCIENCE":
Here is an interesting statement in the report...
"the CGIAR priorities should be a shared responsibility in adaptation research and the lead responsibility on mitigation research in developing countries, both done in collaboration with the International Geosphere-Biosphere
Program (IGBP), particularly its core programme GCTE (Global Change in Terrestrial Ecosystems)"
What was that? Reducing poverty through cutting edge science done in collaboration with who? What? 12 years ago?Really?
Imagination is a wonderful thing.
That was great. I particularly like the beginning where you establish the merit of his testimony by pointing out he's a Republican. That did it for me.
Some people would say some of his statements were untrue, but given the fact he's a Republican, we know that can't he case, especially since the person making the claim is a non scientist who was praised during testimony by a scientist from liberal Berkeley, who must be a Democrat....because we like to assume.
That was great. I particularly like the beginning where you established the merit of his testimony by pointing out he's a Republican. That did it for me.
Some people would say some of his statements were untrue, but given the fact he's a Republican, we know that can't he case, especially since the person making the claim is a non scientist who was praised during testimony by a scientist from liberal Berkeley, who must be a Democrat....because we like to assume.
128: "This is too easy. A simple search of some key words would give me days of material, but we'll stick with just a few."
Remember, you were the one who linked the two in order, as far as I can tell, to attempt to smear climate science with the ancient Red-scaring. This all started when you dismissed a paper for sinfully containing 'uncertainties' AND its authors for, according to you (at #8), being "either co-chairs or members of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme".
It's only your claim that that invalidates their paper, as, according again to you (same post) "the IGBP's purpose is to implement their vision of global "societal tranformation", part of which is to "eradicate poverty"". Then you claim, without any evidence being offered by you, that the IGBP is using 'AGW' as leverage for that political goal.
You have never offered any proof of any of these claims. Plenty of cyberverbiage, but no proof. Other than your own desire that this be true, that is...
"What was that? Reducing poverty through cutting edge science done in collaboration with who? What? 12 years ago?Really?"
So after all your sounding off, this is the best 'smoking gun' you have to offer in the end? The CGIAR working with the IGBP? Ooo-wee! That's sure some smoking gun, isn't it? More like a nuke, I'd say...
By the same 'logic', I guess the fact that Anthony Watts is "involved with the Butte County Republican Party, providing technical assistance and maintaining the website and domain registration" (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts) means that his 'contributions' to climate science are equally hopelessly 'corrupt' or whatever it is you're trying to allege?
Or doesn't it work both ways? Only to the Right?
"Imagination is a wonderful thing."
Not necessarily. Not when unfettered by considerations of reality. Look where it's gotten you...
Now, if you'll excuse me, the spare time I have for feeding trolls is necessarily very limited. Particularly conspiracy-trollers who are reduced to filling in dots in imaginary spaces between committees...
> So after all your sounding off, this is the best 'smoking gun' you have to offer in the end? The CGIAR working with the IGBP?
And if you read the quote that Betula provided, it did not say that the two were or had been working together - only that one thought they should. Barely a puff there.
Speaking of Betula, I continue marvel that he appears to be arguing simultaneously - and quite blithely - that:
a) The paper in question must be invalid or suspect because of some (nebulous or solid) link to poverty eradication goals.
b) The paper is valid when it says there are uncertainties and shortcomings in predictive capacity.
Why, it's almost like Betula is suffering from extreme confirmation bias coupled with piss-poor logic. And unaware of it...
I haven't even bothered to point out that if the authors of that paper were keen on producing dodgy science to support some ideological goal...wouldn't they have done a much better job rather than litter their work with statements about areas that needed improvement, and levels of uncertainty?
I also note that Betula seems to be implying that all climate research is tainted by some (imagined or real) goal of eradicating poverty. Ignoring some of the blatant fallacies in that claim, I wonder at what point in the long history of climate research Betula thinks the entire field became invalid? When did all of the thousands of research groups and researchers decide that poverty eradication was so important that they were going to traduce their own reputations and that of their entire field by producing dodgy pseudo-science? Early on? In the '50's? Just recently? Was there a secret world-wide gathering where they all decided to turn? I'm pretty sure these questions have not even occurred to Betula...
There's really no point arguing with a conspiracy theorist with a heavy case of confirmation bias and a near-complete filter on any evidence that undermines their beliefs. But it is instructive to watch one in action from time to time...
"We know that currently, part of the IGBP vision states... 'A sustainable future for the planet and an end to poverty are the overarching challenges for society'"
As Betula's own link proves (it even says it in the link itself) this is a draft so, to say that "currently the IGBP states" is a barefaced lie - one that Betula has been warned against on several occasions. Why does Betula need to misrepresent the IGBP by claiming a draft of their future vision is their current one? Lets see if the current one holds any scraps for Betula to feast on:
"The vision of IGBP is to provide scientific knowledge to improve the sustainability of the living Earth. IGBP studies the interactions between biological, chemical and physical processes and interactions with human systems and collaborates with other programmes to develop and impart the understanding necessary to respond to global change."
No? How about their goals:
"IGBPÂ´s research goals are to:
â¢ Analyze the interactive physical, chemical and biological processes that define Earth System dynamics
â¢ The changes that are occurring in these dynamics
â¢ The role of human activities on these changes"
I see no mention of poverty in there - or its eradication.
As Lotharsson says, this is a very interesting case study - I don't think we're feeding the troll here, just poking it and noting what it reveals of itself. Currently it has demonstrated plenty of misrepresentation (par for the course) a few bait ans switches and strawmen (again, par for the course) and absolutely refused to focus on the science. Nothing original then, but a classic case that can be referred to in future as an excellent specimen of denialist trolling at work - not a holotype perhaps, but definitely a paratype.
correction re self @ 127
... 6 billion, trillion tonne planet
131: "And if you read the quote that Betula provided, it did not say that the two were or had been working together - only that one thought they should. Barely a puff there."
The sort of 'evidence' that was 'good' enough to whip up a Climategate non-event. Or to burn a witch with...
132: "a classic case that can be referred to in future as an excellent specimen of denialist trolling at work - not a holotype perhaps, but definitely a paratype."
Quite so. Paranoid; paratypical.
FrankD, adelady, Chris S.
I said I would post something here having looked up the references and trails of thought you kindly passed on to me.
I'm trying to condense these into useful pieces to use in my lobbying amateur (but occasionally successful) lobbying. I have not yet been able to do that effectively. The first thing I would like to do is to contrast the official science approach [Forsight - future of food and farming](http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/bispartners/foresight/docs/food-and-farmin…) with the permaculture approach as shown by [
World Food Programme Malawi](http://home.comcast.net/~billgile/LowInput/Low%20Input%20Food%20Nutriti…)
The World Food Programme document talks of a 'Cycle of Dependency' brought about by maize monoculture and trade.
Although there are the expected on "one hand or the other" arguments in the Forsight Report they recommend:
"Physical infrastructure must be improved in middle- and low-income countries to facilitate access
to markets and investment in rural economies. Such infrastructure includes roads, ports, irrigation
projects, storage facilities and information and communication technology (ICT) systems."
Sounds a bit like a 'Cycle of Dependency' to me.
More later ... I hope!
When I first realized that Betula was a guy posting under a Latin feminine name, I decided that he was probably someone who skimped on his thinking and fact-checking. Nothing since then has suggested that I was mistaken.
Climate Change and Poverty - where does the imagination lead...
I'm sure we all know the IPCC was established by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), both organizations of the United Nations.
Clearly, one of the main noble objectives of the U.N. is to eradicate poverty. No dispute there.
But what of the WMO, the United Nations' "authoritative voice on weather, climate and water", what do they have to say?
âMainstreaming climate change in decision-making processes will therefore be central to all development and poverty alleviation effortsâ, emphasized the Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)"
Then we have the UNEP. What's this "PEI" thing they have?:
"the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) Poverty-Environment Initiative (PEI), a global UN-led programme that supports country-led efforts to mainstream poverty-environment linkages into national development planning"
A coincidence I'm sure, yet very noble, and all to help the UN try to meet part of their "Millennium Developement Goals" by 2015. "Eradicating extreme poverty and hunger and ensuring environmental sustainability are two of the MDGs".
I can only assume there must be some urgency, as 2015 is enclosing fast...
So how does the IPCC fit in to all this? Other than being riddled with references to meeting the Millennium Developement Goals:
"Climate change policy aspects can also be linked to the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) that were adopted as major policy targets"
Let's ask our resident expert, Saleemul Huq - "lead author of the chapter on adaptation and sustainable development in the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and lead author of the chapter on adaptation and mitigation in the IPCC's most recent assessment report"
Hey Saleemul, how do you feel about all this?
Well Betula, "when affected countries demand assistance from the rich countries of the world in helping address climate-related disasters such as floods, it will not be for a request for charity but for compensation -- appealing to their moral responsibility, if not their legal liability -- to make good the damage and destruction for which their activities have, directly or indirectly, been partially responsible."
Ok Saleemul, we get it... demand the wealth, but how much money should we demand?
Not to worry Betula, the UN spelled this out years ago...
"Over the past 35 years, the members of the UN have repeatedly made a "commit[ment] 0.7% of rich-countries' gross national product (GNI) to Official Development Assistance." The commitment was first made in 1970 by the UN General Assembly."
The text of the commitment:
"Each economically advanced country will progressively increase its official development assistance to the developing countries and will exert its best efforts to reach a minimum net amount of 0.7 percent of its gross national product at market prices by the middle of the decade."
"The UN "believe[s] that donors should commit to reaching the long-standing target of 0.7 percent of GNI by 2015".
Wow, a commitment to demand money was first made in 1970, shocking! (not really)
Of course there are some who find problems with all of this...
"Many development experts question the MDGs model of transferring billions of dollars directly from the wealthy nation governments to the often bureaucratic or corrupt governments in developing countries. This form of aid has led to extensive cynicism by the general public in the wealthy nations, and hurts support for expanding badly needed aid."
Hey Lotharsson, what was that comment @123? Oh, now I remember...
"you seem to conflate action to mitigate climate change with some seemingly-imagined effort to "eradicate poverty"
That latest comment appears to be Turkish and likely link-propagating spam from a bot. Google Translate reveals a mashup of various phrases from earlier comments on this thread.
I would refrain from clicking on the link with the commenter's name, just in case.
Looks like the bot had no idea how to translate my name though ;-)
Oh and Betula appears to have another parade of misrepresentation and illogic in an earlier comment that was likely held up for moderation, should anyone be interested.
Wow, looks like Betula really is another UN paranoid conspiracy theorist who struggles to distinguish cause and effect.
Hopefully he keeps a good supply of tin foil hats ... and one eye out for the UN's black helicopters ;-)
> ...who struggles to distinguish cause and effect.
I forgot to add:
...and doesn't know what "conflate" means.
"conflate" - isn't that the opposite of proflate ? So that would be removing the air, since the [Proflate](http://www.amazon.com/Genuine-Innovations-2440-16g-Proflate/dp/B000OYFU…) adds air?
Hmm, A metaphor for taking the wind out of his sails perhaps?
(yawns) ...'tis to plonk...
Is it not time for a Betula Thread?
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me SLotharson #129
Uh huh. It's the grand ol' global government UN conspiracy and socialist transfer of wealth meme again.
What better, more logical, and precise way to explain scientific observations of warming temps, increasing greenhouse gases, and what to do about them?
Betula is your typical alarmist.
For what it's worth, if it were put to a vote, I'd favor [Gaz's suggestion at 115](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/04/open_thread_61.php#comment-3682…): All trolls to a generic troll thread, where they can cavort beneath one big bridge. Anyone who wants to pay a troll to cross the Troll Bridge, have at it. The rest of us can stick to roads that actually go somewhere.
Scratch an ACC denier, find a right wing paranoiac underneath. Surprise, surprise.
It is pointless to argue science with deniers of any sort. They don't care how well the evidence supports what science says: it must be wrong because it threatens their world view.
There is literally no imaginable evidence Betula would accept as showing a need for world action to mitigate climate change. It...it would mean communist hippie homosexuals moving into his house and making him eat granola! Aaagh!
Geoff Beacon @135.
You may want to have a look at [this document](http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/kremer/files/Encouraging_Techn…) from Harvard & Berkeley economists Kremer & Zwane.
Also [this](http://www.push-pull.net/PDF%20files/manuscript-India%20Conf%202003.pdf) on push-pull strategies may be of interest. Though the authors state that uptake has been goo in Kenya apparently it's not been as good as it could be. The reason? ICIPE don't give away freebies (e.g. t-shirts, caps, tractors) with their technology whilst the agribusinesses do.
Man Made Global Warming (AGW)
There was five-times increase in human fossil fuel use from about 30 to 170M-ton of carbon in the recent warming phase from1970 to 2000 compared to the previous one from 1910 to 1940. However, their global warming rate of about 0.15 deg C per decade is nearly identical as shown in the following graph.
In the intermediate period between the two global warming phases from 1940 to 1970, there was global cooling with increase fossil fuel use of about 70M-ton as shown in the following graph.
And since about 2000, there was little increase in the global temperature with further increase in fossil fuel use of about 70M-ton as shown in the following chart.
Either change the data or dismiss AGW!
[A loss to Australian Federal politics, and to rational decision-making in our country](http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/04/28/3202864.htm).
Latest newspoll indicates that 78% accept that climate change is happening and of those, 92% accept that it is caused by human activity. The 78% is down from 84% in July 2008. Of the 6% drop, 4% are now saying "not happening" and 2% have moved to uncommitted.
Given "climategate", the failure of Copenhagen, La Nina and the end of the drought, Abbott and his "great big new tax", and the policy confusion in Labor, only a 4% drop is amazing.
If I was running a fossil fuel company I would be asking for my money back.
Deniers - crap at science, crap at selling crap science.
I think you should run a book on how long "The Bole Repore" will last. I think it will struggle to about 6 weeks then whammo, GONE
Expect to see a flurry on the denialists' blogs soon as surfacestations.org has had their paper accepted. I assume the paper has been accepted to a scientific publication and not a trade journal. 29.4% of the 82.5% of stations that were inspected were found to be "fair" or better. Congratulations to their team on the work, however the BEST project's preliminary work seems to confirm that the station quality issues do not give the bias trend in the way they think it does. That's science.
> ...however the BEST project's preliminary work seems to confirm that the station quality issues do not give the bias trend in the way they think it does.
Didn't Menne et al publish essentially the same conclusion from an earlier surfacestations data set?
Correct. I was making an obtuse reference to the BEST-WUWT-surfacestation connection.
Via Bishop Hill/Montford's blog (only becuase I can't find any information on it anywhere else) - it seems there is a conference taking place in Cambridge today that looks like one of those reconciliation attempts between "sceptics" and scientists. Speakers include Phil Jones, Andrew Watson, Mike Lockwood, but also Ian Plimer, Nigel Lawson, Nils Axel Morner, and Henrik Svensmark. Attendees include Montford but also Monckton (I say this because Montford reports Monckton asked a question - a stupid one at that).
Has anyone come across any information on this anywhere else? If not the Bishop Hill blog seems to be the only place to go at the moment.
Surely the queen Judith "if only we'd all be honest about uncertainty like my side I am then we'd all get along" Curry would have to be there?
I'm almost certain the get-together would be a total waste of time for the real scientists, although the hangers-on might think it worth it. I'd be happy to be surprised though.
Expect to see a flurry on the denialists' blogs soon as surfacestations.org has had their paper accepted.
I predict that there will be little or nothing said in the Denialati chatter, than touches on the redundancy of over-sampling or on the difference between a weather station and a station that is specifically utilised to discern trends in climate.
Or on the fact that [Menne et al last year crucified the whole premise of surfacestations](http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-the-reliability-of-the-US-Surface-Te…).
Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's all a big game of Soggy SAO.
I'm still following Montford's account of the "reconciliation" conference. Plimer has got the platform - if Montford's account is accurate and he is conveying the tone correctly this is really extraordinary stuff from Plimer. Starts off with the usual assertions about giant submarine volcanoes, CO2 is good, warmth is good. Then â meltdown! - Plimer seems to descend into public ranting. Climate change is a cash cow, those persuaded it are similar to creationists, ignore data, etc. I wish I could witness this first hand.
Dumb-down Delingpole was also at the "reconciliation" conference and has blogged on it - usual rubbish from him. It seems Morner was even crazier than Plimer. The consensus from the faux-sceptics was that it was a waste of time. From the point of view of science it was always going to be a waste of time.
Another denialist love-fest, with the usual idiotic talking points and out-and-out lies, brought to us by Fox News:
The Vatican gets pummeled for telling the truth, and those illustrious beacons of scientific objectivity and truthiness, Don Easterbrook and Pat Michaels become the heroes of doublespeak. Get a load of Easterbrook (of fake graph fame):
"The [U.N.]-predicted warming of 1 degree between 2000 and the present has not happened -- instead it's gotten cooler!" he told FoxNews.com. "As a result, some glaciers in the Himalayas have begun advancing, and glaciers in Alaska, Norway, and South America have also begun to re-advance."
These people really have no shame.
It's not even worth trying to post rebuttals there; your brain will curse you for exposing it to so much stupidity.
Anthony Watts has admitted what would change his mind on global warming - an apology from the scientific community for labelling him a denier.
> Anthony Watts has admitted what would change his mind on global warming - an apology from the scientific community for labelling him a denier.
The way I read it, this wouldn't change his mind - it is just the initial prerequisite for considering it.
Which says a lot about his commitment to scientific principles: if you hurt his feelings he'll refuse to believe your evidence.
Didn't most of us grow out of that in primary school?
Did Watts ever get beyond primary school?
Naomi Oreskes appeared on The Drum today (March 17, starting at 26:10) to talk about Merchants of Doubt.
Other guests included Waleed Aly (Monash), Chris Berg (IPA), and [Tom Switzer](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Switzer), introduced as "from the US Studies Centre", quietly omitting his Adjunct Fellow status at the IPA. Wikipedia also says he is a former American Enterprise Institute editor, former AFR editorial writer, opinion editor at The Australian (hired Janet Albrechtsen), former senior adviser to former Liberal leader Brendan Nelson, currently editor of Spectator Australia.
The interview talks about tobacco denialism and the same playbook and some of the same players being used in climate science denial today; credible scientists recruited in a campaign to target the media; conscious strategy to exploit journalists' idea of "balance".
Interviewer contrasted SMH & The Australian coverage of Pauchari's remarks today (climate change contributing to disasters vs "not climate change").
Oreskes: "The mantra of "there's no proof" invented by the tobacco industry..." ... which, without actually lying, gives public very distorted view of science.
Tom Switzer says he tries "not to get too bogged on the science" but describes himself as "an agnostic on the science". Concedes some warming over last 20 or so years, but also cites a lot of uncertainty. Claims rate of warming has not increased according to IPCC suggestions from 1990s. "There has been some tapering off" thus believes there is "more uncertainty".
Then claims media is one-sided: "day-in day-out" coverage of media debate, but "news of Canadian election has hardly been mentioned" - notes seats gained by party opposing ETS. Claims Oreskes' argument "goes both ways" and that '07-'09 in Australia was a "heretic-hunting anti-intellectual environment where skeptics were hardly heard" and it was "impermissible to question the science" as well as the response. (Funny, I don't remember it quite that way.)
At 33:15 Oreskes responds:
Can't understand what you mean by agnostic about the science. That only makes sense if you haven't been paying attention or don't understand it. Evidence is now overwhelming; predicted from GHGs & deforestation in the '50s, built models & always uncertainty about the details, but overall picture exactly as predicted; have studied IPCC forecasts and in most cases underestimated;
Switzer: does book focus on any scandals affiliated with IPCC such as GlacierGate? (I guess he *really* doesn't want to discuss the science...)
Oreskes: happened after book finished but so-called GlacierGate was typographical error; thousands of pages; any human activity - including Switzer's work - will have mistakes; but Switzer hasn't had teams of people scouring it. In thousands of pages the worst was...
Switzer: wasn't typographic, dodgy research, travel document...
Oreskes: No, typographic.
Switzer: IPCC chairman nearly resigned...
Oreskes: was appointed by Bush administration.
Interviewer redirects to Waleed, asking if non-scientists are more inclined to believe one side or the other.
Waleed: you can often match climate science attitudes with social issue attitudes - so for most people it's not about science at all. They cherrypick to match their existing attitudes (etc)
Chris Berg: Hasn't read the book but isn't convinced by apparent almost-conspiracy theory mindset. Argues 60% of Australians think something needs to be done, but government stuck because people don't want to pay what it would cost. (!)
Oreskes: people attacking the messenger because they don't like the message.
British plans [makes Australia look backward](http://www.smh.com.au/national/carbon-price-set-to-be-poisoned-chalice-…).
> The British government announced it would reduce emissions by 50 per cent on 1990 levels by 2025.
> The target puts Britain on a pathway for an 80 per cent cut to emissions by the mid-century, the most ambitious targets of any country.
> "By making this commitment, we will position the UK [as] a leading player on the global low-carbon economy, creating significant new industries and jobs," the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, said.
John @ 162:
Anthony Watts has admitted what would change his mind on global warming - an apology from the scientific community for labelling him a denier
Given the (ahem) Inconvenient Truth revealed by Watts et al, :
1. will Watts demand an apology from Watts et al;
2. will Watts et al issue an apology to Watts?
SteveC, I suspect Watts will demand an apology from Watts, which will - in typical Watts style - not be forthcoming.
And over at Jo Nova, a lengthy post about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, that Law so beloved of cranks.
The first thing that stands out is the americanism in the header. Is this a tacit admission as to who is pulling her strings?
The second thing is that Joanne Codling, world-famous "science communicator and journalist" doesn't know how to use apostrophes. Even Sarah Palin has figured out how to use Apostrophes, and *she* is so ignorant she thinks cavemen and dinosaurs were rubbing shoulders at some point in the 7,000 years the Creation.
The third thing that strikes me is that it is pretty well incomprehensible. The Law just says there is no such thing as free energy and predicts how energy behaves in a closed system. At least that's what I thought. At Codling's site, it seems to be something different. Actually, the thing that's different is probably the underlying problem that Codling and her horde of zombies get their understanding of science from spending 40 hours a week glued to "Biggest Loser" and Channel 9 infotainment masquerading as news and current affairs.
I'm not sure if Tim Curtin and his band of CO2-is-plant-food brothers have been keeping up with the literature, but [empirical evidence stops their claims in their tracks](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/05/04/science.1204531.abst…), once and for all.
@170 Bernard, while we're compiling bookmarks for TC, I submit this concise yet thorough debunking of the "CO2 is plant food so it's good for us" BS regularly trotted out by TC and his ilk, posted at Skeptical Science.
(via Pete Dunkelberg at RealClimate)
[DENNIS JENSEN](http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2011/s3225000.htm): *"There are a lot of scientists that say that the medieval warm period was warmer than now. Certainly, the Minoan and Roman periods were warmer than now, and I don't think that we were belching out too much carbon dioxide at the time."*
I wonder what evidence Mr Jensen has which shows *"Certainly, the Minoan and Roman periods were warmer than now"*?
Perhaps Jensen wishes to belive Plimar, who is contradicted by the [paper which he cites](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/tony_abbott_and_the_roman_warm…):
>*sea level in Roman times was similar to that at the start of the 20th century, suggesting that temperatures were also similar to those at the start of the 20th century, and hence cooler than curent temperatures nad certainly not "considerably warmer".*
This snippet did make me laugh though:
So while it is true that the plant may retain water better under enhanced CO2, doing so may cause it to retain more heat. This can potentially carry a plant to less optimal temperature ranges (Ball et al. 1988 and Idso et al. 1993).
If you can't work out why, then never mind, but go read the whole article anyway.
Alan Jones interviews David Karoly, with [predictable attitude](http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3230989.htm).
NSW Liberal Party upper house whip "[has been accused of likening scientists to Nazis](http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/upper-house-whip-under-fire-for-nazi-slur-on-…)" in an anti-climate science speech.
> "Now, through the great global warming swindle, [scientists] can influence policy, they can set agendas, they can reach into everyone's lives; they can, like Lenin, proclaim what must be done."
NSW Liberal Party upper house whip "has been accused of likening scientists to Nazis" in an anti-climate science speech.
Demonstrating Godwin's Law seems to be one of Phelps's favourite activities.
Lenin was a Nazi? You learn something new every day.
The whole Phelps car crash is here -
And I thought Nick Minchin and Cory Bernardi were bad. At least they usually keep their totalitarian arguments a bit better separated than this classic paragraph.
Alan Jones and the Galileo Movement cop [a well-deserved serve](http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/you-are-just-plain-wr…) in the SMH. (With 721 comments at the moment, I'm sure you can find plenty of crazy.)
Meanwhile religious leaders [expressed support for climate change action](http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/religious-leaders-back…) to PM Gillard today - and were unable to explain why Abbott has a position out of line with the Pope.
That Phelps article is one of the most bat poop crazy and confused things I have ever read. He copies and pastes Hayek and sticks his own crazy commentary around it, misquotes Lenin (âWhat is to be Done?â), uses the term âpolitical correctnessâ thereby instantly sending himself half way up the f*** wit scale. Is he seriously a Dr?
Political Party Activity - State Executive, NSW Liberal Party 2003-2006 and 2008-2011. State Council, NSW Liberal Party 1996-1998 and 2003-2011. Various positions, NSW Liberal Party 1984-2011. Life member, Sydney University Liberal Club. Life member, NSW Young Liberals. Previous Parliamentary seats contested: 1999 Legislative Assembly seat of Drummoyne.
Community Activity - Member, Greenleigh C.F.U, 2009-2011. Member, Friends of the Australian War Memorial, 2005-2011. Member, Sporting Shooters Association, 2008-2011. Member, Sydney Jewish Museum 2006-2011. Executive, A.C.T Judo Inc., 2008-2011. Member, RSPCA, 2005-2011. Life member, Sydney University Union. Life member, Sydney University Sports. Life member, Fortians Union. Life member, St Paul's College Union. Member, ACT Baseball Umpires Association, 2007-2011.
Personal - Dr Phelps enjoys reading and writing about history. His sporting interests include to rugby union, judo, baseball and target rifle shooting. He has a private pilot's licence. Dr Phelps is a libertarian with social conservative tendencies, placing him within the 'fusionist' school of conservative political philosophy. His political hero is Ronald Reagan.
Publications - Americans are from Pluto, I.P.A Review, 2006; Of Bridges and Blue-eyed Babies, Quadrant, 2000; Anxious Nation - Review, International History Review, 2000; Amnesty Infomercial, I.P.A. Review, 1999; Keen as Mustard - Review, International History Review, 1999.
Qualifications, Occupations and Interests - Bachelor of Arts (Hons), Sydney University, 1990. Doctor of Philosophy, Sydney University, 1997.
Advisor, Hon. Bronwyn Bishop MP, October 2010-January 2011. Advisor, Sen. Michael Ronaldson, February 2009-October 2010. Chief of staff, Hon. Gary Nairn MP, January 2006-November 2007. Chief of staff, Sen. the Hon. Eric Abetz, January 2001-January 2006. Chief of staff, Sen. the Hon. Chris Ellison, May 2000-January 2001. Advisor, Sen. the Hon. Chris Ellison, August 1999-May 2000. Assistant Advisor, Hon. John Moore MP, October 1998-August 1999. Assistant Advisor, Hon. Ian McLachlan, February 1998-October 1998
That Peter Phelps.
Fuck. If he has a USyd PhD, it's time to think of giving mine back.
Bob Beale says:
>First, he rightly notes that the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is roughly 0.04 per cent.
>Next, he claims that out of all the carbon dioxide emitted annually into the air, 97 per cent comes from natural sources. Therefore that leaves humans responsible for only 3 per cent, and Australians for a mere 1.5 per cent of that.
>So, let's see: that's 1.5 per cent times 3 per cent times 0.04 per cent - voila! Australians are responsible for an incredibly tiny 0.000018 per cent of global carbon dioxide.
>[Bold emphases mine]
In doing so, Beale has let several slip to the back of the net.
By incorporating the 0.04% figure Jones is no longer calculating in terms of atmospheric CO2, he is talking about total planetary atmospheric gas.
Further, the 3% figure is an annual figure, which accumulates over time at approximately half that proportion. Three percent compound interest might not seem like much, and 1.35% even less, but anyone who has done Economics 101 should know that at that rate it's easy to see why the current atmospheric concentration has increased by 40% since pre-Industrial Revolution times.
Then there's the fact that
0.04% x 3% x 1.5% = 0.0004 x 0.03 x 0.015
= 0.00000018, and not 0.000018 as Jones kept saying. Of course, this might seem to benefit Jones, but it really just goes to show how silly his arithmetic is.
Now, if Jones wanted to properly determine as a percentage Australia's annual contribution to total atmospheric CO2, he would need to calculate 3% (the overall human component) x 1.5% (Australia's share). The answer is 0.045%. That is, every year Australia contributes 0.045% of total global atmospheric CO2 emissions.
Accounting for the 55% that is currently sequestered by land and ocean sinks, that means that Australia's net contribution to total global atmospheric CO2 concentration is 0.0203%.
It might not seem like much, but it's our share.
A similar calculation can be done to determine our overall contribution to the increase in total global atmospheric CO2. If our share over the whole time of emission is 1.5% (which, of course, it may well not be), then we put 1.5% x 40% = 0.6% of the current total global atmospheric CO2 into the atmosphere.
Again, it might not seem like much, but it's our share, and pricing carbon is all about dealing with our share.
I cannot fathom why the denialists think that it's alright to play fancy with the numbers, simply to avoid paying their share.
On the matter of the 'Galileo Movement', I note that on their ["Scientific facts" page](http://backupurl.com/4pl6ui) they make many blatant untrue statements. On the same page they solicit for money. Thus, it would appear that under [common law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud#Elements_of_fraud) the Galileo Movement is committing fraud:
>Common law fraud has nine elements:
- a representation of an existing fact;
- its materiality;
- its falsity;
- the speaker's knowledge of its falsity;
- the speaker's intent that it shall be acted upon by the plaintiff;
- plaintiff's ignorance of its falsity;
- plaintiff's reliance on the truth of the representation;
- plaintiff's right to rely upon it; and
- consequent damages suffered by plaintiff.
All it would take would be for someone who has donated to the group to take it to court and have it demonstrated that GM's so-called "scientific facts" are placed on the page with full prior warning to the Movement that the claims are not true, and surely the plaintiff would win damages...
Meanwhile religious leaders expressed support for climate change action to PM Gillard today - and were unable to explain why Abbott has a position out of line with the Pope.
Makes you wonder if they've sent a "Please explain" note to Cardinal Pell and, if so, what response they got.
You know, there is a simple basic truth in the childish aphorism, "Whoever smelt it, dealt it".
Phelps' obsession with Nazis is revealing about his personal beliefs.
Climate Progress has had a facelift, and the top billing at the moment is [Australian climate scientists face death threats, cyberbullying](http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/04/236591/australian-climate-scie…).
Tony Abbott [pwns Tony Abbott](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckcH0Wrmy74).
The Tony Abbott video really needs to be seen far and wide...time for GetUp to do an ad?
Looks like Lindzen is allowing himself to slide even further into the mire:
>This time the event is being held in Los Angeles and has been organised by a [creationist / extreme-right] group called the American Freedom Alliance
>On Sunday, it will host "Big Footprint: Is Green the New Tyranny" at the UCLA Faculty Center. Speakers on the programme include Lord Monckton, Benny Peiser, James Delingpole, Phelim McAleer, Steven Milloy, Christopher Horner, and Richard Lindzen
Glabal warming since 1995 now statistically significant, says Prof Phil Jones:
[Global warming since 1995 'now significant'](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13719510)
Will [David Rose](http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/05/david-rose-climate-science-chec…) be issuing a correction?
Key deniers (including Lindzen, Milloy and Monckton) have joined up with anti-evolutionists and Islamophobes for an ultra-right wing convention in the US. Sorry I can't make it, sounds like a hoot.
[Now you just listen to Mummy, young man!!!](http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/sheep-in-wolves-clothing--while-…)
(Scroll down to "Leadership is needed to build low-carbon future")
Another idiot journalist gets taken in by some unresearched contrarian assertions:
Someboy - please - write to the Canberra Times and set this idiot straight...?
AMEC Conference: Monckton scheduled to talk at 9am on Day3.
His topic is "How many beans make five?
Math lessons for climate-crazed lawmakers"
Interestingly, in one programme,
he is scheduled to be followed-up by:
9:45am Looking beyond âIs It Real?â Dr Katrina OâMara, Sustainability and Climate Change Team Leader, AECOM
But in this programme, the slot is vacant.
I wonder if Dr O'Mara has sensibly decided to pull out of being associated with Monckton, or, more worryingly, if she has been added late and may not be aware of what she is stepping into.
Perhaps Tim can assist Dr O'Mara with a Pinker-style knockdown of the looneylord?
When did lawyer Anthony Cox get [a degree in climatology](http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/anthony-cox-39612.html)?
In what way is he a contributor to "science blogs", that warrants such being included in a bio?
More importantly, is The Drum willing to give me my own gig on its pages? After all, if the bar is so low...
He's a renaissance man, Bernard.
"Anthony Cox is Secretary of The Climate Sceptics Party and has degrees in English Literature, Climate Studies and Law."
I did my brain a disservice and visited The Climate Skeptics website; let's just say a lost a couple dozen IQ points just browsing it.
Aye, 180 degrees. Rotated. In the opposite direction.
You see he's hoping that you won't remember the homonym.
The _Independent_ [has some interesting details](http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-…) on inactivist think tanks, mainly in the UK.
Steve Fielding finally does something useful, 10 days before his 6 year appointment comes to an end.
One of the best responses to this was Barnaby Joyce (country bumpkin accountant) crying that Fielding had been to "sceptics" conferences so why did he do this? Good laugh.
>He's a renaissance man, Bernard.
That's not quite the phrase I was considering!
I'm just curious about the extent of Cox's tertiary climatological studies, because he's said himself on various blogs that he's a lay person, and on The Conversation he only mentions that he's a lawyer.
So why promote himself on The Drum as having tertiary climatological qualifications? I want to know how much actual university-level science Cox has really completed, and how much is physics- or climatology-related, because it's not evidencing itself in the stuff he says.
@ Bernard - another denialist full of CV-inflating self-puffery and outright lies? Surely not! Usually the next thing up is how they used to believe in global warming.
So why promote himself (Cox) on The Drum as having tertiary climatological qualifications?
I would have thought that was clear from his actual qualification, lawyer, a.k.a. professional liar (with apologies to honest lawyers).
The Australian's war on the environment today in a piece about the Senate inquiry into wind-farm objectors starts with a headline, "URGENT research should be undertaken....".
I've downloaded the report and searched it for the word "urgent".
The word appears once in the entire document, and does not appear at all in relation to any call for further research.
This is not broadsheet journalism.
Interesting article [published today](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/28/climate-change-scepti…) revealing that Willie Soon has received $1 million from fossil fuel companies.
Yet such generous funding did not affect his objectivity on the subject of climate change (apparently).
No, that makes him objective. It's only the Climate Change Gravy Train that causes scientists to abandon their objectivity in favour of warmist/communist/fascist/alarmism.
Abbott to economists: [I know your field better than you do](http://www.smh.com.au/national/abbott-lashes-out-as-another-report-back…).
> "It may well be â¦ that most Australian economists think that a carbon price or emissions trading scheme is the way to go," he said. "Maybe that's a comment on the quality of our economists rather than on the merits of the argument."
Heralding GSW's exile to the Open Thread, I just wanted to point out one of the dumbest aspects of the "CO2 is plant food" talking point, which is the ridiculous equivocation between "CO2 encourages plant growth" and "CO2 is good for the biosphere". As was pointed out in great detail by Jeff Harvey, nothing could be further from the truth.
Naturally, GSW replied to this actual information by pointing out that "CO2 is still plant food" and completely ignored the point that it's still bad for the biosphere.
Or to put it another way, "Water is plant food, therefore it's a good thing if we flood a grain field."
> Or to put it another way, "Water is plant food, therefore it's a good thing if we flood a grain field."
Or to go further, "Water is plant food, so it's good to flood our houses".
GSW - just popped over to tell you I've seen more intelligent things than you lying on their backs on the bottom of ponds.
Now, don't go troubling yourself with that stinging retort you might manage to work up in an hour or so, because thankfully I don't have to read any of your arrantly boneheaded yet infuriatingly smug nonsense ever again now that you've received your loooong overdue relegation. As a man who's been around long enough to know to grasp a good thing when he chances upon it I'm just counting my blessings!... ;-)
And as a professional Revegetator - that's doing shit with leafy green things for a living, Homie - I can tell you you know FA about CO2 and the complex world of the nutrient requirements of plants. But you know that already.
More colour on [Abbott dissing economists](http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/mandates-and-eggheads-the-latest…) towards the end - he did it at a conference full of them.
> ...Abbott shocked his colleagues when he sneeringly dismissed the quality of Australian economists for their unremarkable view that the most economically efficient way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions was by pricing them with a market mechanism.
> The basic economic principle stands, regardless of whether you agree that climate change is a problem and emissions need to be reduced. Quizzed on this, Abbott played to his fan base, not the audience in the room. "Maybe that's a comment on the quality of our economists," he said without a hint of humour.
> Abbott was at the annual Melbourne Institute Growth Challenge conference, which was addressed and attended by dozens of economists who, between them, over years of public and private service, had helped engineer two decades of reforms to make Australia's economy among the most sound in the Western world. ...
> One attendee was most unhappy. "The human slogan just called us a joke," he said.
Dickhead as well as buffoon.
@ bill #209
I can tell you you know FA about CO2 and the complex world of the nutrient requirements of plants. But you know that already
Well, we knew it already...
What's Tony Abbott's field of expertise?
He's obviously not 23 years old - what profession has he been doing for the past 3 decades, what qualifications has he achived and what expertise has he gained?
I was at SU at the same time as Mr Rabbott. He hasn't changed at all since the late 70's - he was a preening right-wing dickhead then too. I was also at the protest against Hans Eysenk when Rabbott was decrying our intellectual insularism regarding Eysenk's racist polemic, stating "As the Bard said "I disagree with your opinions, but will defend, to the death, your right to hold them". Quoth a voice from the crowd (actually a mate of mine, now Head of Anaesthtics at a regional teaching hospital): :"That was Voltaire, Dickhead."
Abbott is nothing if not consistent - rejects climate scientists when their conclusions don't appeal to him and rejects economists when their advice doesn't appeal to him.
I'm glad I'm not his doctor or the poor bastard who tunes his car.
Well, Deltoids, I see that I've been consigned to the open thread. Sorry guys, but I don't do ghettos (but then, I also don't do cattle-cars and gulags either--which accounts for my aversion to greenshirts).
But I think a brief valedictory comment is in order.
Although not a one of you was a worthy opponent, I did enjoy exploding the pretenses, affectations, polite fictions, vanity, and pathetic mutual admiration that is the life-blood of you Deltoid zit-bleeds.
O. K. guys, I'm gone so it's safe for you wimps to mouth-off, again. Outta here!
> I see that I've been consigned to the open thread.
Yet this is what I read from Tim:
> That's enough GSW. From now on you are only permitted to post to the Open Thread. All replies to GSW should also go there.
Mike and GSW sitting in a tree...
(fallen out of it, mind)
No, Mike was consigned as well but he is lying and will return to call us names and claim victory, because he is clever and witty like that when he isn't enabling people who threaten to rape children.
Try some Preparation H, mike. The marketing claims that it takes the pain away after a couple of applications.
Yep, mike, you sure made your mark, but I'm sure you'll know what I mean if I describe it a short brown smear.
This Australian survey was reported a month or so ago:
> [ 74 per cent believe the world's climate is changing and 90 per cent believe human activities are playing a role.](http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/03/3234342.htm)
> The research found less than 6 per cent of Australians are true climate change sceptics.
> The study also found more than half of respondents believe they are already experiencing the effects of climate change and around two thirds have strong concerns about it.
> The executive director of the Australian Coal Association, Ralph Hillman, will begin the industry assault today in an address to the National Press Club, in which he will argue the carbon tax is a "wealth redistribution exercise" that will cost jobs but not reduce greenhouse emissions.
One might speculate that the implication of his position is that the carbon price should be a lot higher ;-)
It's cute that the senior executive of an industry that grows insanely and inordinately wealthy from digging up resources that belong to all citizens, thinks that pricing just a part of the true cost of human polluting activity constitutes a perceived robbing of his and his industry's bounty.
Thinking about it, "cute" is perhaps a euphemism. I wonder how Hillman justifies his industry's richness, and his reluctance to pay for its negative effects...?
Did anyone hear and can pass comment on the "colourful" interview of Monckton conducted by Adam Spencer?
@ 223 himThere | July 6, 2011 9:12 PM
ABC audio (2 parts) HERE.
Not listened to it yet but from the comments it doesn't look like the politest exchange of views ever recorded...
Thanks for that SteveC.
He is slimy, slippery and creepy (Monckton), I feel that I need a shower after listening to that.
[This comment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/the_conversation_on_climate_ch_…) appears to be disguised spam. It melds some Turkish(?) with a cut-and-paste of parts of another comment.
>*74 per cent believe the world's climate is changing and 90 per cent believe human activities are playing a role.*
I assume that is 90 per cent of the 74 percent? Else 16% believe the world's climate is not changing and believe human activities are playing a role.
> I assume that is 90 per cent of the 74 percent?
> Else 16% believe the world's climate is not changing and believe human activities are playing a role.
This is not impossible. Just look at what the teaparty believes in, or how many incongruent things deniers will say.
@227: welcome back, j. We've missed you.
I know it has its flaws and I know it won't be exactly what either the Greens or the Coalition wanted (much less some in Big Business), but at long last an Australian government has had the courage to start concerted action on greenhouse gas emissions.
Whatever the merits or otherwise of the Gillard government's carbon "tax" and eventual ETS, I applaud it for starting the process despite considerable political pressure and the waves of spin, misrepresentation and fabrication from vested interests and the Murdochcracy.
(PS Tim, time for a new open thread perhaps, given the hoo-haa this will undoubtedly generate?)
SteveC - agreed. Our descendents will not curse us quite as bitterly as they might have. In their spare time, of coruse, while they're not building [dikes](http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.0968v2)
Seriously, though, well done for the government, the Greens and the indpendents for having a go at doing the right thing.
The alternative policy - bludging off the rest of the world - seemed un-Australian, for want of a better word.
Another septical train wreck episode occurring over at RC. Grab some popcorn and check the comments.