Astrophysicist Matthew Bailes writes in The Conversation:
Recently my colleagues and I announced the discovery of a remarkable planet orbiting a special kind of star known as a pulsar.
Based on the planet's density, and the likely history of its system, we concluded that it was certain to be crystalline. In other words, we had discovered a planet made of diamond. ...
Our host institutions were thrilled with the publicity and most of us enjoyed our 15 minutes of fame. The attention we received was 100% positive, but how different that could have been.
How so? Well, we could have been climate scientists.
Imagine for a minute that, instead of discovering a diamond planet, we'd made a breakthrough in global temperature projections.
Let's say we studied computer models of the influence of excessive greenhouse gases, verified them through observations, then had them peer-reviewed and published in Science.
Instead of sitting back and basking in the glory, I suspect we'd find a lot of commentators, many with no scientific qualifications, pouring scorn on our findings.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
That's very well said isn't it - I hope it's the beginning of a trend.
Talking of climate scientists, can anyone confirm for me that the following people are, to quote the Heartland Institute's latest piece of rhetoric, "leading climate scientists":
Kudos Matthew Bailes.
Prediction: hissy fits from the usual suspects.
One does wonder how and over what timescales a carbon cycle might manifest itself on such a planet, assuming non-hellish ambient temperatures.
The alternative speculation about hellish ambient blognoise on this planet sounds fairly accurate
If the fossil fuel industry was somehow affected by extrasolar planets, it might be a different story...
Scribe,
The list you have given are of propagandists and apologists for the oil industry so no legitimate researcher or institution can "confirm" them as leading climate scientists.
Scibe
None of them are leading climate scientists.
Most of them were never climate scientists.
Some of them were scientists at one time, but that was many years ago.
Fred Singer hasn't done any science of any sort in half a century. (What sort of twisted god would have that murdering tobacco SOB still alive)
Scott Denning actually is a leading climate scientist (well, he focuses more on terrestrial biogeochemistry and its interactions with climate). Of course, he's the one guy on the list who isn't a skeptic.
Scribe:
They may not be leading climate scientists but they lead my list of suspects as reviewers embroiled in the Remote Sensing debacle.
Rumleyfips
Obviously one you can't understand. Lots of bad people are "still alive." Your rhetorical question is lame.
The nice thing about the statement is that Bailes didn't pick sides. I'm sure he'd receive scorn regardless of whether his results favored AGW disaster scenarios or not. I have a feeling that most commenters here assume he's only speaking as if his hypothetical results favor the pro-AGW disaster scenario side.
Ben Fail
"The nice thing about the statement is that Bailes didn't pick sides."
"we studied computer models of the influence of excessive greenhouse gases, verified them through observations, then had them peer-reviewed"
big fail ben!
ben didn't read the article before coming to his conclusion.
ben wrties:
>*The nice thing about the statement is that Bailes didn't pick sides. I'm sure he'd receive scorn regardless of whether his results favored AGW disaster scenarios or not. I have a feeling that most commenters here assume he's only speaking as if his hypothetical results favor the pro-AGW disaster scenario side.*
but Bailes had written:
>Sadly, the same media commentators who celebrate diamond planets without question are all too quick to dismiss the latest peer-reviewed evidence that suggests man-made activities are responsible for changes in concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere.
>The scientific method is universal. If we selectively ignore it in certain disciplines, we do so at our peril.
Plimer? A "leading climate scientist"?
Aside from publishing a curious fantasy novel of sorts, I'm not aware of any formal contribution Plimer has made to understanding the Earth's climate at all, throughout his entire career.
He is however, an illustrious member of the group to which Bailes refers in the article, which pours scorn on climate findings despite never contributing to climate understanding.
What a crappy list!
The rubbish emitted by the Heartland Institute should be all you need to know that the position they support must be wrong.
Plimer and Carter are not any sort of climate scientist, let alone leading ones. They are scientists at least, but their output out of their field has been demonstrably wrong.
Roy Spencer is a creationist whose "science" is a joke.
McKitrick isn't even a scientist of any sort.
Singer, Lindzen and Soon have all to a varying degree been shown to have been far more inaccurate in their predictions than the IPCC's position has been, and yet they continue to emit a steady stream of regularly debunked contrarianism.
Denning doesn't support denialism in any way shape or form....etc....
What I find incomprehensible is that some people see the obvious garbage emitted by the denialist lobby and don't think to themselves, "gee, denialism relies on lies and nonsense - maybe denialism is wrong?".
Idso and Green arn't physical scientist at all Idso is a geographer, and Kesten C Green is a Business analyst.
Nothing wrong with social science, but it ain't climate science. And they arn't leading anthing but the denail machine.
Thanks for the feedback on the "leading climate scientists".
One has to wonder why this outright lie cannot be spun into an interesting article by the non-denialist press somewhere. We have the News Corp (News Ltd) press carrying water for the Koch suckers brothers and their ilk, but who is carrying the banner for, well, ... reality?
No need for Murdoch to stand on the sidelines holding the buckets anymore.
In case you missed it, Murdoch is now an oil industry investor - and not just for financial reasons. He has tied it all to a kind of petro-fundy religious nationalism.
And what's worse, he has dangerous friends.
scribe: the simple answer to your list is to follow the links on the left side of the deltoid site; the first few relevant links are below:
Ian Plimer
Bob Carter
Roy Spencer
Richard Lindzen
etc.
There is more than enough stuff there to make your head spin :-P
Finally, if you have the stamina, look up deltoid's running series titled The Australian's War on Science, up to #70, I think.
Murdoch was one of the chief instigators of the Iraq war.
Obviously his media empire was responsible for a massive carpet-bombing of misinformation about WMDs, Niger uranium, and so forth, but I also distinctly remember him being directly quoted in one of (probably all of) his unillustrious organs as saying something along the lines of, "if you want to see oil back down to $20 a barrel, you will support this war".
That's when I realised Murdoch isn't merely a grasping, greedy ethical vacuum, but actually an active agent of evil.
Having said that, if Murdoch and his evil collaborators figures out a way to nuke the equally evil Saudi Arabia (including Yemen) in an energy-security-positive way, I'll be all for it.
Green and Soon were coauthors (with Armstrong) of this paper of legendary silliness.
elspi, the statement "we studied computer models of the influence of excessive greenhouse gases, verified them through observations, then had them peer-reviewed" DOES NOT indicate an outcome of the hypothetical "studies." The statement stands whether or not the outcome of the hypothetical study is AGW or not AGW.
Bailes may take sides in the AGW debate, that wasn't my point. My point is that in his statement about the probable reaction to a hypothetical breakthrough in the science of AGW.
So fail yourself.
Ben,
you might want to read his complete statement, as linked to by Tim
Ben, Bailes DID pick a side. He picked science. The other side pick anti-science based propaganda.
Deniers do pretty well for themselves as witness this soapstone carving gift for Sallie Baliunas from the denier group "Friends of Science" in Calgary:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/64994605/Sallie-Baliunas?in_collection=3242185
Mike De Souza, an excellent Canadian reporter, wrote about this in the following two articles, and as usual he posted his documents on Scribd:
http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/Talisman+Energy+kick+started+cl…
http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/climate+research+accounts+used+…
OK, some of you are extremely narrow minded and this is the problem. Please actually try to understand and get this through your thick skulls.
I AM NOT implying that Bailes hasn't taken a side in the AGW debate! Period! Done! End of story! I AM NOT implying that the SCIENCE hasn't been established in favor of AGW! Period! Done! End of Story!
I AM SAYING that the statements:
"we studied computer models of the influence of excessive greenhouse gases, verified them through observations, then had them peer-reviewed."
Instead of sitting back and basking in the glory, I suspect we'd find a lot of commentators, many with no scientific qualifications, pouring scorn on our findings"
do not take sides! They simply state that a breakthrough result in the science of Climate Change / AGW would yield a different response from "a lot of commentators" than the response he got from the scientific result he did achieve.
The fact of the matter is that this is true! If one had a legitimate scientific breakthrough in climate change science that said "wow, turns out there's nothing to be alarmed about," you idiots would still treat the result with derision. Similarly, any new breakthrough indicating that we sure as hell should be alarmed would be treated the same or worse by many of the "deniers." This has been demonstrated repeatedly.
@ Scribe:
You could also add Nobel prize winner for physics in 1973 Dr. Ivar Giaever who has just resigned from the APS and whose letter included this:
"The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a wholeyear?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period.""
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/09/nobel_laureate_resigns_in_g…
Heh! Just a another 'non-scientific denier', I suppose!
But, 'Believers', I bring you tidings of great joy. You are not alone in predicting a catastrophic ending to the globe. No, no, you have been joined by, er, 'Pink Vision', a maker of, um, how can I put this, 'sophisticated' films in Van Nuys, California. Apparently they are building "a subterranean survivalist shelter" which will include "multiple fully-stocked bars, an enormous performing stage and a sophisticated content production studio." A "performing stage" - what on earth do they want that for? But the main thing is, they share your vision:
âOur goal is nothing less than to survive the apocalypse to come in comfort and luxury,â said Pink Visual spokesman Quentin Boyer, âwhether that catastrophe takes the form of fireballs flung earthward by an all-seeing deity, extended torrential rainfall, Biblical rapture, an earthquake-driven mega-tsunami, radioactive flesh-eating zombies, or some combination of the above.â
http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/duff_nonsense/2011/09/apocalypse-now…
Er, well, that seems to about cover all the bases so none of you must worry as your AGW dreams fade away to hoots of laughter because there is more, much more, to frighten the horses!
I bet Ben claims he is not an AGW denier but he uses the well known and despised methods of the deniers. He picks cherries and refuses to read the complete article referred to. Ben, you are as pathetic as your anti-science friends mentioned above.
"I bet Ben claims he is not an AGW denier but he uses the well known and despised methods of the deniers. He picks cherries and refuses to read the complete article referred to."
WTF? Do you have any evidence to back this up? What cherries have I picked? Where in the last 5 years have I made any claims denying AGW? Don't dare impune me honor boy!
#27 Giaever
is one of the old male physicists who signed the Austin/Happer/Singer petition to the APS in 2009 to trash their normal statement about climate.
Happer labeled me 'a destructive force" for that report. :-)
See p.63 of the PDF:
Heartland expert, OISM, CATO2009.
See p.93-94 for a quick bio: "ââIâm a skeptic.â Critiques the bogus âacid rainâ and the âozone holeâ scares. âNow we are gotten into Global Warming. Itâs become a new religion.â Giaever is widely quoted on this."
See p.26: he's in Wave (B), at far right.
See pp.12-16 on demographics.
Summary: born in 1929, Nobel for superconductor work. Zero credibility in climate science. Another of that tiny handful of (mostly) old male physicists who have gone over the edge into rejection of basic physics because it doesn't fit ideology.
Comparison: Pauling, Shockley, perhaps, although in different directions, and Shockley was always difficult.
Giaever's opinion on climate change is less relevant than a brain surgeon's on heart operations. In cooperating with Heartland, he cooperates with an organization that has gotten paid over decades to help tobacco companies kill children, albeit slowly.
Ben, stop lying. You have been around this blog and others long enough for any intelligent person to know exactly your views on climate science. You are as pathetic as the other junk scientists listed in this post.
"Ben, stop lying. You have been around this blog and others long enough for any intelligent person to know exactly your views on climate science. You are as pathetic as the other junk scientists listed in this post."
So you claim without proof, Ian. Show me where I lie or retract your statement. Show me where I've denied AGW in the last five years. Show me one single incidence that proves I'm lying.
I've disputed points that have been made by researchers and others, but I haven't disputed that the mean global temperature on the earth is increasing, nor that the increase is due in some part to human activity. I also do not have an opinion on the part of the warming that is due to human activity. I hope it's low but admit it might be high.
Once again, find a post, a sentence, anything, that demonstrates that I'm lying or admit that you are defaming my character.
Climate Reality - 7 million views hit at 22:56 BST UK time.
Oooops - wrong thread. Sorry.
No need to for me to defame your character. You do a great job all by yourself. Anyone interested in seeing why I call you a liar has only to read your blog or check for your comments on Deltoid. Google is your friend (not yours because it will prove I am correct).
The thing Ben is missing is that scientists are publishing their research on climate science every day of the week and are being reviled for their work in the anti-science press.
Ben scribbled:
That's still denier territory, Ben. It's a flavor of denialism. As author Clive Hamilton says, is his book Scorcher,one can find the following arguments in the various papers promoted by deniers:
Your arguments can be slotted in somewhere between these. It's just a new spin, is all.
What ben squirm:
>*I AM NOT implying that Bailes hasn't taken a side in the AGW debate! Period! Done! End of story! I AM NOT implying that the SCIENCE hasn't been established in favor of AGW! Period! Done! End of Story!*
See ben is never wrong, even when he writes:
>*The nice thing about the statement is that Bailes didn't pick sides. I'm sure he'd receive scorn regardless of whether his results favored AGW disaster scenarios or not. I have a feeling that most commenters here assume he's only speaking as if his hypothetical results favor the pro-AGW disaster scenario side.*
Ben can simply redefine Bailes "statement" to be one little sentance, instead of being the statment the rest of us read from Bailes.
Majic ben. Keep digging.
Well there's a prediction that can be verified, ben.
As soon as this breakthrough happens, we'll see if you're right.
That should settle the argument.
By the way, when do you think that might be, ben?
And just further to Scribe's list of denier claims:
5. If global warming is occurring and it is due to human activity, it may be a good thing, so we should do nothing or perhaps welcome it because Co2 is essential to plants and its free plant food.
6. It's not globally warming, but cooling, as the last 14 years show. Get ready for a new ice age!
7. We remember "all being told at school" that there would be an ice age -- what's up with that?
8. Global warming is being caused by volcanoes which are wiping out cuts in CO2.
9. How will we tax volcanoes?
10. Why are people still listening to this drivel from us?
(Ok I just made up #10, but I was getting into the spirit of the land of say what you want. Apologies Enid Blyton ....
Here we go again. Another Libertarian trolling because he can't deny AGW and this makes him angry.
Ben's point seems to be "I agree with the science, but you people are all idiots for forming opinions based on evidence and proven facts."
ben is obviously a moron. It's silly to your time on him.
edit fail ... it's silly to waste your time on him.
Fallacy of contrary-to-fact hypothesis (http://bellsouthpwp.net/s/e/sean_c_rhoades/logicaldebate/fallacyoftheda…) typical of intellectually and morally bankrupt assholes like ben.
ben claims that they would be reviled even if their findings were the opposite of what they are. But Bailes' whole point is that some scientific findings are lauded and some are attacked ... the findings of climate scientists aren't being attacked just because their field is climate science, it's because of what those findings are. The Koch brothers would not be pouring money into attacking climate scientists if they were finding that "there's nothing to be alarmed about." Regardless of whether ben is a denier, he is a fool.
ianam said:
I agree. That is very clear. The only trouble is that above you cited the "fallacy of contrary-to-fact hypothesis". Although the idea of Koch or others with a stake in "business as usual" attacking scientists producing results that would underpin that policy outcome is implausible, based on the beneficiaries of the policy not only making declarations against interest, but paying to do so, it still has the form of a contrary to fact hypothesis, since climate scientists are not making such findings, and there is an absence of evidence for the claim to stand upon. It's purely speculative.
It is utterly counter-intuitive of course, but that's quite another matter.
No it doesn't. The Koch's put their money against AGW and for anti-AGW; that's demonstrable fact.
P.S. Note these critical words in my citation:
It's the absence of sufficient evidence that we would treat a legitimate scientific breakthrough with derision that makes ben a fallacy wielder. Sheesh.
And finally:
That's as stupid as anything ben said. G'night.
So, according to John Mashey, to be old, or to be a man, or to be a Nobel-winning physicist (for work on superconducters whatever they are!) debars you from offering an informed opinion on climate science.
Alas, if Mr. Mashey's diktat is to be followed faithfully that would at least cut down the size of the comment threads here at Deltoid. So, not all bad then . . .
@David 50,
Yes, Mashey does have a long standing downer on physicists, especially when they express their views.
The thing I don't get is, why is the prevailing view here that you can only understand the physics and published papers if you are climate scientist?
Many here obviously haven't got a clue, because there is some math presummably, but this is largely trivial and often of dubious worth.
;)
@GSW and David Duff: that is not remotely what John Mashey said, but don't let the truth get in the way of a good whinge, eh?
Is post #51 meant to illustrate what happens when you filter elementary logic through some arbitrary stupidity filter?
GSW, true to form, will just simper away in approving support at anything he sniffs as being anti-AGW no matter how moronic. Such as the apparently negligible difference in his opinion difference between 'views' and 'informed views'.
@CTG,
I seem to remember he also went overthetop with ad hom attacks when the IOP made their submission to the HoC select committee. Mashey would be happier if physicists just stayed in their box, their inconvenient truths are spoiling things.
The predictable thing is the reliance on an implicit appeal to authority in their whining.
As if some doddery old has-been who hasn't noticed the arctic is melting and strings of extreme weather events are taking place and who expresses temperatures in K is worth taking seriously, and yet every National Academy and working publishing scientist in the field can be dismissed by them.
@chek
Of course he expresses temperature in K, he's a real actual physicist!
@David,
Further to cheks's comment, can we add "people who express temperature in K" to Mashey's debarred list.
GSW said: "I seem to remember he also went overthetop with ad hom attacks when the IOP made their submission to the HoC select committee".
Except it wasn't the IOP was it GSW?
It was Terri Jackson's IOP 'Energy Subgroup' pretending to speak for the IOP. The said sub-group being swiftly disbanded once the IOP found out and a [correction issued](http://www.iop.org/News/news_40679.html).
Your casual sliming is quite the trademark, GSW.
@chek
The IOP's submission is the IOP's submission, (pretending?). You are also correct in that, from memory, Teri Jackson bore the brunt of Mashey's ad hom attacks. Thanks for the mem refresh.
;)
Deniers resort to outright untruths:
Duff (untruthfully) writes:
>So, according to John Mashey, to be old, or to be a man, or to be a Nobel-winning physicist (for work on superconducters whatever they are!) debars you from offering an informed opinion on climate science..
Posted by: David Duff | September 16, 2011 4:12 AM
Which attracts another pointless untruth from GSW:
>The thing I don't get is, why is the prevailing view here that you can only understand the physics and published papers if you are climate scientist?
Why do they bother? Who are they trying to convince?
"[This paper,](http://www.iop.org/activity/policy/Publications/file_4147.pdf) produced on behalf of the Institute of Physics by Professor Alan J. Thorpe, explains how predictions of future climate change are made using climate models. It is hoped that the paper will increase believability in these models and be persuasive that anthropogenic activity is likely to be causing global warming. It aims to convince policy-makers, the general public and the scientific community that the threats posed by global climate change are real".
Doesn't really sound like Jackson's political sub group's submission in the name of the IOP does it?
Nor does Jackson offer any substantive criticism of the science. Just ever more ducking, diving, weaving and subterfuge from the denier camp.
@chek
Do you have a better link to the paper, I just get directed to the index page?
Thanks.
@chek
It's alright chek, I googled it. I actually thought for a policy paper was quite good!
http://www.iop.org/publications/iop/archive/file_52051.pdf
Very open about the uncertainties, no alarming claims.
The IOP's submission I think was 2010, this policy paper is dated 2005(?). I see no conflict,as you seem to do, between the two. Both advocate 'Good Science'.
Physicists, They're the future!
@chek
I was a member of the IOP for a while. They do some good stuff, kind of getting interested again.
;)
Try this [link.](http://www.iop.org/publications/iop/archive/page_52088.html)
Just for entertainment value, compare that paper to the Jackson submission's inane denier talking points.
@chek
That is the same paper I looked at above (2005). Just so we can agree we are looking at the same thing, is yours dated 2005 at the bottom of the pages?
Ivar Giaever's comments on global warming are an embarrassment to physicists and Nobelprize-winning physicists in particular. In an article in the Norwegian Aftenposten, he actually used the "it's been cooling since 1998"-meme.
(take a few breaths to let that information sink in)
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we have an actual Nobelprize-winning scientist who cherrypicks an outlier as his starting point for making claims. Even reviewers for journals with an impact factor of less than 1 would likely have major objections to that type of analysis (assuming they notice it at all). Pointing out that this is embarrassing is being kind to Giaever.
OK, then go ahead and demonstrate this. Put your money where your mouth is or shut up. You people are making an awful lot of assertions that you say are true without backing up a single one.
I already know about the bogus claims of Think Progress, so that's a poor place for you to start.
Oh, there's plenty of evidence. Climate science is the only field of science I know of where every scientific result/claim/idea made to the contrary of the "consensus," or that might detract from the predicted rate of warming, is immediately treated with scorn and derision.
1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No
So you are wrong. This is getting lame. See Ian, what you can find if you look back over the years is all of you people trying to label my opinions with notions contrary to ANYTHING I've written. And here we are once again. Nothing any of you have written about my opinions on this page is true. An entire nest of liars, awesome.
ben:
>>It's the absence of sufficient evidence that we would treat a legitimate scientific breakthrough with derision
>Oh, there's plenty of evidence.
You're a liar. If there were "plenty of evidence" you wouldn't be making the claim without providing any evidence whatsoever.
>Evolution is the only field of science I know of where every scientific result/claim/idea made to the contrary of the "consensus," or that might detract from the predicted development of species, is immediately treated with scorn and derision.
And your anti-science agenda is transparent.
Is calling someone a moron and then writing a sentence with no verb a new internet meme?
> > No it doesn't. The Koch's put their money against AGW and for anti-AGW; that's demonstrable fact.
> OK, then go ahead and demonstrate this.
Are you putting anything up against this? I.e. if you're shown the proof, will you SFTU?
[Let's see](http://www.facesofphilanthropy.com/david-h-koch/)
⢠David Koch has remained an advocate of libertarian ideology of minimizing government role and maximizing private involvement in the economy. He has contributed hefty sums to Cato Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy, and the Institute for Justice, the Reason Foundation, the Heartland Institute, the Libertarian Party, the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, and the George Mason University.
> Remember, it's not like any of us have fifty pages to use here to construct an argument
Ah, this is why you're just spouting contradictory nonsense, then, ben.
This is not what is meant by an argument.
PS isn't your entire screed nitpicking the IPCC "gotchas"?
>go with the obvious intent of the statements instead of trying to find nit-picky gotchas.
The obvious intent of your statement that I quoted was to assert that crackpots should not be treated with the scorn and derision that they deserve.
The obvious intent of your followup comment was to yet again avoid providing the alleged evidence that you claimed to have -- about which you were clearly lying.
Wow, giving to Cato etc and being a libertarian is anti AGW science?
You mean with gotchas? No, I don't think so, I don't pay much attention to gotchas from the deniers as they're mostly bunk. You guys keep trying to assign these to me but it's not my position. I like to pick out technical details that I think are worth discussion. But then everyone here always trot out "denier" accusations. It's quite frustrating.
Dave R, that was certainly NOT my intent, so fuck off.
Hello again, 'Jakes', trust you are well.
Mashey wrote:
"Summary: [Giaever] born in 1929, Nobel for superconductor work. Zero credibility in climate science. Another of that tiny handful of (mostly) old male physicists who have gone over the edge into rejection of basic physics because it doesn't fit ideology." [...] "Giaever's opinion on climate change is less relevant than a brain surgeon's on heart operations."
I wrote:
"So, according to John Mashey, to be old, or to be a man, or to be a Nobel-winning physicist [...] debars you from offering an informed opinion on climate science."
You wrote, referring to me:
"Deniers resort to outright untruths"
Hmmmn! Bit harsh, as well as illogical, I feel!
Duff, you need to get your statements corrected: when you write, *"So, according to John Mashey, to be old, or to be a man, or to be a Nobel-winning physicist [...] debars you from offering an informed opinion on climate science".* you mean to say:
"*So, according to John Mashey, to be old, or to be a man, or to be a Nobel-winning physicist [...] debars you from offering an opinion on climate science"*
That's more like it: Giaever can make all the opinions he likes; just don't expect most of us in the scientific community to think they are 'informed' opinions, because as far as we are concerned they aren't. Any more than his apparent views were on acid rain or ozone depletion. Stating that the recent warmth has benefitted humanity is utter tripe: first of all, the industrial revolution well preceded the current warming event (in fact it took a century or so for human activities to really kickstart the current warming); secondly, the effects of the recent warming on our ecological life-support systems has yet to be fully realized. Giaever apparently has not heard of time lags in large-scale processes and his comments appear to suggest that human welfare is independent of environmental constraints. Possessing a Nobel Prize in a totally unrelated field is clearly not a key to wisdom.
I don't care about Giaever's opinion, but you think that Physics is a field that is totally unrelated to climate science?? Also says on his wiki page that from 1969 onward his primary focus was biophysics.
Thanks, Jeff, er, I think, for telling me what I meant! However, I think I can do that better than you.
On the other hand you tell me that:
"Stating that the recent warmth has benefitted humanity is utter tripe".
To which I can only resort to Wiki which tells me that:
"The world population is the total number of living humans on the planet Earth, currently estimated to be 6.96 billion by the United States Census Bureau as of July 1, 2011.[1] The world population has experienced continuous growth since the end of the Bubonic Plague, Great Famine and Hundred Years Wars in 1350, when it was about 300 million"
They go on:
"Current projections show a continued increase of population (but a steady decline in the population growth rate) with the population to reach between 7.5 and 10.5 billion by the year 2050."
My word, all that heat has definitely 'benefitted humanity's' er, rumpy-pumpy activities - can't think how I missed my fair share.
And these "effects of the recent warming on our ecological life-support systems" which have, I gather, been going on for some 150-odd years (depending on who you talk to), and which have not yet become apparent, er, how much longer do we have to wait? Only you lot changed your minds about global cooling in the '70s and you've been banging on about the warming ever since and I just hope I live long enough to see something actually happen!
@ben, David D,
I wouldn't try too hard with Jeff H, he's not exactly 'informed' about anything. He is however worried about practically everything (precautionary principle).
;)
ben:
>that was certainly NOT my intent, so fuck off.
Yes it was you liar.
Now, where is this "plenty of evidence" that you claimed you had?
GSW,
We all know here how informed you are. Which is to say you haven't really said much of anything anywhere with content except to support the kindergarten-level ramblings of JonasN. And now you wade in here to defend the even more moronic musings of the Duffer. This only reveals how much of a dork you are, GSW. Don't respond to the science laid out here, merely make mindless quips as if this conveys some sort of authority. Bugger off.
As for Duff's crap, where to begin: first of all, what has the recent climate got whatsoever to do with human prosperity? If you clowns are correct in that the MWP was as warm as (or warmer than) present day (you aren't), why did the human population not explode upwards then? Like other scientifically/statistically illiterate morons out there, you (1) you link correlation and causation, and (2) ignore the fact, as I pointed out, that the bulk of the warming has occurred since 1980, well after the human population began its exponential growth. Essentially, the human population expanded rapidly due to technological advancements, independent of recent climatic events. Unfortunately, as the global footprint analyses have shown, this increase in technology has not increased the ability of the natural economy to support man; instead, its just meant that we can destroy local ecosystems more rapidly and then move elsewhere and do the same. Examples are legion. This explains why 11 of the world's 15 fisheries have been fished at or beyond their sustainable limits, and why the functioning of the productive coastal marine ecosystems has been devastated as a result (jellyfish now occupy the terminal end of the food chain in areas around parts of the Mediterranean). Minke whales are now the only commercially viable baleen species, whereas 50 years ago they were ignored. The change has simply occurred as humans decimated baleen whales along a size gradient, from Blues through Fins, Seis, Rights, Humpbacks and Bowheads, as well as Greys. Eventually, as the largest species disappeared, whalers were left with 9 meter long Minkes. The logging industry in North America reflects a similar pattern. Eastern white pines were felled in such unsustainable numbers in the 19th century that loggers were forced to switch to other species: redwoods, sequioas and douglas firs. And in time these too were decimated. Now the US is a net importer of pulp and paper. Switching, a bulwark of neoclassical economics, is fine so long as there are an infinite number of sources to switch to. But, in a closed system, like the Earth, there aren't. But I don't expect cement-heads like you or GSW to appreciate any of this. No, just more contrarian waffle from you two intellectual heavyweights.
Finally, trust you to dig out the old 'global cooling' myth which has been dispensed with so many times that I have lost count. No need to respond to this nonsense.
Bernard predicted @3 that this thread would generate 'hissy fits from the usual suspects'. How correct he was.
@Jeff H,
You've progressed harvey! Still rambling of course, but you've become a traditional conservationist like me. It's about time CO2 took a back seat and we considered the real damage we are doing to the environment thru over-fishing, deforestation etc.
You didn't mention a C02 related catastrophe once, well done! We'll make a proper scientist of you yet! (albeit still a zoologist)
;)
Aw, Jeff has told me that my efforts were kindergarten-level, but he never called me a dork or a cement head. What's a guy gotta do?
Jeff, one point, you write: "Now the US is a net importer of pulp and paper." Well, that's not surprising given our neighbor to the north and their seemingly unlimited supply of trees. And that they mine rather than log them, more or less.
At least we aren't a net importer of minke whales. Seriously though, why is whaling tolerated? We (us, not you) do have a fairly powerful navy. Seems we really ought to just send all the whaling ships down to the crushing black any time they venture from their harbors. No?
And on a happy note, at least you didn't instruct us to read "The New Left's Lefty Manifesto, Vols. 2-18" by Chomsky and Castro... I just dread reading.
Holly Stick @ 25
Thanks for posting those links. I only caught the intro to the "Friends" of Science item when it was on "The Calgary Eyeopener" (CBC Calgary morning radio). Colour me unsurprised about FOS however - it was clear from the beginning that they were an astroturf group. The name alone was a giveaway "Friends of" and "Citizens for" usually means special interest group against.
By the way, James Buckee, the Talisman President who initially funded the FOS astroturf group is quite the unashamed vile racist as well as evidenced by a speech he gave when he left Talisman. A classic case of crank (and asshole) magnetism.
Americans for prosperity are anti global warming. Who funds them? Well David Koch and his wife founded them
I think that we can see from this that at least one Koch brother funding anti-GW groups.
Ben, physics is a broad field, and solid state physics is pretty far away from any of the fields that have some relationship to climate science. Of course, Giaever is actually a mechanical engineer, which is equally far away from climate science.
His "biophysics" is mainly a form of electrophysiology. Interesting enough, but again of little relation to climate science.
None of his fields of research give him the necessary background. Some people are intelligent enough to grasp other research fields, but clearly Giaever does not belong to that group of people when it comes to climate science. This is where his ideological bias makes him anti-science. No objective scientist would ever use the "it's been cooling since 1998" meme. Giaever has done so...
[Ben](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/diamond_planets_and_climate_sc…).
>I like to pick out technical details that I think are worth discussion.
[Here's a technical detail](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/Chiloe/Climate/sea_ice_VOL_min_t…) worth discussing.
>I don't care about Giaever's opinion, but you think that Physics is a field that is totally unrelated to climate science?? Also says on his wiki page that from 1969 onward his primary focus was biophysics.
The problem, Ben, is that you are focussing on one emeritus physicist mechanical engineer who is pushing your line, but you are ignoring the thousands of (overwhelmingly more qualified and experienced) physicists who actually know their business. As [Marco explained](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/diamond_planets_and_climate_sc…), climatological physics is not Giaever's business.
>I already know about the bogus claims of Think Progress, so that's a poor place for you to start.
But, Ben, Joe Romm is a physicist...
[David Duff](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/diamond_planets_and_climate_sc…).
>My word, all that heat has definitely 'benefitted humanity's' er, rumpy-pumpy activities...
Except, as Jeff Harvey has carefully explained to you, it wasn't heat that caused an increase in human numbers. In case you didn't understand it when Jeff explained it to you, population growth is a consequence of technology, and most especially of fossil fuel use - just as the current planetary warming is a consequence of those two human activities.
You have indulged in the very common illogical lay fallacy of assuming that correlation directly indicates causation, without understanding that two correlates can both be caused by a single, third factor rather than one by the other.
> - can't think how I missed my fair share.
Whether "rumpy-pumpy" or just plain scientific knowledge, the answer is probably "because you spend too much time with your hands in your pockets".
>And these "effects of the recent warming on our ecological life-support systems" which have, I gather, been going on for some 150-odd years (depending on who you talk to), and which have not yet become apparent, er, how much longer do we have to wait?
Oh, but they have become apparent.
You don't [read](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/abs/nature06937.html) [much](http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=biological+physical+climate+chan…), do you?
Or are you seriously suggesting that we render our ecosystems and their functions effectively inoperable before we acknowledge that there's a problem?
>Only you lot changed your minds about global cooling in the '70s and you've been banging on about the warming ever since...
Repeating a lie doesn't make it true. [The scientific community did not "change [their] minds about global cooling in the '70s"](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M).
Seriously, [watch the Greenman video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M). You're wallowing in ignorance, and you might wallow a little less afterward - unless you're just out to lie, deceive, and otherise prevaricate.
>...and I just hope I live long enough to see something actually happen!
You might not live long enough to see "something" happen, but your grandchildren (should you have any, given your apparently-forced celibacy) certainly will. And they will not thank you for your part in the pernicious, anti-scientific, ideologically-driven denialist obstructionism to actually dealing with the problem whilst there was still time.
Now even NASA are telling the truth - but, heh, what do they know?
"NASA spokeswoman Beth Dickey confirmed with SPACE.com earlier today that the reason UARS [some okd space clunker that's past its sell-by date] is expected to fall early in its re-entry window is because of the sharp uptick in solar activity. Solar effects from the sun can create an extra drag on satellites in space because they can heat the Earth's atmosphere, causing it to expand, agency officials have said. (My emphasis)
So it was the sun wot done it! Who'da thunk it?
http://www.space.com/12982-dead-nasa-satellite-falling-earth-sept-24.ht…
Wow like the sun has power you mean, Duff?
Go on, David, really kick the shit out of that strawman.
Pile into it and show it who's da boss. Be a man.
Idiot.
Catching up with one of yesterdays comments, at #57 GSW said: "Further to cheks's comment, can we add "people who express temperature in K" to Mashey's debarred list".
The reason Giaever is using the K scale is to employ a larger sounding number to create the impression amongst the rubes that the proportion of warming seems smaller.
What he neglects to draw attention to is what the relevant, narrow range on that scale is suitable for living systems, and which of those systems might be endangered by that increase.
You know all that, I know all that and I'll bet every reader here knows all that. And yet you spout it anyway.
Reflex denial.
@chek
Sorry chek, physicists use K because it is the standard SI unit for temperature, not because it is big as you suggest.
Maybe you could email the National Acadamey of Sciences and let them know your view - they should stop using K as it is big.
GSW, I can tell you with high certainty that Giaever does not say "my body temperature is 313 K" when he has a fever...
@Marco
Possibly not. But when he is discussing the physics of our planet he definitely does.
Well, you see, Chek, the idiots appear to be all those who keep telling me that it us humans who have created climate warming. The fact that the combined influence of every human activity since 1850 is roughly the equivalent of a pebble on a 30 mile beach when compared to what the sun can do seems to have escaped them. Happily, more and more proper scientists, you know, physicists and cosmologists are taking a long hard look at the sun, not least because it's 'bleedin' obvious, innit'? Anyway, as far as global warmimg is concerned, bring it on, I say. Here in England we have just experienced the fourth miserable summer in a row. That's why Giaever is right, warming means more things grow to the benefit of all Mankind.
Via the Duffer:
Gee, I would never have expected the Sun's output to vary from one week to the next if the Duffer hadn't linked to this.
Moron.
It's also bleedin' obvious that a warming Sun would make the Stratosphere warmer but not to a moron like Duff.
Two points re Giaever's resignation from APS:
1. It would be scientifically significant if he was leading a large group of say many hundreds from the 48,000 membership.
2. A Nobel laureate is easily overrated. Many years ago I saw one winner interviewed on TV and I was amazed at his condescending egotism - the natural humility of a wise human was absent. Examples here of that individual's vanity (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/James_D_Watson#Comments)
"Morning Dr. Giaever, I see you were right about the planetary weather system. A pleasant enough 293° today for September".
Nope, not even my son's friend at CTAMOP talks like that.
The real question is what planet GSW lives on.
Andrew, thank you, thank you, I hadn't realised until now that scientific 'truth' is decided by a 'vote' in which the majority always wins.
("Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings!")
Er, perhaps that should be 'suckers'.
David Duff, your ability to infer isn't quite powerful enough for you to recognise your limitations in using it.
[David Duff](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/diamond_planets_and_climate_sc…).
>I hadn't realised until now that scientific 'truth' is decided by a 'vote' in which the majority always wins.
Ah, see, you're falling for that trap of being wrong yet again.
At least you're being consistent, I suppose.
It's only in the minds of dissembling prats such as yourself that scientific understanding is determined by "vote". In the real world hypotheses are tested and retested, and the results scrutinised, and the most robust and parsominious analyses accepted by the majority.
Humans, being humans, will always be represented by a minority of individuals who cannot see the noses in front of their faces. In the case of anthropogenically-caused global warming, parsimony and robustness very strongly indicate that the consensus that so riles you is in fact correct, and that the denialists are not.
I'm losing track of how many times you've been wrong just on this thread, but if [your celibacy has not in fact rendered you childless](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/diamond_planets_and_climate_sc…), your progeny may want to keep a close eye on you lest your profound mind burps are an indication of advancing dementia.
@chek
"Nope, not even my son's friend at CTAMOP talks like that."
He might, if he was half as daft you as you seem to be.
;)
@Tim
Any chance Jonas can be released from his cell yet?
*The fact that the combined influence of every human activity since 1850 is roughly the equivalent of a pebble on a 30 mile beach when compared to what the sun can do seems to have escaped them*
What utter trash. Has the sun been responsible for clearing half of the world's wet tropical forests in the past century? Kick-starting a mass extinction event? Dramatically altering the chemical composition of the air and water, leading to hyper-eutrophication of freshwater systems and destruction of coastal marine ecosystems? Significantly reducing a range of vital ecosystem services as described in the 2006 Global Ecosystem Assessment?
In response to GSW's question: Not only keep Jonas and his ignorance confined to his own thread, but restrict the gibberish spewed by GSW to that thread as well. These two clowns have been clogging up Deltoid for the past two week and their love-in means that they deserve one another.
GSW said: "He might, if he was half as daft you as you seem to be".
QED I believe, Mr. Not-quite-so-smartarse.
"Kick-starting a mass extinction event
Ooops, Christ, where, when, nobody told me!
"Dramatically altering the chemical composition of the air and water, leading to hyper-eutrophication of freshwater systems and destruction of coastal marine ecosystems?
OMIGOD! They must be dying like flies - nobody told me!
"Significantly reducing a range of vital ecosystem services as described in the 2006 Global Ecosystem Assessment"
But . . . but . . . the population figures keep going up, that's 'up' as in the sense of more and more people, zillions of them, are living and reproducing. How do they do it? No, no, I don't want a biolgy lesson, I just want to know when real things in the real world are likely to impinge on your phantasy land. I mean, shouldn't someone tell the, er, "Global Ecosystem Assessment"?
Chek, my ability to infer is only limited by the sloppy and, dare one suggest, unscientific English of the likes of Andrew Strang who wrote:
"It would be scientifically significant if he was leading a large group of say many hundreds from the 48,000 membership"
Now, Chek, do tell, what would you infer from that?
@chek
Exactly, QED.
;)
Fortunately, relatively few Nobel physicists go weird in their old age. I only know two personally, Arno Penzias and Burt Richter and they are both 'pretty sensible.
Arno has "retired" into venture capital @ NEA, including being on boards of energy & solar companies.
Burt "retired" from being SLAC Director into climate and energy issues.
in ~2005, I heard a short version of this talk at a little (~20-230 people)local town meeting. The first half of the talk might look familiar. I loved this session, which I mentioned here at Deltoid.
The best part was Q&A. Two guys rather foolishly tried to challenge him by repeating classic science memes that required violating basic laws of physics. After he patiently explained why they were wrong, he then pointed out that he knew the few scientists personally who had generated those memes, and they were not well thought of... The two guys visibly shriveled as they suddenly realized they'd made total fools of themselves in front of their neighbors, and slunk out as soon as they could
Rather that babbling incoherence, Burt had taken the time to study up on climate and talk to experts, noting in his book that having a Nobel does tend to open doors. See book.
SO:
1) Most old male* physicists remain sensible and often quite productive. (* most old physicists are male). For various reasons I've had lots of contact with physicists over the years, have visited many national labs, am an APS member and talk to physicists.
2) When well-educated people espouse nonsense, one looks for underlying reasons, such as those cataloged here
One can only speculate, but for Giaever I'd look at TEC5 "going emeritus", IDE2, POL2.
Put another way, consider the set of physicists, say APS members. From the study I did, ~0.5% of them were willing to sign a silly petition. The demographics were very skewed towards retired/emeritus (and conservative and male, with the caveats in detail in my report).
HENCE:
a) OLD, MALE PHYSICIST says nothing about the likelihood of believing climate anti-science. If anything, OLD PHYSICISTs are less likely to believe such than the general population, since believing such takes strong motivation to ignore sophomore physics. Remember, only a tiny fraction of APS members signed the silly petition, I'd guess a much lower fraction than the general US population.
HOWEVER
b) PHYSICIST ESPOUSES CLIMATE ANTI-SCIENCE seems to imply OLD MALE PHYSICIST much more likely, i.e., over-represented.
PhD physicists ought to know better ... and almost all of them do. When one doesn't, a lot of people who obviously know little about physics point at them as an authority.
(D-K relevant).
People might try telling that to Burt from 5 feet away, but let me get out of the road first.
Well quite, GSW. But thanks for drawing attention to the daftness of this week's denier flash-in-the-pan, although sadly soon to be as forgotten as every other denier two day wonder.
These supposedly monumental denier PR events have a shelf life shorter than warm oysters, don't they.
@ David Duff #106 - I would infer a disagreement to be thrashed out in the literature for years if not decades. Which is not at all the same thing as a vote, as you seeem to think.
But that's not what it is. Single, superannuated cranks with time on their hands and internet access are ten-a-penny.
@chek
Your son's friend is a 'denier'? Have you spoken to your son about forming "inappropriate relationships" with that "sort of person".
;)
David Duff...
>>Kick-starting a mass extinction event
>Ooops, Christ, where, when, nobody told me!
You're floundering now GSW.
I'd introduce you to petard, but I see you're already well acquainted.
@chek
Sorry chek you've lost me, are we still talking about physicists using K?
re: #97
Like any other group of people, Nobelists vary in personality.
Shockley had always been difficult, even before he went into the eugenics stuff.
Arno is especially amusing: one of his favorite lines is that while most have won Nobels for things they were looking for, he and Bob Wilson got one for something they were trying to get rid of.
Of course, Arno is used to humor, as in this prank a bunch of my old buddies (watch to end) played on him with help of Penn and Teller.
At that point Arno was VP Research @ Bell Labs.
David Duff, happy to rephrase the point @97 - 'It would be significant in the debate if he was leading a large group of say many hundreds from the 48,000 membership.' And FWIW I don't admire sarcasm.
You've been lost for a long time, GSW.
That much became obvious with your unprompted, fawning admiration for "philosophers" of Jonas calibre.
@ John #114. Surely one of the most expensive practical jokes ever!
Apart from the Radio Gliewitz jape, of course.
116: Oh, I don't think it was at all expensive.
it's not like there was a lot of SW to do, that lab had often played with voice synthesis or recognition and there were other jokes that had been discussed that might have had serious consequences, but not this one.
But the point is that Rob&Dennis figured they could do this with their boss's boss's boss (of about 1000 people) and make a video of it ... and not have Something Really Bad happen the next day.
67: "Ivar Giaever's comments on global warming are an embarrassment to physicists and Nobelprize-winning physicists in particular."
I disagree: they are an embarrassment to *Giaever*.
Any senior researcher knows of others who once did truly Nobel or at least NAS-class work and then go weird in later life, in various degrees from silly to pernicious. Again, there aren't many, but people certainly know who they are.
Really, it takes intense motivation for a physicist to (in essence) reject conservation of energy and quantum mechanics.
Very few do so, although there were about 200 on the APS list, plus a few ME students and Nasif Nahle ("biocab") and a few others.
re: 116
re: hundreds
actually not.
If Giaever were a climate scientist, leading hundreds of such to resign from AGU, that would be noticeable.
Hal Lewis (one of the organizers of the APS petition) resigned also from APS a while back. Ho-hum.
All 200 signers of the APS petition could quit APS ...
and it would be no big deal. Some others would breathe sighs of relief, given the amount of time wasted by this silliness. Really, this like brain surgeons resigning because they disagree with cardiologists on heart disease.
At Princeton, (NAS members) Austin & Happer were campaigning hard for that. Princeton Physics is a big (60+ people) department. They signed up one more guy (Sal Torquato) from that list, and did *not* sign up Curtis Callan, who was APS President in 2010.
In any case, APS is organizing a Topical Group on Physics of Climate, whose charter should be read *carefully*.
I have heard of one case where a society policy statement was changed via threat of mass defection, but that was AAPG, which finally got dragged into a (still-begrudged) more neutral stance on AGW.
@ Andrew Strang.
My apologies if I did indeed descend to sarcasm but they're a rough old crowd around here and it sometimes necessary to get your retaliation in first!
Even so, I believe you are still missing my point. It matters not a fig whether Giaever speaks for hundreds, or thousands, or even just for himself. Only one thing matters in a scientific controversy and that is, is he right or wrong? The whole history of science is of tiny minorities of scientists eventually overthrowing the majority view.
Not for the first time, when considering 'warmers' I am reminded of the man going to heaven and being shown round by St. Peter. They passed a stockade with very high walls and sign posts everywhere ordering complete silence. Asking St. Peter what that was all about he was told that inside were the Puritans and they remain convinced they are the only ones in heaven.
Duff's never heard to temporal lags. Just because a population rises in no way indicates that it is not living off of natural capital. In the mindset of duffers like David Duff, a decline in a resource must instantaneously result in deleterious effects on a population. It simply does not work this way - humans are living in deficit, as evidenced by the ratio of extinctions:new species, the loss of tropical forests, groundwater supplies, soil fertility, marine fish and whale stocks, and other environmental indicators. The crux is that there is still 'water in the tank' to use an analogy, although the amount going out exceeds the amount going in. Our species is living in deficit, but we were blessed in that our arrival as the dominant species coincided with greater biological diversity being present on the Earth than at any time in the planet's history. But, over the past century and especially over the past 50 years, we have taken a lot more out of the system than the system is able to sustainably replace. There is nothing whatsoever that is controversial about that statement; even the outdated neoclassical economists would be hard pressed to disagree.
New technologies are enabling us to dig deeper, extract resources more effectively, and to deplete ecosystems more efficiently than ever, countering the effects of losing resources locally. But how long into the future can this be sustained? Numbskulls like Duff must think that humans are not at all limited by any constraints imposed by nature; we should continue along the same trajectory, and that we can survive just fine in a planet where 90% of its biota is extinct, where tropical forests have been all but eliminated, where soils are barren and lifeless, and where groundwaters have been sucked dry, where most of nature has been replaced by concrete. A planet fit for cockroaches and microbes. Is that it Duff? Everything is hunky dory?
You perfectly fit the adage of the guy who jumps off a 100 story building, and as he plunges past the 30th story, gives a thumbs up and yells, 'everything's fine!'.
*The whole history of science is of tiny minorities of scientists eventually overthrowing the majority view*
But Duff, you nitwit, they did it with scientific proof. The current bunch of deniers don't do much in the way of science. Most of these people have never done any relevant scientific research in their lives, and instead, like creationists, spend most of their time (if at all) trying to poke holes in the studies showing evidence for AGW, as if by finding flaws in it that will supposedly prove them to be correct.
The fact is that, with few exceptions, the deniers are driven by their own political and idealogical views, and damn the science. If this weren't the case, other fields of science that have less political overtones would be heavily populated by contrarians, but that is seldom the case. Contrarians come out of the woodwork in big numbers (often supported by big money from polluting industries) when public policy is involved. And, to reiterate, where is their science? Many of the most prominent denialists haven't done any kind of research in decades, and certainly not in fields that are relevant to climate.
Your views are even more myopic than those of Jonas, if that is remotely possible.
@ Jeff
Not for the first time, Jeff, I would suggest, with all due deference, that your opinions would carry greater weight were you to avoid the insults. You see, insults tend to indicate bluster, and bluster indicates a shaky foundation for opinion.
Now to the main thrust of your argument in your first comment to the effect, and I paraphrase, that humans are using up natural resources which they are unable to replace - I hope I am not distorting the essence of what you write. You may be right but my scepticism is based on real-life experience - the Ehrlich/Simon bet which, I would remind you, Ehrlich lost. In fact, everything that 'Ehrlich the Doomster' ever forecast from the 1970s onwards in the way of a coming catastrophe has proved false. Now, I would suggest that a sensible man in 2011 would look back at that dismal record of failed
prognostications and take a suitably cool approach to anything his latter-day disciples might have to say.
As to your second comment, you write:
"they did it with scientific proof".
"They" being scientists who put forward theories which up-ended contemparary certitude. Sorry, but you are wrong. Take Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (from Wiki):
"Soon after publishing the special theory of relativity in 1905, Einstein started thinking about how to incorporate gravity into his new relativistic framework. In 1907, beginning with a simple thought experiment involving an observer in free fall, he embarked on what would be an eight-year search for a relativistic theory of gravity. After numerous detours and false starts, his work culminated in the November, 1915 presentation to the Prussian Academy of Science of what are now known as the Einstein field equations. These equations specify how the geometry of space and time is influenced by whatever matter is present, and form the core of Einstein's general theory of relativity."
Did you notice those dread words "thought experiment" and "theory"? Nothing there about "scientific proof"! Indeed, when in 1915, he finished his paper and presented it to the scientific world, at least one critical part of the theory was completely untested and unproven, ie, that gravity bends light waves. He had to wait five years before Eddington published the results of his 1919 measurements taken during a solar eclipe which confirmed Einstein's theory. To add a note of delicious (to me, at any rate) irony, it is now thought that Eddington's observations were not of the highest quality and barely made the case!
Now, Jeff, have another go, but this time try and avoid the insults, it makes conversation much more enjoyable - and productive.
David, OK, let's be polite.
However, first of all, the infamous Simon/Ehrlich wager is a non-starter. Ehrlich should have realized this when he foolishly agreed to the conditions set by Simon. How can one evaluate the health of ecosystems across the biosphere on the basis of the price of metals? A: you can't. In 1994, Ehrlich and Steve Schneider made a new offer to Simon to make a similar bet on the basis of ecological indicators 10 years down the road. There were 15 of them that varied from water quality to extinction rates to soil fertility. Simon refused to bet on any of them. Why? Because he knew that he'd lose. This refused bet received little attention from the denialists. Ehrlich later admitted that he would have been happy to lose the second bet, as it would have showed things were indeed improving. But its clear that every current indicator of environmental quality is still in decline. And therein lies the rub.
With respect to novel scientific ideas, its clear that you are guided by your own idealogical bias. After all, David, you are not a scientist are you? If so, why do you belittle the conclusions of the 2006 Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, in which several thousand of the world's leading ecologists and economists contributed, and then try and vindicate the views of one old retired physicist who not only downplays the effects of climate change but of acid rain and ozone depletion? To be honest, this shows that you wear your heart on your sleeve. Imagine if the situation was reversed: that the prevailing wisdom on climate warming was that it is natural, and that a few old retired scientists came forward and claimed that in reality it was largely mediated by human actions. Would you,of all people, be arguing that we should pay these guys more attention? Of course not. So, given that you lack the scientific expertise, why it any different now?
@Jeff
"that the prevailing wisdom on climate warming was that it is natural, and that a few old retired scientists came forward and claimed that in reality it was largely mediated by human actions."
I can't answer for David Jeff, but I'd read the papers and decide for myself. You?
GSW, you lack the knowledge and training to make a rational decision on the matter.
No doubt the ignorant old duffer thinks the same applies to facts.
Actually, it's been fairly clear that he lacks the intellect required to gain the knowledge needed to make a rational decision.
Excellent, Jeff, excellent - toujours la politesse and all that sort of thing! And I am happy to say that we can begin with an agreement - Ehrlich is indeed a fool! Not only did he make a foolish bet with a wiser man but none, absolutely none, of his catastrophic, apolcalyptic visions have come to pass.
As to your second paragraph, alas and alack, we are *all* guided to some extent by what you call our "idealogical bias", er, and that includes you! As the late but not so very great Nikita Kruschev put it, I think he might have been banging the lecturn at the United Nations with his shoe at the time, "There are no neutral men!" Also, you are quite right, I am not a scientist, I am glad to say because, quite frankly, well, it's not a very respectable profession these days. I mean, there's nothing wrong with scientists, I'd let them in my golf club any day, but you wouldn't want one to marry your daughter, would you?
Allow me to tell you of my innocent, unscientific foray into global climate. It began back in the '70s when all sorts of, er, scientists were warning of imminent global freezing. (Whenever I bring this up people rush to tell me that it wasn't so, it was just a few mavericks, but I can only tell you that I failed to register even a whimper of protest from any, er, scientists at the time.) I was really worried, despite enjoying some corking summers during the '80s which have hardly ever been repeated since! (Yeah,yeah, I know, weather's not climate - still!) Then, suddenly it wasn't global freezing it was global warming, but you know, once bitten twice shy ('as any fule do know'!) so this time, with the aid of the internet, I decided to take a long cool (sorry , no pun intended) look because, as it happens, I do care what happens to my world.
I read carefully the layman's explanations of why the globe was about to overheat, and then I read the (very rare in those early days) words of those who were sceptical - in the very best and honourable *scientific* meaning of the word. As the dispute grew, it was not so much that I believed the 'sceptics', as that I was *unconvinced* by the 'warmers' who, it seemed to me, were evading various 'black holes' in their propositions. Then, suddenly, the 'warmers' changed their name and became, er, 'changers', and that clinched it for me.
Also, and this is totally unscientific for which I make no apology, the tone of the two sides was very apparent from the beginning of the dispute. The behaviour of their supporters is *not* the responsibility of the experts and I judge neither side by that. However, it was the behaviour of the experts themselves which absolutely clinched matters in my head. I will not reprise old disputes but the behaviour of the regulators at the RealClimate site was positively totalitarian in nature - to other scientists, not just their supporters. The shenanigans at UEA removed any doubts in my mind - and pleae don't point at the laughable so-called 'investigations' which followed.
Even so, I remain alert in case the 'changers' come up with something that actually stumps the 'deniers'.
@David
"I'd let them in my golf club any day, but you wouldn't want one[scientists] to marry your daughter, would you?"
Steady on old chap, you can't tar us all with the same UEA brush, some of us are honest, upstanding members of the community, although I have to admit, the RS is doing us no favours and has taken a bit of a dive of late.
;)
Yep, that's what morons do.
Duffer,
Put away the nonsense about 'global cooling in the 70's. That is pure and utter gibberish that has long since been debunked. Grow up.
As far as Paul if concerned, he is one of the world's leading scientists, and winner of the Craafoord Prize (The Nobel Prize equivalent in ecology). Given your deference to *some* Nobel Prize winners and their outlandish views, it is typical of you to write trash about someone whose empircal research you have never read.
The you write, "*absolutely none of his catastrophic, apolcalyptic visions have come to pass*
Really? The fact that almost one billion people today are receiving such little nutrition that there brains are literally wasting away? That's more people than were alive in 1930. That extinction rates are 100 to 1000 times above the natural background rate? That the planet is losing as many as 30,000 genetically distinct populations every day? That groundwater stored under the Oglalla aquifer and the great aquifer underlying the China plain is being extracted at rates that far exceed recharge - and that within 20 years both will be depleted? That the Colorado River is dry before it reaches it mouth? That deserts are expanding across the globe, and are projected to expand rapidly in the coming 50 years, especially in drylands that are the bread baskets of the world? That 50% of tropcial forests are gone, and the Amazon lost a record amount of forest in 2010? That the Amazon has expereienced two devastating "once in a century" droughts in the past 5 years, and that more than 30% of these forests have been felled, high-grade logged or suffered understory loss via fire? That invasive plants and animals are decimating natural populations of native species on every continent? That coral reef bleaching is such an epidemic that within 50 years or less there will not be any corals left? That humans have fished down the food chain to such an extent that we've eliminated >90% of top level predators in coastal marine ecosystems and that these have been replaced by lower trophic levels such as jellyfish? I could go on and on but I will leave it there for now...
Duffer, please go away, if you are going to continue to write such utter tripe. I know that you are scientifically illiterate but I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Then you come back with the nonsense of your last post.
GSW, well, I'm not a harsh man and provided you wear a tie and don't mention the war, er, the climate war, that is, we might make an exception in your case!
Oh, Jeff, Jeff, sorry, but I can only give you E for effort on that one! I mean, you are supposed to keep the courtesy going for a bit longer than just one comment.
If I may remind you gently, it was *you* who described Ehrlich as foolish for taking that bet, not me. As for scientific prizes they don't mean a thing to me - it's everyone else here who bandies about the various baubles and bangles of their favourite scientists so I just threw in his Nobel prize because I thought it was the done thing. Incidentally where or who is that well-known spelling mistake "Craafoord", I've never heard of him, her or it?!
As for your long list of so-called 'disasters', sorry, but they don't impinge on me or mine. They are, so to speak, 'local events, dear boy, local events'! (If you're not English and over the age of 50 that last joke will not mean much, sorry.) What I mean is that I don't care if the Amazon jungle loses all its trees. I once spent some time in a jungle and a thoroughly nasty, wet, smelly, God forsaken dump it was. The sooner the jungles are concreted over the better, then we can build houses and put in some nice theme parks to save all those ghastly things with four or more legs so that the little kiddies, and some soppy adults, an oooh and aaah over them - so long as they're safely behind glass, that is!
Anyway, you mentioned population but obviously you failed to take on my earlier comment pointing out that the global population is growing, not shrinking. The *rate* of increase is slowing but I suspect that's mainly due to us 'rich' westerners failing to bother to breed because we're 'rich' enough to look after ourselves in our old age, and let's face it, kids are an expensive pain in the arse. Also, the Chinese mass murder of girl children and the one-child policy has also 'helped'.
Now, just so I can be clear about this because I am easily confused, are you a 'warmer' or a 'changer'?
Ooops!
Sorry! Cut off my own tail, silly old fool that I am.
What I meant to add was that you dismissed global cooling as "gibberish". Actually, I think it is a possibility and if that is right then we are in for some considerable and very real difficulties. Seen the price of wheat recently?
So Duff whinges about courtesy while he himself insults the scientist he is addressing:
"...Also, you are quite right, I am not a scientist, I am glad to say because, quite frankly, well, it's not a very respectable profession these days. I mean, there's nothing wrong with scientists, I'd let them in my golf club any day, but you wouldn't want one to marry your daughter, would you?..."
Clutch those pearls, you hypocritical old fool.
Holly, I'm distraught! Have I said something to upset you? After all, it is here, on this very blog, that the most vile insults are hurled from one set of scientists against another; usually, it must be stated in fairness, from the 'Warmers'/'Changers' against the 'Sceptics' because they outnumber them about ten to one. So, Holly, I hope you and I can join hands - that'll be nice, won't it? - and call for end to it and a return to civility. Then we can all be decent chaps and, er, chapettes, once again.
*What I mean is that I don't care if the Amazon jungle loses all its trees. I once spent some time in a jungle and a thoroughly nasty, wet, smelly, God forsaken dump it was. The sooner the jungles are concreted over the better, then we can build houses and put in some nice theme parks to save all those ghastly things with four or more legs so that the little kiddies, and some soppy adults, an oooh and aaah over them - so long as they're safely behind glass, that is!*
Anyone who writes such utter garbage as this DOES NOT DESERVE a polite reply. I will not be baited here. May I suggest, David, that you crawl back into the pit of ignorance from which you emerged?
Oh dear! Have I said BLX in church? Better be off then, I suppose.
Duff isn't even an interesting troll. Just ignore the child.
You had better be off then. This is a science blog, and you're using science as a six-month old baby would use a sharp knife.
From the OP:
And so it proved to be. Kudos to those here (e.g. Jeff, Bernard, et al) who've tried educating the assorted trolls, but really (and forgive the jaded tone), is it worth the effort?
Our current moron:
Local events, dear boy, local events.
Duff, it's a good thing you didn't bring up the whales.
I had intended to make a dignified exit but I feel I must reply to Ben's last comment.
I can't bring up whales, Ben, because I don't eat them but I am told that parts of them are quite delicious. It's possibly whale meat that has made the Japanese the vigorous and industrious people they are. Perhaps I should try it.
And, Jeff, I do hope I haven't upset you too much but I really don't give a stuff for all those natural disasters - er, so long as they are nowhere near me - because they have happened ever since the world began to cool and form a globe. Rivers dry up, rivers erupt; mountains slide down, mountains are forced up; trees grow, trees die. However, the odd thing is that in the tiny little fragment of time in which we humans have been around, we have proved rather adept at, er, adapting. I see no reason why we shouldn't continue so to do.
Now, must pop round to my butcher and see if if he has any whale meat, I'd love to give it a try.
> It's possibly whale meat that has made the Japanese the vigorous and industrious people they are.
Eskimos eat whale meat and they live in the arctic.
If you go eating whale meat, maybe you'll end up in the arctic.
And Dai, I guess you really don't care about all those murders and how terrorists have blown people up because they've not blown anyone up you know.
It's nice to know you support terrorism.
David Duff said :"... we humans have been around, we have proved rather adept at, er, adapting. I see no reason why we shouldn't continue so to do".
Which is precisely the point, Duff.
You're not adapting to new circumstances, you're ignoring the information about those circumstance because you don't like them.
And so will perish the criminally, stupidly smug.
Wondering WTF just happened, I expect.
And so will perish the criminally, stupidly smug. Wondering WTF just happened, I expect.
Yeah, right, and so will perish the ordinary, stupidly smug. Seriously, how smug was the look on your face when you typed that?
Since Dai is the one leaving with a huff, ben dover, that would be irrelevant to chek's statement on Dai running away like Brave Sir Robin.
Seriously, how far was your head up your arse when you wrote that?
Firefox+Greasemonkey+KILLFILE
So shorter David Duff can be summed up as "Fuck everyone and everything that is not me."
Well at least you finally admitted that the reason you deny climate change is that as long as YOU do fine well who then climate change must not be too bad or non existent. And if a couple of million people or entire groups of species or even the odd ecosystem suffers, well that's just too tough!
Oh and your comment about jungles being nasty places that should be concreted over just shows your appalling ignorance of how intact ecosystems are vital to our survival as a species. Red up a bit more before blabbering on about things you clearly don't understand.