If you did not follow the Concordy’s online edition during finals week and spring break, then you likely missed out on a flurry of coverage about Christopher Monckton’s visit to Union College on March 5.
Monckton’s talk, in which he presented his well-known critique of climate science, was followed by a Q&A in which the campus community was able to discuss climate science and ask questions of various professors from the geology and biology departments.
Significantly, Monckton came to the Q&A, and he had the opportunity to raise any questions and engage in discussions with students.
An understandable conclusion from reading the Concordy’s coverage of the two events would be that both were marred by discord and conflict, and that Monckton was not given the opportunity to present his views.
For example, Nick D’Angelo wrote in his opinion article, “Monckton’s Visit Shows Partisanship Over Civility,” that the opportunity for “serious conversation” was destroyed by the audience (and, he pointed out, Monckton).
Another opinion article, by Justin Pulliam, who was an outside contributor and assistant to Monckton, went even further by describing a “shrieking,” “yakking” and “shrill” audience.
Little could be further from the truth. In fact, the evening’s events highlighted the very best that Union has to offer.
Our students directly addressed inconsistencies in Monckton’s presentation, his selective use of data, and the demagoguery with which he attacked those who advocate on behalf of action to address climate change.
For many of us, seeing our students’ command of the topics they have learned in our classes and their ability to apply their critical thought in an emotionally charged arena was among our proudest moments as professionals.
Monckton, and anyone else who wished to speak in the follow-up Q&A session, was given the opportunity to make his or her case. Granted, at times Monckton was pointedly challenged on his statements and logic – as indeed he should have been.
Monckton’s intention was to muddy the waters with respect to climate change science. And – let’s be clear – there is damage to be done by such presentations. Developing our students’ scientific literacy so that they can engage with the research on the causes and consequences of global climate change is a difficult task. Presentations like Monckton’s, which distort the scientific process or attack the legitimacy of scientists such as those involved in the preparation of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Reports, have a chance to undo much of the work we have done.
Far from regretting the outcome of the evening’s events, we appreciate the opportunity they offered to involve the campus community in a discussion of climate change dialogue.
We also welcome D’Angelo’s and the College Republicans’ interest in a dialogue. There is much to debate about the responses to climate change: What policies would be best to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? What are the prospects for technological or geoengineering strategies? Are resources better spent planning for mitigation?
But such discussions should start with acceptance of the scientific evidence as established by the scientific community, as 97 to 98 percent of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field have accepted them*. Denying scientific evidence serves no purpose other than to delay inevitable action and to further limit our options.
* Anderegg et al. 2010. Expert credibility in climate science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107
Loading ...
Yes, I heard the whole story and watched video of the debacle.
Monckton made scientific chumps out of the you.
This whole article reeks of fallacies, it’s an old stinky red herring.
1) Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no “authorities”)
2) Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an “unfavorable” decision)
3) One Monckton cited in the actual discussion, the headcount fallacy was determined invalid over 2000 years ago (can’t believe you try to use it)
4) Straw man.
‘Until scientists and commentators understand that the skeptical objection is primarily scientific they will be seen to be saying “There is nothing wrong with the science we do” which, ahem, will be something akin to a state of denial. How ironic.’- Bishop
Anderegg et al,
You seem to think the majority of people are stupid. The fact of the matter is more and more people are becoming very scientifically literate, because they can smell this issue from a mile away. Think about it, the longer an issue continues, the more people are going to research. I suggest before you continue your course of misappropriated feelings of superiority, you deal with the problem of the null-hypothesis. Until you can show a 3- sigma probability that the evidence fits AGW better than the null-hypothesis, you’re selling snake oil and you know it.
I also suggest you brush up on critical thinking.
Why The AGW Hypothesis Has Not Been Proven
[Ref: http://thegwpf.org/press-releases/5360-no-global-warming-for-15-years.html
The referenced article shows that there has been no global waring for 15 years. No, that does not disprove the AGW hypothesis. What it does is show that the probability that the proof of the AGW hypothesis based on Global Climate Models has a very low probability of being a valid scientific proof.
The point of the linked article is that, per the AGW hypothesis and the GCMs (global climate models,) there should not be a 15-year period without statistically-significant warming during that time period. Not when human emissions of CO2 are rising at the measured rate. Every additional consecutive year of sideways (or falling) temperature substantially increases the odds that the feedback (climate sensitivity) is close to zero or negative, and does not have a positive magnitude large enough to justify mitigation attempts.
That’s the point. It’s not about cherry-picking a point in the past to use as a basis in order to show one result or another. It’s about how long of any consecutive period without warming falsifies the GCM-based ‘proof’ of AGW because the probabilities that that hypothesis fits the data become too small.
There is a known and generally accepted physical formula (known as the radiative forcing formula) that quantitatively predicts the amount by which the temperature of the Earth should change as CO2 is added or removed to the Earth’s atmosphere. That mathematical formula shows that the relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic, and thus increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect. Using that formula alone, human emissions of CO2 will not cause enough warming to be worth attempts to mitigate or control. That is not disputed.
Some do dispute the validity of the radiative forcing formula, but that’s not relevant to this discussion (the nay-sayers deny that radiative forcing is a real effect.)
Why, then, does the IPCC claim there’s a problem? Because the AGW hypothesis is that there is positive climate sensitivity, which means that the climate system as a whole is hypothesized to positively amplify the warming computed by the radiative forcing formula for carbon dioxide. Note that there is no lab test that can either verify or refute that hypothesis. There is only one Earth, and its climate system cannot be reduced to a repeatable experiment in any human laboratory.
So what they’ve done instead is to write computer code to simulate the Earth’s climate system. Such software is called a Global Climate Model or GCM. There are many different, independent implementations of Global Climate Models. But none of them claim to be a comprehensive and complete model of the Earth’s climate that computes absolutely all significant physical processes involved in the Earth’s climate strictly from first principles and empirically-measured data.
Certainly, the GCMs do compute many aspects of the climate system using first principles and empirical data, but none of them do that for all aspects of the system. What they do instead in many cases is to use unproven assumptions or ‘best guesses’ about how the system works. In some cases they simply assume that one ore more aspects of the climate system don’t have enough effect to be worth modeling–such as the Sun, the Earth’s orbit, cosmic rays that might affect cloud formation, etc. It may also be the case that there are important aspects of the climate system about which we are currently in complete ignorance–if so, they are of course not handled by any current GCM.
And in any case, no computer simulation can currently simulate the Earth’s climate from actual first principles using quantum mechanical calculations that account for each atom and quantum particle. Our computers could not handle the size of the data, nor would quantum uncertainty permit the empirical data to be captured with complete accuracy. Perhaps quantum computers could do the calculations, but that’s still wouldn’t solve the problem of quantum uncertainty in acquiring the data.
None of the GCM’s compute climate sensitivity (“feedback” or system temperature amplification) from first principles. Why not? Because there is no reproducible set of lab experiments and laws of physics by which it can be proven to have any particular value (it could be positive, could be negative, or could be zero.) There is no way to prove what the correct climate sensitivity value is using first principles, and the Earth itself is the only test bed by which it could be determined empirically. What they do instead is to make climate sensitivity a tunable operating parameter of the GCMs.
So GCMs don’t tell you what the climate sensitivity is. Instead, whoever configures the GCM’s operating parameters tells the GCM what it is. The GCM then models Earth’s climate using whatever climate sensitivity value it was told to use. The climate sensitivity values reported by the IPCC result from running the GCM’s with whatever value for climate sensitivity makes their computations of Earth’s global surface temperature match past history. That is the sole evidence the IPCC claims for the AGW hypothesis–which is that the global climate system amplifies the slight warming directly caused by human emissions of CO2 as computed by the radiative forcing formula.
It’s not enough to back-test a model so that it correctly predicts the past. To validate it, it must be forward tested, and found to accurately predict the response of the modelled system to the new input data against which it was not “curve fitted.” Otherwise, there is a highly significant probability that the model’s back predictions only match historical data because of “magic parameter values” that just happen to make its predictions match past history.
But the key point is that the IPCC uses GCMs to determine the proper value for climate sensitivity. Therefore, if forward tests of the GCMs that assume positive climate sensitivity don’t match reality–and the discrepancy lasts long enough that the probability that the discrepancy is just random variability of the climate system becomes small enough, then the probability that the GCMs are usable as proof of the AGW hypothesis (positive climate sensitivity) approaches zero. The details of the GCMs are completely irrelevant, since they all just assume whatever climate sensitivity is required to make their backtest results match the historical record, and because that assumption of positive climate sensitivity is the only evidence for the AGW hypothesis.
Where are the peer-reviewed studies that quantitively show that there is a significantly greater probability that the AGW hypothesis (positive climate sensitivity) fits the empirical data better than does the null hypothesis (warming is mostly natural)? If that existed, it would be Exhibit #1 in this debate. It’s not, because it doesn’t exist. Until it does, AGW remains an unproven hypothesis.
Prove me wrong: Produce that peer-reviewed, quantitative study.
If you can understand the following analysis you’ll see why there is nothing to freak out about. Essentially there is no CO2 “causation” signal driving Temperature… it’s not there when you compare CO2 vs Temperature. In fact it’s not even statistically significant in the least.
” *Effect Of CO2 Emission On Global Mean Temperature*
Examination of Figure 3 shows that the Global Mean Temperature Anomaly (GMTA) for 1940 of 0.13 deg C is greater than that for 1880 of –0.22 deg C. Also, the GMTA for 2000 of 0.48 deg C is greater than that for 1940 of 0.13 deg C. This means that the GMTA value, when the oscillating anomaly is at its maximum, increases in every new cycle. Is this global warming caused by human emission of CO2?
The data required to establish the effect of CO2 emission on global mean temperature already exist. The global mean temperature data are available from the Climate Research Unit of the Hadley Centre shown in Figure 3, and the CO2 emission data are available from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre [8]. *For the period from 1880 to 1940, the average emission of CO2 was about 0.8 G-ton, and the increase in the GMTA was 0.13+0.22=0.35 deg C. For the period from 1940 to 2000, the average emission of CO2 was about 4 G-ton, but the increase in GMTA was the same 0.48-0.13=0.35 deg C. This means that an increase in CO2 emission by 4/0.8=5-fold has no effect in the increase in the GMTA. This conclusively proves that the effect of 20th century human emission of CO2 on global mean temperature is nil.*
*Note that the increase in GMTA of 0.35 deg C from 1880 to 1940 (or from 1940 to 2000) in a 60 year period has a warming rate of 0.35/60=0.0058 deg per year, which is the slope of the linear anomaly given by Equation 1. As a result, the linear anomaly is not affected by CO2 emission. Obviously, as the oscillating anomaly is cyclic, it is not related to the 5-fold increase in human emission of CO2.
Figure 4, with high correlation coefficient of 0.88, shows the important result that the observed GMTA can be modeled by a combination of a linear and sinusoidal pattern given by Equation 3. This single GMTA pattern that was valid in the period from 1880 to 1940 was also valid in the period from 1940 to 2000 after about 5-fold increase in human emission of CO2. As a result, the effect of human emission of CO2 on GMTA is nil.* ”
http://pathstoknowledge.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/predictions-of-gmt.pdf
Furthermore the conclusive counter evidence analysis based upon *observational data* by Girma Orrsenago puts a nail in the coffin of the AGW Hypothesis as promoted by the CO2 Climate Doomsday AGW Rapture proponents. *Orrsenago shows that Nature falsified the CAGW hypothesis* and all the climate models.
Those three commentators above need to start here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/monckton-misleads-CA-lawmakers-now-its-personal-part2.html
and also take in the lectures at:
http://forecast.uchicago.edu/lectures.html
as you appear to be somewhat factually challenged.
And citing the Global Warming Policy Foundation indeed!
Now Girma Orssengo?
Oh heck start here (Note CTRL/F helps):
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/frankly-not/
taking in this:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/05/handbook-in-denialism/comment-page-3/#comment-206391
I’ll stop there, cannot overtop any link limit.
Lionel,
I suggest you look at other web pages for your information. As pointed out to you, your information is coming from a quite biased web site. Here is some information that might help you out.
If Skeptical Science is biased by providing examples of valid science and demonstrating how others are perverting that same science then I am comfortable with that.
As for other sources of information I have been engaged in this debate since the mid-1990s starting on USENET and in the interim have read and collected numerous sources that tell of the reality of AGW and also warn of the dire consequences if we continue with business as usual.
My studies have included chemistry – physical, organic and non-organic, biology and physics including quantum physics i.e quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics The physics texts include Richard Feynam’s magnificent three volume opus ‘Lectures in Physics’ which contains some excellent descriptions of some bilogical functions and the physics through chemistry, which supports them I have, and continue to study, sources that cover the many varied aspects that impinge on global warming and the larger problem, which will be exacerbated by AGW, of ecological ruin.
I could present you with a long list, but I am sure that you would not appreciate that.
Here follows an abridged selection.
The Warming Papers’ edited by David Archer & Ray Pierrehumbert containing papers by Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius and others. Pierrehumbert’s ‘Principles of Planetary Climate’ is also worthwhile with the early chapters worth a visit by even the physics challenged. Elizabeth Kolbert in her ‘Field Notes From a Catastrophe’ describes these early scientific roots of climate science too.
For a, as it says on the tin, multidisciplinary overview then William James Burroughs ‘Climate Change: A Multidisciplinary Approach is informative for those unaware of the breadth of material that needs covering.
Also texts on Oceanography such as ‘Oceanography: An Invitation to Marine Science’ by Tom Garrison are worth studying for a broader look at the earth’s systems.
I don’t think commentators such as you are aware of how close to collapse is the biota on which we depend for food, shelter and clothing – at the most basic.
Why the present geological age has been dubbed the anthropocene (Crutzen) because a human induced great extinction is underway is amongst the themes in E O Wilson’s ‘The Future of Life’. But Wilson goes further and explains why the economic surge in e.g. China is unsustainable and a danger to the stability of the remainder of the world.
Wilson mentions the water problem and also the dire consequences for key elements in the web of life posed by the dangers of shortage and pollution. Thoughtful readers will be able to appreciate that polluting ground water in the cause of fracking natural gas from rock formations is a poor exchange. Also, as unspoiled arable land shrinks because of pollution and drought, then turning such over to production of bio-fuel crops is insane, as insane as fracking.
Read Wilson and also Richard Dawkin’s ‘The Ancestors Tale’ for an enlightening study on how we evolved. This should raise additional awareness of the interlinked nature of life too.
Jeffrey Corbin’s posting adds little to the serious discussion of the science and economics surrounding proposed attempts to mitigate any adverse consequences that might arise from global warming over the coming century.
Lionel A (whoever that may be) posts a link to a website that maladroitly and inaccurately attacks the economics behind my recent presentation before the California State Legislature at the Capitol in Sacramento. The inadequate and prejudiced website has had its arguments examined and corrected: go to wattsupwiththat.com and enter “Monckton” in the search field to find an article by me on “Why CO2 Mitigation is Cost-Ineffective”.
Both Mr. Corbin and the furtive Mr. A should realize that science is not done by consensus, or by appeals to authority, or by hysterical reliance on prejudiced articles from climate-extremist websites. It is done by careful observation, measurement and experiment, and by equally careful application of established theory to the results.
The facts are that there has been no statistically-significant global warming for 15 years (Hadley Centre/CRU, 2012); for eight years sea level has been rising at a rate equivalent to 1.3 inches per century (Aviso Envisat); global sea-ice extent has shown little decline since the satellites began watching at a peak moment in sea-ice extent in 1979 (University of Illinois, Cryosphere Today); hurricane and tropical-cyclone activity over the past two years has been at its lowest in 30 years (Dr. Ryan Maue, Florida State University); the IPCC’s first global warming forecasts, made a generation ago, have all proven to be exaggerations (Dr. David Evans); and the most favorable benefit/cost ratio is obtained by not spending anything at all on CO2 mitigation for at least half a century (Nordhaus, 2012).
Why is the climate failing to respond as the climate-extremists of the IPCC had so over-confidently predicted? As I explained in my talk at Union College, the main reason is that the IPCC has wildly exaggerated the supposed warming influence of various “temperature feedbacks” whose combined effect, it says, is to triple the small and harmless warming that everyone accepts would otherwise arise from a doubling of CO2 concentration. Yet not one of these feedbacks can be directly measured; their values (expressed in Kelvin of warming per Watt per square meter of radiative forcing) cannot be obtained by any theoretical method either; and measurements in the real atmosphere, conducted, for instance, by Spencer and Braswell (2010, 2011) and by Lindzen and Choi (2009, 2011) have indicated the likelihood that the net effect of temperature feedbacks is to attenuate rather than to accentuate the small and harmless direct warming from CO2.
The economic argument against acting on CO2 is even stronger than the political argument. Even if one were to suppose, per impossibile, that the 3 Celsius degrees of warming predicted by the IPCC for this century as a result of our emissions of greenhouse gases were actually likely to occur, only 1.5 Celsius of this warming is attributable to the CO2 we add to the atmosphere this century. In the IPCC’s analysis, the other 1.5 Celsius comes either from committed warming arising from our sins of emission or from non-CO2 greenhouse-gas emissions which are not, on the whole, addressed at all by current policies to mitigate global warming worldwide.
Accordingly, even if we were to shut down the entire global economy and emit no CO2 from now til 2100, and even if in thus going back to the Stone Age we did not even let ourselves light carbon-emitting fires in our caves, the maximum warming we should be able to forestall by 2100 would be just 1.5 Celsius, and that is all. And at what cost? There is the real problem. Any individual proposal to mitigate CO2 emissions – even if it were to succeed – would only be able to forestall a very small fraction of the 1.5 Celsius of 21st-century warming that we could in theory prevent. And even that individual proposal – such as California’s or the EU’s CO2 trading scheme or various anti-coal measures now being pursued by environmental extremists in many countries – would cost many tens or even hundreds of billions. Scaling up such proposals so that they were implemented worldwide would multiply the costs, which would represent a very significant fraction of global GDP over the coming century, for very little benefit.
It seemed that the professors and many of the students who attended my talk share Mr. Corbin’s belief that science should be done by consensus, defying philosophers and proponents of the scientific method from Aristotle and Al-Haytham via Huxley to Popper, all of whom made it explicitly plain that consensus plays no part whatsoever in the discernment of scientific truth. However, if they prefer to argue from consensus rather than from scientific method, then let them know this: the peer-reviewed literature of climate economics is near-unanimous in concluding that it is more cost-effective to do nothing now and to pay the cost of focused adaptation to any adverse consequences of global warming that may in future occur than it is to spend any money now on climate mitigation.
Let us return to the use of reason in analyzing questions of public policy on which science has a bearing. The data and the arguments do not at present justify taking any action to address manmade global warming. The correct policy to address this non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.
I couldn’t agree more. Do you go to facebook often Lord Monckton?
I regret that Mr. Monckton did not find that our post “[added] anything substantial;” our intention was to correct potential misconceptions about our students’ participations during his visit. However, since he has raised some specific comments about climate change science and economics, I will respond to some of them.
It is not clear to me where Mr. Monckton’s peculiar ideas about the way that science is practiced come from. In fact, the existence of a scientific consensus, when it derives from the agreement of those best trained to evaluate data and theory, are what give us the most confidence in a explanation of natural phenomena. Mr. Monckton’s implication that climate science is not the result of “careful observation, measurement and experiment, and by equally careful application of established theory to the results” doesn’t hold water. To believe his claim – that some conspiracy has blinded those documenting evidence of climate change – requires a leap of faith too great for me.
With regards to some of his specific claims:
- The Hadley Center/Met Office reported last month that, indeed, the Earth warmed between 1998 and 2010. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9153473/Met-Office-World-warmed-even-more-in-last-ten-years-than-previously-thought-when-Arctic-data-added.html
“Now a new analysis of land and sea temperatures, that includes new data from weather stations in the Arctic, has found the world is warming even more than previously thought. Between 1998 and 2010, temperatures rose by 0.11C, 0.04C more than previously estimated.
- I don’t know where Mr. Monckton got his data for sea ice (“Cryosphere Today”?), but NASA’s Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) reports that ““The nine lowest maximum extents [for Arctic sea ice] have occurred in the last nine years,” said Walt Meier of NSIDC.” Research shows the maximum sea ice extend is shifting later in the season. The cause for the change is unknown, although sea ice is also declining in the summer, when it typically reaches its minimum extent.: http://news.mongabay.com/2012/0328-nasa_sea_ice_max.html
Mr. Monckton’s emphasis on the economics of dealing with climate change is telling – it is clear that his attacks on climate science stem from his distaste for potential prescriptions. That helps to explain his repeated politicizing of the issue, referring to environmentalists as Reds, his obsession with Al Gore, etc. (Incidentally, none of us count Mr Gore as an authority on the science, if you care). As we wrote in our Opinion, there are serious questions about how to confront climate change – and we think we should be having that debate. BUT, those are POLICY questions, not SCIENTIFIC ones. It is Mr. Monckton that conflates the two.
But since Mr Monckton refers to Nordhaus 2012, I will point out that William Nordhaus does not support Mr. Monckton’s assertions. In his March 22, 2012 article in the New York Review of Books “Why the Global Warming Skeptics are Wrong,” Mr. Nordaus writes:
“My research shows that there are indeed substantial net benefits from acting now rather than waiting fifty years. A look at Table 5-1 in my study A Question of Balance (2008) shows that the cost of waiting fifty years to begin reducing CO2 emissions is $2.3 trillion in 2005 prices. If we bring that number to today’s economy and prices, the loss from waiting is $4.1 trillion. Wars have been started over smaller sums.10
My study is just one of many economic studies showing that economic efficiency would point to the need to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions right now, and not to wait for a half-century. Waiting is not only economically costly, but will also make the transition much more costly when it eventually takes place. Current economic studies also suggest that the most efficient policy is to raise the cost of CO2 emissions substantially, either through cap-and-trade or carbon taxes, to provide appropriate incentives for businesses and households to move to low-carbon activities.
One might argue that there are many uncertainties here, and we should wait until the uncertainties are resolved. Yes, there are many uncertainties. That does not imply that action should be delayed. Indeed, my experience in studying this subject for many years is that we have discovered more puzzles and greater uncertainties as researchers dig deeper into the field. There are continuing major questions about the future of the great ice sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica; the thawing of vast deposits of frozen methane; changes in the circulation patterns of the North Atlantic; the potential for runaway warming; and the impacts of ocean carbonization and acidification. Moreover, our economic models have great difficulties incorporating these major geophysical changes and their impacts in a reliable manner. Policies implemented today serve as a hedge against unsuspected future dangers that suddenly emerge to threaten our economies or environment. So, if anything, the uncertainties would point to a more rather than less forceful policy—and one starting sooner rather than later—to slow climate change.” (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/)
Hello Lionel,
Skepticalscience isn’t aptly named, they’re a P.R. firm who constantly misuse and misinterpret papers. I’ve gone there and demonstrated how they’re doing this to them, only to find my comments deleted a few hours later. SKS is a lesson in group think, their members are too afraid to think for themselves because they risk being ostracized and tabled “deniers” if they question the “Authority” and thought process (Which is non-existent) of the administration. It’s really the biggest fallacious joke on the internet trying to be a science site.
http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/skepticalscience-rewriting-history/
http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/skeptical-quote-surgery-pat-michaels/
As for the “factually challenged” comment, you seem rather dismissive for someone relying on a PR company that runs untrue smear campaigns. For instance their assertion that Monckton is a “fake” lord. As it turns out Lord Monckton has gotten the opinion of an English constitutional lawyer (legal letterhead) and indeed he is a lord and a member of the house of lords. It’s sad that instead of dealing with his statements, they resort to Ad-hominem attacks.
It seems they have no idea of what critical thinking is.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/odonoghue-lords-opinion.pdf
To really deal with your “factually challenged” comment I would like to point this out. This is a new paper in which they find the vast majority of warming we experienced from 1906-2005 was indeed natural, and I quote:
“Natural” means that we do not have within a defined confidence interval a definitely positive anthropogenic contribution and, therefore, only a marginal anthropogenic contribution cannot be excluded.”
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011IJMPC..22.1139L
It seems you have a problem with sources, and knowledge of the reality behind the debate.
I think you have Skeptical Science confused with JunkScience and We Use Wishful Thinking and to suggest that I visit that later for a lesson in critical thinking demonstrates the poverty of your own.
As I pointed out WUWT didn’t fare too well WRT the UHI effect and BEST now did it.
You don’t have a clue about that either then clearly. How do you know the sources that I consult and have done this past eighteen or so years and before that WRT Weather and Climate how about this one for starters:
‘Atmosphere, Weather & Climate’, Roger G Barry and Richard J Chorley, Fourth Edition. 1982 which I still consult from time to time.
Not easy to sort out who wrote what in relevant threads but from what I have seen if you quote Velikovsky as a serious source then I am not surprised that you were shown the door. You will be presenting an expanding Earth as a serious theory for the present arrangements of the continents next.
At best, the empirical evidence for human impact on climate change, more specifically, the anthropogenic global warming (AGW), is based on correlational research. That is, no experiment has been carried out that confirms or
falsifies the causal hypothesis put forward by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that anthropogenic increasing of green house gas concentrations very likely causes increasing of the (mean) global temperature.
Monckton of Brenchley (whatever that is)
From the slant of Corbin’s post it was never intended to add anything to a ‘serious discussion of the science and economics‘ but to expose your bluster and obfuscation for what it is – nonsense dressed up as science. It also countered the utterings of those sycophants who hang on your miss-thoughts and slavishly broadcast them to those who, from lack of a working bullshit filter, are only happy to receive.
Science is done by consensus in effect by the fact that 98% of scientists working in multidisciplinary fields related to climate for over a century and a half have produced a collection of independent papers that together demonstrate that climate change is happening and that anthropogenically induced global warming is a reality. Indicators from the biosphere and cryosphere alone tell us that we have a problem.
To claim as you do that there has been, ‘no statistically-significant global warming for 15 years‘ is a strawman, which I think you know. It would be good if you reproduced the whole quote and gave a precise citation of the source so that those receiving such blandishments understand the whole context and can check up on it if required. But of course hiding behind such non-obvious ambiguity is a trade mark of your Gish Gallop presentations, of which this latest post of yours is but yet another example.
I am not sure how you can put a date of 2012 against that CRU quote as it appears to have a slightly longer history, one that harks back to the Roger Harrabin interview with Phil Jones reported on here:
Phil Jones – Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
http://www.skepticalscience.com/phil-jones-warming-since-1995-significant.html
Roger Harrabin posed the question:
Further to my exhortations to read E O Wilson’s ‘Life on Earth’ maybe MoB could comment on the likely economic impacts of the temperature reversals being felt across large parts of the continental US (and Canada) and reported on here:
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/show.html
Somehow I don’t think things are going to work out too well in the short term, this on top of last years droughts and fires, let alone the long term.
Myopic thinking and tunnel vision economics are so Paleolithic. See Wilson page 40 (in pb) for where that idea comes from.
The science of Flat Earth was done by consensus. Stomach ulcers caused by stress was proclaimed by consensus. The Piltdown Man was shrieked about as “settled science” by consensus. Witches needing to be burned at the stake was also, go figure, by consensus. None of it made it right.
Science by consensus is not science. To stipulate the contrary
That the one-world government, production-capping, third world-murdering, global carbon tax-endorsing criminal propaganda-spewing sock-puppets still need to rely on it speaks volumes on the reliability of their evidence.
Free human, turn off the television and educate YOURSELF.
That little paranoia and strawman riddled rant is hardly worth a reply Reggie. It is clear that you have been paying attention to too many Faux talking heads.
Global warming is a global problem. If an aircraft from foreign lands flew over your head and dumped rubbish on it would you not take issue with that foreign country. Well here is the news for you, they do do just that. Its a problem of the commons. Policing the commons on a global scale will require the co-ordination of ALL nations on Earth. It does not have to be one world government in totality but many socio-economic elements will need regulating if we are not to ruin the commons past the point that everybody and most living things suffer the consequences.
You have clearly missed the point of my description of how a scientific consensus is reached and probably have no real idea how science progresses. Sure mavericks come along and put forward hypotheses that run counter to the larger body of evidence in some particular details. But if those same hypotheses fail the acid test of accounting for all known and well understood phenomena then they fail. Thus Spencer & Bracewell, and Lindzen & Choi (any recent version) have been shown to be deficient. That is how science works and resorting to publishing in the scientific equivalents of the media red-tops, as some have, is a mark of desperation.
As for educating myself that is rich given the sources I have mentioned, and many many more which I have not, and your obvious lack of rational perspective or argument here.
You could start by defining consensus.
Then you could read the E.O. Wilson I have indicated as well as the same authors earlier ‘The Diversity of Life’.
Also ‘Driven to Extinction: The Impact of Climate Change on Biodiversity’ by Richard Pearson is a little more up to date and also raises other facets.
Then Jared Diamond is always worth an educated person’s reading time in particular:
‘Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies’
‘Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed’
‘The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee: How Our Animal Heritage Affects the Way We Live’
You need to improve your perspective.
As it happens I watch very little television and then mostly to critique documentaries – so many errors of fact and omissions in many on science and also history. But then history can often be contentious.
You’re losing, sock-puppet. Climategate. Fakegate. Checkmate.
You’re finished. Tell your masters we don’t want their global carbon tax, nor their one-world government while they rake it in like hogs with their talking point-regurgitating slaves (such as yourself, Lionel) prancing about their table begging for scraps by screeching (quite unscientifically) “it’s settled science!”, lapdogs that you are.
So spare me your criminal propaganda and go help your masters hide the decline, present tampered and fruadulent data and forge some documents (science!); it’s all you’re good for.
But you’re losing.
Truth will out, sock-puppet.
Sorry.
“I think you have Skeptical Science confused with JunkScience and We Use Wishful Thinking and to suggest that I visit that later for a lesson in critical thinking demonstrates the poverty of your own.”
As I clearly stated before, I went to SKS proved them wrong and they simply censored me. They are a PR firm who rely on arguments of authority, Ad-Homenem attacks, and the headcount fallacy. These things have absolutly no place in a critical thinking science based debate. Simply put, they are useless.
“As I pointed out WUWT didn’t fare too well WRT the UHI effect and BEST now did it.”
The Authors of BEST clearly stated that they didn’t look for a UHI effect, again you are misinformed. If you would care to have a look, this recently published paper identified the UHI effect and found that the warming from 1905-2005 was indeed a natural fluctuation.
“Working with 2249 globally-distributed monthly temperature records covering the period 1906-2005, which they obtained from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Ludecke et al. (2011) evaluated “to what extent the temperature rise in the past 100 years was a trend or a natural fluctuation.” ”
http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpc/22/2210/S0129183111016798.html
From the conclusions:
By separating stations into speci fic station groups, such as those with a
defi ned minimum population, a strong UHI and elevation warming can be
identi ed.
From 1906 to 2005, about a quarter of all records show falling temperatures.
This in itself is an indication that the observed temperature series are predominantly
natural fluctuations. ‘Natural’ means that we do not have within
a de fined confi dence interval a de nitely positive anthropogenic contribution
and, therefore, only a marginal anthropogenic contribution can not be excluded.
As I clearly stated before, I went to SKS proved them wrong and they simply censored me.
Yes for ‘carpet bombing’ threads amongst persisting with the ‘its the sun crock’.
See
http://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=Cole&x=0&y=0
I never indicated that BEST and UHI were linked, that is something that you have done, read it again more carefully.
Little wonder you cannot grasp more complex statements such as found in scientific papers, nor that the signatories of The Manhattan Declaration are not all involved in climate related studies which includes Joe Bastardi – demonstrating the thin ice on which you skate and the desperation of your case.
Next you will be offering the Wegman Report.
It is you that needs educating and sources for such I have cited here aplenty.
Lionel,
The comment you linked too was not mine, I was censored for pointing out that they were misrepresenting a paper and proving it to them. Your entire post is nothing but a Red-Herring and completely fails to deal with the information I posted for you. You are scientifically and philosophically inept.
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.
I’m through talking to you Lionel. I’ve posted plenty of links above that prove how much of a joke SKS is, and now you’ve proven how much of a joke you are.
You are as irrelevant as your last post.
Which comment was that exactly?
That’s it, do a Monckton and flounce off (a la Hadfield). Getting a bit warm for you.
Now here is a classic example of why I treat WUWT with such disdain:
Roy Spencer, man of mystery. WUWT is an asylum for the scientifically and cognitively challenged.
“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”
-Richard H. Lindzen, Ph.D.
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Scientists are in broad agreement that the earth has been slowly warming for about three centuries. We don’t know why, which should give us a clue about the depth of our understanding of the climate.
More to the point, there is no agreement about such basic, rudimentary, fundamental, all-important questions as the sign and size of the cloud feedbacks. A change of 2% in cloud cover would wipe out any CO2 effect. Since we don’t understand the clouds, that most basic and critically important part of climate science, the idea that we understand why the earth is currently warming, or the idea that we can forecast climate a hundred years in advance, is hubris of the first order. We don’t know why it warmed in Medieval times. We don’t know why it warmed in Roman times. We don’t know why it has warmed since the “Little Ice Age”. We don’t understand the climate, and you folks’ claims that you do understand it well enough to make century-long forecasts just makes rational, reasonable people point and laugh.
-Willis Eschenbach