Toasty?
Dutifully, NIWA informs us breathlessly that this decade was the “hottest on record” as if that is some sort of horrifying statistic that will make us rush out and shoot all those farting cows (actually they are burping methane but who cares?). Of course, this is only 50 years worth of data, so this is the hottest decade out of the past five – not exactly a big sample. Last year was somewhat cooler than 2008 and way cooler than 1934 which was the hottest on records dating back to 1850 (US and UK records), but this kind of information would detract from the scary headline “Hottest Decade on Record”. So would the information that the temperature has been slowly increasing overall since records started in 1850 (well before we contributed significantly to greenhouse gas amounts). So would the fact that proxies and ice cores show a warming trend since the 1600s which was – surprise, surprise – the bottom of the Little Ice Age. Even less human contribution to greenhouse gases in the 1600s.
Which is why this latest piece of research should come as no real surprise. It basically says that there is no good evidence that the man made fraction of total carbon dioxide in the air has changed over the past 160 years. Or in scientific language:
“The hypothesis of a recent or secular trend in the AF [Airborne Fraction] cannot be supported on the basis of the available data and its accuracy.”
SO the earth may be getting warmer, but it does not look like carbon dioxide has a lot to do with it.
Damn! And Carbon Dioxide was so easy to tax!
Perhaps the utter failure of the recent Copenhagen talkfest was no bad thing.
Hat Tip: Crusader Rabbit
Related posts:
- Occam’s Carbon Razor It is no secret that I am an Anthropogenic Global...
- Positive Energy It was interesting to see two articles on alternative energy...
- Rule of 48 In Michael Chrichton’s novel The Andromeda Strain, one of the...
- Record Changing Rubbish We are still a very long way from having countrywide-accessible patient...
- Forever is a Long Time I see that the latest Global Whining Warming news is...
Jan 7 10 10:06 am
Not really a bombshell.
The 2007 IPCC report said this:
There is yet no statistically significant trend in the CO2 growth rate as a fraction of fossil fuel plus cement emissions since routine atmospheric CO2 measurements began in 1958. This ‘airborne fraction’ has shown little variation over this period.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-es.html
Must be something more to it, how utterly unusual.
Agreed, it is not a bombshell. Just another study that confirms the IPCC models as hopelessly flawed
Jan 7 10 12:35 pm
Where is the proof NZ is getting warmer? Have NIWA provided the Cook’s constant they used when the thermometers were moves?
In cases where the thermometers were moved some of the increase would have been because industry moved out to surround airports where reading were frequently taken.
Jan 7 10 10:02 pm
Well Wabbit has shown he’s got no idea about what the study is actually claiming, how are you interpreting it MacDoctor? I find the abstract a little vague.
Jan 7 10 10:54 pm
Andrew:
Would be happy to send you a copy via email.
The study uses the data from the Law dome and Siple ice cores to show that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 has not changed in over 150 years (confirming the direct sampling data collected since the late 50s). This does not mean that we are not adding more of these gasses than we used to. Nor does it mean they are having no effect. But it does mean that the rise of CO2 is unlikely to be driven by man and that the earth’s ability to absorb CO2 is probably considerably greater than we thought.
Jan 7 10 11:00 pm
Do you mind explaining how you get from
“The study [shows]… the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 has not changed in over 150 years”
to
“the rise of CO2 is unlikely to be driven by man “
Jan 8 10 4:56 am
Thanks MacDoctor, reading the abstract again I interpret it as saying the fraction of carbon in the atmosphere as a percentage of that in the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems is increasing at a rate of 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade and that as this is such a small trend it suggests that concerns that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions are unlikely to be correct.
Like David I don’t see this as justifying your interpretation that the study means that “the rise of CO2 is unlikely to be driven by man”
Disclaimer: I had a run-in with Wabbit a couple of weeks ago (I’m banned!) and think he’s an idiot who couldn’t add 2+2 and get the right answer if it clashed with his ideology.
Jan 8 10 9:16 am
Clearly if the rise in atmospheric CO2 had been due mainly to man’s CO2 emissions, then the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere from anthropogenic sources should increase.
Andrew W:
The article is plainly talking about the anthropogenic proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere, not the ocean. They are using ice core samples – these are atmospheric samples not oceanic ones. They state their assumptions for the ocean/atmosphere proportion – they are not measuring them.
Jan 8 10 9:43 am
OK, the paper is saying: If the rate at which the biosphere is removing carbon from the atmosphere were declining, as some have claimed, the anthropogenic fraction of carbon in the atmosphere would be increasing, as the anthropogenic fraction is remaining more or less constant, the rate of removal of the extra atmospheric carbon by the biosphere is not declining.
That’s not an argument that “the rise of CO2 is unlikely to be driven by man”.
Jan 8 10 11:16 am
Clearly if the rise in atmospheric CO2 had been due mainly to man’s CO2 emissions, then the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere from anthropogenic sources should increase.
The paper is about the airborne fraction not the amount of anthropogenic CO2. What is shows is that the annual increase in C02 is about 40% of human emissions and that proportion isn’t changing. Which is IPCC orthodoxy.
Jan 8 10 12:44 pm
thanks david
Jan 8 10 9:33 pm
Andrew W and David W:
(what’s with all these W’s guys? Is this code for Warmers?)
I stand corrected. I have re-read the paper and AF is just the fraction of CO2 remaining in the atmosphere. Note that this is NOT an “annual increase in C02″, David, it is simply the residual amount left after the oceans and plants have absorbed their portions. It indicates that the CO2 scrubbing system of the planet is coping with all of our burping cows and factories. Considering our contribution to carbon dioxide emissions is only about 3% in total, this should come as no surprise, but it is reassuring.
Unfortunately, the paper is not really reassuring, as it is based on a large number of assumptions, hence the substantial margin of error. It also suggests that the estimation of land use emissions is about 16% higher than it should be, which suggests to me a significant underestimation of the ability of vegetation to sequester carbon. Not really “IPCC orthodoxy”, but not as interesting as I initially thought.
Jan 8 10 10:35 pm
Note that this is NOT an “annual increase in C02″, David, it is simply the residual amount left after the oceans and plants have absorbed their portions.
That’s an annual increase. In fact it’s simply a year’s (or other time period’s) emissions divided by the observed increase in C02 for that year. We might be responsible for a small percentage of the flux in CO2 but I’m afraid to tell you we are repsonisble for damn near all the recent increase (cf carbon cycle, carbon isotopes…)
(what’s with all these W’s guys? Is this code for Warmers?)
My last name is actually Winter, so I’m free of warming bias there
david w´s last blog ..The Origin of Species and the origin of species
Jan 9 10 9:00 am
If you take in a man who has been starving for months and give him a rich 8 course meal you’ll be disappointed at how much he doesn’t eat. Thats because his stomach and system is simply unable to accommodate that much rich food. But give him time (and more food) and his ability to eat quantities will improve as his system adjusts and his body mass increases.
Logically the same thing happens with CO2 and plants. At 250ppm CO2 plants are growing well short of their potential. Increase the amount and the plants grow faster and bigger, the bigger they get the more CO2 they need and can absorb.
As plants get bigger they cover more of the ground and thus better control (conserve) water and ground water, which reduces another limitation to growth, more diverse plants can then grow which may have better CO2 gobbling capabilities.
Thus you have a developing virtuous circle of better growth and increasing absorption capability and possibly changing the climate beneficially as well.
In short, the more CO2 you throw at plants the more they will grow and diversify to make use of it.. the end result is increasing CO2 absorbtion. Even the nefarious tree choppers may be playing a virtuous part when they chop old growth (and thus slower growing) trees which encourages new and more vigourous growth. You might lose many stately forest trees, but its the leaf growth we are interested in, and many younger and smaller plants may do the job better.
This old Earth has been balancing its debits and credits for a very long time and its got some pretty handy tools to do the job.. earthquakes, volcanoes, ice ages, Man/animals, CO2, and many more.
JC
Jan 9 10 4:50 pm
That’s a nice story JC (if a little hippy-ish and teleological…) but if you want to do science then you have to check these things against the data. The research that started this thread – no significant difference in the airborne fraction – shows that even with the system pushed from its equilibrium the potential feedbacks you list aren’t pushing it back.
david w´s last blog ..The Origin of Species and the origin of species
Jan 15 10 12:28 am
Last year was somewhat cooler than 2008 and way cooler than 1934 which was the hottest on records dating back to 1850 (US and UK records), but this kind of information would detract from the scary headline “Hottest Decade on Record”.
Ah, the 1934 PRATT.
So would the fact that proxies and ice cores show a warming trend since the 1600s which was – surprise, surprise – the bottom of the Little Ice Age. Even less human contribution to greenhouse gases in the 1600s.
Ah, the Vikings PRATT.
It basically says that there is no good evidence that the man made fraction of total carbon dioxide in the air has changed over the past 160 years.
This is what Dr Knorr actually said in his Bristol Univeristy press release.
Dr Knorr’s research was published in “Geophysical Research Letters” which comes under the umbrella of the Americal Geophysical Union.
It’s reasonable to assume that the AGU has also read Dr Knorr’s research and has the required expertise to do so.
This is what the AGU has to say on the subject of global warming. They spell it out loud and clear.
“The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.
During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.
With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.
http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/positions/climate_change2008.shtml
Jan 15 10 1:19 am
Cedric:
Thank you for citing the “local, not global” nonsense.
Unfortunately for that theory it is quite clear that the UK was warmer than usual in the 1930
There is plenty of evidence to support the medieval warming period in Antarctica and New Zealand. Of course, I wasn’t actually talking about the MWP but the Little Ice Age that followed it. The temperature has been steadily increasing since the LIA, long before carbon dioxide could be a problem.
The AGU position statement you cite is identical to the 2003 statement in most respects, despite a wealth of data now contradicting it. I particularly like this part “Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.” Why not less disruption? Because while less destruction is scientifically accurate, it is not politically alarmist enough for the AGU, which is, after all, a political animal.
Jan 15 10 12:50 pm
Unfortunately for that theory it is quite clear that the UK was warmer than usual in the 1930
So? You are still mixing apples with oranges.
UK temperatures would still be regional, not global.
The temperature has been steadily increasing since the LIA, long before carbon dioxide could be a problem.
Where are you getting your information from?
…despite a wealth of data now contradicting it.
Not according to the scientific community.
You can only reach that conclusion if you exclusively follow the Denialist no-name blogs.
Once you enter the mainstream, where working scientists do active, original research and are prepared to continuously enter the process of peer-review, then the Denialist talking points fade away.
NASA, for example, is is full agreement with the AGU.
As is every single scientific community on the planet.
…AGU, which is, after all, a political animal.
No. The AGU is a well respected scientific community.
If you wish to make the claim that they have abandoned the scientific process and are now just playing politics then…that’s something you should provide evidence for.
Cedric Katesby´s last blog ..A Fine Take on Lunacy
Jan 15 10 10:07 pm
Cedric: UK temperatures would still be regional, not global
True. But they are on opposite sides of the atlantic. That would be strong evidence of at least northern hemisphere warming.
Where are you getting your information from? Many places. But here is a pro-warming paper in a reputable journal that says much the same thing. I could find you a whole list but you seem to be happy with Wikipedia.
You can only reach that conclusion if you exclusively follow the Denialist no-name blogs.
I like the “no name” bit. So dismissive. But not to worry. I’m very open-minded. I follow many warmist no-name blogs as well.
Once you enter the mainstream, where working scientists do active, original research and are prepared to continuously enter the process of peer-review, then the Denialist talking points fade away.
By “peer reviewed” I assume you mean “reviewed by a coterie of CRU warmists”.
Again you suggest that people who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming are fringe lunies who do no active or original research. This is clearly garbage.
NASA is in full agreement with the AGU
Being in agreement with Jim Hansen’s boys is hardly apolitical is it? Do you know of any large scientific body that does not have some sort of political motivation?
Jan 16 10 4:38 am
True. But they are on opposite sides of the atlantic. That would be strong evidence of at least northern hemisphere warming.
The U.S and the UK are hardly representative of the Northern hemisphere, let alone the rest of the planet.
If you were seriously interested in the Northern Hemisphere then why exclude the temperature data of 1934 from the Arctic, the European Countries, the former USSR, Iceland, Canada and the rest?
What’s the deal with that?
Didn’t Europeans have thermometers back in 1934?
Cherry-picking regional data from two countries in 1934 and then mixing it in with global temperature data and hoping people don’t notice is not a very nice thing to do.
Apples and oranges.
<i.Many places. But here…
Thanks for the link.
You seem to be really focused on solitary papers winnowed out from the multitude.
I tend to go for the broader picture.
The more the merrier.
One swallow does not a spring make.
The paper you linked to was indeed published in a reputable journal.
This journal (Quaternary International) is run by the International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA).
They sound pretty impressive and it would be safe to say that INQUA is well aware of the paper you cited and is qualified to judge it on it’s merits and understand what it really means.
So, I decided to find out what INQUA’s stand on global warming was.
This is what I found….
Climate change is real.
There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring1. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and, indirectly, from increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes in many physical and biological systems. It is very likely that most of the observed increase in global temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is due to human-induced increases in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere (IPCC 2007)2.
Human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases – including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide – to rise well above pre-industrial levels.
Carbon dioxide levels have increased from…
The rest is available here.
I follow many warmist no-name blogs as well.
What’s wrong with skipping the blogosphere altogether and just going direct to the scientific communities?
NASA, The Royal Society, NCAR, AGU, etc.
That’s what I do.
They all have their own web-sites open to the public where they clearly and simply explain their position.
No need to bottom feed or get your information second-hand.
By “peer reviewed” I assume you mean “reviewed by a coterie of CRU warmists”.
No.
There is no “coterie” of “warmists”.
(You make it sound so tiny and insignificant. Why is that?)
I’m talking about all the scientific communities at large that do active and current research on the Earth’s climate.
Communities like the British Antarctic Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, The European Science Foundation, the CSIRO, the American Physical Society, The Royal Meteorological Society, the Americal Meteorological Society etc.
Again you suggest that people who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming are fringe lunies who do no active or original research. This is clearly garbage.
The only way to be skeptical of global warming is to ignore the scientific communities completely and solely rely the denialist blogosphere and op-eds in the newspapers.
Even a cursory glance at the scientific literature in peer-reviewed journals makes it clear that the scientific community as a whole is convinced that global warming is real and that humanity is responsible for it.
There will always be outliers and contrarians but they are a tiny minority that is so small that the same ol’ names are brought up again and again before the media.
Its just like Creationism or the Anti-vacc crowd.
Being in agreement with Jim Hansen’s boys is hardly apolitical is it?
Where are you going with this?
If you wish to make the claim that the AGU have abandoned the scientific process and are now just playing politics then…that’s something you should provide evidence for.
I don’t see how bringing up Jim Hansen and his “boys” (???) helps you.
The same goes double for NASA.
If you wish to make the claim that NASA have abandoned the scientific process and are now just playing politics then…that’s something you should provide evidence for.
So let’s have it already.
Do you know of any large scientific body that does not have some sort of political motivation?
(rolls eyes)
Pick a large scientific body.
Any large scientific body you want.
I really don’t care.
You get a free choice.
Pick the most evil, twisted, corrupt dastardly large scientific body on the planet that supports the science of global warming.
Now provide evidence that this nefarious and oh-so-spooky large scientific body has abandoned the scientific process and are now just playing politics.
(….crickets chirping…)
Jan 16 10 9:48 pm
Cedric:
There is plenty of data showing a warming trend from the mid 1800s in Siberia, Iceland, canada and europe. It is one of the few things Warmists and skeptics agree on. I was merely citing UK data as a single example. As for scientific papers, you really don’t expect me to list dozens and dozens do you? I purposefully cited one that was thoroughly warmist in its stance so that you could not accuse me of bias. INQUA’s statement on Global Warming is therefore not exactly a surprise! If you only get your information from places like NASA and AGU, it is small wonder you think the “science is settled” and that “denialists are cranks”.
The only way to be skeptical of global warming is to ignore the scientific communities completely and solely rely the denialist blogosphere and op-eds in the newspapers.
I beg to differ. I rarely rely on the scientific and semi-scientific blogosphere for anything except to guide me to new data sources(viz. published studies). As for Op-eds – ROTFLMAO.
I am surprised by your naivety about the scientific community. NASA has been chiefly a political lobby since the space race. Hansen has had a political agenda since Gore’s days. This politicisation of science is nothing new and is not altogether a bad thing. Unfortunately, the tendency is for science to be sensationalised and dumbed down for political purposes, leading to misunderstandings about the nature of scientific inquiry. I believe this has happened to the Anthropogenic Global Warming debate. There are multiple theories about the warming trend we are talking about, some possible and some absurd. To act as though there is only one theory and that theory is indisputable is not science at all, but purest politics.
But feel free to continue to fall for it if you wish.
Jan 17 10 12:25 am
There is plenty of data showing a warming trend from the mid 1800s in Siberia, Iceland, canada and europe. It is one of the few things Warmists and skeptics agree on. I was merely citing UK data as a single example.
No. You were clearly mixing your apples and oranges.
If you include data from other countries, then 1934 loses it’s value as a Denialist talking point. The big, bad year of 1934 suddenly becomes just another ho-hum year in terms of global temperatures. Go ahead and try it for yourself. The Europeans had thermometers in 1934 too. Honest.
Go ahead and add more data points.
The 1934 PRATT is well past it’s use-by date.
It’s been picked clean. It’s a stale joke. It only works for those who are unfamiliar with it and are not willing to fact-check it.
I’ve seen it before.
It’s as famous (infamous?) as the 1998 PRATT. Link.
As the AGU says…“As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850.”
No scientific community disputes this. None.
1934 is the hottest year on record in the USA which only comprises 2% of the globe. According to NASA temperature records, the hottest year on record globally is 2005.
Link.
Perhaps you were unaware of the switch yourself so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Smart people get taken in by slick web-sites all the time. Just add some more publically available temperature records and see for yourself.
If you only get your information from places like NASA and AGU, it is small wonder you think the “science is settled” and that “denialists are cranks”.
A very odd way to put it.
There’s nothing “only” about NASA or the AGU.
Both communities are truely gigantic and have excellent scientific reputations.
I am also happy to get my science from International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA).
They also agree with NASA and AGU.
The British Antarctic Survey is also good. Not to mention the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, The European Science Foundation, the CSIRO, the American Physical Society, The Royal Meteorological Society, the Americal Meteorological Society, The Royal Society, and the NCAR.
In fact, I’m perfectly comfortable getting my science from any scientific community on the planet.
Let me repeat that so that there is no misunderstanding.
I’m perfectly comfortable getting my science from any scientific community on the planet.
Link
They all agree with each other on global warming.
There’s nothing “only” in that.
They churn out the research.
They put boots on the ground in the Arctic, they launch the satellites, they conduct surveys of the oceans and they follow multiple independent lines of evidence crosssing the whole of the Earth sciences.
They produce the overwhelming body of scientific peer-reviewed literature.
The denialists have nothing in comparison.
Link.
It’s like medicine.
When I’m curious about nutty people blogging about “how dangerous vaccinations are and autism link” then I’ll go and check out what the working medical community has to say.
The blogosphere can go hang itself.
For example, I can go to the CDC.
Or perhaps the American Acadamy of Pediatrics.
These people do the work.
They regularly and continuously publish in the peer-reviewed literature.
There are multiple, independent medical scientific bodies representing a mass of medical professionals who roundly dismiss the link between autism and vaccinations.
I find that convincing and I wish more frightened parents would stop trusting no-name blogs and go direct to the scientific communities who do this kind of thing for a living.
I believe this has happened to the Anthropogenic Global Warming debate.
You are welcome to your “beliefs”.
The anti-vacc crowd also have their “beliefs” on how the tendency is for medical science to be sensationalised and dumbed down for political purposes, leading to misunderstandings about the nature of scientific inquiry. They too, are happy to say that to act as though there is only one theory about autism and vaccinations and that theory is indisputable is not science at all, but purest politics.
As I have said before, go ahead and pick the most evil, twisted, corrupt dastardly large scientific body on the planet that supports the science of global warming.
Provide evidence that this nefarious and oh-so-spooky large scientific body has abandoned the scientific process and are now just playing politics. Otherwise, all you are doing is just paranoid handwaving.
In the meantime however, I prefer to work with evidence. More accurately, I prefer to listen to those that gather the evidence and know what they are talking about.
There is a tiny circle of aging talking heads are wheeled out again and again to prop up the facade that there is some kind of “debate” or “confusion” in scientific circles about global warming.
You know the names I mean: Linzen, Timothy Ball, Michaels etc.
None of them are getting any younger and, more importantly, none of them are convincing their peers to join their ranks.
All you really have is the denialist blogosphere.
I’m sure you understand the value of peer-reviewed literature but you seem only prepared to see it through a tightly controlled filter. You seem to look at individual articles of the peer-reviewed research in isolation (probably after you’ve been alerted to it by the Denialist blogosphere) and then read into it what you want but…your conclusions about the impact of the papers are totally at odds with those who read and use those papers for a living and indeed published the paper in the first place.
(ie: The AGU, INQUA etc.)
Hansen has had a political agenda since Gore’s days.
This not about any individual scientist.
I don’t give a rat’s ass about Hansen or Al Gore.
This is about the global scientific community as a whole and the work they have done over the last several decades. Work that has been done the boring, old fashioned way following the scientific process.
Why does the global scientific community fail to convince you?
I just don’t get it.
Can’t you see that you are behaving in the same way as a creationist or a moon-landing hoaxer?
There is no scientific conspiracy.
The scientists are not your enemy.
P.S.
I appreciate the fact that you have not quietly deleted my posts.
If you want me to go, then I’ll go.
Your blog, your rules.
Cedric Katesby´s last blog ..James Randi, Norm Edmund, and The Frustrated Compass
Jan 17 10 1:45 am
Why on earth would I delete your posts because you disagree with me, Cedric? Your comments are well-reasoned and measured. I delete only trolls and people who use OTT bad language.
I don’t believe for a moment that there is a vast global warming conspiracy. I think the emails taken from the CRU database denote a worrying tendency to categorize holders of alternative global warming theories as “the enemy” and show that a few scientist have let politics get in the way of true scientific inquiry. Beyond that there is only the tendency of scientists to follow the prevailing theory, which is currently AGW. This is not a new problem. Exactly the same thing has happened many times in medicine and in physics, the two fields I am most familiar with. One couches ones data-gathering in such a way as to virtually preclude contrary conclusions to the current theory. This is most apparent in data-cleaning techniques where “outliers” are removed without once considering whether the real facts are actual in those outliers, as they sometimes are.
It is for these reasons (and others chiefly to do with statistical analysis) I tend to be extremely skeptical of anything presented as indisputable when there are clearly intelligent non-fanatics who disagree. My skepticism is increased when I observe the clear commercial and political aspirations of many who advocate AGW. The UN’s naked global ambitions in this regard have, to my mind, rendered any conclusion of the IPCC extremely suspect.
You, and most AGW advocates, seem to see people with alternative global warming theories as nutters, rather than just scientists with theories that you consider weak and disprovable. This suggests a distinct lack of scientific objectivity to me and worse, a suggestion that the data backing AGW is not as solid as you are suggesting. It is not as if the arguments presented by skeptics are scientifically unsound (like creationists) or hysterical (like moon-landing hoaxers or 911 conspiracy theorists). While the arguments may certainly have flaws, these flaws are rarely addressed convincingly, if at all. In fact, the vast majority of discussion I have had on this blog consists of the proposition that “all the reputable scientists accept this, why don’t you?” This is neither a logical proposition nor a valid scientific one. It is exactly the proposition put to Galileo and to Einstein.
Jan 17 10 3:52 am
You, and most AGW advocates, seem to see people with alternative global warming theories as nutters, rather than just scientists with theories that you consider weak and disprovable.
Well, if you really want to understand why I am confident that AGW is actual science and that Denialism is not, then perhaps the most eloquent step-by-step explanation of it all is by John Mashey. Check it out. Tell me if you honestly think that it’s unreasonable. Link.
AGW was not accepted in the past by the scientific community.
Now it is completely accepted.
That change did not happen by magic or politics or conspiracy.
It happened the old-fashioned way.
The scientific process.
Generations of scientists went out there and did active, original research.
They submitted to the process of peer-review.
The research encompassed ALL of the Earth sciences.
No exceptions.
Over decades, the body of scientific literature became so great that all scientific communities came on board with AGW.
No exceptions.
The isolated contrarians are, naturally, left out in the cold.
(Science doesn’t hand out consolation prizes.)
The science of AGW was gathered the old-fashioned way.
Also, the scientific consensus on global warming was created the old-fashioned way.
I didn’t know much about the basic history of how scientists found out about global warming until I watched a university lecture by Naomi Oreskes. In her lecture, I also found out about the disturbing, organised disinformation campaign that has been polluting the airwaves and the media in general.
If anybody is going to discuss global warming then they need to understand the history behind it.
Link.
Tell me what you think about her work.
Beyond that there is only the tendency of scientists to follow the prevailing theory, which is currently AGW.
Again, if you have any real evidence that there is a single large scientific body that is corrupt and has abandoned the scientific process then…present it already.
I understand you are suspicious.
I get it.
Who knows, maybe you are right!
Yet, in our conversation, you are consistantly unwilling to either support your suspicions with hard evidence or honestly abandon them.
One couches ones data-gathering in such a way as to virtually preclude contrary conclusions to the current theory. This is most apparent in data-cleaning techniques where “outliers” are removed without once considering whether the real facts are actual in those outliers, as they sometimes are.
Ok. Sounds good.
This is the sort of thing that could be demonstrable.
There would be memos. Phone calls. Witnesses. A paper trail.
This could, maybe, happen within some poorly monitored and lead scientific communities.
Yet, I just don’t see how, logistically speaking, by using these methods that one can create a global scientific consensus on global warming and the mountain of scientific peer-reviewed literature that goes along with it.
If there really is skullduggery going on at a global scale (or even a large scientific body scale) then let’s see the hard-core detective work. Until then, as a reasonable person, I just have to conclude that your suspicions are unfounded and that you are unfairly maligning the scientific community.
Just like the anti-vacc people or the HIV deniers or the creationists or the tobacco-cancer deniers.
The UN’s naked global ambitions in this regard have, to my mind, rendered any conclusion of the IPCC extremely suspect.
“UN naked global ambitions”?
(…awkward silence…)
Ah, I see.
Hmm.
(…shuffles feet…)
These are the same ones with the black helicopters who are after our precious bodily fluids?
(…more awkward silence…)
Never mind, let’s move on.
It is not as if the arguments presented by skeptics are scientifically unsound (like creationists) or hysterical (like moon-landing hoaxers or 911 conspiracy theorists).
The methods and tactics used by the Denial industry to “stir the pot” and create doubt and confusion where none need exist are identical to the creationists and other denialists such as the tobacco lobby.
(In many cases, they are even the same PEOPLE!)
Are you familiar with the Discovery Institute?
Or how about the Tobacco Institute?
Contrarians cannot compete in the scientific arena.
They take their case to the “court of public opinion” where they can play on the scientific illiteracy of the general public.
They are trying to do an end-run around the scientific process.
As a doctor, you must be aware of the shameful history of the tobacco industry using talking heads and contrarians to befuddle and bamboozle the general public. They trotted out their own pet “doctors” and dismissed the findings of all the medical scientists. They did this because they wanted to protect their billions in profits.
This is documented history. Not idle suspicion. (link)
The Denialist industry is using the same methods to attack science. The same savvy manipulation of the public and the media. The same creations of cardboard cut-out “Institutes” that pop up out of nowhere.
Would it really surprise you to know that the same talking heads that helped out the tobbaco lobby are now helping out the fossil fuel lobby?
Here’s a case in point. Link.
My skepticism is increased when I observe the clear commercial and political aspirations of many who advocate AGW.
Your skepticism is focused in totally the wrong direction.
Whatever the aspirations of certain AGW “advocates” may be, they don’t hold a candle to the concrete, billion dollar profit margins that exist in the here and now.
You want vested interests that are interested in perverting the course of science for financial and political gain?
Then check out the other side. Forget the fantasy money.
Look at the real money.
In fact, the vast majority of discussion I have had on this blog consists of the proposition that “all the reputable scientists accept this, why don’t you?” This is neither a logical proposition nor a valid scientific one.
Not really.
Relying on experts and the scientific process is a reasonable thing to do and perfectly logical.
For example, I know nothing about vaccinations.
Bugger all, in fact.
I wouldn’t know a vaccination if it came up and slapped me on the back of the head.
Yet I have full confidence that the CDC and my local certified doctor and the rest of the mainstream medical community do know an awful lot about vaccinations and their level of safety.
If somebody in the blogosphere earnestly insists that “it’s all just politics” and that Dr “X” and his “boys” are in cahoots with the UN so I shouldn’t trust vaccinations then…well…I’ll listen BUT their evidence would have to be fantastically good.
Seriously, read John Mashey and watch the lecture by Dr Oreskes. Tell me what you think.
Cedric Katesby´s last blog ..James Randi, Norm Edmund, and The Frustrated Compass
Jan 17 10 11:17 pm
Thanks for the links, Cedric. Can’t say they are overly convincing. John Mashey and Dr. Oreskes are both talking from the point of view the “the science is settled”. I found it somewhat amusing that Mashey used the example of Alfred Wegener’s hypothesis of continental drift, because it says almost the opposite to his point. Wegener tells us that the scientific “consensus” can be completely wrong, despite hundreds of studies in peer-reviewed journals. I will continue to reserve my judgement on these matters.
In the long run, though, my opinion is irrelevant. Politicians like power. They are not going to impoverish their voters unless there is a “clear and present danger” and I’m afraid that climate change is not going to cut it in that regard. And the carbon trading market is already worth 30 billion euros a year so $44 million for lobbying by the oil companies is a drop in the ocean. Mr. Gore knows that the big money is in Carbon.
That would be my take on Copenhagen. Even the loudest AGW hysteria has not convinced the third world whose use of cheap energy is essential for their development. The first world countries are not particularly convinced either – just look at the legislation passed so far.
Vaccinations are a splendid example of the use of good quality epidemiology. Unlike your AGW friends, doctors took the possibility that vaccinations may be causing autism very seriously indeed. They did not create computer models to dispute the assertion, neither did they condemn the research that suggested the link. They simply put it to the test, gathered the data and checked. They found nothing. Many times over. Ergo, vaccines (at least the standard childhood ones are safe. Sure there are plenty of web sites and a few fringe doctors that still say otherwise, but the evidence that there is no link is solid. It is, after all, a much less complex question than “is AGW real”?
Jan 18 10 3:50 am
(apologies if this is a double post)
John Mashey and Dr. Oreskes are both talking from the point of view the “the science is settled”.
I don’t understand.
I’m not trying to bait you or be obtuse.
I really don’t understand what you mean.
If they have looked at the evidence and concluded that AGW is a done deal then…what’s wrong with that?
How is that any different from looking at vaccinations and saying “Yep, they’re safe. Use ‘em.”
Why would you reject somebody’s evidence and critical thinking just because they don’t reach the conclusions that you want?
Do you actually have any criticisms of Dr Oreskes’ research itself?
Do you dispute her numbers?
Do you not think that she has done her homework on the George Marshal “Institute”?
Has John Mashey unwittingly allowed a flaw to slip past him on his criteria on how to assess scientific issues?
Wegener tells us that the scientific “consensus” can be completely wrong, despite hundreds of studies in peer-reviewed journals.
Do you really believe that it is possible that Wegener is wrong?
Should we all be nervously holding our breath?
Really?
When is it reasonable to accept a scientific position and…move on?
Seriously, when is it ok?
What’s your scientific criteria?
What about Germ Theory? Is the jury still out? Should we hedge our bets?
Sure, science is tentative.
The scientific consensus “can” be wrong but if it isn’t then..it isn’t.
You seem unwilling to accept the scientific consensus because you just don’t like the results.
Why do you hold out for some “out-of-nowhere game changer” rather that accept the work that has been done?
Mr. Gore knows that the big money is in Carbon.
This is not about Al Gore. He is not some Dr Evil hiding away in his lair using mind probes to control the scientific community like some puppet master.
This is about the scientific research that has been done.
The scientific research that is literally overwhelming and is a matter of public record.
You are in opposition to every single scientific community on the planet.
Can you think of any other scientific topic where you find yourself in the same position?
This is exactly the same way that a creationist would be in opposition to every single biology department on the planet.
How do you rationalise that?
Is this really how reality works or should there be red flags popping up?
Unlike your AGW friends…
Nope. They are not my friends. The more accurate and less emotive term for them would be “the global scientific community”. Why do you refer to them as “my friends” when you know that they are not?
…doctors took the possibility that vaccinations may be causing autism very seriously indeed.
Not according to the anti-vacc deniers.
Should I believe them or you?
If an anti-vacc denier started talking about how Wegener showed that the scientific consensus “can” be wrong so therefore it’s reasonable to reserve judgement on vaccines, would you accept that line of thinking or would you be really, really frustrated at such denialism?
Do you have any actual evidence that the scientific community has not considered other opinions on AGW or are you just indulging in wishful thinking?
Did you see anything in the history lecture by Dr Oreskes that clearly shows that there was a “closed shop” attitude in the global scientific community as they were looking into global warming?
This all falls in the same catagory of you just idly and unjustly maligning scientists without a shred of evidence just because you don’t want to accept what they say.
As I have said before, go ahead and pick the most evil, twisted, corrupt dastardly large scientific body on the planet that supports the science of global warming.
Provide evidence that this nefarious and oh-so-spooky large scientific body has abandoned the scientific process and are now just playing politics.
I’m still waiting on this one.
They did not create computer models to dispute the assertion…
(sigh)
This is just another denialist talking point.
See here.
….neither did they condemn the research that suggested the link.
Oh, yes they bloody well did. It was their duty to point out that the research was crap. They condemned the research repeatedly. Why don’t you know this? Brain-dead ignorant parents were putting their children’s lives at risk. Doctors everywhere tried to tell anybody that would listen how badly flawed the study was that started the whole mess.
They found nothing. Many times over.
Very true. Despite this, the anti-vacc movement is alive and well. They have their web-sites and their “doctors” and their celebrities that go on daytime television and help promote the the death of children. They don’t have to prove anything.
They don’t need to run the gauntlet of peer-review. They just have to sow doubt and confusion. Remind you of anyone?
…but the evidence that there is no link is solid.
(Channeling an anti-vacc denier)
Well, you say that because you are in the pay of “Big Pharma”.
I prefer to reserve judgement.
After all, Wegener etc, etc, etc…
(Ends chanelling, goes and takes a shower)
Do you believe that deniers of good science exist?
Or are there no such people as actual deniers of good science?
Is there a difference between healthy skepticism and outright denialism?
I assume you would classify yourself as a skeptic.
So what honestly separates you from the denialists?
What objective criteria do you use to assess scientific issues that CANNOT be put in the mouth of say, an HIV denialist or an anti-vaxer or a tobacco lobbyist or a creationist?
I ask you this because, so far, I’m not seeing any demarcation line from you. There’s nothing in the way you have stated your objections to AGW that would not fit perfectly in the mouth with other denialists on different scientific issues.
One of my childhood heros was a man called David Bellamy.
I had a lot of respect for him.
Then he went all strange and supported global warming denialism.
When I watched this TV interview with him, I was absolutely appalled at how he had abandoned any willingness to do any fact-checking at all.
Does this kind of thinking disturb you or are you personally comfortable with it?
Part One, Part Two, Part Three.
Cedric Katesby´s last blog ..James Randi, Norm Edmund, and The Frustrated Compass