Summary: Earlier this week we showed an example of crude propaganda about climate change (much like the dying children in “How to Cut Carbon Emissions“). Today we look at an example of excellent climate propaganda, and speculate about the wider significance of these matters.
.
Science uncovers many amazing new facts. Such as the startlingly rapid molding of a species found in “Early Canid Domestication: The Farm-Fox Experiment“, Lyudmila N. Trut, American Scientist, March-April 1999 — “Foxes bred for tamability in a 40-year experiment exhibit remarkable transformations that suggest an interplay between behavioral genetics and development”. Excerpt:
In the 6th generation bred for tameness we had to add an even higher-scoring category. Members of Class IE, the “domesticated elite,” are eager to establish human contact, whimpering to attract attention and sniffing and licking experimenters like dogs. They start displaying this kind of behavior before they are one month old. By the 10th generation, 18% of fox pups were elite; by the 20th, the figure had reached 35% . Today elite foxes make up 70 – 80% of our experimentally selected population.
Has something similar happened in America? How did we evolve from the unruly, difficult to manage Americans of the Founding era to the easily fooled — and so easily led — Americans of today? We see this in politics. Bush Jr tells us lies about Iraq and Afghanistan, and off we go to war. Obama tells us lies about Libya, and off we go to war. Now we’re bombarded with lies about Iran (similar to those about Iraq) and — stay tuned for the next act.
We see this in the climate wars fought to mold and harness public opinion. Much of mainstream media reporting has become little but exaggerations and misrepresentations about climate change, far beyond what’s in the science literature. Here we look at one such volley.
It’s like watching ‘Manhattan breaking apart in front of your eyes’, says one of the researchers for filmmaker James Balog. He’s describing the largest iceberg calving ever filmed, as featured in his movie, Chasing Ice. After weeks of waiting, the filmakers witnessed 7.4 cubic km of ice crashing off the Ilulissat glacier in Greenland. Chasing Ice, released in the UK on Friday, follows Balog’s mission to document Arctic ice being melted by climate change.
— From “Chasing Ice movie reveals largest iceberg break-up ever filmed“, The Guardian, 12 December 2012
Form a comment on the FM website:
“I found the photos of the 3 year melt at the Solheim Glacier (Iceland) to be particularly frightening. I’ve seen the impact of glacial melt with my own eyes and know that it is real. This interview and the related material have convinced me that the melt rate has accelerated dramatically.”
Here’s the trailer to Chasing Ice.
.
.
This has become the centerpiece in a barrage of propaganda. Feel the fear:
.
- “The Ice Chasers“, Science Friday (broadcast on NPR), 29 November 2012
- Interview: “Photographer James Balog on Climate Change and ‘Chasing Ice’“, Science Friday, 30 November 2012
- “A Video To Make You Believe in Global Warming“, Will Oremus, Slate, 12 December 2012
- Behold: The Largest Iceberg Breakup Ever Caught on Film”, Megan Garber, The Atlantic, 12 December 2012 — “The effects of climate change, in one gorgeous, terrifying video”
While accurate about the details (more or less), the message is not just about global warming (incontrovertible evidence shows substantial warming during the past two centuries), but about catastrophic climate change from anthropogenic emissions of CO2 — which is far less certain, and about which ice caving proves little or nothing. For some hidden (by the media) context about global warming see:
- Still good news: global temperatures remain stable, at least for now., 14 October 2012
- When did we start global warming? See the surprising answer (it’s not what you’ve been told).
How does related to domestication of silver foxes 0r Americans? The science of propaganda works on us all; that’s human nature. But I fear we have become domesticated, in the sense of more easily persuaded by propaganda and less willing to change our views in response to new data.
What happens when Americans see that they’ve been given misrepresentations or even outright lies? The FM website’s 27 thousand comments provide a laboratory to watch this process in action on people of the Right and Left. The answer: nothing. People seldom change their beliefs once indoctrinated, even when shown evidence that they’re been told outright lies (much bolder propaganda than the subtle indoctrination of this film). Nor does evidence of lies shake their confidence in the information sources that provide lies.
It’s this that makes America a joy to rule. A people so docile, so eager to lap up pleasing propaganda — no matter how rancid it proves. So long as we remain so easily fooled, the plutocracy will gain strength year by year. Generation by generation.
But it need not be so. The blood of our rebellious, skeptical forefathers still runs in our veins. We can be what we were, and better, if we choose to be.
.
For More Information
.
(a) Another fun example of climate propaganda
“Is Climate Change To Blame for Honeybee Decline?“, by the Slate V Staff, Slate, 12 December 2012 — This purports to describe “Researchers identify new components of the epigenetic ‘code’ for honey bee development“, Phys.org, 11 December 2012. In fact, the Phy.org article says nothing like that.
They believe their readers to be credulous fools. Are they correct?
(b) What happens to the ice caps as the climate warms?
It’s an active area of research , as scientists work to reconstruct the past and build models to understand the various processes at work. Here’s one, a good summary of current thinking: “Increased future ice discharge from Antarctica owing to higher snowfall“, R Winkelmann et al, Nature, 13 December 2012
Opening:
During the past decade, the Antarctic Ice Sheet has lost volume at a rate comparable to that of Greenland. The enhanced moisture-carrying capacity of a warming atmosphere, on the other hand, strongly suggests increasing snowfall over Antarctica, as projected by global and regional climate models. This may lead to a net negative contribution of Antarctica to future sea level, depending on the magnitude of dynamic effects possibly compensating or even overcompensating this ice gain.
Abstract (references omitted):
Anthropogenic climate change is likely to cause continuing global sea level rise, but some processes within the Earth system may mitigate the magnitude of the projected effect. Regional and global climate models simulate enhanced snowfall over Antarctica, which would provide a direct offset of the future contribution to global sea level rise from cryospheric mass loss and ocean expansion. Uncertainties exist in modelled snowfall, but even larger uncertainties exist in the potential changes of dynamic ice discharge from Antarctica and thus in the ultimate fate of the precipitation-deposited ice mass.
Here we show that snowfall and discharge are not independent, but that future ice discharge will increase by up to three times as a result of additional snowfall under global warming. Our results, based on an ice-sheet model forced by climate simulations through to the end of 2500, show that the enhanced discharge effect exceeds the effect of surface warming as well as that of basal ice-shelf melting, and is due to the difference in surface elevation change caused by snowfall on grounded versus floating ice. Although different underlying forcings drive ice loss from basal melting versus increased snowfall, similar ice dynamical processes are nonetheless at work in both; therefore results are relatively independent of the specific representation of the transition zone.
In an ensemble of simulations designed to capture ice-physics uncertainty, the additional dynamic ice loss along the coastline compensates between 30 and 65% of the ice gain due to enhanced snowfall over the entire continent. This results in a dynamic ice loss of up to 1.25 metres in the year 2500 for the strongest warming scenario. The reported effect thus strongly counters a potential negative contribution to global sea level by the Antarctic Ice Sheet.
(c) About the farm-fox experiments
- A non-technical description: “Man’s new best friend? A forgotten Russian experiment in fox domestication“, Jason G. Goldman, Scientific American, 6 September 2010
- A summary of the various theories in this controversial field (the Farm-Fox experiment being one pole of the debate): “What did domestication do to dogs? A new account of dogs’ sensitivity to human actions.“, Monique A. R. Udell et al, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, May 2010.
- See PubMed for links to many of the papers in the massive literature on this subject.
(d) Other examples of climate propaganda
- Fear or Fail: about the melting Greenland ice sheet, 24 May 2010
- Lies told under the influence of the Green religion to save the world, 30 July 2010
- Programs to reshape the American mind, run by the left and right, 2 August 2010
- Damn the research! We need to act now to stop global warming., 17 August 2010
- Puncturing the false picture of a scientific consensus about the causes and effects of global warming, 20 September 2010
- A new video about global warming, a Leftists’ wet dream pretending to be humor, 1 October 2010
- More about the forecast for flooded cities in the late 21st century, 16 October 2010
- Kevin Drum talks about global warming, shows why the Left’s credibility has collapsed, 17 October 2012
- Mother Jones sounds the alarm about global warming! This time about the north pole., 10 December 2012
.
.
.
Just when you thought it was safe to get back into the water…….
The current issue of Smithsonian Magazine has a very interesting article about a discovery that thunderstorms are pushing moisture into the stratosphere. These particles interact with residual CFC’s and blow new holes in the ozone layer. Scary stuff. There’s discussion about a possible link to global warming due to increased incidence of violent storms being generated as a result of the increased atmospheric energy. That seems unproven for now, but obviously worth looking into.
Bottom line is that we are likely past the point of no return. Global warming is going to continue to cause physical and economic dislocations. If AGW is real, we’re not going to address it adequately on a global basis; there’s too much pressure for development. As a result we need to begin planning for remedial actions. All the energy being diverted to the debate over carbon means we’re not integrating adequate response planning into our national and global priorities. For instance in the situation described by the Smithsonian we should be addressing whether medical schools are training enough dermatologists.
Thanks for all the work on the ice caps. I look forward to following some of the links.
Slater gives us a good demonstration of how propaganda works.
The news media feeds us a one-sided stream of news. In this case a steady stream of dire warnings, with offsetting news suppressed about beneficial effects of warming and alternative causes of past warming (which generate different forecasts).
Here Slater mentions a new theory concerning the relationship of forecasted warming (which might or not happen) plus a theoretical relationship between convective injection of water vapor into the stratosphere and ozone loss (itself a subject under study). See “The Ozone Problem is back — and worse than ever“, Smithsonian, December 2012.
This is the last straw for Slater, and he panics. He’s now ready to buy into radical solutions. Yes, propaganda works!
Note: as usual, the actual research describes all this in less certain terms than does the Smithsonian article that induced such panic in Slater. See “UV Dosage Levels in Summer: increased risk of ozone loss from convectively injected water vapor“, James G. Anderson et al, Science, 17 August 2012.
Detective Ed Norris: “Americans are stupid people, by and large. We pretty much believe whatever we’re told.”
Detective Bunk: “The bigger the lie, the more they believe.”
— TV series The Wire, season 5.
(1) “He also believes that this trend toward continued warming is more likely to continue than to abate.”
That’s the consensus among climate scientists, although the draft of the IPCC’s AR5 shows increasing recognition of the role of solar influences — poorly understand as yet. AR5 also has an admission that the pause in warming of the past 15 years has put the temperature trend below the forecasts of the major climate models.
(2) “In part he believes this because he has observed substantial warming in his personal environment over a sixty plus year time horizon.”
That’s probably false. The temperature increases outside the arctic are far too small and gradual for people to notice. Especially as they typically occur only during certain seasons and parts of the day — and are far smaller than normal natural variability.
(3) “He believes that we need at least another decade of data before he agrees there has been a flattening or a change in trend”
Does he have an analytical basis for this, or is this just the usual warmistas’ gut feel that we’re supposed to respect, for some weird reason?
(4) “In the meantime he believes that there are likely to be continued impacts from global warming”
Define “continued”, since there has been no warming for 15 years in most regions of the globe. Longer in some regions (perhaps even where Slater lives, as I doubt he’s consulted the actual temperature records).
Over my lifetime leaf fall in the mid-south today is observably about two weeks later than it was when I was younger. Snowfall and extreme cold temperatures are less frequent as well. This could be decadal variation as I will likely not live long enough to personally experience climate level changes, but it is real.
On climate warming we’ve seen a ten to fifteen year leveling in a chart pattern spanning multiple decades. For the moment it is difficult to determine whether this is a pause in an uptrend or a reversal. My instinct for trend behavior indicates the need for another ten years of data to determine whether the pause will continue or has been reversed. From the data I have seen it’s premature to call this one one way or the other.
The impacts of the warming that has already occured are continuing and cumulative, whether or not the trend has leveled off. My instinct says remediation will be required even if the trend has begun to level out. Where I live we have been running 2.14 degrees C above normal on a twelve month moving average and this has persisted for quite some time. We are also in a severe drought with twelve month precipitation more than 18 inches below normal. These variations from norm are likely impacting my thought processes with regard to the warming trend, though certainly they are not significantly more extreme than conditions experienced during the Dust Bowl.
Slater,
I suggest you check the data to see if your guesses are correct. My guess is that they are not. Memory is useless to determine trends in high variability data like climate, especially give the various decadal cycles. In brief, you are attempting the absurd. It’s difficult to do even with reliable quantitative data.
As for “instinct” with trends, there is no such thing. People are poor analysts even when looking at graphs. Even with statistical tools it is difficult with such noisy data. There is quite a bit of research showing this, such as that by Prof Meir Statman of Santa Clara U.
You are giving us a collection of urban legends, which as usual match what you are told in the media.
Slater,
Give yourself a quick test– what is the change in temperature during the past 50 years for the continental US? I suspect you will be astonished by the answer.
If you are checking the data, look at the details about the change. Was this distributed by season and time of day? Was this an increase in max or min temps, or an upward shift of the daily temperature line?
All of these would be perceived differently by you. Many would be difficult for you to notice. Some would be impossible.
Here is an AP article on the subject. They quote one expert, whose opinion they then contradict with a few numbers — and don’t have him explain. The usual shoddy journalism in US papers.
But it’s a start…
“Will climate change lead to later fall foliage?“, AP, 14 October 2011 — Excerpt:
I’ve reproduced some of our local data below. This comes from Intellicast, but is based on Weather Bureau data. Over at least 130 years, the clear predominance of record highs has come in the 1980s and 2000s. Record lows center on earlier periods. Many of the lows were in the 1950s and 1960s which corresponds with my perception of much colder weather in my youth. To answer your question about national averages i would want to look at all the data for the mid-south and all similar data by region throughout the U. S. I have neither the time nor the skill set to do that but i have spent a fair amount of time on the local data. At least in Memphis, TN we are clearly experiencing higher extreme temperatures than the city did in prior recorded periods. Some of that impact could be from the warming effect of the city as the increased per capita usage of air conditioning has likely had a local warming impact vis-a-vis the surrounding farming regions,. My guess based on random observations is that the outlying regions are a bit cooler, than the city, but that their highs and lows have trended up with the city data. We used to see a lot of extreme cold on the Kentucky border and have not seen anything like the cold spells in the last couple of decades.
To test this I randomly looked at about a dozen other cities in various regions. None were as extreme as Memphis with regard to the 2000 highs so their is some local bias here. Most, but not all, did seem to show a pattern of the predominance of highs centering around later periods than the predominance of lows.
The following article provides some random data with regard to temperature extremes in the current decade. The American Meteorological Society appears to have done a good deal of research that indicates measurable warming over the last century and over the past thirty years.
The best data that I could find indicates a 2 degree Fahrenheit upward change in U.S. temperatures over fifty years. That is consistent with my personal observations and I believe it is significant. I find that degrees defines the difference between comfortable and uncomfortable in indoor air temperatures in my house so i would view that as a significant number.
The cited data all coincides with my general personal observations so I am sticking with my earlier assertions that we are experiencing a general warming and should be considering mitigation actions to blunt some of the predictable impact of the temperature change if the trend continues.
That is not the same as saying that we should adopt the Kyoto Protocols. I tend to agree with yuor comments about hysteria and propaganda in that regard. I do believe, however, that we are very inefficient in our energy usage in the U.S. and would strongly support a fairly serious tax on transportation fuels to encourage conservation measures. One goal would be to encourage a reduction of urban sprawl, which is highly resource intensive as compared with higher density urban environments.
[caption id="attachment_46889" align="aligncenter" width="600"]
From Intellicast[/caption]
.
[caption id="attachment_46890" align="aligncenter" width="600"]
From Intellicast, For Memphis TN[/caption]
Slater,
You sound like a nice guy, and well-meaning. But your reliance — indeed insistance — on the primacy of your personal experience instead of relying on objective analysis is part of the problem facing this nation. Your comments are little more than superstition, modern-day equivalent of telling us how to test the guilt of witches.
(1) From the data you show it cannot be determined if the average temperature has changed at all. The range (or volatility) might have changed, with the average unchanged.
(2) The claim that you can tell of a 2% warming over 50 years is crazy (if there was a 2 degree rise). Whatever your body considered “comfortable” sixty years ago bears little relation to your condition today. You cannot possibily have such precise memories of weather 60 years ago to be able to detect at 0.04 degree annual increase in temperature. It’s a preposterous claim.
(3) ” with my earlier assertions that we are experiencing a general warming”
Did anyone disagree? Does anyone not insane disagree? What’s your point? The debate is about causes of past warming (if its primarily a natural cycle it likely will stop and reverse) — and forecasts of future warming. Why is that so difficult to understand?
(4) “I do believe, however, that we are very inefficient in our energy usage in the U.S. and would strongly support a fairly serious tax on transportation fuels to encourage conservation measures. One goal would be to encourage a reduction of urban sprawl, which is highly resource intensive as compared with higher density urban environments.”
While desireable, no analysis has shown that such measures would substantially effect the increase in temperature — even assuming the IPCC models are correct (since they’re not correctly predicting current temperatures, that’s a questionable assumption).
I’m still looking for an analysis that shows that a statistically significant downturn or even leveling in the longer term uptrend as a result of the flattening in the 2000s. I certainly cannot see it in the charts at the links below.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/NOAA_Land.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NOAA_Ocean.svg
Since you have been quick to criticize my use of anecdotal evidence, I will appreciate your providing your mathematical basis for your conclusion that the uptrend presented in these charts has or may have been broken.
I’ll readily accept that this is still a small dataset in climatic terms, but if the question is whether remedial action may be needed if the trend continues, this appears to be pretty persuasive evidence that a trend is underway that, if continued, can have dramatic impacts on things like agricultural production, river transportation, sea level rise, wildfires and the migratory patterns of waterfowl. Given the potential importance of these types of changes for our society, the current focus on religious battles over AGW by you as well as the AGW zealots will assure that, as a society, we fail to prepare for what could be readily foreseeable crises that will result from the continued warming trend.
As for whether two degrees of temperature change is an adequate variation to be noticed, when you live on the edge of the snowline, two degrees is the difference between snow being a fairly common winter experience and snow being almost non-existent. I will assure you that, as a youth in Memphis, I noticed when it snowed and I can further assure you that my current level of senility is not sufficient for me to fail to observe the lack of snow in the years of my dotage.
(1) “I’m still looking for an analysis that shows that a statistically significant downturn or even leveling in the longer term uptrend as a result of the flattening in the 2000s.”
So you didn’t read the post, which cites actual climate scientists. You can lead a Slater to water, but …
(2) “I certainly cannot see it in the charts at the links below.”
Why bother consulting scientists and major scientific agencies when you have Wikipedia and your own judgement! This is a commonplace among warmistas, to devise their own rebuttals to analysis of actual scientists. Only God knows why they believe their guesses and ignorance have any significance.
(a) “I will appreciate your providing your mathematical basis for your conclusion that the uptrend presented in these charts has or may have been broken.”
The difference between us is that I quote scientists (and don’t provide my own analysis), while you have delusional confidence in your own judgement.
(3) About the temperature in Memphis TN.
You were just making that up about the two degree temperature increase, as the charts you posted showed no such thing. Here is actually data from the Weather Warehouse.
.
[caption id="attachment_46892" align="aligncenter" width="527"]
From weather-warehouse.com[/caption]
Interesting data source. Thanks for the heads up.
Here’s what your data shows comparing the thirty year period ending in 2012 with the thirty year period ending 1982.
Average low temp
1953-1982 30.5 degrees
1983-2012 33 degrees
Average high temp
1953-1982 47.9 degrees
1983-2012 50.1 degrees
Average mean temp
1953-1982 39.2 degrees
1983-2012 40.5 degrees
Snowfall
1953-1982 2.2 inches
1983-2012 1.6 inches (1.7 inches after adjustment for two no data years)
Number of zero snowfall years
1953-1982 8
1983-2012 15
This data fully supports my personal observations. During my lifetime there has been a material increase in temperatures and a material decrease in snowfall. If you question whether two degrees is material heat your house to whatever temp you feel is comfortable. Then add two degrees. See if you can feel the difference.
I have a problem with blind acceptance of authority figures whether or not I agree with them. I like to look at the data directly when possible. I agree with your primary thesis that many AGW advocates blindly accept claimed statements of authority without adequate knowledge of the facts. That does not require that I accept a thesis that the rising temperature trend has ended without data to back up the assertion. I have read most of the articles you have cited with interest, but unless I missed something I haven’t seen any convincing proof that the pause in warming indicates a statistically verifiable trend reversal.
As I said, it’s a distinguishing characteristic of warmistas to preference their personal observations over scientists’ analysis. That’s sad, but probably not treatable.
“If you question whether two degrees is material heat your house to whatever temp you feel is comfortable.”
You’re not even pretending to read my replies. A 3% change in temperature over a few hours is unlike that during several decades — even more so when the range of annual mean temps over that period is 40% (the range of daily temps is of course far larger). That you keep making this daft comparison, and ignoring the large amount of actual evidence from scientists, says much about you — and why the public policy debate has lapsed into cacophony.
I’m done. This is a waste of time.
Slater, I’ll read your comments when you have something to say based on the actual work of climate scientists. Otherwise you can continue to mutter about personal observations — perhaps someone will read them.
Happy Holidays Fabius. I agree that this horse died a while back and the bloody carcass needs to be buried.
“Climate change has been extensively researched and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that the observed modern day global warming is unprecedented and is very likely caused by humans. Although there is strong consensus among climate experts, many in the general public still think that these scientists are unsure about climate change and the role that humans have played in modern day global warming. The real science is primarily represented in peer-reviewed science journals but there are some good sources listed in Suggested Reading. Science journals are typically not accessible to the general public and are also highly mathematical. Global warming misinformation is primarily published on Web pages, blogs, television shows, radio, and other forms of mass media, all of which are much more accessible to the general public than scientific journals. The result is that the misinformation is reaching more people than the real science. This Website tries to bridge the knowledge gap by summarizing some of the key research that has led scientists to their overwhelming consensus while also addressing some of the unfounded claims by climate change denialists”.
Full Article can be found at;
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/
Is it getting warmer?
“Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures have warmed roughly 1.33°F (0.74ºC) over the last century, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see page 2 of the IPCC’s Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers (PDF)). More than half of this warming—about 0.72°F (0.4°C)—has occurred since 1979. Because oceans tend to warm and cool more slowly than land areas, continents have warmed the most (about 1.26° F or 0.7º C since 1979), especially over the Northern Hemisphere.”
Complete Article here;
https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years
Will temperatures continue to rise?
“Models predict that as the world consumes ever more fossil fuel, greenhouse gas concentrations will continue to rise, and Earth’s average surface temperature will rise with them. Based on plausible emission scenarios, average surface temperatures could rise between 2°C and 6°C by the end of the 21st century. Some of this warming will occur even if future greenhouse gas emissions are reduced, because the Earth system has not yet fully adjusted to environmental changes we have already made.”
Complete Article with sources here;
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/
Additional reading can be found here;
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
Gaiasrequite,
Is there some point to posting this long comment repeating what everybody knows, and has been said aprox a billion times before?
Every article about global warming gets comments like this, proudly posting the announcement that the world is warming.
Tomorrow will you post the alphabet song for us?
The point is to show that there are sites other than Fabius Maximus to get information on global warming. You clearly are not a climate scientist and many of the sites you have added links to are clearly right wing climate denial sites (Anthony Watts?). These I have listed are sites put on by scientists not employers of the Koch brothers.
You constantly badger people who are concerned with the environment as ignorant propaganda followers. And subtly imply that though the earth is warming the scientists and there research shows it is neither anthropogenic or problematic. Here are sites which say other wise. Its great to have an opinion, however yours is not the only one with validity.
The scientists who put on the above sites did not have to be taught an acronym on how to think ( OODA) but rather were born with the ability. Don’t like people opposing your view don’t allow comments. Don’t like mine, take it off. FACT you are not a scientist and there are sites put on by scientists that can inform on the issues of ANTHROPOGENIC global warming far better then you.
gaiasrequite,
Your’s is quite an odd comment, but typical of warmistas. No specifics, mostly wrong. Also, you have not shown that anything on this site contracts the authority you quote. In fact, it doesn’t.
(1) “You clearly are not a climate scientist … FACT you are not a scientist”
Duh. That’s why I link to climate scientists and their work.
(2) “many of the sites you have added links to are clearly right wing climate denial sites (Anthony Watts?).”
Examples?
(3) “You constantly badger people who are concerned with the environment as ignorant propaganda followers.”
False. I “badger” people like yourself who provide misinformation. I don’t care how good the cause.
(4) “And subtly imply that though the earth is warming the scientists and there research shows it is neither anthropogenic or problematic.”
This is the “making stuff” school of rebuttal. Try providing specifics instead of just posting smears.
(5) “Here are sites which say other wise.”
What “otherwise”? Give a specific, not a smear. This is the “strawman attack”, one of the most common of warmistas: make up a lie, give a rebuttal, genius!
(6) “Its great to have an opinion, however yours is not the only one with validity.”
The difference is that I cite reliable sources; you just make up smears and lies.
(7) “The scientists who put on the above sites did not have to be taught an acronym on how to think (OODA) but rather were born with the ability.”
That’s not just a smear, but a silly one.
(8) “Don’t like people opposing your view don’t allow comments.
More nonsense. There are 27,000 comments on this website, most of which oppose the messages of the posts.
(9) “Don’t like mine, take it off.”
I prefer to leave your comment up. It’s weakness provides a wonderful example of warmistas’ reasoning.
(10) “there are sites put on by scientists that can inform on the issues of ANTHROPOGENIC global warming far better then you.”
Quite daft, as my posts are almost entirely direct quotes from scientists, peer-reviewed literature, and the major science organizations (eg, IPCC).
Fabius Maximus; Anonymous author? Expert in? Has a (blank) degree in? From the University of? Works for?
Gavin Schmidt is a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. He received a BA (Hons) in Mathematics from Oxford University, a PhD in Applied Mathematics from University College London and was a NOAA Postdoctoral Fellow in Climate and Global Change Research. He is a co-chair of the CLIVAR/PAGES Intersection Panel and is an Associate Editor for the Journal of Climate.
Dr. Michael E. Mann is a member of the Penn State University faculty, holding joint positions in the Departments of Meteorology and Geosciences, and the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute (EESI). He is also director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center (ESSC). Dr. Mann received his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Applied Math from the University of California at Berkeley, an M.S. degree in Physics from Yale University, and a Ph.D. in Geology & Geophysics from Yale University. His research involves the use of theoretical models and observational data to better understand Earth’s climate system.
Caspar Ammann is a climate scientist working at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). Dr. Ammann is interested in the reconstruction of natural climate forcings, natural climate variability, coupled modeling of natural and anthropogenic climate change, and data/model intercomparison. Dr. Ammann got his B.S. from Gymnasium Koeniz (Switzerland), his M.S. from the University of Bern (Switzerland), and a Ph.D. from the Department of Geosciences at the University of Massachusetts.
First three authors on the site out of a list of eleven. Again I touched on the first principle questions on the issue, gave excerpts on the findings written by or recommended by the authors on this site then added the links so people could read more in depth, the data given by SCIENTISTS and arrive at their own opinion as to where the debate stands in the eyes of the people who study the data surrounding this issue. My comment does not make me a warmest simply a person who believes that if you want a skill saw probably shouldn’t go to Dillard’s.
I am not an officer in the military and there for am not in the habit of telling people what to believe, but rather think one should become informed then form their own opinion.
However, not all can become informed or are willing. Pardon the insult I obviously caused you by placing links on your site that are maintained by those with more credentials then you. I do and will maintain that after spending time on this site the consensus of the scientists is indeed that, we are warming as a result of the burning of fossil fuels. And it will indeed cause issues in the future. Individuals will have to read some of the articles them selves to see if they arrive at the same understanding.
There comes a point when arguing just to argue becomes redundant and solves nothing.
Let me say this in small words:
(1) Your assertions about these posts are lies. You provide no supporting material.
(2) Almost all of the material cited here from major climate scientists and organizations.
I forgot the last item:
(3) You have not shown that anything on this site is contradicted by the work of any of these scientists. Just waving their names like magic wands means nothing.
gaiasrequite,
Economists and mathematicians from all the prestigious universities and policy making positions agreed that financial markets are self regulating. There was “consensus” among all the “experts”, with a few heterodox critics who gave very good explanations for why markets are NOT self regulating. The few turned out to be right. the many turned out to be wrong. But the many have not admitted they were wrong, they keep trying to twist reality so that their wrong theory can still somehow be seen as right. There are egos and reputations and careers on the line, not to mention ongoing paychecks. These people’s “livelihood” is at risk, so it is very much in their interest to make people believe that reality works as they say it does, even though the evidence (spectacular failure) suggests that their theory altogether misses the most important drivers of the real-world system that their theory purports to explain and model.
The many enjoyed high pay and prestige and position for singing along with the consensus choir: it “pays” to agree with the orthodoxy. The few were rejected and their heterodox, but correct, ideas were excluded form the public debate. Wide consensus among “the experts” is not proof that what they say is true. It is proof that you can make a very nice living by agreeing with theories that draw enormous amounts of money into your field of endeavor, and that life outside the mainstream is lonely and poorly paid.
You are using the “argument from authority” method of supporting your positions, a method that has recently lost all credibility in one field due to its being completely WRONG about the operative mechanics of finance. AGW theory attracts a lot of money and attention to ‘researchers’ like Michael Mann (the infamous “hockey stick” fraudster) by raising public fear of catastrophic global warming. Earth has always had weather events, but now the AGW crowd adds “caused by global warming that is caused by the increased atmospheric CO2 ‘greenhouse effect’ that is caused by humans burning fossil fuels” every time anyone has a weather event. The first rule of propaganda is to keep repeating what you want the public to believe. AGW does that in spades.
Mann is an exposed fraudster. Why do you cite someone who deliberately represses evidence as an “authority” whose words we should believe and respect? The evidence does not fit the AGW theory, so the AGW orthodox crowd suppresses the evidence and tries to fool the public into believing things are not happening that are in reality happening, and that things are happening that are really not happening. Mann and his gang of globally recognized “experts” tried to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period from the geological record. They tried to “hide the decline” of global warming after the year 2000.
This strongly suggests that these people are executing an agenda other than the pursuit of objective truth. Orthodox “consensus” climate theory is now more about the politics of self interest than about understanding how Earth’s climate really works. Science is a “human” pursuit, and the motives that drive scientists are not exempt from the pursuit of self interest that drives pretty much all of human pecuniary behavior. Research that doesn’t “pay” doesn’t happen. “Truth” does not even necessarily enter into consideration, when your ongoing paycheck depends on keeping the fear level high and the money flowing into your field so you can “save us from global warming”.
Of the 27 thousand comments on this website, the vast majority are critical of the posts. We see here the reason why, as I defend a position between the extremes of gaiasrequite and Hermanutz. This is neither fun nor profitable (it’s the partisans that hit the tip jar on websites, and I piss them all off).
Hermanutz,
(1) “You {gaisrequite} are using the ‘argument from authority’ method of supporting your positions”
Yes, and quite rightly so. IMO that’s the only useful basis for making public policy (the subject of this discussion). For entertainment people can adopt and cheer a specific football team, school of economics, or advocates of a scientific theory. But not when steering the world. For details see A passionate defense of credentialism.
(2) “a method that has recently lost all credibility in one field due to its being completely WRONG about the operative mechanics of finance.”
No. The problem with experts in every field is that they have to support their families, just like the rest of us. They get bought by institutions that pay them to support certain positions. They become to vary degrees whores, like lobbyists and attorneys and real estate appraisers and mortgage bankers and most of the rest of humanity. That does not discredit science.
(3) “like Michael Mann (the infamous ‘hockey stick’ fraudster”
Scientists devote their lives to pursuing certain lines of investigation, usually paid less than people with half their IQ working in law, sales, or finance. If, as often happens, their line of research runs dry — they don’t get much from it (although science benefits, so we all benefit). This leads to the passion debate than has characterized science for centuries — and probably accounts for the rapid advancement of knowledge. And science takes place on the edge: the edge of instruments’ resolving power, the edge of known analytical techniques, the edge of reliable theory. Calling their work “fraud” doesn’t help, except in the rare cases of actual fakery — which does not describe Mann’s work in any degree.
The norms of science require people to do things that none of us like to do. Like reveal hard-won data and methods to critics and rivals. They don’t always do this as they should, because they’re not angels. The institutions supposed to enforce these norms often don’t work well — just as our other institutions (made of people) don’t work well. Welcome to Earth.
(4) “The first rule of propaganda is to keep repeating what you want the public to believe. AGW does that in spades.”
Yes, that’s how public policy gets made in America. As documented on this website in so many fields.
Fabius, you do not ever put complete information up on climate issues you give (just as I did) selected excerpts from other sites or journals. Then you bitch when someone else (me) does the exact same thing but from a different angle. I started the debate from the very beginning; IS THE PLANET GETTING WARMER? And then; WILL IT CONTINUE TO GET WARMER? The excerpts I chose were short statements to longer articles I linked readers to.
I thought it was pretty obvious what I originally did, as it would appear many of your readers have yet to come to grasp with the basic questions surrounding climate change.
Do I feel that you are slightly angled to the right on this issue yes. Am I going to cut and paste what exact statement you wrote or cut and pasted from other sites to prove to you why, no. Why, because I don’t get paid to do this and if you really want to know (which I am almost certain you don’t but I am going to tell you any way) I write like this on several blogs , part of keeping a brain active is not just reading you have to regurgitate information as well.
If I am going to take the time to write well referenced accurately sited papers I am not going to post them here there is no point.
Also the IPCC uses their most conservative models when reporting, NO I am not going to give a reference. Read the site I posted it explains why in several of the articles.
Gaiasrequite,
Your own questions show the nature of your lies.
(1) “IS THE PLANET GETTING WARMER?”
Note that posts on these subjects, like most about climate, cite major scientists, organizations, and peer-reviewed literature — in contradiction to your lies about this site.
(2) “WILL IT CONTINUE TO GET WARMER?”
The majority of climate scientists making climate forecasts believe the warming will continue. As has been explained many times here.
There is a significant minority that disagree. For example, there are some in allied disciplines that disagree. The most significant, perhaps, are those studying solar influences (which received slightly more attention in the Draft AR5 than previous IPCC reports). There is a large and growing body of data showing correllations between past climate and solar cycles. But there no understood mechanisms for such influences, which leaves this as an interesting area of research — but nothing more at this time. Other areas not well understood are water feedbacks (the primary warming accellerator) and particles (both in the atmosphere and as darkening agents on ice).
You can see the literature cited here on these subjects on the FM Reference Page Studies and Reports about Science. There are aprox 140.
(3) “I thought it was pretty obvious what I originally did”
Quite so. You lied. You know it too, since you provide no evidence to support your smears about this website. And when called on the more obvious lies, you move on to new lies. This suggests that you are probably a troll, an growing plague on the Internet.
(4) “Also the IPCC uses their most conservative models when reporting”
That’s a non sequitur, of no relevance to anything mentioned in these comments. Tossing these into the thread is a favorite tactic of trolls.
Going to make one last comment on this thread then put it away;
Arguing what the scientists argue, in my opinion is pointless. Unless you have the degree and work in the field I do not believe a person can say much on the more technical workings of what the scientists do, that has much validity.
My issue with global warming (climate change) right v left? It is common for rights to say its a myth, left claims the world will end soon if we do nothing. When from what I read the world will not end but, this is not a myth. The climate is changing and we are the main contributors of that change. My argument is “What more do people need to know”? I think they seek proof but when its given they don’t understand it and therefore don’t believe it. My purpose of the links was to give some reading info that lays this issue out both in simple terms as well as providing the more technical info for those who can keep up..
My response to FMs response, was a knee jerk reaction to his irritation to my having done this, which I read as irritation to my having provided links to other sites.
My apologies to smearing your site. My comments were unclear in the start and I should have corrected that instead of misreading your reaction.
gaisrequite,
(1) “Arguing what the scientists argue, in my opinion is pointless.”
I dont’ do this. What’s your point?
(2) “My issue with global warming (climate change) right v left? It is common for rights to say its a myth”
Examples, please. That’s a strawman attack, giving rebuttal to something not said. The polls show that few Americans believe this (see here for examples). Those running the major “skeptic” websites clearly and often say the exact opposite.
(3) “When from what I read the world will not end but, this is not a myth.”
Quite right. It’s a theory.
(4) “The climate is changing and we are the main contributors of that change.”
Can you provide a citation for that claim about “climate”? The IPCC has not. The draft AR5 says “It is extremely likely [“>95% probability”] that human activities have caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature since the 1950s.” Their work about attribution make more limited statements about precipitation, and tenetative statements about other aspects of climate (I have not yet read the draft AR5 about these matters).
(5) “My argument is “What more do people need to know”? I think they seek proof but when its given they don’t understand it and therefore don’t believe it.”
I disagree, but nobody can prove how best to conduct public policy. That debate goes back to Plato’s Republic and beyond.
(6) “My purpose of the links was to give some reading info that lays this issue out both in simple terms as well as providing the more technical info for those who can keep up.”
That’s not what your comments said. The posts on the FM website do this, and they cite climate scientists and their work. On the other hand, in this comment you make stuff up and attribute it to “science” (eg, #4).
(7) “My response to FMs response, was a knee jerk reaction to his irritation to my having done this”
None of my replies said anything remotely like that. They clearly stated that you lie about the content of this website. When called on those lies, you refuse to provide evidence — and lie again.
You are obviously an intelligent person, which suggests that this behavior is deliberate. It tells us much about you; nothing about climate science.
Gaisrequite,
Let’s go back to one of your original lies:
“many of the sites you have added links to are clearly right wing climate denial sites (Anthony Watts?). These I have listed are sites put on by scientists not employers of the Koch brothers.”
Almost all the sources about climate listed on the FM website are either climate scientists or major science organizations. That’s easy to demonstrate: just look through the past few posts.
That’s especially so during the past few years. The discovery that the IPCC often cited “grey literature” sparked much more care with sources, from the IPCC down.
“Gaiasrequite,
Is there some point to posting this long comment repeating what everybody knows, and has been said aprox. a billion times before? Every article about global warming gets comments like this, proudly posting the announcement that the world is warming. Tomorrow will you post the alphabet song for us?”
Snarky comment? What was in what I posted that warranted this remark? Again I placed simple questions then added simple answers from sites that also offer the more complex explanations. Problem?
And I highly doubt what I write on here gives any inside into who I am. It does however show an inability to accept an apology on your side.
gaisrequite,
(1) “Snarky comment?”
Yes. Lots of that here.
(2) ” Problem?”
No problem. My comment responded to you posting something we all know, as if it was newly revealed knowledge. How many people in America don’t know these simple facts about global warming? Hence the comparison to the “alphabet song”.
The long series of lies that you posted in response is the more interesting part of the thread. You released your inner troll.
(3) “It does however show an inability to accept an apology on your side.”
It’s not an apology when you don’t admit your many lies. It’s not an apology when accompanied by a repeat of one of your many lies.
(4) “And I highly doubt what I write on here gives any inside into who I am.”
It shows that you are a troll. We don’t need to know more.
Fabius,
Your site is a fantastic compilation of information about global warming and many other subjects not readily available elsewhere. For that reason I will likely keep reading it.
For someone (or perhaps several someones) who can present such logical and comprehensive information about a variety of highly complex and important subjects, I am perplexed at your need to hurl personal slurs at intelligent and thoughtful commentators. If you are interested in diverting the dialogue toward your particular beliefs, this behavior is certainly counterproductive.
Just because a group of scientists discover what they currently think is reality doesn’t mean that society will or should follow them. It that were the case we’d be aggressively into stem cell research; we’re not there because things other than science matter for most people and much of their behavior is built around their views/beliefs about or reactions to religion, art, football or whatever turns them on. The arts of politics and public affairs successfully employed can mold society’s decisions around the best scientific thinking, but this requires that you bring the people along to a place they want to be led. Beating them over the head may be in the best totalitarian traditions, but it’s not particularly effective.
“I am perplexed at your need to hurl personal slurs at intelligent and thoughtful commentators. ”
People post comments. I give my analysis. Except for the rare troll, I reply just to the statements. It’s a commonplace that people believe a criticism of what they say is a personal attack. But that’s not my problem. Here we’re just looking for truth.
People criticize my posts. Most of the 27 thousand comments are criticism, often brutal and personal. That’s fine, although I’ve grown less tolerant of trolls (which seems to be a trend on the Internet).
People critique each others’ posts, and that’s usually fine — although I moderate (to see what happens otherwise, look at the modern monetary theory thread. I usually don’t allow that sort of personal attacks, except on me).
If you’re upset that I mocked your claim that your internal thermostat remains constant over 50 years, able to detect temperature changes of a few percent over so many decades (as if memory accurately records such details, and aging doesn’t change ones sensitivity to temp) — that’s too bad. It’s an absurd claim, IMO. That’s why we have instruments, temperature records, scientists, etc.
It’s worth mentioning as a tiny example of a serious problem: the prioritizing of personal experience over objective data that so often clouds public policy debates in America. But it’s nothing personal. Just add it to your Smackdowns page. Mine grows longer at alarming speed, but provides a useful check & balance. I recommend that everybody have one (for home life a wife works just as well, although often more expensive).
You missed my point here as you did with the entire earlier thread. My skin is quite thick and I enjoy a good fight. It’s really hard to get under my skin so that is not the point.
My point here is that tearing down people is not a good way to effect positve change (or any change for that matter). It just hardens positions.
I got your point about personal observations and, of course you are right as far as you go. The difficulty is that most people can only accept new information in relation to their personal experience and there is no way to communicate with them outside that frame of reference. If your goal is to feel superior to the bugs that’s your perogative. But you won’t accomplish much beyond that. If you want to effect change you have to get to the people where they are, not where you’d like them to be.
My whole premise in the earlier posts is that:
1. There’s ample evidence of an intermediate term warming trend. You’ve posted plenty of supporting materials for that proposition without need for reference to personal observations.
2. While there is certainly a chance that the trend has been reversed, there is no statistically verifiable evidence that it has.
3. If the warming trend were to continue/resume, there will be foreseeable consequences.
4. Failing to plan a response to address the impacts of such reasonably probable/possible outcomes should they occur constitutes societal gross negligence.
My sense is that you are so threatened by the possibility that the warm trend remains intact that you fear that the very act of planning for response to a possible warm future consitutes a defeat. In my book it constitutes prudence. That’s a long way from supporting cap and trade or any of the other carbon reduction schemes. Planning for the consequences of future warming is not the ame thing as forcing humanity to abandon its carbon based economy.
Ok, I did miss your point. I don’t believe you understand my viewpoint, but it’s not something I’ve spent much space on (ie, who cares?).
Everybody has there own list of public policy priorities. Mine has lots of very overdue ones– like chemical pollution, habitat destruction (eg, the world’s fisheries), and resource depletion. These are all well in progress, some probably are at the last opportunity for action.
Such issues are things on which certainty is not possible, but it seems quite strange to me that people advocate action against theoretical risks while ignoring present problems.
It makes sense from a power perspective, of course. There’s lots of money to be made in global warming. Carbon credit trading, alternative energy subsidies — and the big one, more centralized political control over the economy. Hence the big money funding global warming. Note the stories about well-funded climate deniers are mostly lies, whereas many of the warmistas’ websites are in fact lavishly funded (compare Watts’ vs. RealClimate or Joe Romm’s).
Not so much profit in saving fish. Frighting chemical pollution is a profit-killer. Ditto resource depletion.
By the way — we see the effect of the intensive propaganda about climate change in traffic. Posts about today’s horrific enviro damage, pollution, and resource depletion get little attention. Lots of people get hysterical about forecasts of climate doom in 2100.
“My sense is that you are so threatened by the possibility that the warm trend remains intact”
Yep, quoting all those major climate scientists, science organizations, and peer-reviewed literature sure shows that.
But the folks making stuff up — unable to give a single citation to support their rebuttal to these scientists — they are all clones of Plato. They just “know”, and we should bow down before their personal judgements about things they don’t understand.
Yep, that’s logic. Q.E.D.
“The difficulty is that most people can only accept new information in relation to their personal experience and there is no way to communicate with them outside that frame of reference.”
Can you provide any support for that extraordinary claim? Sounds quite bogus to me.
“But you won’t accomplish much beyond that.”
The number of people who change their thinking to the tiniest degree from comments is smaller than microscopic. It doesn’t matter how the conversation runs.
There have been 27 thousand comments here. I cannot recall anyone even implying a change of view, however small. That matches what others have said. Talk to anyone running a website with active threads.
“The difficulty is that most people can only accept new information in relation to their personal experience and there is no way to communicate with them outside that frame of reference.”
“Can you provide any support for that extraordinary claim? Sounds quite bogus to me.”
I’ve pursued two careers (law and investment banking) that involve changing skeptical people’s minds. My support for the above statement is forty years of experience doing just that. Dry logic rarely works, but get inside the guy’s world and he may listen.
“There have been 27 thousand comments here. I cannot recall anyone even implying a change of view, however small. That matches what others have said. Talk to anyone running a website with active threads.”
I doubt you really believe that or your wouldn’t put this much energy into the website. You are well read by some of the smarter bloggers who cover economics and public affairs. By informing them of issues or facts of which they were not formerly aware you are helping form thoughts that are then distributed to hundreds of thousands of people. That doesn’t mean that every one of them is going to agree with you all the time, but that’s not a basis for the level of cynicism you demonstrate on this topic. For example you exposed me to the concept of the warming pause. That certainly impacts my thinking on the subject. The fact that i don’t believe there has yet been sufficient data to prove out a change in trend doesn’t mean I rejected your information or fail to take it into account in my analysis.
If your approach to handling commentators isn’t working perhaps you should take the advice of a recognized scientific expert.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein
One final observation on people and communication. Most people don’t have the time, inclination or skill to dig out the source material on the majority of topics in which they have tangential interest. As a result synthesizers add a great deal of value to the dissemination of knowledge. Sure some of them are misinformed, inarticulate or downright venal, but that does not mean that all men are gullible sheep just because they rely on others to provide them with analysis of complex subjects.
SLater,
(1) “The difficulty is that most people can only accept new information in relation to their personal experience and there is no way to communicate with them outside that frame of reference.”
“I’ve pursued two careers”
So your personal experience is the basis for your claim that only personal experience changes peoples’ minds. Sounds circular to me. I’ll stick with the more standard approach. As Thoreau says “Sometimes evidence is very strong, as when you find A trout In The milk” (lightly paraphrased; about milkmen diluting their product with water scooped from the river)
(2) “I doubt you really believe that or your wouldn’t put this much energy into the website.”
Wrong guess. It’s like voting. We have a responsibility to do what we can to help; we’re not responsible for ourcomes. Responsibilities often require quixotic responses.
(3) “If your approach to handling commentators isn’t working perhaps you should take the advice of a recognized scientific expert.”
I have talked with others running websites. I’ve found nobody that believes comment discussions change minds, except in the sense of the rare lightning strike.
(4) Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. — Albert Einstein
That’s evidence of Americans’ willingness to believe myth. Einstein didn’t say that; it’s an old insight from Alcoholics Anonymous — which puts a different spin on it. I don’t feel bad about advice from Einstein (It takes an Einstein to see what I’m doing wrong!). But advice from AA warns of dysfunctionality, from people who have deep first hand knowledge. I feel bad if they’re warning me. For more see this post.
(5) “that does not mean that all men are gullible sheep just because they rely on others to provide them with analysis of complex subjects.”
Agreed. What makes them gullible sheep is their lack of skepticism and unwillingness to see when they’re being told lies. More importantl:, when learning that, their willingness to continue to drink at the same poisoned well.
Slater,
“You are well read by some of the smarter bloggers who cover economics and public affairs.”
Thank you for the kind words. My goal is to make this one of the dots of light in the greater darkness. What might be the gathering darkness.
On the other hand:
(a) We get roughly 100,000 hits per month (plus hits where reposted elsewhere), what a small website about Kathy Perry gets in one minute. That’s appropriate of course, but humbling.
(b) What we don’t get are mentions by other bloggers. I don’t know why. Probably because we don’t engage other bloggers. I did in the past, but didn’t find it useful.
“2. While there is certainly a chance that the trend has been reversed, there is no statistically verifiable evidence that it has.”
I have seen not one scientist claiming that the trend has reversed (ie, cooling). Have you? If not, why do you mention this?
Background, so we are on the same page.
There is widespread agreement among climate scientists that the roughly 50 year-long mostly anthropogenic-driven warming trend paused aprox 1998, followed by 15 years of stable temps. (I have a long list of cites on this)
The models cited by he IPCC forecast continued warming. We will see if they are correct. The pause is consistent with the models, has sparked a number of after-the-fact articles explaining the pause, but was not forecast by any of the models (that I’ve seen in the climate sci literature).
That doesn’t give me much confidence in them as a basis for large-scale public policy action, considering our long list of urgent needs. Everyone must draw their own conclusion on these things.
A public taught that photos of ice calving forecasts disaster is IMO not likely to make rational decisions.
“The models cited by he IPCC forecast continued warming. We will see if they are correct. The pause is consistent with the models, has sparked a number of after-the-fact articles explaining the pause, but was not forecast by any of the models (that I’ve seen in the climate sci literature).”
At the current levels of computing power models still rely on simplifying assumptions and tend to focus on trend following for their predictions. As a result they are rarely able to predict seemingly random variations in a trend or to determine in advance when those variations reflect an actual change in trend. That does not mean that the model is wrong or worthless. Where I do agree with you is that many AGW proponents are so focused on their beliefs about warming and about the need for specific changes in the social system to address those beliefs that they are unwilling to accept the possible impact of the new data. In general the climate scientists seem quite open to incorporating new data. If they don’t and if the peer review system is functioning properly, they will eventually be shot down.
Slater,
I’m more interested in what you believe we disagree about than where we agree.
(1) “That does not mean that the model is wrong or worthless.”
I said nothing remotely like “models wrong or worthless” (a good thing too, since that’s daft). My point — repeated to an absurd extent, but largely unheard by warmistas — is that public policy actions require a higher standard of proof than for academic work. Models are powerful tools, but common sense suggests that they require extensive verification before relying on them to reshape the world — especially when that means redistributing resources from urgent and important projects.
(2) Where I do agree with you is that many AGW proponents are so focused on their beliefs about warming and about the need for specific changes in the social system to address those beliefs that they are unwilling to accept the possible impact of the new data.”
It’s a problem on Left and Right. Popular attitudes on the Left to global warming are behaviorally similar to those on the Right about (for example) widespread voter fraud. So useful a belief it must be true. “”Delenda est ACORN!”
(4) “the climate scientists seem quite open to incorporating new data.”
The history of science and knowledge of human nature suggests that’s only sort of true. I recommend reading The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn.
(5) “If they don’t and if the peer review system is functioning properly, they will eventually be shot down.”
Agreed. Eventually can take years or decades, depending on the rate at which evidence accumulates AND alternative explanations arise. For example, there is a large body of evidence suggesting (nothing more) substantial solar influences on Earth’s climate. But there is no clear mechanism, so the data is (as Kuhn predicts) put in the “anomaly” basket. If an explanation is discovered, suddenly this data becomes compelling.
The other “trout in the milk” convincer: successful predictions (the opposite of what we see from climate models so far). As in the Livingston-Penn effect (see here). They forecast a few solar cycles with few visible sunspots. They couldn’t get their 2006 paper published, anywhere — they had no causual mechanism. Three more years of data matching their forecasts and boom — they’re the hot dot!
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
— Max Planck
Max Planck was a great scientist. But not necessarily so deep in the philosophy and history of science. He wrote those words sometime in the early 1940s, looking at the battles over relativity and quantum mechanics.
Since then we learned much about the process of science from Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, and hundreds of others. Kuhn said about Plank’s remark:
There are many scientific revolutions that converted the living (if I correctly recall my long-ago reading about this, most convert the living when sufficient evidence emerges plus an explanation). Some theoretical revolutions, such as continental drift and Keynesian economics. And most of the instrument-driven revolutions: based on old tech like the telescope and microscope, and on new tech like x-ray diffraction (Watson & Crick work with DNA).
ICE AGE! 1975 Time Magazine cover story. After a 3+ decade trend of falling global temperatures, climate scientists began thinking that Earth might be entering our next ice age, which is about due if we are still in the pattern of the past 3 million year climate history of long ice ages interspersed with relatively brief integlacials.
But then temperatures started rising until about 2000, after which the rising stopped and temperatures flattened. MELTDOWN! is the more recent version of ICE AGE!
Nobody knows why Earth started having ice ages about 3 miilion years ago. And nobody knows what triggers the shift from geological scale cooling to geological scale warming, and from warming to cooling. Obviously global warming and cooling has nothing to do with humans burning fossil fuels, as we weren’t around until late in the Pleistocene, and only became dominant during the current interglacial which we call the Holocene. That is the current state of “climate science”: nobody knows what causes global warming and cooling.
The doctrine of AGW is being pushed for reasons other than objective climate science. Variation in solar output is the most likely candidate for variation in Earth’s temperature. We have good records of sunspot activity going back 400 years. The Maunder Minimum of sunspot activity coincides with the coldest period of the Little Ice Age, and solar variance as indicated by changes in the number of sunspots coincides very closely with changes in Earth’s temperature. Erratic weather is associated with global cooling, by the way, not with global warming. Much of the agricultural devastion of the Little Ice Age was caused by erratic weather, whereas during the Medieval Warm Period grapes grew in England and agriculture and humanity flourished. The evidence of history suggests that we should welcome global warming and fear global cooling, not vice versa as global warming alarmists are screeching.
I think Hermanutz’s comment is overstated, and much of this is not accurate.
There is much exciting research in progress about the sun’s cycles, and its possible influence on Earth. For details see the posts listed in section two (Solar Cycle) and three (Global Cooling) on the FM Reference Page listing posts about Science & Climate.
The stories about fears of global cooling are exaggerated. See About those headlines from the past century about global cooling… and The facts about the 1970’s Global Cooling scare.
Fabius,
Are you saying geological history is “not accurate”? Or that the historical coincidence of high sunspot activity with warmer weather and low sunspots with cold erratic weather is not accurate? Or that the Pleistocene glaciation epoch and the Holocene interglacial are not accurate depictions of, respectively, the past 3 million years and the past 10,000 years (i.e. recent) geological trends? Or that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age didn’t occur?
I’m reciting geological history, which is “the evidence”. Theories are supposed to explain the evidence. A good theory of climate change can give a coherent explanation of the drivers of climate that produce ice ages and global warmings. We don’t have such a theory because we don’t know what drives geological scale climate change any more now than we did in 1975 when climate science was worried about an ice age. We have a lot more data now, more evidence, but still no theory to tie it all together in a coherent explanation of Earth’s large scale climate mechanics. The global warming climate models don’t work. They don’t accurately predict changes in Earth’s warming and cooling.
They can’t explain the major changes in the past 1000 years (MWP and LIA) and they can’t explain the past 70 years of cooling followed by warming followed by flattening. The “evidence” cannot be “not accurate”. The evidence is the thing we’re trying to understand. It is theories that cannot explain the evidence that are not accurate.
Hermanutz,
I said two things.
(1) The degree of concern about global cooling in the 1970s is often reported in exaggerated form (offset by the equally false rebuttals by warmistas). The posts I cited document this in some detail.
(2) The field of Paleoclimatology is still in its early days. There is evidence, which I’ve discussed at length during the past four years, of a link between solar cycles and the Earth’s climate. But it’s still tentative, although growing. Much of the necessary data is still being collected, such as an agreed-upon solar history (eg, the sunspot number and solar flux) — without which little can be done. For an intro to this see The quiet sun is getting a lot of attention. What are its effect on us?, 11 February 2012.
Re: your comment
(a) “We don’t have such a theory because we don’t know what drives geological scale climate change any more now than we did in 1975 when climate science was worried about an ice age. We have a lot more data now, more evidence, but still no theory to tie it all together in a coherent explanation of Earth’s large scale climate mechanics. The global warming climate models don’t work. They don’t accurately predict changes in Earth’s warming and cooling.”
That is a Hollywood version of science. First, these things are seldom binary: understand or not understand, explain or not explain. There are many factors influencing Earth’s climate. During the past 3 decades climate scientists have made great progress in both data collection and analysis. Climate models have become much more sophisticated. As the IPCC’s AR5 explains, the newer models include far more factors than did those used in the IPCC’s First Assessment Report (FAR). Note that each generation of models has forecast less warming than its predecessors. See the next post for details.
(b) “Are you saying geological history is “not accurate”? … Or that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age didn’t occur?”
No, I didn’t say that. Or anything remotely like that. Why do you ask?
Fabius,
You made a blanket statement dismissing the content of my comment. So if you are not saying that the MWP and LIA and the last 70 years of cooling-warming-flattening are “not accurate”, in what sense is my bringing this evidence into the conversation “overstated”? And if I’m overstating the failure of climate science to understand geological history, why do we not have a coherent working theory that explains the Pleistocene and Holocene and the known variations within the Holocene? Looks like a pretty much total lack of accurate theory to me. A climate model that cannot explain the past and the present and cannot predict the future is not an “accurate” model of the climate, and the “theory” (the observed climate phenomena and the hypothetical causal mechanisms of climate change) that are incorporated in the the models are clearly not capturing the actual workings of Earth’s climate. And if that’s the best we have–theories that can neither explain nor predict real world climate events– then it is accurate to say “nobody knows how climate works”. So I return the question to you: how is your dismissal of my comment NOT denying the accuracy of my statements, including the unexplained existence of the MWP and LIA and the past 70 years?
Derry,
(1) “You made a blanket statement dismissing the content of my comment.”
Rather than a “blanket dismissal” I said that it was “overstated, and much of this is not accurate.” I noted that you were correct about the exciting research about solar influences on Earth’s climate — but that there is as yet no definitive conclusions. I noted that you were correct that there were fears of cooling in the 1970s, but the extent of these are often exaggerated. I gave evidence of both.
(2) “And if I’m overstating the failure of climate science to understand geological history”
I don’t understand what that means. What “failure”? Please cite some sources.
(3) “Looks like a pretty much total lack of accurate theory to me.”
But it doesn’t look like that to the rest of us. Theories about such complex phenomena are seldom “accurate” in the sense you appear to expect. That’s just not where 21st century science is in many fields. Small circles of light in amidst the greater darkness.
(4) “including the unexplained existence of the MWP and LIA and the past 70 years?”
It’s not “unexplained”. Are the current theories correct, or mostly correct? That’s not a question I am competent to evaluate, but is an active subject of research by experts. It will sort itself out, in time.
Fabius,
My objection to AGW arises from the same source as my objection to neoclassical macroeconomics: it fails to accurately model the real world, and it is accepted as the “consensus” knowledge of the field, and its advocates are so “certain” of the truth of their theories that they succeed in having national and global policies implemented that are catastrophically WRONG. The results of the policies are nothing at all like the results the models “predict””, because the theories that are incorporated in the models are deficient.
I am fully aware of the uncertainty inherent in practical sciences of very complex dynamic systems like planetary climates and global economies. But neoclassical macro economists and AGWistas are guilty of what you call the “Hollywood” version of science: they claim false certainty because they fear that anything less than certainty will not be received as sufficiently “scientific” to support their policy prescriptions. If civil engineers built bridges and office towers on deficiient theories of structural engineering, and those constructions collapsed in fatal ruin, the practical science of civil engineering would be brought into wholesale disrepute and nobody would let an ‘engineer’ anywhere near a building site.
But macro economists routinely advocate policy prescriptions based on their flawed models, and the implemented policies result in the collapse in fatal ruin of the economic systems they claim to understand. Yet neoclassical macro is not brought into wholesale disrepute and the same blind mice continue to make the same blind policy prescriptions and policy makers continue to listen to them as if they know what they are talking about, when they clearly do not. AGW has a similar history of failed dire predictions, not least of which is the failure of warming to accelerate in a continued upward path to Doomsday. In 1975 climate scientists were more humble about their paucity of knowledge, and “weather forecasters” were held in about as much esteem as augurs, so nobody paid much attention to their Ice Age! alarmism.
But climate science was wrong in its predictions then as it is wrong still, and the field should be in disrepute, at least as far as policy making is concerned, until they can show a record of accurate predictions. It’s fine to play bigshot Hollywood climate scientist in movies, but these guys want us to change the way we live. And there is no evidence that they have any idea of what they’re so confidently talking about. That is my case against AGWistas. I am not anti “science”. I am anti “pseudoscience” masquerading as “knowledge” when in fact it is little more than credulous (or self-interested) faith in some laughably primitve computer models that routinely predict outcomes that are widely off the mark if not completely opposite to what actually happens.
As far as Michael Mann et al not being “frauds”: did you not read the emails? These guys were clearly trying to eliminate the LIA from public awareness and hide the decline of global temperatures after 2000 (or 1998, as you say elsewhere). They were doing this to “deceive” policy makers and the public. This is “fraud”. They also carefully cherry picked tree ring data to “prove” their claims which were in fact NOT consistent with or supported by the evidence. This is scientific fraud of the worst kind. You seem to suggest that “they had to do it”, for their careers and income and credibility, and that because they “had to” commit scientific fraud that somehow restores their credibility. People who lie for self interested reasons are not “trustworthy”, and it is not prudent to believe ANYTHING that an exposed liar says unless his statements are backed by independent evidence. And even then it is the evidence that is credible, not the liar.
Mann has been a prominent contributor to IPCC reports that influence global perceptions of the “facts” about climate change, and he is guilty of suppressing true facts (evidence) and creating false facts (the hockey stick). In a law court he would be convicted of perjury. The guy should be run out of the climate scienceindustry, but like neoclassical macro economists, he remains at the top of the policy advocacy foodchain. Which suggests there is some high level agenda at work other than an honest search for the objective truth about climate mechanics.