Recent Comments

Prev  2291  2292  2293  2294  2295  2296  2297  2298  2299  2300  2301  2302  2303  2304  2305  2306  Next

Comments 114901 to 114950:

114901. actually thoughtful at 17:05 PM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        ChrisCanaris - you bring up some good points about the real-world of science. Many scientists spend their careers testing out minor, but interesting hypothesis - "warmer water will increase dolphin populations" - etc. And I do think climate science is unique in 2 ways - there are DEEP pockets wanting it to be false - the extractive energy business, the most profitable business on the planet and all of us want this sentence lifted! It sucks - it is hard to think about - every trip to the store in a motor vehicle is also a guilt trip (will my CO2 be the final bit that pushes us over some tipping point...?) But let me ask you this - when all is said and done - would you rather have the reputation of Darwin, Einstein or ChrisCanaris (and I mean you no disrespect whatsoever). The ego drive of great scientists (and some not-great scientists) is sufficient motivation to create the hypothesis,beg/borrow/steal for funding and create results that prove something great/new/interesting. At this point, with the stakes so high, if the skeptics had ANYTHING, anything at all, they would put a proposal in front of Exxon or BP and get funded in a heartbeat (not to say they wouldn't be funded by NSF or other government research funding arms - but even if they weren't, they have a plan B that you probably don't have in say, Australian drug research). To the best of my knowledge the skeptics have come up with: pick at the edges of the some of the data, where the data is inconclusive or COULD be interpreted in a less warming way; attack the methods of the science done so far (Mann, Jones, etc) and; the exact size of the positive feedbacks isn't yet known. As I said to HR - where are the big ideas that are lacking funding? I would have egg on my face, I would be embarrassed at my support of AGW - but I also commit right now to personally thanking the Principal Investigator who shows that AGW is false, and that there is a BETTER, valid comprehensive world view that explains everything we are seeing now and doesn't hold the AGW sentence over our head. What are the chances I will publicly eat humble pie and recognize the greatness of a skeptic scientist (due to accomplishing the above)?
114902. Futurepol at 17:01 PM on 18 July 2010
        Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
        This topics question is = Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act? Well according to the "Climate-changers" and Al Gore. It is perfectly fine to never act on fixing the ozone layer, or re-forestation, or vehicle emmissions mandating, hybrids, electrics, or inerting Co2 into a harmless chemical, orbital shades, or any other reaistic long term solution. They only want to destroy economies by cap and trading with no effect on emissions nor solutions whatsoever. Acting irresponsibly is disasterous, and not acting, which is what the current "Climate-change" frauds insist on, is horrific.
114903. HumanityRules at 16:53 PM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        50.chriscanaris I'd have to agree with that. Young scientist might have the far reaching dreams but that is in no way represented by what they do. It's only those with a long CV, a good track record and plenty on grounding that can afford the pleasures of testing orthodoxy. All the rest are grinding out the results that are easily publishable. That's all that real matters to younger scientists unfortunately. You don't need a conspiracy to generate a concensus especially when there is an influential body pushing for it.
114904. gpwayne at 16:45 PM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        Hi Y’all – and thanks for the comments. robhon

        Rather than equating scientists to a flock of birds the more accurate metaphor would be a herd of cats. Each is of its own mind. But when you see all the cats heading is the same direction... THEN you know something is really happening.

        Nice one – wish I’d thought of that. skepticstudent

        While I disagree totally with everything he said, I'm still whirling and dazed trying to figure out what God, Creationism, or Christians have to do with a supposed ACGW.

        I suspect your confusion may be a little exaggerated, but I will expand on one aspect this point: as a business analyst I came to understand that a key skill I had to develop was pattern recognition. The relationship between creationism – and many other arguments like Y2K, ozone holes, 9/11 and others – is the pattern of argument. They all rely on similar techniques, similar chains of inference that never quite connect, similar sleights of hand when confronted with hard evidence, similar attacks on the principles when nothing else will suffice. In this respect, creationists demand something they know they can’t have – absolute proof in the fossil record of a connection between other primates and homo xxx – which they demand so they can claim that without such proofs, the theory can be shown to be inadequate, or flawed, or broken. It is sophistry of course, but many are taken in. (Funny that creationists don’t support the obvious notion that if God was that smart, evolution is what He would invent to save Himself the bother of doing it all by hand). MattJ

        …with such a hard battle ahead of us, we cannot afford to waste time and energy preaching to the choir.

        Actually, one of the most common themes in all military history is the need to maintain morale, especially when you are outnumbered by the baying mob. tobyjoyce

        What Graham is arguing (I think) is that nothing associated with rising temperature in the world today makes sense except in the light of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

        More or less, Toby – to refine my argument a little, I would restate it this way: there is no other theory that satisfactorily addresses every line of investigation related to changes in the climate. All investigations converge, meeting at the same place: ACC. JBowers Hello old bean (JB and I fight the good fight together over at the Guardian from time to time). HumanityRules Referring back to my point about pattern recognition, may I observe that your argument is a ‘standard text’ for denialists – a cliche, in other words, and a very recognisable type of assumed victimhood:

        …[climate science is] driven by political necessity not empirical data.

        Political reaction has always lagged the science. It is the ice melting that drives political action, despite their definition of necessity being the requirement for business as usual – because this paradigm is the most profitable. If you think the "tax and control" arguments have merit, read this post on my blog. You then go on to claim that scientists are being forced, coerced, intimidated etc – the net result being that nobody is investigating other mechanisms that might cause the climate to warm. May I point out that the greatest prize in science right now would, without any doubt at all, go to the man, woman or team who could seriously dent the ACC theory with credible science? And that if they could not find the funding from conventional sources due to some alleged control-freakery or connivance, they would find it readily, and supplied in copious quantities by those who are already spending millions on denialist PR – like Koch, Exxon etc. Ask yourself this: why are so many vested interests spending so much on spin, when they own research facilities and employ many scientists. Where is the fossil fuel funded scientific investigation of these ‘other contenders’? Rhetorical questions, of course. There is no ‘opposing’ science, because science isn’t adversarial. It is competitive, but not between arbitrary paradigms like political opposites. The reason scientists are not spending much time on anything other than GHG cause/effect is – as I said at the start – there is little else credible left to study (notwithstanding the CERN Cloud work, which is interesting and wholly credible because it is good science. Kirkby doesn't seem to be very intimidated, does he?)
114905. Futurepol at 16:44 PM on 18 July 2010
        Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
        More to my post: We SHOULD act. we should act on scrapping the Co2 focus and actually fixing the ozone layer, fixing deforestation and start re-forestation, mandating hybrids and electrics and sugar beet ethanol for global fuel sources, and chemistry based change of Co2 gas into a harmless chemical or something that can be used. Thats right, REAL CHANGE, something the Co2 scammers aren't interested in. Remember in Gore's self-glorification project how he spoke of the cause of polar ice cap melting? Was it Co2? Nope. Even HE outlined the real cause. More solar "radiation" hitting the ice, melting it, pooling the water due to natural gravity, and erosion based effects. Bottom line, more solar radiation hitting caps due to weakened ozone layer. Then he says nothing about it ever again for years now. I would not be surprised if he has since deleted this from his new videos in production. What a fraud. Have any of you guys researched into the factual and real possibility chemistry based approach of 'inerting' Co2 by changing it through chemical process into something else? Quite easy. What about deforestation law changes, reforestation laws, mandating backburning, or emmissions on vehicles? California emits less pollution from all cars on the road than one forest fire causes yet the Ignoramous Sierra club causes 30+ additional fires each year due to their ignorant conservation laws. Yosemite national park was ruined, burnt to the ground by the Sierra Club's incompetance, and 10+years of emissions cause by their ignorance. They will never be regarded again as a reputable source of information.
114906. chris1204 at 16:38 PM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        actually thoughtful @ 37 You say to HR: Your post is full of cynicism. Overturning the standard quo is the dream of every young person, and certainly of young scientists. From my limited exposure to scientific research (personal experience, interaction with scientists, and reading scientific papers in my field), this is certainly not the case. From the moment you embark on your honours research project, you are constrained by your supervisor and the prevailing views in his/her lab and the department. Any hopes of overturning a consensus are rapidly dissipated. Most science proceeds by tiny incremental advances in ever increasingly specialised areas. HR seems to have some real insights into the enormous competitiveness in the scientific world, the size of the egos, and the fierce struggle for survival epitomised by the struggle for research grants. To get past Honours into a Masters/PhD stream, you have to have first class honours. No honours project would be on the scale that would overturn a prevailing paradigm. First class honours are very difficult to attain - most science students leave the field at this point and find a paid job - often secondary school teaching or a job in industry. I myself quit basic (ie, pre-clinical) sciences upon completing the equivalent of an 'Honours' degree and went back to medicine after a nightmarish year in which I effectively sunk what my then supervisor thought would be a groundbreaking explanation of sudden infant death syndrome. I should add that I didn't do anything startling or innovative and in any case I didn't have the self-confidence to handle the stresses inherent in trying to climb the greasy pole of lower level academia. I did some modest research while training in psychiatry (much less stressful when you have a secure job). Even at PhD level, you very rarely find yourself doing ground breaking research. Mike Mann is one outstanding exception. At the same time, you depend on the goodwill of your supervisor for financial support (opportunities to tutor, an adequate allocation of grant moneys for materials and equipment, and the like). At postdoctoral level, you have to struggle for appointment as a lecturer in your field - often your initial appointment is temporary. Even when you attain tenure, your academic salary does not suffice to carry on research - you need grant moneys. To get these, you need to have a good name and a sufficiently impressive publication record. You also have to have a good publication record to be promoted. Indeed, much research is as much driven by the need to publish and be cited as it is by the genuine importance of the questions posed. To publish good research, you have to go through the peer review process which is sometimes intensely stringent, sometimes lackadaisical, and sometimes in-between. However, you also have to be very careful not to upset a potential reviewer. Hence, there are powerful incentives to avoid controversy. There are equally powerful incentives to piggy back onto 'fashionable' areas. Does this apply to climate science in all its branches? Frankly, I am not qualified to say. It does apply strongly in medicine in Australia where a great deal of research is funded by pharmaceutical companies. Pharmaceutical companies fund research partly because it creates goodwill and good publicity. They also like to fund clinical research which may create markets for their products. The potential for distortions has generated significant debate in medical journals though on the whole pharmaceutical companies have an interest in not doing anything too obviously shonky.
114907. Philippe Chantreau at 16:24 PM on 18 July 2010
        Facebook page to support John Abraham
        The only thing that Monckton is "artful" in is the grotesque. The buffoon has received all the attention he deserved and should get no more, really.
114908. Futurepol at 16:22 PM on 18 July 2010
        Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
        The Climate is changing, but what is changing it? MANY things and NOT overwealmingly Co2. The political Fraudsters would snowball you into thinking it's only Co2 and the only plan of action is to cap and trade without any responsible solutions, and open up the gammet on wasted money bureacracy, yet do NOTHING about the ozone layer, significant change to vehicle emissions and production emissions, orbital shades, re-forestation, ocean re-breeding and changes in fisheries, and chemical 'inertion' of Co2, or other alternatives. This just highlights the widespread fraud going on. Acting in the wrong way, or an irresponsible way is worse than not acting. You give the example of lasik eye surgery, but your comparison is dead wrong. with lasik this is a well research specific and exact tangible science with millions of tests and results, whereas the climate is still an almost immeasurable science many are still trying to understand. A more proper comparison in your example would be trying out lasik for the first time by going into massive public and private debt while knowing much of the money will not be spent on lasik research or development whatsover, and your eyes will be fired with an unproven idea that has not been used, tested to any significant degree, with no results documentation (ie sequestration) Maybe you might want to present a point that is actually relevant or even possibly level unlike this garbage point of should we not act and trying to falsely claim this has any similarity to a lasik procedure concept. Wow.
114909. HumanityRules at 15:42 PM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        50.Donald Lewis Still far worse to global human health is mal-nourishment and lack of access to resourses in general. Being vastly over-weight may be bad for your health but it's not showing up in the broard US metrics such as life expectancy, which against all the odds is still going up! Again this degraded view of humanity would prefer to see us as greedy over-consumers or victims of the food industry rather than challenge the real issues. One thing that brought this home strongest during the Copenhagen Summit was Oxfam, a Christian charity which for the whole of it's history has argued for more resourses for the developing world. It turned it's attention to the industrialized nations for their over-consumption. It seems their intention now is to drag us all down the worst possible conditions rather than dream for a better life for all. Personnally I'd prefer to follow the idea of more for all even if that means I'm flawed.
114910. Donald Lewis at 14:50 PM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        Thanks Graham. Regarding the perils of wielding Ockham's razor... I have a possibly 'weaker' version Ockham's razor that works for me. If the traditional version is something like "Of two explanations that equally well explain the data you have on hand, the less complicated explanation tends to be the correct (better?) explanation." , then the weaker version is "Of two explanations that equally well explain the data you have on hand, assume the less complicated one is correct as a working hypothesis because it will be easier to disprove it with new data." If one disproves it, one can move on, and the chance one can move on is increased because it is easier to empirically debunk the less complicated argument. In either version, the problem remains that people dispute the ranking of the complexity of explanations and whether two different explanations equally well explain the data. In the climate change blogs, the situation is confounded because some folks who don't generate new data simply deny the current, full ensemble of data. No form of Ockham's razor addresses that situation. Sigh... I mean look at the preceding comments, eg Humanity Rules. I hear adults and children in the US are over weight and that it is a public health issue. What an insult! But If humanity rules, why doesn't humanity just decrease the acceleration due to gravity. That would solve the weight problem. Oh wait. humanity may not actually rule gravity, but it does rule perception... better to claim that US citizens are not overweight and the data is flawed. Why? Any reason may do. Well the climate data, at least, we know is flawed because "You may be describing general scientific rules but climate science is different from any other science. It's driven by political necessity not empirical data. There is a dynamic here that doesn't really exist in any other field." Oh, that explains the data? Those climate scientists are different. Uh, planetary scientists, geologists, atmospheric scientists, glaciologists, oceanographers, mammalogists, ornithologists, ichthyologists, herpetologists, invertebrate biologists, ecologists, phenologists, physicists, chemists, mathematicians, and statisticians are all conspiring with this unscientific, oddball, special group of "climate scientists" to create a fantasy of climate change?
114911. johnd at 14:08 PM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        Marcus at 13:01 PM , what you seemed determined to ignore is that despite lower grain protein %, with increased yields the amount of protein produced in the grain PER HECTARE INCREASES. In addition given that plants are about 50% carbon, increased structural growth, not only requires firstly an additional supply of that carbon, but even a very basic understanding of plant biology surely suggests that the plants will also require additional water and nitrogen, but somehow this basic truth seems to elude you.
114912. johnd at 13:52 PM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        Marcus at 13:08 PM, you seem to have drawn a lot of conclusions about what might, or might not be aberrations or normal and missed the point completely. A decrease of about 5 percent corresponds to a radiative net change of about 0.9 W/m2 within a period of only 13 years, which may be compared with the total net change from 1750 to 2006 of 1.6 W/m2 of all climatic drivers as estimated in the IPCC 2007 report, including release of greenhouse gasses from the burning of fossil fuels. Trend or not it is something that still has to be accounted for over the period observed, especially a change of that magnitude. Disregard whether it is a trend or not and consider instead how it fits in or otherwise with other observations over the same period.
114913. HumanityRules at 13:40 PM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        44.Marcus I think most, if not all accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It's the apocalypse that is usually questioned. Secondly I don't whinge I point out that a political processes is occuring here and that is a two-sided process, the AGW supporters on this website only seem to recognise one side of this debate exists while on the other side is pure science and empirical data, that's selective blindness. Your description of the underhand tactics is applaudable except that it's intention is simply to paint one side as devils and the other crusaders. Unfortuantely the more degenerate individuals on the other side of the debate believe the same thing but in reverse. The Deniers have thier own brave heros on WUWT while the AGW are evil communists. Approach the debate from this perspective and we'll get nowhere. I try objectively to think about my field of science and how ideas compete, ego's clash and petty personnal rivalries work through. And then I look at climate science and see what's going on there and honestly try to ask myself whether this is just the same thing only exposed to full public scutiny. Honestly I see no connection between the two things it's bizarre to try to fit the tactics of both sides into your own field of science, try it. I'd go back to my original comment there is a dynamic going on here that does not exist in other fields of science
114914. Marcus at 13:08 PM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        Hmmm John D (post#34) seems like you're cherry-picking again. If you look at the period just prior to 1987, I see cloud cover at levels closer to 65% to 66%. The 69% cloud cover around 1987-1990 seems more like an aberration than a normal state of affairs. For much of that graph, cloud cover levels seem to hover at closer to 64% to 67%. I certainly don't see any *trend* in cloud cover-either increasing or decreasing.
114915. Marcus at 13:01 PM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        Ah, John D is still pushing his beloved FACE trial as proof that a higher CO2 world will be better for agriculture-& still he ignores the basic facts. He ignores the fact that evidence of Acclimation was already being seen by the researchers at the end of the 3rd year of the trial-suggesting that peak yield increases of +20% had already been reached (longer term trials suggest only a 5% to 8% increase). He ignores the fact that the 20% yield increase was achieved only under the optimum conditions (& that the so-called "sub-optimum" conditions are not a truly accurate simulation of the conditions farmers will face in an increased-CO2 world). He ignores the fact that nitrogen demand increased by about 25%, in spite of a decrease in protein yield (which of course means that human & animal consumers will need to eat *MORE* grain to get a similar amount of protein-thus partly negating the increased yield benefits). He ignores the fact that the FACE trials also don't simulate for changes in weed propagation &/or the presence of insect & microbial pest species in an enhanced CO2 world. The fact he *really* ignores, though, is that a number of trials have shown that increased nitrogen &/or water-in ambient CO2 conditions-can yield the same, or greater, levels of yield increase as enhanced CO2 conditions-but without any decline in protein content. This strongly suggests, once again, that it is nitrogen & water-not CO2-which are the limiting factors in plant yield. The fact remains that, if John D were reading the FACE trials, & all the other studies cited above, in an unbiased fashion, then he'd realize that none of them really support his assertion that increasing the planet's levels of CO2 will *automatically* lead to improvements in agricultural output. It's exactly this kind of simplistic thinking that so undermines the denialist argument.
114916. Marcus at 12:33 PM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        HR. First of all, the relationship between increased CO2 & an enhanced Greenhouse effect was discovered *long* before the IPCC was ever created-& initially in the face of some stiff opposition. It was large amounts of empirical data that enabled this relationship to be shown-& to date the various denialists have yet to provide any COUNTER-EVIDENCE to undermine this relationship. Instead, the Denialists resort to all kinds of political & ideological arguments to try & attack the theory of AGW. 2nd, you whinge about the existence of a list of Climate Change Denialists existing on the internet, but I ask you-have any of these Denialists been subject to hate mail? Death threats? Threats of legal action? Threats of funding cuts to themselves or their organizations? Climatologists who support the theory of AGW have been subjected to *all* of these threats-not to mention being subjected to computer hacking & accusations of being engaged in massive global conspiracies. Yet you accuse *us* of being politically driven. Ha, that's hilarious. The politics driving this so-called "debate" is that the people who control access to our primary sources of energy do *not* want to relinquish that control any time soon-yet AGW poses the greatest threat to that control which they have ever faced. So they're deploying every weapon in their arsenal to undermine it-not with science, but with emotive claims about "World Governments", "Global Socialism" & "Economic Ruin"!
114917. HumanityRules at 12:25 PM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        41.muoncounter Not all the list signed that petition and does it matter if they did? They presumably produce science which question aspects of AGW. This is what is important, digging out petitions they signed and labelling them denier is a way of denigrating the science from the outset. I agree Bush did the same. It's a two-sided political debate. You can't seem to accept the other side exists though.
114918. HumanityRules at 12:10 PM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        40.JMurphy Let's just be clear here that list really does exist?? And it's worth remembering Kenneth Williams did have several knives sticking in his back when he spoke those immortal words so it would be fair of him to assume that not everybody was on his side :) So the IPCC is not a political beast? It's purely an information gathering service?
114919. muoncounter at 12:05 PM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        HR #36: Where to start? "driven by political necessity not empirical data. There is a dynamic here that doesn't really exist in any other field." Climate science is drowning in empirical data, so much so that we often read arguments that are little more than 'my data is better than yours' (for example, see: UAH vs. RSS LT temperatures vs. GISS temperatures, etc or ice extent vs. ice volume, etc). "What is the point of researching other aspects of climate control than CO2 when all it does is highlight you as an outsider?" The point is that its necessary to know the effects of sulfur and aerosols and methane and yes, even water vapor. None of that is outside the mainstream; nor are glaciology, paleobiology, plate tectonics, etc. This is one of the biggest scientific tents you'll find; we need expertise in lots of disciplines. "In climate science you become a heretic. Who wants to find themselves on a list like this?" People who signed the Oregon petition presumably did so because that was what they believed at the time. Its all public record. "a culture exemplified by the blacklist one has to go beyond the empirical data to question what is driving the consensus." Blacklist? Have you forgotten what was happening to Hansen et al during the Bush years?
114920. JMurphy at 11:55 AM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        HumanityRules wrote : Everything you say may be true but with the IPCC to lead the science and a culture exemplified by the blacklist one has to go beyond the empirical data to question what is driving the consensus. I know : it's that great big conspiracy, isn't it ? All I can think of is the line from Carry on Cleo - "Infamy, infamy ! They've all got it in-famy !!"
114921. HumanityRules at 11:52 AM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        37.actually thoughtfull I think my post is more of a response to cynicism. The radical ideas of today are cynical and conservative. I'm not sure how the politics of fear, catastrophe and apocalypse can be interpreted in any other way. This used to be the playground of religions now it's seen as youthful radicalism.
114922. HumanityRules at 11:43 AM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        "we asked what would happen to the climate if we artificially increased the proportions of greenhouse gases" I'm not sure that's what we did. We developed society, we followed a development path which allows more and more individuals the possibility to express their full potential rather than live basic hand-to-mouth existences. We developed the extraordinary machines you're sitting in front of that allow people from across the planet to communicate, and very much more. We developed great ideas. Reducing human society (and human beings) to simple carbom emmitters is part of the problem of the approach of climate science and enviromentalism in general. You reduce humanity to the role of polluter. Take that mind set and any set of empirical data and I'm sure you come up with dire conclusions.
114923. actually thoughtful at 11:38 AM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        Really HumanityRules? Your post is full of cynicism. Overturning the standard quo is the dream of every young person, and certainly of young scientists. Hansen et al had to do that when the idea of a serious problem was first proposed in the early 80s. Where is the data, the research - even the brilliant ideas, in need of funding? The same place the brilliant ideas to bring the world gold from iron - no where - because it isn't realistic. How can we read your post as anything but cynical cover for the lack of real ideas amongst the deniers/skeptics?
114924. HumanityRules at 10:50 AM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        You may be describing general scientific rules but climate science is different from any other science. It's driven by political necessity not empirical data. There is a dynamic here that doesn't really exist in any other field. "because no other contender is left standing" - this statement is primarily true because the IPCC demands only that CO2 be left standing, there is no interest in other contenders. Research other contenders and you begin to find yourself in the Wikipedia list of climate deniers. What is the point of researching other aspects of climate control than CO2 when all it does is highlight you as an outsider? Science, probably like the rest of the world, is a brutal game. I've only in recent years noticed how much culling of mid career scientists occurs, mainly because I've reached that point in my life. Reputation, connections and past record are the only thing that counts to whether you will continue in your beloved profession. Who's going to jeopardize that for a few controversial idea's? Like many others I'd always assumed that deniers generally being of the older generation was a sign of the conservative nature of this strand of thinking. It makes equally good sense that these people also have less to lose from standing out of the crowd. In other strands of science you maybe labelled a bit of a loose cannon. In climate science you become a heretic. Who wants to find themselves on a list like this? Just on a small note I just noticed that this list not only lists climate deniers but also all their recent PhD and MSc students, looks like the consensus might be getting in early to blacklist the next generation of potential deniers. Petr Chylek strikes me as a perfect example of a scientist doing science who sticks his head above the parapet. Everything you say may be true but with the IPCC to lead the science and a culture exemplified by the blacklist one has to go beyond the empirical data to question what is driving the consensus.
114925. johnd at 10:45 AM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        J Bowers at 08:47 AM, you appear to be missing the point of some of the articles you linked to. For instance, "Food for Thought: Lower-Than-Expected Crop Yield Stimulation with Rising CO2 Concentrations" compares modelled results to actual results obtained in real world FACE trials. The models were developed from trials in laboratory enclosure trials under ideal and controlled conditions, and as shown in the article do not reflect reality. Part of the purpose of FACE trials is to allow more realistic models to be developed. If you look carefully at the results tabulated, whilst the FACE results are lower than the enclosure results, what did you expect, there is still a significant increase in yield under the enriched CO2 FACE trials. All the article proves is that the models being studied were unrealistic. It reminds me of the wheeler dealer who hoped to make 5 million on a deal, and when he only made 4 million complained of losing 1 million. The link "Rising CO2 levels threaten crops and food quality" also only provides half the story. What it fails to mention is that whilst grain % protein levels fell, the increased grain yield meant that overall the amount of protein produced per unit area of land increased. This is in line with the situation under normal growing conditions where, as grain yields vary according to the growing conditions year upon year, the protein levels vary inversely. Thus years where growing conditions have been tough, and grain yields are down, grain protein levels are often some of the highest. Plants require mainly carbon, water and nitrogen. Therefore it should be no surprise if increased CO2 allows improved structural growth, the water and nitrogen requirements also increase. What has to be considered is whether the inability of the plants to achieve optimum ratios is source or sink related, that is is the limitation within the plant itself to take up, or within the soil to give up. Given the advances in knowledge and techniques related to improving crop yields, I would reserve any pessimism for when scientists start indicating that they know all there is to know and that they are unable to make any further advances. I don't see that, in fact, my impression is that they are at the other end and only starting to understand, and whatever gains have been made so far are only the beginning, with no limits being set, except by the pessimists that is.
114926. adelady at 10:13 AM on 18 July 2010
        Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
        batsvensson at 08:30 AM on 18 July, 2010 We can't control it in the way we control mechanical things. But we can refrain from *damaging* it in the same kind of way that we sustain or maintain biological systems. If you don't want lung cancer, don't smoke and don't use one of those awful smoky stoves inside your little house in India. When London was enveloped in smog for endless years, with residents dropping like flies on the worst days, they got rid of coal burning domestic fires and got rid of the problem. The CO2 problem would have been solved decades ago if it had been smelly, visible, damaging buildings and bad for tourism.
114927. johnd at 09:44 AM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        The most obvious missing link is clouds, or rather an adequate understanding of clouds, what drives their formation, and their effects. Overall, clouds have a nett cooling effect on the planet, but different clouds at different levels act differently. Water vapour from which clouds form, is by far the most abundant GHG. In theory it responds to the initial warming initiated by CO2 and thus is directly responsible for the bulk of the warming. However there appears to have been virtually no change in the last decade as it hovers at levels around the lower levels of the past three decades. Within the still short period of satellite cloud cover observations, the total global cloud cover reached a maximum of about 69 percent in 1987 and a minimum of about 64 percent in 2000, a decrease of about 5 percent. This decrease roughly corresponds to a radiative net change of about 0.9 W/m2 within a period of only 13 years, which may be compared with the total net change from 1750 to 2006 of 1.6 W/m2 of all climatic drivers as estimated in the IPCC 2007 report, including release of greenhouse gasses from the burning of fossil fuels.
114928. J Bowers at 08:47 AM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        CBW:

        "Hey, is it our fault those people are starving? We're trying as hard as we can to put plant food in the air."

        Probably not. Climate Change Surprise: High Carbon Dioxide Levels Can Retard Plant Growth, Study Reveals (2002) Rising CO2 levels threaten crops and food quality (2010) Food for Thought: Lower-Than-Expected Crop Yield Stimulation with Rising CO2 Concentrations. Long et al (2006) And then we have more immediate observations of a different kind of the retardation of crop yield: Russia swelters in heatwave, many crops destroyed

        (Reuters) - Soaring temperatures across large swathes of Russia have destroyed nearly 10 million hectares of crops and prompted a state of emergency to be declared in 17 regions.

114929. batsvensson at 08:30 AM on 18 July 2010
        Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
        @ adelady at 01:45 AM on 16 July, 2010 "Denialistas have an exactly parallel problem. They have no way to control the ocean, the atmosphere or nature in general." In what respect can we control the ocean and the atmosphere system?
114930. KR at 07:39 AM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        RSVP - what what CBW said. Your statement was completely, absolutely wrong.
114931. tobyjoyce at 07:39 AM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        The great biologist Theosdosius Dobzhansky made the oft-quoted statement that "Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of Evolution". What Graham is arguing (I think) is that nothing associated with rising temperature in the world today makes sense except in the light of Anthropogenic Global Warming. AGW links phenomena the world over - arctic ice, retreating glaciers, rising sea levels, ocean acidification etc. Howiver, AGW is not a meta-theory in the sense that Evolution is. AGW depends primarily on atmospheric and radiative physics as an explanation. It is not therefore a paradigm in its own right. This makes the denialist's task even more difficult. What they seem to be trying to do is attack every single item of evidence piecemeal - it is ALL either faked or mistaken, that is every one of the many thousands of papers that have been written by thousands of scientists. The unlikeliness of this is obvious, and links denialism to other conspiracy theories, like Ufology (e.g. the government is covering up the existence of aliens). Creationism obviously falls into this bracket also, particularly the way denialists project themselves as an oppressed minority defending "true" science.
114932. RickG at 07:36 AM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        SkepticStudent @21: Are you not aware of the "creationist" literature that purposely distorts and misrepresents the scientific literature; especially in the areas of physics, geology, biology, astronomy and even climatology? I don't mean that as a criticism, it's just a fact.
114933. TruthSeeker at 07:21 AM on 18 July 2010
        Archibald’s take on world temperatures
        Jim Eager at 05:45 AM on 6 July, 2010 He probably gets it from the widely disseminated misquoting of Phil Jones. Dude, the man said that the evidence of global warming in the past decade wasn't statistically significant. Which means you cannot make the claim that global warming has progressed in that time frame.
114934. CBW at 07:15 AM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        RSVP, your "correction" to gpwayne's sentence was wrong. Period. The sentence was about radiation, not heat flow. A correct statement: "CO2 and certain other gases re-radiate LWR in random directions." An incorrect statement: "CO2 and certain other gases re-radiate LWR in random directions as a function of a difference in temperature." Radiation is a function of an object's absolute temperature, not a difference in temperature. See this link for a discussion of thermal radiation.
114935. robert way at 07:02 AM on 18 July 2010
        Part Three: Response to Goddard
        Meltponds I don't think have been necessarily counted but melt area is measured every year. Check out the copenhagen diagnosis http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhagen/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_LOW.pdf page 25 for an idea of the measurements taking place. By the way, is it just me or is the copenhagen diagnosis not a great resource. I'm surprised more people don't use it.
114936. Kiwiiano at 05:45 AM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        Scared Amoeba: the strongest pin against the Creationist balloon is the thought that if you accept that an entire universe, including layered fossils, decaying isotopes and light en route from ancient supernova suddenly sprang into existence 6000-odd years ago, you can't exclude the possibility that it happened a fortnight ago and that Jesus Christ never actually existed. The best definition of Occam's Razor is; When you hear the sound of hoofbeats in the night, think "horses", not "zebras" let alone "Arcturian mega-donkeys".
114937. RSVP at 05:24 AM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        KR Heat has to go somewhere. As the ambient temperature "down here on Earth" increases, the GHG effect must diminish. It will want to go where it is cooler, which is up and out.
114938. RSVP at 05:17 AM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        To CBW... If I give you a dollar and you give me a dollar at the same time, neither of us has gained much. Heat transfer works the same way. http://biocab.org/Heat_Transfer.html This link contains the following... The formula to know the amount of heat transferred by radiation is: q = e σ A [(ΔT)^4] Where q is the heat transferred by radiation, E is the emissivity of the system, σ is the constant of Stephan-Boltzmann (5.6697 x 10^-8 W/m^2.K^4), A is the area involved in the heat transfer by radiation, and (ΔT)^4 is the difference of temperature between two systems to the fourth or higher power.
114939. CBW at 05:05 AM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        RSVP at 22: 'In your remark, "gases re-radiate LWR in random directions..." you forgot to add "...as a function of a difference in temperature"...' Radiation depends on temperature only, not difference in temperature.
114940. KR at 05:00 AM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        RSVP - "gases re-radiate LWR in random directions...": True! However, that's not a function of difference in temperature whatsoever. Objects and gases radiate omnidirectionally based upon their own temperature, not differences in temperature. And this effect increases, not decreases with increasing object temperature. Differences in temperature only come into play when calculating net energy flows, which change the temperatures of the objects involved. I don't mean to be yelling - just went through this on another blog. But this is basic science here, RSVP, and you stated the exact opposite of what is observed. Graham - excellent post.
114941. RSVP at 04:40 AM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        "gpwayne at 16:34 PM on 17 July, 2010 The whole shebang is predicated on very straightforward premises: CO2 and certain other gases re-radiate LWR in random directions. The earth's atmosphere traps heat, warming the earth by around 30K." In your remark, "gases re-radiate LWR in random directions..." you forgot to add "...as a function of a difference in temperature", which means this effect diminishes as temperature increases. RSVP (2010)
114942. Rob Honeycutt at 03:19 AM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        thingadonta @ 5.... Rather than equating scientists to a flock of birds the more accurate metaphor would be a herd of cats. Each is of its own mind. But when you see all the cats heading is the same direction... THEN you know something is really happening.
114943. CBW at 01:32 AM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        gpwayne asks: "How many must die, be displaced, starving or disenfranchised, before we call it catastrophic?" Hey, is it our fault those people are starving? We're trying as hard as we can to put plant food in the air.
114944. CBW at 01:28 AM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        chriscanaris, #8, asks: "1) What is the probability that AWG will lead to catastrophic change (often abbreviated to CAWG)?" This is a denier question, not a skeptical one. It creates a straw man that allows the denier camp to label its "opponents" as crazy alarmists out to stop all human progress. The probability of catastrophe requires you to define what you consider to be a catastrophe and propose something that might bring it about. Then you can try to compute a probability. The actual science surrounding AGW predicts a series of ongoing changes, some of which are already upon us, and some of which will affect humans and the global ecosystem.
114945. Jeff Freymueller at 00:42 AM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        Besides, glaciers are moving (and falling apart) pretty fast these days, so that bit of figurative language is also increasingly behind the times!
114946. oslo at 00:38 AM on 18 July 2010
        Part Three: Response to Goddard
        What about meltponds on Greenland - are they more frequent than before - do someone count them?
114947. gpwayne at 00:31 AM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        Thanks for the comments - I'll respond to those I think pertain to my subject... thingadonta I asked: ""at what point in the history of the earth did all these things happen at the same time, and at the same speed?" To which you responded: "Whenever the Earth has warmed by natural processes. It's nothing new". In which period of earth's history did a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 precede or occur simultaneously to global warming? chriscanaris I'm keen not to get bogged down in pedantry, but can I say that many of the arguments you put forward are those of sceptics, not deniers. I will pick up on a few issues: On Catastrophe - how does one measure the catastrophic? Elsewhere, I have predicted a form of 'climate colonialism', where the industrial nations in Europe and the US suffer some disturbing phenomena - extreme weather, food and energy shortages - but the 'colonies' suffer egregious effects. So whose catastrophe are we talking about? (I also reflect on the value of a human life: what analysis is morally balanced in which a single death is considered insignificant? How many must die, be displaced, starving or disenfranchised, before we call it catastrophic?) On the attribution of ice loss, the first stage attribution is heat, not AGW. And while we should be cautious where caution is required, there's no point in downplaying the probability it's us causing the warming out of some notion that we are invoking profound scepticism by doubting when all the other signposts point in the same direction - the essence of the article and my argument. Another implicit premise of my argument addresses "our human propensity to seek simple overarching explanations". We don't have a simple, overarching explanation and nobody is proposing one. We have a complex set of phenomena, some classic and established physics and chemistry, and a logical premise that is such a good answer to all the questions, it becomes the 'single, coherent account'. EOttawa Thank you - and be my guest. I'm just the messenger here...the message is addressed to us all.
114948. JMurphy at 23:45 PM on 17 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        thingadonta wrote : Evolution is glacially slow. "The cichlid fish in the lakes of East Africa are a classic example of rapid evolution and extreme adaptation, In Lake Victoria, more than 100,000 to 400,000 species of cichlids have evolved and probably even in a much shorter period, because there are indications that 14,600 years ago the lake was completely dry." Super-fast evolution "Human diseases are excellent examples of evolution. Pathogens must evolve rapidly to avoid the human immune response and medical interventions, such as drugs. Because bacterial and viral pathogens have short, and generally quick, life cycles, evolution can be observed in a few days or months." NESCent You constantly give the impression (to me, at least) of being very behind-the-times, or very selective with your ideas.
114949. EOttawa at 22:56 PM on 17 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        Graham, Your definition of the scientific consensus, as opposed to counting the numbers of scientists and/or papers, was an 'aha moment' for me. (I then noticed that your blog title is Small Epiphanies!) While both definitions are useful, yours works on a different level I think. I hope you don't mind if I quote you during climate change debates. Well done!
114950. Ed Davies at 21:34 PM on 17 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        From the point of view of the converging lines of evidence it's worth pointing out that the reason James Hansen could speak up clearly on the subject in the 1980s when most other people studying climate science weren't happy to do so was that he had surveyed the area quite widely and could see all the various lines whereas others had only considered their particular specialities and so were a lot less confident. Right from the political beginning the multiple-lines aspect was important.

Prev  2291  2292  2293  2294  2295  2296  2297  2298  2299  2300  2301  2302  2303  2304  2305  2306  Next