Remember me
▼ Content

Support for the AGW Theory - or Not ...



Page 1 of 3123>
Support for the AGW Theory - or Not ...03-07-2017 04:04
rwswan
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
AGW Supporters


The Marketing of IPCC Messages

The IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change enjoys huge support that mankind is causing dangerous global warming aka the AGW - Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory. Promotion of their messages is mostly done by other organisations, advocates and AGW believers, many of whom tend to use the successive series of IPCC Assessment Reports (ARs) as a kind of bible and reference source.

In one sense the IPCC could be described as a huge lobby group at the head of 195 member countries. It delivers its increasingly dramatic ARs to its member representatives and from there it branches out to each respective country's citizenry, via their various governmental and scientific institutions. It's then taken up by the media and an unseen army of advocates and other supporters.

Undoubtedly the success of the IPCCs AGW Theory so far has a lot to do with an ever willing media eager for alarming or sensation seeking headlines, but that's not the whole of it.

A great deal of continuing support comes from ardent environmental movements and activists, including some of the scientists themselves. More than a few of the latter are not above a bit of chicanery in order to further the cause, for example refusing to hand over raw scientific data to non-IPCC aligned scientists for independent review.

Any information found about foreboding climate change is likely to have its roots in one of the IPCCs ARs. It's fairly common for AGW believers to use cherry picked or exaggerated data taken to ridiculous heights like this nonsense, "Modern climate change is dominated by human influences, which are now large enough to exceed the bounds of natural variability". http://science.sciencemag.org/content/302/5651/1719

Manmade greenhouse gas contributions compared to the vastness of the planetary system are so small that it's lost in the noise. Extravagant stuff like this seems to be left unchallenged except for the so-called skeptics and deniers. The reasoning being that the more alarmed the public becomes, the more they'll agitate their respective governments into action on climate change.

Indeed two researchers have verified it is actually happening in the climate change debate. The following link goes to the Abstract of their research paper, but it needs to be pointed out the authors did NOT advocate lying as several anti-AGW people have gleefully asserted. They're just saying it does happen and discuss why it happens.
Read more: Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements https://academic.oup.com/ajae/article-abstract/96/3/851/55557/Information-Manipulation-and-Climate-Agreements

Conversely, any comment or statement that challenges the validity of the AGW Theory is immediately attacked, often in a derogatory or even hostile fashion - and sometimes for good reason. Let's not kid ourselves that telling lies is exclusive to just one side.

How IPCC Messages are Controlled

An important part of the IPCCs success story is how it's army of scientific institutions, advocates and supporters of the AGW Theory stay "on message". And a big part of that is the control the IPCC exerts over what get's released into the public domain. It's rare for any scientist associated with the IPCC to make any public remark or participate in any public debate. Many have actually resigned because of it including some of the past Lead Authors of the various IPCCs ARs. Those who do are more likely to be defending an issue such as Michael Mann and his infamous "hockey stick".

As well, many scientists who work for major governmental organisations are constrained from making public comment. Why do these places not let their scientists speak for themselves? Possibly two reasons - one being that the messages stays consistent as already discussed, but more worryingly could it be because scientists may go "off message" and actually disagree with something?

In 2004 it was reported that scientists working for Australia's CSIRO - Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, were being gagged on what scientific advice could be provided about the then government's marine conservation plans. They were also gagged regarding their views towards climate change and the Kyoto Accord.

One scientist in 2009 was actually 'punished' for delivering a conference paper that criticised the governments proposed emissions trading scheme. One wonders if the CSIRO is as autonomous as it should be and whether the politics of the day, at least in Australia is what's driving scientific research - not to find facts but to find something useful to the government of the day.
Read more: Gagged CSIRO scientist resigns http://www.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/gagged-csiro-scientist-resigns-20091203-k7ir.html

The Politics of IPCC Messages

The IPCC today enjoys such eminence and authority as the world's leader in matters relating to climate change that their "science" reports are most likely being accepted without question by the different member's governments and their scientific institutions, thus the public at large.

As mentioned in a previous article http://issuesonclimatechange.com/the-confusion-deceit-of-climate-change/there have been concerns raised when Australia's CSIRO did not or could not produce any empirical evidence when questioned about the state of climate change by an Australian Senator MP. One wonders whether they have been doing their own fact checking or just accepting what's been told to them based only on the paperwork.

Yet people who have looked into the IPCC ARs with an open and enquiring mind i.e. the non-converted, have noted exaggerations and political overtones. And this is before it gets into the hands of their more passionate supporters. Some of it is quite "out there" already and it gets increasingly exaggerated with the release of each new AR.

There is an underlying lack of credibility in that the IPCC reports are only based on records back to the beginning of the Industrial Age. Accordingly they do not attempt to put late 20th century climatic events into context against past events i.e. before 150 years ago. At best it is misleading but worse is their reliance on computer outputs. One is reminded of the adage "Garbage In - Garbage Out" relating to data that gets fed into the machines.

In any case none of this would probably matter if the IPCC were autonomously science driven instead of political by nature. Bear in mind that its core staff are bureaucrats rather than scientists. Any bureaucratic organisation is intrinsically political but if there's any doubt the IPCC is political in nature rather than scientific, one only has to observe that it has 195 member countries.

What scientific organisation has non-scientific "members" other than perhaps patrons or the like? Though there have been claims that many of them are getting top heavy with non-scientist bureaucratic administration staff.

Notwithstanding, serious claims have been made of protracted negotiations taking place between the IPCC and it's "membership" regarding what can, cannot or should not be included into successive ARs. True science does not involve discussion as to what goes into a scientific paper - just the actual facts.
Read more: How politics clouds the climate change debate http://www.smh.com.au/comment/how-politics-clouds-the-climate-change-debate-20140102-307ja.html

The bare truth is that we are getting neither the REAL nor the WHOLE science from the IPCC and it's highly unlikely we are getting it from our own governments. What we are getting is a polluted mish-mash of what is politically acceptable to the IPCCs member countries.

Scientific Organisation Support

Under normal circumstances scientists and scientific organisations investigate and produce the science then let the end-user decide what to do with it.

That is not necessarily the case with the climate change issue. Many of them are taking it further and actively forcing the AGW Theory into the public arena together with all their assumptions, theory and logic, which are presented as facts based only on a sprinkling of empirical evidence.

That may sound a bit far-fetched as something a far right-wing climate denier might say, but this writer's research suggests there's a reasonably high degree of probability that it's true. Many notable scientists and famous institutions have become so involved on the issue of AGW that they have diverged away from purely scientific research into environmental activism.

Some might say, "Well that's okay. They're alerting us to the danger".

But they are doing more than that. There are instances where some have not even been entirely truthful in the pursuit of getting the AGW Theory accepted. Some of it is undoubtedly manipulated, no doubt due to cause noblesse i.e. misrepresenting the truth for what's believed to be a greater good.

The bottom line is that much of the scientific debate on what's really happening with the warming of the Earth and what we should be expecting for our grandchildren, is not getting through to the average person.

The UK Royal Society


In 2001 Lord Robert May, a former government adviser was appointed as President to the Royal Society in the UK. He helped publish a statement titled '17 National Academies Endorse Kyoto' in Science magazine that there was a scientific consensus on the danger of global warming. Apparently this was in response to resistance to the Kyoto Treaty by the USA and Australia. For those who support AGW it may have been a welcome incident, but it shocked many scientists because it was based on the political process of consensus rather than proven science that has survived rigorous testing by independent scientists - which it has not yet done.
Read more: Science -17 National Academies Endorse Kyoto http://science.sciencemag.org/content/292/5520/1275.2

In 2006 Mr Bob Ward of the UK Royal Society wrote a threatening letter to the oil company ESSO (UK) with a view to have them cut or reduce funding for organisations that expressed anti-AGW statements. This was a blatant attempt to stop public discussion on the global warming issue and earned a sharp rebuke from the US Marshall Institute which said it part, "... That such a call comes from such a venerable scientific society is disturbing and should raise concerns worldwide about the intentions of those seeking to silence honest debate and discussion ............. - climate change".
Read more: US Marshall Institute - Response to the Royal Society's Letter http://marshall.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Kueter-and-OKeefe-Response-to-the-Royal-Societys-Letter.pdf

The Royal Society was subsequently widely condemned but it didn't stop them or other notables from allegedly writing similar letters. USA Senators Rockefeller and Snowe wrote to the Exxon oil company. In Australia a Labour shadow minister Kelvin Thomson wrote to a number of leading Australian companies citing Al Gore's film and the Royal Society UK letter.

Notwithstanding the criticism, the Royal Society UK didn't curb it's meddling into political affairs on climate change issues. Just one week before the 31st G8 Summit meeting in Scotland, they released an alarmist statement about human-caused global warming containing the signatures of 12 other national science academies.

Despite protests by the USA and Russian Academies of Science they did the same thing in 2007 and 2008 just prior to G8 Summits, and in 2009 just in time for the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference.
[b]Read more: UK Climate Science Statement https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2009/4294969083.pdf[/b]

On 29th October 2008 the Royal Society held a presentation to the Scottish Parliament titled "The IPCC Fourth (2007) Assessment Report and global climate change". Of itself this sort of education is what one would expect them to be doing. However a look at the key points of the presentation gives every indication they just quoted directly from the IPCC report. And again, going by the listed key points, there does not appear to have been any of their own empirical evidence produced. Like Australia's CSIRO it appears they've just taken the IPCC at their word. If true, how worrisome is that?
Read more: The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report and global climate change http://slideplayer.com/slide/797728/

US National Academy of Sciences


In 2008 Richard Lindzen published a paper detailing the way in which this organisation had been infiltrated by environmental activists. Among other claims he says that for over 20 years there had been a "back door" by which they could get elected through the administrative process. They did not even need to be actual scientists. And once they gained membership they gained a veto power over the election of anyone who did not support their AGW views. And so it grew.

Furthermore, appointment to Executive positions became relatively swift. Some have apparently gone on onto other institutions that now hold views similar to those of the UK Royal Society.
Read more: Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf

At first blush it may all seem to be a lot of ado about nothing special but bear in mind that this sort of thing swings academic thinking from an impartial middle ground over to a one sided and activist view. Alarmist statements being released around the world to the press are being politically contrived, is nearly always biased and often allegedly based on pseudo - read junk science.

But it doesn't stop there. On top of this mess many scientists who are members of various scientific and other organisations have complained that they have not even been consulted prior to the release of their organisations alarmist statements to the media.
Read more: CBS News - Physicists Stick to Warming Claim Post-ClimateGate http://www.cbsnews.com/news/physicists-stick-to-warming-claim-post-climategate/

Universities


Then of course there are all sorts of well known universities ready to lend a helping hand. An example of almost zealot like behaviour belongs to at least one of these in Australia. It even offers a free online course in how to respond to climate change sceptics and deniers. One can assume it's free so as to gain a wider audience for its one-sided views. For an institution of this nature charged with a moral responsibility to disseminate balanced research information to behave in this manner is reprehensible.
Read more: Making Sense of Climate Science Denial https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x-4

Of course though there are other universities around the world supporting the AGW Theory. Many, many of them. And why would that be a surprise? Because these are places which practice and rely on theory and logic in problem solving i.e. academic thinking as opposed to practical thinking. There's nothing wrong with that of course. Without the visionaries we would probably still be living in caves but academic thinking has to be balance-checked with reality to make sure ideas will work - something that isn't happening in the climate change issue.

Support by Authority Figures

The amount of support for the AGW Theory is so pervasive that a large number of famous or notable "authority figures" have taken up the cause to promote global warming. The power of endorsement by an authority figure should not be under-estimated. When a famous or well known scientific figure like a past Presidential Candidate or (say) a Nobel Prize winner says something it will generally be believed because there's a perception of credibility. The same usually applies for scientific institutions, the pronouncements from whom the general public are likely to accept without question.

Unfortunately an unthinking public also tend to listen to endorsements by famous people such as royalty, pop stars, movie stars and even TV stars who parrot the IPCC line. Few have even a limited scientific knowledge, if any. Obviously it must work because there are suckers who just accept at face value what they are being told.
Read more: Climate Hypocrites and the Media that Love Them http://www.mrc.org/special-reports/climate-hypocrites-and-media-love-them

Just in the UK alone, the BBC, commercial television, major newspapers, the Royal Society, the Chief Scientist, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London, David Attenborough, numerous eminent organisations and even Prince Charles all avow a climate alarmist view. In the face of such authority figures there it's a very bad career move for independent scientists to go against the "established view" within the UK (See Source 1).

As you would expect, governments rely heavily on their leading science authorities for dispassionate advice on science issues. However it's probably worthwhile to question what sort of information they're looking for. If a country is a member of the IPCC then it's reasonable to assume that non-conforming or opposing advice about their policies would be welcomed - like what happened in the CSIRO as discussed above.

Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth'

Al Gore's documentary film, 'An Inconvenient Truth' in 2006 was hugely successful in raising public awareness and alarm of dangerous global warming across the world and which sparked environmentalist activism. The film grossed about $50 million worldwide at the box office, won Oscars and other film awards and helped Al Gore win a share of a Nobel Peace Prize.

In 2007 a school governor tried to block screening of the film in more than 3,500 secondary schools in England and Wales. A London High Court Judge ruled it contained nine key scientific errors saying that the errors had arisen, "in the context of alarmism and exaggeration", but allowed the screenings provided it be shown with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination.

At the time the film's distributor warned , "If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced."

It is now 10 years later and the 'tail spin of epic destruction' has not eventuated. And it wasn't the world's scientists per sé who made the prediction. It all traces back to a select group of scientists who instigated the birth of the IPCC, as well as those scientists who contributed scientific papers. There was also a small group of bureaucrats with a clearly defined mission statement focusing only on proving that mankind was responsible for the increased global warming.

Since then the nine key errors have been the subject of intense debate. Unbelievably, AGW supporters have tried to play down the errors saying they felt vindicated by the film and that there were "only a handful of errors". Others actually went on the attack saying climate change could be even more severe:
Read more: Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modelling, and modern observations that 2 °C global warming could be dangerous http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.html

In any case much of what Al Gore said was just plain BS. His claims of retreating glaciers, polar ice melting, mountain snow melting, lakes drying up and coral reefs bleaching may relate directly to rises in temperature, but it's a bit of a stretch of extend that to mankind being the cause. That little bit is still very much a scientific theory as opposed to a proven scientific fact. Independent scientists continue to attack the film such as this one:
Read more: Falsehoods in Gore's An Inconvenient Truth http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/gore.html

Michael Mann and the Hockey Stick

Possibly the most effective in terms of alerting the world to the issue of global warming would have to be Michael Mann and his infamous "hockey stick" http://issuesonclimatechange.com/the-hockey-stick-controversy/. He is a US climatologist and geophysicist who has received multiple honours and awards. In 1998 he co-authored a paper reconstructing hemispherical climate for the past 600 years. In 1999 he extended the graph back to 1000 years. The resulting graph was so named because the line drawn representing the temperatures resembled a hockey stick i.e. it had a handle and a sharp upward curve at the base.

The IPCC not only adopted the "hockey stick" but included Mr Mann as one of the eight Lead Authors of one of the chapters in the IPCCs Third Assessment Report in which the graph was featured prominently. They also acknowledged him publically as contributing the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize awarded jointly to the IPCC and Mr Al Gore.

On the other hand it created something of a furore within scientific circles and attracted strong criticism from independent scientists. Except for diehard AGW theorists, especially after Al Gore based his defamed film documentary in part on the "hockey stick", it's today probably being seen for what it is - manipulated and highly exaggerated. Yet Mr Mann continues to this day defending it.
Read more: Judith Curry - IPCC TAR and the hockey stick https://judithcurry.com/2014/04/29/ipcc-tar-and-the-hockey-stick/

Climate Denier and Sceptic Rebuttals

If there's one thing that can be counted on, it's the single-minded obsession of so many of the AGW Theory supporters. Maybe some of it is due to the herd instinct - jumping on the train so to speak on the assumption that if there's a scientific consensus then it must be true?

Whatever the case, there's no shortage of people willing to react almost religiously, even emotionally to any suggestion that dangerous global warming is not being caused by mankind. The way in which they respond can be marked by the use of the same stale phrases instead of a well reasoned rebuttal.

This is an actual brain-washed response by an AGW believer to an article published on an online climate change discussion forum not so long ago. Attributes that are commonly used in anti-AGW rebuttals are underlined:

You do realise that your only source is a professional AGW denier with no expertise in climate science? Documents showed that Prof. Robert M. Carter was paid a monthly fee of US$1,667 by the Heartland Institute, an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank, as part of their efforts to discredit AGW. The article, while superficially convincing, is riddled with factual and logical errors. It isn't science; it's propaganda.

The reality, of course, is that there is widespread consensus among climate scientists that AGW is real and dangerous. Those attempting to discredit it, such as Prof. Carter, are overwhelmingly driven by political and financial, rather than scientific, motives.



Common Responses to Climate Deniers


Ignore the Question - Discredit the Author

The point of the question tends to get ignored and/or an attempt is made to discredit the referenced source used by the author. Their replies may be articulate, bombastic, inflammatory, argumentative, pompous or verbose and the information on their source material is often exaggerated or otherwise incorrect to some degree.

Consensus

Dismissive statements such as 'there is a scientific consensus' or 'the science is settled' or similar consensual remarks are used. This demonstrates a lack of understanding what a scientific consensus actually is. It is far from being 'settled'. The life expectancy of a consensus is only until any evidence is produced that can disprove it.

In the climate change debate the so-called consensus is just an agreement (for the time being) to accept that the AGW theory must be true - nothing more. It is not a scientific fact and it's not cast in stone. Even Einstein's Theory of Relativity is not cast in stone.
Read more: Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory http://www.freecriticalthinking.org/climate-change/123-anthropogenic-global-warming-theory

Bias

A statement is made that a reference source has or is being paid by the fossil fuel industry, or some other group with a vested anti-AGW interest.

Let's be realistic. The issue of climate change is thick with people on both sides who get paid to research different aspects of climate change - and just about every other branch of science. It's the natural order of things and is one means by which scientists can earn their daily bread. But it doesn't mean the points they make are any less valid. On the contrary they'll generally have expertise in one or more scientific fields, or at least have some kind of expertise valuable enough for someone to pay for it.

The idea of course is to discredit the source as being biased and therefore the information would be perverted or misrepresentative. It's implication is insulting to those with good moral fibre, though it's possible it may in some cases be true. But at the end of the day it is up to the individual who uses the information to double check it as much as possible before using it.

Think Tanks

A think tank is an institute or organization that does research and advocates on particular issues such as social, political, economical, military, climate change and other topics.

This is similar to 'Bias' above except that the referenced source works for a 'think tank' so therefore the implication is that the information is biased or manipulated in some way.

Again it's a potential insult to those who work in such places. Think tanks are invaluable as they provide insight into all aspects that affect our daily lives. They are a fine example of a democratic culture in that real or potential problems can be revealed 'warts and all' with freedom of speech. And importantly with regard to climate change they help to provide a balance in the public debate.

Some think tanks on opposite sides include "The Heartland Institute" https://heartland.org/and "TTMap" http://www.thinktankmap.org/Page.aspx?Name=The_Project. Pretty much all think tanks receive funding from industry sources and those that keep providing good, factual and reliable material will obviously retain their funding. What the end-user does with that information is another matter.

However getting paid for delivering a service does not automatically mean either side lacks integrity, though of course some might. Having said that, it still does not mean any points they make are not worthy of consideration. So once again it comes down to the individual who wants to use such information to double check it before using it.

Labelling

He/she is a 'climate sceptic' or 'climate denier' as if this label should somehow put that individual on the outer rings of society. They're usually attributed to an independent non-alarmist scientist or researcher but can also be used to belittle anyone who challenges the AGW Theory.

Any climate alarmist who dismisses someone as a sceptic is just plain laughable. A true sceptic is a free thinker who holds a middle opinion - neither for or against. For example if someone tells you something then you might believe it. Or you might suspect that some or all of it may not be true. That makes you sceptical. Same for climate change sceptics except you get the label as if you are someone who should be ignored.

To not be a sceptic of (an) hypothesis that you are testing
is the rudest of scientific errors, for it means that you
are committed to a particular outcome: that's faith, not science.
Professor Robert M. Carter:
Climate: The Counter Consensus 2010


Actually, all good scientists are sceptics when testing a hypothesis, or a denier if they can disprove it. At least they should because that is their job i.e. to research and find scientific facts, and prove or disprove scientific hypotheses and/or theories regardless of the outcome.

Calling someone who refutes all or any part of the AGW Theory a 'climate denier' is meant to be a put down, as if it's something contemptible. Yet it is an essential part of good science to keep tugging away at solutions that have been put forward and to look for faults. It's a standard process by which real scientific facts can eventually be uncovered.

It is only after a scientific hypothesis survives rigorous testing that it begins to earn the right to be called a scientific theory. If it fails this testing then the usual procedure is for everyone to go back and try again, but at least this time they know what didn't work.

At the end of the day the AGW Theory should not be called a scientific theory at all because there is still much disagreement going on about it. There is no real consensus such as the AGW supporters would like the public to believe. There is ample evidence to show that a significant number of scientists worldwide do not agree wholly with it i.e. they are either sceptics or deniers. So it should really be regarded as the AGW Hypothesis.

Endorsements

This is citing of notable figures such as Nobel Prize winners or members of an esteemed scientific institute, or someone who has (say) political or religious power. The use of some kind of authority figure stands in stark contrast to what real science is all about i.e. establishing proof of something whatever the outcome happens to be. Unfortunately many such people and organisations connected with the climate change issue have since lost credibility, veering away from purely science into the arena of politics.

It's not unknown for venerable persons or organisations to do something questionable. For example, many prominent scientific organisations have been openly displaying political motives for several years now. In the main, what we are receiving from several leading scientific establishments are the politicised views and opinions of those in charge. And they are usually framed as being unquestionably correct rather than sticking to the real scientific facts as they are stand.

Online Trolls

Of all the people who support the AGW Theory, the worst behaved would probably be online trolls. These are people who inhabit multimedia or online discussion forums ever alert for questioning or dissenting comments on the AGW Theory. Their rebuttals are generally characterised by a refusal to concede anything and they usually use one or more of the methods discussed above.

AGW Non-Supporters


The IPCC is generally regarded as the world's leading authority on global warming. Despite their claims that melting of polar ice-caps and so on is evidence of mankind being responsible only affirms that the planet is warming up - not what's causing it. And their computer models can only offer projections - not predictions. Furthermore the output of their computers depends upon a lot of calculated guess-work data that's fed into it.

Notwithstanding what the AGW supporters say, none of these things actually fit the definition of "empirical evidence" that proves humans are causing global warming aka the AGW Theory. Thus two of four primary platforms upon which the AGW Theory rests are not valid. The other two relate to temperature measurements and an alleged scientific consensus which will be discussed separately.

Independent Scientist Contributions to Climate Research

Unlike some or maybe even all scientists who are connected or linked with the IPCC, there are independent scientists who conduct their own research without restraints or directions into the observed global warming in the late 20th century. They don't necessarily deny that the Earth is warming up. Mostly it's about what is behind it. For example there is still a lot of science about the natural warming 'envelope' of the Earth that is not yet known for certain.

Thousands of scientists have written letters, authored and submitted scientific papers and used the media in various ways to challenge different aspects of the AGW theory. These are highly qualified professional people, experts in their respective fields who have raised doubts.

So why are these scientists not getting the same attention as statements from the AGW believers? Are the independent scientists simply being dissident or do they really have something to complain about? And if they do, then why aren't they making more noise?

This article attempts below to discuss some of the ways in which they are prevented from getting their messages out into the public domain.

Marginalisation of Independent Scientists

It's common for any anyone who questions or submits an opposing view to the AGW Theory to be quickly stamped down by powerful people and/or institutions and even have their career threatened. Scientists can find their funds withdrawn, their work criticised and anyone can be labelled as a paid puppet for industry.

As an example, in 2006 a US Representative questioned Michael Mann about public funding for his infamous "hockey stick". He was immediately condemned by the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union. As we've seen from the above discussion this is a typical kind of response by IPCC supporters to deflect attention away from uncomfortable questions.
Read more: Climate of Fear: Global Warming Alarmists Intimidate Dissenting Scientists into Silence http://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-of-fear-global-warming-alarmists-intimidate-dissenting-scientists-into-silence/5294

Lack of Scientific Co-Operation

There is no lack of claims from scientists of being blocked to prevent independent reviews of published papers in support of the AGW Theory. In this example a scientist is refused certain data in order to conduct his own review of a scientific paper.
Read more: Climate Audit - We Have 25 Years Invested in This Work... http://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-of-fear-global-warming-alarmists-intimidate-dissenting-scientists-into-silence/5294

Funding for Independent Scientists

Scientists like everyone else need to make a living. To do that they need funds, grants or donations to the institutions they work for i.e. they have to go where the money is. Unfortunately many scientific institutions and universities have become top heavy with administration and as such they are subject to political pressures.

For those scientists who would like to be able to research into causes for global warming other than mankind, it often means working in fields or organisations that do not provide for it - or allow it. So they either have to work somewhere that's not their first choice and do the research in their own time, or else wait until they retire.

So where is the money that is attracting more scientists per ratio of available fields of research? Arguably there's more money available for AGW related research. Let's not start shouting hysterically and pointing at the oil companies. Bear with it for a second ...

Both sides rely on industry and donations. And certainly there is a lot of money being spent by the fossil fuel industry and other vested interest groups. But the AGW supporters arguably get all or most of widespread governmental support, at least from those that are members of the IPCC.

In Australia at least two States have committed to renewable energy infrastructure which affirms their acceptance and commitment to the Kyoto Accord and the AGW Theory. Research will be going on into ways how it may be improved for example what to do when there is no wind or sun.

Other signatory countries are likely doing much the same and spending huge amounts of money doing it. They're not going to like being told the AGW Theory is invalid. And they certainly aren't going to be interested in funding money for scientific research that could tell their voters they've been misled - are they?

It would be interesting to measure world wide anti-AGW funds up against the huge amounts being spent on research and sustainability by the various governments, renewable energy, smart grid (power) energy and desalination industries supporting AGW for starters.
Read more: Top countries and trends in climate change research: a report for #COP21 https://www.elsevier.com/connect/top-countries-and-trends-in-climate-change-research-a-report-for-cop21

Challenging the Junk Science

Let's not be fooled. Junk science is rampant right throughout the climate change issue on both sides, and most of it does seem to be coming from the alarmist side of the debate. Take for instance the rubbish claim by the IPCC of increased tropical storms. It just doesn't stand up under proper scientific scrutiny. And a simple Google search across various topics usually predominates with alarmist topics.

So the hard part for independent scientists is in trying to get their messages through to the general public against the tide of alarmist propagation and even more junk science.
Read more: Climate Skeptics turn tables on 'attribution' studies – Ask: Is 'global warming' causing a decrease in 'extreme weather' events? http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/03/17/climate-skeptics-turn-tables-on-attribution-studies-ask-is-global-warming-causing-a-decrease-in-extreme-weather-events/

To some that wouldn't be any surprise since much of the junk science arguably stems from the very IPCC ARs so beloved by the scientific illiterate AGW supporters.

However, in the face of fierce competition independent scientists keep challenging the AGW Theory and it's alleged ramifications. They do it because that's what scientists are supposed to do i.e. review and test hypotheses.

But ... it doesn't seem to make much difference and the theory continues to live on. However the IPCC and it's scientific supporters could stop all this fuss and bother in an instant:

- publish empirical and verifiable evidence not based on just theory or logic or computer models
... and allow independent scientists access to the raw data.


That they DO NOT or WILL NOT is indicative that they CAN NOT.


An text/graphic version of this article is available at Issues on Climate Change http://www.issuesonclimatechange.com


Sources:
1. Professor Robert M. Carter - Climate: A Counter Consensus 2010
2. Paul Caruso - How to Cure a Climate Change Denier
3. Links contained throughout text.

Russ Swan
Issues on Climate Change
http://www.issuesonclimatechange.com


Russ Swan
Issues on Climate Change
http://www.issuesonclimatechange.com
03-07-2017 05:36
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
skeptics are often skkkeptic AGW denier liar whiners, not science oriented, but "sigh-ants"-fed by oil, coal, energy, business & re-pubic-lick-un AGW denier liar whiner websites, big money &/or PR propaganda poop.
Often AGW denier liar whiners are self-righteous (kkk members are self-righteous, also), believing they support mechanisms that make rich white men become richer white men. With that broken thinking in place, AGW denier liar whiners also use racism, continuing attacks, & even over-the-top threats to back up the worst temptations of rich men to become richer men.
03-07-2017 19:18
spot
★★★★☆
(1017)
Did you type that all out yourself? it is a lot to be addressed Its a bit of a Gish Gallop to be honest, I could go over it but the basic arguments have been gone over again and again in detail by better debaters then me. They are old talking points Just trying to smear a few scientists and then complaining that people aren't nice has been done, we know the drill now funny how its just America where this issue is so controversial.

But lets keep this civil for as long as we can, at the end you demand empirical evidence, in bold no less. Now I looked it up and empirical means; based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Now I see that you spend allot of time reading about this so I can't really understand how you are unfamiliar with the work of John Tyndall, please explain how his experiments that can and have been repeated time and time again are not empirical evidence? while your at it how are temperature records for the past 150 years for example not empirical evidence?


Thanks


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
03-07-2017 21:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
spot wrote:
Did you type that all out yourself? it is a lot to be addressed Its a bit of a Gish Gallop to be honest, I could go over it but the basic arguments have been gone over again and again in detail by better debaters then me. They are old talking points Just trying to smear a few scientists and then complaining that people aren't nice has been done, we know the drill now funny how its just America where this issue is so controversial.

But lets keep this civil for as long as we can, at the end you demand empirical evidence, in bold no less. Now I looked it up and empirical means; based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Now I see that you spend allot of time reading about this so I can't really understand how you are unfamiliar with the work of John Tyndall, please explain how his experiments that can and have been repeated time and time again are not empirical evidence? while your at it how are temperature records for the past 150 years for example not empirical evidence?


Thanks


What temperature records? There has never been a temperature record of Earth's temperature.


The Parrot Killer
03-07-2017 23:27
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
rwswan wrote:

Russ Swan
Issues on Climate Change
http://www.issuesonclimatechange.com


Mr. Swan. You have pretty much nailed what is going on. But you do not really believe that any of the True Believers are going to read that do you?

What astonishes me is that those that will support AGW the most viciously are those incapable of understanding the slightest underlying principles of science.

The very FACT that they were trying to use "consensus" via the claim of "97% of scientists agree" would have clued in anyone with the slightest training in science. You could not get HALF of a room of scientists to agree what the color red is or if mice make good test subjects for pharmacological experimentation.

Consensus increases the chance that something might make sense, at least on the surface, but as Einstein said, "that genius abhors consensus because when consensus is reached, thinking stops."
04-07-2017 00:46
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
rwswan wrote:
However the IPCC and it's scientific supporters could stop all this fuss and bother in an instant:

- publish empirical and verifiable evidence not based on just theory or logic or computer models
... and allow independent scientists access to the raw data.


That they DO NOT or WILL NOT is indicative that they CAN NOT.


Both the raw data and the models developed by NASA to determine global temperature ARE published on their website and ARE freely available for anyone to download and run. Independent scientists DO have access to this data. Indeed, a number of independent scientists (most notably, Richard Muller) have ALREADY used this data in their own models and, guess what, ALLof them have reached the same conclusion: that the NASA models are broadly correct.

Now, are you going to stop the fuss and bother?
04-07-2017 01:34
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
Surface Detail wrote:
rwswan wrote:
However the IPCC and it's scientific supporters could stop all this fuss and bother in an instant:

- publish empirical and verifiable evidence not based on just theory or logic or computer models
... and allow independent scientists access to the raw data.


That they DO NOT or WILL NOT is indicative that they CAN NOT.


Both the raw data and the models developed by NASA to determine global temperature ARE published on their website and ARE freely available for anyone to download and run. Independent scientists DO have access to this data. Indeed, a number of independent scientists (most notably, Richard Muller) have ALREADY used this data in their own models and, guess what, ALLof them have reached the same conclusion: that the NASA models are broadly correct.

Now, are you going to stop the fuss and bother?


All of it relies on the data that NOAA and NASA provide. Phony data results in incorrect results.
04-07-2017 01:58
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
rwswan wrote:
However the IPCC and it's scientific supporters could stop all this fuss and bother in an instant:

- publish empirical and verifiable evidence not based on just theory or logic or computer models
... and allow independent scientists access to the raw data.


That they DO NOT or WILL NOT is indicative that they CAN NOT.


Both the raw data and the models developed by NASA to determine global temperature ARE published on their website and ARE freely available for anyone to download and run. Independent scientists DO have access to this data. Indeed, a number of independent scientists (most notably, Richard Muller) have ALREADY used this data in their own models and, guess what, ALLof them have reached the same conclusion: that the NASA models are broadly correct.

Now, are you going to stop the fuss and bother?


All of it relies on the data that NOAA and NASA provide. Phony data results in incorrect results.

The UK Met Office gets pretty much the same results as NASA using raw data from various sources, listed here:

Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets

The idea that all the temperature recording agencies of the world are engaged in some sort of dastardly plot to secretly alter the raw data is simply ridiculous.
04-07-2017 03:37
rwswan
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
spot wrote:
Now I see that you spend allot of time reading about this so I can't really understand how you are unfamiliar with the work of John Tyndall, please explain how his experiments that can and have been repeated time and time again are not empirical evidence? while your at it how are temperature records for the past 150 years for example not empirical evidence?


Thank you for keeping it civil. It's nice to know there are people who can discuss this without getting emotionally involved. I'll try to keep future articles shorter


About John Tyndall. Have looked him up and see his area of expertise was in physics including the properties of atmospheric gases. Spot, I see your mention about him as a bit of a red herring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring.

It's a whole different argument and not relevant to the intent of this article which was about how the IPCC has become such a behemoth and how AGW believers respond to criticism of it, and which typifies one of the methods I had discussed.

Your second point about empirical evidence. I do agree that the last 150 years of temperature measurements is empirical evidence. But the issue is that it's not enough to be convincing. It's only a part of the little dollops of empirical evidence on which the IPCC and its scientists base their AGW Hypothesis. Further, there is doubt as to the reliability of some of the early readings e.g. indoor/outdoor, type of instrument and so on. I will update the article to say that the IPCC needs to expand on it's small collection of empirical evidence.

In my view the AGW hypothesis consists primarily of theory and logic. It is impossible to agree that computer models or temperature measurements of just a fraction of climatic time, and which is not explained in context to historical temperatures can conceivably be considered as real proof.

It's a bit like a fisherman holding his catch closer to the camera to make it look bigger than it really is - if you get the drift. The IPCC has zoomed in on a chart of temperature measurements for (say) the last 2 million years since a time when we know hominids walked the Earth, and focused on the last 150 years? Do you really believe that's a fair representation? Or even against the last (say) 2,000 years?

Okay, so we can say that geological measurements are not as accurate as mercury thermometers, satellites and the rest. Two points:

1. Cobbling these two separate systems together and "smoothing" them out such as Michael Mann did was a statistical computing error around the first magnitude - if not misleading and downright dishonest.

2. Geological measurements e.g. tree rings, corals etc have error bars that increase the further we go back in time. But even back within the last (say) 2 thousand years they can at least provide a Bayesian calculated temperature measurement to tell us where the climate bumps and falls were and how severe they were - unlike the hockey stick.


Russ Swan
Issues on Climate Change
http://www.issuesonclimatechange.com
04-07-2017 03:44
rwswan
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
Surface Detail wrote:
rwswan wrote:
However the IPCC and it's scientific supporters could stop all this fuss and bother in an instant:

- publish empirical and verifiable evidence not based on just theory or logic or computer models
... and allow independent scientists access to the raw data.


That they DO NOT or WILL NOT is indicative that they CAN NOT.


Both the raw data and the models developed by NASA to determine global temperature ARE published on their website and ARE freely available for anyone to download and run. Independent scientists DO have access to this data. Indeed, a number of independent scientists (most notably, Richard Muller) have ALREADY used this data in their own models and, guess what, ALLof them have reached the same conclusion: that the NASA models are broadly correct.

Now, are you going to stop the fuss and bother?


Read my response to Spot - and stay on topic.


Russ Swan
Issues on Climate Change
http://www.issuesonclimatechange.com
04-07-2017 10:57
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
rwswan wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
rwswan wrote:
However the IPCC and it's scientific supporters could stop all this fuss and bother in an instant:

- publish empirical and verifiable evidence not based on just theory or logic or computer models
... and allow independent scientists access to the raw data.


That they DO NOT or WILL NOT is indicative that they CAN NOT.


Both the raw data and the models developed by NASA to determine global temperature ARE published on their website and ARE freely available for anyone to download and run. Independent scientists DO have access to this data. Indeed, a number of independent scientists (most notably, Richard Muller) have ALREADY used this data in their own models and, guess what, ALLof them have reached the same conclusion: that the NASA models are broadly correct.

Now, are you going to stop the fuss and bother?


Read my response to Spot - and stay on topic.

I have directly addressed the bolded claims that you make at the end of your piece. They are simply not true. Large parts of the IPCC reports are indeed based on published verifiable and empirical evidence (e.g. the NASA GISS global temperature reconstructions). And the IPCC has neither the authority nor the ability to block access to the raw data upon which its conclusions are based. Independent scientists (such as Richard Muller of the Berkeley Earth Project) do have access to raw data and have replicated findings such as the increase in global temperature over the last century.
04-07-2017 15:04
rwswan
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
Surface Detail wrote:
rwswan wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
rwswan wrote:
However the IPCC and it's scientific supporters could stop all this fuss and bother in an instant:

- publish empirical and verifiable evidence not based on just theory or logic or computer models
... and allow independent scientists access to the raw data.


That they DO NOT or WILL NOT is indicative that they CAN NOT.


Both the raw data and the models developed by NASA to determine global temperature ARE published on their website and ARE freely available for anyone to download and run. Independent scientists DO have access to this data. Indeed, a number of independent scientists (most notably, Richard Muller) have ALREADY used this data in their own models and, guess what, ALLof them have reached the same conclusion: that the NASA models are broadly correct.

Now, are you going to stop the fuss and bother?


Read my response to Spot - and stay on topic.

I have directly addressed the bolded claims that you make at the end of your piece. They are simply not true. Large parts of the IPCC reports are indeed based on published verifiable and empirical evidence (e.g. the NASA GISS global temperature reconstructions). And the IPCC has neither the authority nor the ability to block access to the raw data upon which its conclusions are based. Independent scientists (such as Richard Muller of the Berkeley Earth Project) do have access to raw data and have replicated findings such as the increase in global temperature over the last century.


I'll look into it.


Russ Swan
Issues on Climate Change
http://www.issuesonclimatechange.com
04-07-2017 17:28
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs: incapable of understanding the slightest underlying principles of science.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" continues using erroneous math, & #'s, to support erroneous AGW denier liar whiner wiffs.
Edited on 04-07-2017 17:29
04-07-2017 17:33
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
rwswan wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Independent scientists (such as Richard Muller of the Berkeley Earth Project)... have access to raw data and have replicated findings such as the increase in global temperature over the last century.

I'll look into it.

You didn't know this already & years ago? You are a misery.
04-07-2017 19:10
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
rwswan wrote:
However the IPCC and it's scientific supporters could stop all this fuss and bother in an instant:

- publish empirical and verifiable evidence not based on just theory or logic or computer models
... and allow independent scientists access to the raw data.


That they DO NOT or WILL NOT is indicative that they CAN NOT.


Both the raw data and the models developed by NASA to determine global temperature ARE published on their website and ARE freely available for anyone to download and run. Independent scientists DO have access to this data. Indeed, a number of independent scientists (most notably, Richard Muller) have ALREADY used this data in their own models and, guess what, ALLof them have reached the same conclusion: that the NASA models are broadly correct.

Now, are you going to stop the fuss and bother?


All of it relies on the data that NOAA and NASA provide. Phony data results in incorrect results.

The UK Met Office gets pretty much the same results as NASA using raw data from various sources, listed here:

Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets

The idea that all the temperature recording agencies of the world are engaged in some sort of dastardly plot to secretly alter the raw data is simply ridiculous.


Obviously you have decided to ignore all of our previous comments. You simply make your same arguments again and again as if repeating them lend them more veracity than before.

The urban heat island effect is still the controlling factor and since the longest records are from the areas of longest and hence most important record are in urban areas the UK will have no more reliable records than the US unless this effect is corrected for. And since they are showing almost identical records as NASA they plainly have not been corrected.

If you want to believe that this is a "dastardly plot" that is your interpretation. Mine is that it is bad science.
04-07-2017 20:01
spot
★★★★☆
(1017)
rwswan wrote:
spot wrote:
Now I see that you spend allot of time reading about this so I can't really understand how you are unfamiliar with the work of John Tyndall, please explain how his experiments that can and have been repeated time and time again are not empirical evidence? while your at it how are temperature records for the past 150 years for example not empirical evidence?


Thank you for keeping it civil. It's nice to know there are people who can discuss this without getting emotionally involved. I'll try to keep future articles shorter


About John Tyndall. Have looked him up and see his area of expertise was in physics including the properties of atmospheric gases. Spot, I see your mention about him as a bit of a red herring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring.

It's a whole different argument and not relevant to the intent of this article which was about how the IPCC has become such a behemoth and how AGW believers respond to criticism of it, and which typifies one of the methods I had discussed.

Your second point about empirical evidence. I do agree that the last 150 years of temperature measurements is empirical evidence. But the issue is that it's not enough to be convincing. It's only a part of the little dollops of empirical evidence on which the IPCC and its scientists base their AGW Hypothesis. Further, there is doubt as to the reliability of some of the early readings e.g. indoor/outdoor, type of instrument and so on. I will update the article to say that the IPCC needs to expand on it's small collection of empirical evidence.

In my view the AGW hypothesis consists primarily of theory and logic. It is impossible to agree that computer models or temperature measurements of just a fraction of climatic time, and which is not explained in context to historical temperatures can conceivably be considered as real proof.

It's a bit like a fisherman holding his catch closer to the camera to make it look bigger than it really is - if you get the drift. The IPCC has zoomed in on a chart of temperature measurements for (say) the last 2 million years since a time when we know hominids walked the Earth, and focused on the last 150 years? Do you really believe that's a fair representation? Or even against the last (say) 2,000 years?

Okay, so we can say that geological measurements are not as accurate as mercury thermometers, satellites and the rest. Two points:

1. Cobbling these two separate systems together and "smoothing" them out such as Michael Mann did was a statistical computing error around the first magnitude - if not misleading and downright dishonest.

2. Geological measurements e.g. tree rings, corals etc have error bars that increase the further we go back in time. But even back within the last (say) 2 thousand years they can at least provide a Bayesian calculated temperature measurement to tell us where the climate bumps and falls were and how severe they were - unlike the hockey stick.


I wouldn't of thought that my comment was a red herring, you asked for empirical evidence, I would have though the observable quality of CO2 gas was evidence. The fact that its increasing is also evidence. and temperatures increasing is also evidence, no computer models required.

If there is some other cause which you seem to be implying whats stopping anyone from bringing that to the worlds attention? Climate skeptics or whatever you want to call them are hardly hiding in the cellars in terror their are plenty of newspapers and politicians and even the president of the United States is sympathetic to that line of thinking, as Surface Detail pointed out the IPCC prepares a report its remit is not nor is it capable suppressing science that disputes that man is the main cause of warming, if empirical evidence existed to support such a view we would hear about it.

Now you say that tree rings give results unlike the hockey stick, I thought Michael Mann's specialty was tree rings, the first one used bristlecone pines, that was a long time ago, You seem to not like the man I understand he gets death threats and nasty stuff through his letter box about this issue so lets not make this all about him. Other people using different proxies and different statistical methods seem to keep getting the tell tail hockey stick shape when they try and reconstruct past temperatures. at least people who's work is good enough to get published in science journals.

But lets say your right and there is nothing exceptional about the modern warming please explain how glaciers that have persisted for thousands of years have suddenly started to disappear if that supposition is true. I keep asking people this question and I never get a sensible answer for some reason. Normally it provokes a tirade of abuse to be honest.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
04-07-2017 21:11
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
spot wrote: I wouldn't of thought that my comment was a red herring, you asked for empirical evidence, I would have though the observable quality of CO2 gas was evidence. The fact that its increasing is also evidence. and temperatures increasing is also evidence, no computer models required.

If there is some other cause which you seem to be implying whats stopping anyone from bringing that to the worlds attention? Climate skeptics or whatever you want to call them are hardly hiding in the cellars in terror their are plenty of newspapers and politicians and even the president of the United States is sympathetic to that line of thinking, as Surface Detail pointed out the IPCC prepares a report its remit is not nor is it capable suppressing science that disputes that man is the main cause of warming, if empirical evidence existed to support such a view we would hear about it.

Now you say that tree rings give results unlike the hockey stick, I thought Michael Mann's specialty was tree rings, the first one used bristlecone pines, that was a long time ago, You seem to not like the man I understand he gets death threats and nasty stuff through his letter box about this issue so lets not make this all about him. Other people using different proxies and different statistical methods seem to keep getting the tell tail hockey stick shape when they try and reconstruct past temperatures. at least people who's work is good enough to get published in science journals.

But lets say your right and there is nothing exceptional about the modern warming please explain how glaciers that have persisted for thousands of years have suddenly started to disappear if that supposition is true. I keep asking people this question and I never get a sensible answer for some reason. Normally it provokes a tirade of abuse to be honest.


Do you even KNOW what the hockey stick WAS? It never happened. So why are you telling us that it did? NO ONE but Dr. Mann EVER predicted such an event. And it never occurred.

It never occurred in the past because it was Dr. Mann's position that this "modern" warming was unlike anything that ever occurred in history.

I want to know why you are flying off the deep end and simply shooting your mouth off. You don't seem to understand one thing you're speaking about.

The increases in CO2 have never met one single model of what would occur if CO2 had the predicted effect in ANYONE's book.

What is happening is that you True Believers are dead in the water and all you can do is continue to repeat your mindless blather that you haven't a clue about? The highest you had ever had was some 48% of the population and now that we've had a cold rainy winter that has fallen to almost nothing. The ONLY way you ever had 48% was because of one of the perfectly normal droughts that the Millennial Generation had never experienced and hence were so ignorant about climate that morons in AGW community could convince them of moronic things like "97% of scientists believe in man-made global warming."

You're done for. Everything you hoped and prayed for has gone up in smoke. The EPA will be shut down most of the way BECAUSE they were the main driving force behind this lie.

Repeating your own stupidity isn't going to help things at all.
04-07-2017 21:26
spot
★★★★☆
(1017)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote: I wouldn't of thought that my comment was a red herring, you asked for empirical evidence, I would have though the observable quality of CO2 gas was evidence. The fact that its increasing is also evidence. and temperatures increasing is also evidence, no computer models required.

If there is some other cause which you seem to be implying whats stopping anyone from bringing that to the worlds attention? Climate skeptics or whatever you want to call them are hardly hiding in the cellars in terror their are plenty of newspapers and politicians and even the president of the United States is sympathetic to that line of thinking, as Surface Detail pointed out the IPCC prepares a report its remit is not nor is it capable suppressing science that disputes that man is the main cause of warming, if empirical evidence existed to support such a view we would hear about it.

Now you say that tree rings give results unlike the hockey stick, I thought Michael Mann's specialty was tree rings, the first one used bristlecone pines, that was a long time ago, You seem to not like the man I understand he gets death threats and nasty stuff through his letter box about this issue so lets not make this all about him. Other people using different proxies and different statistical methods seem to keep getting the tell tail hockey stick shape when they try and reconstruct past temperatures. at least people who's work is good enough to get published in science journals.

But lets say your right and there is nothing exceptional about the modern warming please explain how glaciers that have persisted for thousands of years have suddenly started to disappear if that supposition is true. I keep asking people this question and I never get a sensible answer for some reason. Normally it provokes a tirade of abuse to be honest.


Do you even KNOW what the hockey stick WAS? It never happened. So why are you telling us that it did? NO ONE but Dr. Mann EVER predicted such an event. And it never occurred.

It never occurred in the past because it was Dr. Mann's position that this "modern" warming was unlike anything that ever occurred in history.

I want to know why you are flying off the deep end and simply shooting your mouth off. You don't seem to understand one thing you're speaking about.

The increases in CO2 have never met one single model of what would occur if CO2 had the predicted effect in ANYONE's book.

What is happening is that you True Believers are dead in the water and all you can do is continue to repeat your mindless blather that you haven't a clue about? The highest you had ever had was some 48% of the population and now that we've had a cold rainy winter that has fallen to almost nothing. The ONLY way you ever had 48% was because of one of the perfectly normal droughts that the Millennial Generation had never experienced and hence were so ignorant about climate that morons in AGW community could convince them of moronic things like "97% of scientists believe in man-made global warming."

You're done for. Everything you hoped and prayed for has gone up in smoke. The EPA will be shut down most of the way BECAUSE they were the main driving force behind this lie.

Repeating your own stupidity isn't going to help things at all.


I read a book on it so yea I do know what it is, thanks. I wont get into a detailed discussion with you because they normally end with you making death threats.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
04-07-2017 21:50
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
spot wrote:
I read a book on it so yea I do know what it is, thanks. I wont get into a detailed discussion with you because they normally end with you making death threats.


If you read a book about it why did you totally misrepresent what it was? Why did you misrepresent that others came up with the same results? Why did you misrepresent virtually everything that Dr. Mann said and that his models completely failed to meet not only the actual hockey stick but that his cohorts actually counterfeited data in a blatant attempt to make it appear that the initial predictions were beginning to occur?

You must be quaking in your boots that I might suggest you commit suicide again. Are you afraid that you might take my advice?
04-07-2017 22:59
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
rwswan wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
rwswan wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
rwswan wrote:
However the IPCC and it's scientific supporters could stop all this fuss and bother in an instant:

- publish empirical and verifiable evidence not based on just theory or logic or computer models
... and allow independent scientists access to the raw data.


That they DO NOT or WILL NOT is indicative that they CAN NOT.


Both the raw data and the models developed by NASA to determine global temperature ARE published on their website and ARE freely available for anyone to download and run. Independent scientists DO have access to this data. Indeed, a number of independent scientists (most notably, Richard Muller) have ALREADY used this data in their own models and, guess what, ALLof them have reached the same conclusion: that the NASA models are broadly correct.

Now, are you going to stop the fuss and bother?


Read my response to Spot - and stay on topic.

I have directly addressed the bolded claims that you make at the end of your piece. They are simply not true. Large parts of the IPCC reports are indeed based on published verifiable and empirical evidence (e.g. the NASA GISS global temperature reconstructions). And the IPCC has neither the authority nor the ability to block access to the raw data upon which its conclusions are based. Independent scientists (such as Richard Muller of the Berkeley Earth Project) do have access to raw data and have replicated findings such as the increase in global temperature over the last century.


I'll look into it.


There isn't a lot you'll find. Firstly we know for at least the last 3,000 years we have had a warm period lasting roughly a hundred years or so.

You can find really shaky "research" suggesting that the Medieval Warm Period was "local" and not "global". But the evidence from China, Japan as well as Europe, Iceland and Greenland says otherwise.

When someone like "spot" writes that glaciers that have lasted for thousands of years are melting it should be interesting that he doesn't mention these actual glaciers.

Most of the glaciers that have been melting are lower latitude glaciers and the "melt" is recovery from the Little Ice Age (The Maunder Minimum followed shortly thereafter by the Dalton Minimum). This was the same glaciers that expanded and chased the Greenlanders back to Iceland.

Obama stood in front of an Alaska glacier and announced to the world that it was evidence that global warming was occurring. That same glacier had retreated 1 1/2 miles. In the last 250 years it had advanced and retreated about 2 1/2 miles total.

The glaciers that are melting in Greenland that were part of the advance in the Little Ice Age still haven't retreated to the point which they were at in the Medieval Warm Period. As these glaciers melt they are showing signs of previous farming.

So much for the "surviving for thousands of years" misrepresentations.

In 50 years I have never stopped studying science. From a high school drop-out I have advanced to a top level electronics engineer and programmer. My projects provided "proof of concept" for one man who won a Nobel Prize in Chemistry and another that won Emmy Awards (several) for development of sound recording. I worked my way up to project engineer and then department manager. At one point I was making a quarter of a million dollars a year because, according to several here, I didn't know what I'm talking about.

I worked on the Pacific Coast base leg of the Internet which at the time was a computer 33 times more powerful than the most advanced IBM computer of the time. I worked in high energy nuclear research including increasing the power of the Berkeley Labs linear accelerator. I did military development on poison gas detectors for those WMD that didn't exist (uh huh). I worked on the first practical heart-lung machine. My job was to calculate the expansion factor (stretch) of the Aorta. Chemical analysis instruments, robotics, medical instruments.

And looking at the comments here is almost unbelievable. I admit that I get very angry being criticized by people who so obviously do not have a clue about what they are talking about.

One of the dummies here is stuck on the Stefan-Boltzman equation as:
j{star} = \sigma T^{4}

No matter how you explain to him that this "law" is nothing more than a thought experiment he cannot remove it from his mind that it explains anything and everything in the universe. This ONLY provides a solution for a black body - and there is NO SUCH THING.

Although we can postulate absolute zero as the entire absence of energy and absolute hot as 1.416785(71)×10^32 kelvins we can assume main sequence stars and above as being close enough to absolute hot to use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to measure close enough for government work.

Everything in this universe is a grey body hence the law is not a law. It is an equation that needed correction to:
j{star} = \varepsilon\sigma T^{4}

Epsilon is emissivity which is a constant and can be derived via transposition of the terms by knowing the temperature of a body and the irradiance which can be discovered through direct measurement. Thus having Epsilon you can derive other factors about similar bodies.

Sigma is a proportionality constant.

Reading the arguments of those who have been arguing both for and against AGW can only leave one with the idea that stupid is as stupid does.

So if it gives you pause that I seem to be insulting people left and right please do not think that I do that without being at my wits end from trying to hold conversations with people who have no intent, from the very first , of conversing about anything. About trying to learn anything themselves or of making the slightest attempt to understand what I am saying and IF I'M WRONG, which I could very well be, of making at least one honest attempt to correct my thinking.

There have been many educated people that posted here only to be confronted by litebeer, nightmare, surface defect and splotch, give up and go away. It is probably best to ignore these four entirely as I will do in the future. Conversations are made to be conversations and not the blind prattle of those four.
05-07-2017 02:17
rwswan
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
litesong wrote:
rwswan wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Independent scientists (such as Richard Muller of the Berkeley Earth Project)... have access to raw data and have replicated findings such as the increase in global temperature over the last century.

I'll look into it.

You didn't know this already & years ago? You are a misery.


What am I - an encyclopaedia on climate change? I don't profess to know everyone and everything about climate change and readily admit my limitations. No one is that good they know it all.

As usual from climate alarmists - another attempt at a put down. Shame on you for not keeping it civil and exhibits the extent of your intellect.


Russ Swan
Issues on Climate Change
http://www.issuesonclimatechange.com
05-07-2017 02:27
rwswan
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
Surface Detail wrote:

Both the raw data and the models developed by NASA to determine global temperature ARE published on their website and ARE freely available for anyone to download and run. Independent scientists DO have access to this data. Indeed, a number of independent scientists (most notably, Richard Muller) have ALREADY used this data in their own models and, guess what, ALLof them have reached the same conclusion: that the NASA models are broadly correct.

Now, are you going to stop the fuss and bother?


I have previously done some checking into the raw data while researching for a different article so hadn't spent as much time on it. My impression was that the CRU is where the raw data published by NASA, NOAA etc got their information from - correct me if I'm wrong there.

However I do remember something about some alteration of some of the earlier data - first in regard to the urban zone heat effect, then later again. But I'm not sure why the second alterations were made - so I'll look into that as well.


Russ Swan
Issues on Climate Change
http://www.issuesonclimatechange.com
05-07-2017 02:31
rwswan
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
Surface Detail wrote:


Both the raw data and the models developed by NASA to determine global temperature ARE published on their website and ARE freely available for anyone to download and run. Independent scientists DO have access to this data. Indeed, a number of independent scientists (most notably, Richard Muller) have ALREADY used this data in their own models and, guess what, ALLof them have reached the same conclusion: that the NASA models are broadly correct.

Now, are you going to stop the fuss and bother?[/quote]

Fuss and bother?
It only becomes fuss and bother if you emotionally involved.
For others, provided it is kept civil, it becomes an exercise in democratic discussion, the exchange of ideas and hopefully some sort of resolution.

Fat chance. I joined this forum with a view to be challenged and there a couple of people on here who have slung some information at me which I've taken on board to look into later.

But getting narky isn't in the right spirit to resolve anything.


Russ Swan
Issues on Climate Change
http://www.issuesonclimatechange.com
05-07-2017 02:56
rwswan
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
spot wrote:
rwswan wrote:
spot wrote:
Now I see that you spend allot of time reading about this so I can't really understand how you are unfamiliar with the work of John Tyndall, please explain how his experiments that can and have been repeated time and time again are not empirical evidence? while your at it how are temperature records for the past 150 years for example not empirical evidence?


Thank you for keeping it civil. It's nice to know there are people who can discuss this without getting emotionally involved. I'll try to keep future articles shorter


About John Tyndall. Have looked him up and see his area of expertise was in physics including the properties of atmospheric gases. Spot, I see your mention about him as a bit of a red herring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring.

It's a whole different argument and not relevant to the intent of this article which was about how the IPCC has become such a behemoth and how AGW believers respond to criticism of it, and which typifies one of the methods I had discussed.

Your second point about empirical evidence. I do agree that the last 150 years of temperature measurements is empirical evidence. But the issue is that it's not enough to be convincing. It's only a part of the little dollops of empirical evidence on which the IPCC and its scientists base their AGW Hypothesis. Further, there is doubt as to the reliability of some of the early readings e.g. indoor/outdoor, type of instrument and so on. I will update the article to say that the IPCC needs to expand on it's small collection of empirical evidence.

In my view the AGW hypothesis consists primarily of theory and logic. It is impossible to agree that computer models or temperature measurements of just a fraction of climatic time, and which is not explained in context to historical temperatures can conceivably be considered as real proof.

It's a bit like a fisherman holding his catch closer to the camera to make it look bigger than it really is - if you get the drift. The IPCC has zoomed in on a chart of temperature measurements for (say) the last 2 million years since a time when we know hominids walked the Earth, and focused on the last 150 years? Do you really believe that's a fair representation? Or even against the last (say) 2,000 years?

Okay, so we can say that geological measurements are not as accurate as mercury thermometers, satellites and the rest. Two points:

1. Cobbling these two separate systems together and "smoothing" them out such as Michael Mann did was a statistical computing error around the first magnitude - if not misleading and downright dishonest.

2. Geological measurements e.g. tree rings, corals etc have error bars that increase the further we go back in time. But even back within the last (say) 2 thousand years they can at least provide a Bayesian calculated temperature measurement to tell us where the climate bumps and falls were and how severe they were - unlike the hockey stick.


I wouldn't of thought that my comment was a red herring, you asked for empirical evidence, I would have though the observable quality of CO2 gas was evidence. The fact that its increasing is also evidence. and temperatures increasing is also evidence, no computer models required.

If there is some other cause which you seem to be implying whats stopping anyone from bringing that to the worlds attention? Climate skeptics or whatever you want to call them are hardly hiding in the cellars in terror their are plenty of newspapers and politicians and even the president of the United States is sympathetic to that line of thinking, as Surface Detail pointed out the IPCC prepares a report its remit is not nor is it capable suppressing science that disputes that man is the main cause of warming, if empirical evidence existed to support such a view we would hear about it.

Now you say that tree rings give results unlike the hockey stick, I thought Michael Mann's specialty was tree rings, the first one used bristlecone pines, that was a long time ago, You seem to not like the man I understand he gets death threats and nasty stuff through his letter box about this issue so lets not make this all about him. Other people using different proxies and different statistical methods seem to keep getting the tell tail hockey stick shape when they try and reconstruct past temperatures. at least people who's work is good enough to get published in science journals.

But lets say your right and there is nothing exceptional about the modern warming please explain how glaciers that have persisted for thousands of years have suddenly started to disappear if that supposition is true. I keep asking people this question and I never get a sensible answer for some reason. Normally it provokes a tirade of abuse to be honest.


Red Herring. It was a red herring in that it was off-topic to the main thrust of the original article i.e. the power the IPCC holds via it's 195 country membership, advocates and supporters. And let's not exaggerate about scientists cowering in terror.

CO2 Gases. The properties of CO2 gases are not in question, at least with me. But claims have been made that the rise in CO2 gases lags behind temperature and not cause it. One example - higher temperatures heat up the oceans which in turn causes more CO2 gas into the atmosphere. But let's get back to the topic.

Empirical Evidence. The empirical evidence coming via the IPCC that is based on actual science that can be replicated by independent scientists is fine. It is those conclusions that are drawn by the use of theory and logic rather than by observation that are in question. Some if not much of the so-called empirical evidence is based on Bayesian calculations - read educated guesses. Hardly real life observable evidence.

Glaciers etc. Retreating glaciers and melting snow caps etc are not empirical evidence. They simply show the Earth is warming up. That's not in question. But it doesn't show that mankind is actually causing.
USA President. A previous Prime Minister and now backbencher Tony Abbot was also sceptical of the climate change alarmism. Mr Trump is a complete opposite of Mr Obama and many others such as Tony Blair and European leaders. They are in the minority which is to the point.

Michael Mann. I believe this man and Al Gore have done much damage to the world by their indiscriminate use of facts for what they believe to have been to the greater good of mankind. Noble sentiments but they've still lied no matter which way you look at it. I hate liars.

Science Journals. In Australia there is a Code of Ethics for Journalism which includes impartial reporting, unless publishing an opinion piece - in which case the publication needs to express its position that it does not necessarily agree with everything. Science papers are not opinion pieces per se. Their intent is to try an prove an idea. However many if not most of the science journals I see on the bookshelves have a decided alarmist headline on the front covers. In particular the journal "Science" which published Michael Manns hockey stick was complicent in defending his paper against at least one review of it.

Power of the IPCC. I thought I made it reasonably clear to readers that the power is held by the advocates and supporters of the AGW Hypothesis, not necessarily the IPCC itself - though I'm sure the IPCC aligned scientists will be networking behind the scenes. I have identified several powerful figures in the UK alone who are ready to stamp down on any dissent against the AGW Theory. You can replicate this around the world to begin to grasp the formidable obstacles any individual scientist has, if he is to submit a challenge to any aspect of the AGW Hypothesis.

Regards.


Russ Swan
Issues on Climate Change
http://www.issuesonclimatechange.com
Edited on 05-07-2017 03:03
05-07-2017 04:07
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
@Russ,
One thing everyone seems to miss on is that climate change hypothesis was originally supported by ice core research going back 400,000 years. When it goes back over 1,000,000 years it suggests CO2 while playing a role is only one factor in climate change.
05-07-2017 19:31
spot
★★★★☆
(1017)
Russ I obviously don't recognize your description of the IPCC as an organisation like SPECTOR with Michal Mann as its Blofield. Again I am repeating myself here and surface detail also explained the IPCC publishes reports. it does not do the actual science. If you think other science of good quality should be in it feel free to tell us what science should be in. As for skeptical scientists cowering in terror I was being sarcastic, from what I can tell actual skeptical scientists are getting money thrown at them. Am I wrong? you seem to be insinuating that I was literally correct and skeptical scientists are indeed living in fear.

Interesting theory on whats causing the rise in CO2 however I'm not convinced, you need more detail rather then just insinuate something to convince me. And since you don't trust temperature reconstructions I don't know how you can claim that CO2 lags temperature with confidence anyway. It dose of course but past changes in temperature had a different mechanism then the modern warming, IE the billions of tonnes of sequestered CO2 being suddenly released into the atmosphere.

On the "hockey stick graph" It is based (or claimed to be based) on proxy's such as tree rings which are empirical evidence. the Glaciers are empirical evidence, we can't debate that otherwise we are debating the definition of English words and when the debate gets to that level its not productive; so before we go further I have to ask; do you know what the word empirical actually means? while your at it explain what Bayesian means because to be honest I have no idea.
05-07-2017 22:57
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
spot wrote:
Russ I obviously don't recognize your description of the IPCC as an organisation like SPECTOR with Michal Mann as its Blofield. Again I am repeating myself here and surface detail also explained the IPCC publishes reports. it does not do the actual science. If you think other science of good quality should be in it feel free to tell us what science should be in. As for skeptical scientists cowering in terror I was being sarcastic, from what I can tell actual skeptical scientists are getting money thrown at them. Am I wrong? you seem to be insinuating that I was literally correct and skeptical scientists are indeed living in fear.

Interesting theory on whats causing the rise in CO2 however I'm not convinced, you need more detail rather then just insinuate something to convince me. And since you don't trust temperature reconstructions I don't know how you can claim that CO2 lags temperature with confidence anyway. It dose of course but past changes in temperature had a different mechanism then the modern warming, IE the billions of tonnes of sequestered CO2 being suddenly released into the atmosphere.

On the "hockey stick graph" It is based (or claimed to be based) on proxy's such as tree rings which are empirical evidence. the Glaciers are empirical evidence, we can't debate that otherwise we are debating the definition of English words and when the debate gets to that level its not productive; so before we go further I have to ask; do you know what the word empirical actually means? while your at it explain what Bayesian means because to be honest I have no idea.


I suppose you could be blind if you prefer it. Tree ring (dendrology) offered NOTHING but a reconstruction of weather in the last 1000 years or so. This has been extended a way since Mann but none of this had one single thing to do with the hockey stick.

What's more Mann's predictions was that by now we would be 10 degrees above "normal temperature" and the worst case measurements show us slightly more than one degree.

What's more, as I noted before, the satellite data proves conclusively that most of this measured "temperature increase" if not all of it has to do with the Urban Heat Island Effect.

Japan has always kept careful track of weather and they have records of the temperatures in their major cities. And guess what? The larger the city the greater the temperatures increases measured. The smaller the growth of the cities the lower the temperature changes.

While there CAN be some temperature growth it is clearly not of man's origin on a global scale.

And we do have the Milankovitch Cycles which are presently in a position to lend NORMAL temperature increases in the northern hemisphere as is being measured.
06-07-2017 02:17
rwswan
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
Spot,
Enjoyed your linkage to Spectre

IPCC. I understand the IPCC only consolidates and reports what its scientists are sending to them. However their charter is limited to mankind's involvement in contributing to global warming. And given their position as a predominant authority on climate change, to me that seems to have quite skewed the whole issue away from where it should be. I believe we (the people of the world) should be asking why the Earth is warming up "in the round" i.e. be focused on ALL aspects, not just mankind and related greenhouse contributions.

CO2 Lag. Spot, I don't have time to go into this now. I'm in the process of selling my house and relocating, but will write a future article into this and look forward to continuing the debate. In the meantime I've discussed some of the issues concerning CO2 here: http://issuesonclimatechange.com/category/greenhouse-gases/

Empirical evidence. Yes I believe I know what it means. My thesaurus and dictionary plus online Googling get a pretty good workout.

Glaciers. Retreating glaciers are only empirical evidence of rising temperatures. To say that mankind is causing it is faith in AGW.

Bayesian Reckoning. I've discussed it here: http://issuesonclimatechange.com/the-science-of-climate-change/
06-07-2017 03:04
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
What's more Mann's predictions was that by now we would be 10 degrees above "normal temperature" and the worst case measurements show us slightly more than one degree.

Almost everything you write is a lie. For example, nobody, least of all Mann, predicted that by now we would be 10 degrees above "normal temperature". Why are you lying? What do you hope to achieve by doing so?
06-07-2017 03:49
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
What's more Mann's predictions was that by now we would be 10 degrees above "normal temperature" and the worst case measurements show us slightly more than one degree.

Almost everything you write is a lie. For example, nobody, least of all Mann, predicted that by now we would be 10 degrees above "normal temperature". Why are you lying? What do you hope to achieve by doing so?

Interesting. You have yet to tell the truth. You deny science in defense of your stupid religious beliefs.

As it stands, you have no rational basis for your Global Warming faith.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-07-2017 03:49
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
rwswan wrote: I don't profess to know everyone and everything about climate change and readily admit my limitations. Shame on you...

Richard Muller was big & often quoted by AGW denier liar whiners, as he denied AGW big time. Finally, he researched AGW & the present temperature records, concluding the records were accurate & AGW was occurring. AGW denier liar whiners never acknowledged him after his switch. You don't acknowledge him, either.
06-07-2017 03:58
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
rwswan wrote: I believe we (the people of the world) should be asking why the Earth is warming up "in the round" i.e. be focused on ALL aspects, not just mankind and related greenhouse contributions.

Stupid. You have no rational basis for your belief that the earth is warming, only irrational obedience of those who ordered you to BELIEVE it without question.

rwswan wrote: CO2 Lag.

Stupid. We can't measure the earth's average global temperature today to any usable accuracy, much less that of any point in the past.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-07-2017 04:29
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
What's more Mann's predictions was that by now we would be 10 degrees above "normal temperature" and the worst case measurements show us slightly more than one degree.

Almost everything you write is a lie. For example, nobody, least of all Mann, predicted that by now we would be 10 degrees above "normal temperature". Why are you lying? What do you hope to achieve by doing so?


At what point in time do you look something up instead of shooting your mouth of? In 1999 Mann, Bradley & Hughes published a paper that showed that the Earth had warmed 3 degrees C. It predicted that by the year 2000 it would be up to 5 degrees C. And continuing their upward trend by 2010 it would be 10 degrees.

But of course since you don't look anything up, don't read anything and are stupid as a log to begin with you haven't a clue what you and your side are claiming.

Mann, like you, discounted the Medieval Warm Period which all available data sources showed as being warmer than our present period. His excuse? "As you go back farther in time, the data becomes sketchier. One can't quite pin things down as well, but, our results do reveal that significant changes have occurred, and temperatures in the latter 20th century have been exceptionally warm compared to the preceding 900 years. Though substantial uncertainties exist in the estimates, these are nonetheless startling revelations."

Please tell us all about your knowledge of anything.
06-07-2017 08:00
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(222)
Wake wrote:
......In 1999 Mann, Bradley & Hughes published a paper that showed that the Earth had warmed 3 degrees C. It predicted that by the year 2000 it would be up to 5 degrees C. And continuing their upward trend by 2010 it would be 10 degrees.......


In Mann, Bradley and Hughes, Geophysical Research Letters, March 15, 1999?

I looking over the article I don't see the 3 degree bit. I didn't see where they made any prediction at all about the next year. They do have a graph that somebody might extend to 2010, but the authors didn't. The article is about reconstructing northern-hemisphere temperatures from AD 1000 to 1999.

The article is at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999GL900070/epdf
Edited on 06-07-2017 08:05
06-07-2017 17:30
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
still learning wrote:
Wake wrote:
......In 1999 Mann, Bradley & Hughes published a paper that showed that the Earth had warmed 3 degrees C. It predicted that by the year 2000 it would be up to 5 degrees C. And continuing their upward trend by 2010 it would be 10 degrees.......


In Mann, Bradley and Hughes, Geophysical Research Letters, March 15, 1999?

I looking over the article I don't see the 3 degree bit. I didn't see where they made any prediction at all about the next year. They do have a graph that somebody might extend to 2010, but the authors didn't. The article is about reconstructing northern-hemisphere temperatures from AD 1000 to 1999.

The article is at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999GL900070/epdf


What became known as the hockey stick curve CLEARLY showed the 3 degree rise and the extension of that curve to the year 2000 showed the 5 degree rise and the extension to 2010 was made by the True Believers such as yourself.

Too bad there wasn't a 3 degree rise and the entire warming from 1886 hasn't been that much and the most important region - in the late 70's to present has only been about 0.8 degrees USING THE NASA data.

Don't come around here denying the f-ing claims of the AGW True Believers when they were in ever newspaper article and coming from the mouth of Obama at the IPCC.
06-07-2017 18:25
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
still learning wrote:
Wake wrote:
......In 1999 Mann, Bradley & Hughes published a paper that showed that the Earth had warmed 3 degrees C. It predicted that by the year 2000 it would be up to 5 degrees C. And continuing their upward trend by 2010 it would be 10 degrees.......


In Mann, Bradley and Hughes, Geophysical Research Letters, March 15, 1999?

I looking over the article I don't see the 3 degree bit. I didn't see where they made any prediction at all about the next year. They do have a graph that somebody might extend to 2010, but the authors didn't. The article is about reconstructing northern-hemisphere temperatures from AD 1000 to 1999.

The article is at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999GL900070/epdf


What became known as the hockey stick curve CLEARLY showed the 3 degree rise and the extension of that curve to the year 2000 showed the 5 degree rise and the extension to 2010 was made by the True Believers such as yourself.

still learning just posted a link to the paper to which you are, presumably, referring. There is no mention of a 3 degree rise in the text, and none of the graphs in the paper show anything like a 3 degree rise. Which graph do you think does show such a rise? Maybe you misread the axes?
06-07-2017 19:16
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
still learning wrote:
Wake wrote:
......In 1999 Mann, Bradley & Hughes published a paper that showed that the Earth had warmed 3 degrees C. It predicted that by the year 2000 it would be up to 5 degrees C. And continuing their upward trend by 2010 it would be 10 degrees.......


In Mann, Bradley and Hughes, Geophysical Research Letters, March 15, 1999?

I looking over the article I don't see the 3 degree bit. I didn't see where they made any prediction at all about the next year. They do have a graph that somebody might extend to 2010, but the authors didn't. The article is about reconstructing northern-hemisphere temperatures from AD 1000 to 1999.

The article is at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999GL900070/epdf


What became known as the hockey stick curve CLEARLY showed the 3 degree rise and the extension of that curve to the year 2000 showed the 5 degree rise and the extension to 2010 was made by the True Believers such as yourself.

still learning just posted a link to the paper to which you are, presumably, referring. There is no mention of a 3 degree rise in the text, and none of the graphs in the paper show anything like a 3 degree rise. Which graph do you think does show such a rise? Maybe you misread the axes?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T_comp_61-90.pdf

This is attributed to: "The original northern hemisphere hockey stick graph of Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1999, smoothed curve shown in blue with its uncertainty range in light blue, overlaid with green dots showing the 30-year global average of the PAGES 2k Consortium 2013 reconstruction. The red curve shows measured global mean temperature, according to HadCRUT4 data from 1850 to 2013."

The real question is: why was "still learning" and "surface detail" unable to discover this when it was originally published in their 1999 paper?

More importantly, after that plain graph showing an over 3 degree shift, why does the NASA plots show:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg - a barely more than 1 degree rise.

Why were you talking about Mann being a dendrologist when he was nothing of the kind? The dendrologist of the three was, I believe, Malcolm K. Hughes.
Edited on 06-07-2017 19:17
06-07-2017 20:42
spot
★★★★☆
(1017)
rwswan wrote:
Spot,
Enjoyed your linkage to Spectre

IPCC. I understand the IPCC only consolidates and reports what its scientists are sending to them. However their charter is limited to mankind's involvement in contributing to global warming. And given their position as a predominant authority on climate change, to me that seems to have quite skewed the whole issue away from where it should be. I believe we (the people of the world) should be asking why the Earth is warming up "in the round" i.e. be focused on ALL aspects, not just mankind and related greenhouse contributions.

CO2 Lag. Spot, I don't have time to go into this now. I'm in the process of selling my house and relocating, but will write a future article into this and look forward to continuing the debate. In the meantime I've discussed some of the issues concerning CO2 here: http://issuesonclimatechange.com/category/greenhouse-gases/

Empirical evidence. Yes I believe I know what it means. My thesaurus and dictionary plus online Googling get a pretty good workout.

Glaciers. Retreating glaciers are only empirical evidence of rising temperatures. To say that mankind is causing it is faith in AGW.

Bayesian Reckoning. I've discussed it here: http://issuesonclimatechange.com/the-science-of-climate-change/


Glad you liked my reference, I don't know what you mean when you say the IPCCs charter limits it to only human influences on climate but if you actually look into the IPCC reports it covers that. And again if evidence exists you just need to present the evidence, the IPCC nor anyone else is stopping you, I've asked for it myself.

What you are suggesting is that it that the Hockey stick is an artifact of statistics. But the data is in the public domain now, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/#Paleo_data if its an artifact of faulty statistics you could make your own graph. Also you are not disputing my point that Glaciers existed for thousands of years and when the industrial revolution came along they started to disappear, you also are not disputing the properties of CO2, I'm a loss to know what you are disputing.

I wouldn't like it to be said I have faith in AGW because the word faith seems to imply I think what I do on this issue due to an irrational motive. I have confidence in the evidence. It can be explained to me in way I understand and it dovetails with my experience. If the balance of probability showed some other cause I would change my mind, I can't see anyone coming up with compelling evidence. At the moment I am convinced that real damage has been done should we do nothing as you seem to be counseling it will only compound the issue. I also think history will not look kindly on the Skeptics.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
Edited on 06-07-2017 20:42
06-07-2017 21:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
spot wrote:
rwswan wrote:
Spot,
Enjoyed your linkage to Spectre

IPCC. I understand the IPCC only consolidates and reports what its scientists are sending to them. However their charter is limited to mankind's involvement in contributing to global warming. And given their position as a predominant authority on climate change, to me that seems to have quite skewed the whole issue away from where it should be. I believe we (the people of the world) should be asking why the Earth is warming up "in the round" i.e. be focused on ALL aspects, not just mankind and related greenhouse contributions.

CO2 Lag. Spot, I don't have time to go into this now. I'm in the process of selling my house and relocating, but will write a future article into this and look forward to continuing the debate. In the meantime I've discussed some of the issues concerning CO2 here: http://issuesonclimatechange.com/category/greenhouse-gases/

Empirical evidence. Yes I believe I know what it means. My thesaurus and dictionary plus online Googling get a pretty good workout.

Glaciers. Retreating glaciers are only empirical evidence of rising temperatures. To say that mankind is causing it is faith in AGW.

Bayesian Reckoning. I've discussed it here: http://issuesonclimatechange.com/the-science-of-climate-change/


Glad you liked my reference, I don't know what you mean when you say the IPCCs charter limits it to only human influences on climate but if you actually look into the IPCC reports it covers that. And again if evidence exists you just need to present the evidence, the IPCC nor anyone else is stopping you, I've asked for it myself.

What you are suggesting is that it that the Hockey stick is an artifact of statistics. But the data is in the public domain now, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/#Paleo_data if its an artifact of faulty statistics you could make your own graph. Also you are not disputing my point that Glaciers existed for thousands of years and when the industrial revolution came along they started to disappear, you also are not disputing the properties of CO2, I'm a loss to know what you are disputing.

I wouldn't like it to be said I have faith in AGW because the word faith seems to imply I think what I do on this issue due to an irrational motive. I have confidence in the evidence. It can be explained to me in way I understand and it dovetails with my experience. If the balance of probability showed some other cause I would change my mind, I can't see anyone coming up with compelling evidence. At the moment I am convinced that real damage has been done should we do nothing as you seem to be counseling it will only compound the issue. I also think history will not look kindly on the Skeptics.


Science does not use supporting evidence.

It is not possible to determine the Earth's temperature to any useful degree of accuracy.

Define 'global warming' without using circular arguments, links, or quotes. Science does not have theories about something you can't define.

You are making a circular argument. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'.


The Parrot Killer
07-07-2017 02:39
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
still learning wrote:
Wake wrote:
......In 1999 Mann, Bradley & Hughes published a paper that showed that the Earth had warmed 3 degrees C. It predicted that by the year 2000 it would be up to 5 degrees C. And continuing their upward trend by 2010 it would be 10 degrees.......


In Mann, Bradley and Hughes, Geophysical Research Letters, March 15, 1999?

I looking over the article I don't see the 3 degree bit. I didn't see where they made any prediction at all about the next year. They do have a graph that somebody might extend to 2010, but the authors didn't. The article is about reconstructing northern-hemisphere temperatures from AD 1000 to 1999.

The article is at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999GL900070/epdf


What became known as the hockey stick curve CLEARLY showed the 3 degree rise and the extension of that curve to the year 2000 showed the 5 degree rise and the extension to 2010 was made by the True Believers such as yourself.

still learning just posted a link to the paper to which you are, presumably, referring. There is no mention of a 3 degree rise in the text, and none of the graphs in the paper show anything like a 3 degree rise. Which graph do you think does show such a rise? Maybe you misread the axes?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T_comp_61-90.pdf

This is attributed to: "The original northern hemisphere hockey stick graph of Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1999, smoothed curve shown in blue with its uncertainty range in light blue, overlaid with green dots showing the 30-year global average of the PAGES 2k Consortium 2013 reconstruction. The red curve shows measured global mean temperature, according to HadCRUT4 data from 1850 to 2013."

The real question is: why was "still learning" and "surface detail" unable to discover this when it was originally published in their 1999 paper?

More importantly, after that plain graph showing an over 3 degree shift, why does the NASA plots show:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg - a barely more than 1 degree rise.

Why were you talking about Mann being a dendrologist when he was nothing of the kind? The dendrologist of the three was, I believe, Malcolm K. Hughes.

Aha, now I can see why you're so confused. The green dots in the Wikipedia graph aren't in the 1999 paper, rather, they represent later data that has been overlaid on the blue curve, which is from the 1999 paper.

Also, you are misreading the graph. The scale on the right of the Wikipedia graph is in standard deviations, not degrees Celsius. The final point represents 3 standard deviations from the mean, not 3 degrees C, as you seem to have mistakenly assumed!
Edited on 07-07-2017 02:42
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate Support for the AGW Theory - or Not ...:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Practical experience v Theory1809-12-2018 05:52
Whirlpool theory of ocean deadzones?101-12-2018 21:26
75 papers now support a low climate sensitivity306-10-2018 02:45
Fact or Theory?226-05-2018 12:14
Theory coming to fruition?531-03-2018 22:58
Articles
Theory
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact