How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[CapelDodger]

Lindzen didn't discover any 'iris'. He had a preconceived notion that there was one, but never came up with any evidence for it.

Lindzen's Iris was one weird exercise. It didn't set out (as science does) to explain observation, it set out to explain why unwelcome observations wouldn't be observed. Once a basic structure was arrived at, free parameters were assigned values that would make it all work as required. Talk about giving hostages to fortune.

Lindzen's line on the Iris was only ever that evidence would turn up, not that evidence existed. As time passed and no such evidence emerged (and as the free parameters were pinned down by observation, way adrift from the necessary assumptions) he went quiet on it.

The heros of today are talking about Solar Cycles 24 and 25. The weathermen have been eclipsed by a whole new breed of data-miner. These guys are already setting up the next but one Solar Cycle as a fall-back. The Lindzen Lesson has been learnt, it seems.

 

[VonNeumann]

Decay is transient for an individua, but it's a constant process, just as life is. Life, death, decay. It's been going on for a heck of a long time, and what it demonstrably hasn't caused is a constant accumulation of atmospheric methane. The reason for which is that methane, oxygen, and sunlight make for a marriage born in heaven.

If there's an accumulation of methane now it's not because plant life has suddenly turned inimical to us. Something else must be in play. Pumping up hydrocarbons from deep underground and melting permafrost are reasonable candidates. Trees ain't.

"Trees ain't"? I dunno ...

But in the words of New Zealand climate researcher David Lowe, “We now have the specter that new forests might increase greenhouse warming through methane emissions rather than decrease it by being sinks for carbon dioxide.”

 

[Klimax]

I know enough about Czech politics to be glad I'm not living there right now, but I also know enough Czech history to be optimistic about its future. Social transitions (like climate transitions) do not go smoothly.

I am not so sure about this...even if we get better,something from outside will take us down...
(I am pesimistic about 99,99999% things)

And talk about transitions.It looks like we will never get out of transitions...

 

[Klimax]

Define "climate scientist" for us all.

I though you have that covered already!(Since you are having such nice debate with whole lots of links,citations,... )

I would dare to say that climate scientist is physician,who studied climate,modeling that and studied atmospheric processes.

(Or have I used wrong word?)

 

[mhaze]

Singer said the science is settled on climate change. As far as I know he hasn't yet said that science in toto is settled, just the bits he finds otherwise unsettling.

So this methane from plants : is that a new thing? Even if it's real? We may have just have found about it, but the plants have never cared, they just do they're own thing, and they've been around longer than us.
I can't comment before I've seen photographs of the sampling stations.
Over what period? You clearly don't mean the last decade with its invarient global methane load (and just how do they work that out, I wonder, given its inevitable local and regional variance? Has the methodology been properly Audited?) It's hard to see anybody "supposing" that an invariant is affecting global warming.
I suggest you take "schemes" to Politics or Conspiracy.

Singer said the science is settled on climate change.

Now, that's an interesting spin. Have a reference for that one?

I'm skeptical about numerous reported things about methane. As I said, it is interesting.

By the way "schemes" is the correct word.

 

[mhaze]

Try using just tad bit of logic, if possible.

If a linear regression trend is said to be .14deg/dec in the positive over 28 years, and it begins to move negative at .14deg/dec, it can still be said (by a logically vacuous individual) it is warming for the next 20+ years. What part of that is difficult to comprehend? Megalodon's favorite color graph does just that.

The fun part is Megalodon has said I based my claims on using 1998 (El Nino) in my assertion. The kicker, it is not, and Megalodon's pretty graphs do.

There are a number of more qualified analysis available to support what I've been saying for the last 6 months.

Extraction of the underlying signal from a noisy data stream.. . .

What, DR?

You assert 7th grade math is insufficient?

Next you no doubt will be telling people to go to http://wmbriggs.com/ to understand the subtleties of wave form analysis.

Oh, wait, you already did that!

 

[mhaze]

I though you have that covered already!(Since you are having such nice debate with whole lots of links,citations,... )

I would dare to say that climate scientist is physician,who studied climate,modeling that and studied atmospheric processes.

(Or have I used wrong word?)

Klimax, sometimes I also will quote your president, Klaus.

I'm curious of your opinion regarding his attitudes on climate science and public policy of it.

 

[hammegk]

A bit more fuel for the fire courtesy of our buddies down-under.

www theaustralian news com au/ story/ 0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html
(sorry. I can't post links yet)

Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.
Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

My apologies if this has been posted elsewhere.

 

[Pipirr]

Singer said the science is settled on climate change.

Now, that's an interesting spin. Have a reference for that one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUM_KpohcuQ

About 35 seconds in.

 

[mhaze]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUM_KpohcuQ

About 35 seconds in.

Just to be fair, though, Singer said "To me the science is settled". This is quite different than the generic repetitions of the well known (unmentionable), poster underchild of AGW that "The science is settled".

 

[Megalodon]

Extraction of the underlying signal from a noisy data stream.. . .

What, DR?

You assert 7th grade math is insufficient?

Next you no doubt will be telling people to go to http://wmbriggs.com/ to understand the subtleties of wave form analysis.

Oh, wait, you already did that!

What mhaze? You lack the reading and compreension skills to grasp that the graphs DR is talking about don't have trend lines?

I would guess 7th grade knowledge would be enough...

 

[Pipirr]

Just to be fair, though, Singer said "To me the science is settled". This is quite different than the generic repetitions of the well known (unmentionable), poster underchild of AGW that "The science is settled".

I don't see much difference.

Perhaps he has forgetten all about the Luntz memo:

"In a 2002 memo to President George W. Bush titled "The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America", obtained by the Environmental Working Group, Luntz wrote: "The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science...Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field."[5]"

 

[Klimax]

Klimax, sometimes I also will quote your president, Klaus.

I'm curious of your opinion regarding his attitudes on climate science and public policy of it.

If you have it as SECONDARY source,why not.But it is not such a good idea,by the way...

(And I do not like Klaus,with tiny exceptions,but climate is not among them...)

But I am not going to participate in debate,since I have other problems to solve and I am still in the middle,among crowd-"We need more data".

 

[mhaze]

I don't see much difference.

Perhaps he has forgetten all about the Luntz memo:

"In a 2002 memo to President George W. Bush titled "The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America", obtained by the Environmental Working Group, Luntz wrote: "The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science...Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field."[5]"

You must mean the memo where Lunz suggested that the party he served....

should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist", because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty bizarre behaviour... that turns off many voters".

We would indeed have to agree with that assessment, given some of the things that have been seen on this forum. Although this only signals the hijacking of "environmentalism" by a radical fringe minority, of course.

Beware - "80 foot sea level rise! Mass extinctions! Hundreds of millions Dying! Polar Bears! Mosquitos! Lots of them!"

And so on and on and on...ad nauseum...

 

[TrueSceptic]

I don't see much difference.

Perhaps he has forgetten all about the Luntz memo:

"In a 2002 memo to President George W. Bush titled "The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America", obtained by the Environmental Working Group, Luntz wrote: "The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science...Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field."[5]"

There is no difference. If someone says "To me", it means the same as IMO, i.e., I believe it to be the case.

 

[mhaze]

If you have it as SECONDARY source,why not.But it is not such a good idea,by the way...

(And I do not like Klaus,with tiny exceptions,but climate is not among them...)

But I am not going to participate in debate,since I have other problems to solve and I am still in the middle,among crowd-"We need more data".

I'm basically in agreement if I understand the way you use "primary and secondary". Clearly, neither Klaus or Motl is a primary source because they are not producing research in climate science. They comment on it.

 

[Klimax]

I'm basically in agreement if I understand the way you use "primary and secondary". Clearly, neither Klaus or Motl is a primary source because they are not producing research in climate science. They comment on it.

Correct.

 

[Alric]

So. Why don't we make an effort to use only primary references. It would simplify the discussion greatly if we focus on the data and discussions of published papers.

 

[Pipirr]

There is no difference. If someone says "To me", it means the same as IMO, i.e., I believe it to be the case.

Yes indeedy. Singer thinks that the science is settled.

I don't see how one can spin his words to mean anything other than what he said.

 

[TrueSceptic]

So. Why don't we make an effort to use only primary references. It would simplify the discussion greatly if we focus on the data and discussions of published papers.

Not in this thread, though, if you don't mind. This is about GWS claims and behaviour, not climate science itself.

...Unless, of course, you mean published papers on the above.