Global warming

[a_unique_person]

This is now officially boring. I could continue and blast every other remaining point, but what's the use? This is a waste of time, and it's now obvious that so is the "paper." Amusing, but has nothing to do with science, other than claiming to be such.

But it's the deniers who are winning. Amazing.

 

[CapelDodger]

Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth

The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth has been the subject of a legal action by New Party member Stewart Dimmock. Although a full ruling has yet to be given ...

Well there's a thing. Please let us know how that works out.

,,, the Court found ...

Which Court is this? Queen's Bench, House of Lords, High Court, Court of Appeal? Coroner's Court?

Magistrates' Court?

You're calling it - along with the New Party and Stewart Dimmock - in evidence here. So what Court's opinion is it?

(If you're doing that font-size and colour headline thing yourself, I suggest you drop it. It comes across as being cut-and-paste. I'm just saying ...)

 

[mhaze]

Which Court? Beats me. Not my prissy big letters, but if the link works, it takes you to their website...

Figured you might know who these guys are or where to find out more about it.

Whoever they are, if it's a real story, it is a pretty good story.

 

[mhaze]

Well, maybe they have a clue or two left in their pocket. Not enough to understand the process, but that's okay - they can now figure out how it really works. That's the scientific process.

 

[CapelDodger]

But it's the deniers who are winning. Amazing.

Survival against all odds is not the same as winning unless the odds change drastically. Denialism survives, but its influence wanes. There'll always be some contrarians in an arena such as this. The basement-dwellers will go quiet early-on (glub-glub), but the tree-dwellers will keep screeching until the last possible moment.

 

[Schneibster]

High Court, according to the story in the Telegraph. Looks like they lost, too.

 

[Schneibster]

There's a link in the story to an earlier one, noting the lawsuit. There's a picture of Dimwit- errr, Dimrock, emmmm Dimmock in it. A picture is worth a thousand words, for sure.

ETA: You gotta love "New Party." That's just about the most amusing political party name I've seen in a month of Sundays. Marketing spin taken to the limit; to fully appreciate it you need to be aware that the most common word in advertisements is "new."

 

[CapelDodger]

Which Court? Beats me. Not my prissy big letters, but if the link works, it takes you to their website...

Did that, went there.

Figured you might know who these guys are or where to find out more about it.

I like to think I have my finger on the pulse over here, but the New Party is, well, new to me. I suspect it's a very few party.

Whoever they are, if it's a real story, it is a pretty good story.

Do you not even care if it's real before you spew it up? Depending on attractiveness (to your tastes) really doesn't build credibilty.

The more a story appeals to you the more closely you should question it.

 

[mhaze]

There's a link in the story to an earlier one, noting the lawsuit. There's a picture of Dimwit- errr, Dimrock, emmmm Dimmock in it. A picture is worth a thousand words, for sure.

ETA: You gotta love "New Party." That's just about the most amusing political party name I've seen in a month of Sundays. Marketing spin taken to the limit; to fully appreciate it you need to be aware that the most common word in advertisements is "new."

If I have it right, Schneibster's link verifies the stuff said in the "New Party" website - not that they can't show it, but they can show it but must talk about it being politics, having inaccurate science, etc.

So what's the "High Court"? is that like our Supreme court, or what here we would call District Court, Circuit Court, Superior Court in various locales - basically a second level court?

Hey, like I said, it looked good for a laugh, so I posted it. That includes the "New Party" characters, whoever they are.

 

[CapelDodger]

High Court, according to the story in the Telegraph. Looks like they lost, too.

Thanks for that. As you might expect, the Torygraph and I have been estranged since I left home .

"Changes to the old guidance notes were rushed through by the Government after Stewart Dimmock, a father of two, a Kent school governor and a member of political group the New Party, asked the court to ban the film from the classroom.
Mr Dimmock argued the film was unfit for schools because it was politically partisan and contained serious scientific inaccuracies, as well as "sentimental mush".
His lawyers accused the Government and New Labour "Thought Police" of backing the film as a way of "brainwashing" pupils on global warming."

And I'm reminded why ...

I lived in Kent for two years before I escaped to University. It was traumatic.

New Labour "Thought Police". That's the unpleasant flavour I recall from those days. Ugh.

 

[Schneibster]

Thanks for that. As you might expect, the Torygraph and I have been estranged since I left home .

This was good for a laugh; most people on this side of The Pond would need it explained to them, I'm fortunate enough to have at least some dim understanding of politics in Britain.

And I'm reminded why ...

I lived in Kent for two years before I escaped to University. It was traumatic.

New Labour "Thought Police". That's the unpleasant flavour I recall from those days. Ugh.

Interesting. They're running the same games in rural and semi-rural areas over there as they are over here. I wonder if all rural areas are rife with conservatives of one stripe or another...

 

[mhaze]

You say you've "read both sides", but there is only one side. Michaels presented a graph showing only Scenario A (high emissions) against the outcome and did not present the other scenarios. Deliberate deception. Otherwise he'd have presented all scenarios - but he didn't. No blah-blah-blah. Nada.

No confusion. Michaels presented the Hansen et al graph with Scenarios B and C erased. It's a matter of public record. He made no mention of emission scenarios at all, just "this is Hansen's projection which is radically different from the outcome". A lie. Intentional and prepared in advance .

What's the "other side" of that? There isn't one, is there? You just made that up.

Pat Michaels is a liar. Live with it.

Well, it won't bother me for you to show that he's a liar at all. But no, I'm not making this up.

Since AUP was notably silent on the actual Congressional testimony, I've gone and pulled it. I don't see any support for your or AUP's position. Please check it and see if perhaps I've missed something.

Patrick Michael's Congressional Testimony, July 29, 1998 http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-pm072998.html

Graphs included with testimony.
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-pm072998-2.html

Note that Hansen's graph used by Michaels is clearly labeled "Scenario A".

Remember that the Michael's testimony was in 1998, and was referring to Hansen's testimony given in 1988.

Would you like the 1988 Hansen testimony as well?

Again, it wouldn't bother me at all for you to show him to be a liar, but I just do not seem to see it. I see where he is someone a lot of AGW people would like to discredit any way possible, no doubt about that.

 

[Megalodon]

Well, it won't bother me for you to show that he's a liar at all. But no, I'm not making this up.

Since AUP was notably silent on the actual Congressional testimony, I've gone and pulled it. I don't see any support for your or AUP's position. Please check it and see if perhaps I've missed something.

From your link (bold mine):

That model predicted that global temperature between 1988 and 1997 would rise by 0.45°C (Figure 1). Figure 2 compares this to the observed temperature changes from three independent sources. Ground-based temperatures from the IPCC show a rise of 0.11°C, or more than four times less than Hansen predicted.Lower atmosphere temperatures measured by ascending thermistors on weather balloons show a decline of 0.36°C and satellites measuring the same layer (our only truly global measure) showed a decline of 0.24°C.

The inclusion of the words "Scenario A" are of no relevance, since there is no mention of other scenarios or intervals of confidence.

It was a lie by omission. He wanted to make his case appear stronger, and he was dishonest...

 

[Schneibster]

And by the way, here is Hansen 1988 for your reading pleasure. Note please that THREE scenarios are presented.

Note also the following text from the paper:
"These scenarios are designed to yield sensitivity experiments for a broad range of future greenhouse forcings. Scenario A, since it is exponential, must eventually be on the high side of reality in view of finite resource constraints and environmental concerns, even though the growth of emissions in scenario A (~1.5%/yr) is less than the rate typical of the past century (~4%/yr). Scenario C is a more drastic curtailment of emissions than has generally been imagined; it represents elimination of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions by 2000 and reduction of CO2 and other trace gas emissions to a level such that the annual growth rates are zero (i.e. the sources just balance the sinks) by the year 2000. Scenario B is perhaps the most plausible of the three cases. " [I took the liberty of changing the exponential form of per year, yr^-1, to the fractional form, /yr, for clarity and ease of typing. Text is from the second paragraph on page 9345.]

If the Congressional testimony is available on line, I'm sure someone will link or reproduce it here; but considering what Hansen said in the paper, is it really plausible that he'd say something different in front of Congress? And then there's the matter of Michaels' graph only referring to Scenario A, which is pretty conclusive in the light of the paper linked above. I don't believe I'd give the time of day to anything Michaels had to say.

 

[CapelDodger]

Well, it won't bother me for you to show that he's a liar at all. But no, I'm not making this up.

You're making up the "other side" of the "Michaels is a liar" case that you claim to have read. I'm not surprised that the Cato Institute reproduces his testimony without a mendacity-warning, but where do they argue that he isn't a liar, based on that testimony? They'd have to bring up Scenario B if they did that, and that's really not in their interests. What's in their interests is mendacious weaseling that provides comfort for those who seek it. Michaels testimony serves that purpose admirably. Lots of people still think that the Hansen et al 1988 model was badly wrong about climate change in the 90's. Which it wasn't.

Since AUP was notably silent on the actual Congressional testimony, I've gone and pulled it. I don't see any support for your or AUP's position. Please check it and see if perhaps I've missed something.

What's missing is Scenarios B and C. An absence is easy to miss, I suppose, and difficult to see.

Michaels must have known about the other scenarios, and that Scenario B was the best match to the actual emissions and the temperature record. Yet he said what Megalodon has bolded for you. That the model made one prediction which was wildly inaccurate. A deliberate, considered, and indefensible lie.

 

[CapelDodger]

If the Congressional testimony is available on line, I'm sure someone will link or reproduce it here; but considering what Hansen said in the paper, is it really plausible that he'd say something different in front of Congress?

Is it plausible, if he had, that he wouldn't have been caught out like Michaels has been? Hansen is under constant observation by the denialist camp gagging to use something like that against him - just as we're happy to use Michaels's behaviour against him and his ilk, such as the Cato Institute - but I don't see it.

And then there's the matter of Michaels' graph only referring to Scenario A, which is pretty conclusive in the light of the paper linked above. I don't believe I'd give the time of day to anything Michaels had to say.

Michaels is certainly partisan and untrustworthy. I wouldn't use him as a reference. Whatever he says I'll assume he's lying and look to his sources for the facts. After all, he obviously doesn't care if he's caught out lying - as he obviously would be - as long as his target audience doesn't get to hear about it. Or if it does, hears about it at third- and fourth-hand as a vile calumny pushed by AGW Believers who hate honest scientists .

Which Michaels isn't, by the way. Not an honest scientist, I mean. He's a lying weasel.

 

[CapelDodger]

It was a lie by omission. He wanted to make his case appear stronger, and he was dishonest...

The so-far unspoken question is why did he want to make this case, in the guise of a scientist but in the manner of a lawyer?

(Hansen is regularly accused of manipulation, mendacity and idelogical motivations by people who call on Michaels in evidence. It must seem truly weird to anyone without a good grasp of human nature .)

What are his motivations?

Attention-seeking? I wouldn't rule out a fair chunk of that. He'd be Joe Schmuck, BSc if he wasn't a contrarian pin-up.

Ideology? I don't think it's a coincidence that mhaze links to his testimony via the Cato Institute.

Financial reward? Nothing so crude as a cash-filled envelope but I'm sure he's doing better than Joe Schmuck.

Sexual favours? Hopefully we won't sink to such levels. It's not as if we're Republicans. We're better than that. M'kay?

 

[mhaze]

From your link (bold mine):

The inclusion of the words "Scenario A" are of no relevance, since there is no mention of other scenarios or intervals of confidence.

It was a lie by omission. He wanted to make his case appear stronger, and he was dishonest...

Looking into it, I find that Congressional Record online only goes back to 1994, and we would be looking for 8-11-88 records for Hansen's talk. That may be in the library here. Anyway, we don't have Hansen's testimony.

But here is where I have a question mark.

Assume that Hansen went in and gave his talk saying "Here is what I believe". Michaels later does his thing with scenario A only.

That is a misrepresentation of Hansen.

Alternately, assume Hansen went in 1988 and discussed three possible future scenarios based on emissions going up, down, or staying about the same. (EG the "business as usual" issue). His chart has those three projections. If these are model projections, there is no "here is my opinion, here is what I believe". There are just model projections.

Ten years later, there is only one of those projections that can be discussed, and that is the one whose input variables most clearly resembled the ten years that had passed.

That's where I have a little question mark.

Which of the two above scenarios occurred?

 

[CapelDodger]

This was good for a laugh; most people on this side of The Pond would need it explained to them, I'm fortunate enough to have at least some dim understanding of politics in Britain.

Much brighter than dim, I'm sure.

In theory the Tory word should have negative connotations on your side, since that's what the Loyalists were called back in the founding days. In practice ... porbably not so much.

Interesting. They're running the same games in rural and semi-rural areas over there as they are over here. I wonder if all rural areas are rife with conservatives of one stripe or another...

It's a definite thing in my experience (which is essentially of rural Brittany and Britain) for various reasons. In areas where farming is still the major feature it's the natural conservatism of a peasant society; in the Home Counties (around London) it's the natural conservatism of rich people.

In cities people can have a lot of control over their environment, which makes social experiment relatively safe. In the country, which is subject to the vagaries of weather and demand, stability is the object of desire.

That's how I've seen it, anyway, and I'm not the first .

 

[CapelDodger]

Ten years later, there is only one of those projections that can be discussed, and that is the one whose input variables most clearly resembled the ten years that had passed.

That can be discussed?


What's the point of discussing scenarios that didn't match the actual emissions?

Obviously, if you want to deceive - as Michaels clearly did when he testified - you'll only discuss one scenario, and that one that didn't match reality. But otherwise why discuss the might-have-beens that weren't?

That's where I have a little question mark.

Which of the two above scenarios occurred?

I have three little question marks.



Congressional records may only of limited availability online, but the denialist camp has the resources to get to the Library of Congress to check on Hansen's testimony. Heck, they were there at the time - the anti-AGW campaign is hardly new - and hanging on every word.

If Hansen had only presented Scenario A to Congress when the paper Schneibster linked to mentioned three with Scenario A being the most extreme the denialist camp would have been on it like a cheap suit. "Alarmism!" they'd have screamed.

But they didn't. Otherwise you'd have heard about it. You've heard about Beck's vapourings, after all, and Hansen being alarmist in 1988 would ring far, far louder than that. You'd have heard it, I'd have heard it, everybody would have heard it. Hansen's testimony would be available via the Cato Institute, with much associated commentary.

You haven't seen that, have you? Kinda suggests it's not there, doncha think?