How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[mhaze]

Hmm.. my reading of the judgement is that the judge accepted that 9 out of many errors proposed by the prosecution were controversial enough to be relevant to the court case:

The justice also said, referring broadly to the film:
(my emphasis)
Still, I don't recommend AIT to people who want to learn about A/GW; I accept that it is an advocacy piece. For people who want to learn, I generally send them to the NAS*, and others of that ilk.

Well, the subject was AUP's assertion that Monckton was mentally ill, so I picked Monckton's essay finding 23 errors in a discussion by Trenberth as a subject of study. The reason for my quoting in full the argument about the court case is that it is one "controversial" issue, and may not thus precisely fit into the definition of "error" as defined by Monckton. (most of the errors by contrast were pretty much errors of fact, and not controversial or subject to differing interpretations).

So here we have Trenberth making an assertion about AIT, and Monckton saying it is in error. Just to clarify.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Well, the subject was AUP's assertion that Monckton was mentally ill, so I picked Monckton's essay finding 23 errors in a discussion by Trenberth as a subject of study. The reason for my quoting in full the argument about the court case is that it is one "controversial" issue, and may not thus precisely fit into the definition of "error" as defined by Monckton. (most of the errors by contrast were pretty much errors of fact, and not controversial or subject to differing interpretations).

So here we have Trenberth making an assertion about AIT, and Monckton saying it is in error. Just to clarify.

Monckton is an excellent example for this thread. Nothing he says can be trusted. He is either an incorrigible liar or highly delusional. This is an example of how he behaves and the evidence is there for all to see.

 

[mhaze]

Deltoid! Thus you show your true nature - a radical far left environmentalist. But we knew.

why not help the RC guys out a bit?
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/03/nir-shaviv-answers-to-realclimateorg.html

Realclimate.org continues with its same line of attack. Wishfulclimate.org writers try again and again to concoct what appears to be deep critiques against skeptic arguments, but end up doing a very shallow job. All in the name of saving the world. How gallant of them.

Try a bit of that anti Monckton antipathy? A bit of the old insult? Add some smear in for good measure. Add a sling or two at those darned contrarian peer reviewed journals a la E & E.

Clowns.

 

[a_unique_person]

Deltoid! Thus you show your true nature. But we knew.

Deltoid is not making any claims about AGW, just showing up Monckton to be the lunatic he is.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Deltoid! Thus you show your true nature. But we knew.

My true nature is that of a True Sceptic, just as Tim Lambert is.

I note that you fail utterly to address the point and attack the source instead. Unlike Monckton (and you), Lambert does not make stuff up.

Anyone can read the evidence for themselves here,
here, and here of Monckton behaviour. Honestly, do you really not see what a f***wit he is?

 

[TrueSceptic]

Deltoid is not making any claims about AGW, just showing up Monckton to be the lunatic he is.

Insanity, mendacity, or a mixture of both?

 

[CapelDodger]

Deltoid! Thus you show your true nature. But we knew.

That TrueSceptic is normal? Yes, we knew that.

 

[TrueSceptic]

That TrueSceptic is normal? Yes, we knew that.

Normal? Normal? How dare you! That's the worst thing I've been called for, errr, several hours!

 

[CapelDodger]

I have to join in here...linking CO2 emmisions to economic growth is one of the most blatant false dichotomies I have seen in a bit. If we don't emit CO2, then we won't have growth. Or correlation without causation if you prefer.

The economic growth is facilitated by cheap energy and the energy just happened to emit CO2. If plutonium 238 were plentiful and easy to handle safely, we would all have thermionic generators in our cars and homes and no CO2 emissions. And economic growth.

glenn

It would be far more reasonable to link growth and energy-use. As I understand it, CO2-intensity of global GDP was falling in the early years of this century, before the spurt in Chinese and Indian coal-consumption. That reduction might resume if new nuclear capacity is brought in, or large-scale wind/wave/tidal/solar projects go ahead.

 

[a_unique_person]

I have been enjoying this discussion of the purpose and obligations of a proper literature review (e.g., the IPCC reports) and have reached the boundary of my precious-little knowledge, so I have a sincere question:

Does the mere existence of a paper in a peer-reviewed journal make it a priori relevant and worthy of inclusion in a "state of the science" literature review like the IPCC reports? I see so many people on both sides of this debate (and many other debates!) tossing out articles published in peer-reviewed journals as though they are pure, distilled, single-malt fact. (The relevant example in this thread being the enumeration by Pielke of papers being ignored by the IPCC) I have (perhaps erroneously) always considered getting published in a respected journal as merely the first peer review, which is followed by the arguably more rigorous peer review: being read and evaluated by the readership and being: repeated/accepted/discredited/verified/argued/refined/etc... I suppose I had expected a paper to only be relevant after it has received a certain degree of acceptance by more than the few peers required to get published in the first place.

I am not necessarily accusing any of the papers mentioned by Pielke, etc. as being discredited or bogus; I'm just curious if their mere presence is compelling, or if they require subsequent evaluation to determine their validity and worthiness to appear in a literature review (and I am ignorant of whether or not they have actually achieved this level of acceptance). The same question applies to any paper authored and successfully published by Mann, Hansen, etc.

A lot of the so called peer reviewed papers are published in a journal called Environment and Energy. It will publish just about any piece of rubbish, usually anything that would never be accepted for publication in a serious journal.

 

[CapelDodger]

Normal? Normal? How dare you! That's the worst thing I've been called for, errr, several hours!

I was still in the "mental health" moment . In no way did I mean to imply that you're average; far from it.

Have you ever heard of NFN - meaning "Normal For Norfolk"? (Doctors aren't allowed to put in patients' notes any more, but they used to.) The condition was attributed to in-breeding. Which brings us back to Monckton and his ilk.

 

[CapelDodger]

Does the mere existence of a paper in a peer-reviewed journal make it a priori relevant and worthy of inclusion in a "state of the science" literature review like the IPCC reports? I see so many people on both sides of this debate (and many other debates!) tossing out articles published in peer-reviewed journals as though they are pure, distilled, single-malt fact. (The relevant example in this thread being the enumeration by Pielke of papers being ignored by the IPCC) I have (perhaps erroneously) always considered getting published in a respected journal as merely the first peer review, which is followed by the arguably more rigorous peer review: being read and evaluated by the readership and being: repeated/accepted/discredited/verified/argued/refined/etc... I suppose I had expected a paper to only be relevant after it has received a certain degree of acceptance by more than the few peers required to get published in the first place.

I agree entirely. I don't think last year's AR4 considered anything published later than 2005 (don't quote me on that, though ) partly because of the length of the IPCC process but also because this wider post-publication peer review takes time.

I am not necessarily accusing any of the papers mentioned by Pielke, etc. as being discredited or bogus; I'm just curious if their mere presence is compelling, or if they require subsequent evaluation to determine their validity and worthiness to appear in a literature review (and I am ignorant of whether or not they have actually achieved this level of acceptance). The same question applies to any paper authored and successfully published by Mann, Hansen, etc.

As you'll have noticed, I'm not down with the description "literature review". The IPCC reports are more than that. They collate all the known science, including recent observations and papers, and present it to the clients. That involves a lot of boiling-down.

Pielke claims that his list of papers are being ignored, but he can no more prove that than he can prove any negative. What he seems to mean is that the IPCC does not come to the conclusions expressed in these papers. Which, if the papers are unimpressive, is unsurprising. If they are impressive they'll be cited in further papers, and not just those that demolish them. If that's happening the IPCC will have considered these papers and the follow-ups.

What I see as most revealing is the GWSceptic focus on the IPCC, not the wide world of science. So, for instance, CoolSceptic can think the IPCC is able to "sweep these papers under the carpet", as if everything has to be cleared through them. Governments are assumed to only get their scientific advice through the IPCC, not their own advisors and national institutions. They set up a very simplified (and personalised) world to take refuge in.

 

[CapelDodger]

A lot of the so called peer reviewed papers are published in a journal called Environment and Energy. It will publish just about any piece of rubbish, usually anything that would never be accepted for publication in a serious journal.

Peer-review only weeds out egregious faults, such as not recognising sources, gross errors of fact, abnormal logic, stuff like that. It doesn't make any judgement on the usefulness of the paper - that judgement is made after publication.

Pielke's List doesn't seem to have made many waves. Sometimes things are ignored for good reasons.

 

[CapelDodger]

... showing up Monckton to be the lunatic he is.

Again, I think that's harsh. He's damaged, yes, by his upbringing, but not a lunatic.

You really have to have been brought up here in the Old Country to get a handle on the likes of Monckton.

 

[Round Robin]

Pielke claims that his list of papers are being ignored, but he can no more prove that than he can prove any negative. What he seems to mean is that the IPCC does not come to the conclusions expressed in these papers. Which, if the papers are unimpressive, is unsurprising. If they are impressive they'll be cited in further papers, and not just those that demolish them. If that's happening the IPCC will have considered these papers and the follow-ups.

This seems to be precisely what he is claiming; he writes:

If the papers were neglected because they were redundant, this would be no problem. However, they are ignored specifically because they conflict with the assessment that is presented in the IPCC WG1 Report, and the Lead Authors do not agree with that perspective!

(emphasis mine, but the exclamation mark is Pielke's)

In the comments, he write:

They did exclude papers that supported their perspective which were redundant (such as Peterson 2006 and Hansen et al 2006).

Much more importantly, however, they ignored peer reviewed papers that conflicted with their viewpoint on the robustness of the multi-decadal near-surface air temperature trend.

(emphasis mine)

Pielke refers to these papers as "redundant", but could they be just as accurately called "follow-up" or "corroborating" or "refined"? It seems to me that to dismiss papers that agree with consensus as "redundant" is to dismiss the importance of continuous testing of a hypothesis.

Perhaps if the "dissenting" papers are followed by similar "redundant" work, they would appear in the next IPCC WG1 report?

 

[CapelDodger]

This seems to be precisely what he is claiming; he writes:

"If the papers were neglected because they were redundant, this would be no problem. However, they are ignored specifically because they conflict with the assessment that is presented in the IPCC WG1 Report, and the Lead Authors do not agree with that perspective!"

(emphasis mine, but the exclamation mark is Pielke's)

Very telling, that exclamation mark. There's a touch of hysteria creeping in, don't you think?

The "specifically" is particularly good. If he knows that, he must know what the specification was and who signed it off. Given that his complaint is that they've been ignored, how can it possibly make sense?

I also like the "Lead Authors" thing, the Praesidium of the IPCC. (Not much different from CCCP, is it? Just change one letter and switch them around and the truth is staring you in the face .)

Pielke refers to these papers as "redundant", but could they be just as accurately called "follow-up" or "corroborating" or "refined"?

Or too late. They're both from 2006. I don't know how they've fared in the open ocean of science since then, but I've seen no obvious blood in the water.

 

[TrueSceptic]

A lot of the so called peer reviewed papers are published in a journal called Environment and Energy. It will publish just about any piece of rubbish, usually anything that would never be accepted for publication in a serious journal.

Indeed. E&E was set up specifically to publish papers that serious journals reject, as you can see here.
If the manuscripts of climate-change skeptics are rejected by peer-reviewed science journals, they can always send their studies to Energy & Environment. “It’s only we climate skeptics who have to look for little journals and little publishers like mine to even get published,” explains Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, the journal’s editor

 

[TrueSceptic]

I was still in the "mental health" moment . In no way did I mean to imply that you're average; far from it.

Yes, I know, although "average" isn't so bad either. I was just trying to introduce a little levity.

Have you ever heard of NFN - meaning "Normal For Norfolk"? (Doctors aren't allowed to put in patients' notes any more, but they used to.) The condition was attributed to in-breeding. Which brings us back to Monckton and his ilk.

No, I hadn't, but it makes sense.

 

[mhaze]

Indeed. E&E was set up specifically to publish papers that serious journals reject, as you can see here.
If the manuscripts of climate-change skeptics are rejected by peer-reviewed science journals, they can always send their studies to Energy & Environment. “It’s only we climate skeptics who have to look for little journals and little publishers like mine to even get published,” explains Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, the journal’s editor

Thus you show more of your true nature - a radical far left environmentalist. But we knew.

why not help the RC guys out a bit?
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/03/ni...limateorg.html

Realclimate.org continues with its same line of attack. Wishfulclimate.org writers try again and again to concoct what appears to be deep critiques against skeptic arguments, but end up doing a very shallow job. All in the name of saving the world. How gallant of them.

Try a bit of that anti Monckton antipathy? A bit of the old insult? Add some smear in for good measure. Add a sling or two at those darned contrarian peer reviewed journals a la E & E.

 

[mhaze]

From Co2science.org

Recent Greenhouse "Wisdom" from the Pages of the Medical Journal of Australia Volume 11, Number 11: 12 March 2008

​

"Noting that every newborn baby "represents a potent source of greenhouse gas emissions," Walters (2007), who is an associate professor of obstetric medicine at King Edward Memorial Hospital in Perth, suggests there should be a Baby Levy in the form of a carbon tax, whereby "every family choosing to have more than a defined number of children [which he intimates should be two] should be charged a carbon tax that would fund the planting of enough trees to offset the carbon cost generated by a new human being." How large should such a tax be? Walters calculates that for Australia "each child born should be offset by planting 4 hectares of trees, to allow for the time they take to reach maturity, and attrition through crop losses, bushfires, dieback and so on," which he says "infers a levy per child of at least $5,000 at birth (to purchase the land needed and plant trees) and an annual tax of $400-$800 thereafter for the life of the child (for maintenance of the afforestation project)," which fees he bases on 1990 figures, leading him to suggest that they would be "probably much more now." By the same reasoning, he additionally envisions carbon credits for the users and prescribers of, among other things, "condoms and sterilization procedures," which would lead to "rewards for family planning clinics and hospitals that provide such greenhouse-friendly services."

Also writing in the Medical Journal of Australia, Egger (2007), who is director of the Centre for Health Promotion and Research in Sydney, touts a personal carbon trading scheme, the plan of which is to allocate to every individual in the world an equal number of tradeable energy units per year, based on a budget which is set by "a central budgetary council." The trading of such units would be conducted either through existing credit cards or through "a carbon card system administered by banks." Under this system, as he describes it, "individuals who are left with carbon credits (i.e., those who are frugal with non-renewable energy use) are then able to sell these back into the marketplace, thereby gaining financial benefit," while "those who overuse their quota pay a premium price for extra energy use," with unused units being "retired, with a view to contraction of the total energy budget to a sustainable level."
And you thought a simple gas tax was a little much!

Welcome to the brave new world of Al Gore and James Hansen."

Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso