Arthur Smith posted a response to Monckton’s article posted by the APS. It seems there is some confusion over just what the IPCC concluded in the AR4. As it happens, Arthur’s first criticism is that Monckton is confused. Possibly he is.
But if so, Monckton is in good company. Because we’ll see that the real source of the confusion is the APS editor who framed the debate. Following the convention of debates, Monckton was debating the topic assigned by that editor.
Arthur’s criticism of Moncton’s abstract:
Arthur’s post quotes Monckton and then responds, as follows (in nested blockquotes):
Abstract
Monckton: (IPCC, 2007) concluded that anthropogenic CO2 emissions probably caused more than half of the “global warming” of the past 50 years
Confused. The relevant statement from the IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM is “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” (p. 10). Note Monckton has substituted “more than half” for “most” (English language implication is a lesser amount), “CO2” for “greenhouse gas” (incorrect but irrelevant), “probably” for “very likely” (strong reduction in implied certainty), “past 50 years” for “since the mid-20th century” (inconsequential) and “global warming” in scare-quotes for “observed increased in global average temperatures” (appears to discredit the observations of warming).
Notice that the Arthur criticizes Monckton for being confused about the precise claim in the IPCC consensus document. Monckton may be confused about what the IPCC means.
Reading Arthur’s explantion, I wonder who isn’t? The IPCC document is rather ambiguous, and appears to require precise parsing of words. For example, Arthur explains:
- “most” doesn’t necessarily mean “more than half”. (Dictionaries agree. “Most” may or may not mean more than half. It can also mean largest portion of many. Which meaning does the IPCC intend in their explanation of their findings? Your guess is as good as mine!)
- “The past 50 years” doesn’t exactly mean “since the mid-20th century”. (Fifty year is a quantifiable. The IPCC used mid-20th century. Does that start in 1930? 1950? 1970? Is 1958 the mid-20th century? Once again: your guess is as good as mine!)
- “Probably” doesn’t mean “very likely”. (The Free Dictionary thinks they mean the same thing. The IPCC defines “very likely” as a greater than 90% probability; they don’t define the meaning of “probably”. So, does “probably” mean “very likely”? Your guess is as good as mine! )
- The list of items Monckton is confused about goes on: “CO2” is not precisely the same as “anthropogenic greenhouse gases”. (True enough! GHG’s include methane, ozone & etc.)
I agree with Arthur that the IPCC has not concluded that “anthropogenic CO2 emissions probably caused more than half of the “global warming” of the past 50 years “
People who think the IPCC said concluded that are simply confused.
APS editors & APS newsletter readers are also confused!
Before we lay the blame for this confusion on Monckton let’s remember the debate was proposed by an editor for The American Physical Society who framed the debate using these words:
There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion.
Presumably, the APS editor’s wording represents his understanding of what IPCC conclusion. Moreover, APS newsletter readers were likely to assume the APS editor was correctly conveying APS findings. A typical reader might assume the APS editor, or a second party, verified the announcement correctly portrayed the IPCC findings.
Read the bold bit again. That’s how an APS editor re-casts (or reframes) the IPCC conclusions. Those who learn about the IPCC findings from IPCC newsletters were likely to believe the IPCC findings are as described by the APS editor. He would check, right?
Now reflect a bit on Arthur’s criticism, and ask yourself:
- Who invite Monckton to specifically address “CO2” (wrong) rather than “green house gases” (right)? The APS editor!
- Who used “primarily”, which at least to Canadian taxing authorities means more than half, where the IPCC used “most” which could be a much less than half? The APS editor!
- Who substituted “global warming” (vague term) for “observed increase in global average temperatures” (specific observation) ? The APS editor!
Heck, it was the APS editor who changed “very likely” to “very probably likely”. (I honestly have no idea which of “very likely”, “probably” or “very probably likely” expresses the greatest degree of certainty. Do you? )
So, it appears that Monckton’s apparent “confusion” about the debate topic stems from answering the question the APS editor actually asked him to address.
Where did this confusion begin?
So, here are the million dollar questions: If the IPCC clearly did not say what the APS editor thinks they said, why does the APS editor believe that’s what they concluded? Why did no APS reviewer (peer or otherwise) catch this mangling of the IPCC conclusions?
I suspect the problem is this:
Many people “out there” have reframed the IPCC findings to make them seem stronger, to more specifically implicate CO2 rather than methane or other GHG’s, and to ramp up “most” to “more than half”. The vague start date of “mid 20th century” is shifted– sometimes to the mid-70s — known to be cooler due to aerosols. This shift may make the amount of warming that is “very likely” due to GHG’s seem even greater than the “consensus” suggest. (Or not. Given the vague terms in the conclusions, who knows?)
Then, some insinuate that this stronger more precise findings, specifically attributed to CO2 are the consensus position of the IPCC.
I suspect much of the reframing is done unintentionally. It’s a willy-nilly process that occurrs as people advance vague claims about “consensus” at blogs. While many wish to lean on the existence of “consensus”, they often wish to avoid detailing the actual points on which consensus exists.
A consensus does exists — somewhat different conclusions than often portrayed by people like APS editors!
Does the confusion matter?
It appears the person most guilty of “confusion” over the IPCC claims is the APS editor. Failing to fact check, and setting up the debate, he has unwittingly misrepresented those claims, and likely caused readers of the APS to mis-understand the precise points on which there is consensus.
In closing, I ask people this:
Arthur appears to believe this mangling of the IPCC conclusions is sufficiently worth of criticism. Is it? When making judgments about policy, does the APS editors restatement of the IPCC conclusions matter? Or, is the APS version (and by extention Monckton’s) sufficiently similar to guide policy or debate?
Reference: Monckton
Arthur Smith’s claim that “most” doesn’t always mean “more than half” is technically true, but the problem is that the usage when it means “more than half” is different to the usage when it doesn’t.
We say “Tony Blair won the most votes”, because he won 30% of them, and everyone else got less. But we also say “most people didn’t vote for Tony Blair”.
I think I’m right in saying that “most” is preceded by “the”, when it is used in the sense of “the largest share” or “the largest number”, but is not when used in the sense of “more than half”.
This would appear to make Monckton correct to use “more than half” in place of “most”.
Bishop–
As you see, the IPCC conclusions can be read to mean a broad range of things. 🙂
To harken back to many posts here, I think the Monckton summary of the IPCC conclusion is within the range of possible understandings of these conclusions. Really, the fault is the IPCCs for writing such a non-precise statement. I’d hate to have to rephrase that statement and retain all of the delicious ambiguities that it possesses.
I note also that Arthur says that he has become familiar with most of the issues. Less than half of them perhaps?
From the AR4 summary for policy makers
Radiative Forcing Components
CO2 = 1.66 W m-2
CH4, No2 and Halocarbons(.98) plus Ozone(.35) plus Soot (.1) plus Solar (.1) =1.53 .W m-2
Leaving over half of the positive forcings as CO2 or am I misunderstanding? When you take the negative forcings into account they get 1.6 W m-2 so we could say they wash out leaving CO2.
Hi Lucia – are you going to devote a post to each line of my critique there? That would be fun!
You are quite correct that Jeff Marque’s comments were very confused on several points. I suppose I could add a section critiquing Marque too – good idea! 🙂
Arthur–
Critique each line? Nope! At this point, I was planning to wait until you actually finish your draft to see how the whole argument hangs together. To do otherwise seems premature.
But yes, Jeff Marque is the one who kicked off the confused debate! I personally can’t blame Monckton for actually addressing the debate topic Jeff kicked off. It’s conventional to adhere to the debate as defined. So, what were those invited to do?
Bishop Hill: Your rhetorical question about “most of” I think I agree with. Most of something is more than half of it.
If something primarily is caused by a cause, that cause may be the largest of many causes but still not the most (more than half) of the total change.
So Lucia may also be wrong about “primarily”. APS: “…very probably likely to be primarily responsible…” and the sh*t after and before that phrase is hillirious, and despite the most of definition this post is wonderful! Oops! All definitions are right despite “most of”…
No one beats APS anyway!
Let me …clearify(?)
Most of a change is more than half of that changes.
Most of what caused a change may be less than half.
I think the subject of the sentence is crucial.
“Most” is “more than half” in the context, to me — context is key to the meanings of words — but even context does not guarantee that the original authors’ words always represent their intended meaning. Also, I think word parsing adds little in this particular case — because the language (as used in the above context) is not conveying highly precise meaning to begin with. Just my opinions as a typical reader.
What I would want to know is:
Can the reviewer use referenced “proven” facts and equations/math (not merely opinion or technicalities) to falsify the author’s facts and equations/math. That is, at the end of the day, I would like to see “science” refute “science” at similar levels of detail. If that cannot be done, then there is no “refutation” (to me). Rather, there is merely a “differing opinion”. And, by now, as an interested reader, I have read lots of differing opinions — so, another opinion (unsupported by a relevant level of fact and equations/math) adds little value for me.
So, it really all depends on the meaning of the word “is”.(?)
There is little or no confusion here: There can at this stage remain little doubt about the fact that the various IPCC reports over the past 20 years are deliberately biased documents construed to show but one thing: the “A” in a possible GW. As Einstein famously pointed out: one verifiable fact can prove an entire theory wrong. As one who has learned to separate the chaff from the wheat, we are most probably there.
There can also be no confusion about the other matter either: when a blog host throws the proverbial fox into the chicken coop, feathers will fly. They have. Curriculum vitae….
This is very likely one of the funniest debates I have ever seen.
Superlatives use “the” when a comparison is made between more than one thing. When comparing one thing with itself “the” is not used.
“Most” in the IPCC sentence is an indefinite pronoun used as the subject of the sentence. It is, by definition, the greatest number or part. The greatest number or part neither implies a number or part greater than half of the whole nor does it imply a lesser magnitude. It is ambiguous.
If Monckton used that single sentence to infer a magnitude, he erred. Smith errs by saying, “English language implication is a lesser amount.”
All that being said, I wonder to which linguistic publication this is being submitted?
Magnus, “Most” is the subject in both your sentences.
Lucia (and Arthur) – As used by IPCC, the term “most of” not only conveys the meaning of more than half, but actually conveys the idea of substantially more than half, as in “a preponderance” or “nearly all” (see http://www.thefreedictionary.com – “most
pronoun nearly all, the majority, the mass, almost all, the bulk, the lion’s share, the preponderance”
Collins Essential Thesaurus 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2005, 2006). If anything, the English language implication of most is a greater amount than a simple majority not a lesser amount as implied in the quoted text above.
As to the other “criticisms”, the issue with CO2 vs. all GHGs can probably be traced to the emphasis from climate scientists on the sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 and the resulting focus by the popular press on CO2 as the primary anthropogenic GHG. Similarly, use of the term global warming can be blamed on climate scientist themselves or the popular press. The other items are merely nits.
I agree that confusion could be traced to the APS editors bolded sentence since it is one of the most poorly constructed, weasel-word loaded sentences I have ever read.
None this silly parsing should hinder the important discussion of whether the current best estimates of climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 are accurate, biased high, or biased low. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, man has pumped tons and tons of CO2 and other GHGs into the atmosphere. Over the same time frame as this pumping of GHGs into the atmosphere has occurred, the estimated average global temperature has increased somewhat. The central question is “Does the rise in the estimated global average temperature experienced to date presage a climatic catastrophe for man due to the emission of anthropogenic GHGs into the atmosphere?” I have seen nothing that convinces me we have a good handle on the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2, whether or not a majority of the estimated increase in the global average surface temperatures since the mid-20th century are due to man or not.
Bob North,
Sometimes you have to simplify to understand.
Spot ate more of X than Dick. Dick ate more of X than Jane. Most of X were eaten by Spot. Did spot eat more than half? Maybe. Maybe not. It’s ambiguous. 😉
Editted to add “of X” after I realized the sentences made more sense than I thought when I wrote them. 😉
I hate it when my computer doesn’t display editting properly. 🙁
After a lifetime in low-level journalism I am an expert on weasel words. The use of words and phrases “likely”, “probably”, “very likely probably”, “most” and so forth are intended to conceal facts or to conceal absence of facts. It is always an indication of lying, or of
uncertain knowledge. Believe me. I’m a professional liar, and good at it.
If Arthur is suggesting that the IPCC means less than half then he’s just become a skeptic. How low do you go Arthur? Nir Shaviv says 30%. Do you agree? In fact, as Monckton points out later, it is an inherent assumption of many of the IPCC calculations and those by numerous other researchers that the recent warming is 100% from greenhouse gases; principally CO2. Furthermore it is often assumed that any cooling, or “masked warming” in AGW speak, is 100% due to man as well. That warmers continually contradict themselves like this is amusing but pathetic. I’ve been illustrating some of these blatant hand-waving contradictions on several blogs and nobody ever challenges them. Yet there are so many contradictions to choose from a fellow can’t keep up. Smith is just another shoddy example; happy to repeat everywhere that warming was mostly from man, yet by redefining most as maybe less than half, his argument is utterly meaningless. “Humpty Dumpty” Smith it seems.
I can’t believe that Arthur engaged in such pointless, trivial, nitpicking; and is then worried about a copyright infringment on that nitpicking.
In the context where the IPCC used it, I certainly interpreted their use of “most” as being more than half. Smith puts us in the position of using others exact wording when discussing their position, because the shades of meaning might be slighly different if we do not. Considering the imprecise nature of the IPCC statement, this is plainly absurd, and I don’t believe for a second that Smith himself does this. Is this the level of triviality to which the defense of AGW has fallen? Are they next going to tell us that only real climate scientists are allowed to nitpick the English language?
Tilo–
There is actually a substantive point buried in the nitpicking.
Think about this: What are the policy implications of the consensus position if Arthur’s reading is correct and both Christopher and the APS editor are confused? That would sugges, according to the consensus, CO2 is not as strongly implicated in warming as some calling for carbon taxes suggest.
If the IPCC uses “most” as in “I got most of the pie!” when I mean I got the largest of eight slices, and if they don’t mean CO2 is primarily responsible, then maybe we are over focusing on CO2 and would get more bang for the buck worrying about methane, land use changes, ozone, and adapting to the natural variability of our planet.
The alternate view is, of course, that the IPCC meant (but did not quite say) precisely what Christopher Monckton and the APS editor suggested in their paraphrase. In which case, criticizing Christopher for confusion is unwarranted.
My view is this: The IPCC decided to write an utterly vague statement. They think something is “very likely” (i.e. >90% probability). However, they can’t quite bring themselves to agree what that “something” is!
The result is that when someone wishes to push for carbon taxes, they feel free to imply that the IPCC consensus is that over 50% of the warming since (pick your year) is due specifically to CO2. In contrast, if they wish to criticize a Monckton for suggesting the IPCC said that, they can criticize Monckton for suggesting the IPCC drew this conclusion.
As a consensus document, the words in the AR4 were carefully chosen and reviewed. I think the likely reason the wording is vague: There is no consensus on any more strongly worded or direct statement.
Bob North is correct, and I’m sorry I didn’t spot that Lucia had misinterpreted my meaning (I’ve had rather a lot on my mind lately – I noticed at the gym Friday morning my resting pulse rate was up considerably). To my mind, “most” means on the order of 2/3 or more, not 1/2 or more. If I hear “most” I think around 70%. If I hear “more than half” I think maybe 55%. Monckton’s restatement of the IPCC’s conclusion was, apparently deliberately, though possibly based on Marque’s even more imprecise framing, less certain than the IPCC’s statement (and Bob North is also correct that IPCC actually defines many of the terms like “very likely” in a more precise fashion, though I hadn’t noticed a definition of “most”).
But I didn’t think this was a particularly important point, just an imprecision on Monckton’s part, perhaps deliberate, perhaps accidental. The page in question is intended to be a list of *all* the errors, confusion, cherry-picking, etc in Monckton’s article, important or not. It’s a very long list, but it’s mainly a response to Monckton’s claim in his rebuttal to my draft letter that I had used the word “polemic” and dismissed his introductory and concluding arguments without showing how they were wrong. If he really wants to see why they’re wrong, this is the list (still in progress, I’m only about 40% of the way through my notes).
By the way, I have taken the liberty of rephrasing that section to (I hope) be clearer on my meaning. I haven’t figured out how to acknowledge Lucia there yet though (I’m still pondering adding a section on Marque), so thanks from here for now.
Arthur– Clarifying your meaning would be wise. I did assume the paranthetical statment immediately after “most” was suggesting that “most” was a lesser amount than “more than half”. This is particularly, as the “most” can mean less than 1/2 in English.
For example:
http://www.brainyquote.com/words/mo/most192060.html
On the one hnad, “Consisting of the greatest number of quantity”, can be less than half. On the other hand, “nearly all” is way more than 2/3. “Greater in number of quantity than all the rest” would correspond to Monckton’s “more than half”. Which the IPCC means is unclear.
It would also be wise if the IPCC used terms other than “most” when stating the consensus of things that are more than 90% likely. Unfortunately, neither you, nor I nor anyone else
I realize you may wish to make your paper a catch-all including all possible ways to criticize Monckton for all possible things, but it might be better to focus on the more important bits. Let’s face it, if you start out a document criticizing someone for thinking “most” means “more than half”, internet readers are likely to just roll their eyes and surf.
I don’t see where the confusion is!
From AR4 Chapter 2, page 131
Interesting debate on the meaning of words. However, the true intent can usually be found in the actions that follow. And from this it is clear that the IPCC has attempted to convey to policy makers that anthropogenic GHGs have caused warming beyond what is natural and will cause catastrophic change. Hiding behind dictionary definitions doesn’t change this. Further, they do nothing to distance themselves from the CO2 = GHG because only through regulation of CO2 can their real objectives be met. Until we can get non-biased science evaluated with out an agenda the true story will remain hidden.
BarryW: “I don’t see where the confusion is!”
Okay, let’s look at IPCC.
IPCC: “…it is extremely likely (>95%) that humans have exerted a substantial warming influence on climate.”
I this IPCC document there is a table translating “very likely”, “extremely likely” and about ten other phrases (“about as likley than not” is one of a few of my favorites) into precise figures as it were statistics behind the use of these phrases. But are there any scientific results behind these figures where the words are used int the document. I’m sad I have to say NO.
Also, what is substantial? If substantial can be 1/10, or 1/4 of the temperature increase I do agree with this sentence from IPCC (except the 95% probability!!).
IPCC: “Increasing concentrations of the long-lived greenhouse gases…”
I agree there is such increases, but how much of the CO2 increase is human caused? The sea continously emits and absorb 30 times more CO2 than the human CO2 emissions. Henry’s law should control the CO2 concentration; maybe 5 or 10 percent of the 30 percent increase is du to human emissions. See data on this here and here.
IPCC: “…have led to a combined RF of +2.63 [±0.26] W m–2.”
I agree here too. But what is the climate sensitivity to this forcing? IPCC assume 0.5K/(W/m2) due to strong positive feedbacks from clouds and water vapor. But both of these important feedbacks has been proven to be negative feedbacks (see about Aqua and water vapor, and clouds-article or nice clouds-lecture) and thus there shall not be a larger temperature increase than we can expect from the immediate (direct) energy from the added antropogenic greenhouse gases.
Due to empirical data we should expect the climate sensetivity to be well below 0.2K/(W/m2).
Sound criticism towards IPCC from Spencer also in this article.
–
BarryW. You may see IPCC as absolute truth, without any linguistic or scientific problems at all. And here I hope I showed you that this isn’t the case.
I don’t deny that GHG has increased, I don’t deny that humans has done at least a substantial part of that increase (1/6 or 1/3 of it?), and I don’t deny that this GHG increase force the temperature of the atmosphere to increase.
But I also don’t deny that data shows thah IPCC has got feedback from water vapor and clouds totally wrong and thus exaggerate climate sensitivity. Do you deny this?
Anyone want to comment on how the conclusions of the IPCC may put emphasis on which part of the forcings they think is most important and therefore, indirectly, support the interpretation of MOST???
kuhnkat: “Anyone want to comment on how the conclusions of the IPCC may put emphasis on which part of the forcings they think is most important and therefore, indirectly, support the interpretation of MOST???”
Good idea (see the bold words)… 😉
Well. Instead of analyzing the (ugly sloppy) AGW science of IPCC, and the size of different forcing there, I will analyze tha language (although I’m not speaking English very well …but logical thinking I think I can manage to a certain degree) :
If something can only consists of two parts, then “most of” has to be more than half. If we talk about the antropogenic cause of global warming there is — if no more information are available — only one intuitive excluding category to that expression, namely non-antropogenic cause.
IPCC may not be perfectly clear, because they say “Most of the observed increase … due to the observed due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations“. They should have skipped “greenhouse gas concentration”, because there are many non-antropogenic causes which isn’t GHG and therefor “anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations” has not only one-, but two intuitive excluding categories. We can have 40% antropogenic GHG, 30% non-antropogenic GHG, and 30% non-antropogenic non-GHG.
IPCC may have been a bit more distinct if they’d used the word “cause” instead of “GHG”. (The more general word “cause” is better because its opposite word, “non-cause”, is irrelevant — so that we just got two categories.)
This was btw why I argued that the stand alone expression “most of” a total change should mean at least half of that change. Otherwise the interpretation of the phrase is dependent on if there are two or more possible causes of the change, and when that information isn’t given we have no idea what “most of” means. So, without any additional information about categories I assume that “most of” is more than half. Otherwise no one can say if it refere to, say, 5 percent or …less. 😉 If the number of causes isn’t explicitly or implicitly given I argue that the correct interpretation is that “most of” is more than half.
Thus, in a sentence which mention (refere to) only one category I argue that since we have no information about the number of causes, we shall assume that there is only two categories: (1) the cause mentionedand, and (2) all other not mentioned causes.
Thus, the interpretation of IPCC is that they say “more than half”.
(Missed to switch off italic.)
Magnus A,
… and when that information isn’t given we have no idea what “most of†means.
If we have no idea what “most” means, “most” shouldn’t be used.
Raphael: “If we have no idea what “most†means, “most†shouldn’t be used.”
That’s right, but it only happens when we think that “most of” isn’t “more than half”. That was the case I disussed in the sentence that you quoted; the problem with refusal to define “most of” as “more than half”.
We can only have an idea of what “most of” means if we assume that there is only two categories — the mentioned category which it is most of, and another category including all other categories.
Shall I repeat?
Magnus A,
Far be it for me to say what you can assume or not assume. I prefer keeping personal assumptions to a minimum.
I assure you there is no reason to hold onto the “more than half” definition. If the writing was clear, there is no reason to assume anything; the definition will be evident. If the writing is not clear, the writer should find another way to express himself.
Raphael– I agree. And in this particular instance, it would have been quite eay for the IPCC to use rough fractions. “More than one third”, “More than half”, “More than 2/3rd” are all clear and short.
What the IPCC means is a matter of some importance as it was the basis of conclusions by Naomi Oreskes about the near universal consensus on “global climate change.” Further, the IPCC consensus was used by Mooney, the Boycoffs and Gore to rally the press against discussions with deniers (those outside the consensus) while themselves promoting a 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit increase over the next century in global average temperatures that “most” climate scientists would find doubtful. BTW, preponderance of evidence in a civil case at law is more than half — 51%; beyond a reasonable doubt has been placed by some studies as low as 70 percent. So, maybe Arthur would argue that the consensus is beyond a reasonable doubt. Oh, the tangled web we weave, when we parse words to fit what we believe. (And this applies to us all.)
..and lo, it was fortold, in a long ago deleted Climate Audit post, that the disputation of “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?†would be reborn.
The IPCC and particularly the SPM words were reviewed to exhaustion; and they were finalized with deliberate intent to mislead.
I’m reminded of Dr. Hansen’s well chosen words, with the same motive when trying to resuscitate the failure of his record-setting alarmist warming warnings of late 2006 (and early 2007). After 2007 did not measure up to his catastrophic pronouncements, Hansen rationalized by saying, “The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Nino – La Nina cycle.” Setting the gross latency error aside, Hansen’s real-time deception was clearly pandering to his faithful, by misstating the dynamics of the forcings. Hansen knew exactly what he was doing, as much the SPM authors knew exactly what they were doing.
“…they were finalized with deliberate intent to mislead.”
If you’re not comfortable with “to mislead” (though I am), perhaps “to bias toward AGW” would suffice.
BarryW wins the Rabett RTFR award for this thread. Well done, sir!
So you think you can dance, Boris?
Either way it’s a conspiracy, mccall.
An aside: The fact that the evidence is getting stronger for AGW can be discerned from the preponderance of conspiracy theories in blog comments such as these. In other words, some of you guys have become proxies yourself. 🙂
Raphael: “Far be it for me to say what you can assume or not assume. I prefer keeping personal assumptions to a minimum.
“I assume” wasn’t my personal assumption. I used this phrase since I presented (and invited readers to) logics step by step, where logics well prove the case. It described what definition of “more of” we with no excemption have to assume due to logics, and that the opposite is impossible. I could have – and obviously should have – used the words “we have to assume” instead. So please replace “I assume” with “we must assume”.
Raphael: “I assure you there is no reason to hold onto the “more than half†definition.
Assure me. Without arguments.
Raphael: ” If the writing was clear, there is no reason to assume anything; the definition will be evident.”
The definition is the definition, and it makes writing clear. To write clear science is a challenge that depends upon definitions and grammar. The definition of “most of” is clear, as I have shown.
Raphael: “If the writing is not clear, the writer should find another way to express himself.”
The content of written text depends on definitions of words and phrases. We are now discuss the definition of a word and I can’t see how obvious talk like this is relevant arguments! They may looks like insinuations towards me, but they ar not arguments.
Raphael: “Far be it for me to say what you can assume or not assume. I prefer keeping personal assumptions to a minimum.
“I assume” wasn’t my personal assumption. I used this phrase since I presented (and invited readers to) logics step by step, where logics well prove the case. It described what definition of “more of” we with no excemption have to assume due to logics, and that the opposite is impossible. I could have – and obviously should have – used the words “the conclusion must be” instead. So please replace “I assume” and “I argue” with “the conclusion must be”, and then reply again!
Raphael: “I assure you there is no reason to hold onto the “more than half†definition.
Assure me. Without arguments.
Raphael: ” If the writing was clear, there is no reason to assume anything; the definition will be evident.”
The level to which writing is clear depends (among some other things) on distinct definitions. We have had a discussion about defenition, and as I have proved the definition of “most of” is “more than half”. I urge you to replace “I assume” and “I argue” with “the conclusion must be” in my latest comment and reply again. I you refuse to do this, it would appear as if you hold your own assumptions of the definition for true rather than what the definition must be due to logics.
The Longman dictionary says:
“Most determiner, pron (superlative of many, much) 1 [(of)] nearly all: Most people take their holidays in the summer. | He spends most of his time traveling.”
That’s the only definiton of “most of” in the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English.
Raphael: “If the writing is not clear, the writer should find another way to express himself.”
The content of written text depends on definitions of words and phrases. I’ve shown by logics that “most of” has to be “more than half, and also Longman Dictionary has this definition of “most of”. I’ve been clear enough.
Also we are now discuss definition of a phrase, and I can’t see how obvious talk like this is an argument. It more looks like an insinuation, and I think you can adopt it to yourself.
Raphael: “Far be it for me to say what you can assume or not assume. I prefer keeping personal assumptions to a minimum.
“I assume” wasn’t my personal assumption. I used this phrase since I presented (and invited readers to) step by step logic, where I proved the case. It described what definition of “more of” we due to logics with no excemptions must assume; that anoher definitoin is impossible. I could have – and obviously should have – used the words “the conclusion must be” instead. So please replace phrases like “I assume”, “we shall assume”, and “I argue” with “the conclusion must be”, and then reply again.
Raphael: “I assure you there is no reason to hold onto the “more than half†definition.
Assure me? Without any argument?
Raphael: ” If the writing was clear, there is no reason to assume anything; the definition will be evident.”
The level to which writing is clear depends (among other things) on distinct definitions. We have had a discussion about defenition, and as I have proved the definition of “most of” is “more than half”. I urge you to replace “I assume” and “I argue” with “the conclusion must be” in my latest comment and reply again. I you refuse to do that, it would appear as if you hold your own assumptions of the definition for true rather than what the definition must be due to logics.
Also, the only definition of “most of” in the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English is:
“Most determiner, pron (superlative of many, much) 1 [(of)] nearly all: Most people take their holidays in the summer. | He spends most of his time traveling.”
Raphael: “If the writing is not clear, the writer should find another way to express himself.”
The content of written text depends on definitions of words and phrases. I’ve shown by logics that “most of” has to be “more than half, and also Longman Dictionary has this definition of “most of”. I’ve been clear enough.
We discuss definition of a phrase, and I can’t see how the obvious talks of yours is arguments. It more looks like an insinuation, and I think you can adopt it to yourself.
Lucia, here’s what the most recent US CCSP report http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/usp/public-review-draft/(out for comment) says:
“The fact that the evidence is getting stronger for AGW…”
Too bad, that scientific ignorance gene isn’t recessive in your family.
Lucia: Please, no insults like this.
Magnus A,
Are you sure you just don’t want to trust me?
No? *sigh*
Assure you without arguments? There, there it’ll be all right. Language should be natural. You shouldn’t have to do backflips to understand what an author meant. He is suppose to make the meaning clear when he is doing all that yucky writing. Just let the sentence do the work. If it fails you, blame the writer.
Now if you actually wanted arguments, without arguing:
(Apologies if some of this sounds redundant, I am repeating some of what I have already said for the sake of clarity.)
“Most of” is not stand alone. Properly, it is “most (of the)”. It means “most used with the preposition of”. It must be used with a definitive, though it need not be the definitive article “the”.
a) Most of the apples are red.
b) Most of Bob’s apples are red.
“Most” is the subject, “are” is the predicate. “Most are red,” is a more ambiguous sentence, but still valid. “Most” is used in these sentences as an indefinite pronoun. The definition of Most as a pronoun is “the greatest number or part”
The sentence a) can be rewritten as: The greatest number or part of the apples are red.
Here we have a compound subject, to help clarify we can break it up into two sentences.
The greatest number of the apples is red.
OR
The greatest part of the apples is red.
Now lets look at the important parts of the sentence in question:
Most of the … increase … is …
“Most” is the subject.
“Is” is the predicate.
“Increase” is the object of the propsition of.
Now rewrite and break:
The greatest number of the increase is…
The greatest part of the increase is…
There is no reason to show preference to only one portion of the definition. So, we cannot simply choose one sentence over the other. But even if we could, both are ambiguous.
But, you have your argument. So let’s take a look at the core of that argument.
If something can only consists of two parts, then “most of†has to be more than half.
Can an increase only consist of two parts? No.
But let’s assume it can be divided into only two parts. It is not grammatically correct to use a superlative when referring to only two things. It is grammatical to use a comparitive in those cases. (More instead of Most)
Now, depending on linguistic prescription, it can be considered grammatically correct to use a superlative when referring to two things, but only if there is a possibility of more than two. The higgest bidder… There could have been only two people bidding, and the winner could still be referred to as the highest bidder. But that caveat returns the ambiguity in the case we are examining.
Magnus A,
I just noticed you used a definition from Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English.
In this case I clicked the link Lucia gave for likely (the free dictionary) and searched most, and transcribed the first definition for most as a pronoun. (I used the definition early on.)
*shrugs*
I really don’t think the definition matters though. Definitions are derived from the use of meanings that are clearly understood. Your “definitions are definitions” argument might have had some merit if Dictionaries came before language.
Let’s take a different tack.
The “More than half” definition, we can define as
Most (A)(B) = true iff set ( A intersection B ) is greater than set (A – B.) (excuse my sloppy notation)
Where A is the main set and B is the superlative subset. This definition basically says there are only two subsets of importance in set A. As I pointed out, comparing only two things is not the job of a superlative. So, I don’t know what to tell you. I think it is a case where definitions of commonly used bad grammar is added to a dictionary.
Suffice to say that it appears (from this blog) that here are quite a few “borderline” skeptics (scientists) or agnostics? in the climate science business. Is this a fair comment?
Vincent– There appear to be lots of lukewarmers and/or skeptics in comments. I believe the general theory of AGW is correct. I’m unconvinced about the abilities of models or groups of people creating input to models to predict particularly accurately– but I think the direction for temperature is “up”, I think humans have elevated the amount of GHG’s, and I think GHG’s cause temperature to go up. How much… I don’t know.
“Human-caused increases in the emissions of heat-trapping gases are responsible for most of the warming observed over the past 50 years.”
That is a strange formulation. It is the increase in the concentration of heat-trapping gases that is responsible (or not) for the warming, not the increase in emissions. For instance, methane emissions are rising, but the concentration is more or less stagnant (for reasons unknown, and no one really wants to talk about it…). Humans are not “causing increases in emissions”, they are emitting GHG’s, that would have otherwise stayed buried. Furthermore, we are told that even if we decrease emissions, temperatures will keep rising.
I would rather have said: “Increases in atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping gases, largely caused by human emissions, are responsible for most of the warming observed over the past 50 years”. Of course, there is also the issue that there has not been warming for 50 years, but rather more like 30 years (since 1975), but that would sound less dramatic, wouldn’t it? You don’t want people to start asking too many questions.
And I don’t know what “most” means. It’s vague enough it could mean anything. I guess that’s the idea. Why give a precise number for sensitivity (with error margins), when you can just make vague statements about warming and emissions.
Semantics aside, are we going to have a scientific debate on AGW between an IT manager and a bored English aristocrat? I don’t mind amateur scientists, but aren’t there more competent people out there? I am 100% sure that many professional scientists do not agree with the so-called consensus, and resent the alarmism. One problem is that climate science (and science in general) is a very broad field, and scientists are very specialized, so no one really has a grasp of the whole thing, and most scientists will be reluctant to express an opinion on something that falls outside their expertise (and they generally dislike those who do). Furthemore, the way that the dissenters are treated is not to encourage anyone to speak up.
It seems that C02 may be on the way down….Latest data showing a down trend, only one month but we shall see.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/
FrancoisO
I think Monckton and Arthur debating is fine. The difficulty for the APS debate is this:
If you are a professional, publishing in a newsletter is a no-win situation either way. It’s a lot of trouble to write up a decent article. The article will be somewhat reviewed– meaning there will be time consuming back and forth. But, since the journal is not “peer reviewed”, the article is considered grey literature. So, why go to the trouble.
I can understand why the invited people posted. If one were putting something down for tenure or promotion, being invited to speak has some prestige. But just writing a letter to APS? It’s got no more prestige than writing a letter to your local suburban newspaper!
If the article isn’t going to bring any professional or personal benefits, why not just blog?
I can’t agree with these semantics Lucia. This is stupid descontructionist argumentation.
Clearly we are now saying that the IPCC stated that human CO2 emissions may have had some indeterminate affect on temperatures over some undefined 50 year period in the past.
Excellent.
So why do we NEED to do anything about this then?
Paul it is not a deconstructionist argument. Arthur is making more of most than should be made.
Raphael, have at that.
Steven,
I’d add “in a scientific rebuttal” to the end of the second sentence. But otherwise, *thumbs up* .
But I think in all cases it is important to remember, “A woodchuck would chuck as much wood as a woodchuck could chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood.”
For what it’s worth, my intent was simply to clarify remarks that were made. I didn’t really intend on debating with Magnus, though sometimes debating can be fun and one gets carried away.
Remarkably, I have a piece of paper that says that I might know something about the subject. Of course, I don’t put stock in that piece of paper. However, in this specific case, I once wrote a paper about this very subject. Sounds crazy doesn’t it? A paper on the grammatical use of Most? *chuckles* But, it’s true.
What is probably crazier, is that there are peer reviewed articles on the subject. I have actually looked at some of the articles which were written after I wrote my non-peer reviewed “write it to get an A” paper. Many of those papers define most the same as Magnus. Which is, as I pointed out, contrary to the concept of the superlative. I have yet to find an article which defines a superlative in new manner, so I am at a loss.
Raphael:
“A woodchuck would chuck what a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.”
I still don’t know if the woodchuck will chuck most of the wood. 🙂
He could boast, “I chucked the most,” if the clarity of quantity leads to ambiguity in reality.
Raphael: Of importance: You discuss “most”. I’m consistently discuss “most of”. I havn’t got one minute now (but I really do got an head ace), and I’ve not read your answers yet, but I’ll be back tomorrow.
Magnus A,
When I am discussing “most”, I am discussing “most” as used in the sentence in question. If you feel I am not, too bad. *chuckles* Seriously though, just point out a specific example when your up to it, and I’ll clarify. 🙂
I’m not going to go digging through IPCC WG 1 but my recollection is that the exact figure is .76C + / – .18 C. 1950 would be your starting year “mid 20th Century” as opposed to 1976 which would be the “end of mid 20th century cooling period.” Monkton (or anyone else) is in error by saying “50 years” as this would be 1958. The difference between the global temps between 1950 and 2006 is about .75 C (HadCRUT3). The diference between 1958 and 2006 is about .43 C. (and yes, there was a La Nina involved.)
1950 is a natural starting point because of confidence in the data after 1950, it’s all throughout the literature… and the more conspiratorial minded among us would point out that the IPCC cherry picked that year because it was a cooler than average year due to a strong La Nina.
Never the less, the correct figure that the IPCC did not want to say was that it was very likely that more than half (.76C) of the warming from 1950 to 2006 (at least if not more than .38 C) was caused by human influence. “Very likely” was later defined as 90%. I seriously doubt that the public would be alarmed by that figure, which the more conspiratorial minded among us would point out that this is probably why they were so vague.
Lucia, my other point, your statement “The vague start date of “mid 20th century†is shifted– sometimes to the mid-70s — known to be cooler due to aerosols.” or at least that it was “known to be cooler due to aerosols.” Known to be due to aerosols? Or is that what they have to program into the models to prevent a runaway greenhouse effect? Now, I would invite you to use your knowledge of the past year or two where there was a temperature decrease, where the main cause was the transition from a weak El Nino to Moderate La Nina. Now go back and compare those same years (mid 20th century cooling period 1948 – 1977) on your temp graph to any of the Nino indexes (MEI, ONI or SOI, if you use SOI then don’t forget to invert it). I won’t give ya a clue, just tell me what most affected the mid 20th century cooling period… aerosols?