Although I did ask Anthony Carrot’s question about the surface temperatures, the notion of interviewing people didn’t pan out on Sunday. (More bout that later.) Today, before heading off again, I’ll show a photomontage to give you an idea what Sunday was like, and who attended. As most of you know, the first presentation was not until roughly 8pm. However, the blogger welcome meeting at noon. For various and sundry reasons, I arrived at 1:05 pm, just in time to miss it. Nevertheless, I was able to get my blogger credentials, which permit me to mill around, get dinner, and generally do and see almost anything I liked. The result is I will be mostly showing the facilities.
The credentials came along with the blogger swag:
Speakers, presenters and sponsors attended speakers luncheon. Not being a speaker, I didn’t attend though I snuck is for 5 minutes. I spotted Chip Knappenberger, and we stepped out. Later, I snapped this photo of someone leaving the luncheon.
As typical for most meetings, Sunday is devoted to keynotes, breakout meetings and networking. Topical presentations start on Monday. For this meeting, regular registration began at 3pm. Between 1 pm and 3pm, I milled around and watched the vendors set up. The O’Toole brothers from Greenytease.com were very friendly and modeled a t-shirt for me.
While most presenters and speakers went to their rooms, Roy Spencer remained downstairs for an interview:
Naturally, I returned to the vendor room:
There was a reception around 5pm. I sipped wine and spent much of the time talking to Chip Knappenberger (we both agree on the Cuccinelli thing.) I met or talked to a variety of people, including Pat Michaels, Craig Loehl, Fred Singer, David Douglas, SteveM, Anthony Watts and all sort of people whose names I do not remember. (I also was given some cards, so I’ll look them up later.) Fred has asked me to talk to him about a paper is is trying to prepare; I’ll be doing that today.
Around 8pm, dinner began. Only the back tables were empty by the time I arrived. I spotted Steve Milloy; thinking it would be interesting to chat with him, I sat there. Some seats were being ‘saved’ by people; this status was indicated by napkins draped over the seat. So, guess who’d saved one of them.
Anyway, I chatted with Steve Milloy during the dinner. It was clear he’d never heard of me (the horror!) Alexa ranks– but only after I blundered and suggested he ran “CO2 Science”. Heh. Anyway, after I mentioned my Alexa rank of 127,000 or there abouts, he suggested whether one has a wikipedia entry is a better metric. I conceded that he was correct.
For those wondering, Steve Milloy and I disagree on the Cucinelli thing and also on whether or not the whole AGW debate will end soon. He seems to think the debate will end in 7 months resolved in the direction her prefers. I suggested this was rather unlikely.
Steve McIntyre spoke after dinner:
SteveM’s talk had a technical flavor, but also discussed the history of the hockey stick controversy, including information gleaned from the CRU emails.
Here are some people applauding Steve:
After the keynotes, people milled in the halls. I discussed the meeting so far with a student debate club who had driven down from Milwaukee to attend. They seemed to be enjoying the meeting.
I hope this gave you a notion of the flavor of Sunday’s events. As with many professional society meetings, it Sunday was very social. That said, this one was more lavish. For one thing, drinks were served during social hour were included with registration.
Now, I have to get ready to catch the train. It’s turned cool (though not unseasonably so) in Chicago, and I promised Pat Michael’s I’d bring a sweater.
Ciao for now. Please behave in comments.
I hope you thought about the handsome hubby and stuffed a few of those pastries in your purse
Lucia, your first picture, the guy holding the baby I believe is Marc Morano of Climate Depot who worked with Sen. Inhofe.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/marc-morano_march-2007-blog.jpg
Any chance you got to ask Douglass about checking his email?
Sounds like it was fun, even if you haven’t gotten to ask many questions. Definitely can’t till the presentations are made available at Heartland’s site.
Andrew FL– I can try to catch David Douglas tomorrow.
Poptech. It is fun. That said, for better or worse, the flavor is not like a conference organized by a professional society (i.e. ASME, IEEE etc.)
I’ll show some more swag tomorrow or Thursday.
Great to see some youth came. There should be more effort on getting students to come in and see this in the future.
I’d say you won’t be sitting next to Milloy for dinner this evening. Being in the business he’s in, he really ought to know you by now.
Overall great pics – hope to see more
P Gosselin
There are also a quite a few adult clearly younger than I am. I didn’t quiz them all on their age or what they do, but they were attending.
Were there lots of people older than I? Yes.
I don’t think Milloy has been paying attention to blogs at all. They are under the radar for him.
Lucia, thanks for these updates. At first I was sceptical of a lukewarmer going to a denialist conference, but I’m enjoying the peek behind the scenes (Morano has kids?).
.
One question: on a Dutch sceptical site a blogger who is also attending the conference wrote that McIntyre didn’t elicit a lot of response with his talk about keeping the debate civil, or as someone on tAV put it: “McIntyre’s speech contradicted many of the beliefs held by the audience and institute.”
.
According to the Dutch blogger McIntyre even commented on the discrepancy between the way the audience received him before and after his speech.
.
When, if ever, will McIntyre dissociate himself from the denialists? Do the skeptics/lukewarmers still need the denialists after the success of Climategate?
.
And another question: what is the ratio of denialism vs scepticism on this conference?
Neven, you calling it a “denialist” conference shows a lack of intellectual honesty. I will repost my position on McIntyre here,
I am disappointed with Steve M’s position about not questioning government’s ability to implement policy as if they can never be challenged. If this is a standard view in Canada it is no wonder they let government role all over them. This makes me slightly concerned about Steve’s rationality to all this. His stance on not calling fraud, fraud because of academic precedence is unacceptable. Since when are academics above the law? Most of his explanation on his reasoning came off like doublespeak and I was disappointed to hear it. Don’t get me wrong I respect his professionalism but trying to explain why he does not consider it fraud or rather why it should not matter sounds like excuses. This the reason why he received a standing ovation before the speech and not after. No one wants a witch hunt but Mann and those involved deserve whatever criminal charges that can be brought against them. If the policy stakes were not this high, I would understand leniency but this is not some minor academic dispute.
I find your last question idiotic.
.
That’s a lovely contradiction you put together in one sentence!
.
The conference is organised by the Heartland Institute, which, as far as I’m concerned, is a denialist organisation. They have to be, as they are libertarian free market fundamentalists. That’s their problem, but why a genuine skeptic would ever want to associate him- or herself with it will always be beyond me.
.
And Poptech, just for your information, there’s a big difference between skeptics and denialists. If I’m not mistaken, you belong to the latter category. Again, no problem, but please don’t be posing yourself as a skeptic.
What is the Heartland Institute denying? And why would someone not want to be associated with an institution that actually understands economics?
Neven, please stop smearing me with your lies.
Okay, I’ll stop smearing you with my lies. I hope you’ll also refrain from answering questions that weren’t for you to answer.
Neven:
If you wanted just Lucia to answer them, perhaps use private email next time?
Otherwise, they are fair game and you are just being a silly twit.
Neven:
I have always marveled at the tendency by warmists (and the left end of the spectrum in general) to demand that others disengage and denounce selected targets (e.g., Monkton, Watts, etc) but never feel an obligation to purify their own tacit associations.
Why don’t warmists sites routinely denounce the expressly silly claims in An Inconvenient Truth or denounce the needlessly ad hominem and rather pompous tone of Joe Romm. Are warmists required to reject any silly warmist prattle that I can dig up before acquiring the right to comment?
The undeniable fact is that non-alarmists are more eclectic and tolerant of dissenting views than are alarmists. Some non-alarmists dispute the alarmist interpretation of the science, others condemn the politicization of the process and some accept the science of warming but reject the statist/central planning solutions. That alarmist purists can lump disparate figures like Monkton, Morano, Roger Pielke (Sr. and Jr.) Bjorn Lombborg and now Mike Hulme into the same heretical camp says more about the alarmist mindset than it does about the targeted figures.
On the warmist side, any acknowledgment of any weakness in any scientific work purporting to support it or any apparent departure from the orthodox policy option of central control and pricing of fossil fuel use is a form of heresy against which the flying monkeys (Romm down to the likes of bugs and sod) will be dispatched out of tribal instinct.
You comment that the Heartland Institute “has to be denialist” because of “free-market fundamentalism” makes about as much sense as saying someone has to be an alarmist simply because he is an leftist twit who never left campus. That kind of reductionism is both stupid and lazy. The climate issue can be a pretty rich discussion environment but not if it is dominated by caricature.
Lucia wrote:
“the flavor is not like a conference organized by a professional society”
My guess is that the contents aren’t similar either.
I’ve never seen it, but I was not under the impression it had that many errors in it. Seems some perceived errors are strawmen, in that critics rebut things that aren’t actually in there. But I’ve not seen it, nor have a transcript handy.
I don’t like Romm’s style at all. There, does that make you happy?
Then again, it’s overtly political and doesn’t pretend to be otherwise. Which is maybe why I hardly ever read it, and would not recommend it to anybody wanting to become educated in the science.
But there’s style, and there’s being a crackpot (Monckton and the world government stuff) or scientifically incompetent (any number of things on WUWT). I would really have it in for Romm if he posted things anywhere near as inept as, say, this one
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/28/a-look-at-4-globaltemperature-anomalies/
or maybe this one
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/09/co2-condensation-in-antarctica-at-113f/
or combining the incompetence with accusations of the worst sort of scientific malpractice
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/26/new-paper-on-surface-temperature-records/
There’s being tolerant of dissenting views (so long as they’re coming from somewhere in your tribe, I see, so they can’t be that dissenting at all), and there’s being tolerant of incompetence. Is that something to be proud of?
Carrot Eater, the fact that you have not seen an inconvenient truth (a movie by a politician, Al Gore, B.A. Government, Divinity and Law School Dropout who has no science education) and then attempt to assume the arguments against it are strawman arguments shows your confirmation bias.
You needs to look no further than the UK court case which refutes your assertion,
Judge attacks nine errors in Al Gore’s ‘alarmist’ climate change film (Daily Mail, UK)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=486969&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source
The rest of the errors are found here,
35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie (Science & Public Policy Institute)
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
And it is further refuted in the peer-reviewed literature,
An Inconvenient Truth : a focus on its portrayal of the hydrologic cycle
http://www.springerlink.com/content/183521n688t7817g/
(GeoJournal, Volume 70, Number 1, pp. 15-19, September 2007)
– David R. Legates
An Inconvenient Truth : blurring the lines between science and science fiction
http://www.springerlink.com/content/y4116185812q1653/
(GeoJournal, Volume 70, Number 1, pp. 11-14, September 2007)
– Roy W. Spencer
So it looks like your strawman assertion has no grounds.
I agree that this was a stupid comment by Neven.
Anybody critically reading any paper should be able to identify a weakness or two or three. Anybody presenting their own paper should be able to identify a weakness or two or three.
It isn’t the identification of weaknesses I object to. It’s blowing weaknesses out of proportion (we don’t know X, therefore we don’t know anything, so let’s start over from scratch), and it’s attributing weaknesses to fraud or ethical lapses, that I object to.
Poptech,
I didn’t assume anything. My memory is actually from a comparison I had seen of the transcript, with those 9 errors from that judge, and if I recall correctly, at least some of the alleged errors were strawmen.
Also, I emphasised I hadn’t seen it nor have the transcript – to emphasise I’m in zero position to judge the matter. So it’s kind of hard to say there’s confirmation bias when I’m upfront about that. I have no real opinion on the matter, but from things I’d seen, I don’t get the idea there are too many big errors in there.
If I feel really bored, I might try to find a transcript sometime and see for myself.
Carroteater-
You are so full of sh*t. No knowledge of “an Inconvenient Truth” allows you to disassociate yourself from the Goracle’s BS.
You probably have also not heard any of Al Gore’s statements; nor the fact that his outfit is spending $300 million on warmist propaganda; nor the fact that he is living a “carbon neutral” life by buying credits?
You know all the detailed “errors” that Monckton may have said in counterbalancing the propaganda, but..
Al Gore: “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are….” Grist Magazine (May 9, 2006)
…can be nobly ignored.
Your arguments are diminished by your selective view of the world.
Counter Lindzen if you dare.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/lindzen_heartland_2010.pdf
“I recall correctly, at least some of the alleged errors were strawmen.”
You said you never saw the movie? First of all the transcript is NOT the movie, it is only the words spoken and to understand context that Gore implied for MANY of his positions requires seeing the movie. What Gore explicitly says and what he implies are two different things in many instances.
You confirmation bias is accepting them as strawman arguments when you have not even seen the movie! That is like all the reviews of books on Amazon from people who have never read the book. It is amazing you even stated anything about a movie you have never seen.
If you are bored try watching the movie.
Here’s what our hostess wrote at the end of her picture-filled post.
“Please behave in comments.”
Not every post has to be about GISS emulations, sea ice, code, toy problems, and, urk, statistics. But could we agree that it would be nice to have a forum where we can shout across the divide, with a chance of being heard. And maybe learn something.
Besides, who are you going to sway with that acid zinger, really.
My 2c.
Poptech
This gets tricky. Different people will take different cues from the same visuals, or text. For example, from what I’ve read, it seems like the time scale of extreme sea level rise is a point of argument here, with the documentary. Because I **already know** that nobody thinks that the whole of west antarctica is going to melt anytime remotely soon, I won’t get confused and think that an estimate of the resulting sea level rise is any sort of imminent thing. But somebody else might get confused, even if Gore never says or suggests its an imminent thing.
So what to make of that? Doesn’t sound like an ‘error’ to me, but I’d say Gore should explicitly tell the audience that the timescale for such numbers is really far in the future, to avoid any confusion.
I think a side-by-side comparison with the transcript has value.
carrot eater,
Gore knows exactly what he was doing when he showed city after city being under water and made NO remote attempt to clarify the time scales involved.
Oh it is an error – a big one. Because anyone WATCHING his movie could see what he was implying. Person after person walked away from the movie believing that if they do not doing something SOON about this major cities would be underwater SOON. I understand you accept this sort of propaganda as ok since scaring the hell out of impressionable kids and an ignorant public does not bother you but I have a problem with it.
Again please stop commenting on a movie you never saw. If you want to be objective then watch the movie first.
A side by side comparison of the transcript has value for those seeking confirmation bias, it has no value for those who have actually watched his propaganda visuals that go along with the script. Oh like this one he ripped out of The Day after tomorrow,
Proof: ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ is Science Fiction
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=2214
So much for a “documentary” that uses Science Fiction footage!
co2fan:
I don’t pay attention to Gore because I learn about science from the literature, not a politician. On top of that, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a ‘warmist’ person on a blog comment cite Gore as an source for anything technical. There’s no need; Gore does not pretend to do original work (at least, i assume he doesn’t), so even if you first hear of something from Gore, you can go back to examine the primary source and cite that instead. If it turns out Gore was misrepresenting the primary source, then of course he should be criticised. Yet we see sceptics take Monckton seriously as a technical source, and on top of it, what he says doesn’t make any sense. So there is a huge difference there.
As for this quote,
I had never heard that before, but it does sound weird – what is he saying? Is he saying you should mis-state facts, or beat people over the head with facts? Or what, exactly? So I went to look for it, and here it is.
http://www.grist.org/article/roberts2/
In the context there, it seems to me that he’s saying you should beat people over the head until they listen, not that you should lie to them.
Poptech
When did I say anything like that was OK? If that’s what the visuals were, then I think Gore should explicitly say that those things couldn’t/wouldn’t happen until far into the future. My preceding comment said it’s better to explicitly give the context of time scales. Relax, man.
I like this discussion. It leads me to a question, as everything always does.
For all the warmers out there: When The Governator or Big Al get up in public and say things like “the science is in” or refer to “the climate crisis” are they:
a) Imparting their scientific understanding
b) Regurgitating a political talking point to promote a belief
c) Something else
Andrew
Andrew,
My understanding is that Gore spends some time and effort speaking to scientists, and trying to understand their work.
He has no scientific authority of his own, and I don’t think anybody thinks that he does.
However, in the real world, pretty much any major politician or political commentator (anybody running for national-level office from either party, the talking heads on TV, the op/ed writers in the newspaper) will at some point say something about climate science and any resulting policy stances. In comparison to the rest of that lot, it’s probably fair to say that Gore has put in more time and effort to become acquainted with the state of the field. He might still get some stuff wrong, I don’t know, as I don’t pay much attention.
“He has no scientific authority of his own, and I don’t think anybody thinks that he does.”
It seems to me that if he understands what he is promoting, then he would have to know as much as the leading climate scientists do. You know, all the tricks and hide the declines and unreliable proxies and the record adjustments and the physics of C02 and all of that. Do you think he understands all of that?
Andrew
Carrot Eater, you seem to pay a lot of attention to Monckton, yet cannot even be bothered to see the most politically influential movie ever made on global warming?
How come Gore’s movie included one brief interview with James Hansen and all the major skeptic ones have interview after interview after interview with REAL scientists. Most are pure interviews with scientists.
You haven’t watched his movie and are here making all sorts of silly defenses for him based on nonsense you have read on alarmist sites. I have provided extensive refutations of the propaganda in his movie including the results of a UK court case which refuted all the major parts that the average person was going hysterical over. You apparently don’t get it but if you just strip out the parts the UK court ruled against, you do not have any major alarm left in the movie. You have plenty of other errors but all the things the average person was getting hysterical about is refuted in the UK court case.
I also find it hilarious that you act like Gore just does more “hobby” work on the global warming crusade then most politicians. The man is a hardcore activist,
Gore to recruit 10m-strong green army (The Guardian, UK)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/01/climatechange.usa
Andrew, forget Gore for the moment. Do all 100 US senators need to understand the science as well as the scientists themselves, in order to make (or decide not to make) some policy? Did all 100 senators have to be experts on atmospheric chemistry, on an equal footing with atmospheric chemists, before they authorised the EPA to set up cap and trade to deal with acid rain? Or to ratify/enact the Montreal Protocol for the ozone layer?
You’re setting up nonsensical requirements for policy makers.
Heck, is there even any one single scientist who has a firm grip on all the details of everything in the entire field and all related fields?
Poptech,
I only pay attention to Monckton inasmuch as he’s highlighted by sceptics, so he’s put into my face by the sceptics. I don’t go looking for him.
On the other hand, I repeat, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a ‘warmist’ blogger or commenter appeal to Gore as an authority on science.
Al Gore is the biggest hyprocrite on the planet,
Al Gore Refuses to Take Personal Energy Ethics Pledge (US Senate Environment & Public Works Committee)
Al Gore Refuses to Take Personal Energy Ethics Pledge
Al Gore, Environmentalist and Zinc Miner (The Wall Street Journal)
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=65000067
Gore’s home energy use: more than 20 times the national average (Tennesse Center for Policy Research)
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=40368
Stunning Pictures of Al Gore’s New $9 Million Mansion Media Totally Ignored (NewsBusters)
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/05/03/stunning-pictures-al-gores-new-9-million-mansion-media-totally-ignore
What a fraud.
” Did all 100 senators…”
They are not going around sounding the global warming alarm like Gore does with his movie, books and activism. The average person actually believes the man is remotely well educated in science when nothing could be further from the truth,
Al Gore, B.A. in Government, Divinity and Law School Dropout (no science degree)
The Education of Al Gore (The Washington Times)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2000/mar/25/20000325-011032-8259r/
“Mr. Gore’s high school performance on the college board achievement tests in physics (488 out of 800 “terrible,” St. Albans retired teacher and assistant headmaster John Davis told The Post) and chemistry (519 out of 800 “He didn’t do too well in chemistry,” Mr. Davis observed) suggests that Mr. Gore would have trouble with science for the rest of his life. At Harvard and Vanderbilt, Mr. Gore continued bumbling along.
As a Harvard sophomore, scholar Al “earned” a D in Natural Sciences 6 in a course presciently named “Man’s Place in Nature.” That was the year he evidently spent more time smoking cannabis than studying its place among other plants within the ecosystem. His senior year, Mr. Gore received a C+ in Natural Sciences 118.
At Vanderbilt divinity school, Mr. Gore took a course in theology and natural science. The assigned readings included the apocalyptic, and widely discredited “Limits to Growth,” which formed much of the foundation for “Earth in the Balance.” It is said that Mr. Gore failed to hand in his book report on time. Thus, his incomplete grade turned into an F, one of five Fs Mr. Gore received at divinity school, which may well be a worldwide record.”
He is a scientific illiterate who spent most of his college years smoking pot,
Gore was avid pot smoker (The Guardian, UK)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/feb/07/uselections2000.usa
Which explains what is wrong with his brain,
Memory, speed of thinking get worse over time with marijuana use (American Academy of Neurology)
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-03/aaon-mso030706.php
“Do all 100 US senators need to understand the science as well as the scientists themselves, in order to make (or decide not to make) some policy?”
CE,
Dude, Senators don’t need a brain between them to make policy. Do you think they do? A monkey could make a mark on a piece of paper with a crayon and we could call that a vote.
Obviously, to to make good decisions, they would need to understand what they are doing. If they don’t understand the science, they can’t make good decisions based on the science.
Andrew
“Heck, is there even any one single scientist who has a firm grip on all the details of everything in the entire field and all related fields?”
Not that I’ve encountered. Which is, of course, one of the many problems with climate science.
Andrew
Andrew
You said this,
Which sounds reasonable enough on the face of it. It’s a question of how well they need to understand the science. You had previously said this
And that’s just an unreasonable and impossible standard of how well they need to understand it. I don’t need Sen Bond or Boxer to be able to sit there and write out radiative transfer models. That seems pretty self-evident to me, so maybe we’re arguing about nothing.
Andrew_KY:
Which is, of course, one of the many problems with climate science.
Everybody picks something to be an expert in – even McIntyre, for that matter – and gets by with a working knowledge of related fields, true in science or in industry, you must be a special case.
“And that’s just an unreasonable and impossible standard of how well they need to understand it.”
I disagree. If a person is going to make climate science-based decisions, that person should understand climate science.
Andrew
“gets by with a working knowledge”
RB,
What is “get by” and what is “working knowledge”?
Andrew
What is “get by†and what is “working knowledge�
I have met the parser types like you before, and I think I’ll leave the original statement as is.
OMG, what have I unleashed? 😉
.
.
Carrot Eater, prima facie my remark that the people of the Heartland have no other choice than to be denialists may seem stupid, but let me ask you: is it possible for a libertarian free market fundamentalist to not deny AGW? What would be the implications for his libertarian free market fundamentalism?
.
A lot of denialists must deny AGW because of the very nature of their philosophy/ideology. They have no other choice. Skeptics are a lot more flexible in this sense, which is why they are and can be skeptics.
Neven,
I know what you’re saying, but the possible underlying psychology of people is something I think we’d best leave aside here.
If somebody is intellectually honest, then their analysis (or non-analysis, as the case may be) of physics and economics should be 100% independent of each other. Let’s just leave it at that.
All this talk about a working knowledge of the science: Clearly neither CE nor Neven have it, why else are they defending the CAGW implausable proposition,
Lindzen is right:
Lindzen: Time to Abandon the ‘Skeptic’ Label
M.I.T. professor says ‘skepticism’ implies anthropogenic global warming theory a ‘plausible proposition.’
The Heartland Institute only “denies” propositions which deserve to be denied: Namely that government interference in the economy will “save the planet”, among other things.
I am a denier when it comes to flat out falsehoods. And there is nothing wrong with that. Indeed, to not deny things which are false is far more reprehensible.
Hey CarroEater and Neven
You have a chance to learn something if you watch this right now
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=153
RB:
I agree with RB here.
Nobody can be an expert on everything, and climate science isn’t one field, it’s just about every field of physical sciences (and some social and psych) mashed in together.
“Nobody can be an expert on everything, and climate science isn’t one field”
So there are no climate science ‘experts’ in Climate Science. There’s just too much information out there for the poor dears. 😉
Andrew
“Nobody can be an expert on everything, and climate science isn’t one fieldâ€
The parable of the elephant
it was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
Though all of them were blind,
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.
…..
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong.
Though each was partly in the right,
They all were in the wrong!
Challenge!
1. Incontrovertibly.
Strawman: No one says any results are incontrovertible.
2. His Carl Wunsch example and the NAS letter are talking about different things. Wunsch is talking about current SLR, the letter future SLR. 0 for 2.
3. “global warming” isn’t even a term used in the scientific literature (except , perhaps to refer to the political debate/popular view) Next!
4. L admits it’s true that the earth has warmed and this has been caused in part by humans. Oh, snap!
5. He put the words “Questionable Data” in bold. This means that he doesn’t have to show that the data are questionable, I guess. And so he doesn’t.
6. “Quasi Religious….” No substance.
7. Some argument about how, since summer arctic temperatures haven’t changed much, CO2 isn’t responsible for the winter/night arctic warming. Makes no sense to me since it should be well known that winter/night warming is exactly the most affected by an enhanced greenhouse.
His last presentation has already been countered by many others, including Jame Annan at his blog.
Well, that wasn’t so bad. Or, rather, it was awful.
maksimovich (Comment#43519) May 18th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
If you read the IPCC report, it is a remarkable document, it is coherent, and it is still basically just a matter of refining what was in the FAR.
Blaming the scientists for taking on a field of research that is so complex is beyond belief. They didn’t make it that complex, that is the hand they were dealt.
Andrew_KY:
There might be experts on the physical science aspects, how you write down the physics equations and turn that into models.
But that’s not the part that’s really interesting…we need to understand impact, and that involves more than mathematical equations, it involves plants, animals, humans, societies, to be discovered potential adaptations to change and all of these mixed together.
The potential for the exaggeration of risk is very high in cases like this (c.f. Y2K phenomenon).
Carrick (Comment#43525) May 18th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
The exaggeration of Y2K was not that bad, if you consider the case that nothing was done. A lot of work was done very quickly, around the globe. I laughed at the thought of people terrified when Y2K arrived, because I knew that the risks had been taken seriously, and addressed, by all the major corporations and governments. If nothing had been done, I would have been deeply concerned. Not because the world would have ended, but because the ‘snowball’ effect would have been huge. Business paralysis and a major stock market crash would have been inevitable.
In the case of AGW, pretty well nothing has been done to date.
“The potential for the exaggeration of risk is very high in cases like this”
Carrick,
Indeed, sir.
Andrew
bugs:
I disagree. It was terribly exaggerated. IN fact:
This is a complete way-over-the top exaggeration too. “A major stock market crash???” Please. There’s not even a plausible scenario for how this would have happened. The vast majority of computers that would have been affected got fixed by a free download from Microsoft. BFD.
AGW at least has people with actual training and scholastic ability (not programmers). Y2K started out as a scare mongering article in a popular journal written by a (ick) journalist.
In fact the experiment was done: Some countries spent almost nothing on Y2K (concentrating on sectors where disruption would have an impact) so we can make a head-to-head comparison. link.
Well, nothing active. In the case of AGW, there is a built in mechanism for “decarbonization” (don’t shoot Jeff, I’m just the messenger!). In fact, we’ve be “decarbonizing” since the 1850s…
Just look at the ratio of CO2 emissions (ppmv) divided by global GDP (constant dollars). Over time that ratio has gotten smaller. The marketplace dictates that the lower cost solution will out. “Doing nothing” still means you decarbonize, just not as fast as some might want.
Carrick (Comment#43528) May 18th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
I don’t think you understand the nature of commercial software such as the major banks and industries use. They don’t use Microsoft for much more than an OS, and at that time they avoided MS software since it was not industrial strength. Major applications were developed in house, or, if purchased, came with the source code and were heavily customised. Microcontrollers were used widely for automation. We came across major issues with software running a major manufacturing site. They weren’t unfixable, some timely investigation and testing came up with solutions in plenty of time. But it was quite a common occurence to start up a major server running core applications in post Y2k, or trans Y2k simulation, and find things just stopped working.
And comparing the West to Russia in terms of the use of technology?
Re bugs (43526):
“In the case of AGW, pretty well nothing has been done to date.”
I know you spend most of the time studying the science so may be you can be excused but the facts don’t agree with you as pointed out by Tom Fuller ( http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m5d18-Global-warmingIgnoring-the-facts ),
“dramatic decline of CO2 emissions in the U.S., 10% over the past two years.
The U.S. wasn’t even the top performer–Spain dropped emissions by 15% last year alone.
Overall, CO2 emissions declined by 2.6% for the entire world.
In the past two years, the U.S. installed wind turbine capacity grew by 87%. China installed more.
The world overall invested $63 billion in wind energy last year, and $500 billion in green energy overall. The market for solar power was $39 billion last year. Production of photovoltaic solar cells doubled in 2008.”
So as Tom says “we’re not sitting on our hands”
Neven continues to make ridiculous statements. AGW is a broad term that includes things from UHI to Joe Romm’s absurdities. Saying you believe in AGW as in UHI does not mean you support Romm’s position on everything. This is the game alarmists want to play. There is no one AGW position and I do not know any skeptics that do not support UHI theory, thus none are denying AGW.
The problem with you Neven is it is clear you never properly studied economics. This is why you support failed economic systems like the ex-soviet union and perpetual poverty like the third world.
I guess Tom Fuller’s recommendation for emissions reduction is to have lots of depression-like financial crises .
The undeniable fact is that non-alarmists are more eclectic and tolerant of dissenting views than are alarmists.
.
There is a difference between being eclectic and being incoherent. Many non-alarmists will believe anything that suggests that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas or that’s its influence is less than what the IPCC suggests. It doesn’t matter to them that many of the theories they grasp are mutually exclusive. Muddled thinking is par.
.
Also known as being so open minded that your brains fall out.
“If you read the IPCC report, it is a remarkable document, it is coherent, and it is still basically just a matter of refining what was in the FAR.”
I find this a bizarre statement because I read the IPCC report and found it to be incoherent with babbling prose and vast amounts of science omitted from it. Science that can be found here,
Climate Change Reconsidered (PDF) (868 pgs)
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2009/pdf/CCR2009FullReport.pdf
Ron, if you think skeptics spend all their time arguing that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas then you have no remote idea what has been going on in the debate since it began. While there is extensive peer-reviewed support for it’s effect being less than the IPCC theorizes. You now seem to be upset that skeptics find the science supporting a minimal greenhouse effect with no forcing more convincing. It may have something to do with skeptics accepting empirical evidence over models.
Poptech:
.
There is some sci lit supporting lower sensitivities. And there are some skeptics who pay attention to sci lit and base their objections on carefully considered critiques of modeling.
.
And then there is WUWT.
.
I don’t usually put those two groups into the same category – but I think that Tobin did when he chose to use the label ‘non-warmist.’
bugs:
You mentioned wall street. That’s different than banks. I’ve looked at case studies, and for the majority of them, the effect of the bug, when present, was pretty minor.
Maybe you could pull up some examples? I’ve seen nothing that substantiates the level of hysteria (and that is clearly what it was) that ran through the US leading up to Y2K. And believe it or not, Russia and India had computers in the year 2000, too. You can’t discount them just because it’s not convenient.
Ron, WUWT has had extensive posts on low climate sensitivity among other theories. You seem to have a problem with any alternative theory being presented.
Good evening good folk who read Lucia’s Blog… even though recent photo’s expose her true identity; Thelma of Scoobydoo… anyways…
I finished my day, unhungered by 8 hours of snacking on cold pizza and chocolate chip cookies… to read what has to be carrot’s greatest slip:
“I’ve never seen it, but I was not under the impression it had that many errors in it. Seems some perceived errors are strawmen, in that critics rebut things that aren’t actually in there. But I’ve not seen it, nor have a transcript handy.”
I’m not angered to the point of telling our good carrot eater “You’re full of shit”… because I found it amusing.
Seriously carrot, you should really take the time to watch the movie. It will tell you droves… and by the way, it wasnt West Antarctica where he slipped on the sea level rise, it was Greenland, he tried to tie it into the Younger Dryas event…
which is where I’ll spit out a thought or two b4 I hit up another piece of cold pizza and retire for a short while to bebo for more gangster wars…
The Younger Dryas event and Greenland are actually two fascinating subjects for me here. The YD event happened at the end of the last glaciation where (as the latest theory goes) a fractured comet slammed into the Earth, at least one large chunk hit the alreading receding Laurentine ice sheet causing a flood of fresh water to flood into the Arctic and North Atlantic ocean basins, shutting down the North Atlantic current which brings warmth to the northern hemisphere… causing the world to sink back into glaciation for about 1000 more years.
Now let’s switch to Greenland. Have you ever wondered why Greenland has never been referred to as a continent even though it Looks to be the size of Australia? Because it’s not a land mass. It’s actually a ring of islands shaped like a human ear with a big ice cube in the middle. The reason that this big ice cube didn’t melt like the rest of the ice at that lattitude is because those islands send the warm water of the NADC off in a different direction, and the warmer that water becomes the more precipitation (in this case, usually snow) falls on the center of the big ice cube. So the outside edges of the islands might melt away along with their glaciers, but the big ice cube in the middle stays.
So for all the readers wizzing by who were terrorized by Al Gore’s thought that maybe there will be a big melt from Greenland thus causing another YD event, there wont be… unless there is a large asteroid or comet impact in which case you’ll kiss your ass goodbye anyways.
See ya iun a bit.
Re:RB (Comment#43532)
May 18th, 2010 at 5:08 pm
I guess Tom Fuller’s recommendation for emissions reduction is to have lots of depression-like financial crises .
Well you’re right stopping econ growth reduces C02 emmisions — this is basically the mode of action for most ERS like cap-n-trade or Carbon Tax. However how does a depression lead to 87% increase in wind turbine capacity? Or have you been cherry picking the data again?
bugs (Comment#43524) May 18th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
“If you read the IPCC report, it is a remarkable document, it is coherent, and it is still basically just a matter of refining what was in the FAR.”
The IPCC report estimated global recoverable coal reserves twice what the World Energy Council estimated, they also estimated coal prices would remain at or below inflation for the foreseeable future.
If one looks at what has happened to the price of coal in the last 4 years the estimates seem almost comical.
China and India are both net coal importers today, despite supposedly having 100’s of years of coal of that could be mined almost for free.
Why would ‘low labor rate countries’ import a resource from ‘high labor rate countries’ when the IPCC says they had 100’s of years worth of domestic supply?
I know why, the productivity in a Chinese coal mine is down to 590/tonnes per miner per year. Compared to the productivity of a Central Appalachian mine, which has declined from 9,000 tonnes/miner per year to 6,000 tonnes per miner/year. The Central Appalachian mines are also consider to be in decline.
They took an overly simplistic view of coal resources, didn’t ask relevant questions like what is happening with Chinese mine productivity and got their coal projections completely wrong.
Since coal accounts for pretty much 1/2 of all CO2 emissions then every other prediction is wrong as well.
With the exceptions of Australia and a radius of 1,000 miles from Gillette, Wyoming only a fool would build a coal fired electricity plant.
The only reason the Chinese are building any coal fired plants at the moment is the Japanese can’t make the critical components for nuclear power plants fast enough.
Here is an eia report of the price of ‘delivered’ coal by state in the US. It’s 2 years old.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/table34.html
US Coal Mine Productivity 1950-1995
http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-97-40.pdf
Over the 4-1/2 decades 1950-95, coal mine labor productivity increased at an average annual rate of slightly above four percen
Here is productivity report for the US for 2008
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/acr_sum.html
“National productivity declined by 4.9 percent”
Here is some 2005 projections from the EIA
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/forecasting/0383%282005%29.pdf
“Average Minemouth Coal Prices Are Not Projected To Rise Significantly….
Appalachian Coal has risen from $30/ton in 2005 to $60+ per ton today.
The IPCC report is GIGO, if the economic assumptions about coal prices were off by 100% then the every other projection in the report is off.
Or have you been cherry picking the data again?
Yes, I have mastered the trick, like you. Next time, remember to leave out the irrelevant quotes.
Poptech: Ron, WUWT has had extensive posts on low climate sensitivity among other theories. You seem to have a problem with any alternative theory being presented
And thus we complete the infinite loop.
Thanks RB (#43542) you have just demonstrated the warmist attitude to data “Next time, remember to leave out the irrelevant quotes.” — repeat after me “No data is irrelevant”
Could not get more contrived Andrew Kennett, you can have the last word.
Ron, discussing alternative theories is not a crime. I really don’t get your point. Should free speech be outlawed because it does not confirm to your view? Maybe you are used to collectivist group think where competing theories are not allowed to be discussed but skeptics have an open mind to consider all theories. You are confusing the presentation and discussion of mutually exclusive theories with acceptance of mutually exclusive theories as unified. There is no infinite loop except the one in your brain where you cannot comprehend a discussion of more then one competing theory.
Carrick (Comment#43537) May 18th, 2010 at 6:05 pm
I’m just going on industry experience. Well before the hucksters were out, the work was well underway. But I can tell you that I worked for a major financial institution in the ’80s and all their date arithmetic and storage was two digit years. Their software would not have functioned at all. In the late ’90s, it was a boom time for IT, with all the work being done. Many businesses just used the problem as an opportunity to upgrade to more modern software, such as SAP R/3, which was mostly Y2K compliant from the start,( but still had a rigorous review and plenty of tweaks to do to make it fully compliant.) A lot of the major financial institutions were running software that could date back to the ’60s. They had a major job to get it all up to date. The Banks with the problems weren’t going to tell you about major work they had to do, too embarrassing. In the end, the work was done and I just shook my head at the people expecting a disaster. In this case, the preventative work was done, and no one refused to do it on the grounds of cost.
In the meantime, they actually have a presentation on the imminent global cooling. Where is my goggle eyed smiley?
http://hot-topic.co.nz/fools-rush-in/
Poptech (Comment#43546) May 18th, 2010 at 8:05 pm
It certainly isn’t, but it isn’t science either.
Bugs, discussing scientific theories is not science? Why because you say so? The most common skeptic theories have been published, such as low climate sensitivity, cosmic rays and solar.
Poptech (Comment#43550) May 18th, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Science is a whole process, talking about things is certainly an important part of it. If by publishing you mean in E&E, I think you have to raise your standards higher.
My previous post about imminent global cooling at the current Heartland conference seems to have been eaten by the censor.
hot-topic dot co dot nz slash fools-rush-in
Proudly displaying a presentation that must have been done years ago, since it ignores a temperature record it is clearly at odds with.
Publishing in E&E was certainly enough to break the hockey stick. So I fail to see your point.
Where something is published does not reflect it truth.
AndrewFL
I never got to Douglass after you asked. (I met him on…. Sunday?)
And his wife is very beautiful.
Neven
I’m not sure what this question really means. SteveM expresses his views. He happens to express them at Heartland where some enjoy some of his views and dislike others. There were a number of us in the audience who do similarly in private conversations; SteveM’s discussion brought that up.
I also found pockets of Monckton-non-admirers etc. (Some are bloggers; some are at think tanks. I’m reluctant to name them because I think they have a right to be judicious in what they say in public. But while Monckton is wildly adored by those who like the red meat he throws, there are some who think “huh?”. BTW: I was expecting to be asked to stand and sing the National Anthem at the end of his lunchean talk. I would have sung loudly as I always due, but, would still have thought it odd.)
It’s hard to say because I would naturally experience a biased sample because, as many people, I tend to linger longer with people who are closer to my POV. Also, some topics of conversation don’t reveal where one is on the Andrew_KY (self proclaimed denialist) to lukewarmer to Joe Romm (hell fire brimstone warmer) spectrum. But I can say the spetrum was from the Andrew_KY to lukewarmer range.
I ran into someone who turned out to live 3 blocks from me. He happens to be in the lukewarmer range.
Poptech
Steve’s position is not that academics are above the law. It’s that the Attorney Generals should only investigate when there is evidence of violations of state law. What Mann has done is almost certainly not a violation of the VA statutes the AG is using to hound the University of VA and Mann.
Bart Verheggen (Comment#43478)
Actually, sitting in the presentations came off somewhat like sitting in many conferences. That said, at conferences, I get more out of papers when I later read the conference proceedings, not from sitting and listening to the Power Point presentation.
BTW: It looks like Anthony will be putting his final results together soon. (Was that presentation shown on PJ TV? I don’t want to mis-represent it.)
Poptech
I agree with this for AIT and nearly any “movie”. For one thing: people went to a lot of trouble to make a movie and we know that many people will only watch the movie. So, it’s fair to interpret what Gore says by examining how it is presented in the movie, and the impression made by the movie.
My first impression about AIT was that it was not even about global warming, it was about Gore. (There was a lot of time with him on a bus, at his old homestead etc.)
carrot eater
Arthur Robinson is running. I think he promised to keep a firm grip on the details. (Has Eli blogged yet?)
Neven
Yes. It’s possible.
They would propose free market solutions.
“Steve’s position is not that academics are above the law. It’s that the Attorney Generals should only investigate when there is evidence of violations of state law. ”
That is certainly a much clearer position then he presented. Please recommend he makes this explicitly clear in the beginning of any discussion he has on this in the future. Regardless he should still call scientific fraud, fraud or at the least scientific misconduct. And at the extreme say nothing with a disclaimer that he is worried about a libel suit instead of coming off as an apologist. Saying nothing in these cases is better then speaking against them. Him coming out against the Virginia AG makes him look like he is defending Mann from any wrong doing legal AND scientific.
Poptech,
McIntyre’s thinking on it was quite very clear in his blog post on the topic.
“the Attorney Generals should only investigate when there is evidence of violations of state law.”
I know I’m taking this quote out of context but there’s something odd about this statement. How is an attorney general supposed to know there is evidence (state or otherwise) without having investigated? Personally, I like the quip made by John Wright over at the Bishop Hill blog….
“So have I understood this correctly? – The question of whether the planet is warming and whether we should invest billions in combating this is an academic one?!!”
It shouldn’t be forgotten there is a lot hanging in the balance on this question of a warming trend. I’m not willing to give an academic the benefit of the doubt on this one just because they’re high minded academics.
“How is an attorney general supposed to know there is evidence (state or otherwise) without having investigated?”
Warmers love the Preordained Conclusion. You have to have the Preordained Conclusion first, before you can do anything. You can’t investigate a person until you think they are already guilty, just like you can’t perceive evidence for Global Warming until you’ve already concluded Global Warming is the reason the evidence is there.
Andrew
Hank
People often bring evidence of crimes to police; the police then investigate further. In contrast, it’s pretty rare for a police officer to just suddenly pick suspects out of the blue and start investigating on the grounds that if you investigate someone, you are bound to discover some crime you can use to hang them.
Likewise for attorney generals, various special prosecutors at the white house etc.
I think it’s fair for people to have differences of opinion about whether Cucci has any evidence of something. But suggesting that policing authorities should just investigate on whims seems unAmerican to me.
The argument of “audit” is not a fair one here. Each state has auditing branches that do audits of state expenditures.
It seems that most, including Steve Mc, still do not understand the situation in VA… the VA AG is only investigating whether Mann used the money given by the state in the way it was supposed to. This is a civil investigation, not a prosecution. If the VA AG decides that Mann or the University did not spend the money the way it was supposed to have been then the issue goes to a judge or a jury. If the university loses, then they have to cough up the money and give it back to the state… Mann is in the clear unless in the course of their investigation they find evidence that he did something illegal with the money like buy drugs or hookers… and that’s not gonna happen
Poptech:
This is none sense.
The VA AG does not and should not be investigating scientific fudging. Fudging is a very bad thing in research and academia which is supposed to be balanced.
Resorting to fudging means the public can’t count on “science” research being any more balanced than some expect of think tank research from the more heavily political think tanks. Think tank research often does present a POV, and many people want to know the name of the think tank when assessing the strength of an argument. (At the very least, they go find a think tank with the opposite POV and read what they wrote.)
Academics and scientists ought to slam those who fudge. This does not mean it’s appropriate for Cucci to do what he is doing.
To suggest that criticizing Cucci is the same as giving Mann a free pass is wrong. You’re saying so is likely to make some people think that SteveM criticizing Cucci means that– which I think is not an outcome you would desire.
I’ve been quiet. I’ve been reading the smack down of “the physics” the “scienceofdoom” blog says it presents correctly and is the basis of all this greenhouse gas and AGW talk, and why skeptics are in denial.
This talk just might be much ado about nothing after all (like some of us have thought all along) And all that much ado (all the propaganda, money spent, media manipulation, special funding, peer review manipulation, blackballing, political influence (Rep. Chaffetz and Issa Want to Know Why Fannie Mae Holds a “Cap and Trade†Patent in the news today) is the crime.
Lucia, Michael Mann’s own colleagues described him as using tricks to hide things. And I agree that it’s unfortunate that lead prosecutor’s, sheriffs and even judges are so often elected officials subject to the temptations of playing to the public.
Lucia,
‘The argument of “audit†is not a fair one here. Each state has auditing branches that do audits of state expenditures.’
The Virginia statute (Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act.) says –
‘The Attorney General shall investigate any violation of § 8.01-216.3. If the Attorney General finds that a person has violated or is violating § 8.01-216.3, the Attorney General may bring a civil action under this section.’
which suggests that Virginia felt that the AG should should drive the auditing?
Note that that is a legal ‘shall’ in the first bit, not a ‘may’. If the AG finds a violation, the action is however, a ‘may’.
MikeC
But that’s the whole thing… there is no reason to think Mann used grant money on drugs and hookers, and yet they’re using that statute to then request pretty much every document ever. That’s just harassment without any due cause.
Chuckles, Do you know if complaints that are filed are a matter of public record? I have to think that Cuccinnelli has all kinds of stuff coming in over the transom from the “concerned public.” And who knows maybe some colleague from Mann’s days at UVa still has the knives out for him. Remember that Bradley of MBH reacted to one of Mann’s self serving, CYA emails with the single statement… “Excuse me while I puke.”
HankH,
No idea. I assume there was some incident in the past in Virginia that caused them to pass this law/amendment, but no idea what.
I’d assume that not much is publicly released until any resulting action comes to court. Again, there may be other VA statutes that mandate differently. I’m certainly no expert on the statute, I read it to try and understand where the AG was coming from.
Commenter Cedarhill posted the following at Bishop Hills blog, which I found instructive:
About Mann and UVA, the VA AG and the VA law (and yes, I’ve read the VA law and yes, I’m a member of the bar):
In lay terms we have a publicly funded agency of government that was solicited by a private person to receive public money and we now have some who are outraged that an audit is initiated by the legally constituted government agency with authority to conduct such an audit.
No one likes an audit except auditors. The investigation under VA law the AG is doing is an audit. Just like the one which hopefully will be conducted on the US Federal Reserve and their TARP funds. Surprise! The Fed doesn’t like it and neither do a lot of others.
About the VA law:
Why did the legislature pick the AG’s office? For those lost in the beta’s and the R-squared and such, an audit includes the examination of the “accounts” but also all underlying documents by professionals. The legislation was directed at public monies spent based on fraudulent contracts (go google it). The professionals that assess contracts are lawyers. VA picked the AG for this task.
Anyone opposing what the AG is doing needs to ask themselves the question of who should be conducting audits on public contracts of public agencies disbursing public funds. Surely someone and VA picked the AG. This makes all the sense in the world. Actually, it’s one of the few things that one agency of government can do that can corral another agency and those that prey on public funds.
Chuckles–
Do you have a list of other university faculty being audited? And did Cuccie request punched tapes, programs, all emails etc?
carrot,
“But that’s the whole thing… there is no reason to think Mann used grant money on drugs and hookers, and yet they’re using that statute to then request pretty much every document ever. That’s just harassment without any due cause.”
carrot, quit being ridiculous… Mann is in the clear of criminal charges unless he gets caught using the money for hookers or drugs, the university pays back the money if he misused it in a non illegal way such as to fudge or defraud the science… the VA AG is totally within his rights to investigate or audit the money awarded to the university… but then again, if Mann did nothing wrong then he should welcome this investigation because he faces a huge advantage if the VA AG doesn’t bring an action to court or if in doing so the VA AG loses, that would be a complete vindication for Mann
This comment by cedarhill at bishop Hill’s blog as repeated by Chuckles in comment 43604:
“In lay terms we have a publicly funded agency of government that was solicited by a private person to receive public money and we now have some who are outraged that an audit is initiated by the legally constituted government agency with authority to conduct such an audit.”
…makes a very serious flaw if memory serves me correctly…. because Mann was an employee of the university, not a private person… never the less, the VA AG still has the right and responsibility to investigate the use of the money if he thinks there might be a problem.
To paraphrase Steve Mc at the ICCC:
“Let the gubbermint do it’s job”
Which is whatever the gubbermint does.
Andrew
Using grant money for “drugs and hookers” has to be the province of UVa’s accounts dept. I’m curious as to what the AG’s supporters think could be examples of fraud that could be discovered in this case.
CE, “McIntyre’s thinking on it was quite very clear in his blog post on the topic.”
Please show me where he said this then,
“Steve’s position is not that academics are above the law. It’s that the Attorney Generals should only investigate when there is evidence of violations of state law.”
Because I have read his posts at CA and did read him saying this anywhere.
Right; they’re the ones who make sure the accounts add up. I can’t speak to UVa in particular, but those people generally collect the invoices, and then settle them. Or, if you paid up front and tried to get it reimbursed from the account after the fact, they’d still need to see the paperwork. Basically, they’d be the first to know if the account was being used for some horribly inappropriate thing, and then the state’s AG office could step in if they really wanted to, I guess, or UVa could handle it themselves; I’m not sure how that would work.
Lucia,
I don’t have any anything on the subject. It is the university that got the grants, so it is actually the university being audited, as far as I understand it?
And RB, may I say I’m not a fan of the actions being taken, I happen not to think they serve any huge purpose, or that I support them.
I am most definitely a fan of the law being the law, having lived in countries and under regimes where that was not the case.
“To suggest that criticizing Cucci is the same as giving Mann a free pass is wrong. You’re saying so is likely to make some people think that SteveM criticizing Cucci means that– which I think is not an outcome you would desire.”
Unfortunately this is what it looks like. McIntyre does not even use the term “academic misconduct” in his recent posts instead he continues to say “technical dispute”.
Effectively I can intentionally fabricate scientific results that are being used to implement Multi-Trillion dollar global economic policies and it will be nothing more than a “technical dispute” if found out. I do not see how this is acceptable to anyone but so called “academics”.
I think for some reason, Steve Mc, is unable or unwilling to apply the critical thinking he uses for hockey sticks to politics.
Steve’s scientific thinking appears to be that science should be conducted in accordance with certain principles, and to not adhere to these principles would be bad/wrong science.
Steve’s political thinking appears to be that governments exist to make policies. Policies are neither good or bad/wrong (even if based on bad science), they just are.
Why does he change his philosophy from one context to the next? It seems like in both areas a person should make decisions based on good practices and principals and if one doesn’t, one is making an error.
He then adds another twist of inconsistency when he has a problem with a govermment entity investigating something. Now he holds gubbermint action to some standard?
I don’t get it.
Andrew
Hans von Storch has posted a link to this article at the always thoughtful Klimazwiebel, might have some interest here –
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;328/5979/695
Climate Onion?
Poptech
I thought it was clear here
http://climateaudit.org/2010/05/02/cuccinelli-v-mann/
and even moreso here
http://climateaudit.org/2010/05/03/the-virginia-statute/
from the first
and I could quote the second in its entirety.
Da komrade Boris,
Are you not ‘as one’ and expressing solidarity with the nuances of the cream of European climate blogs?
http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/
Poptech,
You appear to be in the mob who is sure that Mann did something awful, probably something criminal, but have no idea what.
Which is leading to the confusion at this time, now that the Pied Piper isn’t leading his mob where they want to go.
You could change my impression by stating specifically what Mann did, that makes you feel there is anything here more than an academic dispute.
I think Cucinelli’s gameplan is to engage in some mud-slinging in a larger campaign against EPA which he believes is using “falsified data” – and so long as he is perceived to have harassed Mann, those of his conservative brethren seeking vengeance against the climate science community will be appeased.
“We cannot allow unelected bureaucrats with political agendas to use falsified data to regulate American industry and drive our economy into the ground.” Source .
The justification per WaPo for the actions against Mann:
In an interview, Cuccinelli said the request is part of an “open inquiry” into whether there were “knowing inconsistencies” made by Mann as he sought taxpayer dollars to fund research.
“In light of the Climategate e-mails, there does seem to at least be an argument to be made that a course was undertaken by some of the individuals involved, including potentially Michael Mann, where they were steering a course to reach a conclusion,” he said. “Our act, frankly, just requires honesty.”
There is no falsification of data disclosed by emails. What do we have so far from emails – “I duplicated Mike’s Nature trick …”
“stating specifically what Mann did”
He constructed a meaningless graph and pretended it was scientific.
Andrew
“You could change my impression by stating specifically what Mann did, that makes you feel there is anything here more than an academic dispute.”
Mann intentionally fabricated his work to get the results he wanted by mining his proxy data to make sure any hockey stick shaped series were the prominent trend in the final result with the intent to remove the MWP from the debate and thus further promote alarmist climate change policy. This was initially successful with the TAR but not since McIntyre completely destroyed the fraudulent work in his 2005 papers. It really is quite simple.
BTW, this seems to be the only Mann proposal directly funded by U.Va money –
2001-2003 Resolving the Scale-wise Sensitivities in the Dynamical Coupling Between Climate and the Biosphere, University of Virginia-Fund for Excellence in Science and Technology (FEST) [Principal Investigator: J.D. Albertson; Co-Investigators: H. Epstein, M.E. Mann] U.Va internal award: $214,700
Poptech
Don’t understand what you are saying. Are you saying he only chose the proxies that would give the desired result, excluding other proxies that were also usable? (even that wouldn’t be relevant to the VA statute in question, but it also didn’t happen)
IN your own words, please.
CE, can you show me where McIntyre explicitly said “Steve’s position is not that academics are above the law. It’s that the Attorney Generals should only investigate when there is evidence of violations of state law.â€
Instead we have McIntyre being an apologist,
“…and even offered Mann my support.”
Mann has done everything he could to smear McIntyre and here we have the guy absolutely delusional.
RB: It lists 5 grants that are funded in part or whole by the state of VA.
CE: which are the others? When it says U.Va award, I assume that means that NOAA/NSF etc awarded to a team, of which the U.Va component is listed as U.Va award.
Poptech,
How are you unable to read those two posts. He goes through the law in question and finds that it just doesn’t apply to anything he thinks Mann has done wrong.
If “publishing a paper that McIntyre doesn’t like” were against the law, then you’d have something. But you don’t.
FWIW, I was pretty appalled by the (negative) response in the room to Steve’s remarks about Mann/Cuccinelli, and frankly, it soured my mood during the rest of the conference.
For many at the conference (and apparently lots of others) Mike Mann has become a symbol of all that is wrong about climate change, supplanting Al Gore in that role, and is burned in effigy at every occasion.
If the best thing that some folks have is that Mike Mann doesn’t play well with others, then they are in serious trouble.
Lock him up and expunge his results from the scientific record and what have you gained? Nothing, expect perhaps for some self-serving satisfaction. To me, that is as pathetic as whining that “we’ve got to do something†to try to stop global warming. In each case, symbolic actions lead to no real-world results, and are a waste of time and energy (and probably a lot of other things as well). They act to slow actual progress by diverting attention from grander pursuits.
The best revenge is had by pushing science forward. Threats of persecution will act to slow that push—a very bad idea in my book.
I was a tax-payer in Virginia during the time that Mike was employed by UVa. I was also a taxpayer in Virginia during the time I was employed by UVa. I was no more defrauded by Mike’s scientific work than my own—which surely would wilt under the same level of scrutiny that has been applied to Mike’s.
-Chip
Carrot Eater, what I said was explicitly clear and in my own words,
Mann mined his proxy data to make sure any hockey stick shaped series were the prominent trend in the final result
He did so through the calculations in his computer code.
Laymen terms – The code would automatically take any series with a hockey stick shape and make it the prominent final shape regardless of how many other proxy series with alternate shapes existed (the mathematical explanation is more complicated). For it to work it required a single proxy series with a hockey stick shape. McIntyre confirmed this by running thousands of simulations with red noise data. His results were 99% hockey sticks.
Haven’t you read anything on this or do you just think anyone against Mann is part of some “mob”?
If “publishing a paper that McIntyre doesn’t like†were against the law, then you’d have something. But you don’t.
CE,
The argument isn’t dependent on whether or not Steve Mc likes something. It’s about Mann and his drawing that doesn’t represent anything other than the imaginary. It doesn’t have to violate any particular law. It’s a fraud. We don’t need any particular statute to tell us that.
Andrew
Chip, do you believe Mann was intentionally trying to get the results that he wanted or not?
Your statement implies that either your work is not honest or you can debunk any scientific work by simply scrutinizing it enough. Which implies that Mann again did not really do anything wrong and it was all due to too much scrutiny.
carrot eater (Comment#43649) May 19th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
RB: It lists 5 grants that are funded in part or whole by the state of VA.
No as I pointed out in several blogs when this first came up, only one of the grants is from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Mann wasn’t the PI (Albertson, now at Duke, was). The AG is exceeding the powers granted by the Commonwealth when he goes after federal grants, just like he did when he covered up the breasts of Virtue on the State seal!
The post climate gate posturing of the denialists like PopTart plays right into the Cap and Tax supporters hands. Denialists regularly attempt to refute radiation physics with shade-tree experiments and salon science. Don’t get me wrong, I think warming is better than cooling… however, the junior high short-guy faux-macho chest thumping revenge wet-dreams are an embarrassment to lukewarmers everywhere.
Awwwww, Chip,
Someone disagrees with Steve Mc and now we need a tissue… well, on this one I disagree with Steve, and it’s not the first time. But the fact is, a fact that Steve Mc to carrot eater will never tell you…. The VA AG is not the judge, jury or exocutioner here… he only brings one side to court if he feels he has the evidence… the rest is decided by a judge and or jury. PERIOD
And I’ll repeat it, Mann will not be a party to any proceeding, only the AG and the university will be parties to any legal action and only the University can be made to pay back grant money.
… unless in their audit they find a reciept for Spitzer’s hooker, then Mann would be in trouble
Poptech
Ugh, we’re back there again to MM2005? Mann got a hockey stick because that’s what’s in the data. You get it whether you use decentered PCA, centered PCA, or not PCA at all.
Hey Howard why the childish name calling and silly personal attacks? What exactly am I denying and where am I refuting radiation physics? Oh and I am not short, I am 6’4 250. So I have no need to beat my chest to make myself look tough. You are an embarrassment to anyone you are trying to represent.
McIntyre certainly frames it as fraud, or rather, conspiracy, since the paper was peer reviewed. Which is why people get understandably confused when he says there should be no criminal investigation.
You are making accusations of ‘intent’, while providing absolutely no evidence of it. Even assuming McIntyr is correct, and I don’t believe he is, there are other explanations.
One would be incompetence. (Mann strikes me as highly capable). That is not fraud, and it does not give you the intent you are accusing him of.
Another would be quality control, he rejects possible proxies as not being reliable when evaluated. Don’t forget, this was first done years ago, when paleoclimatology using such proxies was still in it’s infancy. Once again, no intent, no fraud.
McIntyre is wrong. For some reason, that possibility never comes up.
That this is all part of the standard scientific process. All papers are ‘wrong’ to the extent that they are not the complete solution to a matter of science. That is the nature of science. It’s not like accounting with double entry and journalling, where you can do a trial balance and come up with a result to the last cent. This is science, it explores what we don’t know yet, and it always will be doing just that. Nothing is ever certain. Hence the complaints that McIntyre does nothing to advance the science. For all his complaining and snide insinuations, he has actually come up with very little.
MikeC
Mike, you’re missing the point. The investigation itself is harassment. A large amount of documents is being requested, which would require a lot of time to collect, and it’s hard to figure out what relation any of it would have to the question of how grant money was spent, which was anyway monitored at the time. This is a purely politically motivated fishing expedition, and that’s what everybody is objecting to.
Chip Knappenberger (Comment#43653) May 19th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Since it has been McIntyre who has created that situation by focussing on individuals for years on his blog and pilorying them, I’m surprised you don’t have an issue with him. Without McIntyre, Mann would have no more prominence than the thousands of climate scientists out there that no-one has ever heard of.
Really? Can you provide Mann’s full source code to support these claims, thanks.
“Without McIntyre, Mann would have no more prominence than the thousands of climate scientists out there that no-one has ever heard of.”
Nope, Mann had been on about every major news show years before Steve Mc came around… and was being just as criticized by the skeptics back then
Carrot Eater:
I would agree with this with the proviso “in the data Mann choose to use.” The proxies he selected for had hockey sticks, and the ones he rejected (properly or otherwise is a separate question) did not.
bugs (Comment#43674) May 19th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
Well if he is highly capable then it certainly is fraud.
This is not a pre-sorting proxy QA procedure, this is a post cherry picking your results using mathematical tricks procedure.
“Mike, you’re missing the point. The investigation itself is harassment. A large amount of documents is being requested, which would require a lot of time to collect, and it’s hard to figure out what relation any of it would have to the question of how grant money was spent, which was anyway monitored at the time. This is a purely politically motivated fishing expedition, and that’s what everybody is objecting to.”
Investigations are only harrassment when the person being investigated has something to hide, it’s usually the excuse… and it’s a point the university could have made if they had gone in and challenged the subpoenas in court, which the law allows them to do, but which they didn’t do… they could have gone in and said “Lookie, judge, this is an attack on academia and etc, etc”. At that point the AG would have to show what he has knowledge of which sparked off the investigation.
By the way, all of these documents are a point and click away and all have been subject to FOI requests in the past… so put em on a CD and send then to the AG and let it be his move… if he does not bring an action, Mann can claim vindication… if he brings an action and loses, it’s a big time vindication for Mann. If he aint done nothin wrong, he got nothin to hide, but everything to gain.
More on Mann’s alleged “anonymity” before McIntyre,
So much for that myth
Poptech,
This is pretty old stuff now. The comments on MM2005 from von Storch and Huybers both played around with what difference it makes, whether you normalise the MBH way, or the way MM wanted. Answer is, not much. Then again much more comprehensively in Wahl and Ammann 2007. Anyway, people including Mann have since stopped using PCA.
As for MBH98 code, I don’t know where it is now, but it was out at some point – a URL is given in MM2005, even. If I remember correctly, it was from reading the code that MM saw in the first place how MBH did the normalising, as it wasn’t explicitly described in the original Nature paper.
But bugs makes the correct point: Even if McIntyre had more of a point with regards to how to properly do PCA, that isn’t then necessarily fraud on MBH’s part. It’s just a mistake, unless you can somehow prove malicious intent (which is moot here, because it doesn’t matter whether you go centered or decentered). Guess what – it happens. Take any paper from Nature in 1998, and put it under the same scrutiny. You’ll find there will inevitably be some bit of analysis that would be done differently today, if you allowed yourself to know everything you’ve learned since 1998. It’s called progress.
Carrick (Comment#43679) May 19th, 2010 at 9:28 pm
CE’s comments are unsupported and refuted by McIntyre in MM2005 (EE) not in MM2005 (GRL) which is likely what CE is referring to. Mann did not reject non-hockey stick shape series before the graph creation, he cherry picked the ones that were there to have a higher weight in the final results and effectively driving the conclusions.
CE, McIntyre has refuted Von Stork, Huyber, Wahl and Ammann (also known as the Jesus paper). All were effectively refuted in replies or by MM 2005 (EE). Wahl and Ammann’s paper effectively vindicated McIntyre’s conclusions by showing the R2 results which showed that Mann’s results were unreliable. MBH98 is pure crap.
No the code Mann claims he used is still not fully available. Nor is it for any of his “challenge” postings to RealClimate. Please provide it, I am sure McIntyre would love to continue to prove Mann wrong.
Why would Mann stop using such a “robust” method? Could it be it was total fraud?
MikeC
This is a ridiculous statement. If an AG has no reason to think you broke any law, then asking you for all “documents, drafts, things or data” and tons of emails over a number of years is harassment, pure and simple.
Carrot: You are overplaying your hand. This is not a case of using an older, imperfect method objectively. Mann obviously put his thumb on the scale just like the positive feedback GCMs. His willingness to spin results was responsible for his meteoric rise to scientific stardom. The hockey stick ended up as cover art for the IPCC sales brochure. Read the mails which shows he made his colleagues uncomfortable, but they went along with the bully.
PoopTroll (a 6’4″ body and a 5’7″ personality with lifts) will tell us that SM is aiding and abetting this monster that he previously destroyed. I don’t get the logic and don’t get why he thinks he can tell SM what to think and say. The small minded police-state mentality is unseemly and cowardly.
Mike Mann’s reputation is in ruin. That is plenty punishment for one with such a small ego and super-sized id. Sending in the Spanish Inquisition will only give him a lift while at the same time stifling risky scientific research.
Poptech
McIntyre’s complaint about the r-squared value has nothing to do with the centered/decentered question that you started us down this path with. So far as I know, McIntyre’s response on the centering point has been to whine a bit, since everybody says he should have retained more PCAs, and if I recall correctly, he’s questioned the methods used to ascertain how many PCAs you need. If there’s anything more substantive to his reply than that, you can let us know.
You do realise that you can make improvements and progress upon the past, without the past being ‘fraud’? This is just demagoguery you are giving us, poptech.
HoJo (9th grade mentality), I am entitled to my opinion contrary to your dictatorial delusions. I don’t get the logic of any of your strawman arguments either. Thanks for conceding defeat by not supporting your lies.
carrot eater (Comment#43675) May 19th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
MikeC
The VA AG is not the judge, jury or exocutioner here… he only brings one side to court if he feels he has the evidence… the rest is decided by a judge and or jury. PERIOD
And I’ll repeat it, Mann will not be a party to any proceeding, only the AG and the university will be parties to any legal action and only the University can be made to pay back grant money.
Mike, you’re missing the point. The investigation itself is harassment. A large amount of documents is being requested, which would require a lot of time to collect, and it’s hard to figure out what relation any of it would have to the question of how grant money was spent, which was anyway monitored at the time. This is a purely politically motivated fishing expedition, and that’s what everybody is objecting to.
Yeah if the AG is so concerned about deception re Climate science perhaps he should go after Pat Michaels for misrepresenting Jim Hansen’s graph to Congress? Or Wegman for plagiarism and misrepresentation in his report to the Energy and Commerce Committee? I believe they’re both Virginia residents.
CE, still no luck on the code I take it. The R2 value is central to the paper having any relevance, which thanks to Wahl and Ammann they proved it doesn’t. Please source his “whining” response you are referring to, thanks.
Looks like the Mann trolls are out in force to defend their messiah of fraud.
Howard,
Where? There seem to be articles of faith among this crowd, but can anybody actually articulate where this intentional thumb-putting is?
The answer simply isn’t in the centered/decentered question.
Now, there are ways you could lose some low-frequency variation in a reconstruction. Looking at how flat the MBH stick is, maybe that’s the case in MBH; I’d have to dig into it. But even if that’s the case here, it’d be hard to call it intentional.
This is all just funny, given that McIntyre is the source for all these complaints about MBH98.
Poptech
This has absolutely nothing to do with your line of argument, which is that Mann deliberately used decentered PCA to get a hockey stick, out of data that wouldn’t provide a hockey stick using centered PCA.
Poptech posts:
At the time he published his `Hockey Stick’ paper, Michael Mann held an adjunct faculty position at the University of Massachusetts, in the Department of Geosciences.
If that is the issue, even Cooch should very well know that it wasn’t done with Virginia money.
That, too.
So moving to the VA grant highlighted above:
I could be spelling something wrong, but I can’t find any paper published by Mann and either an Albertson or Epstein.
carrot eater,
You keep saying this but fail to provide any support for this assertion that McIntyre has not refuted. Where is the code? Where is the source to his whining?
Poptech,
Multiple people (let’s go with Ammann and Wahl, because it’s the closest reproduction) have shown that if you retain the appropriate number of PCs, then it does not much matter (with these sorts of data, at least; it may not be generally true) whether you use centered or decentered; you still get a hockey stick.
If you think McIntyre has given some suitable response to this precise point, please show it; you seem quite sure that McIntyre has responded to everything. There is no formal comment on Wahl/Ammann that I can find.
Boris:
That would be WG3 I think.
Poptech (Comment#43685) May 19th, 2010 at 10:04 pm
Could it be that invisible green aliens had control ofhis mind? Anything is possible, you have to provide evidence of what you are claiming. So far, nothing more than ‘could it be’.
Einstein has highly capable, yet he found parts of quantum phyics hard to accept. Was he wrong, fraudulent, misguided, lacking intelligence?
bugs,
Tell me of this sinks in for you or not.
When someone presents a meaningless image to the public and calls it science… it’s fraud, whether is violates any specific law or Bugs’ Personal Set Of Rules For Everyone or not.
Just like when a car salesman tries to sell you a lemon. You can choose not to buy it. Do you understand?
Andrew
So Andrew doesn’t think any law has to be broken, in order for the law to be used against you?
Andrew_KY (Comment#43713) May 20th, 2010 at 6:38 am
Like I said before, you are calling it a conspiracy, since this was published science in a scientific journal with editors and peer review. Just because you don’t understand the meaning does not make it meaningless. You could disagree with the paper, but that would not be anything new. You have not demonstrated fraud in any way.
“So Andrew doesn’t think any law has to be broken, in order for the law to be used against you?”
The law is “used against me” on a daily basis. There speed limits, taxes, registrations and licenses of various kinds, property lines, no trespassing signs, etc… do you not have these is AGW World, CE? 😉
Andrew
“Like I said before, you are calling it a conspiracy, since this was published science in a scientific journal with editors and peer review.”
When did I call it a consipracy? Could you link where I said that?
Andrew
Andrew writes meaningless comments on a website about science. Even though that isn’t against any law, I think this is fraud, and he should be investigated. After all, how can we know if Andrew broke any laws if we don’t investigate him?
“Andrew writes meaningless comments on a website about science. Even though that isn’t against any law, I think this is fraud, and he should be investigated. After all, how can we know if Andrew broke any laws if we don’t investigate him?”
How is me posting opinions on a blog fraud, CE? I’m not trying to pretend they are something they are not. They are my opinion, and I don’t pretend they are anything else.
Andrew
Andrew_KY (Comment#43719) May 20th, 2010 at 6:54 am
I just pointed out, it didn’t get published without people reading it and approving it first. That’s the whole point of peer review, it is a quality control mechanism.
“I just pointed out, it didn’t get published without people reading it and approving it first. That’s the whole point of peer review, it is a quality control mechanism.”
bugs,
Indeed. But as has been pointed out numerous times, peer review doesn’t guarantee correctness.
Andrew
AGW is perfect propaganda. Carrot eater you are just spinning information and typing like fanatic as usual.
A Civil Investigative Demand is essentially just a subpoena.
In fact: ” Carol Wood, a spokeswoman for the university, said in a statement that the university has “a legal obligation to answer this request and it is our intention to respond to the extent required by law.” She said the scope of the information requested by the attorney general means it will take the university some time to comply.”
“Cuccinelli (R) has a pending lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of greenhouse gases and it’s possible he is looking for evidence as part of the suit. It is also possible he’s looking at separate action against Mann, who is best known as the author of the so-called “hockey stick” graph charting climate change and whose work has been the subject of repeated investigations and criticisms from conservative groups.
Brian Gottstein, a spokesman for Cuccinelli, said the office would “neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of any pending case or investigation,” suggesting the request may, in fact, be an investigation into Mann’s work separate from the EPA case.”
I hope he is going to sue the EPA!
Mann whining about a “witch hunt” just tells everyone he’s a big weeny lame scientist (his data does not support his conclusions!) He NEVER wants anybody to look at his stuff unless he deems that person/group worthy. He is a JUNK scientist.
“Mann whining about a “witch hunt†just tells everyone he’s a big weeny lame scientist (his data does not support his conclusions!) He NEVER wants anybody to look at his stuff unless he deems that person/group worthy. He is a JUNK scientist.”
Hi liza 😉
Indeed. Mann’s stick has already been broken by Steve Mc. He should quit whinin’, grow a pair, and honestly accept what everyone already sees.
Andrew
liza (Comment#43724) May 20th, 2010 at 7:09 am
As science, I find it quite good, as propaganda, it has failed miserably.
speaking of peer review:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/19/global-cooling-scientists-warming/
Contrary to the commonly held scientific conclusion that the Earth is getting warmer, Dr. Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University and author of more than 150 peer-reviewed papers, has unveiled evidence for his prediction that global cooling is coming soon.
“Rather than global warming at a rate of 1 F per decade, records of past natural cycles indicate there may be global cooling for the first few decades of the 21st century to about 2030,†said Easterbrook, speaking on a scientific panel discussion with other climatologists. This, he says, will likely be followed by “global warming from about 2030 to 2060,†which will then be followed by another cooling spell from 2060 to 2090.
Easterbrook spoke before a group of about 700 scientists and government officials at the fourth International Conference on Climate Change. The conference is presented annually in Chicago by the Heartland Institute, a conservative nonprofit think tank that actively questions the theory of man’s role in global warming. Last year the Institute published Climate Change Reconsidered, a comprehensive reply to the United Nations’ latest report on climate change.
“Global warming is over — at least for a few decades,” Easterbrook told conference attendees. “However, the bad news is that global cooling is even more harmful to humans than global warming, and a cause for even greater concern.”
“Easterbrook, one of 75 climate and policy experts presenting at the conference, uncovered sudden climate fluctuations of warming and cooling — all of which occurred before 1945, when carbon dioxide levels began to rise sharply — through geologic evidence.
Ten big climate changes occurred over the past 15,000 years, and another 60 smaller changes occurred in the past 5,000 years.
Based on new analysis of ice cores from Greenland to Antarctica, Easterbrook said global temperatures rose and fell from 9 to 15 degrees in a century or less — swings that he said were “astonishing.””
bugs (Comment#43726) May 20th, 2010 at 7:18 am
I hope someone pays you for all your effort.
If you can’t see how it is perfect propaganda; I don’t see how you have enough brains to understand the science.
Everything and anything can be blamed on AGW. If you disagree with that statement; prove it!
Drought, flood, storms, cold, hot, extinction, disease…
Shall I post a link to that website the tracks and the lists all of the things blamed on “global warming”?
Oh right wait, it’s call “climate change” now. How convenient!
A fraction of one degree of temperature…which is only a construct NOT EVEN A REAL NUMBER. Are you serious?
Andrew_KY (Comment#43725) May 20th, 2010 at 7:18 am
Hi Andrew! Yeppers! These climate scientists are so full of bologna! As if it’s normal for a scientist to behave like they do. Sheesh. NO WAY.
liza (Comment#43729) May 20th, 2010 at 7:30 am
I thought you had been learning something at dismalscience, apparently not.
If it was perfect propaganda, everyone would have believed it and Kyoto would have been done and dusted by now.
An appeal to ridicule is not going to get you anywhere.
Floods, yes. There will be more weather events, including floods. And droughts.
The one degree is a real number. Plenty of ‘skeptics’ are quite prepared to put their own version of the number up. It represents an average, sample temperature across the globe. Another webber has just put up their own version, and it matches the other versions quite closely, they are all telling the same story.
What the average doesn’t tell you is the far more interesting information, such as the extremes that are being encountered. 47C is not nice the first time you experience it, and I dread the inevitability of more of them occurring, especially when they are associated with wild fires that kill hundreds. Droughts get worse, floods get worse, weather events such as damaging hail storms become more common, sea levels rise, the arctic ice is once again retreating rapidly, in areas scientists expected permanent ice to persist for many more decades.
This is a ‘globa’ phenomenon. Just stop and think what global means for a moment, it means everyone, everywhere, on the globe will be affected, and all the flora and fauna. For some reason just saying that can’t possibly happen is enough to convince you it can’t.
Liza, don’t let yourself be fooled by Don Easterbrook: http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/easterbrook-and-the-coming-global-cooling/
bugs (Comment#43731) May 20th, 2010 at 7:42 am
The Earth has always been a dangerous place
Where did I ever say “it can’t possibly happen”? The fact that climate changes on this planet is being used as PERFECT PROPAGANDA in the first place. Climate change does happen on this planet A LOT and FAST. The political crap and the junk science part is that humans and puny C02 ppms are the cause of it. NO WHERE in the vast geologic record has that ever been the case. NO WHERE. I’ve argued the evidence for this and provided the science links more then once on this blog and you all just IGNORE IT.
Neven (Comment#43733) May 20th, 2010 at 7:54 am
I will listen to a geologist any day any time over the “climate science” crowd. My husband is a state certified Environmental Geologist and every single peer and co-worker, hundreds of people; he’s not encountered one that thinks this “climate science” is worthy of such admiration!
That was a lame over view BTW. It says: “the global average never changed by 10-20 degrees in decades ”
That’s BS. I’ve provided links to the Blue Holes research that say the opposite on this blog. ALL the AGW crowd does is ignore research like this.
“We don’t worry too much about climate change, because it’s something that’s going to happen “after I’m dead.” But, in actual fact, some of the records that we’ve been looking at (stalagmites), we see tremendous changes in a matter of decades. And so, when climate changes that fast, obviously it would have tremendous implications for the present-day society.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3705_cavedive.html
liza (Comment#43735) May 20th, 2010 at 7:56 am
Back to dismalscience with you.
Fossil evidence clearly demonstrates that Earth’s climate can shift gears within a decade, establishing new and different patterns that can persist for decades to centuries. In addition, these climate shifts do not necessarily have universal, global effects. They can generate a counterintuitive scenario: Even as the earth as a whole continues to warm gradually, large regions may experience a precipitous and disruptive shift into colder climates.
This new paradigm of abrupt climate change has been well established over the last decade by research of ocean, earth and atmosphere scientists at many institutions worldwide. But the concept remains little known and scarcely appreciated in the wider community of scientists, economists, policy makers, and world political and business leaders. Thus, world leaders may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur.
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?cid=9986&pid=12455&tid=282
bugs (Comment#43739) May 20th, 2010 at 8:16 am
Where’s your science? I am waiting!
“My husband is a state certified Environmental Geologist”
That’s interesting. Tell us more…
Poptech (Comment#43658):
“Chip, do you believe Mann was intentionally trying to get the results that he wanted or not?”
Of course he was, to a certain degree. Just like I try to get the results I want. There was a saying back in grad school (UVa), that the problem with working at the p=0.05 significance level was than you had to do things 20 times before you got the answer you wanted.
So there you have it.
With this allegation in hand, Cuccinnelli should open up his investigation to include all grad students et al. in the sciences at UVa that ever received any state support (i.e. virtually all of them) and probably at every other public University in the state.
With the information I just provided, Mike Mann has no more unique stature than anyone else.
-Chip
.
Liza, I didn’t know you were an alarmist!
carrot,
“This is a ridiculous statement.”
No, what is ridiculous is that you did not understand what I was saying… I was saying that it is usually their excuse
Rapid climate changes has happened in the past and is associated with mass extinctions. I don’t know what comfort you get from that.
I don’t know…Carrot’s comments about Gore seemed reasonable. Gore is not a scientist and needn’t be referenced.
I watched AICT twice, once to get the gist and once to capture the science. There is very little science in the movie. It’s mostly Gore in profile viewing vast landscapes. The landscape of the green meadow exposed by the retreating glacier was especially beautiful but I don’t think that was supposed to be the viewer reaction.
So Carrot is not missing out on any solid science and is right not to try to defend AICT too heavily. And frankly, I don’t think viewing AICT would strengthen or weaken his arguments.
A bit off on the hooker comment, but otherwise not bad.
I do have to disagree that Mann’s hockey stick has not been refuted. Surely you have read the Wegman and North responses to the statistics? It’s true North has changed his tune, but he seemed pretty certain at one time that Mann’s premise was not supported by his work. (Please don’t go off on the plagiarism tangent).
As to the legality behind any method of science (or lack thereof), I have no idea and it seems most people don’t either. We may be in new territory here.
The following papers provide the observationally-based calculations that Annan and Hargreaves used to estimate climate sensitivity between 2 and 4 degrees. The figures are derived from 20th Century Warming, response to explosive volcanic eruptions, and temperature rise since the Last Glacial Maximum.
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jdannan/GRL_sensitivity.pdf
20th Century Warming
Knutti, R., T. F. Stocker, F. Joos, and G.-K. Plattner (2002), Constraints on radiative forcing and future climate change from observations and climate model ensembles, Nature, 416, 719–723.
Gregory, J. M., R. J. Stouffer, S. C. B. Raper, P. A. Stott, and N. A. Rayner (2002), An observationally based estimate of the climate sensitivity, Journal of Climate, 15 (22), 3117–3121.
Andronova, N. G., and M. E. Schlesinger (2001), Objective estimation of the probability density function for climate sensitivity, Journal of Geophysical Research, 108 (D8),22,605–22,611.
Forest, C. E., P. H. Stone, A. P. Sokolov, M. R. Allen, and M. D. Webster (2002), Quantifying uncertainties in climate system properties with the use of recent climate observations, Science, 295 (5552), 113–117.
Volcanic
Wigley, T. M. L., C. M. Amman, B. D. Santer, and S. B. Raper (2005), Effect of climate sensitivity on the response to volcanic forcing, Journal of Geophysical Research, 110 (D09107).
Frame, D. J., B. B. B. Booth, J. A. Kettleborough, D. A. Stainforth, J. M. Gregory, M. Collins, and M. R. Allen (2005), Constraining climate forecasts: The role of prior assumptions, Geophysical Research Letters, 32 (L09702).
Yokohata, T., S. Emori, T. Nozawa, Y. Tsushima, T. Ogura, and M. Kimoto (2005), Climate response to volcanic forcing: Validation of climate sensitivity of a coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation model, Geophysical Research Letters, 32 (L21710).
LGM
Ballantyne, A. P., M. Lavine, T. J. Crowley, J. Liu, and P. B. Baker (2005), Meta-analysis of tropical surface temperatures during the Last Glacial Maximum, Geophysical Research Letters, 32 (L05712).
Bintanja, R., and R. S. W. V. de Wal (2005), A new method to estimate ice age temperatures, Climate Dynamics, 24, 197–211.
Taylor, K. E., C. D. Hewitt, P. Braconnot, A. J. Broccoli, C. Doutriaux, J. F. B. Mitchell, and PMIP-Participating-Groups (2000), Analysis of forcing, response and feedbacks in a paleoclimate modeling experiment, in Paleoclimate Modeling Intercomparison Project (PMIP): proceedings of the third PMIP workshop, edited by P. Braconnot, pp. 43–50, Canada, 1999.
Crucifix, M., and C. D. Hewitt (2005), Impact of vegetation changes on the dynamics of the atmosphere at the Last Glacial Maximum, Climate Dynamics, 25 (5), 447–459.
Claquin, T., et al. (2003), Radiative forcing of climate by ice-age atmospheric dust, Climate Dynamics, 20, 193–202.
von Deimling, T. S., H. Held, A. Ganopolski, and S. Rahmstorf (2005), Climate sensitivity estimated from ensemble simulations of glacial climate, Climate Dynamics, (Submitted).
Liza,
I read that Woods Hole article you linked and am pretty surprised that an organization as prominent as them would make the kinds of errors as they did. The abrupt climate change which has occurred in the past were the result of cataclysmic events such as asteroid impacts or major volcanic eruptions. They know this and to suggest that the Younger Dryas event can reoccur with increased precipitation or runoff is quite ridiculous. The flood that caused the YD event was quite spectacular and what they describe would be drops in a swimming pool in comparison.
I thought Younger dryas and dansgaard oescher sorts of events are pretty limited to certain parts of the ice age cycles. Wouldn’t necessarily expect that sort of thing in the middle of an interglacial.
Re: carrot eater (May 21 09:09),
Younger Dryas, preceded by the Antarctic Cold Reversal, appears to have been an extremely unusual event. Meltwater pulse 1A (20m sea level increase in less than 500 years) may be related to the ACR and Y-D. D-O events are fairly regular. There were 25 or so identified in the last glacial. There may be something similar that occurs during interglacial periods called Bond events. They’re only about 20% of the magnitude of D-O events, but seem to happen at a similar frequency, about every 1,500 years. Of course, whether either is actually cyclical and whether D-O and Bond events have the same trigger is controversial. I did see at least one reference that claimed the 1,500 year cycle was a resonance between ~90 and ~200 year solar cycles.
carrot, D-O events are not the kind of events which lead to mass extinctions and etc… The YD event not only resulted in abrupt climate change, but mass extinctions, and etc… the latest theory is the Clovis Comet in case ya wanna look it up… I thiink the previous theory was an immediate glacier dam burst as the laurentine ice sheet was melting away… but we are talking about a lot of water… immediate draining of body of water 70% of the size of Canada and a half mile deep… whole bunches of water… we’re talking deep
Liza’s IPCC link about abrupt climatic change led me to look up this interesting paper about the fall of the Akkadian empire .
It concludes comfortingly with the following:
These dislocations were sufficient to
destabilize the region and to fundamentally alter
the social, political, and economic fabric of this
once-unified culture. Furthermore, these responses
occurred despite the fact that the Akkadians had
implemented sophisticated grain-storage and
water-regulation technologies to buffer themselves
against historical (interannual) variations in rainfall
(Weiss et al., 1993).
MikeC
Never said it was. I was just thinking about rapid regional climate changes, as the woods hole thing was talking about.
carrot,
“I thought Younger dryas and dansgaard oescher sorts of events are pretty limited to certain parts of the ice age cycles. Wouldn’t necessarily expect that sort of thing in the middle of an interglacial.”
Not so sure abut D-O events, but if the YD was caused by an impact, or an extinction was caused by a Yosemite size volcano, I think it’s fair to guess that cycles of glaciation would be irrelevant
Did the Woods Hole article even mention anything along the lines of D-O events or did it focus on YD?… and is YD regional? or are DO? or did the article mention regional?
MikeC
The woods hole article started talking about abrupt regional changes, which the d-o certainly were.
It was really talking about disruptions to overturning and the thermohaline circulation, which would make the regional climates look somehow different from how they are now. But I don’t think too many people expect anything like that to happen.
As for comet impacts and the younger dryas – jury still out, I think, on how that all fits together? Disruption to the THC are probably part of the picture; maybe impact is another part. I don’t keep up with that area.
Speaking of these past climate changes, does anybody know much about the Earth Ring theory? I hadn’t heard of this till recently and I’m wondering how such a thing could be observed in the record.
(Cliffs: an impact event ejected material from the Earth which then formed a ring. The ring reduced incoming solar irradiance and caused climate change. Rings are unstable around the Earth and eventually the ring disappeared, causing another change.)
Re: Boris (May 21 12:59), I googled and found this: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/climate-02zb.html The 2002 article discussed the “ring” theory briefly.
carrot,
I don’t consider a D-O event to be “abrupt climate change”… as in a matter of days or months… as for the Clovis Comet, ya, the jury is still out which is why I called it the latest theory… but it is probably the best of them because of the nature of the evidence.
However, there has been quite a bit of data confirming the immediate rush of water into the Arctic / North Atlantic which shut down the NADC (Y-D event)… if in fact that was accompanied by the types of immediate effects one would expect from an impact, then yes, that would be the type of “abrupt climate change” I’m talking about.
“(Cliffs: an impact event ejected material from the Earth which then formed a ring. The ring reduced incoming solar irradiance and caused climate change. Rings are unstable around the Earth and eventually the ring disappeared, causing another change.)”
As if the direct and indirect effects of an impact minus a ring wouldnt be enough?
Wow I missed all this. What the heck.
“Neven (Comment#43776) May 20th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
This new paradigm of abrupt climate change
.Liza, I didn’t know you were an alarmist!”
It really surprises me how seemingly smart people can’t follow a conversation. I was talking about “abrupt climate change” as fact of this planet, in fact didn’t I comment “The Earth has always been a dangerous place”? back some where when Bugs said AGW wasn’t perfect propaganda? Aren’t I angry that some people use climate change information in a way I find disgusting; and many other people don’t approve of it either… use it as a political and ideological means of scaring and influencing people for political reasons ie: propaganda. That’s why a theory first called Anthropogenic Global Warming, gets entitled just plain old “Climate Change” later doesn’t it? It was a calculated game move.
Someone, was it you Neven?, posted an critique of the geologist’s research I provided; and that overview/critique said the climate does not change on this planet in a matter of decades; and I submitted just two links as examples (the Blue Hole research is way more interesting!!!!!) of why they don’t know what they are talking about or how that statement isn’t true. Neven suggested also that I should not listen to or respect that earth scientist with over 200 publications because of his link. Sheesh. Really? But I am supposed to listen or respect the climate scientists who regurgitate the same massaged data over and over and review each other’s papers…blah blah blah…?
Earth’s orbital cycles are imprinted in the rock and soil. Sea level high stands match all over the world. And nobody can say they know exactly how the climate looks (regional or global!) when the Earth’s orbit starts to change or exactly how long it takes to do what it does as we “experience it” on these teeny tiny time scales we live in! We are on a planet that has had many glacial periods and interglacial periods in its recent past. We are in and a glacial minima now; and humans didn’t start it. Do any of you think the ice isn’t supposed to melt? No, you are just going claim a fraction of one degree is making it melt faster. (And forget that some glaciers are growing too)
I am not afraid of warm. I am afraid of cold.
And a comet hitting the planet is more worrisome to me then a fraction of one degree of “average global temperature” birthed out of a computer program .
It’s early yet and I am sure I can find more to say…lol
47C (116.6F) is something I fear.
BTW folks, my father in law called yesterday. He is a retired engineer (rockets), a pilot and a West Point grad. Smart cookie. He lives on the North Shore of Oahu and his house is right on the beach and the water is just steps away. He mentioned, since he is interested in all this “climate change” stuff, that May 2010 marks 20 years of living in that house. He says the beach where he lives has not changed at all. (He knows his beach) This year he did complain (he sends us weather reports by email) that it was too cold. It was when it was in the high 60’s F, one weekend -there was a storm too.
Liza, here’s your wonderful geologist, hiding the incline.
.
What makes you think that anti-AGW isn’t propaganda too?
Get a life bugs!
Neven (Comment#43888) May 22nd, 2010 at 7:30 am
Liza, here’s your wonderful geologist, hiding the incline.
Tim Lambert? A computer programer wanna be scientist. Rude, nasty bigot…riiight I should listen to him. And Gareth Renowden; googling I find a New Zealand-based truffle grower…wow I even see the word fraud used on that page.
Whatever Neven. Boy I sense so much emotion and so much need to be “right” and need to have all this drama means something to you. No matter what or who; you are all still arguing/worrying over a FRACTION of one degree on a temperature graph claiming to represent the “whole world” which is still quite questionable!!!….YAWN.
“Neven (Comment#43888) May 22nd, 2010 at 7:30 am
Liza, here’s your wonderful geologist, hiding the incline.
.
What makes you think that anti-AGW isn’t propaganda too?”
Neven, thank you for your honesty.
You are invited to The Andrew_KY Climate Golf Scramble whenever I get it together. 😉
Andrew
Whatever you want, Liza. It’s your party. 🙂
.
Sure thing, Andrew.
liza (Comment#43887) May 22nd, 2010 at 7:24 am
BTW folks, my father in law called yesterday. He is a retired engineer (rockets), a pilot and a West Point grad. Smart cookie. He lives on the North Shore of Oahu and his house is right on the beach and the water is just steps away. He mentioned, since he is interested in all this “climate change†stuff, that May 2010 marks 20 years of living in that house. He says the beach where he lives has not changed at all. (He knows his beach) This year he did complain (he sends us weather reports by email) that it was too cold. It was when it was in the high 60’s F, one weekend -there was a storm too.
.
look liza, it is no surprise that the whole of your family is made up of smart cookies.
.
here is a graph of global sea level rise: 8slightly outdated, and most likely a little bit too low)
.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SeaLevel_TOPEX.jpg
.
now can you tell me, how your father (he knows his beach..) would spot a 5 cm rise in sea level?
.
and you do understand, that he would need to form an AVERAGE, to make claims about sea level?
sod (Comment#43897) May 22nd, 2010 at 8:58 am
Better question, how many years would it take to even notice the sea level rise? Certainly 20 yrs isn’t enough. (Hint: that’s the whole point !!!! And the Hawaiian islands are ALSO sinking sod!) Do you guys tag team or what? BTW edit: when I say he knows his beach that also means he makes note of the way it looks; example there are coral outcroppings that he knows every detail of, stinking out of the surf and all that; the size of the sand, distance from the water in relation to his back porch etc. I can share a picture; it is literally steps away.
They way you guys demonstrate NO UNDERSTANDING or empathy for anyone who speaks plain and simple about anything here, etc is amazing. ( Like in the other post re: weather stations and my comments…all the bullying!)
Neven-we can’t have a party until its warm. I have a pool. Southern California, end of May, schools out next week; and still haven’t had a day warm enough to use the pool. That’s not usual! Only in the 60’s F around here today.
Stinking coral outcroppings? That’s definitive proof that the sea level is getting lower! 😉
.
Don’t worry, Liza. The denialist blogosphere is all excited that a La Niña is on her way (finally the ignoring of monthly record temperatures is over), so that should take care of your situation in California. Keep watering that lawn!
Neven (Comment#43899) May 22nd, 2010 at 9:18 am
I have fake grass in the backyard (a small square for the dogs) and we redid my whole front lawn last summer and reduced the lawn down to a quarter of what it was, the rest is planters and plants that don’t need that much water. I have had to turn off the sprinkler system (new sod in front) for 72 hours twice this month because of RAIN. There is a law suit pending against the city trying to fine some homeowners here because they got rid of their grass and planted a desert scape. Apparently there is law that you have to have a lawn!!! Hypocrites.
Stinking? woops that’s a typo… I meant that they are -sticking out- of the surf-and how much depends on the tides; but they are all little islands out there in front of the house.
See, I would not have said “sinking out” either….Do I need to show a picture? (You just validate what I mean about the deliberate bullying and showing lack of empathy and understanding. You assume what I mean with a negative bent first ; without even asking me to clarify! And never mind that “keep watering the lawn” comment. I make typos a lot too.)
Liza,
The Tim Lambert article that Neven linked is fair (with the usual amount of bogus political spin) The point Lambert made, as well as the article Lambert linked showed Dr Easterbrook cherrypicking the graphs in his Heartland presentation, much the way Lambert and friends do when making points. In one of the Easterbrook graphs, temps from the last 100 years were left off of a graph going back to the last glaciation (Holocene). In the Lambert graph, Easterbrook made a point about the last 10 years and how temps did not match model predictions. But Easterbrook left out the first two years and this last yerar which totally changed the trend.
However, with respect to the GISP graph (holocene), it still provides evidence that the sun has been the main climate driver over the last 11,000 years. For those who read all of the literature, not just what they want to read, there is a guy named Sami Solanki from the Max Plank Institute who does solar activity reconstructions using different proxys. His Holocene reconstruction is confirmed by many different lines of evidence from ice cores to fossils. The GISP cores show temperatures have not been this high since solar was this high, 8,000 years ago.
Neven’s point is fair in that there are skeptics who will fudge the evidence just like the “warmers” do. But if you keep an open mind and be fair to yourself, you will find that it is usually the skeptics who win out.
MikeC (Comment#43950) May 22nd, 2010 at 8:31 pm
I’d like you to show me where he has done that.
liza (Comment#43891) May 22nd, 2010 at 7:48 am
No, a computer programmer who refers to the work of scientists to make his case, and has trouble picking out the obvious errors of scientists such as the one in this case, that anyone can understand.
.
Exactly, except that the ‘skeptics’ who fudge the evidence should not be allowed to hide behind the term ‘skeptic’, as they do not deserve it. These people should be named otherwise, and for me the term ‘denialist’ covers their stance pretty well.
.
One major problem in the debate is that skeptics/lukewarmers allow denialists to hide behind them. Personally I’m hoping that the success of Climategate will allow the genuine skeptics to dissociate themselves from their denialist allies, but I’m not seeing much signs of that happening.
MikeC (Comment#43950) May 22nd, 2010 at 8:31 pm
Thanks Mike! I pretty much know all that stuff. I am married to a working/published earth scientist! 🙂 I never said that Tim Lambert article wasn’t fair I actually said that arguing over graphs about one degree of temperature (and now even the cherry picking) was a big yawn no matter who was doing it.
I said:
No matter what or who; you are all still arguing/worrying over a FRACTION of one degree on a temperature graph claiming to represent the “whole world†which is still quite questionable!!!….YAWN.”
I didn’t point to that Easterbrook link because I “believed” in it. Where did I say that? I posted “speaking of peer review” and posted it. I did say I would listen to a geologist more then a climate scientist and that still is true! I think the reaction is interesting.
I pointed out the backgrounds of Lambert and the truffle guy because that’s what warmers of the blogsphere do.. “he’s just a retired mining executive funded by big oil!” …blah blah. I was making fun of that fact. (…jumping over Easterbrook’s paper; “hide the incline” and calling it fraud. All that needs to be said by me is “move on” LOL)
There’s plenty of times the folks here will ignore things that are posted or ignore questions that are asked to make a point. Usually that’s an indication they can’t find fault with what what said. LOL Silence. I’ve been participating in the debates for years too!
Sod jumped all over my story of my FIL on Oahu because he didn’t think I understood sea level rise. I do. I bet I understand sea level calculations because of who I am married to… more then he or anyone here does maybe! The point was no “alarming” sea level rise is affecting that person living on an island in the middle of the Pacific at this time (for 20 yrs). IOW That’s not the kind of information that won Al Gore a nobel; etc. But sod assumed “stupid” first when reading my comment!
Liza, even worse, it’s .6 deg LOL (but somewhere you did say it is a fraction)
Neven, I’d say that the guys who are fudging are just not honest, regardless of which side they are on.
Oops I did mess up and say one whole degree up there didn’t I? 😉
Sod jumped all over my story of my FIL on Oahu because he didn’t think I understood sea level rise. I do. I bet I understand sea level calculations because of who I am married to… more then he or anyone here does maybe! The point was no “alarming†sea level rise is affecting that person living on an island in the middle of the Pacific at this time (for 20 yrs). IOW That’s not the kind of information that won Al Gore a nobel; etc. But sod assumed “stupid†first when reading my comment!
.
your comment was plain out stupid. the idea that your father would spot the sea level rise is plain out stupid. do not try to spin what you said, it is up there, for all of us to read!
.
you have showed multiple times, that you do not understand anything like that. you simply can NOT talk about sea level, without forming an AVERAGE. a concept, that is utterly foreign to you. without an AVERAGE, tides and waves destroy all forms of comparison. again, i have your own words, showing your lack of understanding.
.
you are trying to spin your comment into something completely different. (a few inch of sea level rise don t matter.)
but this is also false, because those small changes matter over time and during floods. you will notice soon.
Liza, even worse, it’s .6 deg LOL (but somewhere you did say it is a fraction)
.
quite a lot of people are not laughing over a 1°c change in temperature. and we know, that this is only the beginning.
.
Neven, I’d say that the guys who are fudging are just not honest, regardless of which side they are on.
.
why don t you simply link to one case of Tim Lambert faking a graph, in his last 10 posts?
sod:
Who are these “quite a lot of people”? IMO these are mostly a bunch of hippies blubbering over something to blubber over.
Srly, you really need to learn some history. The LIA created much more human misery than the climate rebound from it, or even warming, forced or otherwise, since then.
It’d be much easier to find a juvenile post of his attacking some random nonbeliever, followed by 50 juvenile comments from his admirers.
sod, did Lambert put a graph in a one of his last 10 posts to make a point (not to disagree with a point like Easterbrook… that was perfectly reasonable) I don’t read him anymore, too politically biased, same with Morano… but if you go back and look at his posts where he did try to make points, they will be spun like the rest of his work… although one has to admit it will not be as bad as Easterbrooks ROFL!
Who are these “quite a lot of people� IMO these are mostly a bunch of hippies blubbering over something to blubber over.
Srly, you really need to learn some history. The LIA created much more human misery than the climate rebound from it, or even warming, forced or otherwise, since then.
.
you might want to google the term “drought”. why don t you go to one of the places that has been suffering a massive one recently, and lecture them about the unimportance of 1°C? and how bad te LIA was?
.
It’d be much easier to find a juvenile post of his attacking some random nonbeliever, followed by 50 juvenile comments from his admirers.
.
all you need to do is LINK. have you figured out how it works?
.
which of the 10 latest post is a “juvenile” one? i will love to read those 50 juvenile responses as well! go along and LINK!!!
.
————————–
.
sod, did Lambert put a graph in a one of his last 10 posts to make a point
.
basically each of the last posts that require a graph, include one. or numbers. or at least a link to a post, containing numbers or a graph.
.
but if you go back and look at his posts where he did try to make points, they will be spun like the rest of his work
.
that is simply a false claim. and that you are unable to provide a link to such spin in the last 10 post should give you a hint.
sod,
you ready to put your money where your mouth is?
sod:
That drought is unrelated to anthropogenic global warming. Just an example of fevered imagination your part that it is.
You don’t think they had droughts during the little ice age?
You need a good flogging for drinking this koolaid.
Nothing juvenile about this:
Camille Paglia is an idiot.
Is there?
Sod:
“your comment was plain out stupid. the idea that your father would spot the sea level rise is plain out stupid. do not try to spin what you said, it is up there, for all of us to read!”
The point was NOBODY COULD SPOT “THE DREADED” SEA LEVEL RISE all the world is worried about! No even a man livin’ on an island for 20 yrs where it eff’n matters!
That drought is unrelated to anthropogenic global warming. Just an example of fevered imagination your part that it is.
You don’t think they had droughts during the little ice age?
You need a good flogging for drinking this koolaid.
.
what are you talking about? the drought doesn t need to be caused by anthropogenic warming. the people suffering from it, will still be able to teach you about the relevance of 1°C. and they will also teach you, to stop making those stupid LIA remarks. droughts are dangerous, as is cold.
.
you made the claim, that a warming by 1°C is not relevant. i pointed out, that for many people it is. i was right, and you were wrong. why not simply admit that?
.
Nothing juvenile about this:
Camille Paglia is an idiot.
Is there?
.
the only “juvenile” thing i spot in that post, is Camile’s defence of the birthers.
.
The point was NOBODY COULD SPOT “THE DREADED†SEA LEVEL RISE all the world is worried about! No even a man livin’ on an island for 20 yrs where it eff’n matters!
.
you said:
.
He mentioned, since he is interested in all this “climate change†stuff, that May 2010 marks 20 years of living in that house. He says the beach where he lives has not changed at all. (He knows his beach)
.
you made a wild claim, about his ability to spot changes in sea level. you were wrong. you are no trying to give it different spins. (sea level rise is too slow to be spotted by anyone)
.
Carrick (Comment#43993) May 23rd, 2010 at 6:15 pm
The snark is strong in him, for sure, but Paglia made a pretty ignorant statement.
is sod ready to put his money where his mouth is
Oh geez sod. You doubt the ability of a West Point Grad, pilot and rocket engineer to know his front yard, every rock and cranny, tree, coral out crop and tide line in a house he owns with pride situated on a beach front, lived in for twenty years? It was the POTUS that yelled “We will stop the rising seas!” not him.
liza (Comment#44010) May 24th, 2010 at 6:06 am
Oh geez sod. You doubt the ability of a West Point Grad, pilot and rocket engineer to know his front yard, every rock and cranny, tree, coral out crop and tide line in a house he owns with pride situated on a beach front, lived in for twenty years?
.
yes. i could cut 10 centimeters from every tree in his garden, and he would not notice. why his biography (“West Point Grad, pilot and rocket engineer”) would matter on this subject, is beyond me.
.
your claims continue to get even more stupid all the time.
sod:
Because you didn’t establish that the drought had anything to do with the 1°C temperature rise. Surely you’re more intelligent than that.
Actually as you probably know, the prediction is increased global rainfall not less. And of course that is what is seen.
And the places that have the biggest water problems are more related to changes in land coverage and increased water usage, not necessarily in that order.
People like you appear to need a “simple” explanation, a magic button that if we just pushed, everything would suddenly be right in the world. The painful truth is humans screw up a lot, and our self-caused misery is usually the sum of many sins.
Fix the CO2 “problem”, I don’t know, f**k, just put us in an ice age. There’ll still be human misery. Probably a lot more than there is now. And people like you will still be bitching and moaning about something, only probably more so.
Then again, you’re pretty damned juvenile yourself most of the time. I can see why you’d have trouble spotting juvenility in a blog that is covered up in smarm, or a post that is over the top in 4th grade juvenility.
Because you didn’t establish that the drought had anything to do with the 1°C temperature rise. Surely you’re more intelligent than that.
.
what are you talking about? you were trying to tell us, that people do not worry about a temperature increase:
.
Who are these “quite a lot of people� IMO these are mostly a bunch of hippies blubbering over something to blubber over.
Srly, you really need to learn some history. The LIA created much more human misery than the climate rebound from it, or even warming, forced or otherwise, since then.
.
these were you words. you called people worried about temperature increase HIPPIES. and you made fun of people suffering from temperature increases, by making wild claims about the LIA.
.
whether drought is linked to global temperature increase, does not matter. those who suffer from any drought today, will understand the meaning of a additional temperature increase!
.
my challenge remains. just lecture those people, about the insignificance of a 1°C increase, and the significance of the LIA to their situation. you might also want to call them “hippies”.
.
Then again, you’re pretty damned juvenile yourself most of the time. I can see why you’d have trouble spotting juvenility in a blog that is covered up in smarm, or a post that is over the top in 4th grade juvenility.</i
.
your link to deltoid was a horribly lame example. Tim does attack a person, who supports the birther nonsense? how juvenile!