The Weather Outlook

Remove ads from site

Gandalf The White
06 November 2010 13:38:51

More from Judith Curry on 'Dogma'
http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/05/no-dogma/#more-996


Why is there the need to label anyone who disagrees with any aspect of the IPCC as a skeptic or a denier?  Even people like Steve Mosher (who I pick as an archetypal lukewarmer) who doesn’t question the basics of the science at all, but doesn’t think there is much evidence for high CO2 sensitivity and that the catastrophe is overblown.  This is not an irrational position at all.  What is the point of labeling such people as skeptics or deniers?

four wrote:

I have no problem with that.  My problem is with people who deny that there is anything untoward occurring whatsoever and rubbish the scientists who are working to understand ahd predict AGW.

It is not the scepticism it is the style or attitude that seems in many cases to go with it.

Anyway, equally, what is point in labelling people as 'warmists' or worse?


Location: South Cambridgeshire

130 metres ASL

52.0N 0.1E



four
  • four
  • Advanced Member
06 November 2010 13:46:53

I'm warming to Judith Curry, her blog seems incisive and perceptive.
Another recent post.
http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/03/reversing-the-direction-of-the-positive-feedback-loop/

The scientists provided the initial impulse for this feedback loop back in the 1970’s and 1980’s.  The enviro advocacy groups quickly saw the possibilities and ran with it, with the scientists’ blessing.   The enviro advocacy groups  saw the climate change issue as an opportunity to enlist scientific support for their preferred energy policy solution. Libertarian think tanks, the traditional foes of the enviro advocacy groups, began countering with doubts about the science.  International efforts to deal with the climate change problem were launched in 1992 with the UNFCCC treaty.

Wait a minute, what climate change problem?  In 1992, we had just completed the first IPCC assessment report, here was their conclusion:  “The size of this warming is broadly consistent with predictions of climate models, but it is also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability.  . .




Essan
06 November 2010 13:53:15

Scepticism is the default mode of the scientist.  Therefore 99.9% of scientists who believe in AGW are also sceptics - if they weren't they would be out of a job!

And is there anyone on the planet who does not disagree with some part of the IPCC's reports? 

 

So I'm really not sure Curry knows what she is talking about?


Andy

Evesham, Worcs, Albion - 35m asl

Weather & Earth Science News 

Look in the doubt we've wallowed, look at the leaders we've followed, look at the lies we've swallowed, and I don't want to hear no more

AIMSIR
06 November 2010 14:36:43

Scepticism is the default mode of the scientist.  Therefore 99.9% of scientists who believe in AGW are also sceptics - if they weren't they would be out of a job!

And is there anyone on the planet who does not disagree with some part of the IPCC's reports? 

 

So I'm really not sure Curry knows what she is talking about?

Essan wrote:

The thing is, do 99.9% of scientists agree with the extent?.

I think even within the IPCC there are people who disagree with the IPCC.

As for Curry,at least an effort is being made to make some sense of it all.Rather than the hoaxing being perpetrated by some to further individualistic agendas.

As an aside ,the definition of the word hoax is well worth looking up.

Essan
06 November 2010 15:11:23

As an aside ,the definition of the word hoax is well worth looking up.

AIMSIR wrote:

"a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth"

Well that rules out any idea of AGW being a hoax then!

 


Andy

Evesham, Worcs, Albion - 35m asl

Weather & Earth Science News 

Look in the doubt we've wallowed, look at the leaders we've followed, look at the lies we've swallowed, and I don't want to hear no more

AIMSIR
06 November 2010 15:24:57

As an aside ,the definition of the word hoax is well worth looking up.

Essan wrote:

"a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth"

Well that rules out any idea of AGW being a hoax then!

 

AIMSIR wrote:

.

There are parts of the theory captured though and used to perpetuate a general global warming hoax far beyond the realms of reality or science.

I don't disagree with localised agw, for want of a better term.btw

Essan
06 November 2010 16:05:20

Ah, but at what point was anything deliberately fabricated?  Sometime in the 1850s?  1890s?  1950s? 

For the science to be a hoax then at the very least Tyndall, Arrhenius and Callendar must be in on it.


Andy

Evesham, Worcs, Albion - 35m asl

Weather & Earth Science News 

Look in the doubt we've wallowed, look at the leaders we've followed, look at the lies we've swallowed, and I don't want to hear no more

AIMSIR
06 November 2010 16:08:40

Ah, but at what point was anything deliberately fabricated?  Sometime in the 1850s?  1890s?  1950s? 

For the science to be a hoax then at the very least Tyndall, Arrhenius and Callendar must be in on it.

Essan wrote:

fabricated through extrapolation?.Lately.

I don't think the science was or is a hoax.That''s impossible.

But the GREAT global warming?.That's another ball game.

Gandalf The White
06 November 2010 18:59:28

Ah, but at what point was anything deliberately fabricated?  Sometime in the 1850s?  1890s?  1950s? 

For the science to be a hoax then at the very least Tyndall, Arrhenius and Callendar must be in on it.

AIMSIR wrote:

fabricated through extrapolation?.Lately.

I don't think the science was or is a hoax.That''s impossible.

But the GREAT global warming?.That's another ball game.

Essan wrote:

What is this GREAT global warming you refer to?  All I see discussed is the principle that GHGs have resulted and will continue to result in a warming climate.  The range of outcomes depends on the rate of increase of those GHGs and on various natural cycles and feedbacks, both positive and negative.

Most of the hype is imaginary and evolves from having to resist some odd positions taken by doubters of various hues.


Location: South Cambridgeshire

130 metres ASL

52.0N 0.1E



four
  • four
  • Advanced Member
06 November 2010 19:13:13

 

Most of the hype is imaginary and evolves from having to resist some odd positions taken by doubters of various hues.

Gandalf The White wrote:


Oh right, all explained then.


Gandalf The White
06 November 2010 19:15:51

 

Most of the hype is imaginary and evolves from having to resist some odd positions taken by doubters of various hues.

four wrote:


Oh right, all explained then.

Gandalf The White wrote:

Wow, that was unexpectedly easy...


Location: South Cambridgeshire

130 metres ASL

52.0N 0.1E



AIMSIR
06 November 2010 19:45:20

 

Most of the hype is imaginary and evolves from having to resist some odd positions taken by doubters of various hues.

Gandalf The White wrote:


Oh right, all explained then.

four wrote:

Wow, that was unexpectedly easy...

Gandalf The White wrote:

No.    Hold on.!

.

AIMSIR
06 November 2010 19:52:54

Seriously though.
I don't understand why you resist the fallacy of the Great Global warming Hoax.

The whole thing has been hyped to death.

I think it's time to be rational about man's minor influance on global climate and to put this hoax to bed.

Peace btw.

Essan
06 November 2010 21:46:54

Seriously though.
I don't understand why you resist the fallacy of the Great Global warming Hoax.

AIMSIR wrote:

What fallacy?

That increased GHGs don't cause GW?

That there hasn't been any GW?

That irrespective of whether there has been GW it isn't down to humans?

Either way, how is AGW a hoax? 

Unless you can show that right from the start people deliberately fabricated a falsehood then there can be no hoax. 

Thread closed?


Andy

Evesham, Worcs, Albion - 35m asl

Weather & Earth Science News 

Look in the doubt we've wallowed, look at the leaders we've followed, look at the lies we've swallowed, and I don't want to hear no more

AIMSIR
06 November 2010 22:12:32

Seriously though.
I don't understand why you resist the fallacy of the Great Global warming Hoax.

Essan wrote:

What fallacy?

That increased GHGs don't cause GW?

That there hasn't been any GW?

That irrespective of whether there has been GW it isn't down to humans?

Either way, how is AGW a hoax? 

Unless you can show that right from the start people deliberately fabricated a falsehood then there can be no hoax. 

Thread closed?

AIMSIR wrote:

You can chose whatever you like from my post Essan and try to force the issue.

I think I have explained my position in earlier posts.(I never said agw was a hoax)

But the interpretation/extrapolation and magnification of such is a hoax.imo

The Great Global Warming Hoax.

I think we should leave it to admin to close the thread if found neccessary. btw.

Gandalf The White
06 November 2010 22:21:07

Seriously though.
I don't understand why you resist the fallacy of the Great Global warming Hoax.

AIMSIR wrote:

What fallacy?

That increased GHGs don't cause GW?

That there hasn't been any GW?

That irrespective of whether there has been GW it isn't down to humans?

Either way, how is AGW a hoax? 

Unless you can show that right from the start people deliberately fabricated a falsehood then there can be no hoax. 

Thread closed?

Essan wrote:

You can chose whatever you like from my post Essan and try to force the issue.

I think I have explained my position in earlier posts.(I never said agw was a hoax)

But the interpretation/extrapolation and magnification of such is a hoax.imo

The Great Global Warming Hoax.

I think we should leave it to admin to close the thread if found neccessary. btw.

AIMSIR wrote:

I thought we had discussed this to death?  You accept that there is AGW but you dispute the more extreme predictions.

Most of us accept that the more extreme predictions are just one of the possible range of outcomes.

Where's the disagreement?

I would almost think you were putting up another straw man - alleging that everyone is making out that this is going to be catastrophic in order to dismiss it.

As you would say, peace....

 


Location: South Cambridgeshire

130 metres ASL

52.0N 0.1E



AIMSIR
06 November 2010 22:35:29

Seriously though.
I don't understand why you resist the fallacy of the Great Global warming Hoax.

Gandalf The White wrote:

What fallacy?

That increased GHGs don't cause GW?

That there hasn't been any GW?

That irrespective of whether there has been GW it isn't down to humans?

Either way, how is AGW a hoax? 

Unless you can show that right from the start people deliberately fabricated a falsehood then there can be no hoax. 

Thread closed?

AIMSIR wrote:

You can chose whatever you like from my post Essan and try to force the issue.

I think I have explained my position in earlier posts.(I never said agw was a hoax)

But the interpretation/extrapolation and magnification of such is a hoax.imo

The Great Global Warming Hoax.

I think we should leave it to admin to close the thread if found neccessary. btw.

Essan wrote:

I thought we had discussed this to death?  You accept that there is AGW but you dispute the more extreme predictions.

Most of us accept that the more extreme predictions are just one of the possible range of outcomes.

Where's the disagreement?

I would almost think you were putting up another straw man - alleging that everyone is making out that this is going to be catastrophic in order to dismiss it.

As you would say, peace....

 

AIMSIR wrote:

AGW is not an issue with me Peter.One cannot deny the science.

The magnification of the extent of it's effects globally is where the hoax comes into play.imo

I rather think our time/intelligence and wealth could be spent on more important present issues to insure a better future for all life on this wonderfull planet.

peace.

We better behave tonight before we get another slap.

Gandalf The White
06 November 2010 22:49:46

AGW is not an issue with me Peter.One cannot deny the science.

The magnification of the extent of it's effects globally is where the hoax comes into play.imo

I rather think our time/intelligence and wealth could be spent on more important present issues to insure a better future for all life on this wonderfull planet.

peace.

We better behave tonight before we get another slap.

AIMSIR wrote:

Fortunately, the mods have a much higher tolerance threshold for this Forum.  If they didn't there wouldn't be very much left would there???

 

Sometimes we forget that we agree that more needs to be done on multiple fronts.  Just because, as in school, you might be in a Geography lesson it doesn't mean you cannot cover another subject in another lesson....

Yes, we need to sort out over-population, destruction of habitats, over-dependence on fossil fuels etc.   However some of these would be addressed if we reduced GHG emissions.


Location: South Cambridgeshire

130 metres ASL

52.0N 0.1E



AIMSIR
06 November 2010 22:57:12

AGW is not an issue with me Peter.One cannot deny the science.

The magnification of the extent of it's effects globally is where the hoax comes into play.imo

I rather think our time/intelligence and wealth could be spent on more important present issues to insure a better future for all life on this wonderfull planet.

peace.

We better behave tonight before we get another slap.

Gandalf The White wrote:

Fortunately, the mods have a much higher tolerance threshold for this Forum.  If they didn't there wouldn't be very much left would there???

 

Sometimes we forget that we agree that more needs to be done on multiple fronts.  Just because, as in school, you might be in a Geography lesson it doesn't mean you cannot cover another subject in another lesson....

Yes, we need to sort out over-population, destruction of habitats, over-dependence on fossil fuels etc.   However some of these would be addressed if we reduced GHG emissions.

AIMSIR wrote:

I think the reduction of ghg emissions would not be top of the class on that one .

The idea that it should be is unfortuneately the result of the Great Global Warming Hoax and the magnification of it's possible future effects.imo.

They are a very patient lot I have to agree.

Robertski
07 November 2010 22:14:39

Here we go loads of more controversy....

Waiting for the cries of its a stitch up......

Off the ICECAP webby......

http://www.icecap.us/

 

The Green Bubble Is about to Burst

 

 

 

By S. Fred Singer. The American Thinker

There is a revolution coming that is likely to burst the green global warming bubble: the temperature trend used by the IPCC (the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) to support their conclusion about anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is likely to turn out to be fake. The situation will become clear once Virginia’s attorney general, Kenneth Cuccinelli, obtains information now buried in e-mails at the University of Virginia. Or Hearings on Climategate by the U.S. Congress may uncover the “smoking gun” that demonstrates that the warming trend used by the IPCC does not really exist. 

It has become increasingly clear that any observed warming during the past century is of natural origin and that the human contribution is insignificant. It is doubtful that any significant warming is attributable to greenhouse gases at all.

Once the public accepts these scientific conclusions, it should have immense consequences for policy. It will mean that the impact of rising CO2 levels is negligibly small, as has already been concluded by the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change), a group of scientists skeptical of the U.N.-supported IPCC. It would also mean that wind energy, solar energy, and other “non-carbon” energy sources are not needed and are in fact counterproductive. It would remove the need for alternative fuels such as ethanol (which might please many true environmentalists). It would also mean that carbon trading, cap and trade, and fanciful schemes for carbon capture and sequestration would all end up in the dustbin of history.

One may expect a huge outcry and serious and protracted opposition from those who have built their careers on global warming hype and who have made investments in alternative energy or are looking for immense profits from carbon trading. Yet the scientific facts must win out in the long run—even against the financial interests of favored groups, wind farm profiteers, ethanol refiners, carbon traders, and the investment firms and banks that have placed hundreds of billions of dollars of their clients’ money into green projects.

Nothing has been learned from European disastrous experiences, it seems. As Bjorn Lomborg (a firm believer in AGW) reports, Germany led the world in putting up solar panels, funded by �47 billion in subsidies. The lasting legacy is a massive debt and lots of inefficient solar technology sitting on rooftops throughout a fairly cloudy country, delivering a trivial 0.1% of its total energy supply. Denmark’s wind industry is almost completely dependent on taxpayer subsidies, and Danes pay the highest electricity rates of any industrialized nation. Spain has finally discontinued its solar subsidies as too costly; as Prof. Gabriel Calzada reports, the program actually caused a net loss of jobs.

Having successfully exploited domestic subsidies, Europeans are now looking at the United States as the new “land of opportunity.” A recent example (described in the Wall Street Journal of Oct. 26, 2010) is the world’s largest solar-thermal power plant, on 7,000 acres of Federal land in the desert of southern California. The $6-billion project is a venture by two German companies, and it may be eligible for a cash subsidy of nearly one billion dollars in taxpayer money. Even after these subsidies, the cost of the electricity generated will be 30 to 70 percent more expensive than electricity generated by natural gas, the dominant electricity-generating fuel in California.

In addition to direct subsidies, the companies are seeking federal loan guarantees and, no doubt, an array of benefits from the State of California. Solar Trust of America, a joint venture between Germany’s Solar Millennium AG and privately held (mostly by Arab oil money) Ferrostaal AG, is awaiting approval from the Energy Department for a federal loan guarantee for the first two of its four planned units. Deutsche Bank AG and Citigroup Inc. are working with Solar Trust to obtain project-equity and tax-equity investment.

The White House claims that the federal cash subsidy will create three hundred permanent jobs (at about $3 million per job!). The nature of the jobs is not specified, but one may assume that there will be much need for sweepers to remove dust and dirt from about 7,000 acres of solar mirrors. Not exactly “high-tech,” is it?

Read more here.

Essan
07 November 2010 23:14:17

There is a revolution coming that is likely to burst the green global warming bubble: the temperature trend used by the IPCC (the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) to support their conclusion about anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is likely to turn out to be fake. The situation will become clear once Virginia’s attorney general, Kenneth Cuccinelli, obtains information now buried in e-mails at the University of Virginia. Or Hearings on Climategate by the U.S. Congress may uncover the “smoking gun” that demonstrates that the warming trend used by the IPCC does not really exist.

Robertski wrote:

You can disprove nearly 200 years of science just by interpreting an email and may or may not exist (because so far no-one has found it)?

No wonder folk are dismayed by the anti-science campaign.  They'll all be out of a job. 

Who needs research into the effects of alcohol when a US politician can read a stolen email and prove it does no harm at all?

 


Andy

Evesham, Worcs, Albion - 35m asl

Weather & Earth Science News 

Look in the doubt we've wallowed, look at the leaders we've followed, look at the lies we've swallowed, and I don't want to hear no more

Essan
07 November 2010 23:17:17

I don't think the science was or is a hoax.That''s impossible.

But the GREAT global warming?.That's another ball game.

AIMSIR wrote:

 

IMHO the 'hoax' - if there is one - is that AGW is all about carbon emissions and nothing else. 

Which side is perpetrating that hoax (if it is one)  though?


Andy

Evesham, Worcs, Albion - 35m asl

Weather & Earth Science News 

Look in the doubt we've wallowed, look at the leaders we've followed, look at the lies we've swallowed, and I don't want to hear no more

Robertski
07 November 2010 23:57:43

There is a revolution coming that is likely to burst the green global warming bubble: the temperature trend used by the IPCC (the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) to support their conclusion about anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is likely to turn out to be fake. The situation will become clear once Virginia’s attorney general, Kenneth Cuccinelli, obtains information now buried in e-mails at the University of Virginia. Or Hearings on Climategate by the U.S. Congress may uncover the “smoking gun” that demonstrates that the warming trend used by the IPCC does not really exist.

Essan wrote:

You can disprove nearly 200 years of science just by interpreting an email and may or may not exist (because so far no-one has found it)?

No wonder folk are dismayed by the anti-science campaign.  They'll all be out of a job. 

Who needs research into the effects of alcohol when a US politician can read a stolen email and prove it does no harm at all?

 

Robertski wrote:

You try to be so smart essan, but sometimes you just plain fail to grasp what could be happening here. He does not appear to be talking about an email, he is talking about evidence in an email, which could be damning to the sciense around AGW. IF this exists and they indeed find this evidence within an email, there will be no more smirking by the alarmists only dismay at how they have been duped like a bunch of sheep.

If they dont, the arguing will continue.

Essan
08 November 2010 00:01:52

There is a revolution coming that is likely to burst the green global warming bubble: the temperature trend used by the IPCC (the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) to support their conclusion about anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is likely to turn out to be fake. The situation will become clear once Virginia’s attorney general, Kenneth Cuccinelli, obtains information now buried in e-mails at the University of Virginia. Or Hearings on Climategate by the U.S. Congress may uncover the “smoking gun” that demonstrates that the warming trend used by the IPCC does not really exist.

Robertski wrote:

You can disprove nearly 200 years of science just by interpreting an email and may or may not exist (because so far no-one has found it)?

No wonder folk are dismayed by the anti-science campaign.  They'll all be out of a job. 

Who needs research into the effects of alcohol when a US politician can read a stolen email and prove it does no harm at all?

 

Essan wrote:

You try to be so smart essan, but sometimes you just plain fail to grasp what could be happening here. He does not appear to be talking about an email, he is talking about evidence in an email, which could be damning to the sciense around AGW. IF this exists and they indeed find this evidence within an email, there will be no more smirking by the alarmists only dismay at how they have been duped like a bunch of sheep.

If they dont, the arguing will continue.

Robertski wrote:

 

Evidence in an email that overturns scientific understanding?  Why is it only in an email and not in a published paper then?

But I guess the anti-science mob will never cease in their endeavours to quote out of context to prove that their god was right all along.....

 

 


Andy

Evesham, Worcs, Albion - 35m asl

Weather & Earth Science News 

Look in the doubt we've wallowed, look at the leaders we've followed, look at the lies we've swallowed, and I don't want to hear no more

Gandalf The White
08 November 2010 00:11:35

 

You try to be so smart essan, but sometimes you just plain fail to grasp what could be happening here. He does not appear to be talking about an email, he is talking about evidence in an email, which could be damning to the sciense around AGW. IF this exists and they indeed find this evidence within an email, there will be no more smirking by the alarmists only dismay at how they have been duped like a bunch of sheep.

If they dont, the arguing will continue.

Robertski wrote:

 

This is really getting boring now Robert.  How desperate are you that you have to post the same Singer junk in two separate threads?

This is just denialist mumbo-jumbo, pedalled by someone with a reputation for saying what the highest bidder asks to be said and in turn pedalled by you because you can find nothing scientific to support your position.

I'm sure the arguing will continue, even if temperatures continue to rise, because someone somewhere will want more convincing.  After all there are people who think the world was created only a few thousand years ago.....


Location: South Cambridgeshire

130 metres ASL

52.0N 0.1E



Remove ads from site